[House Report 119-251]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 119-251
======================================================================
STOP AGENCY FIAT ENFORCEMENT OF GUIDANCE ACT
_______
September 8, 2025.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hill of Arkansas, from the Committee on Financial Services,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 4460]
The Committee on Financial Services, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 4460) to require a guidance clarity statement on
certain financial agency guidance, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Committee Consideration.......................................... 2
Related Hearing.................................................. 2
Committee Votes.................................................. 3
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 5
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 5
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 5
New Budget Authority and CBO Cost Estimate....................... 5
Unfunded Mandates Statement...................................... 5
Earmark Statement................................................ 5
Federal Advisory Committee Act Statement......................... 6
Applicability to the Legislative Branch.......................... 6
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 6
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 6
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 6
Minority Views................................................... 7
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
H.R. 4460, the Stop Agency Fiat Enforcement of Guidance
Act, was introduced on July 16, 2025, by Republican
Representative Daniel Meuser (PA-09). H.R. 4460 requires
federal financial regulatory agencies to clearly state on the
first page of guidance documents that they have no legal force
and are intended only to clarify existing laws or policies.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Under the Biden Administration, federal financial
regulators repeatedly exceeded their statutory authorities and
circumvented the required rulemaking process by regulating
through press releases, guidance, and enforcement actions
rather than formal rules. This practice of bypassing
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) notice and comment
requirements undermines durable policymaking and creates
uncertainty for businesses and customers, negatively impacting
access to financial services. Reliance on guidance to shape
industry behavior weakens the rule of law and diminishes
regulatory consistency. Requiring a clear disclaimer that
guidance documents do not carry the force of law will provide
much-needed clarity and predictability to regulated entities
and encourage agencies to engage in the transparent, formal
rulemaking process when altering regulatory expectations.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
119TH CONGRESS
On July 16, 2025, Representative Meuser introduced H.R.
4460, the Stop Agency Fiat Enforcement of Guidance Act. The
bill was referred solely to the Committee on Financial
Services. The bill was attached to the April 29, 2025, hearing
titled ``Regulatory Overreach: The Price Tag on American
Prosperity.''
On July 23, 2025, the Committee on Financial Services met
in open session to consider, among others, H.R. 4460. The
Committee ordered H.R. 4460, to be favorably reported to the
House of Representatives.
RELATED HEARING
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(6) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following hearing was used to
develop H.R. 4460:
The Financial Institutions Subcommittee of the Committee on
Financial Services held an April 29, 2025, hearing titled
``Regulatory Overreach: The Price Tag on American Prosperity.''
A discussion draft version of the bill was attached to the
hearing. The following witnesses testified: Ms. Sarah Christine
Flowers, Senior Vice President, Senior Associate General
Counsel, Bank Policy Institute; Mr. Michael Radcliffe, Chairman
& Chief Executive Officer, Community Financial Services Bank;
Mrs. Margaret E. Tahyar, Partner, Head of Financial
Institutions Group, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP; and The
Honorable Graham Steele, Academic Fellow, Rock Center for
Corporate Governance, Stanford Law School.
COMMITTEE VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee Report to include record
votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments
thereto.
On July 23, 2025, the Committee ordered H.R. 4460, to be
reported favorably to the House by a recorded vote of 26 yeas
and 23 nays. (Record Vote No. FC-191).
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
Pursuant to clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the findings and recommendations of
the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives
are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.
PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the goal of H.R. 4460 is to provide
clarity to regulated entities by encouraging federal financial
regulators to engage in a transparent, formal rulemaking
process when altering regulatory expectations.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the
costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 4460. The
Committee has requested but not received a cost estimate from
the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. However,
pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee will adopt as its own
the cost estimate by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office once it has been prepared.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CBO COST ESTIMATE
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee will adopt as
its own the cost estimate for the bill prepared by the Director
of the Congressional Budget Office. However, a cost estimate
was not made available to the Committee in time for the filing
of this report. The Chairman of the Committee shall cause such
estimate to be printed in the Congressional Record upon its
receipt by the Committee.
UNFUNDED MANDATES STATEMENT
The Committee has requested but not received from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office an estimate of the
Federal mandates pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act. The Chairman of the Committee shall cause
such estimate to be printed in the Congressional Record upon
its receipt by the Committee.
EARMARK STATEMENT
In compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI.
FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT STATEMENT
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee states that no
provision of the bill establishes or reauthorizes a program of
the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another
Federal program, including any program that was included in a
report to Congress pursuant to section 21 of the Public Law
111-139 or the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 provides the short title is the ``Stop Agency
Fiat Enforcement of Guidance Act'' or the ``SAFE Guidance
Act.''
Section 2. Guidance clarity statement required
This section requires the head of each financial agency to
include a guidance clarity statement on any guidance issued by
that financial agency after the date of the enactment of this
Act. Guidance clarity statements shall be displayed on the
first page of the document and shall include a statement that
the guidance does not have the force and effect of law and that
noncompliance with the guidance does not establish a violation
of applicable law.
This section defines guidance as a financial agency
statement of general applicability, intended to have a future
effect on the behavior of regulated parties that sets forth a
policy on an issue or interpretation of statue or regulation,
but not a rule under the Administrative Procedure Act.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
H.R. 4460 does not repeal or amend any section of a
statute. Therefore, the Office of Legislative Counsel did not
prepare the report required under clause 3(e) of rule XIII of
the House of Representatives.
MINORITY VIEWS
H.R. 4460 would require the head of Federal financial
departments and agencies--specifically the Treasury, HUD,
Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, NCUA, SEC, CFPB, and FHFA--to
provide a so-called ``guidance clarity statement'' on certain
agency statements ``intended to have a future effect on the
behavior of regulated parties.'' These statements would clarify
that the guidance does not have the force and effect of law,
and that noncompliance with such guidance does not conclusively
establish a legal violation.
This bill would require endless numbers of disclaimers that
could chill agency communications and hinder guidance helpful
for industry participants to understand their legal
obligations. Moreover, this bill would not apply to President
Trump, who issues chaotic and contradictory policy statements
on social media, and who has seized control over the rulemaking
process for these agencies. The bill also does not overturn the
actions of Trump's CFPB to rescind nearly 70 guidance documents
that have previously helped regulated entities understand
consumer protection rules.
Since its inception following the global financial crisis
when Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act in 2010, Republicans have relentlessly
attacked the CFPB. One line of attack has been to complain
about CFPB's guidance provided through blogs and other forms of
communication, even though industry often requests the CFPB's
interpretation to understand how to comply with relevant
consumer financial protection laws and regulations.\1\ This
bill would require not just the CFPB, but Treasury, HUD, and
all Federal financial regulators to add new disclosures to an
indeterminate number of statements the agency or agency
officials make to stipulate they don't have a legal effect and
entities cannot be prosecuted based on the statement. This
could chill how these agencies communicate with the public in a
way that could hinder guidance that is necessary for industry
participants to understand their legal obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\For example, see Consumer Finance Monitor, Financial Services
Committee Republicans call on CFPB to withdraw rules, guidance (Apr.
14, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is worth noting that a particular set of CFPB
obligations about which Republicans typically complain is not
enough clarity for the market relate to unfair, deceptive, or
abusive acts or practices (UDAAP). However, Trump's CFPB is
rescinding nearly 70 guidance documents, including one CFPB
issued relating to UDAAP.\2\ Furthermore, President Trump has
seized control of these independent agencies by requiring the
White House approve any rules they may have, along with their
budget. Of course, Trump also makes many policy statements
through social media, but this bill would not require the
President provide a similar disclaimer when talking about any
potential legal obligation that he now has control over.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Consumer Finance Monitor, CFPB rescinds 67 guidance documents
(May 16, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One former Treasury official testified earlier this year
that this bill imposes onerous reporting requirements on
Federal agencies and will limit their ability to provide useful
guidance to industry and the public.\3\ He went on to explain
this bill does nothing to curb the Trump Administration's
attacks on the CFPB, the Fed, and other independent regulators
as they seek to diminish their ability to regulate and
supervise large financial institutions, among other objectives.
Furthermore, Americans for Financial Reform and Public Citizen
oppose the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Testimony of Graham Steele before FSC hearing, Regulatory
Overreach: The Price Tag on American Prosperity (Apr. 29, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, we oppose H.R. 4460.
Sincerely,
Maxine Waters,
Ranking Member.
Nydia M. Velazquez,
Brad Sherman,
David Scott,
Stephen F. Lynch,
Al Green,
Emanuel Cleaver, II,
Bill Foster,
Joyce Beatty,
Juan Vargas,
Sean Casten,
Rashida Tlaib,
Sylvia R. Garcia,
Nikema Williams,
Cleo Fields,
Members of Congress.
[all]