Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. (text: CR S6577)
The bill amends the Truth in Lending Act to establish a national maximum fee-and-interest rate of 36 percent for consumer credit transactions, where “fee and interest rate” explicitly includes nearly all charges and fees associated with credit (including late fees, overdraft fees, credit insurance, and many ancillary charges). It prescribes calculation methods for open-end and closed-end plans that fold those fees into the annualized rate, allows small tolerances for certain limited fees on installment loans, and directs the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to set calculations and disclosure rules consistent with the cap.
Whether a 36% national cap will meaningfully protect consumers (liberal) versus whether it will restrict access to small-dollar credit (conservative).
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that is generally well-specified on core rules (a 36% cap, broad inclusion of fees, calculation methods, disclosure amendments, and enforcement remedies).
The bill amends the Truth in Lending Act to establish a national maximum fee-and-interest rate of 36 percent for consumer credit transactions, where “fee and interest rate” explicitly includes nearly all charges and fees associated with credit (including late fees, overdraft fees, credit insurance, and many ancillary charges).
It prescribes calculation methods for open-end and closed-end plans that fold those fees into the annualized rate, allows small tolerances for certain limited fees on installment loans, and directs the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to set calculations and disclosure rules consistent with the cap.
The bill bars the CFPB from using its exemption authority to avoid the cap, preserves State laws that are more protective than the federal cap, and creates civil remedies (voiding illegal charges and returning funds) and criminal penalties (up to 1 year imprisonment and fines) for violations.
Judged solely on the text and typical legislative dynamics, a comprehensive federal 36% usury cap that closes many fee-based loopholes and includes criminal and treble‑damages penalties is a major policy shift with concentrated industry opposition, substantial legal uncertainty (preemption and banking law interactions), and few built‑in political compromises. Those features lower its standalone chances of enactment; it might advance only if substantially narrowed, paired with tradeoffs, or folded into a larger bipartisan vehicle that addresses lender concerns.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that is generally well-specified on core rules (a 36% cap, broad inclusion of fees, calculation methods, disclosure amendments, and enforcement remedies). It integrates with TILA and other statutory definitions and anticipates many circumvention attempts by including a wide range of charges in the rate calculation.
Whether a 36% national cap will meaningfully protect consumers (liberal) versus whether it will restrict access to small-dollar credit (conservative).
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether a 36% national cap will meaningfully protect consumers (liberal) versus whether it will restrict access to small-dollar credit (conservative).
A mainstream liberal would likely view this bill positively as a strong federal consumer-protection measure that closes common loopholes and limits predatory high-cost lending.
They would emphasize that folding all fees into a 36 percent cap targets payday, title, and many online high-cost lenders that charge triple- or quadruple-digit rates.
They would welcome the preservation of stronger State protections and the CFPB’s role in implementing effective calculations and disclosures.
A centrist would see the bill as a serious attempt to curb predatory lending that could produce meaningful consumer benefits, but would have concerns about unintended consequences and the implementation details.
They would welcome clearer, uniform rules to prevent evasion of high rates, but worry about credit access, compliance complexity, and economic impacts on small lenders and certain product types.
They would press for careful CFPB rulemaking, phased implementation, impact assessments, and coordination with States.
A mainstream conservative would likely oppose the bill as an expansive federal price cap that would interfere with market contracts, inhibit credit availability, and constitute federal overreach into a domain traditionally managed by States and private markets.
They would stress that a 36 percent cap, applied to many fees and to a broad set of creditors, could make many business models uneconomic and drive lending into less-regulated corners or informal credit.
They would be particularly concerned about the mandatory voiding of obligations and the criminal penalties, viewing them as heavy-handed.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Judged solely on the text and typical legislative dynamics, a comprehensive federal 36% usury cap that closes many fee-based loopholes and includes criminal and treble‑damages penalties is a major policy shift with concentrated industry opposition, substantial legal uncertainty (preemption and banking law interactions), and few built‑in political compromises. Those features lower its standalone chances of enactment; it might advance only if substantially narrowed, paired with tradeoffs, or folded into a larger bipartisan vehicle that addresses lender concerns.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether a 36% national cap will meaningfully protect consumers (liberal) versus whether it will restrict access to small-dollar credit (con…
Judged solely on the text and typical legislative dynamics, a comprehensive federal 36% usury cap that closes many fee-based loopholes and…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that is generally well-specified on core rules (a 36% cap, broad inclusion of fees, calculation methods, disclosure amendments, and enf…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.