H.J.Res. 162

H.J.Res. 162: 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 “Truth in Lending (Regulation Z)

Introduced Emanuel Cleaver (D) HOUSE_JOINT_RESOLUTION — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.J.Res. 162 is a joint resolution that seeks to disapprove a rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) which pertains to the withdrawal of a regulation known as 'Truth in Lending' (Regulation Z). This regulation is designed to ensure that consumers receive clear and accurate information about the costs of credit and loans. By disapproving the withdrawal, Congress aims to reinstate the previous rule that mandates transparency in lending practices.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.J.Res. 162 argue that reinstating the Truth in Lending regulation is crucial for protecting consumers from misleading lending practices. They emphasize that clear information about loan terms helps individuals make informed financial decisions and promotes fairness in the lending market.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.J.Res. 162 contend that reinstating the withdrawn regulation may impose unnecessary burdens on financial institutions, potentially limiting access to credit for consumers. They argue that the previous regulation was overly restrictive and that its removal was a step towards greater financial flexibility and innovation.

Conflict of Interest Analysis Deep Analysis
1/10
Risk Level
Low
Total Donations
$157,500,000
PAC Percentage
0%
Policy Area
Finance and Financial Sector

There seems to be a low risk of conflict of interest in this case. The sponsor of the bill, Emanuel Cleaver, has received most of his campaign donations from Health Professionals and Retired individuals, with no direct overlap between these industries and the subject of the bill, which is related to financial regulation. Furthermore, the lobbying activity related to this bill's policy area does not involve any of the sponsor's top donors. The largest lobbying expenditure comes from Hogan Lovells, LLP on behalf of Zhongji Innolight Co., Ltd., which spent $350,000. However, this does not directly relate to the sponsor's top donors. It is important for voters to be aware that while money does play a significant role in politics, in this case, there does not appear to be a direct financial conflict of interest.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

Organizations that lobbied on issues related to this bill's policy area.

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
HOGAN LOVELLS, LLP OBO ZHONGJI INNOLIGHT CO., LTD. MO STRATEGIES, INC. $350,000
RADIANCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. VENN STRATEGIES $60,000
MOLNLYCKE HEALTH CARE US, LLC MOLNLYCKE HEALTH CARE US, LLC $30,000
CLARK STREET ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF MARVELL TECHNOLOGY, INC. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP $30,000
IMPERIAL HEALTH MCWILLIAMS GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS CONSULTANTS $20,000
WILLIAMS & LAKE, LLC MCWILLIAMS GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS CONSULTANTS $20,000
KICKAPOO TRADITIONAL TRIBE OF TEXAS MCWILLIAMS GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS CONSULTANTS $20,000
CITY OF KOTZEBUE, ALASKA HOLLAND & HART LLP $10,000
SPACE GOVERNANCE INSTITUTE, INC. SPACE GOVERNANCE INSTITUTE, INC. undisclosed
MCKEES ROCKS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CRANMER CONSULTANTS undisclosed
LYTEN, INC. JHS CONSULTING, INC undisclosed
SOCIETY OF INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY SOCIETY OF INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY undisclosed
PRESERVATION ACTION PRESERVATION ACTION undisclosed
GOLD PR LTD. (ON BEHALF OF OJSC "BAKAI BANK") THROUGHLINE GLOBAL ADVISORS undisclosed
WORKIVA INC. LSN PARTNERS, LLC undisclosed

Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings, 2026

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Emanuel Cleaver, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $120,000,000
Individuals: $120,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $37,500,000
Individuals: $37,500,000 PACs: $0

Source: OpenSecrets.org (Center for Responsive Politics)

TheBillRoom is free and independent. No ads, no subscriptions, no political funding. If this analysis was useful, reader support keeps it running.
Support Us