H.R. 10125House bill · 119th CongressIn committeeFinance and Financial Sector

NO PROFIT Act

Sponsored byJames A. HimesD-CT-4Introduced Aug 20, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 20, 2026) on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

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

11 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
9
MidwestMechanicDemoPA-17voted Nay19h 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. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
8
clay_commuterDemoCA-7voted Yea1d ago
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
8
hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Yea2d ago
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
7
BudgetHawk88DemoUT-3voted Nay12h 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? Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
7
TenthAmendmentDemoTX-4voted Yea2d 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.
6
yusuf.aDemoCA-28voted Nay21h 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. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
1
BudgetHawk88DemoUT-3voted Nay7h ago
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it means starting over next Congress.
6
elena.papadakisDemoGA-5voted Nay2d 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. None of that is settled by the summary.
1
sam_whitfieldDemoMD-72d ago
Agreed on substance, disagreed on timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.
5
AnnaLeeCDemoCA-38voted Nay1d ago
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
1
lauren_vDemoOK-2voted Yea1d ago
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. The committee report would settle it either way.
Your position on H.R. 10125No positions yet