Main Street Capital Access Act

The House debated H.R. 6955, the Main Street Capital Access Act, which would ease a range of banking regulations, including capital requirements for new banks, rules for rural community banks, bank merger reviews, and asset thresholds that exempt some banks and financial companies from certain requirements and oversight. Republicans said the bill would help community banks and credit unions lend to local families and small businesses, make it easier to start new banks, and let small banks compete with or buy failing local banks rather than large ones taking them over. Democrats, led by Rep. Waters, said the bill goes beyond helping community banks and rolls back rules and oversight that apply to the largest banks, weakening consumer protections and increasing the risk of another financial crisis; they raised points citing past enforcement actions against large banks and opposition letters from labor, consumer, and civil rights groups, and Rep. Garcia offered a motion to recommit the bill to committee. Much of the debate consisted of members on each side making these points, with some Republicans describing the role of community banks in their own districts and communities, including Guam.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

24 statements

Maxine Waters, CA

Democrat
“I oppose this bill. It helps big banks and rich people instead of working families who need fair loans.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this speech addressed the bill under debate and what it would change.

    See full analysis
  • Speech on a bill

    Signal 24 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

Members have a choice today. 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. They don’t have time to listen to you talking about how you only have $200,000 and you want to buy this House around the corner. They are not interested in that. They are interested in the big money. They are interested in not only providing the loans for those who are spending a half million or so on a bank that they are trying to use to get a house. It is clear: The Big Banks are sick and tired of the way that they are being treated. They know they have a lot of power and a lot of friends in the Congress of the United States of America. They don’t know a new day is coming and a new way is coming. People are learning more and more why they have a right to be disturbed about the way that they are being treated. I tell people: Don’t be afraid to confront those Big Banks. Call us. Get your legislator to help you out. That is what we are supposed to do. Sometimes they can’t find us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Maxine Waters, CA

Democrat
“I oppose this bill. Many groups warn that weakening bank rules will make another taxpayer bailout more likely, especially while watchdogs already lack the power and resources to oversee the markets.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I have another letter that says: ``This dangerous bank deregulation package would undermine core safeguards and supervision, push risk into the shadows, and make the next publicly financed bailout more likely. Further deregulation is especially alarming at a time when financial regulatory agencies are under political attack, pursuing industry-friendly agendas, and starved of resources, and when there is effectively no oversight of financial markets.’’ It was signed by the AFL-CIO, Americans for Financial Reform, and dozens of others. Mr. Speaker, I include this letter in the Record.

Maxine Waters, CA

Democrat
“I want the House to vote against this bill. It rolls back rules on big Wall Street banks instead of helping regular people with the high cost of living. It also breaks a compromise we just made on another bill to help community banks.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, we know how to support community banks and credit unions. We just did that with our landmark housing bill, and I was pleased to work with the chairman of that committee, Mr. Hill. It became law just a few days ago and included five Republican bills and four Democratic ones that were focused on supporting community banks. Now, here come Republicans to push for what they and their allies want: financial deregulation. This bill has 24 Republican provisions compared to just 2 from Democrats. In fact, I am disappointed that my friends on the other side of the aisle are advancing provisions that even contradict our carefully crafted bipartisan agreement in the housing bill. There is a provision in this bill on de novo banks that goes beyond our bipartisan deal, allowing regulators to decide whether to make permanent reforms that really should be for Congress to decide. We struck a compromise in passing the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, and I think everyone who voted for that should honor that compromise. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, this bill is a distraction from what Congress should be focusing on: ending the affordability crisis caused by Trump’s failed policies. Nothing in this bill will help consumers afford groceries or pay for gas. Do you know who is not suffering during the affordability crisis? Wall Street. This bill would loosen the guardrails on Wall Street mega banks even as they report record profits. Even Chairwoman Foxx admitted that this bill is all about deregulation and rolling back Dodd-Frank, a law she said she strongly dislikes. Chairman Hill said they received drafting assistance from Trump’s regulators and banks, but not from organizations that represent workers or consumers. Mr. Speaker, we are not stupid. We understand that Trump controls all of his so-called organizations that are independent. He tells them what to do. We get that. He is in control. He is running this country. Those people who are selected to run these so-called independent agencies are those who will do nothing but what they are told to do. That is probably because the groups who represent actual people oppose this bill. That is what they are told to do. That is the leadership they have. Now is not the time to plant new seeds for the next crisis. Now is not the time to juice the mega banks’ profit margins. Now is not the time to legitimize Trump’s efforts to gut the CFPB, fair lending, and other consumer protections. Again, I am so proud and pleased with the work we did in a bipartisan manner. I am so proud and pleased that we were able to negotiate through some very tough times. I am so proud to announce that we had to give some, and we took some. They gave some, and we worked it out. I don’t know exactly what they are being told by Trump, but I know Trump is in charge, and he is charging a lot of what is going on. I urge my colleagues to please vote ``no’’ on this bill, and support the citizens, support their constituents, not Wall Street. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

J. French Hill, AR

Republican
“I want the House to pass this bill. It cuts back on rules and tests for small community banks so they can focus on making loans. It still protects customers and keeps fair lending laws in place. Both Republicans and Democrats helped write it.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, first, before I start, I thank the ranking member and the committee members on her side of the aisle for their work with us on developing this bill over many months. Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of the bills in this package that we are voting on, the Main Street Capital Access Act, are supported by Members on the Democratic side of the aisle. This is a truly bipartisan package of bills. We have significant work and support from individual Members on the Democratic side of the aisle in partnership with House Republicans. I also thank Maura Woosley, who is the majority staff director, Jae Jang, and their entire team in the majority working with the minority staff, and the minority staff to craft this package. In Congress, you can’t put together the kinds of successful legislative packages that the House Financial Services Committee has done in this Congress without a very hardworking and competent staff. I thank them on both sides of the aisle. I thanked Andy Barr, our majority subcommittee chair, a few minutes ago, but I will also thank Dr. Bill Foster of Illinois, who serves as the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Financial Institutions for his collaboration with Mr. Barr on this succesful bill. Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot of charges about this bill, that somehow this bill benefits Wall Street versus Main Street, and I just couldn’t disagree more. I noted that two-thirds of these bills have strong Democratic support, along with our Republicans. Secondly, there is nothing in this bill that weakens consumer compliance. The fair lending laws, the fair housing laws, and the equal credit opportunity laws, all those consumer statutes are upheld in this text. They are not really affected by this text. Banks have to comply with those laws. They had to comply with those laws before Dodd-Frank, and they comply with them since Dodd-Frank. I reject the idea that somehow we are limiting or curtailing or blocking or making ineffective consumer compliance. Secondly, it is our hometown banks, both rural banks and urban banks in our towns and cities, that benefit from this banking set of provisions. As the ranking member noted, in our housing bill that we collaborated on successfully--that we got passed and it became law on July 10--banks had some provisions there that helped them. This is the same theme continuing in this bill. If you are a small, well-managed bank under $6 billion, you get some relief, Mr. Speaker. If you are well-managed, have good capital, you can help schedule your exams. I was with a community banker in North Carolina this week. The bank is smaller than $500 million, and I said, how are things going? He said, it is going great except when I have five exams in a row and then the loan pipeline goes to zero. Because, guess what, I am the chief loan officer and the chief compliance officer in this small bank, and when my community bank is filled with bank examiners for an IT exam, a trust exam, an investment exam, an AML, anti-money laundering, and Bank Secrecy Act exam, a loan quality exam, a consumer compliance exam, I can’t make loans. If you are well-managed and have high capital, you get some relief in this bill. That is who this bill, Mr. Speaker, is aimed at. If you have a concern that your exam was unfair, we return some fairness in the exam process. You can go and actually question, was my exam fair or not? Whose idea was that, Mr. Speaker? Democrat from Michigan Don Riegle, U.S. Senator, 1995. Was it ever implemented? No, but it will be implemented when this bill becomes law. This bill is focused on more capital, more deposits, more business, more success for our community banks, which in turn helps every one of our towns in this country. Who is for it? Community development financial institutions, our CDFIs, have bipartisan support. They are for this bill. Our community development officials across the Nation are for this bill, as they were for the housing bill. The National Bankers Association, our national association for African-American bankers, wrote a letter for this bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill has overwhelming support to increase competition and help our community banks thrive and succeed, which means our towns will thrive and succeed. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. Echo Alexander Hamilton, our first Secretary of the Treasury, when he said that our banks in this early founding of our Nation are the nurseries of our national wealth. Mr. Speaker, today, 250 years later, long after the adoption of our government, our community banks, our credit unions, they are the nurseries of the national wealth that help our families and our businesses succeed. I urge a ``yes’’ vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from issue 119

  1. House of Representatives High Cost of War 3 statements
  2. House of Representatives The Wonderful Mccourt Family 2 statements
  3. House of Representatives Recognizing University at Buffalo President Satish Tripathi 2 statements
  4. House of Representatives Recognizing Robert Bentley 3 statements
  5. House of Representatives Recognizing Pamela Irvine 3 statements
  6. House of Representatives Remembering Wes Anderson 3 statements
  7. House of Representatives Legacy of American Liberty 3 statements
  8. House of Representatives Honoring James Robert Yaroszeufski 4 statements
  9. House of Representatives Recognizing Colorado Army National Guard Aviators 5 statements
  10. House of Representatives No Data Centers 2 statements
  11. House of Representatives Recognizing Final Flight of A-10 at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base 2 statements
  12. House of Representatives Recognizing Vance Taylor on His Retirement 5 statements
  13. House of Representatives Providing for Consideration of H.R. 8800, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 8884, Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act... 15 statements
  14. House of Representatives Main Street Capital Access Act 24 statements
  15. House of Representatives Continuing Appropriations Act, 2027 7 statements
  16. House of Representatives National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027 23 statements
  17. House of Representatives National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027 29 statements
  18. Senate Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 807 (Executive Calendar) 2 statements
  19. Senate Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 808 (Executive Calendar) 4 statements
  20. Senate Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 557 (Executive Calendar) 3 statements
  21. Senate Artificial Intelligence (Executive Calendar) 2 statements
  22. Senate Authority for Committees to Meet 2 statements
  23. Senate Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act 2 statements