Urges the reform or abolishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Summary
House Resolution 116 is a Missouri resolution that expresses the House’s view that the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) should be abolished or substantially reformed. The resolution argues that the CFPB’s single-director structure concentrates too much power in one agency, weakens checks and balances, and reduces continuity, consistency, and accountability in financial regulation. It also states that the bureau’s conduct has increased the cost of financial services and reduced their availability and utility without preserving consumer protections.
The resolution does not change Missouri law or create new state regulatory requirements. Instead, it is a formal legislative statement urging Congress to act. If the CFPB were abolished, the resolution says its duties should be returned to the pre-Dodd-Frank federal financial regulatory framework; if reformed, the resolution points to reform proposals in U.S. House Resolution 2798 from the 118th Congress. It also directs the House Chief Clerk to send copies of the resolution to federal and state officials and committees, including the Department of Government Efficiency, Missouri’s congressional delegation, and congressional banking and financial services committees.
Impact
HR116 has no direct effect on Missouri statutes, state agencies, or private parties because it is a nonbinding memorializing resolution. Its practical impact is political: it places the Missouri House on record in opposition to the CFPB’s current structure and in favor of federal legislative change. The resolution is aimed at federal policymakers and seeks to influence national debate over consumer financial regulation, agency structure, and the balance between consumer protection and financial industry compliance burdens.
Sentiment
The sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly critical of the CFPB and supportive of either abolishing the agency or restructuring it. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no additional evidence of debate, amendment, or bipartisan support in the available materials. The resolution itself is framed in assertive terms, indicating a clear preference for reducing or eliminating the bureau’s current authority.
Contention
The main point of contention is the role and design of the CFPB. Supporters of the resolution argue that the bureau’s single-director model concentrates too much power and harms consumers by raising costs and limiting access to financial services. Opponents of this view would likely defend the CFPB as an important consumer-protection agency created after the financial crisis to police abusive practices and fill regulatory gaps. The resolution also implicitly raises a broader federalism and separation-of-powers dispute over whether consumer finance oversight should be centralized or distributed among multiple agencies.