Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)
Fostering the Use of Technology to Uphold Regulatory Effectiveness in Supervision Act
A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House 417–7
- In Senate committee
What this bill would do
This bill is called the Fostering the Use of Technology to Uphold Regulatory Effectiveness in Supervision Act. It requires certain financial supervisory agencies to review their current technological capabilities and procurement practices. Agencies must complete these assessments within 180 days of the bill's enactment. Following the assessments, these agencies must coordinate and jointly submit a detailed report to specific congressional committees. This reporting requirement begins 18 months after the initial assessments are completed and repeats every five years. The goal is to address vulnerabilities caused by outdated technology and to better monitor financial firms using artificial intelligence.
Yes· 3 of 8
- Scored +5
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill specifically identifies the need for new tools to fulfill mandates to assure consumer protection.
- Scored +4
Does this better protect the country from computer attacks?
The bill addresses the inadequacy of cybersecurity safeguards within banking regulatory agencies.
- Scored +3
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Requires agencies to submit detailed reports to Congress every five years regarding their technology and procurement.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Financial institutions may face significant costs to modify systems and transition to new reporting processes.
What Congress actually voted on
One recorded vote has been taken on this bill.
- The House: a fast-track vote, needing two-thirds to pass The House sets aside its normal procedure to move quickly: no amendments, little debate, and a two-thirds bar instead of a simple majority. It is used for measures expected to be uncontroversial, so a bill that fails here failed despite broad expectations that it would not. Passed 417 yes · 7 no
09/15/2026 · Roll call 302 · recorded as “On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 3(a)(1) requires covered agencies to assess how existing technologies pose challenges to conducting adequate, real-time supervisory assessments. This could benefit the public by helping agencies better protect consumers and monitor Bank Secrecy Act compliance.
-
Section 2(5)(F) and Section 2(4) highlight that outdated agency technology creates vulnerabilities in failing to detect illegal activities. Assessing these technological gaps could lead to better detection of illegal activities that harm everyday people.
-
Section 3(b)(5) requires reporting on market developments, the use of new technologies, and potential risks like illicit activity related to new technologies. This transparency helps hold officials accountable for understanding modern financial risks.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Section 3(b)(7) requires covered agencies to provide an estimate of the costs for supervised entities to modify systems to share data with covered agencies. This could potentially result in added financial burdens that businesses might pass down to everyday consumers.
-
Section 3(b)(8)(F) requires reporting on anticipated challenges and opportunities associated with entities supervised by the covered agency adapting to the reporting process, including estimates of transition costs. These transition costs could create financial strains for regulated entities and potentially affect the public.
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.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill specifically identifies the need for new tools to fulfill mandates to assure consumer protection. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Modernizing banking supervision helps preserve a safe and sound banking system, which supports overall economic stability.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires agencies to submit detailed reports to Congress every five years regarding their technology and procurement. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill increases the operational capabilities and reporting requirements of federal regulatory agencies.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this better protect the country from computer attacks? — The bill addresses the inadequacy of cybersecurity safeguards within banking regulatory agencies.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — Modernizing data collection and security protocols reduces vulnerabilities in the financial system.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Enhanced consumer protection and financial system safety generally benefit low-income households. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Enhanced consumer protection and financial system safety generally benefit middle-class households. Would business owners be better off under this? — Financial institutions may face significant costs to modify systems and transition to new reporting processes.
- 9/16/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
- 9/15/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 417 - 7 (Roll no. 302). (text: CR H5605)
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 417 - 7 (Roll no. 302). (text: CR H5605)
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5822-5823)
- 9/14/2026
- At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 8278.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5605-5608)
- Ms. De La Cruz moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 6/24/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 119-711.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 617.
- 5/13/2026
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 52 - 0.
- 4/14/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Bill FosterDemocrat · Illinois