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 15 of 16.
“3074, the Common Cents Act. This is a straightforward bill that accomplishes one commonsense goal. It stops the Federal Government from losing money on a coin that almost no one uses. Here is the problem: Every penny we mint costs the taxpayers nearly 4 cents. Think about that. We are spending 4 cents to make 1 cent. Last year alone, that absurd math cost the American taxpayers more than $85 million. I think we can be a better steward of the taxpayers' money than that. As a businesswoman, I can assure you that no businessowner in my district or myself would ever spend four times as much to make $1. Yet, that is exactly how Washington has managed the penny year after year. Quite frankly, that does not make sense. The Common Cents Act fixes it.”
“This legislation also requires the Federal Reserve to prepare a strategic plan in connection with managing the circulation of the penny. Additionally, the bill will now grapple with potential unintended consequences that come from ending penny production, like rounding cash transactions on low-income and unbanked communities and more. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Arkansas for his leadership on this. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. McClain), our Republican Conference chair and the author of this bill. I really just ask her for a penny for her thoughts. Mrs. McCLAIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hill for his help on this. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.”
“This sudden decision is emblematic of how the administration carries out policy. They do it suddenly, without expert engagement, without feedback, and without consideration of potential harms. For these reasons, I was glad to see that Ranking Member Waters, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), Representative McClain, and Representative Garcia worked together for over a year to thoughtfully provide much-needed clarity to businesses and consumers in this legislation. In its current form, this bill has made significant improvements from when it was first marked up in our committee. As drafted, the bill now allows businesses to round cash transactions if exact change cannot be provided, and it also authorizes businesses to continue to round in favor of customers.”
“The idea to end penny production is not a new one. In fact, other countries, like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, have stopped producing pennies themselves. However, many of these countries executed this plan through a deliberate and meaningful process. Unlike the approach taken by other countries, in February 2025, President Donald Trump abruptly announced on his Truth Social media account that he directed the Treasury to stop minting pennies. This decision, not surprisingly, ignored the critical role and constitutional authority of Congress in regulating the currency. While the Secretary of the Treasury did carry out President Trump's orders, the administration failed to provide a strategic plan or guidance for the public on how to handle this change, which would impact all segments of the economy.”
“With fewer pennies available, many cash transactions are rounded to the nearest nickel. H.R. 3074 provides a clear, uniform standard for how these transactions can be rounded, giving businesses certainty and ensuring everyone is playing by the same rules. This bill is about good stewardship of taxpayer dollars. It is about recognizing when government can do things more efficiently, making smart updates where they are needed, and saving money in the process. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3074, and I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1450 Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3074, the Common Cents Act, sponsored by Representative McClain. I thank Representative McClain, along with Representative Robert Garcia, for their work on this legislation.”
“Last year alone, taxpayers lost more than $85 million producing pennies. Chairwoman McClain's bill simply codifies President Trump's directive to the Mint to stop producing pennies. Of course, we have to be practical. If we are going to no longer make pennies, people are likely to use more nickels. The problem is that nickels aren't exactly a bargain either and the gentleman from Massachusetts knows it. They cost nearly 14 cents to produce, so we need to make sure we don't solve one problem by creating another one. That is why Mrs. McClain's bill also gives the U.S. Treasury Secretary the authority to move to a lower cost, zinc-based nickel to ensure that increased nickel demand is not mitigating the savings due to the elimination of the penny. The bill also addresses something retailers and consumers are already experiencing.”
“docs.house.gov/ billsthisweek/ 202607413/ HR3074_SUSxml.PDF -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the House floor in support of Republican Conference Chairwoman McClain's bill, the Common Cents Act. This is a simple, common ``cents'' bill aimed at saving taxpayer dollars and modernizing a part of our currency system that no longer makes economic sense. The numbers speak for themselves. According to an audit of the United States Mint, it costs $3.69 to make one penny. That is the 19th year in a row, Mr. Speaker, the government has spent more to make a penny than a penny is worth.”
“Speaker, I include in the Record the CBO estimate for this legislation. 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. 3074........................ Common Cents Act, as Increase by Less None............... ................... ........... https:// amended. Than $500K.”
“(2) Financial institution.--The term ``financial institution'' means any person, other [[Page H4434]] than an individual, the business of which is engaging in financial activities in section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1843(k)) 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. 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 the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas? There was no objection. Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr.”
“(2) Successive reports.--The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall submit to the covered committees and make publicly available 2 additional reports that evaluate the progress described in paragraph (1) on dates that are not later than-- (A) 18 months after the submission of the report required under subsection (a); and (B) 30 months after the submission of the report required under subsection (a). SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) Covered committees.--The term ``covered committees'' means-- (A) the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives; and (B) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate.”
“(b) Evaluation.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after submission of the report required under subsection (a), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall submit to the covered committees and make publicly available a report that evaluates the progress of implementing the strategic plan described in subsection (a), including-- (A) any material changes to the plan; and (B) any identified or emerging stress in the penny distribution system.”
“(a) Strategic Plan and Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall submit to the covered committees and make publicly available a report that outlines a strategic plan for the acceptance of penny orders and deposits at commercial coin terminals providing services under agreements with the Federal reserve banks nationwide, including-- (1) a description of the Board's approach to limiting disruptions in penny supply and maintaining the stability of and efficiency of the coin distribution system, to the greatest extent practicable; (2) an evaluation of such coin terminals where the Federal reserve banks no longer accept penny deposits or penny orders; (3) an assessment of whether processing penny deposits or penny orders at such coin terminals could mitigate any challenges related to ceasing the production of the penny, including challenges related to the implementation of rounding practices; (4) an assessment by the Secretary of the Treasury, which the Secretary shall conduct and deliver to the Board not less than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act-- (A) on the impact of penny supply and demand disruptions, and rounding practices for check cashing, on low-income communities, older consumers, debanked, unbanked, and underbanked individuals, including feedback from State or local entities; and (B) that includes recommendations to the Congress to address any adverse impacts identified under subparagraph (A); and (4) any additional considerations the Board determines relevant to maintaining penny distribution stability.”
“(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act or of any order thereunder shall excuse noncompliance with any Federal, State, Tribal, or local law, regulation, ordinance, or requirement establishing a minimum wage, providing for overtime pay requirements, or providing for paid leave. SEC. 5. STRATEGIC PLAN AND REPORT ON COIN TERMINAL OPERATIONS AND COIN DISTRIBUTION STABILITY.”
“(a) Federal Law.--Any person selling goods or services in a cash transaction, including a financial institution, entering into any other transaction that results in a payment or transfer of cash between the parties to the transaction shall not be in violation of any Federal requirement, law, regulation, or standard based on the adherence to the cash rounding provisions described in section 3. (b) State and Tribal Law.--Any person selling goods or services in a cash transaction, including a financial institution, entering into any other transaction that results in a payment or transfer of cash between the parties to the transaction shall not be in violation of any requirement, law, regulation, or standard of a State, Tribe, or a political subdivision of a State based on the adherence to the cash rounding provisions described in section 3.”
“(f) Covered Amount Defined.--In this section, the term ``covered amount'' means-- (1) the total transaction amount, including taxes; or (2) in the case of a person selling goods or services in a cash transaction or entering into any other transaction that results in a payment or transfer of cash between the parties to the transaction, the amount of change due to the customer if the customer provides a cash payment that exceeds the total transaction amount, including taxes. SEC. 4. TREATMENT OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND TRIBAL LAW WITH RESPECT TO CASH TRANSACTION ROUNDING.”
“(d) Application.--Subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall not apply to any transaction for which payment is made by any demand or negotiable instrument, electronic fund transfer, check, gift card, money order, credit card, or other like instrument or method. (e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act may be construed to require any person to round a payment as described in subsections (a) or (b).”
“(2) Down to the nearest amount divisible by 5, if the customer is paying the person in cash. (c) Employer Payments to Employees.-- (1) In general.--With respect to an employer providing a cash payment to an employee in an amount that is not divisible by 5 cents, if the employer chooses to round the amount of cents in such payment, the employer shall round the amount of cents in such payment up to the nearest amount divisible by 5 cents. (2) No rounding requirement.--Nothing in this subsection may be construed to require rounding by an employer described in paragraph (1) who provides a cash payment to an employee in an exact amount.”
“(2) Rounding up.-- (A) In general.--In any case in which the covered amount ends with 3 cents, 4 cents, 8 cents, or 9 cents as the final digit, the amount of cents in the sum may be rounded up to the nearest amount divisible by 5 for any person seeking to make payment with cash. (B) Small transactions.--In any case in which the covered amount totals $0.01 or $0.02, such amount may be rounded up to $.05 for any person seeking to make payment with cash. (b) Additional Authority to Round.--With respect to a person, including a financial institution, conducting a cash transaction with a customer of the person, the amount of cents in the sum of the transaction may be rounded, if such rounding is in favor of the customer, as follows: (1) Up to the nearest amount divisible by 5, if the person is paying the customer in cash.”
“(a) In General.--Any person, including a financial institution, selling goods or services in a cash transaction or entering into any other transaction that results in a payment or transfer of cash between the parties to the transaction may, if exact change cannot be provided at that time of such transaction, round the covered amount in the following manner: (1) Rounding down.--Except as provided in paragraph (2)(B), in any case in which the covered amount ends with 1 cent, 2 cents, 6 cents, or 7 cents as the final digit, the amount of cents in the sum may be rounded down to the nearest amount divisible by 5 for any person seeking to make payment with cash.”
“``(2) No effect on legal tender.--Any one-cent coin that is minted and issued on any date before the date of the enactment of this subsection shall remain legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.''. SEC. 3. CASH TRANSACTION ROUNDING.”
“``(2) Composition.--The Secretary may prescribe the composition of zinc and nickel in the 5-cent coin, subject to testing and evaluation that such composition-- ``(A) reduces the cost incurred to produce such coin; and ``(B) to the greatest extent practicable, has a minimal adverse impact on machines designed to accept coins.''; and (4) by adding at the end the following: ``(bb) Ceasing Production of One-cent Coin.-- ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall cease production of one-cent coins for general circulation, but may continue to produce and issue one-cent coins for sale as numismatic items.”
“SPECIFICATIONS OF 5-CENT COINS AND CEASING PRODUCTION OF ONE-CENT COINS. Section 5112 of title 31, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)-- (A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``weighs 5 grams.'' and inserting the following: ``weighs-- ``(A) 5 grams, with respect to such coin that is an alloy of copper and nickel; or ``(B) between 4 and 6 grams, with respect to such coin as described in subsection (c).''; and (B) in paragraph (6)-- (i) by striking ``except as provided under subsection (c) of this section,''; and (ii) by striking ``and weighs 3.11 grams''; (2) in subsection (b)-- (A) in the sixth sentence-- (i) by inserting ``either'' before ``an alloy''; and (ii) by inserting ``or a composition described in subsection (c)'' before the period; (B) by inserting ``with respect to such coins that are an alloy of copper and nickel'' after ``nickel required''; and (C) by striking ``Except'' through ``zinc'' and inserting ``The one-cent coin is composed of copper and zinc''; (3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows: ``(c) 5-cent Coin.-- ``(1) In general.--The 5-cent coin may be a coin with an inner layer of zinc and an outer layer of nickel.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 114 (Tuesday, July 14, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 14, 2026)] [House] [Pages H4432-H4438] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] COMMON CENTS ACT Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the [[Page H4433]] bill (H.R. 3074) to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to stop minting the penny, to require cash transactions to be rounded up or down to the nearest five cents, and for other purposes, as amended. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows: H.R. 3074 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 ``Common Cents Act''. SEC. 2.”
“It roots out waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal budget. It is simply common sense that we focus on fiscal responsibility and rein in wasteful spending to which Washington has become so addicted. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my House colleagues, Chairman Arrington, and the Members of this body to accomplish the President's goals by way of this reconciliation measure.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for kindly yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, the policies of the Biden-Harris administration crushed the spirit of the American people under the weight of rising costs from a 40-year high inflation, open borders, uncertain futures, and spending an avalanche on Biden's Big Government spending priorities that have saddled us with an annual deficit of $2 trillion. The resolution before us today offers a path forward to rein in wasteful spending and put our Nation on a responsible and sustainable fiscal path. It reflects the commitment to the American people that would secure a better future for all of us. This resolution secures the opportunity for tax cuts for hardworking American families and small businesses. It reins in the regulatory overreach that has long stifled our economic growth.”
“Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. ____________________”
“The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint resolution. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.”
“This is an overdraft protection that helps millions of families across the country manage their payments and their bills between paychecks. It should be competitive and it should be accessible. We should vote ``yes'' on this resolution so that we agree with the Federal Reserve of New York when they say that to cap this fee to do price intervention here is to deny credit and deny this product to the hardest working families in America. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the third reading of the joint resolution.”
“One of my colleagues called it overdraft protection insurance so that they don't make a mistake and miss a mortgage payment, a rent payment, or a utility payment that causes higher costs, higher fees, and higher interest rates. Two-thirds of consumers support overdraft protection products. Two- thirds of consumers think a reasonable fee is appropriate. Competition has brought down fees for years. In fact, many large banks don't even charge for overdraft protection. The assertion that consumers complain about this all the time, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I don't find the evidence to that. Even the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's own database shows that less than 1 percent of consumer complaints over this past decade even reference this kind of a product. This is not a junk fee.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends on this side of the aisle who have worked hard today, Mr. Speaker, to convince everybody in this body that this is a serious overreach by the CFPB in a Federal price mandate. Instead of letting consumers choose their financial institution and choose which one has the lowest overdraft fees and the best consumer accounts, instead we have the Federal Government trying to tell people what the price can be. It is Federal price-fixing. What the opposition has argued today is that these fees are hidden. They are not. Consumers opt into this product, Mr. Speaker. They know what the fee is because it is disclosed to them. It is required by Federal law today to disclose it under regulation DD. This is about access for overdraft protection.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my good friend from California if she has any other speakers. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), who brings his entrepreneurship and State legislative practice. He is a former Congressman returning to the House Financial Services Committee. {time} 1400”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Financial Institutions. Mr. Speaker, he has his two top advisers with him, Eleanor and Mary Clay.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the vice chairman of our full committee, who has such distinguished service on our committee. He is a leader in every way and also in the House Foreign Affairs Committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Downing), a new member of the House Financial Services Committee. We are so delighted to have his expertise on our committee. He has a securities regulatory background. He was the State auditor. He serves on our committee and on the House Small Business Committee.”
“The Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that artificial price caps, like the one being discussed, being proposed by the CFPB on overdraft protection programs, reduced the supply, leading to fewer bank accounts for low-income families, period, full stop. I hear all the concern. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McDowell). We are glad to have his voice in this debate.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say that the gentlewoman makes a good point about financial management when it comes to late fees and accelerated interest rates on credit cards. That is why we are actually talking about overdraft protection today, because time and time again people take advantage of affordable, convenient, disclosed, not hidden overdraft protection so that their family can avoid a late fee on a credit card, which she just gave an excellent overview of her concerns about. If we want to do that, then give people the financial tools that they have in overdraft protection without micromanagement from the Federal Government. Don't take my word for it or anyone on this side of the aisle.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald), a greater leader there, a fine leader in this House on the Judiciary Committee, and an active member on the House Financial Services Committee.”
“Rose), my good friend. Mr. Rose was the Commissioner of Agriculture in Tennessee before coming to Congress. He is a very active member of both the House Financial Services Committee and the Agriculture Committee. He has rural Tennesseans and their financial success at heart.”
“If they want overdraft protection to make sure that they are actually being protected on an extra payment or some bill they have between paychecks, they have it. It is completely spelled out. Regulation DD in the Truth in Savings Act requires financial institutions to provide that information. Clearly, customers opt in to it. Mr. Speaker, I promise you, I had it all through my early career when I couldn't make payments between paychecks. A young family, one income, lots of children, a lot of expenses, you do it. It is a good, prudent practice. As a community banker for decades, I can promise you families were smart about it. There is nothing hidden about it. It is fully present. Consumers opt in to it, and the competition is intense to retain those customers. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me say that the gentlewoman from California knows my respect for her and her leadership on our committee, but there is no effort here to raise overdraft fees in this resolution. It is quite the contrast. All we are saying is we don't need the Federal Government having a price cap on a product that is a very competitive product, with many, many banks not even charging for overdraft protection. There is nothing hidden, Mr. Speaker, about fees on overdrafts. The Electronic Fund Transfer Act signed by this Congress made it clear decades ago that consumers must opt in to overdraft protection. Let me repeat that. Consumers select to do this. They shop for financial institutions online, down the street, whatever. They pick their credit union or bank to do business with.”
“I encourage all of my colleagues to support this resolution to restore common sense to our regulatory framework and ensure that consumers continue to have access to the financial services on which they rely. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”
“Another survey found that 64 percent of customers think it is reasonable for a bank to charge an overdraft fee, and 72 percent feel these fees are justified, particularly when it helps them ensure timely payment of a much larger important bill, like a mortgage or rent. In my experience of helping families across rural Arkansas for many years, as I said, managing their finances, they are pretty smart about how to do that, Mr. Speaker. The truth is if the consumers lose access to overdraft protection, they will be forced to turn to alternative sources of credit that may be more expensive and riskier, have less consumer protection and documentation, and be less holistically handled than they would be at their home community financial institution or credit union.”
“Speaker, in 2023, a survey found that 92 percent of customers who were aware their balance wouldn't cover a transaction preferred paying the overdraft fee rather than having their transaction declined. Not only is it inconvenient or potentially embarrassing in a particular situation, but it is also fundamental to in-between paycheck cash flow. They are making the decision to go into overdraft so they make that mortgage payment on time, despite buying clothes for back to school and trying to do Christmas shopping. {time} 1315 In my experience with my customers, over my many years of working with families, I never found one who was not a worthy steward of how to use these services.”
“This redefinition of what products and services constitute credit thus is problematic, especially since Congress has already defined credit for regulatory purposes. Even more troubling is the way the CFPB oversimplifies the costs of providing overdraft protection. The rule only considers the cost of operating a call center and ignores the many other expenses involved such as ratifying and dealing with consumer disputes, mailing and postage for overdraft notices, third-party collection expenses, technology costs, and cost of regulatory compliance. The reality is that these additional costs make it increasingly difficult for banks to continue offering overdraft protection. Many will simply choose to stop providing the service altogether. Those who will suffer the most from this are the very people the rule is designed to protect. Mr.”
“By doing so, it effectively limits access to credit and that overdraft privilege for those who need it the most at the time they need it the most. The CFPB's failure to consider the cost associated with this regulation, especially the real-world impact on consumers, their local community's financial institution, and the broader financial system only underscores the need to stop this price control before it is too late. The CFPB also creates a false narrative of choice by suggesting that banks and credit unions can either offer an overdraft service at this federally mandated price fixed cost of $5 or comply with extending that as credit and, therefore, complying with the Truth in Lending Act. In other words, actually underwriting a consumer loan instead of simply offering the overdraft--simple, straightforward, fast, overdraft fee.”
“Unfortunately, this CFPB rule undermines this very approach and threatens to restrict access to credit and overdraft privileges, which all of us should be concerned about. The CFPB's rushed and haphazard approach to the rule is a clear example of how not to regulate. The CFPB made this decision before conducting meaningful research or considering the real-world consequences of its actions. The CFPB's rule imposes a government-mandated price cap on what financial institutions may charge in the way of a fee for an overdraft privilege. Like all price caps, this would reduce the availability of these very overdraft services, especially, Mr. Speaker, for consumers who have lower credit scores or are considered high risk.”
“It lets that payment to a utility company proceed. It lets that payment for an important rent or mortgage company to proceed, thereby allowing American families to take care of essential needs like that mortgage payment, rent payment, groceries, or gas before their next paycheck arrives. Over the last decade, competition has driven financial institutions to lower their overdraft privilege fees to retain customers. Innovation has made accidental overdrafts less likely as many financial institutions now offer low balance alerts, automatic transfers from savings, and other tools to help consumers avoid being in overdraft and better manage their financial cash flow. Competition and innovation, not government-mandated price caps, remain the best way to ensure consumers have access to affordable financial products and services.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this joint resolution of disapproval. Today, we can protect consumers and ensure continued access to financial services by voting to nullify the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's disastrous rule on overdraft fees. In a time burdened by the 40-year-high inflation, when many middle- and low-income households are living paycheck to paycheck, ensuring Americans have access to affordable credit has never been more important. Overdraft protection is an optional service that financial institutions provide to help consumers avoid having purchases declined. Instead of the transaction being denied, the bank or credit union charges a flat fee to cover the check on behalf of that consumer. It lets that purchase proceed.”
“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 the resolution under consideration. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas? There was no objection.”