HB2183, titled the CFPB Dual Mandate and Economic Analysis Act, would amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to change and expand the stated purpose of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The bill removes the word “competitive” from the CFPB’s purpose statement and adds language directing the Bureau to implement and enforce federal consumer financial law in a way that strengthens private-sector participation in markets, minimizes government interference or subsidies, and increases competition and consumer choice.
The bill also would create a new Office of Economic Analysis within the CFPB. That office would be required to review proposed guidance, orders, rules, and regulations, assess their effects on consumer choice, prices, and access to credit products, and publish those findings in the Federal Register. It would also review existing CFPB actions after 1, 2, 5, and 10 years to measure whether they solved the problems they were intended to address, again with public reporting.
In addition, the bill would require the CFPB Director to consider the Office of Economic Analysis’s review before issuing any guidance, order, rule, or regulation. If the Director disagrees with the office’s assessment, the Director would have to explain that disagreement in the final action. The bill further requires proposed rulemakings to identify the problem being addressed and specify metrics for judging success, including changes in consumer access to and the cost of consumer financial products and services.
The bill’s practical impact would be to add a stronger economic-analysis and retrospective-review requirement to CFPB policymaking, potentially making it harder or slower for the Bureau to issue rules without detailed justification. It would affect the CFPB’s internal procedures and could influence how consumer finance regulations are drafted, evaluated, and defended, especially with respect to credit availability, pricing, and market competition.
No committee hearing transcript or vote record is available in the provided materials, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment. Based on the bill text and title, the measure appears to be framed positively by its sponsor as a reform to improve accountability, economic analysis, and consumer choice. Likely points of contention are whether the bill would appropriately constrain the CFPB and promote competition, or instead weaken consumer protections by prioritizing market participation and cost/access metrics over broader consumer safeguards. Supporters would likely favor the added economic scrutiny, while critics may view it as limiting the agency’s regulatory flexibility and consumer-protection mission.
HB2183 would amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, specifically the CFPB’s purpose statement and rulemaking procedures. It would create a new Office of Economic Analysis inside the CFPB, require formal review and public reporting on proposed and existing rules, and impose new analytical and explanatory obligations on the CFPB Director. The bill would primarily affect the CFPB, regulated financial institutions, and consumers of financial products and services by changing how consumer finance rules are developed and evaluated.
No votes or committee discussion are provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize. The bill’s framing suggests support from those favoring deregulation, economic analysis, and competition in consumer finance, while opposition would likely come from those concerned that the changes could reduce the CFPB’s ability to act quickly or robustly on consumer protection issues.
The main policy dispute is likely over the CFPB’s mission and regulatory approach. Supporters may argue the bill improves accountability by requiring cost-benefit analysis, measurable outcomes, and periodic review of rules. Opponents may argue that emphasizing competition, private-sector participation, and consumer access/cost metrics could narrow the CFPB’s consumer-protection focus and make it more difficult to issue or sustain protective regulations. Another likely point of contention is the requirement that the Director publicly explain disagreements with the Office of Economic Analysis, which could be seen either as transparency or as an internal constraint on agency discretion.