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 6 of 16.
“Whose side are you on? Do you want to advance Donald Trump's deregulatory agenda to help out his wealthy friends on Wall Street, or are you on the side of working families, labor unions, consumers, and civil rights groups like those all over the country who just want equal and fair access to affordable financial products and services? For many of you who have been in this struggle with banks, where you have tried to get help with all kinds of issues, I want you to, again, go to your bank where you have a problem--don't go because they are only available on the phone--and state your problem. See who you can get to talk to. See if you can get an appointment. See if you can get some answers to the questions that you have. You can't do this with these big mega banks. They don't have time for you.”
“Help The People Programs, Inc--Georgia, Homes on the Hill CDC--Ohio, Housing Education and Economic Development (HEED)--Mississippi, Impact Hub Baltimore Inc.--Maryland, Long Island Housing Services, Inc.--New York, Neighborhood Recovery Community Development Corporation--Texas, New Jersey Citizen Action--New Jersey, People's Opportunity Fund-- California, Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporations--Pennsylvania, Proud Ground--Oregon, Rural Housing Coalition of New York--New York, South Dallas Fair Park Innercity Community Development Corporation--Texas, Southwest Community Development Corporation--Pennsylvania, TCH Development Inc--Texas, United Ballot--Louisiana, United South Broadway Corporation--New Mexico, Utah Housing Coalition--Utah, Women's Economic Ventures--California. Ms. WATERS. Members have a choice today.”
“Sign On Organizations and States ACHD--Washington, ASIAN, Inc.--California, Brighton Park Neighborhood Council--Illinois, Build WyCo--Kansas, Building Neighborhoods Together, Inc.--Pennsylvania, California Coalition for Rural Housing--California, CASA of Oregon-- Oregon, Ceiba--Pennsylvania, Community Development Network of Maryland--Maryland, Community Housing Development Corporation--California, Delaware Community Reinvestment Action Council Inc.--Delaware, Development Finance Authority of Summit County--Ohio, Economic Action Maryland Fund-- Maryland, Fair Finance Watch--New York, Fair Housing Center of Northern Alabama--Alabama, Freedom Equity Inc.--Ohio, Georgia Advancing Communities Together, Inc.--Georgia.”
“6955 The bill's supporters argue that H.R. 6955 will help local banks. What the bill actually does is weaken fair lending transparency, reduce CRA and HMDA accountability, make bank mergers easier, limit meaningful community input, and make supervision more difficult. NCRC is especially concerned that fair lending, CRA, HMDA and consumer protection requirements are recast as regulatory burdens rather than public accountability tools. These laws exist because markets have not reliably served all communities fairly. They help identify discrimination, credit gaps, support enforcement, and ensure that banks receiving public benefits meet public obligations. For these reasons, we urge Members to oppose H.R. 6955 and vote ``no'' on final passage. Sincerely, Jesse Van Tol, President and CEO, National Community Reinvestment Coalition.”
“This provision is framed as preventing regulators from using vague concepts to pressure banks, but the practical effect would be to create blind spots. Reputational risk is not simply ``bad press.'' It can be a warning sign of deeper institutional failures: predatory lending, discriminatory treatment, abusive fees, money laundering, fraud, weak compliance systems or repeated consumer complaints. Regulators should not be forced to ignore patterns of harm merely because those patterns also damage a bank's reputation. Communities often experience these harms before they show up as capital problems. If regulators are barred from considering reputational risk, they may lose an important early-warning tool for identifying conduct that threatens consumers, communities and the institution itself. Congress should reject H.R.”
“Local economic needs would be much better served by directing the agencies to study the actual impacts of mergers and bank consolidation, instead of counting days to pressure regulators to make decisions faster. Furthermore, concerns about the timeliness of merger reviews appear to be unfounded. NCRC analyzed the approval times of 18 merger applications submitted to the OCC in 2024. As shown in the table below, we found that the median days for approval after receipt of an application was 60 days, and that the average was 84 days. In other words, about half of these applications were approved 30 days after the end of a 30-day public comment period. 5. H.R. 6955 would pressure regulators to ignore reputational risk Section 304 would pressure federal banking agencies to remove reputational risk from supervision.”
“Section 603 directs the Inspector General of each Federal depository institution regulatory agency to conduct a study every three years on the ``timeliness and efficiency'' of merger approvals, including number of days it takes to process merger applications and the identification of ``sources of delay.'' Merger applications warrant scrutiny to evaluate their effect on each of the statutorily required factors of review, including how a proposed combination will serve the convenience and needs of the affected communities. Studies show signs of decreased small business lending after mergers, as well as lower rates paid to customers for deposits. However, despite this evidence, practically all merger applications are currently approved.”
“It should not be driven by an artificial clock that rewards incomplete applications and pressures regulators to approve deals quickly. Section 604 would also restrict how regulators treat information from outside parties when determining whether an application is complete, potentially discounting community and consumer evidence that is often essential to understanding a transaction's [[Page H4728]] real-world impact. Community groups, local officials, small businesses and affected residents are often able to identify branch closure risks, fair lending concerns, weak CRA performance or service gaps that are not evident from the applicant's own submission. 4. H.R. 6955 focuses on how long merger approval takes, instead of whether mergers benefit local economies.”
“CRA examinations are one of the few mechanisms that require banks to demonstrate that they are meeting the credit needs of their entire communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. 3. H.R. 6955 would compress merger review and sideline community evidence Section 604 would set a fixed 120-day clock for certain applications, beginning at the time of filing even if the submission is incomplete. If the Federal Reserve fails to act within that period, the application would be deemed granted. That is a dangerous standard for complex bank transactions. Merger review should focus on whether a transaction will serve the convenience and needs of affected communities, preserve access to banking services, protect consumers and avoid harmful concentration.”
“Neither one measures whether banks are serving communities fairly, the rates of redlining, the extent of market concentration, have sufficient data to detect discrimination, and whether credit needs in LMI communities are being met. A larger economy does not mean community needs are being met. The same problem applies to inflation indexing. Adjusting thresholds for CPI may sound technical or even routine, but in this context, this approach would still cause fair-lending transparency to shrink automatically over time without any finding that communities are being served fairly. For NCRC and our members, the HMDA and CRA implications are especially serious. HMDA data is one of the primary tools used to detect redlining, evaluate whether lenders are serving borrowers and neighborhoods fairly, and identify gaps in mortgage access.”
“The floor version no longer uses the same mechanics as the committee-reported bill, but the core concern remains: Section 204 would create an automatic increase for statutory thresholds across consumer and community-focused laws, including the Community Reinvestment Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. Beginning in 2031 and every five years after that, Section 204 would require the Federal Reserve to raise the dollar cutoffs in laws like CRA and HMDA that determine which banks are subject to stronger reporting, examination and accountability rules. The Fed would decide whether to base those increases on nominal GDP or inflation. That is the wrong test for community accountability. Nominal GDP measures the size of the overall economy, while CPI measures inflation.”
“NCRC found that 641 counties, predominantly rural, would shift from competitive markets to highly concentrated markets. In ten counties, one bank would control 100 percent of all local deposits. According to the FDIC's Merger Decisions Annual Report to Congress (2024), regulators approved 61 regular bank-merger applications in 2023. Of those, 57 out of the 61 would have resulted in institutions less than $10 billion. Under H.R. 6955, many comparable transactions would fall within the bill's competition-review safe harbor, unless the narrow one-physical-depository- institution MSA exception applied. 2. H.R. 6955 would weaken CRA, HMDA and fair lending accountability Section 204 would substantially reduce the tools communities rely on to ensure fair access to credit and hold banks accountable to local needs.”
“Because roughly 4,129 of the nation's 4,287 insured banks (or approximately 96 percent) hold under $10 billion in assets, this carveout would cover a large share of community and regional bank merger activity. The problem is especially acute in rural counties and smaller local markets. A merger between two banks that are not nationally large can still have significant local consequences. In many communities, the loss of one local institution can mean fewer branches, reduced small-business lending, less agricultural credit, weaker customer service, and fewer banking choices. NCRC conducted an analysis of every US county to assess the impact of potential mergers between the two largest banks in each county, with their combined assets being under $10 billion.”
“Section 601 would prohibit federal banking regulators when evaluating many mergers resulting in institutions below $10 billion in assets from engaging in a competition review and thus they cannot consider whether the mergers would create monopolies or substantially lessen competition. The latest floor version preserves competition review where a transaction would leave only one insured depository institution with a physical presence in the area. This narrow exception does not solve the problem and protects only against the most extreme case, while preventing regulators from reviewing many mergers that could still substantially reduce competition, reduce branch access, or weaken small- business, agricultural and consumer credit options in local markets.”
“However, those revisions do not fix the bill's core problem: H.R. 6955 moves federal banking policy in the wrong direction by weakening community accountability, fair-lending transparency, merger review and supervisory safeguards. Earlier this year, NCRC urged a no vote when H.R. 6955 was considered in committee. All Democratic members who were present voted no in Committee: We urge you to continue that opposition and vote no on the House floor. 1. H.R. 6955 would sharply limit monopoly and competition review for mergers involving roughly 96 percent of all banks.”
“Dear Leader Jeffries, Whip Clark, Chair Aguilar, and Members of Democratic Leadership: The National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) and our network of 700+ community organizations urge Members to oppose H.R. 6955, the Main Street Capital Access Act and vote no on the House floor. H.R. 6955 is a broad bank deregulation package that would weaken fair lending transparency, community accountability, bank supervision and merger review. The bill would reduce the tools regulators and communities rely on to detect redlining, monitor access to credit, evaluate bank mergers, prevent harmful consolidation and hold financial institutions accountable to the people they serve. NCRC appreciates the inclusion of CDFI-related provisions, including CDFI Fund transparency and CDFI Bond Guarantee Program improvements.”
“More signers include Georgia Advancing Communities Together, the Neighborhood Recovery Community Development Corporation in Texas, and the United States Broadway Corporation in New Mexico. I could go on and on, but there is no time for that. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letter from NCRC. National Community Reinvestment Coalition July 21, 2026. Re Oppose H.R. 6955, the Main Street Capital Access Act. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Katherine Clark, Democratic Whip, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Pete Aguilar, Chair, House Democratic Caucus, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.”
“6955 is a broad bank deregulation package that would weaken fair lending transparency, community accountability, bank supervision, and merger review. The bill would reduce the tools regulators and communities rely on to detect redlining, monitor access to credit, evaluate bank mergers, prevent harmful consolidation, and hold financial institutions accountable to the people they serve.'' The signers of the letters don't just come from blue States but from all over the United States of America. This includes Build WyCo from the great State of Kansas. We also have Building Neighborhoods Together in Pennsylvania, Fair Housing Center of Northern Alabama, and Freedom Equity in Ohio.”
“It is time to restore a market that welcomes and protects community banks, a market that encourages competition, and most importantly, one that serves the American citizen. H.R. 6955 does just that. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hill for his important work on this legislation, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill today. Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, a wide variety of labor, consumer, and civil rights groups are strongly opposed to this bill. Let me read from one of the letters we received: ``The National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) and our network of 700+ community organizations urge Members to oppose H.R. 6955, the Main Street Capital Access Act and vote no on the House floor.'' That is what we are being urged to do by our supporters. ``H.R.”
“This stifles lending, reduces competition, and makes it harder for Americans, especially in rural communities, to access capital. Put plainly, the current regulatory climate punishes community banks, and it benefits larger international banks. [[Page H4727]] My home State of North Carolina has long had a proud history of vibrant community banks. Today, there are very few exceptions to this, but there are really only two choices for community banks in today's market if they want to survive. That is to grow large enough to be acquired or to merge with another institution. Whether it was Wachovia, First Citizens, BB&T, or Bank of America, each of these began in North Carolina as a local community bank before growing and becoming a key player in our economy through a merge or an acquisition.”
“For the vast majority of our Nation's history, community banks were the primary artery into progress for all Americans. That reality is being threatened today by sloppy and ineffective policies that originate right here in Washington, D.C. Whether it is the Dodd-Frank regulatory structure or the millions of rules and regulations that are in existence today, community banks have been choked out by these all-encompassing regulations. With administrative costs rising every year, local banks simply cannot afford to operate. We can see this most clearly in 1980 where there were more than 14,000 community banks in the United States. Now because of the regulatory structure of the current market, there are roughly 4,000 community banks.”
“Wall Street is making record profits while they are helping them. Mr. Speaker, for those of us who really care about community banks, we want to keep them because they service their communities in a more profound way. Again, I will repeat: They know and understand when you have a problem, you can call a big bank and you will find nobody. You will go through different menus that they have, but you will not be able to walk into the bank and talk to somebody sitting at a desk who will help you with your problem. Do I have to say more? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Knott). Mr. KNOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6955, the Main Street Capital Access Act.”
“This bill will give the Guam business community a fair chance, and I thank the Financial Services Committee for their work on this legislation. {time} 1530 Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, proponents say this bill is just for community banks, but here we have another example of the Big Banks sneaking in their rollbacks. I have four postings from the Bank Policy Institute, which represents all of the largest banks, like Wells Fargo. These postings advocate for indexing regulatory thresholds to nominal GDP instead of inflation. Why? It allows more and more banks to escape regulatory scrutiny. This bill will give Trump's regulators--and only Trump's regulators-- the opportunity to index 40 different thresholds to let large banks off the hook.”
“He has a strong background in financial services, healthcare, business, and insurance. Mr. MOYLAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6955, the Main Street Capital Access Act. When the people of Guam set out to enterprise new business ventures, we turn to our community banks to raise capital. However, much of America's financial system is not designed with small businesses in mind. While big banks have the resources to cut through red tape, small community ventures often struggle to comply with a regulatory regime that never had them in mind. The Main Street Capital Access Act makes commonsense reform, tailoring regulations so small lenders can comply, while opening more resources to the new banks, small banks, and rural banks which serve communities like Guam.”
“My friend tells me that we should not be concerned about deregulation that puts these banks in a position where they are not only moving toward consolidation, but they are taking over banking in ways that will help them to get richer and richer. Guess what, Mr. Speaker. They will keep paying the fines, the big banks will, because that is the cost of doing business, and they still make money. This is outrageous. This is ridiculous. No more deregulation. No more looking at how you can frame it in such a way, Mr. Speaker, that you are saving the community banks. Mr. Speaker, you are not saving the community banks. As a matter of fact, you are putting them out of business. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the beautiful territory of Guam (Mr. Moylan).”
“They don't want the small mortgages. Guess what, Mr. Speaker. They don't do them. As a matter of fact, many communities where there are residents who could afford the houses in their community are sold out to private equity firms and others who come and buy these houses for pennies on the dollar, but they won't sell them to you, Mr. Speaker, because you don't look like a big profitmaker for them. I am so pleased I worked with Mr. Hill, and we have done something to change that to encourage the banks to pay attention to those who can afford that $90,000 house, that $100,000 house, that $150,000 house, that $200,000 house. They are working every day. They can afford it, but the banks are not interested.”
“There is so much that we could point out that the average citizen knows in dealing with their banks. The average citizen is tired of being treated in the way that they are treated by their banks. I tell my friend that he is correct in the support that he did for the big bill that Mr. Hill and I worked so hard on. We have a lot in that bill. But let me point out one of the things in that bill that gives us cause to be concerned. Right now, Mr. Speaker, if you find a residence that you would like to buy, particularly if you are in a rural community, or you may be a low-income community, but you work every day and you can afford a house for maybe $90,000 to $100,000, the bank doesn't want to be bothered with you. The bank wants the big loans. The bank wants the million-dollar loans. They want the half-billion-dollar mortgages.”
“Speaker, I will mention again one of the atrocities that I have been able to experience working on these issues. Again, Wells Fargo was fined $3.7 billion just a few years ago for widespread mismanagement of automobile loans and mortgages. Their actions included unlawful fees and even repossession of cars. Now, someone would say, $3.7 billion, well, I want you to know they make so much money that is just a cost of doing business. They will keep doing it if we keep allowing them to get away with what they are trying to get away with today. If my friend wants a guarantee that this bill helps Wells Fargo, then he should support Ms. Garcia's amendment that says that megabanks can't benefit from this bill, but I guess he won't. After all, my friend knows that today is Dodd-Frank's birthday, and he is the skunk at the party.”
“Importantly, the bill also includes legislation to codify President Trump's executive order preventing debanking, such as my bill, the SAFE Guidance Act, which affirms guidance does not have the effect of law. Both guidance and reputational risk were weaponized under previous administrations to debank legitimate, legal businesses. This bill corrects those wrongs. This legislation supports community banks, protects Main Street across the country, and I urge support. Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time for each side is remaining. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 15 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Arkansas has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining. Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr.”
“At the start of this Congress, Chairman Hill said one of our Committee's priorities was to make community banking great again. Since then, we [[Page H4726]] have advanced the package of bills before us that is the largest community bank deregulatory reform effort since the 1990s. Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, community banks financed 65 percent of home loans in this country. Today, it is less than 30 percent. This bill helps reverse that trend. It lowers capital hurdles so new community banks can form, and it tailors bank regulations so small and midsize banks are regulated fairly. These changes allow banks to extend more mortgages, be more competitive on small business loans, and improve access to credit for all Americans. This is a housing bill, a small business bill, an affordability bill, and an access to capital bill.”
“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. 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. Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Speaker, I commend our chairman, French Hill, for his excellent leadership. I do rise in support of the very appropriately named Main Street Capital Access Act introduced by Chairman Hill and Subcommittee Chairman Barr. The legislation does exactly what it says. It supports access to capital for Main Street.”
“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. 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.”
“There was no objection. Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit. Let's send this back to Committee so that we can make sure that it truly works for our community banks and that it does not give Wall Street another big win. Mr. HILL of Arkansas. 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.”
“Instead, this bill sneaks in deregulatory measures, further weakens the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and weakens community reinvestment and anti- discrimination safeguards. For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules had permitted it, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. My amendment would limit the provisions of this bill from applying to any globally systemically important bank holding companies. Simply put, it ensures that the bill's deregulatory provisions do not apply to megabanks. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record immediately prior to the motion to recommit. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Texas?”
“These reports will help give critical insights to the current de novo chartering process and how Congress can reduce complexities and redundancies in the system. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislative package with my bills included is much more aligned with the goal of a safe and sound financial system that works for all the American people, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. {time} 1520 Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia), who is a big supporter of community banks. Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise against H.R. 6955. Instead of the Main Street Act, this bill, Mr. Speaker, should be called the Wall Street wins Main Street loses act. It does not help end the affordability crisis, feed hardworking Americans, or keep a roof over their heads.”
“What we are saying is that is what we have in the financial services industry right now. We need to tailor the regulations to fit the business model of the business, especially the small business. That is why I am proud that my TAILOR Act has been included in this package. I can't stress enough the importance of the TAILOR Act because it is for the little guy. It is important because it requires all future regulations to be tailored to the risk of the regulated institution. It rewards institutions that adopt sound risk management practices with fewer regulations and punishes those who take an unhealthy amount of risk. I also wish to highlight my New BANK Act, which requires Federal financial regulators to publish annual reports on applications received for creating new financial institutions.”
“Loudermilk), the vice chairman of our Financial Institutions Subcommittee. Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee for his hard work on this and for including several of my provisions in this bill that is designed for the small guy. I obviously rise in support of H.R. 6955 not only because it is a good bill, but also because I recognize the need to rightsize Federal regulations and gain more transparency into the financial regulatory process. For too long, Federal financial regulators have taken this one-size- fits-all approach. If we applied that same status to ourselves, then let's just issue every Member of Congress one suit of clothes so that we all wear the same suit of clothes. Now, we wouldn't accept that because we would only have clothes to fit the largest Member of Congress.”
“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.”
“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.”
“[[Page H4725]] If you want to be fair, charge all your big friends and all the big banks everything they should be charged with regulation. This is about whether or not you are going to use your power to literally undo what we have worked so hard to do to give the average person a decent chance with a bank, and that is community banks. Mr. Speaker, I am asking for a ``no'' vote on this bill because, in the final analysis, I know that if you get away with these deregulations, we are going to have consolidation. It will only be five banks, almost only five big banks in the country that control everything. I am asking for a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr.”
“Do you know why we love community banks? It is because they understand the community. They know the people in the community. They work with you when you have a problem. The megabanks don't know you, don't care about you, don't do anything to assist you, and hope you can't get through their menus in order to speak with anybody. I say, it is not a lot of talk about loving community banks. It is action and what you do. Now, then you come in here talking about how much you love the community banks, yet you know that you can't get the deregulation that you are doing unless you hid behind the community banks. If you love the community banks, all you have got to do is work with us to separate the regulations in a way that it does not undermine the community banks.”
“Everybody raved about the greatness of it. Now, 10 days after it became law, now some on the opposite side of the aisle are already trying to undo the bill. Now, this bill will actually make it easier for more, not less consolidation. The bill is bad for new banks but great for megabanks. Let me just say this: We all talk about loving community banks. I want you to know it is not the talk about loving community banks, it is action and what we do for or against them. I want you to know the big megabanks don't even want them in their doors. They don't even want to have those working behind the counter serving us. They have you serving from outside the bank. When you can get in touch with them, I want you to know, you have got to go through a hell of a menu to try to talk with someone that maybe in a community bank you can talk to.”
“That trend began when Congress repealed Glass-Steagall almost 30 years ago. What Dodd-Frank has done is ensure the longest stretch of economic growth in a generation. The threat to community banks is not Dodd- Frank, but it is to repeal it and return to their needless days, reckless days that led to the 2008 financial crisis. Just last week, we passed my bill as part of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. My bill eased the requirements on new banks. H.R. 6955, however, would set new banks up for failure. In fact, the bill undermines much of what we were trying to accomplish when we worked together in a bipartisan way. What we have to do at this point in time is understand a provision of the housing bill that was carefully negotiated. Mr. Speaker, I thought we all were supposed to be in support of the housing bill.”
“Speaker, we would want that. However, it appears that some on the other side do not. This package makes it easier to form new banks, strengthens local funding and liquidity, and helps community lenders put more deposits to work financing homes, small businesses, and entrepreneurial dreams. At a time when Americans are struggling with everyday expenses, Washington should not make credit more expensive through needless red tape. H.R. 6955, the Main Street Act, will promote competition. It will expand access to capital and help make life more affordable for American families. I thank the chairman both of the full committee as well as our subcommittee, and I urge passage. Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me be clear: Dodd-Frank has not led to bank consolidation.”
“This bill lowers unnecessary regulatory costs for community and midsize banks, not those big business center banks on Wall Street and in New York and around the world. In fact, this ends debanking. Mr. Speaker, it restores the flexibility these institutions need to better serve you and your family. {time} 1510 I am also pleased that this bill includes two of my bills: the FDIC Board Accountability Act, which strengthens governance of the FDIC board on behalf of smaller institutions, and the Enhancing Bank Resolution Participation Act, which simply seeks to bring more qualified bidders into failed-bank resolutions when disaster strikes. Better oversight and broader participation can protect depositors. It is going to promote competition. It reduces further concentration in the banking system, and I would think, Mr.”
“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. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, as a small business owner, I have seen it. I have lived it. When community banks disappear, families and small businesses lose the local lenders who know their communities and their customers best. Less competition means fewer financing options, higher borrowing costs, and less investment on Main Street, not Wall Street, as some of my colleagues are trying to assert.”
“This is especially concerning at a time when financial regulatory agencies are under political attack, pursuing industry-friendly agendas, and are starved of resources. That is why more than 25 labor, consumer, housing, economic justice, and public interest organizations are opposing this bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, our next speaker has worked in this House for over a decade, speaking on behalf of Main Street Michigan.”
“While I believe in sensible tailoring to help community banks and credit unions do what they do best--deliver personalized products to meet the needs of their customers--this bill moves far beyond sensible tailoring. Instead of focusing on modest improvements, this package represents the largest amount of bank deregulation since before the financial crisis. It includes sweeping reforms that will not only significantly roll back necessary safeguards and weaken oversight, but it will also undermine consumer protection and antidiscrimination measures and hamper the CFPB's ability to issue new rules. This deregulation package will push risk into the shadows and make the next publicly financed bailout more likely.”
“The Main Street Capital Access Act is a critical step toward restoring the financial backbone of this country. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation. Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6955. Community banks and credit unions are the foundations of our financial system. As ranking member of the House Small Business Committee, I understand better than most the role they play in our communities, offering small business loans, farm loans, and mortgages. They are critical lifelines to our rural and underserved communities that have been left behind by our biggest banks.”
“This legislation requires regulators to ensure clarity and predictability in the merger process so that healthy banks can grow and troubled banks can find partners before they fail. It ensures that when banks do fail, like Silicon Valley Bank, community banks aren't shut out of the resolution process by design. Finally, this legislation recognizes reality: Innovation is happening. The question is whether it happens inside the banking system, where it is supervised and safe, or outside, where it isn't. This bill lets banks partner, modernize, and compete. Community banks, Mr. Speaker, are the financial infrastructure of America--rural America, suburban America, urban America. When they thrive, small towns thrive. When they are regulated out of existence, capital dries up and opportunity for local ownership disappears.”