Adam Schiff (D-CA)
A joint resolution 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 "Application of Regulation Z's Ability-To-Repay Rule to Certain Situations Involving Successors-In-Interest".
A Democratic resolution with no cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
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 exercise congressional disapproval of a rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. The rule in question involves the withdrawal of a previous rule regarding the "Application of Regulation Z's Ability-To-Repay Rule to Certain Situations Involving Successors-In-Interest." If passed, this resolution would ensure that the Bureau's rule has no force or effect.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +5
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The resolution prevents the withdrawal of a rule that ensures successors-in-interest are subject to ability-to-repay requirements, maintaining consumer safeguards.
- Scored +3
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Preventing the withdrawal of the ability-to-repay rule maintains protections for individuals inheriting mortgage obligations.
- Scored +3
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
The resolution preserves regulatory oversight on mortgage succession which protects middle-income assets.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Preservation of Existing Rules: By disapproving the withdrawal, this resolution prevents the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection from rescinding the previous rule concerning how the "Ability-To-Repay Rule" applies to certain situations involving "Successors-In-Interest" (S. J. Res. 146).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts are 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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Preventing the withdrawal of the ability-to-repay rule maintains protections for individuals inheriting mortgage obligations. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The resolution preserves regulatory oversight on mortgage succession which protects middle-income assets.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The resolution prevents the withdrawal of a rule that ensures successors-in-interest are subject to ability-to-repay requirements, maintaining consumer safeguards.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The resolution utilizes congressional oversight to block a regulatory withdrawal by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — By maintaining ability-to-repay protections for successors, the bill helps ensure long-term stability in mortgage-related transfers.
- 3/25/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
- Introduced in Senate
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.