Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 4607

Should Financial Regulators Review Current Rules More Frequently to Ensure They’re Not Outdated?

Argument in favor

Financial regulators should conduct more frequent and expansive reviews of existing rules to ensure that regulations aren’t outdated, duplicative, or overly burdensome — and if they are they should consider tailoring them.

Zak's Opinion
···
03/06/2018
In a perfect world, we would be able to rely on regulators to review rules to keep up with the ever changing economy. This is a good idea, but I fear that it has the potential to be abused by those who simply would wish to undo the protections that are available to the average person. Those protections are few enough as it is.
Like (22)
Follow
Share
Raymond's Opinion
···
03/07/2018
Only ios they move slowly, takes years for th eeffect to show.
Like (3)
Follow
Share
Tooluser1's Opinion
···
02/28/2018
Cutting outdated regulations benefits everyone.
Like (2)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

While it’s important for financial regulators to review rules to ensure they’re serving the public interest, this bill’s approach is too focused on relieving burdens on businesses and not focused enough on protecting consumers.

Laura's Opinion
···
02/27/2018
Adjust accordingly, but do not deregulate for deregulation’s sake. Keep the consumer protected from fraudulent banking standards.
Like (108)
Follow
Share
Michael777's Opinion
···
02/26/2018
Oh look. The cosponsors of this bill have accepted thousands of dollars from financial industries, hence why this bill mostly talks about removing regulations from big businesses and says almost nothing on consumer protection. Follow the money, people!
Like (88)
Follow
Share
Christina's Opinion
···
02/27/2018
I agree with this statement from the committee report: "Any comprehensive regulatory review should not be one-sided and focused on deregulating the industry, but rather seek a holistic approach to improve the overall regulatory framework to ensure it is truly working in the public’s interest. This means ensuring the review criteria is balanced, and the process encourages regulators to strengthen protections for consumer, investors, and taxpayers, not simply weaken regulations for megabanks and other large financial businesses." Deregulation for the sake of deregulation is not a sound economic or social policy and would result in gross violations of consumers' rights.
Like (32)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
  • The house Passed March 6th, 2018
    Roll Call Vote 264 Yea / 143 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Financial Services
    IntroducedDecember 11th, 2017

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

What is House Bill H.R. 4607?

This bill — the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act — would expand required reviews of existing financial regulations and have them occur every 7 years, as opposed to every 10 years under current law. After carrying out the review, regulators would be required to consider tailoring regulations to limit burdens on covered businesses and individuals if regulations are found to be outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, or overly burdensome. Reviews would cover all regulated institutions, as opposed to only insured depository institutions under current law. These reviews are required by the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA) of 1996.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the National Credit Union Administration would assist the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Federal Reserve Board. Currently, the CFPB doesn’t participate in reviews while the NCUA voluntarily participated in the most recent review. Findings from the CFPB’s existing 5 year reviews of regulations would be included in the EGRPRA reviews so the process isn’t duplicative and doesn’t overlap.

Impact

Financial institutions; and financial regulators.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 4607

$3.00 Million
The CBO estimates that enacting this bill would increase spending by $3 million over the 2018-2027 for the CFPB to hire three additional employees to conduct the required reviews and analyses.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) introduced this bill to strengthen, improve, and expand the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction (EGRPRA) Act’s review process:

“In the short time I have been in Congress, one truth I have learned is that there are some bureaucrats who never saw a regulation they didn’t like, no matter how outdated, non-relevant or burdensome it may be. The Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act requires financial regulatory agencies to complete a review of their regulations every seven years and identify those regulations that are duplicative, outdated or over-burdensome. The CRRA will require these agencies to eliminate, modify or tailor unnecessary regulations every seven years, not just pencil-whip a report to Congress, as is required by the current EGRPRA laws. This bill is about rightsizing government regulators so they are more efficient, effective, and up-to-date.”

The majority of the House Democrats on the Financial Services Committee opposed this bill, offering this explanation in the committee report:

“Any comprehensive regulatory review should not be one-sided and focused on deregulating the industry, but rather seek a holistic approach to improve the overall regulatory framework to ensure it is truly working in the public’s interest. This means ensuring the review criteria is balanced, and the process encourages regulators to strengthen protections for consumer, investors, and taxpayers, not simply weaken regulations for megabanks and other large financial businesses. Unfortunately, H.R. 4607 does not provide such a balanced regulatory review approach.”

This legislation passed the House Financial Services Committee on a 38-17 vote and has the support nine bipartisan cosponsors in the House, including seven Republicans and two Democrats.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: Willard / iStock)

AKA

Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act

Official Title

To amend the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 to ensure that Federal financial regulators perform a comprehensive review of regulations to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements imposed on covered persons, and for other purposes.

    In a perfect world, we would be able to rely on regulators to review rules to keep up with the ever changing economy. This is a good idea, but I fear that it has the potential to be abused by those who simply would wish to undo the protections that are available to the average person. Those protections are few enough as it is.
    Like (22)
    Follow
    Share
    Adjust accordingly, but do not deregulate for deregulation’s sake. Keep the consumer protected from fraudulent banking standards.
    Like (108)
    Follow
    Share
    Oh look. The cosponsors of this bill have accepted thousands of dollars from financial industries, hence why this bill mostly talks about removing regulations from big businesses and says almost nothing on consumer protection. Follow the money, people!
    Like (88)
    Follow
    Share
    I agree with this statement from the committee report: "Any comprehensive regulatory review should not be one-sided and focused on deregulating the industry, but rather seek a holistic approach to improve the overall regulatory framework to ensure it is truly working in the public’s interest. This means ensuring the review criteria is balanced, and the process encourages regulators to strengthen protections for consumer, investors, and taxpayers, not simply weaken regulations for megabanks and other large financial businesses." Deregulation for the sake of deregulation is not a sound economic or social policy and would result in gross violations of consumers' rights.
    Like (32)
    Follow
    Share
    Republicans keep finding good sounding bill descriptions that sound good but will be used to undo needed regulations/protections.
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    I was tempted to say, “Well duh!” But given the person who proposed it, and that it protects businesses more than individuals, I can’t support this. Seems like the only thing missing is an accusation against Obama.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    The only way we will see an end to this ridiculous dismantling of societal protection is by rebalancing congress. The soonest opportunity to do that, is by doing everything in our power to get Conor Lamb elected in PA-18.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    I wouldn’t trust the current GOP to review any financial regulations. They’re the most financially irresponsible group I’ve ever seen. They can’t even get their president to show his tax returns!
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Protect the consumer of the crap that’s going on
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Regulatory review should be focused on both alleviating undue burdens to businesses and to protecting the public interest. This bill seems too focused on businesses at the expense of the public interest. Financial regulations are needed to protect the economy for the benefit of all Americans.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    How is this helping consumers? It DOESN’T! Vote NO!
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    The cosponsors of this bill have accepted thousands of dollars from financial industries, hence why this bill mostly talks about removing regulations from big businesses and says almost nothing on consumer protection.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    How soon we forget 2008.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    While it’s important for financial regulators to review rules to ensure they’re serving the public interest, this bill’s approach is too focused on relieving burdens on businesses and not focused enough on protecting consumers.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    This is an attempt to weaken Dodd-Frank and will lead us back into the same disaster we found ourselves in under W Bush. Don’t destroy our economy and then make us pay to bailout the banks again.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Only ios they move slowly, takes years for th eeffect to show.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Mr Trump EO’d out most of the protective regulations that were enacted to ensure that 2008 would never happen again? What else can we do for his ‘friends’ today?😳. Just say NO to Trump/Mulvaney.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    We need financial regulators first.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Every effort should be made to protect consumers of financial products.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Financial laws and regulations are complex and change rapidly. I’m in favor of our regulators being able to stay on top of it.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE