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. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI-6] · R–WI
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 22, 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.10439 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.10439 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.10439 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.10439 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 · 2026-09-16 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.
The proposed Veterans and Consumers Fair Credit Act would extend a Military Lending Act interest-rate restriction to consumer credit more broadly. It would exclude residential mortgages, certain car-purchase loans, and qualifying federal credit union loans. It would also set rules for counting credit costs, preserve stronger state protections, and allow state enforcement. The supplied text incorporates the underlying rate restriction by reference without stating its numerical limit.
This Act may be cited as the Veterans and Consumers Fair Credit Act.
section 987(b) of title 10, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Military Lending Act), shall apply to a creditor who extends consumer credit to a consumer to the same extent as such section applies to a creditor who extends consumer credit to a covered member or a dependent
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an extension of credit that is— (A) a residential mortgage; (B) a loan procured to purchase a car, when that loan is offered for the express purpose of financing the purchase and is secured by the car procured; or (C) a loan made by a Federal credit union
subject to the usury limit provided under section 107(5)(A) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1757(5)(A)), as implemented by the National Credit Union Administration Board.
the annual percentage rate applicable to an open end credit plan shall be calculated under section 107(a)(2), subject to adjustments to the amount considered a finance charge
Nothing in this section may be construed to preempt any provision of State law that provides greater protection to consumers than is provided under this section.
the attorney general of a State (or an equivalent official) may bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of that State
Section 2 would add a new section 140B to the Truth in Lending Act. Subject to its exceptions, it would apply the restriction in Military Lending Act section 987(b) to creditors extending consumer credit, using the same standard that applies to covered military members and their dependents.
Chapter 2 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 140B. Limitations on consumer credit and maximum rates of interest
Except as provided in paragraph (2), section 987(b) of title 10, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Military Lending Act), shall apply to a creditor who extends consumer credit to a consumer to the same extent as such section applies to a creditor who extends consumer credit to a covered member or a dependent with respect to a covered member (as those terms are defined in such section 987).
The extension of that restriction would exclude residential mortgages and loans expressly made to buy a car when the purchased car secures the loan—that is, serves as collateral.
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an extension of credit that is— (A) a residential mortgage; (B) a loan procured to purchase a car, when that loan is offered for the express purpose of financing the purchase and is secured by the car procured;
Loans made by federal credit unions would also be excluded from the extended restriction if subject to the separate federal credit union interest-rate limit administered by the National Credit Union Administration Board.
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an extension of credit that is—
(C) a loan made by a Federal credit union (as defined in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752)), subject to the usury limit provided under section 107(5)(A) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1757(5)(A)), as implemented by the National Credit Union Administration Board.
The Bureau's Director could not use the exemption authority in Truth in Lending Act section 105(f) to exempt credit from the new section.
The exemption authority of the Director of the Bureau under section 105(f) shall not apply with respect to this section.
For open-end credit, such as revolving credit accounts, the annual percentage rate—a yearly measure of borrowing costs—would be calculated under section 107(a)(2). Which costs count as finance charges would be adjusted under the Defense Secretary's July 22, 2015 rule.
For purposes of this section, the annual percentage rate applicable to an open end credit plan shall be calculated under section 107(a)(2), subject to adjustments to the amount considered a finance charge, as provided in the final rule issued by the Secretary of Defense on July 22, 2015, to carry out section 987 of title 10, United States Code.
For credit card accounts not secured by a home, a genuine fee other than a recurring interest rate could be left out of the finance charge if assessed in compliance with section 127(n). The bundle does not reproduce that section's requirements.
for consumer credit extended in a credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan that is not secured by a home, a bona fide fee other than a periodic rate is not a charge required to be included within the finance charge for purposes of this section if the fee is assessed in compliance with section 127(n).
That credit card fee exception would not cover credit insurance charges, fees for agreements to cancel or suspend debt, or fees for credit-related add-on products sold with the account.
Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to— (i) any credit insurance premium or fee, including any charge for single premium credit insurance, any fee for a debt cancellation contract, or any fee for a debt suspension agreement; or (ii) any fee for a credit-related ancillary product sold in connection with the credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan that is not secured by a home.
The proposed section would preserve state laws that give consumers greater protection.
Nothing in this section may be construed to preempt any provision of State law that provides greater protection to consumers than is provided under this section.
Creditors violating the new section would face the penalties and remedies incorporated from Military Lending Act section 987(f), on the same basis as violations involving covered military members or dependents. The bill does not reproduce those penalties and remedies.
(e) Penalties and remedies Section 987(f) of title 10, United States Code, shall apply to a creditor who extends consumer credit to a consumer in violation of this section to the same extent as such section 987(f) applies to a creditor who extends consumer credit to a covered member or a dependent with respect to a covered member (as those terms are defined in such section 987).
A state attorney general or equivalent official could sue on behalf of state residents within three years after a violation. The action could seek compliance and remedies under this section or other law, in a federal district court in that state or a state court there with authority over the defendant.
Not later than 3 years after the date on which a violation of this section occurs, the attorney general of a State (or an equivalent official) may bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of that State— (A) in any district court of the United States that is located in that State or in a State court that is located in that State and that has jurisdiction over the defendant; and (B) to— (i) enforce compliance with the requirements of this section or rules issued under this section; and (ii) secure remedies under this section or remedies otherwise provided under other law.
State regulators could also sue or start another appropriate proceeding within three years after a violation. This authority would cover creditors that are, or must be, chartered, incorporated, licensed, or otherwise authorized under state law, and would allow enforcement and remedies under this section or other law.
Not later than 3 years after the date on which a violation of this section occurs, a State regulator of a creditor may bring a civil action or initiate another appropriate proceeding to— (A) enforce compliance with the requirements of this section or regulations issued under this section with respect to such creditor that is, or is required to be, State-chartered, incorporated, licensed, or otherwise authorized to do business under State law; and (B) secure remedies under this section or remedies otherwise provided under other provisions of law with respect to such creditor.
Before bringing an enforcement action, state officials would have to give the Bureau's Director and any prudential regulator—the creditor's financial safety supervisor—the complete complaint and written notice. If advance notice were impracticable, they would have to provide it immediately upon starting the action. The notice would identify the parties, alleged facts, and possible need to coordinate with federal proceedings.
Before initiating an action pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) to enforce compliance with the requirements of this section or rules issued under this section, a State attorney general or State regulator shall timely provide a copy of the complete complaint to be filed and written notice describing such action or proceeding to the Director of the Bureau and the prudential regulator, if any, of the creditor.
If prior notice is not practicable, the State attorney general or State regulator shall provide a copy of the complete complaint and the notice to Director of the Bureau and the prudential regulator, if any, immediately upon instituting the action.
The notice required under this paragraph shall, at a minimum, describe— (i) the identity of the parties; (ii) the alleged facts underlying the proceeding; and (iii) whether there may be a need to coordinate the prosecution of the proceeding so as not to interfere with any action, including any rulemaking, undertaken by Director of the Bureau, a prudential regulator, or another Federal agency.
The Bureau could join a state enforcement case as a party. After joining, it could move the case to the appropriate federal district court, participate on all issues, and appeal orders or judgments like other parties.
the Bureau may— (A) intervene in the action as a party; (B) upon intervening, remove the action to the appropriate United States district court (if the action was not originally brought there) and be heard on all matters arising in the action; and (C) appeal any order or judgment, to the same extent as any other party in the proceeding may.
Within one year after enactment of the new section, the Bureau would have to consult the Defense Secretary, issue implementing rules, and notify Congress and the public, including through its website. This duty would apply notwithstanding section 1027(o) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, whose text is not supplied.
Notwithstanding section 1027(o) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5517(o)), not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, the Bureau, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall— (A) issue rules carrying out this section; and (B) notify Congress and the public, including on the website of the Bureau, regarding the issuance of the rules required under subparagraph (A).
The Bureau's rules would have to be consistent with Defense Department rules implementing section 987. They could not give consumers less protection than covered military members receive under the applicable provisions of the July 22, 2015 rules.
The rules issued by the Bureau under paragraph (1)— (A) shall be consistent with rules issued by the Secretary of Defense to carry out section 987 of title 10, United States Code; and (B) may not provide lesser protection to consumers than the protection afforded covered members, as that term is defined in section 987 of title 10, United States Code, in applicable provisions in the rules issued by the Secretary of Defense on July 22, 2015, to carry out such section 987.
The new requirements would apply to credit extended after the earlier of the rules' compliance date or 18 months after enactment. These are conditional deadlines, not fixed calendar dates.
The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to an extension of credit made after the earlier of— (1) the date on which the rules issued by the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection under subsection (g) of section 140B of the Truth in Lending Act, as added by subsection (a) of this section, require compliance; and (2) the date that is 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
The official-actions snapshot updated September 22, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Financial Services on September 16, 2026. That snapshot does not establish subsequent legislative action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-22T15:22:32Z. 2026-09-16: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. 2026-09-16: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-16. 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 provision unrelated to the consumer-credit policy was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the content or attachment history of other versions.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied text contains narrow exceptions to the proposed credit restriction and cost calculation. Identifying these exceptions does not establish that they are unjustified or improper.
Federal credit unions would receive an institution-specific exception: their loans subject to the separate federal credit union interest-rate limit would be excluded from the proposed extension of the Military Lending Act restriction.
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an extension of credit that is—
(C) a loan made by a Federal credit union (as defined in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752)), subject to the usury limit provided under section 107(5)(A) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1757(5)(A)), as implemented by the National Credit Union Administration Board.
Creditors offering credit card accounts not secured by a home would receive a targeted fee-calculation exception: qualifying genuine fees other than periodic rates could be excluded from finance charges. Credit insurance, debt cancellation or suspension fees, and fees for credit-related add-on products would not qualify.
for consumer credit extended in a credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan that is not secured by a home, a bona fide fee other than a periodic rate is not a charge required to be included within the finance charge for purposes of this section if the fee is assessed in compliance with section 127(n).
Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to— (i) any credit insurance premium or fee, including any charge for single premium credit insurance, any fee for a debt cancellation contract, or any fee for a debt suspension agreement; or (ii) any fee for a credit-related ancillary product sold in connection with the credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan that is not secured by a home.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 22, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI