FRAME Act Gives Congress 60 Days to Block Any Fed Spending Over $100 Million

The Federal Reserve Accountability for Major Expenditures Act—the FRAME Act—is a bill designed to put a hard check on the Federal Reserve’s biggest purchases. Specifically, if the Fed wants to spend more than $100 million on a single capital expenditure, like buying a new building, upgrading its massive IT infrastructure, or making a major investment, Congress gets a special 60-day window to veto it. This isn't about monetary policy—setting interest rates or managing the money supply—it’s strictly about the Fed’s physical assets and major investments, essentially treating the Fed's balance sheet for property and equipment like it needs legislative sign-off.

The $100 Million Trigger

Think of the $100 million threshold as the tripwire. When the Fed plans a purchase that big, the clock starts ticking for Congress. The bill creates a “joint resolution of disapproval” process, which is policy-speak for a legislative kill switch. If Congress passes this resolution within 60 calendar days of the Fed notifying them, the spending is blocked. The goal here is clear: increase congressional oversight and transparency over the Fed’s non-monetary operations. For taxpayers, this is presented as a win for accountability, ensuring that major institutional spending doesn't happen without elected officials getting a mandatory look.

Fast-Track to a Veto

Where things get interesting—and potentially disruptive—is the legislative process itself. This isn't a normal bill that gets bogged down in committee for months. The FRAME Act sets up a legislative express lane. In the House, committees have only 20 calendar days to review the resolution; if they miss that deadline, the resolution is automatically discharged and moves to the floor. By the 24th day, the House can call for an immediate vote, waiving all procedural objections. The Senate is equally rigid, limiting debate to just 10 hours total, split evenly between parties, with no amendments allowed. They have to vote between the 16th and 24th day.

Operational Whiplash for the Fed

This expedited process is a double-edged sword. While it ensures Congress can act quickly, it severely limits the time for thoughtful, expert deliberation on complex financial matters. For the Federal Reserve, this means that major, long-term capital projects—say, a critical upgrade to the payment processing systems that keep the financial markets running, which easily costs over $100 million—could be held hostage to a rapid, highly politicized vote. The Fed would lose the ability to make timely, independent decisions on its own infrastructure, which could introduce instability and delay essential upgrades. Imagine trying to run a major corporation where any large IT purchase could be killed by a political vote within a 60-day window; it makes operational planning a nightmare.

The Cost of Speed

The major tension here is between accountability and operational independence. Proponents of the FRAME Act would argue that the Fed is too opaque and that $100 million is a significant public expenditure that requires a check. However, the mechanism chosen—a rapid, non-debatable, no-amendment veto—is designed to bypass the usual legislative process that encourages thorough review. This means complex decisions about the Fed's physical security, technology, or real estate could be decided based on political expediency rather than sound fiscal or operational analysis. While the bill brings transparency to the Fed’s checkbook, the cost might be the introduction of political risk into the Fed’s ability to manage its critical infrastructure effectively and efficiently.