H.J. Res. 162 (119th)Bill Overview

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…

domestic policy
Cosponsors
Support
Democratic
Introduced
Apr 30, 2026
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief

This joint resolution under the Congressional Review Act disapproves the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection’s rule that would withdraw the prior CFPB rule titled "Truth in Lending (Regulation Z); Consumer Protections for Home Sales Financed Under Contracts for Deed." If enacted, the disapproval would nullify the CFPB’s withdrawal, leaving the original Regulation Z protections for contracts for deed in force.

Passage35/100

Narrow and low-cost but partisan; easier in one chamber, difficult in the Senate absent broad bipartisan support.

CredibilityAligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise Congressional Review Act-style disapproval that clearly identifies the targeted agency action, cites statutory authority, and states the operative effect; it omits fiscal discussion, detailed implementation sequencing, edge-case handling, and oversight provisions.

Contention70/100

Progressives emphasize consumer protection and anti-predatory goals.

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Who this appears to help vs burden50% / 50%
Consumers · Federal agenciesFederal agencies
Likely helped
  • ConsumersPreserves disclosure and consumer-protection requirements for contracts for deed buyers.
  • Federal agenciesReduces risk of predatory terms by keeping federal underwriting and transparency standards.
  • Targeted stakeholdersProvides regulatory continuity and predictability for enforcement and compliance obligations.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesRestricts the CFPB's ability to reconsider or update the rule through agency process.
  • Targeted stakeholdersImposes or preserves compliance costs on sellers, servicers, and small-scale home financiers.
  • Targeted stakeholdersCould reduce availability of contract-for-deed financing if providers exit costly compliance regimes.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives emphasize consumer protection and anti-predatory goals.
Progressive95%

Likely strongly supportive because it preserves federal consumer protections against predatory contracts for deed.

Sees the resolution as preventing deregulation that would harm vulnerable homeowners and maintain disclosure and consumer-rights safeguards.

Leans supportive
Centrist65%

Cautiously supportive: generally favors consumer protections but wants clear cost estimates and legal defensibility.

Sees value in preventing harm, but urges measured implementation and assessment of economic impacts.

Split reaction
Conservative20%

Likely opposed: views the resolution as blocking regulatory relief and extending federal intrusion into private home sales.

Concerned about increased compliance burden and reduced flexibility in seller-financed transactions.

Likely resistant
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood35/100

Narrow and low-cost but partisan; easier in one chamber, difficult in the Senate absent broad bipartisan support.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Which chamber majority supports reinstating the rule
  • Whether CRA procedural deadline window remains open
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Progressives emphasize consumer protection and anti-predatory goals.

Narrow and low-cost but partisan; easier in one chamber, difficult in the Senate absent broad bipartisan support.

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise Congressional Review Act-style disapproval that clearly identifies the targeted agency action, cites statutory authority, and states the operative effect…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis