PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Sep 9, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10112 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10112 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10112 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10112 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-17 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill proposes competitive grants to state securities and insurance regulators to address financial fraud against people age 62 and older. Regulators could use the money for investigations, enforcement, staff, equipment, public education, and stronger state protections. The proposal would require accounting and audits of grant spending. It would authorize federal funding, but that authorization would not itself provide the money.
The term eligible entity means— (A) the securities commission (or any agency or office performing like functions) of any State; and (B) the insurance department (or any agency or office performing like functions) of any State.
The term senior means any individual who has attained the age of 62 years or older.
The Commission shall carry out a program under which the Commission shall make grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities
(i) to hire staff to identify, investigate, and prosecute (through civil, administrative, or criminal enforcement actions) cases involving senior financial fraud; (ii) to fund technology, equipment, and training for regulators, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers, in order to identify, investigate, and prosecute cases involving senior financial fraud; (iii) to provide educational materials and training to seniors to increase awareness and understanding of senior financial fraud; (iv) to develop comprehensive plans to combat senior financial fraud; and (v) to enhance provisions of State law to provide protection from senior financial fraud
shall require each eligible entity that receives a grant under this section to submit to the Commission a detailed accounting of the use of grant funds
The Commission shall annually conduct an audit of the program under this section
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2030.
The proposed short title is the Empowering States to Protect Seniors from Bad Actors Act.
This Act may be cited as the Empowering States to Protect Seniors from Bad Actors Act.
The bill's findings cite Federal Trade Commission data reporting more than $10 billion in consumer fraud losses in 2023, including more than $4.6 billion from investment scams. These are statements offered as background for the proposal, not evidence of what its grants would accomplish.
Congress finds the following: (1) Data from the Federal Trade Commission shows that consumers reported losing— (A) more than $10,000,000,000 to fraud in 2023
more money to investment scams (specifically, more than $4,600,000,000) than any other category in 2023
Section 3 would replace section 989A of the Investor Protection and Securities Reform Act of 2010 with the proposed grant provisions and update the corresponding table-of-contents entry.
Section 989A of the Investor Protection and Securities Reform Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5537) is amended to read as follows:
The table of contents in section 1(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111–203) is amended by striking the item relating to section 989A and inserting the following: Sec. 989A. Grants to eligible entities for enhanced protection of senior investors and senior policyholders.
State securities regulators and insurance departments, including offices performing equivalent functions, would be eligible to compete for grants. The program would cover people age 62 and older.
(1) Eligible entity The term eligible entity means— (A) the securities commission (or any agency or office performing like functions) of any State; and (B) the insurance department (or any agency or office performing like functions) of any State. (2) Senior The term senior means any individual who has attained the age of 62 years or older.
The Commission shall carry out a program under which the Commission shall make grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities
The proposed definition of senior financial fraud would include fraudulent, illegal, unauthorized, or improper conduct by an individual—including a caregiver or someone entrusted to act for another—that exploits a senior's resources or denies rightful access to assets or benefits. It would also include conduct against a senior described in a separately referenced federal criminal provision.
The term senior financial fraud means a fraudulent or otherwise illegal, unauthorized, or improper act or process of an individual, including a caregiver or a fiduciary, that— (A) uses the resources of a senior for monetary or personal benefit, profit, or gain; (B) results in depriving a senior of rightful access to or use of benefits, resources, belongings, or assets; or (C) is an action described in section 1348 of title 18, United States Code, that is taken against a senior.
Recipients could fund staff, technology, equipment, and training to identify, investigate, and pursue senior financial fraud cases through civil, administrative, or criminal enforcement. They could also fund education for seniors, comprehensive antifraud plans, and improvements to state-law protections.
may use the grant funds— (i) to hire staff to identify, investigate, and prosecute (through civil, administrative, or criminal enforcement actions) cases involving senior financial fraud; (ii) to fund technology, equipment, and training for regulators, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers, in order to identify, investigate, and prosecute cases involving senior financial fraud; (iii) to provide educational materials and training to seniors to increase awareness and understanding of senior financial fraud; (iv) to develop comprehensive plans to combat senior financial fraud; and (v) to enhance provisions of State law to provide protection from senior financial fraud
Grant money could not pay indirect expenses, such as rent, utilities, or other general administrative costs not directly related to the program's purpose.
may not use the grant funds for any indirect expense, such as rent, utilities, or any other general administrative cost that is not directly related to the purpose of the grant program.
The administering Commission would have to make relevant program actions public. A nonbinding statement of Congress's view would encourage delegating program work to an employee or employee board experienced in working with state regulators to protect senior investors, including vulnerable investors.
the Commission shall make public relevant actions of the Commission relating to carrying out that paragraph.
It is the sense of Congress that, in carrying out paragraph (1), the Commission should use the authority of the Commission under section 4A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78d–1) to delegate the functions of the Commission under paragraph (1) to an employee or employee board that has experience working with or for State regulators on issues relating to the protection of senior investors, including such investors who are vulnerable.
Applicants would have to describe the state's senior financial fraud problem, their proposed activities, and coordination with other state efforts. Applications would need to explain how the activities would identify and protect victims, assist investigations and prosecutions, and discourage and reduce fraud. The Commission could require additional information.
An eligible entity desiring a grant under this section shall submit an application to the Commission, in such form and in such a manner as the Commission may determine
(A) an identification of the scope of the problem of senior financial fraud in the applicable State; (B) a description of how the proposed activities would— (i) protect seniors from senior financial fraud, including by proactively identifying victims of senior financial fraud; (ii) assist in the investigation and prosecution of those committing senior financial fraud; and (iii) discourage and reduce cases of senior financial fraud; and (C) a description of how the proposed activities would be coordinated with other State efforts; and (2) any other information that the Commission determines appropriate.
The Commission could set performance goals and reporting requirements. It would have to require detailed spending accounts from every recipient and conduct annual program audits to check whether money was used for its intended purposes.
may establish such performance objectives and reporting requirements for eligible entities receiving a grant under this section as the Commission determines are necessary to carry out and assess the effectiveness of the program under this section
shall require each eligible entity that receives a grant under this section to submit to the Commission a detailed accounting of the use of grant funds, which shall be submitted at such time, in such form, and containing such information as the Commission may require.
The Commission shall annually conduct an audit of the program under this section to ensure that eligible entities to which grants are made under that program are, for the year covered by the audit, using grant funds for the intended purposes of those funds.
Reports would be due to the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and House Financial Services Committee within two years and again within five years after enactment. Each report would identify grant recipients, describe supported programs, and evaluate grant effectiveness.
Not later than 2 years, and again not later than 5 years, after the date of enactment of the Empowering States to Protect Seniors from Bad Actors Act, the Commission shall submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives a report that— (A) specifies each recipient of a grant under this section; (B) includes a description of the programs that are supported by each such grant; and (C) includes an evaluation by the Commission of the effectiveness of such grants.
An eligible entity's grant could not exceed $500,000 per year. An entity serving as both its state's securities regulator and insurance department would have a higher annual cap of $1 million.
The amount of a grant to an eligible entity under this section may not exceed $500,000 each year, unless the eligible entity serves as both the securities commission (or any agency or office performing like functions), and the insurance department (or any agency or office performing like functions), of a State, in which case the maximum amount of the grant may not exceed $1,000,000 each year.
Recipients could pass funds on through subgrants when they consider that necessary or appropriate, in consultation with the Commission. Subgrants would have to support the authorized activities and follow the same prohibition on indirect expenses.
An eligible entity that receives a grant under this section may, in consultation with the Commission, make a subgrant, as the eligible entity determines is necessary or appropriate— (1) to carry out the activities described in subsection (b)(1)(A); and (2) which may not be used for any activity described in subsection (b)(1)(B).
may not use the grant funds for any indirect expense, such as rent, utilities, or any other general administrative cost that is not directly related to the purpose of the grant program.
The bill would authorize $10 million for each federal fiscal year from 2025 through 2030. This authorizes future appropriations—legislation providing money—rather than directly appropriating those amounts.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2030.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 9, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Financial Services on August 17, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-09T14:53:06Z. 2026-08-17: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. 2026-08-17: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-17. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No earmark was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal earmark status or directions in accompanying materials cannot be established from this bundle.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential carve-out was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Ordinary program eligibility and administrative grant limits were not treated as targeted benefits. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 9, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI