[House Report 115-573]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


115th Congress     }                                  {       Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session        }                                  {       115-573
======================================================================



 
                  COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY REVIEW ACT

                                _______
                                

 February 23, 2018.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Hensarling, from the Committee on Financial Services, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 4607]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Financial Services, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 4607) 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regulations to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary 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, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

                          Purpose and Summary

    Introduced by Representative Barry Loudermilk on December 
11, 2017, H.R. 4607, the ``Comprehensive Regulatory Review 
Act'' amends the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA) to require the Federal Financial 
Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) and each of the 
federal financial regulators--including the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau (CFPB) and National Credit Union 
Administration (NCUA)--to conduct, at least once every seven 
years, a comprehensive review of all regulations prescribed by 
the council or the regulator. The review shall include all 
regulations issued after December 31, 2006, in order to 
identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulations and 
tailor other regulations related to insured depository 
institutions or entities that engage in offering or providing a 
consumer financial product or service and affiliates who 
provide services to them.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    The Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1996 (EGRPRA) requires the Federal Financial Institutions 
Examination Council (FFIEC), together with each appropriate 
Federal banking agency\1\, to conduct a joint review of 
existing regulations every 10 years to determine whether any 
rules are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome, and 
consider how to reduce regulatory burden while, at the same 
time, ensuring the safety and soundness and the safety and 
soundness of the financial system. As part of the review, 
EGRPRA requires these agencies to, at regular intervals, 
provide notice and solicit public comment on a particular 
category or categories of regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Appropriate Federal banking agencies as codified to 12 U.S.C. 
1813(q), include the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 
(Federal Reserve), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), 
and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The EGRPRA also requires the publication of a report that 
summarizes any significant issues raised by public comments 
received and the relative merits of such issues, as well as an 
analysis of whether the appropriate Federal banking agency is 
able to address the regulatory burdens associated with issues 
by regulation, or whether such burdens must be addressed by 
legislative action.
    The first EGRPRA review began in 2003, and its findings 
were subsequently published in a July 31, 2007 report to 
Congress. The most recent EGRPRA review, which began in 2014, 
included six Federal Register notices seeking public comment. 
In March 2017, the agencies published their final report 
detailing the conclusions of their review.\2\ The report noted 
that the regulators received over 230 written comments and 120 
oral comments and the ``report sets forth the initiatives the 
agencies have or will be undertaking to reduce regulatory 
burden while still promoting the safety and soundness of 
insured of insured depository institutions and promoting 
consumer protection.''\3\ The March 2017 report articulated 
that topics that received the most comments relates to (1) 
capital, (2) Call Reports, (3) appraisals, (4) frequency of 
safety-and-soundness bank examinations, (5) the Community 
Reinvestment Act, and (6) Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money 
Laundering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\https://www.ffiec.gov/pdf/2017_FFIEC_EGRPRA_Joint-
Report_to_Congress.pdf
    \3\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under current law, the EGRPRA does not require either the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) or the National 
Credit Union Administration (NCUA) to participate in the review 
process, because the statute does not included them in the 
definition of an ``appropriate Federal banking agency.'' In 
testimony before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and 
Consumer Credit on December 7, 2017, Mr. Brian Ducharme, 
President and CEO of MIT Federal Credit Union, headquartered in 
Cambridge, Massachusetts, testifying on behalf of the National 
Association of Federally Insured Credit Unions (NAFCU) stated, 
``NAFCU appreciates that NCUA has been voluntarily 
participating in the EGRPRA review process and we are pleased 
to see the legislation extending it to the CFPB.''
    Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act (P.L. 111-203) requires the CFPB to review its 
significant regulations and report on them five years after 
they become final. Testifying at the same December 7, 2017 
hearing, Christopher George, President and Chief Executive 
Officer, CMG Financial, on behalf of the Mortgage Bankers 
Association (MBA) noted that adding the CFPB and the NCUA to 
EGRPRA review, ``improves upon this structure by requiring an 
ongoing review during five-year cycles rather than a one-time 
review.'' Even though the NCUA has concurrently and voluntarily 
conducted its own review in a manner consistent with EGRPRA, 
H.R. 4607 ensures that all financial regulators are statutorily 
required to review--in concert--their regulations on a regular 
basis. As the MBA testified about H.R. 4607's effects to extend 
EGRPRA to the CFPB and the NCUA ``will eliminate ambiguity and 
ensure that they undertake reviews of their regulations 
consistently in the future. This is particularly important for 
the CFPB given its expansive regulatory jurisdiction and the 
frequently high costs incurred by regulated entities to comply 
with some of its regulations.''

                                Hearings

    The Committee on Financial Services' Subcommittee on 
Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit held a hearing 
examining matters relating to H.R. 4607 on December 7, 2017.

                        Committee Consideration

    The Committee on Financial Services met in open session on 
January 17 and 18, 2018, and ordered H.R. 4607 to be reported 
favorably by a recorded vote of 38 yeas to 17 nays (Record vote 
no. FC-142), a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes 
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. The 
sole recorded vote was on a motion by Chairman Hensarling to 
report the bill favorably to the House without amendment. The 
motion was agreed to by a recorded vote of 38 yeas to 17 nays 
(Record vote no. FC-142), a quorum being present.




[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                      Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the findings and recommendations of 
the Committee based on oversight activities under clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee states that H.R. 4607 
will ensure that Federal financial regulators regularly perform 
a comprehensive review of regulations to identify outdated or 
otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements.

   New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its 
own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement 
authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the 
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.

                 Congressional Budget Office Estimates

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                 Washington, DC, February 22, 2018.
Hon. Jeb Hensarling,
Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4607, the 
Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Stephen 
Rabent.
            Sincerely,
                                                Keith Hall,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 4607--Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act

    Once every 10 years, four federal banking agencies review 
all the regulations that they have issued and identify outdated 
or unnecessary regulatory requirements on banks and credit 
unions. H.R. 4607 would require those agencies and the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to complete that review more 
frequently--once every 7 years. The bill also would increase 
the scope of the required regulatory review to include 
requirements imposed on individual people or on companies that 
offer consumer financial products or services. The agencies 
would be required to tailor regulations to reduce the burden on 
such entities.
    Using information from the affected agencies, CBO estimates 
that enacting H.R. 4607 would increase direct spending by $3 
million over the 2018-2027 period for the CFPB to hire three 
additional employees to conduct the required reviews and 
analyses. The CFPB is permanently authorized to spend amounts 
transferred from the Federal Reserve.
    In addition, CBO estimates that enacting those provisions 
would increase costs for the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and 
the National Credit Union Administration to complete additional 
analyses and to do so more frequently. Costs incurred by those 
agencies are recorded in the budget as increases in direct 
spending, but they are authorized to collect premiums and fees 
from the financial institutions they regulate to cover such 
administrative expenses. Thus, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 
4607 would have no significant net effect on direct spending 
over the 2018-2027 period.
    Costs incurred by the Federal Reserve System for the same 
purposes would reduce remittances to the Treasury, which are 
recorded in the budget as revenues. CBO estimates that enacting 
H.R. 4607 would decrease revenues by less than $500,000 over 
the 2018-2027 period.
    Because H.R. 4607 would affect direct spending and 
revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4607 would not increase 
net direct spending or on-budget deficits by more than $2.5 
billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods 
beginning in 2028.
    The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
    If federal financial regulators increase fees to offset the 
costs associated with implementing the bill, H.R. 4607 would 
increase the cost of an existing mandate on private entities 
required to pay those fees. Based on information from the 
affected agencies, CBO estimates that the incremental cost of 
the mandate would fall well below the annual threshold for 
private-sector mandates established in UMRA ($156 million in 
2017, adjusted annually for inflation).
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Stephen Rabent 
(for the CFPB), Nathaniel Frentz (for the Federal Reserve), 
Sarah Puro (for the other banking regulators), and Rachel 
Austin (for mandates). The estimate was approved by H. Samuel 
Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    This information is provided in accordance with section 423 
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
    The Committee has determined that the bill does not contain 
Federal mandates on the private sector. The Committee has 
determined that the bill does not impose a Federal 
intergovernmental mandate on State, local, or tribal 
governments.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of the section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

                         Earmark Identification

    With respect to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee has carefully reviewed 
the provisions of the bill and states that the provisions of 
the bill do not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax 
benefits, or limited tariff benefits within the meaning of the 
rule.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that no 
provision of the bill establishes or reauthorizes: (1) a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program; (2) a program included in any report 
from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant 
to section 21 of Public Law 111-139; or (3) a program related 
to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance, published pursuant to the Federal Program 
Information Act (Pub. L. No. 95-220, as amended by Pub. L. No. 
98-169).

                   Disclosure of Directed Rulemaking

    Pursuant to section 3(i) of H. Res. 5, (115th Congress), 
the following statement is made concerning directed 
rulemakings: The Committee estimates that the bill requires no 
directed rulemakings within the meaning of such section.

             Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation


Section 1. Short title

    This section cites H.R. 4607 as the ``Comprehensive 
Regulatory Review Act.''

Section 2. Definitions and Amendments to the Economic Growth and 
        Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996

    This section amends Section 2001(c) of the Economic Growth 
and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 to clarify the 
definition of ``covered person'' has the same meaning given in 
section 1002 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010. 
This section also clarifies the term ``federal financial 
regulator'' includes the Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Board 
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Bureau of 
Consumer Financial Protection, and the National Credit Union 
Administration Board.

Section 3. Ensuring a comprehensive regulatory review

    This section amends Section 2222 of the Economic Growth and 
Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 to require, not less 
frequently than once every 7 years, the ``federal financial 
regulators'' to conduct a review of all regulations prescribed 
such appropriate Federal banking agency, respectively, in order 
to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory 
requirements imposed on insured depository institutions.

Section 4. Considerations for comprehensive regulatory review

    This section amends Section 2222 of the Economic Growth and 
Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 to require the 
``federal financial regulators'' to tailor other regulations 
related to ``covered persons'' in a manner that limits the 
regulatory compliance impact, cost, liability risk, and other 
burdens, unless otherwise determined by the regulators.

Section 5. Reviews conducted by the Bureau

    This section amends Section 2222 of the Economic Growth and 
Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 to make certain 
technical and conforming changes related to assessment 
conducted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection under 
section 1022(d) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 
2010.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no 
change is proposed is shown in roman):

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no 
change is proposed is shown in roman):

     ECONOMIC GROWTH AND REGULATORY PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1996


DIVISION A

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



      TITLE II--ECONOMIC GROWTH AND REGULATORY PAPERWORK REDUCTION

SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS; DEFINITIONS.

  (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Economic 
Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996''.
  (b) Table of Contents.--[Table omitted.]
  (c) Definitions.--Except as otherwise specified in this 
title, the following definitions shall apply for purposes of 
this title:
          (1) Appraisal subcommittee.--The term ``Appraisal 
        Subcommittee'' means the Appraisal Subcommittee 
        established under section 1011 of the Federal Financial 
        Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978 (as in 
        existence on the day before the date of enactment of 
        this Act).
          (2) Appropriate Federal banking agency.--The term 
        ``appropriate Federal banking agency'' has the same 
        meaning as in section 3 of the Federal Deposit 
        Insurance Act.
          (3) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Board of 
        Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
          (4) Corporation.--The term ``Corporation'' means the 
        Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
          (5) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the 
        Financial Institutions Examination Council established 
        under section 1004 of the Federal Financial 
        Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978.
          (6) Insured credit union.--The term ``insured credit 
        union'' has the same meaning as in section 101 of the 
        Federal Credit Union Act.
          (7) Insured depository institution.--The term 
        ``insured depository institution'' has the same meaning 
        as in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
          (8) Covered person.--The term ``covered person'' has 
        the meaning given such term in section 1002 of the 
        Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 
        5481).
          (9) Federal financial regulator.--The term ``Federal 
        financial regulator'' means the Office of the 
        Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit 
        Insurance Corporation, the Board of Governors of the 
        Federal Reserve System, the Bureau of Consumer 
        Financial Protection, and the National Credit Union 
        Administration Board.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle B--Streamlining Government Regulation

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 2--ELIMINATING UNNECESSARY REGULATORY BURDENS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2222. REQUIRED REVIEW OF REGULATIONS.

  (a) In General.--Not less frequently than once every [10 
years] 7 years, the Council and [each appropriate Federal 
banking agency represented on the Council shall conduct a 
review] the Federal financial regulators shall each conduct a 
comprehensive review of all regulations prescribed by the 
Council or by any [such appropriate Federal banking agency] 
such Federal financial regulator, jointly or otherwise,, 
respectively, in order to identify outdated or otherwise 
unnecessary regulatory requirements imposed on insured 
depository institutions or covered persons.
  (b) Process.--In conducting the review under subsection (a), 
the Council or [the appropriate Federal banking agency] the 
appropriate Federal financial regulator shall--
          (1) categorize the regulations described in 
        subsection (a) by type (such as consumer regulations, 
        safety and soundness regulations, or such other 
        designations as determined by the Council, or [the 
        appropriate Federal banking agency] the appropriate 
        Federal financial regulator); and
          (2) at regular intervals, provide notice and solicit 
        public comment on a particular category or categories 
        of regulations, requesting commentators to identify 
        areas of the regulations that are outdated, 
        unnecessary, or unduly burdensome.
  (c) Complete Review.--The Council or [the appropriate Federal 
banking agency] the appropriate Federal financial regulator 
shall ensure that the notice and comment period described in 
subsection (b)(2) is conducted with respect to all regulations 
described in subsection (a) not less frequently than once every 
[10 years] 7 years.
  (d) Regulatory Response.--The Council or [the appropriate 
Federal banking agency] the appropriate Federal financial 
regulator shall--
          (1) publish in the Federal Register a summary of the 
        comments received under this section, identifying 
        significant issues raised and providing comment on such 
        issues; [and]
          (2) eliminate unnecessary regulations to the extent 
        that such action is appropriate[.]; and
          (3) tailor other regulations related to covered 
        persons in a manner that limits the regulatory 
        compliance impact, cost, liability risk, and other 
        burdens, unless otherwise determined by the Council or 
        the appropriate Federal financial regulator.
  (e) Report to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after 
carrying out subsection (d)(1), the Council shall submit to the 
Congress a report, which shall include--
          (1) a summary of any significant issues raised by 
        public comments received by the Council and [the 
        appropriate Federal banking agencies] the appropriate 
        Federal financial regulator under this section and the 
        relative merits of such issues; and
          (2) an analysis of whether [the appropriate Federal 
        banking agency] the appropriate Federal financial 
        regulator involved is able to address the regulatory 
        burdens associated with such issues by regulation, or 
        whether such burdens must be addressed by legislative 
        action.
  (f) Reviews Conducted by the Bureau.--The Bureau of Consumer 
Financial Protection shall--
          (1) use any relevant information from an assessment 
        conducted under section 1022(d) of the Consumer 
        Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5512(d)) in 
        conducting the review required under subsection (a); 
        and
          (2) conduct such review in accordance with the 
        purposes and objectives described in subsections (a) 
        and (b) of section 1021 of such Act (12 U.S.C. 5511).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                             MINORITY VIEWS

    The Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1996 (EGRPRA) requires the federal banking regulators 
(Federal Reserve Board, FDIC and OCC) that serve on the Federal 
Financial Institutions Examination Council (``FFIEC'' or 
``Council'') to conduct a review not less frequently than every 
ten years, ``of all regulations prescribed by the Council or by 
any such appropriate Federal banking agency, respectively, in 
order to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory 
requirements imposed on insured depository institutions.''\1\ 
To date, there have been two EGRPRA reviews and reports, the 
most recent of which was completed in March 2017.\2\ The first 
report was issued in July 2007.\3\ While the National Credit 
Union Administration (NCUA) is not covered as one of the 
appropriate federal banking agencies and, therefore, not 
subject to EGRPRA, the NCUA did participate in the EGRPRA 
process in the March 2017 report. The regulators also publish 
in the Federal Register a summary of the comments that they 
have received identifying the significant issues raised by 
stakeholders along with the agencies' comments on these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\https://egrpra.ffiec.gov/about/the-law.html
    \2\Available at: https://www.ffiec.gov/pdf/2017_FFIEC_EGRPRA_Joint-
Report_to_Congress.pdf
    \3\Available at: https://www.ffiec.gov/pdf/2007_FFIEC_EGRPRA_Joint-
Report_to_Congress.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 4607 would amend EGRPRA to shorten the time period 
that federal regulators would have to conduct a comprehensive 
review of its regulations from ten to seven years and expand 
the obligation to participate in this review from just the 
Federal Reserve, OCC and FDIC to the NCUA and the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau (Consumer Bureau). In addition, 
H.R. 4607 would expand the EGRPRA analysis to address the 
impact on a ``covered person,'' as this term is defined under 
section 1002 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). A ``covered person'' includes 
a wide range of financial companies, including payday lenders 
and debt collectors, not just depository institutions like 
community banks that are currently the focus of EGRPRA reviews. 
The bill would go beyond the current EGRPRA review criteria of 
identifying ``outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome 
regulations'' to also require regulators to ``tailor other 
regulations related to covered persons in a manner that limits 
the regulatory compliance impact, cost, liability risk, and 
other burdens, unless otherwise determined by the Council or 
the appropriate Federal financial regulator.''
    This would mean that regulators would have to determine the 
impact of previously issued rules on the financial industry, a 
lopsided standard that could lead to rolling back any and all 
rules that may be considered burdensome but may also benefit 
consumers, shareholders, and the economy to be included in an 
EGRPRA review. For example, while Wall Street may complain 
about compliance costs associated with stress testing and 
resolution planning for the nation's largest banks, these rules 
provide enormous benefits to promoting financial stability that 
better protects our economy. Furthermore, experts have noted 
the industry often uses cost-benefit analyses to challenge and 
block various rulemakings in court,\4\ so further requirements 
that emphasize the cost to industry from various rules will 
make it harder for regulators to put meaningful safeguards in 
place to better protect consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\For example, see https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/cost-
benefit-analysis-of-financial-regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under section 1022(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Consumer 
Bureau already has to review its significant rules five years 
after they take effect and is subject to numerous restrictions 
on its rulemaking authority, such as the ability for the 
Financial Stability Oversight Council to repeal its final rules 
under certain circumstances and the additional consideration of 
the impact of any proposals on small businesses. Given that the 
Consumer Bureau is already subject to multiple and 
unprecedented checks on the use of its rulemaking power, which 
the other federal banking regulators do not have to comply 
with, we believe it is wholly inappropriate to require the 
Consumer Bureau to also participate in the EGRPRA process. 
Moreover, H.R. 4607 is inconsistent with the statutory mission 
of the Consumer Bureau. The Bureau was established to protect 
consumers from financial predation. However, the review 
required under H.R. 4607 would force the Consumer Bureau to 
evaluate the costs and liability risks of its rules on the 
regulated industry without also instructing it to consider the 
potential benefits to the public or ways to improve the 
effectiveness of the overall regulatory framework.
    In addition, we note that in the most recent EGRPRA 
process, the participating federal agencies took several years 
to conduct the extensive review that went into the most recent 
report. For example, the federal banking agencies initially 
sought public comment to identify outdated, unnecessary, or 
unduly burdensome regulations imposed on insured depository 
institutions in June 2014, and announced in November 2014 that 
they were conducting a round of outreach meetings to consider 
stakeholder input into the review. The most recent EGRPRA 
report was sent to Congress and published in March 2017, nearly 
three years after the review was initiated. Increasing the 
frequency of this extensive regulatory review, as H.R. 4607 
does, would redirect federal agency resources away from 
supervisory and other responsibilities that are important.
    We are also concerned that the bill would revise the EGRPRA 
process to go beyond identifying ``outdated, unnecessary, or 
unduly burdensome regulations'' to also require the agencies to 
limit the ``impact, cost, liability risk, and other burdens'' 
related to regulated entities without considering the benefits 
from these rules. According to testimony on H.R. 4607 from Dr. 
Marcus Stanley, Policy Director with Americans for Financial 
Reform, ``The language inserted into EGRPRA by the Act would 
significantly slant regulatory consideration away from a true 
comparison of the costs and benefits of regulation and toward 
an attempt to minimize costs for regulated entities, without 
considering benefits to the public. . . . The Comprehensive 
Regulatory Review Act is unnecessary and harmful.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Available at: https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
hhrg-115-ba15-wstate-mstanley-20171207.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
    For these reasons, we oppose H.R. 4607.

                                   Maxine Waters.
                                   Nydia M. Velazquez.
                                   Carolyn B. Maloney.
                                   Michael E. Capuano.

                                  [all]