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 36 · Passed House amended · Mar 6, 2018
Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 to expand the required comprehensive review of financial regulatory requirements. Specifically, the review must be completed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the National Credit Union Administration, in addition to (as required under current law) the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Federal Reserve Board.
(Sec. 3) The review must be performed at least every 7, rather than 10, years.
(Sec. 4) After performing the review, a regulator must consider tailoring regulations to limit specified burdens.
(Sec. 5) The bill specifies information and criteria the CFPB must use when conducting its review.
(Sec. 6) The bill amends the Federal Reserve Act to lower the maximum allowable amount of surplus funds of the Federal Reserve banks.
People & committees
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA-11] · R–GA
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 passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 264 - 143 (Roll no. 95). (text: CR H1382-1383)
House roll call 95 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 264 - 143 (Roll no. 95).(text: CR H1382-1383)
House roll call 95 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 182 - 228 (Roll no. 94).
House roll call 94 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1420-1421)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Clark (MA) motion to recommit, the Chair put the question on adoption of the motion and by voice vote, announced the noes had prevailed. Ms. Clark (MA) demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the motion to recommit until later in the legislative day.
The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Clark (MA) motion to recommit with instructions pending a 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 to strike on Page 3, line 21 the language "otherwise determined" and insert "such action is at the request of and for the personal gain of the President, his or her immediate family members, or senior Executive Branch officials who are required to file annual financial disclosure forms or is other determined inappropriate". Subsequently, the point of order was withdrawn.
Ms. Clark (MA) moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Financial Services. (text: CR H1389)
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 4607.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4296 and H.R. 4607. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4296 and H.R. 4607 under closed rules with one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee on Financial Services for each measure.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 747. (consideration: CR H1382-1389)
Rule H. Res. 747 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 747 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4296 and H.R. 4607. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4296 and H.R. 4607 under closed rules with one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee on Financial Services for each measure.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 433.
Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 115-573.
Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 115-573.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 38 - 17.
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.4607 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.4607 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.4607 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.4607 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.