Bill · H.R. 5396· House(119-HR-5396)
Price Stability Act of 2026
- Introduced
- 9/16/2025
- Last activity
- 6/24/2026 — Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 616.
- Sponsored by
- J. Hill
- Cosponsors
- - 2 - 0
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
This bill, titled the "Price Stability Act of 2026," seeks to amend the Federal Reserve Act. The primary purpose is to change the mandate given to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee. It specifically aims to remove the requirement for these entities to focus on maximum employment. Instead, the amendment shifts the focus solely to stable prices.
Yes· 3 of 8
Is this likely to slow the rise in prices?+3
By narrowing the Federal Reserve's mandate solely to stable prices, the bill prioritizes inflation control over employment goals.
Would high-income households be better off under this?+2
Prioritizing price stability can benefit those with significant assets by maintaining the purchasing power of money.
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?+2
A mandate focused strictly on price stability may protect the value of accumulated wealth against inflation.
The opposite· 3 of 20
Would union members be better off under this?-5
The removal of the employment mandate reduces the central bank's institutional obligation to support high levels of job availability.
Is this likely to create jobs?-5
The bill removes the requirement for the Federal Reserve to focus on maximum employment, which could reduce institutional priority on job creation.
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?-4
The removal of the maximum employment mandate may negatively impact low-income households by reducing the emphasis on job availability.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- There are no specific positive impacts or benefits for individuals or groups of people explicitly detailed within the provided text.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- The removal of the mandate to focus on maximum employment could be seen as a negative change because it strips away the current requirement for the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee to consider employment levels. This change is found in Section 2 of the bill, which strikes "maximum employment, stable prices" and replaces it with "stable prices."
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Billionaires+2Good For High Income Households+2Good For High Net Worth Individuals+2Good For Retirees+2Good For Ultra High Net Worth Individuals+2Good For Business Owners+1Good For Farmers+1Good For Union Workers-5Good For Immigrants-4Good For Low Income Households-4Good For People With Disabilities-4Good For African Americans-3Good For Hispanic Americans-3Good For Native Americans-3Good For Veterans-3Good For Women-3Good For Asian Americans-2Good For L G B T Q Community-2Good For Men-2Good For Middle Class Households-2Good For Rural Residents-2Good For Students-2Good For Urban Residents-2Good For White Americans-2Good For Gun Owners-1
- Economy And Finance
- Reduces Inflation+3Increases Job Creation-5Improves Economic Growth-2
- 6/24/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 119-710.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 616.
- 5/13/2026
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 30 - 21.
- 9/16/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Byron DonaldsRepublican · Florida
Marlin StutzmanRepublican · Indiana