H.R. 10820House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To require the disclosure of supervisory records of certain financial institutions that relate to Jeffrey Epstein, and for other purposes.

Sponsored byRobert GarciaD-CA-42Introduced Oct 15, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 15, 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

16 comments

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

Sort
9
river_precinctDemoSC-2voted Yea9h 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.
9
greta.vasquezDemoFL-3voted Nay1d ago
I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
8
river_readerDemoIL-10voted Yea3d ago
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
4
SierraTrailDemoCA-122d ago
That's the part I can't get past either — broad authority, thin guardrails.
8
harbor_districtDemoOH-4voted Nay3d ago
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
3
granite_machinistDemoFL-153d ago
The reporting requirement *is* the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
8
wxriveraDemoMN-4voted Nay4d ago
The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
7
civicsnerdDemoGA-10voted Yea10h ago
I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
7
deltalibrarianDemoDC-ALvoted Yea3d 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. The committee report would settle it either way.
5
harbor_districtDemoOH-4voted Nay2d ago
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. The committee report would settle it either way.
3
RedRiverRonDemoNJ-1voted Yea18h ago
The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. None of that is settled by the summary.
3
quietriverbendDemoCA-218h ago
"The states are doing it" cuts the other way for me. If it works there, why federalise it?
3
mireille.kaminskiDemoCA-1voted Nay3d ago
Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
2
mireille.kaminskiDemoCA-1voted Nay1d ago
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. None of that is settled by the summary.
2
still_voterDemoTX-35voted Yea2d ago
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
1
cecilia_ruizDemoMI-3voted Nay2d ago
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
Your position on H.R. 10820No positions yet