Andy Barr (R-KY)
Financial Institution Regulatory Tailoring Enhancement Act
A Republican bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 132.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "Financial Institution Regulatory Tailoring Enhancement Act," aims to change how financial institutions are regulated. It focuses on increasing the asset thresholds that trigger certain requirements. Specifically, it raises a specific dollar amount from $10,000,000,000 to $50,000,000,000 across several different laws. These changes impact bureau supervision, the Volcker Rule, qualified mortgage requirements, and leverage and risk-based capital requirements.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +2
Would business owners be better off under this?
Reducing the regulatory burden on large-scale financial institutions can benefit business owners and financial interests.
- Scored +2
Is this likely to grow the economy?
De-regulation of financial institutions can potentially stimulate economic activity through easier access to capital.
- Scored +2
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
Easing regulations on larger institutions may indirectly improve the credit environment for smaller businesses.
The opposite· 3 of 5
- Scored -3
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
Raising thresholds for supervision and mortgage requirements may reduce the level of oversight protecting consumers from financial risks.
- Scored -2
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Reduced oversight of mortgage and consumer protection rules may negatively impact low-income borrowers.
- Scored -2
Does this give the federal government more power?
Reducing federal oversight thresholds effectively lessens federal regulatory power over mid-sized institutions.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Changes to Bureau Supervision: By increasing the threshold from $10,000,000,000 to $50,000,000,000 in the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, the bill alters when certain supervision requirements apply. (Section 2(a))
-
Changes to Volcker Rule Requirements: The bill increases the threshold from $10,000,000,000 to $50,000,000,000 within the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. (Section 2(b))
-
Changes to Qualified Mortgage Requirements: The threshold for certain requirements under the Truth in Lending Act is raised from $10,000,000,000 to $50,000,000,000. (Section 2(c))
-
Changes to Capital Requirements: The bill increases the threshold from $10,000,000,000 to $50,000,000,000 regarding leverage and risk-based capital requirements under the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. (Section 2(d))
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Increased Asset Thresholds: The bill increases the threshold at which financial institutions become subject to certain requirements from $10,000,000,000 to $50,000,000,000 across various sections including Bureau Supervision (Section 2(a)), Volcker Rule Requirements (Section 2(b)), Qualified Mortgage Requirements (Section 2(c)), and Leverage and Risk-based Capital Requirements (Section 2(d)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Reducing the regulatory burden on large-scale financial institutions can benefit business owners and financial interests. Would billionaires be better off under this? Would high-income households be better off under this? — Financial institutions may experience more freedom, potentially benefiting high-income stakeholders. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Deregulation often aligns with the interests of high-net-worth individuals managing large assets. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Reduced oversight of mortgage and consumer protection rules may negatively impact low-income borrowers. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Potential loss of consumer protection safeguards could negatively impact middle-class consumers.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — De-regulation of financial institutions can potentially stimulate economic activity through easier access to capital. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Easing regulations on larger institutions may indirectly improve the credit environment for smaller businesses. Is this likely to create jobs? — Reducing regulatory burdens on mid-sized banks may marginally facilitate easier lending and growth. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Raising thresholds for supervision may reduce the oversight burden and associated costs of federal agencies. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Raising thresholds for supervision and mortgage requirements may reduce the level of oversight protecting consumers from financial risks.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Reducing federal oversight thresholds effectively lessens federal regulatory power over mid-sized institutions. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Lowering oversight may lead to less transparency in the operations of institutions within the new threshold.
- 6/20/2025
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 119-165.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 132.
- 5/21/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 29 - 23.
- 5/19/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/7/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Daniel MeuserRepublican · Pennsylvania
Pete SessionsRepublican · Texas