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 7 of 16.
“It also restores proportionality to regulation, updating capital leverage and enhanced prudential standards to actually reflect a bank's risk profile, not just an arbitrary static asset threshold. That means less money spent on regulatory gymnastics and more money available for loans in your communities. We are also bringing fairness and due process back to the supervision process. Banks and credit unions should not [[Page H4724]] be governed by opaque examiner preferences. They should be governed by clear risk-based and transparent standards that focus on core financial performance rather than foot faults and check-the-box compliance. Main Street also addresses the structural problems that are driving consolidation.”
“This hurts everyday Americans by reducing both access to credit and opportunities for small business growth. The Main Street Capital Access Act is about changing that. It is about rightsizing this regulatory framework to ensure that community lenders get back to what they do best: serving their customers and their communities. Main Street opens the door for new bank formation, improving transparency in the chartering process, making applications more predictable, and ensuring rural and underserved communities can once again see new institutions formed instead of watching their local banks disappear. You want to hold big banks accountable? Allow new banks to form.”
“For too long, Washington has been writing rules as if every bank and credit union in America is a trillion-dollar global institution. They are not. They are our hometown banks and community financial institutions. These guardrails that the ranking member talks about rolling back, we are not rolling back guardrails for big, multitrillion-dollar banks. We are talking about small community financial institutions. The goal is simple: Regulation should follow the risk, not the ZIP Code or the political fashion. A $500 million community bank in rural Kentucky, rural Arkansas, or rural Michigan should not be regulated under the same framework built for a trillion-dollar institution operating around the globe. That means higher costs, fewer loans, more forced consolidation.”
“Speaker, I include in the Record a link to 14 letters of support from the Consumer Bankers Association, the American Bankers Association, the Bank Policy Institute, the Independent Community Bankers of America, the National Association of Home Builders, and others: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn :aaid:sc:US:4c869bbb-74d2-4d1e- befb-1b3aba1a0be3 Community banks and credit unions are the financial backbone of this country. They finance farms, factories, first-time home buyers, and the local entrepreneurs who create jobs in every corner of America. These institutions don't just serve communities. They are part of the community. Here is the hard truth: Community banks have suffered under a regulatory framework that forgot who the system should serve.”
“Over the past 18 months, we have worked hard to develop over two dozen banking reform bills--many of them with strong bipartisan support--and combined them into one multifaceted package designed to strengthen our community financial institutions, not big banks, like the ranking member is referring to, community banks, Main Street banks, midsize banks. If we want to help hold big banks accountable, then what we need is competition. Competition and choice are good for America, good for consumers, and good for financial stability. Mr.”
“Speaker, our next speaker has worked tirelessly to assemble this package of bills that will help our Main Street banks and credit unions thrive, grow, better serve their customers, and, in turn, be able to see their local economies benefit. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions. Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by applauding my good friend from Arkansas, Chairman French Hill, for his leadership on this critical legislation. Great job working across the aisle for bipartisan support for this legislation that will help strengthen Main Street America. The Main Street Capital Access Act is exactly the kind of reform needed to advance this committee's goal of making community banking great again.”
“Now, Republicans made some technical changes at the request of Trump regulators, but let me give you another example of what they didn't fix. Wells Fargo, which many of you may remember created millions of fake consumer accounts and has been the subject of countless enforcement actions for consumer harm, like discrimination and anti-money- laundering deficiency, would have a new tool to delay future enforcement actions when consumers have been harmed. Mr. Speaker, instead of letting Wall Street put Americans and our economy at risk again, we should be addressing the affordability crisis caused by Trump's failed economic policies and endless war with Iran. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1500 Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr.”
“The committee report for this bill is over 600 pages long, mostly to show how all these different laws are amended. In fact, the sponsors of this bill were so zealous to raise thresholds that they increased two thresholds that will aid bad actors who commit fraud against a bank or a large financial institution. You can't make this up. There is a provision that will increase the amount that individuals can defraud a bank or future AIG by and then get government money to buy those failed assets for their own benefit. The largest labor union in the U.S., the AFL-CIO, and consumer advocates like Americans for Financial Reform and others wrote a letter saying that taken together, these changes would be more damaging than the sum of their parts, leaving the financial system dramatically weaker and more vulnerable to instability and crisis.”
“Speaker, what is more is that this bill ignores lessons from the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and other regional banks just 3 years ago. Those large regional banks failed after Congress rolled back capital, liquidity, and other rules specifically for those banks. Nevertheless, this bill allows even more of these large banks to escape critical safeguards, which risks even more failures and harm to Americans and small businesses. If H.R. 6955 were to become law, it would be the most sweeping deregulation of Wall Street since the 2008 financial crisis. Two sections of the bill, sections 203 and 204, amend 15 different banking and consumer protection laws and would increase more than 40 different regulatory thresholds. There are so many laws being rolled back.”
“Importantly, the Nation is grappling with an affordability crisis and surge in financial scams and fraud, costing consumers tens of billions of dollars. This was all made worse when Trump shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Voting for H.R. 6955 would add insult to injury by thwarting a future CFPB from issuing rules, such as fixing credit reporting or reining in debt collectors or abusive medical debt practices. Maybe that is the point. Interestingly, Rules Committee Chairwoman Foxx said the quiet part out loud yesterday. She confessed that Republicans love deregulation. That is what this bill is all about. It is not affordability and not protecting consumers. It is about deregulation for Wall Street's megabanks. Mr.”
“6955 is Wall Street deregulation--that is what it is--hiding as a community bank bill. This package is made up of 24 Republican bills with just two Democratic bills. Today, we mark the 16th anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act being signed into law. That is the law that bears the name of the late great and former Chairman Barney Frank. Unlike President Trump, President Obama knew when to sign a good bill when he saw it. That law was passed in response to the 2008 financial crisis when, in case my Republican colleagues have forgotten, millions of Americans lost their jobs, their homes, and their life savings. Yet, H.R. 6955 ignores these lessons and rolls back a long list of safeguards and oversight of the largest banks.”
“Speaker, let me start by saying that we all care about community banks and credit unions. For that reason, I was pleased to work with Chair Hill on a package of community bank provisions included in our landmark housing bill, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. Now, even though Trump refused to sign it, that legislation has become the law of the land. That law not only will get America back in the business of [[Page H4723]] building housing, but it will help community lenders provide mortgages and other types of financing to support the American Dream of homeownership. Importantly, that bill did not have handouts. It did not have handouts for megabanks, Big Tech, payday lenders, debt collectors, or credit bureaus. That is not the case for the bill that is before us today. H.R.”
“I thank my colleague again, my friend, the chairman of our Subcommittee on Financial Institutions, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), for his tireless efforts in developing this bill and his commitment to strengthening community banking, not only in Kentucky but across our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I also thank his hardworking colleague who has spent hours tirelessly thinking through the best approach to these provisions, and that is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster) of Chicago. Their collaboration will benefit our country, and I hope that we see a strong, bipartisan vote on this bill in this Chamber today. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time. Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr.”
“It brings this commonsense tailoring back to regulation. It restores fairness and transparency in bank supervision. It helps banks attract, retain, and diversify important funding sources from sources of deposits, and it removes unnecessary barriers that have limited lending in communities across this country. Mr. Speaker, with all of this effort, we have seen solid bipartisan support, input, and leadership in developing this bill. Expanding access to capital strengthens our local economies. It gives entrepreneurs the confidence to invest, businesses the ability to grow, and families the opportunity to build long-term wealth through that most abundant of American dreams: owning their own home. When Main Street banks succeed, our communities thrive.”
“{time} 1450 Recently, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which became law, contained nine community banking provisions that provided this sort of thematic, clear, needed relief to America's local lenders and expanded financing for both residential mortgages and housing construction and development. These measures that we are debating today in the Main Street Capital Access Act were in that same philosophy of what we just overwhelmingly passed in both Chambers just a few days ago. Mr. Speaker, I say today that we are building on the success of our 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act with Main Street Capital Access Act. We are expanding access to capital, supporting American businesses, and ensuring our financial system remains the most dynamic and diverse in the world. This bill delivers on those goals. It spurs formation of new banks.”
“Speaker, too often now spend more time on check-the-box compliance requirements rather than serving their communities. When I made my presentation to our party here in the House to chair our Committee on Financial Services, I said that the impact of Dodd- Frank and other rules had focused Main Street bank presidents staying up all night worrying, not about their loan pipeline, not about where to get their next lending officer. Instead, they are up all night wondering how they can afford another compliance officer to try to meet this standard that is, in my judgment, unreasonable for a small, straightforward, local bank. Our committee Republicans, with their great leadership from our subcommittee chair, Andy Barr of Kentucky, have worked mightily over the years to find a bipartisan set of solutions to exactly the problem I outline today.”
“The Dodd-Frank Act, passed in the heat and horror of the global financial crisis, took the approach that many community and midsize banks across our Nation were faced with the same rules and the same level of scrutiny of the largest, most systemically important institutions. It was just too much, Mr. Speaker. That approach, that overkill, has stifled local lending, constrained economic growth, accelerated industry consolidation--something I hear about from Members on both sides of the aisle all the time--and pushed important financing activity for both families and businesses out of the regulated financial sector. Again, I don't believe that was a goal by the proponents of Dodd-Frank after the financial crisis. Our local lenders, Mr.”
“Even to this day, almost three decades later, I smile driving by that restaurant location that I helped grow or driving by a building or a shopping center or a doctor's practice that our small bank helped finance--finance its construction, finance its future, finance its home for those employees. Community banks make that possible, and this bipartisan Main Street Capital Access Act gives them the tools they need to keep capital flowing where it is needed most up and down our main streets in our beautiful country. For decades, Washington has made it harder for community banks to thrive and operate efficiently.”
“They understand the needs of their communities, and they keep capital flowing where it is needed most. When a family is trying to buy their first home, they often walk into the offices of a community bank where that lender knows them, recognizes their goals, and is invested in their success. Mr. Speaker, as I have said on this House floor many times this year, our banks under $10 billion make 6 out of 10 home construction loans. When a local farmer or entrepreneur needs the capital to expand or initiate their crop for the year, they need someone who understands their particular business and is committed to seeing them succeed and, thereby, their communities succeed. I loved my role as a hometown Main Street community banker and investor.”
“Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Main Street Capital Access Act. As a former community bank founder and CEO in my hometown of Little Rock, Arkansas, I have seen firsthand the important role that our community banks and credit unions play to drive the economic engine of America and help Main Street grow and thrive. During the financial crisis, they were there. During the COVID pandemic, they were there, staying up all night to close emergency paycheck protection loans. Every Member of this body knows this and knows it well. They have their own story from their own town about how that local financial institution was there for a customer, for a family, to help a startup, to help a business or restaurant cope with the pandemic. Community banks and hometown credit unions know their customers.”
“The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services, or their respective designees. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) will each control 30 minutes. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill). General Leave 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 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr.”
“(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the National Credit Union Administration shall issue a report to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate containing all findings and determinations made in carrying out the study required under paragraph (1). SEC. 803. DISCRETIONARY SURPLUS FUND. (a) In General.--The dollar amount specified under section 7(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 289(a)(3)(A)) is reduced by $425,000,000. (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on September 1, 2036. The SPEAKER pro tempore.”
“(b) Study on Credit Union-Fintech Partnerships.-- (1) Study.--The National Credit Union Administration shall carry out a study of-- (A) the impact of partnerships between credit unions, on the one hand, and financial technology companies, on the other hand, on the credit union sector, competition, innovation, consumer protection, and the availability of financial products and services, including the extent to which these partnerships support the formation of new credit unions, reduce time to market for products and services, lower compliance burdens, boost customer acquisition, improve technological capabilities, and provide access to more diverse funding sources; and (B) what changes to Federal laws governing credit unions, or to rules or guidance adopted by the National Credit Union Administration, [[Page H4722]] may help promote effective partnerships between credit unions, on the one hand, and financial technology companies, on the other hand.”
“(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation shall issue a report to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate containing all findings and determinations made in carrying out the study required under paragraph (1). (3) Banking organization defined.--In this subsection, the term ``banking organization'' means a depository institution holding company or an insured depository institution, as such terms are defined, respectively, under section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813).”
“(a) Study on Bank-Fintech Partnerships.-- (1) Study.--The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation shall carry out a study of-- (A) the impact of partnerships between banking organizations, on the one hand, and financial technology companies, on the other hand, on the banking sector, competition, innovation, consumer protection, and the availability of financial products and services, including the extent to which these partnerships support the formation of new banking organizations, reduce time to market for products and services, lower compliance burdens, boost customer acquisition, improve technological capabilities, and provide access to more diverse funding sources; and (B) what changes to Federal laws governing banking organizations, or to rules or guidance adopted by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller of the Currency, or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, may help promote effective partnerships between banking organizations, on the one hand, and financial technology companies, on the other hand.”
“(2) Report.--Not later than the end of the 18-month period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Board shall issue a report to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate containing all findings and determinations made in carrying out the study required under this subsection. SEC. 802. BANK-FINTECH PARTNERSHIP ENHANCEMENT.”
“(b) Merchant Banking Study.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall carry out a study on merchant banking investments to assess-- (A) the number, investment size, holding period, and risk characteristics of merchant banking investments by financial holding companies, with the assessment of investment sizes and holding periods based on the average, median, and distribution of the investment sizes and holding periods; (B) the types of businesses, projects, assets, and activities in which such merchant banking investments are made, including the extent to which such merchant banking investments support infrastructure projects and housing development and construction; and (C) any information, analyses, or findings related to merchant banking investments that the Board determines to be relevant.”
“1843(k)(7)(A)) is amended by inserting ``Under such regulations, the period of time generally permitted for holding merchant banking investments shall not be less than 15 years. For any merchant banking investment held on the date of enactment of the Main Street Act, the holding period of time permitted shall not be less than 15 years from the initial date of the investment.'' after the period at the end.”
“1823(c)(4)), as amended by section 701(a)(3), is further amended by adding at the end the following: ``(J) Limitation on considering bad faith bids.--In making a determination under this paragraph of whether an exercise of authority is the least costly to the Deposit Insurance Fund, any application, proposed application, or bid that would result in violation of-- ``(i) section 18(c)(13) or 44(b)(2), or ``(ii) section 3(d)(2), 4(i)(8), or 14 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, shall not be considered a possible method for meeting the Corporation's obligation under this section for purposes of subparagraph (A).''. TITLE VIII--FACILITATING INNOVATION AND BANK PARTNERSHIPS SEC. 801. MERCHANT BANKING MODERNIZATION. (a) In General.--Section 4(k)(7)(A) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C.”
“(2) Public disclosure.--The waiving agency submitting a report under paragraph (1) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation shall make the report publicly available on their respective websites, subject to redactions for confidential supervisory information and any other information described under section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code. (c) Limitation on Considering Bad Faith Bids in Least Cost Determination.--Section 13(c)(4) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.”
“(b) Congressional Notification and Justification for Waivers.-- (1) In general.--Whenever the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller of the Currency, or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation waives a concentration limit under section 18(c)(13)(B) or section 44(e) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or under section 3(d)(5), section 4(i)(8)(B), or section 14(c)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, in connection with the acquisition of a bank or insured depository institution in default or in danger of default, or in connection with an acquisition with respect to which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation provides assistance under section 13 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the waiving agency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, jointly, shall, not later than 30 days after such waiver, submit a written report to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in the Senate containing-- (A) a justification for the waiver, including an analysis of why it was necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability; (B) a description of alternative bids or outcomes considered, including efforts to solicit and encourage bids from entities that would not require a waiver; (C) an explanation of why alternative bids were not selected, if applicable; and (D) any recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to improve competition in future insured depository institution resolutions.”
“(2) Concentration limit with respect to consolidated liabilities.--Section 14(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1852(c)) is amended-- (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively; (B) by striking ``With the'' and inserting the following: ``(1) In general.--With the''; and (C) by adding at the end the following: ``(2) Limitation.--The Board may provide written consent for an acquisition described in paragraph (1)(A) or in paragraph (1)(B) only if the Board determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that consummation of the proposed acquisition is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability, and the Corporation has not received any qualified bid (as defined in section 18(c)(13)(C) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) from another institution that is not subject to the prohibition in subsection (b).''.”
“``(C) Qualified bid defined.--In this paragraph, the term `qualified bid' has the meaning given that term in section 18(c)(13)(C) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.''; and (ii) in section 4(i)(8), by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows: ``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an acquisition if-- ``(i) such acquisition involves an insured depository institution in default or in danger of default and the Board determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that consummation of the proposed acquisition is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability, and the Corporation has not received any qualified bid (as defined in section 18(c)(13)(C) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) from another institution that is not subject to the prohibition in paragraph (2); or ``(ii) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation provides assistance under section 13 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to facilitate such acquisition and the Board determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that consummation of the proposed acquisition is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability, and the Corporation has not received any qualified bid (as defined in section 18(c)(13)(C) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) from another institution that is not subject to the prohibition in paragraph (2).''.”
“``(B) Concentration limit exception.--The Board may, without regard to paragraph (2), approve an application pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) if-- ``(i) the application is for the acquisition of 1 or more banks in default or in danger of default and the Board determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that consummation of the proposed acquisition is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability, and the Corporation has not received any qualified bid from another institution that is not subject to the prohibition in paragraph (2); or ``(ii) the application is for an acquisition with respect to which assistance is provided under section 13(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and the Board determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that consummation of the proposed acquisition is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability, and the Corporation has not received any qualified bid from another institution that is not subject to the prohibition in paragraph (2).”
“``(3) Qualified bid defined.--In this subsection, the term `qualified bid' has the meaning given that term in section 18(c)(13)(C).''. (B) Bank holding company act of 1956.--The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) is amended-- (i) in section 3(d), by amending paragraph (5) to read as follows: ``(5) Exception for banks in default or in danger of default.-- ``(A) General exception.--The Board may, without regard to subparagraph (B) or (D) of [[Page H4721]] paragraph (1) or paragraph (3), approve an application pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) if-- ``(i) the application is for an acquisition of 1 or more banks in default or in danger of default; or ``(ii) the application is for an acquisition with respect to which assistance is provided under section 13(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.”
“``(2) Concentration limit exception.--The responsible agency may, without regard to subsection (b)(2), approve an application under subsection (a)(1) for approval of a merger transaction if-- ``(A) the merger transaction involves 1 or more banks in default or in danger of default and the responsible agency determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that consummation of the proposed interstate merger transaction is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability, and the Corporation has not received any qualified bid from another institution that is not subject to the prohibition in subsection (b)(2); or ``(B) the Corporation provides assistance under section 13(c) to facilitate such merger transaction and the responsible agency determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that consummation of the proposed interstate merger transaction is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability, and the Corporation has not received any qualified bid from another institution that is not subject to the prohibition in subsection (b)(2).”
“1841(o)(9)).''; and (ii) in section 44, by amending subsection (e) to read as follows: ``(e) Exception for Banks in Default or in Danger of Default.-- ``(1) General exception.--The responsible agency may, without regard to paragraph (1), (3), (4), or (5) of subsection (b) or paragraph (2), (4), or (5) of subsection (a), approve an application under subsection (a)(1) for approval of a merger transaction if-- ``(A) the merger transaction involves 1 or more banks in default or in danger of default; or ``(B) the Corporation provides assistance under section 13(c) to facilitate such merger transaction.”
“1831o(b)); ``(II) with respect to a bank holding company, has the meaning given such term in section 2(o)(1)(B) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841(o)(1)(B)); ``(III) with respect to a savings and loan holding company, has the meaning given such term in section 238.2 of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations; and ``(IV) with respect to a company that is not an insured depository institution, bank holding company, or savings and loan holding company, means maintaining equity capital that the Corporation determines is commensurate with the capital maintained by an insured depository institution that is well capitalized; and ``(v) the term `well managed' has the meaning given such term in section 2(o)(9) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C.”
“1811 et seq.) is amended-- (i) in section 18(c)(13)-- (I) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows: ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an interstate merger transaction if-- ``(i) such interstate merger transaction involves 1 or more insured depository institutions in default or in danger of default and the responsible agency determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that consummation of the proposed interstate merger transaction is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability, and the Corporation has not received any qualified bid from a company that is not subject to the prohibition in subparagraph (A); or ``(ii) the Corporation provides assistance under section 13 to facilitate such interstate merger transaction and the responsible agency determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that consummation of the proposed interstate merger transaction is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability, and the Corporation has not received any qualified bid from a company that is not subject to the prohibition in subparagraph (A).''; and (II) in subparagraph (C)-- (aa) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end; (bb) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and (cc) by adding at the end the following: ``(iii) the term `qualified bid' means an application, proposed application, or bid from a company where-- ``(I) if applicable, the company, any affiliate insured depository institution, and any affiliate depository institution holding company are well capitalized and well managed, as of the date of the application, proposed application, or bid; and ``(II) upon consummation of the transaction, the resulting insured depository institution is well capitalized; ``(iv) the term `well capitalized'-- ``(I) with respect to an insured depository institution, has the meaning given such term in section 38(b) (12 U.S.C.”
“FAILING BANK ACQUISITION FAIRNESS. (a) Concentration Limit Exceptions Only Available to Avoid Serious Adverse Economic or Financial Effects.-- (1) Concentration limits with respect to deposits.-- (A) Federal deposit insurance act.--The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.”
“(c) Definitions.--In this section: (1) Insured depository institution.--The term ``insured depository institution'' has the meaning given the term in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813). (2) Modified bidder qualification process.--The term ``modified bidder qualification process'' has the meaning given such term in the press release of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation titled ``FDIC Expands Bidder List for Troubled Institutions Plan Allows Those Without a Bank Charter to Participate in the Process'' published November 26, 2008. (3) Shelf charter.--The term ``shelf charter'' has the meaning given such term in the report issued by the Comptroller of the Currency titled ``Activities Permissible for National Banks and Federal Savings Associations, Cumulative'' published October 2017. SEC. 703.”
“(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Board of the Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall, jointly, submit a report to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate containing-- (1) all findings and determinations made in carrying out the study required under subsection (a); and (2) an identification of statutory or regulatory barriers to the use and effectiveness of shelf charters and modified bidder qualification processes in the resolution of failed insured depository institutions, including recommendations for legislative and regulatory changes.”
“1823(c)(4)(G)) with respect to any such receivership; (6) the impact of the use of shelf charters and modified bidder qualification processes since January 1, 2008, including on financial stability, the safety and soundness of affected insured depository institutions, and the availability of financial products and services provided to consumers by such institutions; and (7) any benefits and risks of private equity ownership of banks through the use of shelf charters and modified bidder qualification processes.”
“1841 et seq.) and section 10 of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1467a) to shelf charter proposals; (4) whether shelf charters and modified bidder qualification processes were considered or used in connection with the receivership of any insured depository institution for which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed receiver in 2023; (5) with respect to such receiverships, the extent to which greater use of shelf charters and modified bidder qualification processes could have-- (A) expanded the pool of participants in the acquisition of the assets or liabilities of such failed insured depository institutions; (B) resulted in greater competition and diversity in market outcomes; (C) protected the Deposit Insurance Fund; or (D) strengthened financial stability and reduced the need for any emergency determination by the Secretary of the Treasury under section 13(c)(4)(G) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.”
“(b) Rule of Construction.--Section 13(c)(4)(H) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1823(c)(4)(H)) does not apply to the amendments made by subsection (a). SEC. 702. ENHANCING BANK RESOLUTION PARTICIPATION. (a) Study.--The Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Board of the Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall, jointly, carry out a study of-- (1) the use by the Comptroller of the Currency of shelf charters, including all conditional or preliminary shelf charter approvals granted between January 1, 2008, and the date of enactment of this Act; (2) the use by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation of the modified bidder qualification process; (3) the application of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C.”
“``(vi) Definitions.--In this subparagraph: ``(I) Covered alternative.--The term `covered alternative' means a method of exercising authority described in subparagraph (A) that is the least costly to the Deposit Insurance Fund of all such methods that involve a sale of all or substantially all assets of the insured depository institution to, and assumption of all or substantially all deposit liabilities of the insured depository institution by, a global systemically important banking organization. ``(II) Global systemically important banking organization.--The term `global systemically important banking organization' means a global systemically important BHC (as such term is defined in section 217.402 of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor thereto) and any affiliate thereof.''.”
“``(iv) Report to congress.--Not later than 30 days after selecting an alternative described in clause (i), the Corporation shall issue a report to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate containing an analysis of the economic difference between the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund of the selected alternative and the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund of the least costly alternative that would have been selected absent the application of this subparagraph. ``(v) Cost determinations.--All cost determinations required under this subparagraph shall be made in accordance with subparagraphs (B) and (C).”
“``(III) In the case of a selected alternative that involves another person purchasing assets of the insured depository institution or assuming deposit liabilities of the insured depository institution, such person agrees to pay an assessment to the Corporation comprised of payments-- ``(aa) made over a period to be determined by the Corporation, but which may not be less than 5 years; and ``(bb) in an amount that takes into account, on a case-by- case basis, criteria the Corporation, by rule, shall establish, including a realistic discount rate, the aggregate amount equal [[Page H4720]] to the difference calculated in subclause (II), and any bid inconsistent with the purposes of this Act, with such rule to be established by the Corporation not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subparagraph.”
“``(II) The difference between the cost of the selected alternative and the cost of a covered alternative is less than or equal to the maximum cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund specified pursuant to the rule adopted under clause (ii).”
“``(ii) Maximum cost to the deposit insurance fund.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subparagraph, the Corporation, by rule, shall establish criteria for determining on a case-by-case basis the maximum allowable cost against the net worth of the Deposit Insurance Fund that may be utilized to account for any determination under clause (i). ``(iii) Requirements described.--The requirements for the selected alternative described in clause (i) are as follows: ``(I) The selected alternative is least costly to the Deposit Insurance Fund of all alternatives that do not involve a transaction with a global systemically important banking organization and that do not exceed the cost of liquidating the insured depository institution.”