Fair Lending for All Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Green, Al [D-TX-9]
ID: G000553
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
January 3, 2025
Introduced
Committee Review
š Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
Floor Action
Passed House
Senate Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
š How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
The "Fair Lending for All Act" (HR 166) is a bill that claims to strengthen the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by establishing an Office of Fair Lending Testing within the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Oh, how noble.
In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to create more bureaucratic red tape and line the pockets of special interest groups. The new regulations will supposedly "test" creditors for compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by using undercover agents posing as prospective borrowers. Because, you know, that's not an invitation for abuse and false positives.
The affected industries are, predictably, financial institutions and credit lenders. They'll have to navigate this new regulatory minefield, which will undoubtedly lead to increased costs and reduced access to credit for those who need it most. But hey, at least the politicians can claim they're "doing something" about discriminatory lending practices.
Compliance requirements? Oh boy, get ready for a laundry list of new rules and timelines. The Office of Fair Lending Testing will have to provide an estimated annual budget to the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (because we all know how well government agencies manage their finances). And, of course, there are the obligatory reports to Congress, because what's a regulatory bill without some good old-fashioned bureaucratic busywork?
Enforcement mechanisms and penalties? You bet. The bill introduces new criminal penalties for violating the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, including fines up to $50,000 and imprisonment for up to 1 year for individual violators. And if you're an executive officer or director of a board who "knowingly and willfully" causes your entity to engage in discriminatory practices? You could face fines up to $100,000 and twenty years in prison. Because nothing says "fair lending" like the threat of financial ruin and imprisonment.
The economic and operational impacts of this bill are predictable: increased regulatory costs, reduced access to credit, and a chilling effect on innovation in the financial sector. But hey, at least we'll have more bureaucrats to "protect" us from those evil creditors.
In conclusion, HR 166 is a classic case of legislative malpractice. It's a bill that claims to address a problem but instead creates new ones, all while lining the pockets of special interest groups and expanding the reach of government bureaucracy. Bravo, Congress. You've done it again.
Related Topics
š° Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Green, Al [D-TX-9]
Congress 119 ā¢ 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Rep. Green, Al [D-TX-9]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 27 nodes and 30 connections
Total contributions: $162,930
Top Donors - Rep. Green, Al [D-TX-9]
Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
ā 837 ā Financial Regulatory Agencies l Require the SEC and the CFTC to publish a detailed annual report on SRO supervision. AUTHORāS NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but Paul Atkins, C. Wallace DeWitt, Christopher Iacovella, Brian Knight, Chelsea Pizzola, and Andrew Vollmer deserve special mention. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU Robert Bowes The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was authorized in 2010 by the DoddāFrank Act.32 Since the Bureauās inception, its status as an āinde- pendentā agency with no congressional oversight has been questioned in multiple court cases, and the agency has been assailed by critics33 as a shakedown mecha- nism to provide unaccountable funding to leftist nonprofits politically aligned with those who spearheaded its creation. In 2015, for example, Investorās Business Daily accused the CFPB of ādiverting potentially millions of dollars in settlement payments for alleged victims of lending bias to a slush fund for poverty groups tied to the Democratic Partyā and plan- ning āto create a so-called Civil Penalty Fund from its own shakedown operations targeting financial institutionsā that would use āramped-up (and trumped-up) anti-discrimination lawsuits and investigationsā to ābankroll some 60 liberal non- profits, many of whom are radical Acorn-style pressure groups.ā34 The CFPB has a fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget of $653.2 million35 and 1,635 full- time equivalent (FTE) employees.36 From FY 2012 through FY 2020, it imposed approximately $1.25 billion in civil money penalties;37 in FY 2022, it imposed approximately $172.5 million in civil money penalties.38 These penalties are imposed by the CFPB Civil Penalty Fund, described as āa victims relief fund, into which the CFPB deposits civil penalties it collects in judicial and administrative actions under Federal consumer financial laws.ā39 The CFPB is headed by a single Director who is appointed by the President to a five-year term.40 Its organizational structure includes five divisions: Operations; Consumer Education and External Affairs; Legal; Supervision, Enforcement and Fair Lending; and Research, Monitoring and Regulations.41 Each of these divisions reports to the Office of the Director, except for the Operations Division, which reports to the Deputy Director. Passage of Title X of DoddāFrank was a bid to placate concern over a series of regulatory failures identified in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The law imported a new superstructure of federal regulation over consumer finance and ā 838 ā Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise mortgage lending and servicing industries traditionally regulated by state bank- ing regulators. Consumer protection responsibilities previously handled by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, National Credit Union Admin- istration, and Federal Trade Commission were transferred to and consolidated in the CFPB, which issues rules, orders, and guidance to implement federal consumer financial law. The CFPB collects fines from the private sector that are put into the Civil Pen- alty Fund.42 The fund serves two ostensible purposes: to compensate the victims whom the CFPB perceives to be harmed and to underwrite āconsumer educationā and āfinancial literacyā programs.43 How the Civil Penalty Fund is spent is at the discretion of the CFPB Director. The CFPB has been unclear as to how it decides what āconsumer educationā or āfinancial literacy programsā to fund.44 As noted, critics have charged that money from the Civil Penalty Fund has ended up in the pockets of leftist activist organizations. In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,45 the Supreme Court of the United States held that the CFPBās leadership by a single individual remov- able only for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance violated constitutional separation of powers requirements because ā[t]he Constitution requires that such officials remain dependent on the President, who in turn is accountable to the people.ā46 The CFPB Director is thus subject to removal by the President. The CFPB is not subject to congressional oversight, and its funding is not determined by elected lawmakers in Congress as part of the typical congressional appropriations process. It receives its funding from the Federal Reserve, which is itself funded outside the appropriations process through bank assessments. CFPB funding represents 12 percent of the total operating expenses of the Fed- eral Reserve and is disbursed by the unelected Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.47 This is not the case with respect to any other federal agency. On October 19, 2022, in Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the CFPBās āperpetual insulation from Congressās appropriations power, including the express exemption from congressional review of its funding, renders the Bureau āno longer dependent and, as a result, no longer accountableā to Congress and, ultimately, to the peopleā48 and that ā[b]y abandoning its āmost complete and effectualā check on āthe overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the governmentāāindeed, by enabling them in the Bureauās caseāCongress ran afoul of the separation of powers embodied in the Appropriations Clause.ā49 The Court further remarked that the CFPBās ācapacious portfolio of authority acts āas a mini legislature, prosecutor, and court, responsible for creating substantive rules for a wide swath of industries, prosecuting violations, and levying knee-buckling penalties against private citizens.āā50
Introduction
ā 341 ā Department of Education market prices and signals to influence educational borrowing, introducing consumer-driven accountability into higher education. Pell grants should retain their current voucher-like structure. If Congress is unwilling to reform federal student aid, then the next Adminis- tration should consider the following reforms: l Switch to fair-value accounting from FCRA accounting, and l Consolidate all federal loan programs into one new program that 1. Utilizes income-driven repayment, 2. Includes no interest rate subsidies or loan forgiveness, 3. Includes annual and aggregate limits on borrowing, and 4. Requires āskin in the gameā from colleges to help hold them accountable for loan repayment. The Biden Administration has mercilessly pillaged the student loan portfolio for crass political purposes without regard to the needs of current taxpayers or future students. This must never happen again. l As detailed in Section III, the next Administration should work with Congress to spin off federal student aid into a new government corporation with professional governance and management. NEW POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND New Legislation That Should Be Prioritized For nearly 250 years, Congress has incorporated public and private institutions, including banks, the District of Columbiaās city government, and other organiza- tions that federal officials deem to be conducting operations in the public interest. Such charters offer a certain status to organizations, often viewed as a āseal of approvalā according to one Congressional Research Service report, which can help these organizations in their fundraising and other advocacy efforts. When the nationās largest teacher association, the National Education Associ- ation (NEA), cites its federal charter, it lends the NEA a level of significance and suggests an effectiveness that is not supported by evidence. In fact, the NEA and the nationās other large teacher union, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT),
Introduction
ā 341 ā Department of Education market prices and signals to influence educational borrowing, introducing consumer-driven accountability into higher education. Pell grants should retain their current voucher-like structure. If Congress is unwilling to reform federal student aid, then the next Adminis- tration should consider the following reforms: l Switch to fair-value accounting from FCRA accounting, and l Consolidate all federal loan programs into one new program that 1. Utilizes income-driven repayment, 2. Includes no interest rate subsidies or loan forgiveness, 3. Includes annual and aggregate limits on borrowing, and 4. Requires āskin in the gameā from colleges to help hold them accountable for loan repayment. The Biden Administration has mercilessly pillaged the student loan portfolio for crass political purposes without regard to the needs of current taxpayers or future students. This must never happen again. l As detailed in Section III, the next Administration should work with Congress to spin off federal student aid into a new government corporation with professional governance and management. NEW POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND New Legislation That Should Be Prioritized For nearly 250 years, Congress has incorporated public and private institutions, including banks, the District of Columbiaās city government, and other organiza- tions that federal officials deem to be conducting operations in the public interest. Such charters offer a certain status to organizations, often viewed as a āseal of approvalā according to one Congressional Research Service report, which can help these organizations in their fundraising and other advocacy efforts. When the nationās largest teacher association, the National Education Associ- ation (NEA), cites its federal charter, it lends the NEA a level of significance and suggests an effectiveness that is not supported by evidence. In fact, the NEA and the nationās other large teacher union, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), ā 342 ā Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise use litigation and other efforts to block school choice and advocate for additional taxpayer spending in education. They also lobbied to keep schools closed during the pandemic. All of these positions run contrary to robust research evidence showing positive outcomes for students from education choice policies; there is no conclusive evidence that more taxpayer spending on schools improves student outcomes; and evidence finds that keeping schools closed to in-person learning resulted in negative emotional and academic outcomes for students. Furthermore, the union promotes radical racial and gender ideologies in schools that parents oppose according to nationally representative surveys. l Congress should rescind the National Education Associationās congressional charter and remove the false impression that federal taxpayers support the political activities of this special interest group. This move would not be unprecedented, as Congress has rescinded the federal charters of other organizations over the past century. The NEA is a demonstrably radical special interest group that overwhelmingly supports left-of-center policies and policymakers. l Members should conduct hearings to determine how much federal taxpayer money the NEA has used for radical causes favoring a single political party. Parental Rights in Education and Safeguarding Students l Federal officials should protect educators and students in jurisdictions under federal control from racial discrimination by reinforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and prohibiting compelled speech. Specifically, no teacher or student in Washington, D.C., public schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, or Department of Defense schools should be compelled to believe, profess, or adhere to any idea, but especially ideas that violate state and federal civil rights laws. By its very design, critical race theory has an āappliedā dimension, as its found- ers state in their essays that define the theory. Those who subscribe to the theory believe that racism (in this case, treating individuals differently based on race) is appropriateānecessary, evenāmaking the theory more than merely an analyti- cal tool to describe race in public and private life. The theory disrupts Americaās Founding ideals of freedom and opportunity. So, when critical race theory is used as part of school activities such as mandatory affinity groups, teacher training programs in which educators are required to confess their privilege, or school
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.