A Republican bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 616.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
This bill, titled the "Price Stability Act of 2026," seeks to amend the Federal Reserve Act. The primary purpose is to change the mandate given to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee. It specifically aims to remove the requirement for these entities to focus on maximum employment. Instead, the amendment shifts the focus solely to stable prices.
Yes· 3 of 8
- Scored +3
Is this likely to slow the rise in prices?
By narrowing the Federal Reserve's mandate solely to stable prices, the bill prioritizes inflation control over employment goals.
- Scored +2
Would high-income households be better off under this?
Prioritizing price stability can benefit those with significant assets by maintaining the purchasing power of money.
- Scored +2
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
A mandate focused strictly on price stability may protect the value of accumulated wealth against inflation.
The opposite· 3 of 20
- Scored -5
Would union members be better off under this?
The removal of the employment mandate reduces the central bank's institutional obligation to support high levels of job availability.
- Scored -5
Is this likely to create jobs?
The bill removes the requirement for the Federal Reserve to focus on maximum employment, which could reduce institutional priority on job creation.
- Scored -4
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
The removal of the maximum employment mandate may negatively impact low-income households by reducing the emphasis on job availability.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- There are no specific positive impacts or benefits for individuals or groups of people explicitly detailed within the provided text.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- The removal of the mandate to focus on maximum employment could be seen as a negative change because it strips away the current requirement for the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee to consider employment levels. This change is found in Section 2 of the bill, which strikes "maximum employment, stable prices" and replaces it with "stable prices."
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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would billionaires be better off under this? — The shift toward price stability over employment may benefit large-scale capital holders through controlled inflation. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Prioritizing price stability can benefit those with significant assets by maintaining the purchasing power of money. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — A mandate focused strictly on price stability may protect the value of accumulated wealth against inflation. Would retired people be better off under this? — A focus on price stability helps protect the purchasing power of retirement savings and fixed incomes. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Stable prices benefit wealth preservation for the highest earners. Would business owners be better off under this? — The emphasis on stable prices can provide a more predictable economic environment for business planning. Would farmers be better off under this? — Stable prices can benefit agricultural producers by reducing price volatility in the broader economy. Would union members be better off under this? — The removal of the employment mandate reduces the central bank's institutional obligation to support high levels of job availability. Would immigrants be better off under this? — A move away from a maximum employment mandate may decrease the focus on job accessibility for newcomers. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The removal of the maximum employment mandate may negatively impact low-income households by reducing the emphasis on job availability. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Reducing the focus on maximum employment may negatively affect job accessibility and placement initiatives. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Reducing the focus on maximum employment may negatively impact groups that are disproportionately affected by unemployment rates. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The reduction in employment mandate could negatively affect labor market access for various demographic groups. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — A shift away from employment goals may negatively impact those dependent on labor market stability. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Lowering the priority of maximum employment may impact the job market availability for veterans. Would women be better off under this? — The reduction in employment mandate could impact workforce participation goals. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Changes to employment priorities may impact labor market dynamics across all demographic groups. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — A focus solely on price stability reduces the policy emphasis on maximizing employment opportunities. Would men be better off under this? — The shift in mandate may affect labor market stability. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — A singular focus on price stability over employment may reduce the economic protections provided by a focus on full employment. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The removal of employment priorities could impact rural labor market development. Would students be better off under this? — A narrower focus on price stability may not prioritize the labor market entry that benefits young workers. Would people in cities be better off under this? — The change in employment mandate may affect the economic dynamics of densely populated labor markets. Would white Americans be better off under this? — The removal of the employment mandate may alter the labor market environment for all workers. Would gun owners be better off under this? — The change in economic mandate has no direct impact but alters the broader economic priority structure.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to slow the rise in prices? — By narrowing the Federal Reserve's mandate solely to stable prices, the bill prioritizes inflation control over employment goals. Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill removes the requirement for the Federal Reserve to focus on maximum employment, which could reduce institutional priority on job creation. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Removing the maximum employment mandate may reduce the focus on economic factors that drive employment and growth.
- 6/24/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 119-710.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 616.
- 5/13/2026
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 30 - 21.
- 9/16/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Byron DonaldsRepublican · Florida
Marlin StutzmanRepublican · Indiana