Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
Bills/119th Congress · House

H.R. 2331

Introduced

Transparency in CFPB Cost-Benefit Analysis Act

Sponsor
RBarry Loudermilk· Georgia
Introduced
March 25, 2025
Policy area
Finance and Financial Sector
Latest action
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.March 25, 2025
[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2331 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2331

To enhance rulemaking requirements for the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
Protection, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 25, 2025

Mr. Loudermilk (for himself and Mr. Barr) introduced the following 
bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL

To enhance rulemaking requirements for the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
Protection, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Transparency in CFPB Cost-Benefit 
Analysis Act''.

SEC. 2. TRANSPARENCY IN COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS.

Section 1022(b) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 
(12 U.S.C. 5512(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Additional rulemaking requirements.--
``(A) In general.--Each notice of proposed 
rulemaking issued by the Bureau shall be published in 
its entirety in the Federal Register and shall 
include--
``(i) a statement of the need for the 
proposed regulation;
``(ii) an examination of why the Bureau 
must undertake the proposed regulation and why 
the private market, State, local, or tribal 
authorities cannot adequately address the 
problem;
``(iii) an examination of whether the 
proposed regulation is duplicative, 
inconsistent, or incompatible with other 
Federal regulations and orders;
``(iv) if the proposed regulation is found 
to be duplicative, inconsistent, or 
incompatible with other Federal regulations and 
orders, a discussion of--
``(I) why the proposed regulation 
is justified;
``(II) how the proposed regulation 
can coexist with the existing 
regulations; and
``(III) how the Bureau plans to 
reduce the regulatory burden associated 
with the duplicative, inconsistent, or 
incompatible proposed regulation;
``(v) a quantitative and qualitative 
assessment of all anticipated direct and 
indirect costs and benefits of the proposed 
regulation, including--
``(I) compliance costs for all 
regulated entities, including small 
businesses;
``(II) effects on economic 
activity, efficiency, competition and 
capital formation;
``(III) regulatory and 
administrative costs of implementation; 
and
``(IV) costs imposed on State, 
local and tribal entities;
``(vi) an identification of reasonable 
alternatives to the regulation, including 
modification of an existing regulation;
``(vii) an analysis of the costs and 
benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of 
any alternative identified pursuant to clause 
(v);
``(viii) if the Bureau determines the 
proposed regulation would increase costs for 
small businesses, then the Bureau shall consult 
the Office of Advocacy within the Small 
Business Administration to determine ways to 
minimize the effect of direct and indirect 
costs imposed on small businesses by the 
proposed regulation;
``(ix) if quantified net benefits of the 
proposed action do not outweigh the quantified 
net benefits of the alternatives, a 
justification of the regulation;
``(x) if quantified benefits identified 
pursuant to clause (iv) do not outweigh the 
quantified costs of the regulation, a 
justification of the regulation;
``(xi) an assessment of how the burden 
imposed by the regulation will be distributed; 
including whether consumers, or small 
businesses will be disproportionately burdened; 
and
``(xii) when feasible, and using 
appropriate statistical techniques, a 
probability distribution of the relevant 
outcomes of the proposed regulation.
``(B) Assumptions and studies used.--With respect 
to the information required to be included under 
subparagraph (A), the Bureau will include--
``(i) a discussion of underlying 
assumptions used as a basis for such 
information; and
``(ii) a description of any studies or data 
used in preparing such information, and whether 
such studies were peer-reviewed.''.
<all>

Plain-language analysis

Not yet analyzed.

A plain-language breakdown — including any hidden or off-intent provisions and whether the bill was fast-tracked — is generated separately and reviewed before publishing. It will appear here once ready. Until then, the verbatim text above and the official source are the record.

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →