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 13 of 16.
“It pressured a faceless, unaccountable, foreign standards body in Geneva to stand up a new merchant category code explicitly targeting American gun owners and American businesses. When I was State treasurer in West Virginia, we said ``no'' to the gun-grabbing progressive bank partnering with a European NGO destroying American rights. Under my leadership as State treasurer, West Virginia enacted one of the first bans on separate merchant category codes for firearms retailers, protecting the privacy of our State's gun owners. Nineteen States after that followed suit. However, a patchwork of State regulations is not enough. California, Colorado, and New York currently mandate that firearm stores have a separate merchant category code, creating a de facto registry in some of the most populous States in our country.”
“For too long, the American people have had their rights undermined by the radical left. The bill's premise is simple: no gun registries, period. In fact, this very body has twice prohibited these unjust registries, once in 1986 and again in 1993, to prohibit the left from destroying Americans' rights. However, the gun-grabbing left never stops trying. In 2021, the progressive Amalgamated Bank lobbied the International Organization for Standardization to create a separate merchant category code for firearm retailers to advance a backdoor gun registry. Previously, these retailers had always been accurately categorized as miscellaneous retail stores or sporting goods stores. Amalgamated Bank was hell-bent on tracking firearm purchases.”
“HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Moore), who is the sponsor of this bill. Mr. MOORE of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 1181, the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act. My bill preserves two fundamental rights: the right to privacy and the right to bear arms. Americans should not be forced to disclose to payment processors when they buy firearms. The bill preserves Americans' rights by prohibiting the creation of a separate merchant category code for firearms. This would, of course, become a de facto gun registry. The bill also preempts harmful State laws and gives the Attorney General authority to take any bank or payment processor that assigns or requires a separate code to Federal court.”
“None of the credit card operators, payment processors, or banks were alerted to the types of transactions being undertaken, and they did not notify law enforcement officials about these purchases. We don't know for sure, but had these MCC codes been in place for gun shops back then, a financial institution would have been empowered to report these suspicious credit card purchases to law enforcement. {time} 1530 Americans are tired of the senseless gun violence and want Congress to do something to curb it. Unfortunately, this bill goes in the opposite direction and would implement a ban on such merchant reporting on the Federal level and would literally preempt existing State laws like those in California, New York, and Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time. Mr.”
“One of these included the shooting at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, where 49 people were killed and nearly 60 more were injured a decade ago last month, in June 2016.'' Now, listen to this: Just days before the shooter opened fire, his internet search history included the terms ``credit card unusual spending,'' ``FBI,'' and ``why banks stop your purchases.'' He had opened six new credit card accounts in the 8 months prior, and 12 days before the shooting, he spent more than $26,000 on things like a rifle, a semiautomatic pistol, several large magazines, and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Before this, his average monthly spending on his single card was $1,500.”
“This bill would make it easier for mass shooters, gun traffickers, and even terrorists to abuse our financial systems to stockpile firearms and ammunition undetected.'' They go on to note that between 2007 and 2018, credit cards were used to finance at least eight major mass shootings.”
“Many different types of retailers have unique MCC codes, including florists, barbershops, art dealers, automotive tire shops, and even candy stores. While these merchant codes don't reveal what individual goods are purchased, they can indicate an unusually large purchase at a type of business that might reveal a risk. This information could help law enforcement track suspicious purchases and prevent even more gun violence. [[Page H4443]] Leading gun safety groups, including Brady, Community Justice, Everytown for Gun Safety, GIFFORDS, Guns Down America, and Newtown Action Alliance, sent the House a letter to urge Members to vote ``no'' on this harmful legislation. In the letter that was sent to me, they said: ``We write in strong opposition to H.R. 1181, the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act.”
“In the past decade, more than 1.2 million Americans have been shot, with more than 400,000 who died from gun violence. For many who survive a gunshot, they may still suffer a lifetime of devastating consequences. Most of these data points come from GIFFORDS, a gun violence prevention group set up by our former colleague in the House, Gabby Giffords. Of course, she herself was shot when she served as a Congresswoman, and she later set up the group following the Sandy Hook Elementary mass shooting when 20 children and 6 educators lost their lives. Now, a few States, including California, New York, and Colorado, have taken action to require payment card networks to use a merchant category code, or an MCC, to distinguish firearms retailers from other types of retailers.”
“I urge all my colleagues to support the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time. Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill because it limits efforts to detect and investigate gun violence and acts of terrorism. Before I discuss the bill, let's start with a few sobering statistics: 46,000 Americans die from gun violence every year. That comes out to an average of more than 125 Americans losing their life each day due to gun violence. Of course, America is unusual in this regard. Americans are 26 times more likely to be shot and killed than if you lived in any other high- income country. Nearly one in five Americans say they have personally witnessed someone shot.”
“Americans should be able to participate in the economy with confidence that their lawful transactions are simply being processed, not tracked or categorized or scrutinized beyond what is never necessary to essentially facilitate the payment. This bill helps preserve the integrity of that payment system by keeping it focused on facilitating commerce and efficient movement of funds. Importantly, this bill does not interfere with any existing law enforcement authorities, anti-money laundering requirements, fraud prevention efforts, or other obligations designed to protect consumers and safeguard our financial system. H.R. 1181 is a commonsense measure that simply safeguards financial privacy while maintaining the integrity of our Nation's payment network.”
“Maintaining trust in the payment system requires clear safeguards to ensure that these tools are used for commerce, not consumer surveillance. H.R. 1181 establishes those safeguards by preventing payment card networks and processors from using merchant category codes to target firearms retailers and their customers. The Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act provides important protections for consumers by preventing the misuse of payment systems to monitor lawful purchasing activity. Consumers should not have to sacrifice their financial privacy in order to participate in our modern economy. Protecting financial privacy helps reinforce confidence in the institutions and infrastructure that our payment systems operate around.”
“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 measure. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas? There was no objection. Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Mr. Moore's Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act. Financial privacy is fundamental to consumer trust and confidence in our financial system. As technology continues to transform financial services, protecting Americans' financial privacy remains an essential part of Congress' oversight role. Merchant category codes were designed to help process transactions, not create mechanisms for tracking or categorizing lawful purchases.”
“(6) Payment card network.--The term ``payment card network'' means an entity that directly or through a network participant, processor, or agent provides proprietary services, infrastructure, software, or hardware used to authorize, clear and settle credit, debit, or prepaid transactions. The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill). General Leave Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr.”
“(4) Firearms retailer.--The term ``firearms retailer'' means a person, entity, or retail location physically located in the United States that is engaged in the business of selling or trading-- (A) firearms; (B) ammunition; (C) accessories of firearms; or (D) components of firearms. (5) Merchant category code.--The term ``merchant category code'' means a multi-digit code, issued by the International Organization for Standardization, for the purposes of enabling the classification of merchants into specific categories based on the type of business, trade, or services supplied.”
“(3) Firearm.--The term ``firearm'' means-- (A) a ``firearm'' as such term is defined in section 921(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code; (B) a ``shotgun'' as such term is defined in section 921(a)(5) of title 18, United States Code; (C) a ``rifle'' as such term is defined in section 921(a)(7) of title 18, United States Code; (D) an ``antique firearm'' as such term is defined in section 921(a)(16) of title 18, United States Code; (E) a ``semiautomatic rifle'' as such term is defined in section 921(a)(29) of title 18, United States Code; and (F) a ``handgun'' as such term is defined in section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code.”
“(2) Covered entity.--The term ``covered entity'' means any entity that-- (A) has on the date of the enactment of this section, or establishes after the date of the enactment of this section, a relationship with a merchant for the purposes of processing credit, debit, or prepaid transactions; or (B) has on the date of the enactment of this section, or establishes after the date of the enactment of this section, a relationship with an entity that establishes a relationship with a merchant for the purposes of processing credit transactions, debit transactions, or prepaid transactions.”
“(d) Report.--The Attorney General shall, each year, submit a report to the Congress that-- (1) identifies the number of investigations undertaken by the Attorney General under subsection (b); (2) includes a summary of such investigations and their disposition; and (3) provides any available data and analysis that relates to the effectiveness of this Act. (e) Definitions.--In this Act: (1) Ammunition.--The term ``ammunition'' has the meaning given the term in section 921(a)(17)(A) of title 18, United States Code.”
“(c) Preemption.-- (1) In general.--Any law of a State or local government regulating the assignment, use, or disclosure of merchant category codes that are used only or primarily for firearms retailers or that identifies a retailer as engaged in the business of selling firearms, ammunition, accessories of firearms, or components of firearms is hereby preempted. (2) Limitation.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this Act may be construed to prevent a payment card network or a covered entity from complying with any Federal, State, or local law or regulations related to dispute processing, fraud, compliance management, or protecting transaction integrity from concerns related to illegal or suspicious activities, data breaches, or cyber risks.”
“(3) Written notice.--If the Attorney General determines, after conducting an investigation under paragraph (2), that a payment card network or covered entity has violated this section, the Attorney General shall send a written notice of such violation to such payment card network or covered entity that requires the payment card network or covered entity to remedy the violation not later than 30 days after the date on which the payment card network or covered entity receives such notice. (4) Injunction.-- (A) In general.--If a payment card network or covered entity does not remedy a violation within 30 days of receiving a written notice under paragraph (3), the Attorney General may bring an action in Federal court to enjoin the violating behavior. (B) No private right of action.--This Act does not create a private right of action.”
“(2) For covered entities.--A covered entity may not assign to a firearms retailer any merchant category code that is used only or primarily for firearms retailers or that identifies such retailer as engaged in the business of selling firearms, ammunition, accessories of firearms, or components of firearms. (b) Enforcement.-- (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall enforce this section and shall, not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this section, establish a process for individuals, including firearms retailers, to submit complaints relating to alleged violations of this section. [[Page H4442]] (2) Investigation.--The Attorney General shall investigate any complaint received through the processes established by the Attorney General under paragraph (1).”
“(a) Prohibitions Relating to Merchant Category Codes.-- (1) For payment card networks.--A payment card network may not require-- (A) a firearms retailer to use a merchant category code that-- (i) is used only or primarily for firearms retailers; or (ii) identifies such retailer as engaged in the business of selling firearms, ammunition, accessories of firearms, or components of firearms; or (B) a covered entity to assign a merchant category code that is used only or primarily for firearms retailers or that identifies a firearms retailer as engaged in the business of selling firearms.”
“Pursuant to House Resolution 1423, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services printed in the bill is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read. The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows: H.R. 1181 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act''. SEC. 2. DISTINGUISHING FIREARM RETAILERS PROHIBITED.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 114 (Tuesday, July 14, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 14, 2026)] [House] [Pages H4441-H4445] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] {time} 1520 PROTECTING PRIVACY IN PURCHASES ACT Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1423, I call up the bill (H.R. 1181) to prohibit payment card networks and covered entities from requiring the use of or assigning merchant category codes that distinguish a firearms retailer from general- merchandise retailer or sporting-goods retailer, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore.”
“The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. ____________________”
“I think this legislation does point to that loophole that allows megabanks to acquire failing banks even when other eligible, well- managed small and midsize banks have submitted competing bids improving community and regional bank competitiveness and preventing further consolidation among our largest financial institutions. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill. I appreciate the work on both sides of the aisle, and I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6556, as amended.”
“Mr. Speaker, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on this measure. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me first of all thank Chairman Hill for his kind remarks and his astute observations on the circumstances that have brought us to this point. I will add that I believe this morning it was announced that JPMorganChase, which was the benefactor of this previous transaction, is now approaching $5 trillion in assets. That is indeed remarkable. Their market cap is about a trillion dollars, as well.”
“That means that it is very hard to compete with them. What the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) has proposed is let us have more bidding for those failed banks by crafting a process that is transparent that Congress oversees, Congress outlines the guardrails, where smaller banks could team up with other capital sources and bid for one of those failed banks and end up being in a much more competitive process. What the government gets is a more diversified, more competitive banking system instead of the default winner being one of the big five existing financial institutions. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) for his work on this legislation. I thank Chairman Barr of our Financial Institutions Subcommittee and Ranking Member Waters for bringing our bipartisan team together on the committee in advancing this bill.”
“After the resolution of the savings and loan bank crisis and all the other related bank failures of the 1980s and very early 1990s, the government said, look, this is out of hand, and we want to enforce a least cost resolution process when a bank fails, meaning we don't want to lose more money after the closing by trying to keep these banks open. So they offered this ability that whoever paid the highest price, thus the least cost to the taxpayers, was the winner, which is good policy. However, now it is 30 years later, and the largest banks in the country, as outlined by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), have a disproportionate ability to bid $1 more and thus be the least cost to the taxpayer--or maybe after the last debate one penny more-- and be the least cost to the taxpayer.”
“If you go back to the 1980s, it was a period of Third World debt crisis, the oil and gas lending crisis, and the real estate lending crisis culminating in the late 1980s with really the collapse of [[Page H4441]] the savings and loan industry across the country from too lax supervision and too lax management of these institutions. In both large banks like the famous Continental Illinois failure in Chicago to some of the large thrifts, the government chose to keep banks open rather than closing them by essentially taking a note back called open bank assistance. It essentially increased the losses to the taxpayers.”
“Megabanks should not be allowed to take advantage of financial crises to increase their domination and pad their own profits. This legislation would take an important step toward increasing competition and improving the resilience of our financial system from economic shocks. I am proud that this bill was passed unanimously in committee by every Democrat, every Republican, and has the support of Americans for Financial Reform to boot. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I join my friend from Massachusetts in speaking to the importance of this bill and provide just a couple of minutes of perspective.”
“Consumer advocacy organizations such as Americans for Financial Reform and Better Markets have raised serious concerns about the advantages afforded to large interconnected financial institutions like JPMorganChase in bidding for these failing banks, and as a result growing ever larger while accelerating the process of consolidation. To that end, I introduced this legislation, the Failing Bank Acquisition Fairness Act, which if it were law at the time would have created a more level playing field between healthy medium-sized as well as larger banks to both stabilize markets but also to better serve depositors, businesses, and the impacted communities in which those banks are located while avoiding megabanks gobbling up smaller banks in the steady march toward consolidation.”
“{time} 1510 In fact, the FDIC agreed to absorb 80 percent of all credit losses. After effectively winning the government auction, J.P. Morgan quickly announced plans to shut down one quarter of First Republic's 84 branches rather than preserving consumer access to their local branches. The closure also led to the firing of approximately 1,000 bank employees. Acquisitions such as these are now the norm rather than the exception. This year, U.S. bank mergers and acquisitions have hit a 7- year high, up 45 percent since 2024.”
“For example, after the collapse of the First Republic Bank, Silicon Valley Bank, and Signature Bank in 2023, which were the second, third, and fourth largest bank failures in U.S. history, as part of the resolution process, Federal regulators, including the FDIC, structured an immensely favorable acquisition process to allow JPMorganChase, America's biggest bank at the time, to acquire the nearly $230 billion in assets and $103 billion in deposits from the failed First Republic Bank. Multiple midsized banks sought to acquire First Republic Bank but failed to compete with J.P. Morgan's sheer asset holdings, estimated to be close to $4 trillion. As part of that deal, the FDIC also entered into a comprehensive loss sharing agreement with JPMorganChase to incentivize that purchase.”
“Specifically, the Failing Bank Acquisition Fairness Act will prevent megabanks from dominating the bidding process for acquiring a failed bank if there are other eligible bids from well-capitalized and well- managed small and midsized banks. In the three decades since 1994, the number of commercial banks has declined in this country by approximately 50 percent, hollowing out the small and midsized institutions that have traditionally housed local community capital. Small to midsized banks are unable to compete with the larger institutions in the failed bank acquisition process, even when attainable opportunities arise which might result in a more favorable result for depositors and impacted businesses and communities.”
“This is a practical, bipartisan reform that strengthens oversight, promotes competition, and reinforces confidence in the bank resolution process, while preserving regulators' ability to respond to bank failures. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) for his leadership on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 6556. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6556, the Failing Bank Acquisition Fairness Act, which I introduced in December 2025. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), our ranking member, who advanced this legislation unanimously within the committee.”
“financial stability. This legislation helps address concentration in the U.S. banking sector and promote a more transparent, competitive, and accountable approach to resolving failing banks. This legislation includes critical guardrails, such as requiring regulators to report to Congress within 30 days of a waiver on why the waiver was granted, why other qualified alternatives were not selected, and any recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to improve competition for future bank resolutions. That transparency helps to ensure that these decisions are made in the best interests of depositors; our financial system at large; and, of course, the American people.”
“All of that often takes place in a very short period of time, between Friday at close of business and Monday morning at opening for business. At that same time, those decisions should be made by a process that is fair, transparent, and promotes competition. Under current law, Federal regulators are generally prohibited from approving a merger or acquisition of a failed or failing bank if the resulting institution would control more than 10 percent or more of deposits nationwide. However, regulators are allowed to waive these concentration limits under certain circumstances. H.R. 6556 restricts when those concentration limits can be waived to situations in which there are no other qualified bidders for that failed bank and the transaction is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or adverse effects on U.S.”
“direct spending by docs.house.gov/ Fairness Act, as $1 million, billsthisweek/ amended. increase revenues 20260713/ by $1 million, and HR6556_SUSxml.pdf result in no increase in the deficit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6556, the Failing Bank Acquisition Fairness Act, offered by my friend from Massachusetts. When a bank fails, regulators need to move fast to protect depositors, preserve confidence in our financial system, consider potential buyers, and minimize disruption to families, businesses, and communities.”
“EFFECTS ON DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES OF LEGISLATION CONSIDERED UNDER SUSPENSION OF THE RULES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WEEK OF JULY 13, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Additional Effect on Direct Information on Suspension Bill Bill Number Title Spending Effect on Revenues Direct Spending and Text at Revenue Effects doc.house.gov -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H.R. 6556........................ Failing Bank Increase by at Increase by at Would increase ........... https:// Acquisition Least $500K. Least $500K.”
“(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on September 1, 2036. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas. [[Page H4440]] General Leave Mr. HILL of Arkansas. 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 legislation. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas? There was no objection. Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Congressional Budget Office score for this bill.”
“1823(c)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(I) 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).''. SEC. 5. 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 $2,000,000.”
“(b) Public Disclosure.--The waiving agency submitting a report under subsection (a) 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. SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON CONSIDERING BAD FAITH BIDS IN LEAST COST DETERMINATION. Section 13(c)(4) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.”
“SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION AND JUSTIFICATION FOR WAIVERS. (a) 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-- (1) 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; (2) a description of alternative bids or outcomes considered, including efforts to solicit and encourage bids from entities that would not require a waiver; (3) an explanation of why alternative bids were not selected, if applicable; and (4) any recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to improve competition in future insured depository institution resolutions.”
“(b) 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-- (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively; (2) by striking ``With the'' and inserting the following: ``(1) In general.--With the''; and (3) 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 (B) in section 4(i)(8), by amending subsection (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).''. (2) Bank holding company act of 1956.--The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) is amended-- (A) 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 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 (B) 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.”