H.R. 10112House bill · 119th CongressIn committeeFinance and Financial Sector

Empowering States to Protect Seniors from Bad Actors Act

Sponsored byJosh GottheimerD-NJ-5Introduced Aug 17, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 17, 2026) — on Financial Services.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Face Value

as introduced

100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

Every bill starts at100
Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

17 comments

Sort

NorthWoodsNinaDemoNY-12voted Nay4d ago

Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives.

civicsnerdDemoGA-10voted Nay4d ago

The reporting requirement *is* the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.

OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Nay19h ago

Has a version of this been introduced before? It feels familiar, and if it died last Congress I'd want to know what killed it. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.

b_haverfordDemoLA-6voted Nay3d ago

The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.

harborlightDemoCA-40voted Nay3d ago

In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. None of that is settled by the summary.

marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Yea4d ago

This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. The committee report would settle it either way.

BudgetHawk88DemoUT-3voted Yea1d ago

I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.

yusuf.aDemoCA-28voted Yea2d ago

Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.

civicsnerdDemoGA-10voted Nay2d ago

The states already trying this haven't seen the effects opponents predicted. That's evidence, for what it's worth.

marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Yea2d ago

Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.

RedRiverRonDemoNJ-1voted Yea3d ago

In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.

BudgetHawk88DemoUT-3voted Yea3d ago

"The states are doing it" cuts the other way for me. If it works there, why federalise it?

civicsnerdDemoGA-10voted Nay2d ago

No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.

cecilia_ruizDemoMI-3voted Nay4d ago

Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

steelcityscribeDemoMI-7voted Nay20h ago

My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.

PragmaticPeteDemoAL-3voted Yea1d ago

I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

publiclandsfanDemoNC-111d ago

Agreed on substance, disagreed on timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.

Your position on H.R. 10112No positions yet