Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
The bill amends the Consumer Financial Protection Act to add detailed cost-benefit and transparency requirements for every CFPB notice of proposed rulemaking. It requires publication in the Federal Register and mandates statements of need, market and governmental gap analyses, alternatives, quantitative and qualitative cost-benefit assessments, small-business consultation, distributional impacts, probability distributions where feasible, and disclosure of assumptions and studies used.
Progressive fears procedural obstacles will undermine consumer protections.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is an administratively focused amendment that prescribes detailed content requirements for CFPB notices of proposed rulemaking to increase transparency of cost-benefit analysis, but it omits funding, methodological standards, enforcement provisions, and implementation timelines.
The bill amends the Consumer Financial Protection Act to add detailed cost-benefit and transparency requirements for every CFPB notice of proposed rulemaking.
It requires publication in the Federal Register and mandates statements of need, market and governmental gap analyses, alternatives, quantitative and qualitative cost-benefit assessments, small-business consultation, distributional impacts, probability distributions where feasible, and disclosure of assumptions and studies used.
Technocratic but partisan-tinged oversight change likely to pass lower chamber more easily; Senate obstacles and stakeholder resistance reduce final prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is an administratively focused amendment that prescribes detailed content requirements for CFPB notices of proposed rulemaking to increase transparency of cost-benefit analysis, but it omits funding, methodological standards, enforcement provisions, and implementation timelines.
Progressive fears procedural obstacles will undermine consumer protections.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressive fears procedural obstacles will undermine consumer protections.
Generally skeptical: supports greater transparency but worries the requirements will slow or block needed consumer protections.
Concerned these procedural hurdles could be used to weaken or delay rules addressing predatory financial practices.
Mixed but cautiously favorable: values improved cost-benefit rigor and transparency while worrying about administrative burden and realistic quantification.
Would look for funding, deadlines, and sensible exemptions to avoid paralysis.
Supportive: views the bill as strengthening evidence-based rulemaking and reining in regulatory overreach by the CFPB.
Sees transparency and cost-benefit rigor as protections for businesses and taxpayers.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technocratic but partisan-tinged oversight change likely to pass lower chamber more easily; Senate obstacles and stakeholder resistance reduce final prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressive fears procedural obstacles will undermine consumer protections.
Technocratic but partisan-tinged oversight change likely to pass lower chamber more easily; Senate obstacles and stakeholder resistance red…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is an administratively focused amendment that prescribes detailed content requirements for CFPB notices of proposed rulemaking to increase transparency of cost-benefi…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.