HR-3173-119
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Sponsored by Roger Williams (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would require the Federal Reserve Board's annual report to include detailed breakdowns of each Federal Reserve Bank's spending and staffing by category, including bank supervision, legal functions, operations, financial stability activities, administration, economic research, and engagement with international bodies like the Bank for International Settlements. It would also require disclosure of the top three research priorities by spending and staffing, and the annual cost of each rule, guidance document, or policy statement proposed or finalized. The changes would take effect two years after enactment.
Who benefits
Members of Congress and congressional committees overseeing the Federal Reserve, who would gain more detailed budget and cost data. Transparency and government-accountability advocacy groups, financial journalists, and researchers who track Fed spending would gain access to more granular information. Critics of Fed international engagement (e.g., with the Basel Committee or Network for Greening the Financial System) would gain a tool to scrutinize those activities.
Who is hurt
The Federal Reserve System and the twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks would bear new administrative and compliance costs to compile and report this data. Fed staff working on research and international coordination could face increased scrutiny or political pressure over specific programs. No members of the public would be directly financially affected, though the reporting burden could modestly divert staff time from core functions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Federal Reserve wields enormous influence over the economy through monetary policy and bank supervision, yet its detailed spending is not broken down in a way Congress or the public can easily scrutinize. They contend that itemizing costs by function and disclosing the price tag of individual rules and guidance documents would let lawmakers assess whether resources are being used efficiently and whether international engagements align with congressional intent.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the Federal Reserve's independence from short-term political pressure is essential to credible monetary policy, and that granular, rule-by-rule cost reporting could be used to pressure the Fed on specific regulatory or research decisions rather than genuine budget oversight. They contend the added reporting requirements would impose new administrative burdens on the twelve regional banks without a clear showing that current annual reports are inadequate for congressional oversight.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority under Article I to structure and oversee entities it creates by statute, including the Federal Reserve System established under the Federal Reserve Act; this reporting mandate falls within that oversight power rather than raising a distinct doctrinal question. No landmark Commerce Clause or takings case governs a disclosure requirement of this kind.
Checks and balances
Congress expands its oversight power over the Federal Reserve by mandating more detailed disclosures, while the Fed's operational independence in monetary policy and supervision remains otherwise unchanged.
Historical precedent
Congress has periodically expanded Federal Reserve reporting and audit requirements, such as through the Dodd-Frank Act's provisions requiring GAO audits of certain Fed emergency lending programs.