Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Requires the CFPB to show its work when analyzing costs and benefits of new rules.
The problem
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau creates financial rules but may not clearly explain how costs and benefits were calculated, making it hard to evaluate if rules are reasonable.
The proposal
The bill would require the CFPB to publish detailed cost-benefit analyses showing how proposed rules help or hurt consumers and businesses before implementing them.
The impact
Financial companies, consumers, and regulators would see clearer explanations of rule impacts. Companies could better plan compliance. The public could debate rule merits more informed.
Transparency helps everyone see if rules make sense. Consumers and businesses can understand why rules exist. Debate becomes more informed and fact-based.
Detailed analysis forces agencies to think carefully about rule impacts. Bad rules may be caught before implementation. Rules likely become more balanced.
Businesses know upfront what new rules will cost. Companies can plan budgets and operations better. Less disruption from unexpected expenses.
Published analysis creates a record agencies must defend. Courts and Congress can evaluate if analysis was reasonable. Reduces arbitrary decision-making.
Detailed analyses take time and resources to complete. Rules protecting consumers face delays. Urgent problems may not get quick fixes.
CFPB must hire economists and analysts for detailed studies. These costs increase government spending. Taxpayers pay for more bureaucratic work.
Industry groups can challenge analyses they disagree with. Agencies may avoid strict rules fearing legal challenges. Vulnerable consumers might lose protections.
Complex analysis requirements create legal risks for agencies. Staff may avoid proposing needed rules. Innovation in financial protection could stall.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.