The House Financial Services Committee on September 16 approved H.R. 10184, the Consumer Financial Protection Accountability and Reform Act of 2026, by a 28-21 vote. The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.), would make significant changes to the structure, funding, rulemaking, supervision, enforcement, and other authorities of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). 

Most significantly, the bill would place the CFPB under the congressional appropriations process. The CFPB currently obtains its funding directly from the Federal Reserve, subject to statutory limits. H.R. 10184 would instead require the Bureau to obtain its funding through annual congressional appropriations.

The bill also would impose additional requirements on CFPB rulemaking and retrospective review of its regulations; require rulemaking concerning the meaning of “abusive” under the Consumer Financial Protection Act; make changes to bank and nonbank supervision; clarify the legal status of CFPB guidance; revise civil penalty provisions; make changes to the Bureau’s market-monitoring authority; and revise aspects of its consumer complaint process.

Our Consumer Financial Services Group in August produced a webinar about a Discussion Draft of the bill featuring David McGrath, a member of the Professional Staff of the Committee.

Barr Substitute Changes the Bill

An important development at the markup was the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Rep. Barr. Designated BARR_154, the substitute replaced the introduced version of H.R. 10184 and was adopted by voice vote. The Committee subsequently approved H.R. 10184, as amended, by a 28-21 recorded vote.

The substitute retains the basic structure and principal provisions of the introduced bill but makes several substantive changes.

One of the more significant changes concerns the retrospective review of CFPB regulations. Under the revised bill, if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determines that a major CFPB rule fails to demonstrate net benefits, the CFPB generally would have one year to undertake corrective rulemaking. The substitute also provides that, during the period before the corrective rule becomes effective, the CFPB and other federal or state agencies could not enforce the portion of the rule that OMB determined failed to demonstrate net benefits.

The substitute also modifies the proposed safe harbor for certain small-dollar credit products. Among other changes, it permits a lender to make another covered small-dollar loan when the consumer’s aggregate outstanding principal after the new loan does not exceed $3,500, subject to the bill’s inflation adjustment. It also permits certain rollovers when initiated by the consumer or provided as a hardship accommodation.

The substitute makes a related change concerning small-dollar lines of credit. Rather than the limitation contained in the introduced bill, the revised language permits a single-payment draw of up to 20% of the consumer’s average monthly direct deposits.

The substitute also revises the provision addressing CFPB guidance. It provides that nonconformity with CFPB guidance may not be used to establish a violation of applicable law.

These changes should be distinguished from provisions that were already contained in the introduced bill, including the proposed $30 billion asset threshold for certain CFPB supervisory authority and the provisions concerning earned-wage access and buy-now-pay-later products.

Democratic Amendments Rejected

The Committee rejected five Democratic amendments to H.R. 10184, all by votes of 21-28. Two were offered by Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), and three were offered by Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.). 

Lynch’s first amendment would have clarified that the CFPB’s authority under Section 1031 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act to prohibit unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices includes discriminatory practices. His second would have preserved concurrent enforcement authority for state attorneys general and state regulators when the CFPB was pursuing an action involving the same entity.

Foster’s three amendments would have required Treasury studies addressing the potential effects of the legislation on the CFPB’s ability (i) to address scams, fraud, and other UDAAPs affecting older Americans; (ii) to protect servicemembers, veterans, and their families; and (iii) to monitor emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, for unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices. 

The Committee’s final vote on H.R. 10184 also was strictly along party lines. All 28 members voting in favor were Republicans, and all 21 members voting against were Democrats. Thus, no Democratic member voted for the legislation. 

Rep. Barr said the CFPB’s current structure does not provide sufficient accountability and transparency. Democratic members argued that the legislation would weaken the Bureau’s ability to protect consumers. Rep. Bill Foster said Congress had deliberately established the CFPB’s existing funding mechanism through the Federal Reserve to provide the Bureau with independence from congressional pressure, while Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) characterized the legislation as an attempt to eliminate the Bureau.

What Happens Next

The Financial Services Committee has completed its consideration of H.R. 10184 and ordered the bill, as amended, reported favorably to the House by a 28-21 vote. The bill was originally referred to the Financial Services, Judiciary, Small Business, and Oversight and Government Reform Committees.

As of today’s date, the Financial Services Committee is the only one of those committees to have acted on H.R. 10184. The bill remains subject to its referrals to the Judiciary, Small Business, and Oversight and Government Reform Committees, and there has been no House floor vote. Accordingly, the next significant steps would be consideration by any of the other committees with jurisdiction, followed by possible consideration by the full House.

If the House ultimately passes H.R. 10184, the Senate would then have to consider the legislation before it could be presented to the President.

In light of the fact that there are few legislative days left in this Congressional session (considering that the House is on recess until November 9, the Senate will go on recess in early October until November 9, and both the House and Senate will adjourn for this session on or about December 18) and that this legislation will need 60 favorable votes in the Senate, it is very unlikely that the legislation will pass this year.