Tomorrow the Senate Banking Committee will begin and likely complete a markup vote of S2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act. Our opposition letter is attached as a pdf you can download. While the bill does not take a bludgeon to consumer protection, as the Financial Choice Act passed by the full House does, it does dramatically reduce protections for consumers in the mortgage marketplace while eliminating prudential safeguards applicable to many super-regional banks. Banks of that size were prominent in the financial crisis of 2008. Excerpt from our letter:
First, we are disappointed that the bill claims to be a consumer protection bill. Its housing and mortgage provisions are largely harmful to consumers. Its other supposedly countervailing but small consumer provisions, even if improved by amendments, do not in any way make the rest of the bill acceptable as a consumer protection bill.
Second, the regulatory relief it does provide poses risks to the economic growth it purports to obtain. The relief it promises to small community banks is premised first on the notion that small banks are suffering due to the Dodd-Frank Act. In fact, the consolidation in the industry, though widely blamed on Dodd-Frank, was not caused by the act. According to Federal Reserve economists, bank consolidation has been occurring at a steady pace since at least 1984.
Third, the relief it provides to massive regional banks takes away important tools, some long-standing and some granted prudential regulators by Dodd-Frank after the 2008 collapse. Members should recall that other – now failed – similarly-sized super-regional banks proved to be active participants in the events leading to the 2008 collapse.
 For a discussion of historic bank consolidation trends derived from the St. Louis Fed’s FRED commercial bank database, see my 2 May 2017 commentary, available at https://uspirg.org/blogs/eds-blog/usp/banks-cook-books-promote-wrong-choice-act-attack-cfpb