Tom Emmer (R-MN)
CFPB Dual Mandate and Economic Analysis Act
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "CFPB Dual Mandate and Economic Analysis Act," seeks to amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010. It updates the purpose of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to include strengthening private sector participation and increasing competition without government interference or subsidies. Additionally, the bill mandates the creation of an Office of Economic Analysis. This new office would review the impact of the Bureau's guidance, orders, rules, and regulations on consumer choice, price, and access to credit. The bill also requires the Bureau to measure the success of its rules at specific intervals and specify metrics for success in future proposed rules.
Yes
- Scored +5
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill increases transparency by requiring public reports in the Federal Register regarding rule impact and success.
- Scored +4
Would business owners be better off under this?
The emphasis on competition and reduced government interference is generally beneficial for private sector businesses.
- Scored +3
Is this likely to grow the economy?
The bill aims to increase competition and private sector participation to stimulate market activity.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill introduces more rigorous review requirements that may restrict the unilateral power of the Bureau's Director.
- Scored -2
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Potential reduction in direct consumer protections and changes to credit access metrics may impact low-income individuals.
- Scored -2
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
By shifting the focus toward competition and adding mandatory review processes, the bill may reduce the direct regulatory oversight intended to protect consumers.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Competition and Choice: The amendment to the Bureau's purpose aims to strengthen private sector participation in markets to increase competition and enhance consumer choice (Section 2).
-
Impact Assessments on Consumer Costs: The establishment of an Office of Economic Analysis would require the assessment of how rules and regulations impact consumer choice, price, and access to credit products (Section 3(a)(2)(B)).
-
Accountability through Performance Reviews: The Office of Economic Analysis would review existing rules after 1, 2, 5, and 10 years to measure if they actually solved the problems they were intended to address (Section 3(a)(2)(A) and (B)).
-
Clearer Goals for New Rules: The bill requires the Bureau to identify specific problems and the metrics used to measure success in any proposed rulemaking, including measurements of changes to consumer access and costs (Section 3(b)(6)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Removal of Competition Mandate from Purpose: The bill strikes the words "competitive" from the current purpose of the Bureau, replacing it with a directive to strengthen private sector participation without Government interference or subsidies (Section 2).
-
Potential Delays in Rulemaking: The Director is required to consider the reviews and assessments from the Office of Economic Analysis before issuing any guidance, order, rule, or regulation (Section 3(b)(5)(A)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill increases transparency by requiring public reports in the Federal Register regarding rule impact and success. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill introduces more rigorous review requirements that may restrict the unilateral power of the Bureau's Director.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The emphasis on competition and reduced government interference is generally beneficial for private sector businesses. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Potential reduction in direct consumer protections and changes to credit access metrics may impact low-income individuals.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — The bill aims to increase competition and private sector participation to stimulate market activity. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — By shifting the focus toward competition and adding mandatory review processes, the bill may reduce the direct regulatory oversight intended to protect consumers.
- 3/18/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- Introduced in House