J. French Hill · TranslatePolitics.com

House of Representatives

Recognizing Little Rock Police Chief Heath Helton

2026-07-23

“I want to praise a police chief in my district. He did a good job. He will do more good work.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Chief Heath Helton of the Little Rock Police Department for his three decades of public service to our capital city, and to congratulate him on his recent appointment as the director of Arkansas' Division on Law Enforcement Standards and Training. As chief, Helton implemented the city's comprehensive crime reduction strategy, leading to 4 consecutive years of falling crime. Violent crime has declined by 15 percent under his tenure. Chief Helton is an inspired choice to help shape the law enforcement training standards for Arkansas. His proven leadership will serve Arkansas well as he trains that next generation of officers. Mr. Speaker, I join all central Arkansans in thanking Chief Helton for his service, and I wish him continued success as he works to make Arkansas a safe place to live, work, and raise a family.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

House of Representatives

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027

2026-07-22

“I support a study to decide where to put F-35 planes. The study will say what it costs at different places. I want them to put the planes in my state. The study might help make that happen.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Rep. Steve Womack's Amendment No. 311, that I am proud to cosponsor. Amendment No. 311 seeks to maximize taxpayer value by directing the Department of Defense to conduct and publish a cost comparison study for future F-35 basing locations for aircraft receiving first delivery between Fiscal Year 2030 and Fiscal Year 2035. As you may know, the next round of F-35 basing decisions is expected in the next 24 months. This study is critical to arm military decision-makers with objective, data-driven analysis before that decision is made. The Arkansas National Guard believes that this study is critical to ensuring a complete understanding of the current mission and personnel before future F-35 basing decisions are made. I agree with the Arkansas National Guard and that is why I urge my colleagues to support Amendment No. 311.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want the government to study how the military shares information about cyber threats. The National Guard needs to know about cyber threats. We need to protect important computer systems. The government should look at the issue. They should figure out what is working and what is not working. I want Congress to put this in the defense bill. It is important for national security. I hope other members will vote yes.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in support of Amendment No. 156. My amendment directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a review of the quality and effectiveness of the Department of Defense's cyber intelligence sharing with state, local, Tribal, territorial, and private-sector partners. I drafted this amendment with the Arkansas National Guard to ensure we analyze cyber information sharing to learn how to stop and mitigate cyber threats for homeland defense. As you may know, the National Guard is uniquely positioned by its capabilities, geography, and manpower to add resilience to integrated critical infrastructure dependencies. That is why it is critical for the GAO to conduct this review, as it can inform and better unify efforts among federal partners, state-level defenders, and other critical stakeholders to ensure faster warning, mitigation, incident response, and better defense of our critical infrastructure. This amendment is extremely important to central Arkansas and the Arkansas National Guard. It is also extremely important to our national security and cyber health. I urge my colleagues to support Amendment No. 156. The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania). The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers). The en bloc amendments were agreed to.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want this land swap to happen. It will help the Arkansas National Guard. They need different buildings. The Army Reserves can swap with them. It will not cost extra money. The generals agree to this. I want Congress to put it in the defense bill. I hope other members will vote yes.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Amendment No. 158. Amendment No. 158 is extremely important to the Arkansas National Guard. That is why I am grateful to have the support of my Arkansas colleagues, Rep. Steve Womack and Rep. Rick Crawford. This amendment supports the Arkansas National Guard by seeking to codify the proposed land exchange between the Arkansas National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserve on Camp Robinson in North Little Rock. Currently, there is a strategic mismatch in facility use for the Arkansas National Guard and the USAR on Camp Robinson. The land exchange will include a two-star division headquarters at Camp Pike, currently occupied by a drilling unit with minimal full-time staff, a unit whose needs would be far better served by an armory. The second is the Chappell Armory in Arkansas, which was built for traditional drilling units but currently operates as a full-time headquarters. Amendment No. 158 seeks a no-cost land exchange between the Arkansas National Guard and USAR. This would result in a mutually beneficial outcome and ensure better stewardship of taxpayer dollars. The Arkansas National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserve support the conveyance. I am pleased that there has been a signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Brigadier General Bridges of the Arkansas Guard and Brigadier General Cook of the Army Reserves. Amendment No. 158 directly relates to the signed MOA, and it ensures the necessary continuity and stability for the proposed land exchange. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

House of Representatives

Main Street Capital Access Act

2026-07-21

“I want this bill to pass. Many Democrats support it. It will help small banks. Exams make it hard for them to give loans. If a bank is well-run, it should get some relief. This bill gives them relief. It does not weaken consumer protections. Community banks need more capital and deposits. They help towns thrive. Many groups support this bill. It will increase competition. Please vote yes.”

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't want to vote for your motion. I say my bill is good. It helps start banks in growing areas. It makes big companies compete more. You say my bill helps Wall Street. But I say it does not. I want to yield time to a colleague who agrees with me.”

Official Congressional Record

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. 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. 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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't like your interpretation. I think this bill helps small banks. I want small banks to have more money and to grow. I want them to be able to compete with big banks. This bill will make it easier for small banks.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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. 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. Loudermilk), the vice chairman of our Financial Institutions Subcommittee.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“My next speaker agrees with me. He will say good things about my bill. You should listen to him.”

“I want to cheer for the Main Street Capital Access Act. This bill will help small banks and credit unions. That's good for business. It's good for local economies.”

“I want this bill to pass so the government can claim it is helping small banks. I don't like that opponents slow it down. I want fewer rules for small banks. I started a small bank. Small banks are good. Big banks have too many rules. That hurt small banks.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want this bill to pass so the government can claim it is helping families.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1438, I call up the bill (H.R. 6955) and ask for its immediate consideration by the House. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). Pursuant to House Resolution 1438, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services, printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-35 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read. The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. Sec. 101. Promoting New Bank Formation. Sec. 102. New Bank Application Numbers Knowledge. Sec. 103. CDFI Fund Transparency. Sec. 104. CDFI Bond Guarantee Improvement. Sec. 201. Taking Account of Institutions with Low Operation Risk. Sec. 202. Small Bank Holding Company Relief. Sec. 203. Tailoring and Indexing Enhanced Regulations. Sec. 204. Community Bank Regulatory Tailoring. Sec. 301. Halting Uncertain Methods and Practices in Supervision. Sec. 302. Fair Audits and Inspections for Regulators' Exams. Sec. 303. Supervisory Modifications for Appropriate Risk-based Testing. Sec. 304. Financial Integrity and Regulation Management. Sec. 401. FDIC Board Accountability. Sec. 402. Stop Agency Fiat Enforcement of Guidance. Sec. 403. Regulatory Efficiency, Verification, Itemization, and Sec. 501. Bringing the Discount Window into the 21st Century. Sec. 502. Keeping Deposits Local. Sec. 601. Bank Competition Modernization. Sec. 602. Merger Agreement Approvals Clarity and Predictability. Sec. 603. Merger Process Review. Sec. 604. Bank Failure Prevention. Sec. 701. Least Cost Exception. Sec. 702. Enhancing Bank Resolution Participation. Sec. 703. Failing Bank Acquisition Fairness. Sec. 801. Merchant Banking Modernization. Sec. 802. Bank-Fintech Partnership Enhancement. Sec. 803. Discretionary surplus fund. ``Sec. 114A. Guarantees for bonds and notes issued for community or ``Sec. 177. Periodic adjustments to thresholds. ``Sec. 178. Periodic adjustments to thresholds established by rule.''.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

House of Representatives

Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act

2026-07-14

“I want to talk about a bill I like. I had a debate. I thank my colleague for writing the bill. I want everyone to support the bill. The bill is about privacy. I yield back my time.”

“I want this bill to pass. Our government must protect the privacy of people who buy guns. Payment systems should not record what people buy. I want to stop codes that single out gun sellers. This bill does not change how we catch criminals. It protects the privacy of people who buy guns. I think this is common sense. I want my colleagues to vote yes.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Mr. Moore's Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act. Financial privacy is fundamental to consumer trust and confidence in our financial system. As technology continues to transform financial services, protecting Americans' financial privacy remains an essential part of Congress' oversight role. Merchant category codes were designed to help process transactions, not create mechanisms for tracking or categorizing lawful purchases. Maintaining trust in the payment system requires clear safeguards to ensure that these tools are used for commerce, not consumer surveillance. H.R. 1181 establishes those safeguards by preventing payment card networks and processors from using merchant category codes to target firearms retailers and their customers. The Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act provides important protections for consumers by preventing the misuse of payment systems to monitor lawful purchasing activity. Consumers should not have to sacrifice their financial privacy in order to participate in our modern economy. Protecting financial privacy helps reinforce confidence in the institutions and infrastructure that our payment systems operate around. Americans should be able to participate in the economy with confidence that their lawful transactions are simply being processed, not tracked or categorized or scrutinized beyond what is never necessary to essentially facilitate the payment. This bill helps preserve the integrity of that payment system by keeping it focused on facilitating commerce and efficient movement of funds. Importantly, this bill does not interfere with any existing law enforcement authorities, anti-money laundering requirements, fraud prevention efforts, or other obligations designed to protect consumers and safeguard our financial system. H.R. 1181 is a commonsense measure that simply safeguards financial privacy while maintaining the integrity of our Nation's payment network. I urge all my colleagues to support the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to pass a bill that says payment card networks can't use codes that single out firearms retailers. The DOJ has to enforce this.”

House of Representatives

Failing Bank Acquisition Fairness Act

2026-07-14

“I want to add some history. The government had a bad experience in the 1980s. The government spent a lot of money on failed banks. In the 1990s the government changed the rules. They said let the highest bidder buy failed banks. That was better. But now big banks can always outbid small banks. This bill will let small banks team up with investors. That will let them compete with big banks. I want more competition. This bill will help. Vote yes on this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I join my friend from Massachusetts in speaking to the importance of this bill and provide just a couple of minutes of perspective. If you go back to the 1980s, it was a period of Third World debt crisis, the oil and gas lending crisis, and the real estate lending crisis culminating in the late 1980s with really the collapse of the savings and loan industry across the country from too lax supervision and too lax management of these institutions. In both large banks like the famous Continental Illinois failure in Chicago to some of the large thrifts, the government chose to keep banks open rather than closing them by essentially taking a note back called open bank assistance. It essentially increased the losses to the taxpayers. After the resolution of the savings and loan bank crisis and all the other related bank failures of the 1980s and very early 1990s, the government said, look, this is out of hand, and we want to enforce a least cost resolution process when a bank fails, meaning we don't want to lose more money after the closing by trying to keep these banks open. So they offered this ability that whoever paid the highest price, thus the least cost to the taxpayers, was the winner, which is good policy. However, now it is 30 years later, and the largest banks in the country, as outlined by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), have a disproportionate ability to bid $1 more and thus be the least cost to the taxpayer--or maybe after the last debate one penny more-- and be the least cost to the taxpayer. That means that it is very hard to compete with them. What the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) has proposed is let us have more bidding for those failed banks by crafting a process that is transparent that Congress oversees, Congress outlines the guardrails, where smaller banks could team up with other capital sources and bid for one of those failed banks and end up being in a much more competitive process. What the government gets is a more diversified, more competitive banking system instead of the default winner being one of the big five existing financial institutions. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) for his work on this legislation. I thank Chairman Barr of our Financial Institutions Subcommittee and Ranking Member Waters for bringing our bipartisan team together on the committee in advancing this bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on this measure. I reserve the balance of my time.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want this bill to pass. It changes the rules about when a bank can buy another bank that failed. Regulators can break the rules sometimes. This bill says they can only break the rules if no one else wants to buy the failed bank. Regulators have to explain why they broke the rules. This is a small change. I think it will help. Thank you. Let's vote for this bill.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6556, the Failing Bank Acquisition Fairness Act, offered by my friend from Massachusetts. When a bank fails, regulators need to move fast to protect depositors, preserve confidence in our financial system, consider potential buyers, and minimize disruption to families, businesses, and communities. All of that often takes place in a very short period of time, between Friday at close of business and Monday morning at opening for business. At that same time, those decisions should be made by a process that is fair, transparent, and promotes competition. Under current law, Federal regulators are generally prohibited from approving a merger or acquisition of a failed or failing bank if the resulting institution would control more than 10 percent or more of deposits nationwide. However, regulators are allowed to waive these concentration limits under certain circumstances. H.R. 6556 restricts when those concentration limits can be waived to situations in which there are no other qualified bidders for that failed bank and the transaction is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or adverse effects on U.S. financial stability. This legislation helps address concentration in the U.S. banking sector and promote a more transparent, competitive, and accountable approach to resolving failing banks. This legislation includes critical guardrails, such as requiring regulators to report to Congress within 30 days of a waiver on why the waiver was granted, why other qualified alternatives were not selected, and any recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to improve competition for future bank resolutions. That transparency helps to ensure that these decisions are made in the best interests of depositors; our financial system at large; and, of course, the American people. This is a practical, bipartisan reform that strengthens oversight, promotes competition, and reinforces confidence in the bank resolution process, while preserving regulators' ability to respond to bank failures. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) for his leadership on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 6556. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I yield myself such time as I may consume. I include in the Record the Congressional Budget Office score for this bill. The score says this bill would increase direct spending by at least $500,000.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Congressional Budget Office score for this bill. EFFECTS ON DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES OF LEGISLATION CONSIDERED UNDER SUSPENSION OF THE RULES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WEEK OF JULY 13, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H.R. 6556........................ Failing Bank Increase by at Increase by at Would increase ........... https:// Acquisition Least $500K. Least $500K. direct spending by docs.house.gov/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“Let's talk about this bill.”

House of Representatives

Common Cents Act

2026-07-14

“I want to cheer for this bill too. I hope consumers and businesses will be happy. You can keep using pennies if you want. I hope my colleagues vote yes.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and the minority for helping to make this a strong bipartisan bill to do something that is common sense, with no pun intended. In fact, for all of the good reasons that Mr. Lucas and Mrs. McClain outlined, this is the right decision at the right time for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I remind both the bankers across the country, the retailers, and all of the consumers out there that, as noted by Mr. Garcia, there are well over 100 billion pennies floating around out there in jars and drawers and cash registers across the country. You may still use those pennies until your heart is content. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“Let's talk about this bill. I want to let someone else talk.”