Analyses / Public Summary / 119 · HR 3682 Public Summary

119-HR-3682 Journalist Public Summary

119 · HR 3682 Financial Stability Oversight Council Improvement Act of 2025

account_balance_wallet Finance and Financial Sector
Financial Stability Oversight Council Improvement Act of 2025This bill requires the Financial Stability Oversight Council, prior to determining that a U.S. nonbank financial company shall be...

A bipartisan House bill would make FSOC try other fixes first—like working with a firm’s primary regulator—before slapping bank‑style Fed oversight on a nonbank; the House passed it by voice vote on February 9, 2026, and it now heads to the Senate. (congress.gov)

Published
10 Feb 2026
Updated
10 Feb 2026
Unvetted
01 · Section

Headline Summary

Make FSOC use “lighter-touch” options first—before designating a nonbank (like an insurer, asset manager, or fintech) for Federal Reserve supervision. (congress.gov)

02 · Section

What It Does

The bill amends Section 113 of the Dodd‑Frank Act to bar FSOC from even voting on a nonbank “systemic” designation unless it first determines—after consulting the company and its primary regulator—that other actions (including activity-based safeguards under Section 120) are impracticable or insufficient. In short, designation becomes a tool of last resort. (congress.gov)

Why it matters: FSOC’s 2023 guidance made it easier to revisit nonbank designations and de‑emphasized a strict preference for activity‑based fixes; supporters of this bill say Congress should hard‑code a step‑by‑step process so firms get due process and tailored remedies first, while critics worry it slows FSOC’s ability to act in a crisis. (home.treasury.gov)

House Financial Services markup vote (Yeas)
47
House Financial Services markup vote (Nays)
4
03 · Section

Who’s For It

  • Sponsors from both parties: Rep. Bill Foster (D‑IL) and Rep. Bill Huizenga (R‑MI); the bill advanced from committee 47–4. Supporters say it adds transparency and requires FSOC to exhaust alternative tools before designating a firm. (congress.gov)
  • A broad industry coalition (U.S. Chamber of Commerce; trade groups for insurers, asset managers, mortgage lenders, fintechs, and others) argues the bill restores predictability, ensures consultation with a company’s primary regulator, and keeps SIFI designation as a last resort. (uschamber.com)
  • Alternative asset managers (MFA) back the bill, saying firms like theirs already face SEC oversight and don’t pose bank‑like systemic risk; they want FSOC to favor targeted, activity‑based fixes. (mfaalts.org)
04 · Section

Who’s Against It

  • Public Citizen and other consumer‑advocacy groups oppose H.R. 3682, calling it another roadblock that would make it harder for FSOC to designate risky nonbanks when needed. (citizen.org)
  • Financial‑reform advocates such as Better Markets have praised the 2023 FSOC framework that revitalized nonbank designation authority and warn against efforts that could weaken it; they argue swift tools are necessary to prevent taxpayer‑backed rescues. (bettermarkets.org)
  • Some progressive lawmakers have criticized recent moves to narrow FSOC’s reach, signaling skepticism of proposals viewed as constraining the council’s authorities. (banking.senate.gov)
05 · Section

What’s Next

Status as of February 10, 2026: The House passed the bill by voice vote on February 9, 2026, under suspension of the rules; the motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The measure now goes to the Senate, where an identical companion (S. 3578) is in the Banking Committee. Note: official status pages (e.g., Congress.gov) often lag floor action by a day. (clerk.house.gov)

Discussion