J. French Hill

“I want the House to support my amendment. It requires a study on how well the military shares cyber threat information with local leaders, tribes, and private companies. This will help us better protect our vital infrastructure from online attacks.”

“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.”

“I want the House to pass this amendment. It lets the Arkansas National Guard and the Army Reserve swap land and buildings at Camp Robinson for free. Both groups already agreed to this, and it will put their facilities to better use.”

“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.”

“I support this bill because it helps new, local banks get started. These start-up banks can better serve fast-growing communities and compete with the biggest financial companies.”

“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.”

“I support this bill because it helps community banks compete with big Wall Street banks. It cuts rules and costs for well-run local banks. It also gives them more capital and lets them buy failing local banks instead of letting mega-banks take them over.”

“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.”

“I am giving my time to the gentleman from Michigan. He knows from his business background how local banks help our economy grow.”

“Mr. Speaker, our next speaker has worked in this House for over a decade, speaking on behalf of Main Street Michigan. From that real estate community, from his own background, his own business entrepreneurship and that of his family, he knows the value of how our local financial institutions help grow an economy and have more opportunities. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the vice chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services.”

“I support these bills because they will help local banks and credit unions grow, serve customers, and help local economies.”

“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.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It cuts regulations for community banks so they can lend more money to local families and small businesses.”

“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.”

“I am asking the House to take up this bill now.”

“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.’’.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It stops credit card companies from using special codes to track gun sales. People should be able to buy legal items without the payment system monitoring what they purchase.”

“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.”

“I am asking the House to take up this bill to stop credit card companies from tracking gun store purchases separately.”

“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1423, I call up the bill (H.R. 1181) to prohibit payment card networks and covered entities from requiring the use of or assigning merchant category codes that distinguish a firearms retailer from general- merchandise retailer or sporting-goods retailer, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. The Clerk read the title of the bill.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. By law, regulators cannot let a bank buy a failing bank if it would control over 10 percent of all deposits in the country. Regulators can ignore that rule right now. This bill makes it harder to ignore. It says big banks can only take over a failing bank if no other qualified buyer exists, and if it is needed to protect the economy.”

“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.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I am adding the official cost estimate for this bill into the 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/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Signal 30 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 →

“I want the House to pass this bill. It makes it harder for big banks to buy failing banks unless it is necessary to protect the economy.”

“Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6556) to prohibit the use of certain concentration limit exceptions with respect to mergers involving a failed bank unless the applicable agency determines such use is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability, and for other purposes, as amended. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows:”

“I give time to Representative Lucas to speak.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), our chairman of the Task Force on Monetary Policy, Treasury Market Resilience, and Economic Prosperity. In my experience of being chairman of the committee on which he serves, he is a man who always comes to the committee and plans on throwing his 2 cents into every debate.”