TAILOR = Taking Account of Institutions with Low Operation Risk. From the bill: “This bill requires federal financial regulatory agencies to: (1) tailor any regulatory actions so as to limit burdens on the institutions involved, with consideration of the risk profiles and business models of those institutions; and (2) report to Congress on specific actions taken to do so, as well as on other related issues. The bill’s tailoring requirement applies not only to future regulatory actions but also to regulations adopted within the last seven years.”
Sponsor: Scott R. Tipton (R-CO)
Cosponsors: Jason Lewis and 79 additional Republicans; 5 Democrats.
Why This Bill Is Against Progressive Values:
Jason Lewis is cosponsoring this resurrection of H.R. 2896, the TAILOR Act of 2015, about which Minnesota’s Keith Ellison and other Democrats wrote: “[This bill] requires financial agencies to ignore the requirements of all other laws passed by Congress and subject all new regulations to a vague and impossible standard. This includes an undefined standard of ‘appropriateness,’ a vague standard of ‘ability to flexibly serve evolving and diverse customer needs’ as well as an evaluation of ‘potential unintended impact.’ This set of standards not only applies to all future guidance and rulemaking, but also retroactively to all of the rulemakings under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. … The purpose of this bill is clear–by preempting all other financial law with this set of vague standards, proponents of [this bill] are creating a system are creating a system where every financial rule can be potentially challenged and overturned.” (Source: “Minority Views,” H. Rept. 114-870).
HR 1116 was one of four bills opposed by 25 community, labor, and public interest groups in a letter to Congress, noting that this bill “would force consumer and financial regulators to prioritize costs to Wall Street over benefits to the public before taking any action to control financial abuses, and empower financial institutions to overturn current and future consumer protections in court.”