PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 15, 2013
Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act - Amends the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978 to require a federal financial institutions regulatory agency to make a final examination report to a financial institution within 60 days of the later of: (1) the exit interview for an examination of the institution, or (2) the provision of additional information by the institution relating to the examination.
Sets a deadline for the exit interview if a financial institution is not subject to a resident examiner program.
Sets forth examination standards for financial institutions.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits federal financial institutions regulatory agencies from requiring a well capitalized financial institution to raise additional capital in lieu of an action prohibited by the examination standards.
Establishes in the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council an Office of Examination Ombudsman.
Grants a financial institution the right to appeal a material supervisory determination contained in a final report of examination.
Requires the Ombudsman to determine the merits of the appeal on the record, after an opportunity for a hearing before an independent administrative law judge.
Declares the decision by the Ombudsman on an appeal to: (1) be the final agency action, and (2) bind the agency whose supervisory determination was the subject of the appeal and the financial institution making the appeal.
Amends the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 to require: (1) the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to establish an independent intra-agency appellate process in connection with the regulatory appeals process; and (2) appropriate safeguards to protect an insured depository institution or insured credit union from retaliation by the CFPB, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) Board, or any other federal banking agency for exercising its rights.
People & committees
Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS] · R–KS
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.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 10, 2026. 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 S.727 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 S.727 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 S.727 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 S.727 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.