Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 132.
This bill raises asset-size thresholds from $10 billion to $50 billion in multiple federal statutes. It amends CFPB supervision provisions, the Volcker Rule, qualified mortgage small-creditor treatment, and certain leverage/risk-capital provisions, narrowing regulatory coverage for institutions with assets between $10 billion and $50 billion.
Left sees weakened consumer protections; right sees deregulatory relief.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is precise in what statutory changes it makes (numeric threshold replacements across specified statutes) and therefore scores high on mechanism specificity and clear objective.
This bill raises asset-size thresholds from $10 billion to $50 billion in multiple federal statutes.
It amends CFPB supervision provisions, the Volcker Rule, qualified mortgage small-creditor treatment, and certain leverage/risk-capital provisions, narrowing regulatory coverage for institutions with assets between $10 billion and $50 billion.
Technically simple but politically charged; passage in one chamber plausible, enactment depends on overcoming substantial Senate and negotiation hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is precise in what statutory changes it makes (numeric threshold replacements across specified statutes) and therefore scores high on mechanism specificity and clear objective. However, it omits several elements reasonably expected for a substantive regulatory redefinition—most notably fiscal acknowledgment, transition provisions, edge-case handling, and accountability measures—creating a gap between the magnitude of change and the implementation detail provided.
Left sees weakened consumer protections; right sees deregulatory relief.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left sees weakened consumer protections; right sees deregulatory relief.
Likely opposed.
Views the bill as a broad deregulatory step that removes oversight from many mid‑sized institutions.
Concerned this reduces consumer protections and increases systemic risk absent compensating safeguards.
Mixed reaction.
Acknowledges benefits of lowering regulatory burden for regional banks, but worries about unintended safety and consumer outcomes.
Would prefer data-driven, phased changes with clear oversight metrics.
Supportive.
Sees the bill as relief from unnecessary regulation for growing banks and a boost to competition.
Emphasizes reducing compliance costs and avoiding one‑size‑fits‑all federal rules.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically simple but politically charged; passage in one chamber plausible, enactment depends on overcoming substantial Senate and negotiation hurdles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left sees weakened consumer protections; right sees deregulatory relief.
Technically simple but politically charged; passage in one chamber plausible, enactment depends on overcoming substantial Senate and negoti…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is precise in what statutory changes it makes (numeric threshold replacements across specified statutes) and therefore scores high on mechanism specificity and clear…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.