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

20 comments

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

Sort
9
mfitzhughDemoGA-9voted Yea1mo 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.
4
steelcityscribeDemoMI-7voted Nay1mo ago
That's the part I can't get past either — broad authority, thin guardrails.
9
MidwestMechanicDemoPA-17voted Nay1mo 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
hollow_porchDemoHI-1voted Nay1mo ago
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
4
imogen.ferreiraDemoMA-7voted Yea1mo ago
The states already trying this haven't seen the effects opponents predicted. That's evidence, for what it's worth.
8
clay_commuterDemoCA-7voted Yea1mo 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 Yea1mo 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 Nay1mo 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 Yea1mo 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 Nay1mo 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 Nay1mo ago
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it means starting over next Congress.
6
elena.papadakisDemoGA-5voted Nay1mo 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-71mo ago
Agreed on substance, disagreed on timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.
5
AnnaLeeCDemoCA-38voted Nay1mo ago
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
3
arthur.oduyaDemoTX-4voted Nay1mo ago
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
3
steelcityscribeDemoMI-7voted Nay1mo ago
The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
3
avery.nbDemoWA-3voted Yea1mo ago
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
2
clay_commuterDemoCA-7voted Yea1mo ago
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
2
imogen.ferreiraDemoMA-7voted Yea1mo ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
1
lauren_vDemoOK-2voted Yea1mo 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. 101250% Yea · 1 VoteWire user