HR-3355-119
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Sponsored by Barry Loudermilk (R-GA)
What it does
This bill would require five federal banking regulators — the Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC, NCUA, and FHFA — to notify Congress and submit a detailed economic analysis before issuing any major rule (one with a $10 billion or more economic effect over 10 years) that is designed to align with recommendations from non-governmental international organizations, such as the Financial Stability Board or the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. It would also require those regulators to file annual reports to Congress whenever they participate in international organization activities related to climate-related financial risks, including disclosing the funding sources of those organizations.
Who benefits
Members of Congress who would gain earlier visibility into how international bodies influence U.S. banking rules. U.S. banks and credit unions that may prefer domestic-only rulemaking processes and want advance notice of major rules. Smaller community banks and credit unions that have historically argued that internationally-derived capital and liquidity standards (e.g., Basel III) are calibrated for large global banks and impose disproportionate compliance costs on them. Taxpayers and researchers who would gain access to economic analyses of major rules before they take effect. Legislators and advocacy groups seeking greater oversight of agency engagement with international organizations on climate-related financial policy.
Who is hurt
Federal banking regulators whose rulemaking flexibility and speed would be reduced by new pre-issuance disclosure and reporting requirements. Large U.S. banks that participate in global financial markets and benefit from internationally harmonized capital and liquidity standards, which reduce compliance complexity across jurisdictions. International financial stability bodies (e.g., the Financial Stability Board, Basel Committee) whose influence on U.S. rulemaking could be curtailed or slowed. Foreign governments and trading partners who rely on U.S. regulatory alignment with international standards. Climate-focused financial risk researchers and advocacy organizations whose preferred policy channels could face additional scrutiny and reporting burdens.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that unelected international bodies like the Financial Stability Board and the Basel Committee have no democratic mandate to shape U.S. law, yet federal regulators have repeatedly adopted their recommendations — including the Basel III capital framework — with limited congressional input. They contend that requiring pre-issuance economic analysis and congressional notice for rules with $10 billion or more in economic impact is a straightforward accountability measure that restores the constitutional role of Congress in overseeing major regulatory decisions, consistent with the major questions doctrine articulated in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), which requires clear congressional authorization for agency rules of vast economic significance.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the Basel Committee and Financial Stability Board produce technical standards that have helped prevent systemic financial crises, and that requiring congressional notification and economic analysis before every major internationally-aligned rule would slow critical prudential regulation and create uncertainty in global markets. They contend that the bill's climate-specific reporting requirement singles out one policy area for additional procedural hurdles, potentially chilling legitimate regulatory engagement on financial stability risks that the Financial Stability Board and others have identified as material. They further argue that existing notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act already provides robust public and congressional oversight of major rules.
Constitutional context
The bill implicates the Nondelegation and Vesting Clauses (Art. I, §1) and the major questions doctrine from West Virginia v. EPA (2022), which holds that agencies must have clear congressional authorization before issuing rules of vast economic and political significance. By requiring pre-issuance congressional notice for rules aligned with international bodies, the bill attempts to reassert legislative oversight over agency rulemaking that may lack explicit statutory grounding. Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts independently review whether agency rules have sufficient statutory authorization, making the bill's transparency requirements more consequential as a check on internationally-derived regulatory standards.
Checks and balances
Congress gains advance notice and economic analysis before major internationally-aligned banking rules take effect, increasing legislative oversight of executive-branch agencies; the regulators retain rulemaking authority but face new procedural requirements and annual reporting obligations to Congress.
Historical precedent
The Congressional Review Act (1996) established a similar mechanism requiring agencies to submit major rules to Congress before they take effect, giving Congress the ability to review and disapprove them — though it did not specifically target internationally-derived rules.