Log In | Register
WASHINGTON — Liberal Democrats struggled Thursday to give states new powers to protect consumers from fraud and abuse, but banks may be able to nix the idea when a financial overhaul bill reaches the House floor.
Banks could ask federal regulators for exemptions from more stringent state laws under a compromise pitched to the House Financial Services Committee. But banks otherwise would have to answer to both federal and state regulators.
The measure by Reps. Melvin Watt, D-N.C., and Dennis Moore, D-Kan., was billed as a concession to conservative Democrats who say subjecting federally chartered banks to a myriad of state laws is impractical.
Rep. Melissa Bean, D-Ill., promised to fight sharing oversight between federal and state regulators when the legislation reaches the floor in coming weeks. "Rolling back this 140-year-old precedent of federal rules to a system of 50 different state regimes increases costs for training and compliance, which gets passed to consumers," she said.
The committee planned to vote Wednesday on whether to establish the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency and whether it should share with states the power to regulate credit cards, mortgages and other consumer products.
The financial industry, which opposes creation of the agency, has gained traction in recent weeks after Democrats agreed to spare most banks and credit unions from additional agency examinations.
Democrats also dropped from the bill a proposal by President Barack Obama that banks be required to offer standardized products and take steps to ensure consumers understand what they are buying. Citing concerns by small neighborhood banks, lawmakers said such requirements would have been too difficult to enforce.
On the issue of state power, banks thought they had found a sympathetic ear among moderate Democrats. But on Tuesday, Rep. Ed Perlmutter of Colorado said he was open to Watt's proposal.
Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat whose home state has been hit hard by foreclosures and mortgage scams, said she did not want to give large national banks a chance to appeal state laws.
"We should not be picking around the edges of consumer protections," she said during Tuesday's debate. "We should be bold. We should be revolutionary."
Republicans opposed the legislation entirely.
"My sense is that we could end up with a patchwork quilt of regulation from state to state that will make it very hard for people to follow and make it very hard for people to do business in," said Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del.
___
The bill is H.R. 3639.
On the Net:
Congress: http://www.thomas.gov
