H. Rpt. 119-559 accompanies financial services legislation titled "Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives with Respect to the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Financial Services and Housing Industries". Financial bills regulate banks, securities markets, consumer finance, insurance, housing finance, cryptocurrency, or anti-money-laundering. The Financial Services Committee's report explains the financial regulatory changes, the problems they address, the compliance implications for institutions, and potential effects on consumers and markets. Financial services reports often balance industry concerns against consumer protection goals.
Official report text. Use Ctrl+F / Cmd+F to search within the document.
House Report 119-559 - EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING INDUSTRIES
[House Report 119-559]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 119-559
=======================================================================
EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH RESPECT TO
THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND
HOUSING INDUSTRIES
----------------
March 19, 2026.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
----------------
Mr. Hill of Arkansas, from the Committee on Financial Services,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H. Res. 1007]
The Committee on Financial Services, to whom was referred
the resolution (H. Res. 1007) expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives with respect to the use of artificial
intelligence in the financial services and housing industries,
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with
amendments and recommends that the resolution as amended be
agreed to.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 3
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 3
Related Hearings................................................. 4
Committee Votes.................................................. 4
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 6
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 6
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 6
New Budget Authority and CBO Cost Estimate....................... 6
Unfunded Mandates Statement...................................... 6
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 6
Minority Views................................................... 7
The amendments are as follows:
Strike the preamble and insert the following:
Whereas generative artificial intelligence (``AI'') has the potential to
provide significant opportunities as well as risks across the financial
services and housing industries;
Whereas AI is playing a significant role in the financial services and
housing industries and continues to be adopted in various forms;
Whereas regulatory agencies should expand knowledge of governance and
regulatory best practices with respect to AI;
Whereas the United States capital markets market participants are
leveraging AI to enhance research capabilities, market surveillance, and
trading and execution;
Whereas the United States housing market participants are using AI to
enhance underwriting, mortgage servicing, and tenant screening;
Whereas United States financial institutions are exploring the use of AI to
enhance customer service capabilities, expand the pool of loan applicants,
increase repayment rates, and decrease fraudulent payments;
Whereas United States financial firms are leveraging AI to streamline
compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and sanctions laws as well as enhance
cybersecurity operations from evolving threats;
Whereas the use of generative AI is enhancing both employee productivity
and consumer experiences across the financial services and housing
industries;
Whereas regulators should understand any financial stability risks related
to financial institutions' growing use of AI, including whether such use
increases herding behavior;
Whereas AI can be exploited by malicious actors;
Whereas the use of AI in automated decision-making does not relieve
financial institutions from their obligations under anti-discrimination
laws, and may lead to explainability challenges due to the complexity and
opacity of certain AI models;
Whereas small community financial institutions, such as rural depository
institutions, minority depository institutions, and community development
financial institutions may lack the resources to develop, train, and deploy
AI models compared to larger institutions;
Whereas financial institutions' use of AI may increase their direct and
indirect reliance on third-party services; and
Whereas AI has the potential of unlocking valuable new use cases for
financial services and housing under risk-based guardrails: Now, therefore,
be it
Strike all that follows after the resolving clause and insert
the following:
That the House of Representatives--
(1) given the critical role of the financial and housing
markets, the Committee on Financial Services of the House of
Representatives should play a leading role in making public
policy regarding the adoption of AI in the financial services
and housing industries;
(2) the Committee on Financial Services should consider how
to promote a dynamic, pro-consumer, pro-investor, and pro-
innovation culture for AI across the financial services and
housing industries;
(3) the Committee on Financial Services must ensure
regulators apply and enforce existing laws, including anti-
discrimination laws, and assess regulatory gaps and ineffective
regulations as market participants adopt AI;
(4) the Committee on Financial Services should support
regulators assessing the impact on innovation and cost
effectiveness before issuing AI-related rules;
(5) the Committee on Financial Services must ensure any
regulatory framework related to AI does not disproportionately
burden smaller firms;
(6) the Committee on Financial Services should ensure the
financial regulators have the appropriate focus and tools to
oversee new products and services;
(7) the Committee on Financial Services should continue to
evaluate State laws and consider reforms to privacy laws for
financial institutions and firms given the importance of
financial data to AI;
(8) the Committee on Financial Services should continue to
consider how to strengthen cybersecurity standards for AI
systems;
(9) the Committee on Financial Services should work with
financial regulators to understand AI's impact on the
workforce;
(10) the Committee on Financial Services should ensure United
States global leadership on AI development and use; and
(11) the Committee on Financial Services should safeguard
taxpayer interests as emerging technologies continue to evolve.
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
H. Res. 1007, Expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives with respect to the use of artificial
intelligence in the financial services and housing industries,
was introduced on January 16, 2026, by Republican
Representative Bryan Steil (WI-01) and Democratic
Representative Stephen Lynch (MA-08). This resolution expresses
the sense of the House of Representatives that artificial
intelligence (AI) presents both significant opportunities and
risks in financial services and housing, and that AI is already
widely deployed in the financial services and housing sectors.
The resolution expresses that regulatory agencies should expand
their knowledge of governance and regulatory best practices
with the technology. The resolution calls for the House
Committee on Financial Services to play a leading role in
developing pro-innovation policy for AI adoption in the
financial services and housing sectors, while ensuring
regulators apply and enforce existing laws. The resolution also
directs the Committee to evaluate regulatory gaps and burdens
as AI is adopted within its jurisdiction, and ensure regulators
assess regulatory frameworks, data privacy, cybersecurity, and
whether they have the appropriate tools to oversee adoption of
this technology. The resolution also calls for the Committee to
safeguard taxpayer interests as emerging technologies, like AI,
continue to evolve.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
AI technology has been used in financial services for
decades and has grown exponentially in recent years. As more
advanced tools, including agentic and generative AI, are
deployed, preserving American leadership in AI development and
deployment is vital, especially in financial services.
Regulatory frameworks must be fit-for-purpose, advancing
innovation and consumer benefits while supporting American
competitiveness. In general, AI deployment in financial
services does not require a new regulatory regime, as existing
laws and regulations, including those related to anti-
discrimination requirements, apply regardless of the technology
used. Targeted rulemaking or legislation should be considered
only where advanced AI systems are not already addressed under
current law.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
119TH CONGRESS
On January 16, 2026, Representative Steil introduced H.
Res. 1007, with Representative Lynch as original cosponsor.
Representatives Sam Liccardo (D-CA) and Troy Downing (R-MT)
were added subsequently as cosponsors.
The resolution was referred solely to the Committee on
Financial Services. A discussion draft version of the
resolution was attached to the December 10, 2025, hearing
titled, ``From Principles to Policy: Enabling 21st Century AI
Innovation in Financial Services.''
On January 22, 2026, the Committee on Financial Services
met in open session to consider, among others, H. Res. 1007.
The Committee ordered H. Res. 1007, as amended, to be reported
with a favorable recommendation to the House of
Representatives.
118TH CONGRESS
On November 26, 2024, Representative Patrick McHenry (R-NC)
introduced H. Res. 1600, Expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives with respect to the use of artificial
intelligence in the financial services and housing industries,
with Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA) as original cosponsor.
This bill is an earlier iteration of H. Res. 1007. The
resolution was referred solely to the Committee on Financial
Services. There was no further action on H. Res. 1600 in the
118th Congress.
RELATED HEARINGS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(6) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following hearing was used to
develop H. Res. 1007:
On December 10, 2025, the Committee on Financial Services
held a hearing titled, ``From Principles to Policy: Enabling
21st Century AI Innovation in Financial Services.'' The
Committee heard testimony from: Ms. Jeanette Manfra, Vice
President and Global Head of Risk & Compliance, Google Cloud;
Mr. Tal Cohen, President, Nasdaq; Mr. Nicholas Stevens, Vice
President, Product, Artificial Intelligence & Zillow Home
Loans, Zillow; Ms. Wendi Whitmore, Chief Security Intelligence
Officer, Palo Alto Networks; and Mr. Joshua Branch, Big Tech
Accountability Advocate, Public Citizen.
COMMITTEE VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee Report to include record
votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments
thereto.
On January 22, 2026, the Committee ordered H. Res. 1007, as
amended, to be reported with a favorable recommendation to the
House by a recorded vote of 54 yeas and 0 nays, a quorum being
present. (Record Vote No. FC-235).
Before the question to report was called, the Committee
adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute, designated
STEIWI_037, offered by Representative Steil, making minor edits
and technical changes. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
Pursuant to clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the findings and recommendations of
the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives
are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.
PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the goal of H. Res. 1007 is to
acknowledge AI's growing role in the financial services and
housing sectors and emphasizes the need for appropriate
oversight, enforcement of existing laws, strong consumer
protections, and a pro-innovation approach by the Committee
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the
costs that would be incurred in carrying out H. Res. 1007. The
Committee has requested but not received a cost estimate from
the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. However,
pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee will adopt as its own
the cost estimate by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office once it has been prepared.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CBO COST ESTIMATE
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee notes that
these requirements do not apply to committee reports on simple
resolutions.
UNFUNDED MANDATES STATEMENT
Section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not
apply to committee reports on simple resolutions.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
H. Res. 1007 does not repeal or amend any section of a
statute. Therefore, the Office of Legislative Counsel did not
prepare the report required under clause 3(e) of rule XIII of
the House of Representatives.
MINORITY VIEWS
This resolution reiterates themes from the 118th Bipartisan
AI Working Group and is centered on discussing the use of AI in
the financial services and housing industries and the important
role the House Financial Services Committee (``Committee'')
must play in regulating AI. In the 118th Congress, this
bipartisan resolution was led by Chair McHenry and co-led by
Ranking Member Waters. Among other items, the latest version
from the 119th Congress incorporates language that ensures the
Committee continues to evaluate State AI laws, and recognizes
the importance of safeguarding taxpayer interests, like
preventing the possibility of federal bailouts for AI companies
in the event of a collapse.
In January 2024, former Chair Patrick McHenry and Ranking
Member Waters established the bipartisan AI Working Group
(``Working Group'').\1\ Throughout the six roundtable
discussions, participating Members explored how AI is being
deployed in the financial services and housing industries, AI's
impact on the financial services workforce, and equitable
access and affordability in housing and insurance. The
Committee also produced a bipartisan staff report, containing
the key takeaways below.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Republican Members included Chairman Patrick McHenry (NC-
10), Congressman French Hill (AR-02), Congresswoman Young Kim (CA-40),
Congressman Mike Flood (NE-01), Congressman Zach Nunn (IA-03), and
Congresswoman Erin Houchin (IN-09). The Democratic Members included
Ranking Member Maxine Waters (CA-43), Congressman Stephen F. Lynch (MA-
08), Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia (TX-29), Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley
(MA-07), Congressman Sean Casten (IL-06), and Congresswoman Brittany
Pettersen (CO-07).
\2\HFSC, Ranking Member Waters, Chair McHenry, Representatives Hill
and Lynch Release Bipartisan AI Working Group Staff Report (July 18,
2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the Critical Role of the Financial and
Housing Markets, the Committee Should Play a Leading
Role in Overseeing the Adoption of AI in the Financial
Services and Housing Industries.
The Committee Must Ensure Regulators Apply
and Enforce Existing Laws, Including Anti-
Discrimination Laws, and Assess Regulatory Gaps as
Market Participants Adopt AI.
The Committee Should Ensure the Financial
Regulators Have the Appropriate Focus and Tools to
Oversee New Products and Services.
The Committee Should Continue to Consider
How to Reform Data Privacy Laws Given the Importance of
Data, Especially Consumer Data, to AI.
The Committee Should Work with Financial
Regulators to Understand AI's Impact on the Workforce.
The Committee Should Ensure U.S. Global
Leadership on AI Development and Use.
In addition to including the bipartisan staff report's key
takeaways (above), this resolution responds to major
developments in the AI ecosystem. One of the changes in the
resolution consists of adding new language directing the
Committee to continue to evaluate State laws. As newer
developments in AI have captured the public's attention,
including those related to Generative AI (``Gen AI'') and
agentic AI (``AAI''), states have been at the forefront in
establishing regulations for AI companies, such as developing
child safety standards and consumer protections in response to
growing harms such as deepfake abuse, scams, and more.\3\ At
the same time, since taking office, the Trump Administration
has pursued different strategies in an attempt to restrict
states' authority on AI legislation and oversight, allowing AI
companies to operate with less accountability and fewer
guardrails. After rescinding former President Biden's key AI
Executive Orders\4\ and guidance, many of which included
protections against algorithmic discrimination, federal
standards on transparency, and equity-focused guardrails,
President Trump released several Executive Orders and America's
AI Action Plan centered on deregulation. Specifically, Trump's
December 11, 2025 Executive Order established an AI Litigation
Task Force, directing the Attorney General to launch legal
challenges against states, and ordered federal regulators to
withhold federal funding, like broadband grants and more, from
states with ``onerous'' AI laws.\5\ The December 11 Executive
Order considers a sequenced process in which the Department of
Commerce must first publish a list of states with ``onerous''
AI laws by mid-March 2026, followed by the AI Litigation Task
Force's legal actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\See, e.g., Latham & Watkins, California Assumes Role as Lead US
Regulator of AI (Oct. 15, 2025); Governor Gavin Newsom, Trump's AI
executive order advances corruption, not innovation (Dec. 11, 2025);
Alex Siegal & Ivan Garcia, A Deep Dive into Colorado's Artificial
Intelligence Act, National Association of Attorneys General (Oct. 26,
2024); and The Colorado law's effective date was later extended to June
30, 2026. Michael J. Laszlo, Colorado's AI law delated until June 2026,
Clark Hill (Aug. 28, 2025).
\4\President Biden, Executive Order 14110: Safe, Secure, and
Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (Oct. 30,
2023).
\5\President Trump, Executive Order 14179: Removing Barriers to
American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence (Jan. 23, 2025);
President Trump, Winning the Race: America's AI Action Plan (July 23,
2025); President Trump, Executive Order 14365: Ensuring A National
Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (Dec. 11, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another update in the resolution includes new language
ensuring the Committee safeguards taxpayer interests as
emerging technologies continue to evolve. In recent years,
concerns about a potential AI bubble burst have amplified due
to the sharp increase in the valuations of AI-exposed
companies, significant continued investments in building AI
infrastructure across the country, and the circular investing
in the AI ecosystem.\6\ In circular investing within the AI
ecosystem, model companies, infrastructure providers, and large
cloud service providers are investing in each other and
blurring the lines between customers, suppliers, and capacity
providers.\7\ The infrastructure required to build AI capacity
is also being sold as a new asset class in 2025. AI hardware--
that is, the AI Graphics Processing Units, or GPUs--are being
used as collateral for bonds that are packaged into asset-
backed securities (ABS).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\On November 14, 2025, Rep. Foster sent a letter to the FSOC
asking it to evaluate the financial risks of an AI bubble. See
Punchbowl News, House Dems prep AI warning to FSOC (Nov. 14, 2025).
\7\In circular investing typically, ``One company pays money to
another as part of a transaction, and then the other company turns
around and buys the first company's products or services. Without the
initial transaction, the other company might not be able to make the
purchase. The funding mechanism could take the form of an investment, a
loan, a lease or something else.'' See Jonathan Weil, Is the Flurry of
Circular AI Deals a Win-Win--or Sign of a Bubble?, Wall Street Journal
(Oct. 22, 2025); and Goldman Sachs Research, AI: In a Bubble? (Oct. 22,
2025).
\8\See, e.g., Silicon to Securities: How GPUs Became AAA Rated ABS
Assets, Medium (Jul. 4, 2025); and Securitizing AI: The Role of Data
Center ABS & CMBS (Feb. 4, 2025). Furthermore, a recent investing
spree, including a deal from Blackstone to refinance $3.46 billion in
CMBS backed by 10 data centers, has raised concerns that ``A.I.
investments are turning into a game of musical chairs whose financial
instruments are reminiscent of the 2008 financial crisis.'' See Ian
Frisch, Debt Has Entered the A.I. Boom, New York Times (Nov. 8, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 5, 2025 OpenAI's Chief Financial Officer, Sarah
Friar sparked controversy in what she later clarified was a
misstatement.\9\ In her original statement, Friar suggested a
``backstop'' or government ``guarantee, that allows the
financing to happen'' for the company's massive investments in
AI data centers and chips.\10\ After receiving widespread
criticism, she later clarified that the private sector and
government would have to play their part in constructing
industrial capacity, but that OpenAI was ``not seeking a
government backstop for [their] infrastructure commitments.\11\
However, according to a securities filing, OpenAI lost more
than $12 billion in the third quarter, raising concerns about
how the company will fund these commitments.\12\ David Sacks,
the White House crypto and AI czar, later emphasized that there
would be no federal bailout for AI companies.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Clare Duffy, Why OpenAI went into crisis PR mode Thursday, CNN
(Nov. 8, 2025); LinkedIn, Sarah Friar (accessed Dec. 5, 2025).
\10\OpenAI Wants Federal Backstop for New Investments, WSJ (Nov. 5,
2025).
\11\LinkedIn, Sarah Friar (accessed Dec. 5, 2025).
\12\Deepa Seetharaman, et al., OpenAI discussed government loan
guarantees for chip plants, not data centers, Atlman says, Reuters
(Nov. 6, 2025).
\13\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, we support H. Res. 1007.
Sincerely,
Maxine Waters,
Ranking Member.
Stephen F. Lynch,
Al Green,
Bill Foster,
Joyce Beatty,
Sylvia R. Garcia,
Nikema Williams,
Members of Congress.
[all]