Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
This bill (CFPB Budget Integrity Act) caps the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s unobligated balances at 5 percent of the specified dollar amount in existing law for each fiscal year. The Director must transfer any excess unobligated balances to the Treasury’s general fund.
Liberals stress consumer‑protection capacity loss; conservatives stress fiscal restraint.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive amendment that clearly prescribes a numeric limit on unobligated balances of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, requires excess transfers to the Treasury, and adds a reporting requirement.
This bill (CFPB Budget Integrity Act) caps the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s unobligated balances at 5 percent of the specified dollar amount in existing law for each fiscal year.
The Director must transfer any excess unobligated balances to the Treasury’s general fund.
The bill also requires reporting on the use of unobligated balances in the Bureau’s reports.
Narrow administrative change improves enactment odds, but political sensitivity of CFPB funding and Senate hurdles reduce likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive amendment that clearly prescribes a numeric limit on unobligated balances of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, requires excess transfers to the Treasury, and adds a reporting requirement. The core mechanism is explicit, and the amendment is drafted to integrate with existing statutory subsections.
Liberals stress consumer‑protection capacity loss; conservatives stress fiscal restraint.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals stress consumer‑protection capacity loss; conservatives stress fiscal restraint.
Likely skeptical.
While the reporting requirement is welcome, the 5% cap and mandatory transfer could restrict CFPB’s ability to sustain multi‑year enforcement, rulemaking, or consumer relief programs.
Concern would focus on weakening an independent agency’s financial flexibility.
Mixed view.
The bill promotes fiscal discipline and transparency, but may unduly constrain the Bureau’s operating flexibility.
Support hinges on clear definitions and safeguards for essential multi‑year activities.
Generally favorable.
The measure constrains an agency seen as having broad, self‑funded resources and enforces taxpayer accountability by returning excess funds to the Treasury.
Viewed as sensible budgetary oversight.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow administrative change improves enactment odds, but political sensitivity of CFPB funding and Senate hurdles reduce likelihood.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals stress consumer‑protection capacity loss; conservatives stress fiscal restraint.
Narrow administrative change improves enactment odds, but political sensitivity of CFPB funding and Senate hurdles reduce likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive amendment that clearly prescribes a numeric limit on unobligated balances of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, requires excess tra…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.