J. French Hill
Representative for Arkansas · Republican · United States
“``(2) Selection of economic indicators.--Not later than 3 months after the date of enactment of this section, the Board of Governors shall-- ``(A) complete a study on the advantages and disadvantages of the use of either nominal United States gross domestic product (as published by the Department of Commerce) or the Consumer Price Index (…”
“``(2) Selection of economic indicators.--Not later than 3 months after the date of enactment of this section, the Board of Governors shall-- ``(A) complete a study on the advantages and disadvantages of the use of either nominal United States gross domestic product (as published by the Department of Commerce) or the Consumer Price Index (…”
“(B) Selection of economic indicators.--Not later than 3 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall-- (i) complete a study on the advantages and disadvantages of the use of either nominal United States gross domestic product (as published by the Department of Commerce) or the…”
“(B) Selection of economic indicators.--Not later than 3 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall-- (i) complete a study on the advantages and disadvantages of the use of either nominal United States gross domestic product (as published by the Department of Commerce) or the…”
“(2) Guidance.--The term ``guidance'' means a financial agency statement of general applicability, intended to have a future effect on the behavior of regulated parties, that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue, or an interpretation of a statute or regulation, but does not include-- (A) a rule promulgated pur…”
“(2) Guidance.--The term ``guidance'' means a financial agency statement of general applicability, intended to have a future effect on the behavior of regulated parties, that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue, or an interpretation of a statute or regulation, but does not include-- (A) a rule promulgated pur…”
The complete record
Every one of 768 lines we hold for J. French Hill, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 16.
“The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 1438, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time. Motion to Recommit”
“The National Bankers Association, our national association for African-American bankers, wrote a letter for this bill. {time} 1350 Mr. Speaker, this bill has overwhelming support to increase competition and help our community banks thrive and succeed, which means our towns will thrive and succeed. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. Echo Alexander Hamilton, our first Secretary of the Treasury, when he said that our banks in this early founding of our Nation are the nurseries of our national wealth. Mr. Speaker, today, 250 years later, long after the adoption of our government, our community banks, our credit unions, they are the nurseries of the national wealth that help our families and our businesses succeed. I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.”
“Speaker, is aimed at. If you have a concern that your exam was unfair, we return some fairness in the exam process. You can go and actually question, was my exam fair or not? Whose idea was that, Mr. Speaker? Democrat from Michigan Don Riegle, U.S. Senator, 1995. Was it ever implemented? No, but it will be implemented when this bill becomes law. This bill is focused on more capital, more deposits, more business, more success for our community banks, which in turn helps every one of our towns in this country. Who is for it? Community development financial institutions, our CDFIs, have bipartisan support. They are for this bill. Our community development officials across the Nation are for this bill, as they were for the housing bill.”
“If you are a small, well-managed bank under $6 billion, you get some relief, Mr. Speaker. If you are well-managed, have good capital, you can help schedule your exams. I was with a community banker in North Carolina this week. The bank is smaller than $500 million, and I said, how are things going? He said, it is going great except when I have five exams in a row and then the loan pipeline goes to zero. Because, guess what, I am the chief loan officer and the chief compliance officer in this small bank, and when my community bank is filled with bank examiners for an IT exam, a trust exam, an investment exam, an AML, anti-money laundering, and Bank Secrecy Act exam, a loan quality exam, a consumer compliance exam, I can't make loans. If you are well-managed and have high capital, you get some relief in this bill. That is who this bill, Mr.”
“The fair lending laws, the fair housing laws, and the equal credit opportunity laws, all those consumer statutes are upheld in this text. They are not really affected by this text. Banks have to comply with those laws. They had to comply with those [[Page H4731]] laws before Dodd-Frank, and they comply with them since Dodd-Frank. I reject the idea that somehow we are limiting or curtailing or blocking or making ineffective consumer compliance. Secondly, it is our hometown banks, both rural banks and urban banks in our towns and cities, that benefit from this banking set of provisions. As the ranking member noted, in our housing bill that we collaborated on successfully--that we got passed and it became law on July 10--banks had some provisions there that helped them. This is the same theme continuing in this bill.”
“In Congress, you can't put together the kinds of successful legislative packages that the House Financial Services Committee has done in this Congress without a very hardworking and competent staff. I thank them on both sides of the aisle. I thanked Andy Barr, our majority subcommittee chair, a few minutes ago, but I will also thank Dr. Bill Foster of Illinois, who serves as the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Financial Institutions for his collaboration with Mr. Barr on this succesful bill. Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot of charges about this bill, that somehow this bill benefits Wall Street versus Main Street, and I just couldn't disagree more. I noted that two-thirds of these bills have strong Democratic support, along with our Republicans. Secondly, there is nothing in this bill that weakens consumer compliance.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, first, before I start, I thank the ranking member and the committee members on her side of the aisle for their work with us on developing this bill over many months. Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of the bills in this package that we are voting on, the Main Street Capital Access Act, are supported by Members on the Democratic side of the aisle. This is a truly bipartisan package of bills. We have significant work and support from individual Members on the Democratic side of the aisle in partnership with House Republicans. I also thank Maura Woosley, who is the majority staff director, Jae Jang, and their entire team in the majority working with the minority staff, and the minority staff to craft this package.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the beautiful territory of Guam (Mr. Moylan). He has a strong background in financial services, healthcare, business, and insurance.”
“Meuser), who understands finance from both the point of view of one of our biggest and most industrial States, Pennsylvania, having been a statewide officer as well as a highly successful manufacturer and entrepreneur. Mr. Meuser is the chair of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.”
“Waters in the housing bill, and we have two in this bill that encourage start-up banks and encourage the regulators to work and have a better strategy for start- up financial institutions because that means that they can meet the growth. What does that do, Mr. Speaker? It increases competition for the biggest companies because they are close to customers, they have a business strategy, and they are unique to the marketplace. That is another example of how this bill is, in fact, counter to the assertion that it is only geared towards Wall Street institutions. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Loudermilk who spoke a moment ago. The vice chairman of our Subcommittee on Financial Institutions made a very good point also about how this bill strengthens competition. Chairman Andy Barr of Kentucky, Ranking Member Waters of California, and Mr. Loudermilk all mentioned the importance of encouraging de novo banks, meaning start-up banks, particularly in our fast-growing communities that have seen disproportionate business and population growth, like south Florida or other places across the Nation. All three of those Members have something in common, which is they support greater de novo provisions. We had Ms.”
“You want them to be able to buy a failing bank on their own or with partners to compete with the biggest banks in the country who are just simply given banks that need resolution at the FDIC. If a small bank fails in some State, they just let the big banks bid on them. This bill creates competition. Chairman Barr walked through that. This actually increases the chance for entrepreneurs to acquire, unfortunately at the demise of a local bank, so that it is not sold to some big Wall Street lender. I could go on with all the benefits of this bill that is tailored and focused on the growth and success of our Main Street institutions, but I can think of no better person to help me make that case than the next speaker. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me address that comment that the ranking member has articulated, which is that somehow this bill reduces the power of community banks to compete with the big, globally systemic banks that she described. I would really argue just the contrast. This bill tailors the regulatory compliance so that a bank with a straightforward, simple business plan that is well managed, that is well capitalized can have a lower tailored compliance cost compared to the one-size-fits-all approach that was a part of Dodd-Frank aimed at those big, Wall Street globally systemic banks. Secondly, if you don't want them to grow, then you want community banks to have access to more capital. That is offered in this bill. You want them to be more successful. That is offered in this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, our next speaker has worked in this House for over a decade, speaking on behalf of Main Street Michigan. From that real estate community, from his own background, his own business entrepreneurship and that of his family, he knows the value of how our local financial institutions help grow an economy and have more opportunities. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the vice chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services.”
“Mr. Speaker, our next speaker has worked tirelessly to assemble this package of bills that will help our Main Street banks and credit unions thrive, grow, better serve their customers, and, in turn, be able to see their local economies benefit. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions.”
“I thank my colleague again, my friend, the chairman of our Subcommittee on Financial Institutions, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), for his tireless efforts in developing this bill and his commitment to strengthening community banking, not only in Kentucky but across our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I also thank his hardworking colleague who has spent hours tirelessly thinking through the best approach to these provisions, and that is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster) of Chicago. Their collaboration will benefit our country, and I hope that we see a strong, bipartisan vote on this bill in this Chamber today. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.”
“It brings this commonsense tailoring back to regulation. It restores fairness and transparency in bank supervision. It helps banks attract, retain, and diversify important funding sources from sources of deposits, and it removes unnecessary barriers that have limited lending in communities across this country. Mr. Speaker, with all of this effort, we have seen solid bipartisan support, input, and leadership in developing this bill. Expanding access to capital strengthens our local economies. It gives entrepreneurs the confidence to invest, businesses the ability to grow, and families the opportunity to build long-term wealth through that most abundant of American dreams: owning their own home. When Main Street banks succeed, our communities thrive.”
“{time} 1450 Recently, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which became law, contained nine community banking provisions that provided this sort of thematic, clear, needed relief to America's local lenders and expanded financing for both residential mortgages and housing construction and development. These measures that we are debating today in the Main Street Capital Access Act were in that same philosophy of what we just overwhelmingly passed in both Chambers just a few days ago. Mr. Speaker, I say today that we are building on the success of our 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act with Main Street Capital Access Act. We are expanding access to capital, supporting American businesses, and ensuring our financial system remains the most dynamic and diverse in the world. This bill delivers on those goals. It spurs formation of new banks.”
“Speaker, too often now spend more time on check-the-box compliance requirements rather than serving their communities. When I made my presentation to our party here in the House to chair our Committee on Financial Services, I said that the impact of Dodd- Frank and other rules had focused Main Street bank presidents staying up all night worrying, not about their loan pipeline, not about where to get their next lending officer. Instead, they are up all night wondering how they can afford another compliance officer to try to meet this standard that is, in my judgment, unreasonable for a small, straightforward, local bank. Our committee Republicans, with their great leadership from our subcommittee chair, Andy Barr of Kentucky, have worked mightily over the years to find a bipartisan set of solutions to exactly the problem I outline today.”
“The Dodd-Frank Act, passed in the heat and horror of the global financial crisis, took the approach that many community and midsize banks across our Nation were faced with the same rules and the same level of scrutiny of the largest, most systemically important institutions. It was just too much, Mr. Speaker. That approach, that overkill, has stifled local lending, constrained economic growth, accelerated industry consolidation--something I hear about from Members on both sides of the aisle all the time--and pushed important financing activity for both families and businesses out of the regulated financial sector. Again, I don't believe that was a goal by the proponents of Dodd-Frank after the financial crisis. Our local lenders, Mr.”
“Even to this day, almost three decades later, I smile driving by that restaurant location that I helped grow or driving by a building or a shopping center or a doctor's practice that our small bank helped finance--finance its construction, finance its future, finance its home for those employees. Community banks make that possible, and this bipartisan Main Street Capital Access Act gives them the tools they need to keep capital flowing where it is needed most up and down our main streets in our beautiful country. For decades, Washington has made it harder for community banks to thrive and operate efficiently.”
“Community banks and hometown credit unions know their customers. They understand the needs of their communities, and they keep capital flowing where it is needed most. When a family is trying to buy their first home, they often walk into the offices of a community bank where that lender knows them, recognizes their goals, and is invested in their success. Mr. Speaker, as I have said on this House floor many times this year, our banks under $10 billion make 6 out of 10 home construction loans. When a local farmer or entrepreneur needs the capital to expand or initiate their crop for the year, they need someone who understands their particular business and is committed to seeing them succeed and, thereby, their communities succeed. I loved my role as a hometown Main Street community banker and investor.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Main Street Capital Access Act. As a former community bank founder and CEO in my hometown of Little Rock, Arkansas, I have seen firsthand the important role that our community banks and credit unions play to drive the economic engine of America and help Main Street grow and thrive. During the financial crisis, they were there. During the COVID pandemic, they were there, staying up all night to close emergency paycheck protection loans. Every Member of this body knows this and knows it well. They have their own story from their own town about how that local financial institution was there for a customer, for a family, to help a startup, to help a business or restaurant cope with the pandemic.”
“Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas? There was no objection.”
“The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services, or their respective designees. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) will each control 30 minutes. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill). General Leave”
“(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the National Credit Union Administration shall issue a report to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate containing all findings and determinations made in carrying out the study required under paragraph (1). SEC. 803. DISCRETIONARY SURPLUS FUND. (a) In General.--The dollar amount specified under section 7(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 289(a)(3)(A)) is reduced by $425,000,000. (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on September 1, 2036. The SPEAKER pro tempore.”
“(b) Study on Credit Union-Fintech Partnerships.-- (1) Study.--The National Credit Union Administration shall carry out a study of-- (A) the impact of partnerships between credit unions, on the one hand, and financial technology companies, on the other hand, on the credit union sector, competition, innovation, consumer protection, and the availability of financial products and services, including the extent to which these partnerships support the formation of new credit unions, reduce time to market for products and services, lower compliance burdens, boost customer acquisition, improve technological capabilities, and provide access to more diverse funding sources; and (B) what changes to Federal laws governing credit unions, or to rules or guidance adopted by the National Credit Union Administration, [[Page H4722]] may help promote effective partnerships between credit unions, on the one hand, and financial technology companies, on the other hand.”
“(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation shall issue a report to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate containing all findings and determinations made in carrying out the study required under paragraph (1). (3) Banking organization defined.--In this subsection, the term ``banking organization'' means a depository institution holding company or an insured depository institution, as such terms are defined, respectively, under section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813).”
“(a) Study on Bank-Fintech Partnerships.-- (1) Study.--The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation shall carry out a study of-- (A) the impact of partnerships between banking organizations, on the one hand, and financial technology companies, on the other hand, on the banking sector, competition, innovation, consumer protection, and the availability of financial products and services, including the extent to which these partnerships support the formation of new banking organizations, reduce time to market for products and services, lower compliance burdens, boost customer acquisition, improve technological capabilities, and provide access to more diverse funding sources; and (B) what changes to Federal laws governing banking organizations, or to rules or guidance adopted by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller of the Currency, or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, may help promote effective partnerships between banking organizations, on the one hand, and financial technology companies, on the other hand.”
“(2) Report.--Not later than the end of the 18-month period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Board shall issue a report to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate containing all findings and determinations made in carrying out the study required under this subsection. SEC. 802. BANK-FINTECH PARTNERSHIP ENHANCEMENT.”
“(b) Merchant Banking Study.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall carry out a study on merchant banking investments to assess-- (A) the number, investment size, holding period, and risk characteristics of merchant banking investments by financial holding companies, with the assessment of investment sizes and holding periods based on the average, median, and distribution of the investment sizes and holding periods; (B) the types of businesses, projects, assets, and activities in which such merchant banking investments are made, including the extent to which such merchant banking investments support infrastructure projects and housing development and construction; and (C) any information, analyses, or findings related to merchant banking investments that the Board determines to be relevant.”
“1843(k)(7)(A)) is amended by inserting ``Under such regulations, the period of time generally permitted for holding merchant banking investments shall not be less than 15 years. For any merchant banking investment held on the date of enactment of the Main Street Act, the holding period of time permitted shall not be less than 15 years from the initial date of the investment.'' after the period at the end.”
“1823(c)(4)), as amended by section 701(a)(3), is further amended by adding at the end the following: ``(J) Limitation on considering bad faith bids.--In making a determination under this paragraph of whether an exercise of authority is the least costly to the Deposit Insurance Fund, any application, proposed application, or bid that would result in violation of-- ``(i) section 18(c)(13) or 44(b)(2), or ``(ii) section 3(d)(2), 4(i)(8), or 14 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, shall not be considered a possible method for meeting the Corporation's obligation under this section for purposes of subparagraph (A).''. TITLE VIII--FACILITATING INNOVATION AND BANK PARTNERSHIPS SEC. 801. MERCHANT BANKING MODERNIZATION. (a) In General.--Section 4(k)(7)(A) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C.”
“(2) Public disclosure.--The waiving agency submitting a report under paragraph (1) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation shall make the report publicly available on their respective websites, subject to redactions for confidential supervisory information and any other information described under section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code. (c) Limitation on Considering Bad Faith Bids in Least Cost Determination.--Section 13(c)(4) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.”
“(b) Congressional Notification and Justification for Waivers.-- (1) In general.--Whenever the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller of the Currency, or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation waives a concentration limit under section 18(c)(13)(B) or section 44(e) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or under section 3(d)(5), section 4(i)(8)(B), or section 14(c)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, in connection with the acquisition of a bank or insured depository institution in default or in danger of default, or in connection with an acquisition with respect to which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation provides assistance under section 13 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the waiving agency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, jointly, shall, not later than 30 days after such waiver, submit a written report to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in the Senate containing-- (A) a justification for the waiver, including an analysis of why it was necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability; (B) a description of alternative bids or outcomes considered, including efforts to solicit and encourage bids from entities that would not require a waiver; (C) an explanation of why alternative bids were not selected, if applicable; and (D) any recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to improve competition in future insured depository institution resolutions.”
“(2) Concentration limit with respect to consolidated liabilities.--Section 14(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1852(c)) is amended-- (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively; (B) by striking ``With the'' and inserting the following: ``(1) In general.--With the''; and (C) by adding at the end the following: ``(2) Limitation.--The Board may provide written consent for an acquisition described in paragraph (1)(A) or in paragraph (1)(B) only if the Board determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that consummation of the proposed acquisition is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability, and the Corporation has not received any qualified bid (as defined in section 18(c)(13)(C) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) from another institution that is not subject to the prohibition in subsection (b).''.”
“``(C) Qualified bid defined.--In this paragraph, the term `qualified bid' has the meaning given that term in section 18(c)(13)(C) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.''; and (ii) in section 4(i)(8), by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows: ``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an acquisition if-- ``(i) such acquisition involves an insured depository institution in default or in danger of default and the Board determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that consummation of the proposed acquisition is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability, and the Corporation has not received any qualified bid (as defined in section 18(c)(13)(C) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) from another institution that is not subject to the prohibition in paragraph (2); or ``(ii) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation provides assistance under section 13 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to facilitate such acquisition and the Board determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that consummation of the proposed acquisition is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability, and the Corporation has not received any qualified bid (as defined in section 18(c)(13)(C) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) from another institution that is not subject to the prohibition in paragraph (2).''.”
“``(B) Concentration limit exception.--The Board may, without regard to paragraph (2), approve an application pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) if-- ``(i) the application is for the acquisition of 1 or more banks in default or in danger of default and the Board determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that consummation of the proposed acquisition is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability, and the Corporation has not received any qualified bid from another institution that is not subject to the prohibition in paragraph (2); or ``(ii) the application is for an acquisition with respect to which assistance is provided under section 13(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and the Board determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that consummation of the proposed acquisition is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability, and the Corporation has not received any qualified bid from another institution that is not subject to the prohibition in paragraph (2).”
“``(3) Qualified bid defined.--In this subsection, the term `qualified bid' has the meaning given that term in section 18(c)(13)(C).''. (B) Bank holding company act of 1956.--The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) is amended-- (i) in section 3(d), by amending paragraph (5) to read as follows: ``(5) Exception for banks in default or in danger of default.-- ``(A) General exception.--The Board may, without regard to subparagraph (B) or (D) of [[Page H4721]] paragraph (1) or paragraph (3), approve an application pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) if-- ``(i) the application is for an acquisition of 1 or more banks in default or in danger of default; or ``(ii) the application is for an acquisition with respect to which assistance is provided under section 13(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.”
“``(2) Concentration limit exception.--The responsible agency may, without regard to subsection (b)(2), approve an application under subsection (a)(1) for approval of a merger transaction if-- ``(A) the merger transaction involves 1 or more banks in default or in danger of default and the responsible agency determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that consummation of the proposed interstate merger transaction is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability, and the Corporation has not received any qualified bid from another institution that is not subject to the prohibition in subsection (b)(2); or ``(B) the Corporation provides assistance under section 13(c) to facilitate such merger transaction and the responsible agency determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that consummation of the proposed interstate merger transaction is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability, and the Corporation has not received any qualified bid from another institution that is not subject to the prohibition in subsection (b)(2).”
“1841(o)(9)).''; and (ii) in section 44, by amending subsection (e) to read as follows: ``(e) Exception for Banks in Default or in Danger of Default.-- ``(1) General exception.--The responsible agency may, without regard to paragraph (1), (3), (4), or (5) of subsection (b) or paragraph (2), (4), or (5) of subsection (a), approve an application under subsection (a)(1) for approval of a merger transaction if-- ``(A) the merger transaction involves 1 or more banks in default or in danger of default; or ``(B) the Corporation provides assistance under section 13(c) to facilitate such merger transaction.”
“1831o(b)); ``(II) with respect to a bank holding company, has the meaning given such term in section 2(o)(1)(B) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841(o)(1)(B)); ``(III) with respect to a savings and loan holding company, has the meaning given such term in section 238.2 of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations; and ``(IV) with respect to a company that is not an insured depository institution, bank holding company, or savings and loan holding company, means maintaining equity capital that the Corporation determines is commensurate with the capital maintained by an insured depository institution that is well capitalized; and ``(v) the term `well managed' has the meaning given such term in section 2(o)(9) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C.”
“1811 et seq.) is amended-- (i) in section 18(c)(13)-- (I) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows: ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an interstate merger transaction if-- ``(i) such interstate merger transaction involves 1 or more insured depository institutions in default or in danger of default and the responsible agency determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that consummation of the proposed interstate merger transaction is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability, and the Corporation has not received any qualified bid from a company that is not subject to the prohibition in subparagraph (A); or ``(ii) the Corporation provides assistance under section 13 to facilitate such interstate merger transaction and the responsible agency determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that consummation of the proposed interstate merger transaction is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability, and the Corporation has not received any qualified bid from a company that is not subject to the prohibition in subparagraph (A).''; and (II) in subparagraph (C)-- (aa) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end; (bb) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and (cc) by adding at the end the following: ``(iii) the term `qualified bid' means an application, proposed application, or bid from a company where-- ``(I) if applicable, the company, any affiliate insured depository institution, and any affiliate depository institution holding company are well capitalized and well managed, as of the date of the application, proposed application, or bid; and ``(II) upon consummation of the transaction, the resulting insured depository institution is well capitalized; ``(iv) the term `well capitalized'-- ``(I) with respect to an insured depository institution, has the meaning given such term in section 38(b) (12 U.S.C.”
“FAILING BANK ACQUISITION FAIRNESS. (a) Concentration Limit Exceptions Only Available to Avoid Serious Adverse Economic or Financial Effects.-- (1) Concentration limits with respect to deposits.-- (A) Federal deposit insurance act.--The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.”
“(c) Definitions.--In this section: (1) Insured depository institution.--The term ``insured depository institution'' has the meaning given the term in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813). (2) Modified bidder qualification process.--The term ``modified bidder qualification process'' has the meaning given such term in the press release of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation titled ``FDIC Expands Bidder List for Troubled Institutions Plan Allows Those Without a Bank Charter to Participate in the Process'' published November 26, 2008. (3) Shelf charter.--The term ``shelf charter'' has the meaning given such term in the report issued by the Comptroller of the Currency titled ``Activities Permissible for National Banks and Federal Savings Associations, Cumulative'' published October 2017. SEC. 703.”
“(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Board of the Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall, jointly, submit a report to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate containing-- (1) all findings and determinations made in carrying out the study required under subsection (a); and (2) an identification of statutory or regulatory barriers to the use and effectiveness of shelf charters and modified bidder qualification processes in the resolution of failed insured depository institutions, including recommendations for legislative and regulatory changes.”
“1823(c)(4)(G)) with respect to any such receivership; (6) the impact of the use of shelf charters and modified bidder qualification processes since January 1, 2008, including on financial stability, the safety and soundness of affected insured depository institutions, and the availability of financial products and services provided to consumers by such institutions; and (7) any benefits and risks of private equity ownership of banks through the use of shelf charters and modified bidder qualification processes.”
“1841 et seq.) and section 10 of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1467a) to shelf charter proposals; (4) whether shelf charters and modified bidder qualification processes were considered or used in connection with the receivership of any insured depository institution for which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed receiver in 2023; (5) with respect to such receiverships, the extent to which greater use of shelf charters and modified bidder qualification processes could have-- (A) expanded the pool of participants in the acquisition of the assets or liabilities of such failed insured depository institutions; (B) resulted in greater competition and diversity in market outcomes; (C) protected the Deposit Insurance Fund; or (D) strengthened financial stability and reduced the need for any emergency determination by the Secretary of the Treasury under section 13(c)(4)(G) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.”
“(b) Rule of Construction.--Section 13(c)(4)(H) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1823(c)(4)(H)) does not apply to the amendments made by subsection (a). SEC. 702. ENHANCING BANK RESOLUTION PARTICIPATION. (a) Study.--The Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Board of the Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall, jointly, carry out a study of-- (1) the use by the Comptroller of the Currency of shelf charters, including all conditional or preliminary shelf charter approvals granted between January 1, 2008, and the date of enactment of this Act; (2) the use by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation of the modified bidder qualification process; (3) the application of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C.”
“``(vi) Definitions.--In this subparagraph: ``(I) Covered alternative.--The term `covered alternative' means a method of exercising authority described in subparagraph (A) that is the least costly to the Deposit Insurance Fund of all such methods that involve a sale of all or substantially all assets of the insured depository institution to, and assumption of all or substantially all deposit liabilities of the insured depository institution by, a global systemically important banking organization. ``(II) Global systemically important banking organization.--The term `global systemically important banking organization' means a global systemically important BHC (as such term is defined in section 217.402 of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor thereto) and any affiliate thereof.''.”