Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
The bill amends the Federal Reserve Act to require that the Board of Governors and Federal Reserve Banks recover non-monetary policy related administrative costs only through assessments and fees authorized in advance by annual appropriations acts. It defines "non-monetary policy related administrative costs" to include supervisory and regulatory activities (examinations, stress tests, communications), related training, research, reporting, overhead, and pensions.
Progressives emphasize risk of politicized, weakened supervision.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill articulates a focused administrative reallocation of funding authority and provides a statutory vehicle (new section 11D) with definitions and an effective date, but it provides limited implementation detail, limited reconciliation with other statutes, and little guidance on edge cases or accountability.
The bill amends the Federal Reserve Act to require that the Board of Governors and Federal Reserve Banks recover non-monetary policy related administrative costs only through assessments and fees authorized in advance by annual appropriations acts.
It defines "non-monetary policy related administrative costs" to include supervisory and regulatory activities (examinations, stress tests, communications), related training, research, reporting, overhead, and pensions.
Collections must be deposited as offsetting collections to the Board's appropriation account and may only be collected to the extent provided in appropriation Acts.
Conceptually straightforward but politically sensitive; likely to face strong Senate resistance and executive branch concern.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill articulates a focused administrative reallocation of funding authority and provides a statutory vehicle (new section 11D) with definitions and an effective date, but it provides limited implementation detail, limited reconciliation with other statutes, and little guidance on edge cases or accountability.
Progressives emphasize risk of politicized, weakened supervision.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize risk of politicized, weakened supervision.
Likely skeptical or opposed; views congressional control over Fed supervisory funding as a risk to independent, rigorous oversight.
Concern centers on potential politicization of supervision and enforcement, and possible weakening of protections for consumers and systemic risk monitoring.
Mixed view: welcomes increased budgetary oversight and transparency but worries about tradeoffs.
Concerned the change could create funding uncertainty during crises or invite political interference in technical supervision.
Generally supportive; sees the bill as restoring congressional control over unelected Federal Reserve activities and preventing off-budget spending.
Views this as increased accountability and a check on Federal Reserve authority beyond monetary policy.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Conceptually straightforward but politically sensitive; likely to face strong Senate resistance and executive branch concern.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize risk of politicized, weakened supervision.
Conceptually straightforward but politically sensitive; likely to face strong Senate resistance and executive branch concern.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill articulates a focused administrative reallocation of funding authority and provides a statutory vehicle (new section 11D) with definitions and an effective date, but…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.