hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Requires annual testimony to Congress on community development fund operations.
Rep. Rose (R-TN), Rep. Kim (R-CA)
Introduced in House, referred to committee.
This bill proposes to amend existing law to require the Secretary of the Treasury, or their representative, to testify annually before key House and Senate committees. This testimony would cover the operations of the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund for the previous year, but only if the committee chairs request it. The bill was introduced by Representatives Rose and Kim and is currently under review by the House Financial Services Committee.
Introduced Mar 3, 2026
H.R. 7775 was introduced in the House of Representatives on March 3, 2026, and has been sent to the House Committee on Financial Services for consideration. Before it can become law, it must pass through this committee, be voted on and passed by the full House, then go through a similar process in the Senate, and finally be signed by the President.
If this bill becomes law, there could be greater transparency regarding how the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund operates. This fund provides financial support to organizations serving economically disadvantaged communities. The required annual testimony, if requested by committee chairs, would give Congress and the public more information about the fund's activities and how it uses federal dollars to support its mission.
Supporters Say
Supporters would argue this bill increases transparency and accountability for a federal fund supporting community development.
Critics Say
Critics might argue that requiring testimony is unnecessary bureaucracy or could politicize financial oversight.
Proponents of the bill would likely emphasize that regular oversight ensures federal funds, like those managed by the CDFI Fund, are being used efficiently and effectively to support community development in underserved areas. They believe it promotes good governance and taxpayer accountability. Opponents might suggest that current reporting mechanisms are sufficient and that adding a discretionary annual testimony requirement could create additional administrative burdens without significantly improving oversight.