PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Apr 26, 2016
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Investor Clarity and Bank Parity Act
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 to permit a hedge fund or private equity fund to share the same name, or a variation of the same name, as a banking entity that is an investment advisor to the hedge fund or private equity fund, if:
the investment advisor is not an insured depository institution, a company that controls an insured depository institution, or a company treated as a bank holding company for purposes of the International Banking Act of 1978 relating to nonbanking activities of foreign banks;
the investment advisor does not share the same name, or a variation of it, as an insured depository institution, a company that controls an insured depository institution, or a company treated as a bank holding company for the specified purposes of the International Banking Act of 1978; and
the name does not contain the word "bank."
People & committees
Rep. Capuano, Michael E. [D-MA-7] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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 motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 395 - 3 (Roll no. 165). (text: CR H1949)
House roll call 165 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 395 - 3 (Roll no. 165).(text: CR H1949)
House roll call 165 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1988-1989)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4096.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1949-1950)
Mr. Garrett moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 403.
Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 114-523.
Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 114-523.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Hearings Held by the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Prior to Referral.
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.4096 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.4096 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.4096 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.4096 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.