Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to "The Fair Credit Reporting Act's Limited Preemption of State Laws".
A Democratic resolution with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This joint resolution seeks to overturn a specific rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. The resolution targets a rule involving the withdrawal of a previous rule titled "The Fair Credit Reporting Act's Limited Preemption of State Laws." If passed, this resolution would ensure the Bureau's rule has no force or effect. It was introduced in the House of Representatives on April 30, 2026.
Yes
- Scored +4
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The resolution opposes a rule that would have limited state law preemption, thereby favoring the continued ability of states to regulate consumer credit matters.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
By disapproving the Bureau's action to withdraw limitations on state law preemption, the resolution potentially weakens the ability of states to enforce consumer protections under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
- Scored -2
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Limiting the preemption of state laws can reduce the uniformity of consumer protections that often benefit low-income earners through state-level oversight.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- There are no specific positive impacts or benefits for individuals or groups of people explicitly detailed in the provided text.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- There are no specific negative impacts or burdens for individuals or groups of people explicitly detailed in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The resolution opposes a rule that would have limited state law preemption, thereby favoring the continued ability of states to regulate consumer credit matters.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — By disapproving the Bureau's action to withdraw limitations on state law preemption, the resolution potentially weakens the ability of states to enforce consumer protections under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Limiting the preemption of state laws can reduce the uniformity of consumer protections that often benefit low-income earners through state-level oversight.
- 4/30/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.