Taking Account of Institutions with Low Operation Risk Act of 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to thank the gentlewoman, Maxine Waters, for her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1116, the TAILOR Act. This bill requires regulators on the FFIEC to reduce the scale and scope of their regulations based on the size and profile of a financial institution or class of institutions.

Let me be clear: Like many of the bill's supporters, I strongly believe that we should not take a one-size-fits-all approach to financial regulation. Financial regulation must be appropriately adjusted according to the size and complexity of an institution or class of institutions. That is why Democrats worked so hard to create these flexibilities in Dodd-Frank and regulators are already required to adjust their rules accordingly. For example, the CFPB has exempted community banks from many of the requirements under the qualified mortgage rule, and the Federal Reserve has developed different capital standards for banks based on size.

Moreover, we already have laws like the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act that instructs Federal financial regulators to go through extensive look-back reviews to update and improve their regulations. So while I agree that it is necessary to review and update our regulatory framework from time to time, particularly for our smaller institutions, I oppose H.R. 1116 because the reviews required under the bill tilt too far in the industry's favor and fail to provide sufficient protection to the public's or the consumer's interest.

If enacted, this bill will provide our Nation's largest financial institutions with the opportunity to challenge any revised rulemaking in court if they felt a regulation was not uniquely tailored to meet their business needs. The bill also requires regulators to ignore the requirements of Dodd-Frank and other laws and subjects any future financial regulation to vague and impossible standards like appropriateness and necessity. These standards are undefined in the bill, making it very easy for a financial institution to challenge them in court.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Perhaps most importantly, the bill makes no mention of regulators also considering the protection a current or future regulation has for consumers or the benefit it provides to our Nation's financial stability.

Instead of developing sweeping rollbacks of financial regulation, we should instead spend our time working to improve our regulatory framework in order to ensure it maintains appropriate protections and safeguards for consumers, investors, and taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this ill-advised bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source