PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 114-366.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Apr 14, 2016
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.) (Sec. 1) This bill directs the Federal Reserve Board to revise the Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement on the Assessment of Financial and Managerial Factors to raise its consolidated asset threshold from $1 billion to $5 billion.
The bill exempts from the leverage and risk-based capital requirements of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act any bank holding company or savings and loan holding company that is subject to the application of such Statement.
People & committees
Rep. Love, Mia B. [R-UT-4] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 114-366.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 247 - 171 (Roll no. 149). (text: CR H1691)
House roll call 149 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 247 - 171 (Roll no. 149).(text: CR H1691)
House roll call 149 · Individual votesOn motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair Agreed to by recorded vote: 241 - 177 (Roll No. 148).
House roll call 148 · Individual votesMr. Hensarling moved to table the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair (consideration: CR H1711-1712)
Ms. Moore appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was then put on sustaining the ruling of the chair.
Mr. Hensarling raised a point of order against the motion to recommit with instructions. Mr. Hensarling stated that the amendment contained provisions not germane to the bill. Sustained by the Chair. (consideration: CR H1711-1712)
Point of order sustained against the motion to recommit with instructions.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Moore motion to recommit with instructions, pending reservation of a point of order. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment providing for consideration of H. Con. Res. 125, establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for FY 2017.
Ms. Moore moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Financial Services. (consideration: CR H1711; text: CR H1711)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Kelly (IL) amendment No. 1, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Kelly (IL) demanded the yeas and nays and pursuant to a previous order of the House, the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
The previous question was ordered on the amendment and on the bill pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H1698)
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 671, the House proceeded with ten minutes of debate on the Kelly (IL) amendment.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 3791.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3340 and H.R. 3791. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 3340 and H.R. 3791.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 671. (consideration: CR H1691-1699, H1710-1712)
ORDER OF PROCEDURE - Mr. Hensarling asked unanimous consent that the question of adopting amendment No. 1 on H.R. 3791 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX. Agreed to without objection.
Rule H. Res. 671 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 671 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3340 and H.R. 3791. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 3340 and H.R. 3791.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 360.
Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 114-474.
Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 114-474.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 33 - 21.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. 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.3791 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.3791 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.3791 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.3791 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.