[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 57 (Thursday, April 14, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1691-H1699]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




RAISING CONSOLIDATED ASSETS THRESHOLD UNDER SMALL BANK HOLDING COMPANY 
                            POLICY STATEMENT

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 671, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 3791) to raise the consolidated assets threshold 
under the small bank holding company policy statement, and for other 
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 671, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3791

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CHANGES REQUIRED TO SMALL BANK HOLDING COMPANY 
                   POLICY STATEMENT ON ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL AND 
                   MANAGERIAL FACTORS.

       (a) In General.--Before the end of the 6-month period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Board 
     of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall revise the 
     Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement on Assessment of 
     Financial and Managerial Factors (12 C.F.R. part 225--
     appendix C) to raise the consolidated asset threshold under 
     such policy statement from $1,000,000,000 (as adjusted by 
     Public Law 113-250) to $5,000,000,000.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subparagraph (C) of section 
     171(b)(5) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
     Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5371(b)(5)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(C) any bank holding company or savings and loan holding 
     company that is subject to the application of the Small Bank 
     Holding Company Policy Statement on Assessment of Financial 
     and Managerial Factors of the Board of Governors (12 C.F.R. 
     part 225--appendix C).''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall 
be in order to consider the amendment printed in part B of House Report 
114-489, if offered by the Member designated in the report, which shall 
be considered read and shall be separately debatable for the time 
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
submit extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3791, which is a 
much-needed regulatory relief bill and economic growth bill, sponsored 
by an outstanding, energetic, and inspirational freshman on our 
committee, the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love).
  As we look at the state of our economy today, we know one thing is 
for certain, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the economy is still not 
working for millions of working Americans. The economy is 
underperforming dramatically by any historic standard.
  Given how far the economy fell from the Washington induced real 
estate bubble burst of 2008, history shows us that we should have had 
faster growth than normal during a rapid rebound phase. But it didn't 
happen, Mr. Speaker. There hasn't been a single year where economic 
growth has even reached 3 percent.
  One published report on this failure noted:

       There is no parallel for this since the end of World War 
     II, maybe not since the beginning of the Republic.

  Last quarter's GDP growth of only 1 percent just punctuates the 
matter again for working families that find themselves working harder 
for less. They have seen their paycheck shrink by more than $1,600. No 
wonder 72 percent of all Americans believe the country is still in a 
recession, because they are living that reality every day. For them, 
the recession never ended.
  I don't need polls telling me, Mr. Speaker, that the economy is not 
working for working families because virtually every day I receive 
emails or letters like these:
  Carla from Mesquite, Texas, in my district writes:

       We are struggling to make ends meet. My husband had 
     temporary work for 3 months. The last 2 years, he has been 
     looking for work and not finding any.

  Michael from the town of Forney in my district back in east Texas 
writes:

       I hear on the news how the economy is improving and I see 
     Wall Street making money. Average folks like me are not 
     seeing any economic improvement.

  The painful truth is that the Washington hypercontrolled economy, 
again, is failing low- to moderate-income Americans. They simply want a 
fair shot, a fair shot at economic opportunity and financial security.
  Perhaps nowhere--nowhere--is the hyperregulation of Washington being 
felt more than when it comes to the customers of Main Street community 
banks. These banks are being buried under an avalanche of red tape, 
which is increasing costs for those customers, restricting their 
choices, and harming their personal finances.
  Let's just look at a few examples, Mr. Speaker. Credit card rates 
have risen drastically, making them unaffordable and unavailable for a 
number of would-be borrowers. Federal regulations now on auto loans 
could hit some borrowers hard with a nearly $600 increase in interest 
payments on a $25,000 loan over a 4-year period.
  Small business lines of credit have been cut back dramatically. And 
incredibly, the incredible regulatory burden placed on home buyers has 
now complicated the buying process and has led to fewer community banks 
offering home mortgages.
  The fact is all of these higher costs are being felt at the same time 
that paychecks and savings are stagnant for working families. It just 
compounds the problem. The sheer weight, volume, and complexity of all 
of these regulations is killing prospects for new jobs, killing 
opportunities to spur economic growth, and it is harming working 
Americans. It is killing their ability to achieve financial 
independence through their home mortgages, through their auto loans, 
through their credit card loans, and through their small business lines 
of credit.
  So it is on their behalf and on behalf of the Carlas and the Michaels 
of America, and millions of others like them, that we are here to pass 
a very simple, but very helpful, bill. It is a commonsense piece of 
legislation.
  The bill, again, sponsored by the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love), 
will make it easier for our small hometown community banks to raise 
capital so that capital, this very same capital, can be turned around 
and turned into local jobs and economic growth on Main Street.
  We know that passing this bill will immediately--immediately--benefit 
more than 400 community banks all across America. Not big banks, Mr. 
Speaker, not Wall Street banks, but community banks. Those are the 
banks, historically, that focus their attention on the needs of our 
local families, our small businesses, and our farmers.
  As a matter of fact, passage of this bill is a longstanding goal of 
the Independent Community Bankers of America. At the end of the day, we 
shouldn't pass this bill simply because it is good for community banks. 
We should pass this bill because it is good for their customers--the 
people who benefit from the loans and services that our community banks 
provide, the people who will work at the jobs, the people who will help 
create this stronger economic growth.
  Wouldn't it be nice to hear for a change that community banks are 
once again hiring new loan officers to serve their communities as 
opposed to more

[[Page H1692]]

regulatory compliance officers to serve their Washington masters?
  That is how you help capitalize more small businesses and help 
families pay their bills, plan for the future, and achieve the dream of 
financial independence.
  I, again, applaud the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love) for her 
leadership for fighting tenaciously for working families in her 
district and all across America.
  I urge all Members to support and adopt H.R. 3791.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are now considering a bill that not only could put 
our community banks at risk, but strikes at the heart of why compromise 
in Congress can be so challenging.
  H.R. 3791 would direct the Federal Reserve to raise the asset 
threshold under the small bank holding company policy statement, 
allowing small banks and private equity firms to take on additional 
debt for mergers and acquisitions. The threshold would be increased to 
$5 billion in consolidated assets from $1 billion. Let me stress that 
this would be 5 times as much as the current threshold and 10 times as 
much as the initial level that was in place before a bipartisan 
compromise was enacted last Congress.

  The small bank holding company policy statement is important because 
it allows small institutions, like community banks and minority-owned 
depositories, to access additional debt so they can continue serving 
their communities. However, it is important that this threshold is 
carefully calibrated so it cannot be abused by speculative investors.
  If the threshold is raised too high, it will have the opposite of the 
intended impact. It will lead to mergers and acquisitions, riskier 
banking activities, and a reduction in banking services and credit 
availability to rural, low-income, minority, and underserved 
communities.
  Indeed, Democrats and Republicans on the Financial Services Committee 
worked together just a little over a year ago to provide relief to 
almost 5,000 community banks by doubling the asset threshold under the 
policy statement to the current level of $1 billion from $500 million 
in assets. We did so after working closely with regulators and 
determining that $1 billion was the most appropriate threshold to help 
community banks grow without making them targets for mergers and 
acquisitions. At $1 billion, the policy statement covers 89 percent of 
banks in the country, providing relief to the vast majority of 
community banks and minority-owned depository institutions.
  I am trying very hard to understand why my colleagues are reneging on 
that compromise and undermining the careful, considerate policy that we 
enacted. The administration has threatened to veto this measure because 
of the potential danger to our smaller banks and to the communities 
they serve. They have called this bill an unnecessary and risky change 
because we know what will happen if the Federal Reserve has to make 
this change.
  For one, raising the threshold would have a serious impact on the 
consolidation of community banks. The majority purports to be concerned 
with consolidation in the banking industry and the disappearance of 
community banks.
  This bill will all but ensure that larger banks and investors come in 
and purchase smaller banks and then cut branches in the communities 
that need them the most. We have already seen this happen with banks 
across the country, both large and small, that have been forced to shut 
down hundreds of branches because investors and shareholders demand 
higher and higher returns.
  I supported the change we made last year to $1 billion because it 
would help ensure that small community banks are able to continue 
serving their communities. That is the point of the small bank holding 
company policy statement. We must help our communities retain access to 
local banks that know the specific needs of their consumers and small 
businesses.
  This bill would do the opposite. Even those that did survive wouldn't 
be able to provide the same personalized service because of their size. 
I am particularly concerned about how this would impact our underserved 
communities.
  Another problem with this legislation is that it would allow banks 
with as much as $5 billion in assets to operate under lower standards 
and less oversight by regulators. Many community banks failed during 
the 2008 financial crisis because they became overleveraged. Certainly, 
if a bank makes bad decisions in the amount of risk they take on, then 
it is appropriate to let it fail, but the failure of any bank, and 
especially a bank with up to $5 billion in assets, has a tremendous 
impact on the community it serves and on the Deposit Insurance Fund.
  At the end of the day, more bank failures will increase premiums for 
all the banks protected by the Deposit Insurance Fund. We cannot allow 
reckless behavior that benefits investors and bank shareholders at the 
expense of small banks and the communities they serve.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3791 is not a small change. It is a risky move that 
threatens both bipartisanship and these already polarizing times, as 
well as the safety and soundness of our community banks and the 
customers they serve.

                              {time}  1245

  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this bill. Mr. 
Speaker and Members, allow me to reiterate the point. We worked very 
hard in reaching across the aisle, in making compromise, in making 
commitments to each other, and in agreeing that we would raise the 
asset limit from $500 million to $1 billion. We had that agreement, and 
before the ink was dry on the deal, here we have a bill that says: So, 
we really didn't mean it. We want to raise it to $5 billion. Ha, ha, 
ha.
  People wonder why we don't compromise more, why we can't get together 
more, why we can't understand what is in the best interests of all of 
our constituents, to put aside our differences, and work on behalf of 
those people we say we care about. The other side claims it cares about 
community banks. Then why would it renege on this agreement? If it 
cares about community banks, why would it put them in the position of 
being bought up by private equity firms and special money interests, 
which only want to find a way to make more money and more profit by 
closing down branches and firing people? That is what they do. When 
these private equity firms come in, they borrow a lot of money in order 
to make these kinds of purchases. Then guess what? They have to take 
the money back. So guess who are the victims of this kind of agreement? 
They are the small banks and the constituents.
  While my chairman--a gentleman whom I like very much and get along 
with very well--opens with statements that have nothing to do with this 
bill and while he talks about the plight of those in our communities 
who are suffering, let me tell you why they are suffering not only in 
his community but in communities across this country. It is because in 
2008, we had a subprime meltdown and a crisis that was created by these 
kinds of reckless public policy attempts. We discovered that, because 
of all of the exotic products and all of the recklessness of some of 
the big banks and others, we put our people at risk, and we put our 
constituents at risk. Guess what? They lost their homes. Many of them 
are homeless and are on the streets now. Many of them cannot afford the 
rents that have risen because of the crisis that we have come out of.
  If you really want to help small banks and community banks and if you 
really want to help your constituents, you will not be for a bill like 
this one. This only puts them at risk. I ask my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say, number 
one, I find it incredible that the ranking member would say that this 
is going to harm community banks, which kind of begs the question: Why 
are they all for it? We already have their endorsements.
  If the gentlewoman is concerned about big banks gobbling up small 
banks, then maybe it is time to repeal Dodd-Frank since the big banks 
have gotten bigger and since the small

[[Page H1693]]

banks have become fewer, and the small banks tell us that it is Dodd-
Frank that is killing them. This is a bill that will help small banks 
survive. They will merge together as opposed to disappear from our 
rural communities.
  With respect to increasing risk, I would urge the ranking member to 
read the Fed's policy statement, which reads that the Board may, in its 
discretion, exclude any small bank company regardless of asset size. So 
that takes care of that issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Utah (Mrs. Love), the author of the bill.
  Mrs. LOVE. I thank Chairman Hensarling for his support of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, economic freedom and personal freedom run hand in hand. 
In order to enjoy our personal freedom, Americans need access to credit 
as individuals, on behalf of their families, and in their businesses. 
That is why I am so proud to have introduced this bill.
  H.R. 3791 is a very simple bill to help small banks and savings and 
loan companies get access to the capital they need so as to make credit 
available in their communities.
  These small banking institutions are critical to the people and the 
communities in which they reside. They support the credit needs of 
families, of small businesses, of farmers, and of entrepreneurs. A 
community bank is often the principal lending source for many people 
whether they are purchasing a home, starting a new business, or 
purchasing a vehicle. In many counties around the Nation, a community 
bank is the only banking presence that residents have.
  When these community banking institutions are overwhelmed with 
regulations and mandates, many of which are meant for larger 
institutions, it is the hardworking middle-income and low-income 
families in those communities who suffer the most. Mr. Speaker, it is 
about people. Community banks give people the credit they need to 
pursue their dreams--to buy a home, to start a business. In fact, 
proximity to a community bank increases the chances that new small 
businesses will be approved for loans and will have the chance to 
succeed.
  By raising the consolidated asset threshold under the Federal 
Reserve's small bank holding company policy statement from $1 billion 
to $5 billion in assets, over 400 additional small bank and thrift 
holding companies will qualify for coverage under the policy statement 
and, therefore, will be exempt from certain regulatory and capital 
guidelines.
  These capital standards were originally established for larger 
institutions and disproportionately harm small holding companies. Many 
holding companies that are above the current threshold face challenges 
with regard to capital formation just when regulators are demanding 
higher capital levels. These exemptions provided in the policy 
statement make it easier for small holding companies to raise capital 
and issue debt. This bill is about making sure regulations fit the size 
of the institution.
  Mr. Speaker, a similar effort was passed into law during the last 
Congress under suspension in the House and by unanimous consent in the 
Senate. That bill raised the threshold from $500 million, where it has 
been since 1996, to $1 billion. That legislation also extended the 
exemption to savings and loan holding companies. While we are glad that 
we were able to achieve that increase which helped, roughly, 500 small 
bank and thrift holding companies, we would like to extend those 
benefits further. H.R. 3791 would bring more than 400 additional small 
institutions within the scope of the policy statement.
  One success story that we have already seen from the previous 
increase was an instance in which 35 bank holding companies pooled 
their resources to issue debt under the policy statement. That debt was 
then downstreamed to the respective banks, where the capital was then 
used to make loans in the communities they serve, illustrating the 
great multiplier effect that the policy statement can produce. H.R. 
3791 seeks to extend that flexibility and success to a greater number 
of small institutions and the communities they serve.
  Opponents of this increase have alleged that changing the regulatory 
threshold would put communities and the Deposit Insurance Fund at 
higher risk, but the policy statement contains several safeguards that 
are designed to ensure that small bank holding companies that operate 
with the higher levels of debt permitted by the policy statement do not 
present an undue risk to the safety and soundness of their subsidiary 
banks.

  Mr. Speaker, to sum this up, this bill is not about supporting banks. 
It is about supporting families, communities, and small businesses. It 
is about making sure that a small-business owner, like my constituent 
Jennifer Jones, has access to the credit she needs to expand her early 
childhood academy, where she teaches children to read before they reach 
kindergarten. It is about families who are sitting around their kitchen 
tables and are imagining the possibilities of renovating or of 
improving their homes. It is about that entrepreneur who is starting a 
restaurant and being her own boss. It is about the thousands of new 
jobs that will be created in those communities as a result.
  The raising of the threshold received widespread bipartisan support 
in the last Congress, and I hope that the people will receive equal 
support this time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank very much the ranking 
member for yielding and for her leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3791.
  I would like to note the Statement of Administration Policy on this 
bill, which reads that the bill ``amounts to an unnecessary and risky 
change.'' I am disappointed that we are even considering this bill, 
because I thought that we had reached a thoughtful compromise--a good 
faith compromise--on this issue last year.
  Last Congress, we came together in a bipartisan way to increase the 
threshold for small banks that want to make acquisitions of other banks 
or financial companies and that want to finance these acquisitions 
based--and dependent to some extent--on debt. The Fed used to prohibit 
banks with more than $500 million from using debt to finance these 
purchases, but in recognizing that this threshold was out of date, we 
worked together to raise the threshold to $1 billion last Congress. I 
was proud of that deal, and I thought it reflected a good faith 
compromise in the Financial Services Committee.
  Now, less than a year later, our colleagues in the majority, 
apparently, want to change the deal. They want to raise the threshold 
from $1 billion to $5 billion--a 500 percent increase over the deal 
that we just struck a year ago. A $5 billion bank is, needless to say, 
significantly larger than a $1 billion bank, and a $5 billion bank 
likely engages in a much broader range of activities than does a simple 
$1 billion community bank.
  Raising the threshold to this level would actually facilitate more 
consolidation among community banks. Banks at the high end of the $5 
billion level would take on more debt, buy smaller banks, which would, 
thereby, lead to the deterioration of community bank branches in the 
neighborhoods that we represent, and it would also lead to fewer jobs 
as they then seek to slim down operations.
  The current policy statement already covers 89 percent of the banks 
in the country. Eighty-nine percent of the banks are covered by the 
deal we struck last year, so raising this level further is not 
warranted. It is risky. It is unnecessary. The Statement of 
Administration Policy says that it will be recommending a veto from the 
President of the United States. It is unnecessary; it is unwarranted; 
and it reverses a spirited compromise and good policy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Financial Services 
Committee's Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, today, the House will consider H.R.

[[Page H1694]]

3791, legislation to raise the consolidated asset threshold under the 
Federal Reserve's small bank holding company policy statement.
  To say that the current regulatory environment presents challenges 
for small financial institutions would be a drastic understatement. 
Today, regulators require more and more from community-based 
institutions in terms of both regulatory oversight and capital 
requirements. Mrs. Love's bill seeks to alleviate some of the pressures 
that are facing our community banks.
  Small bank and thrift holding companies confront unique challenges 
with regard to capital formation, which is of particular concern at a 
time when regulators are demanding more capital. In understanding these 
challenges, the Fed has recognized that small banks have limited access 
to equity financing.
  The Federal Reserve's small bank holding company policy statement 
gives relief from certain capital guidelines and requirements, making 
it easier for a community bank to raise capital and issue debt and to 
make acquisitions and form new banks and thrift holding companies.

                              {time}  1300

  Our Nation's smallest banks have faced significant recession, 
consolidation, and an alarming number of bank failures. By increasing 
the threshold in the Fed's policy statement from $1 billion to $5 
billion, we have the opportunity to help an additional 400 true 
community banks.
  I know that the last speaker was concerned about 89 percent of the 
banks being already under this policy, but we are talking about 400 
more communities that we can help to be able to have access to a 
regular stream of credit, rather than have to have increased costs and 
also bear restricted services from those banks.
  H.R. 3791 will go a long way in ensuring that our Nation's smallest 
institutions are able to grow stronger and continue to serve their 
communities.
  I want to thank Mrs. Love for her leadership on this issue. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in supporting the bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to 
how much time we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 18 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 16\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, my friends on the opposite side of the 
aisle, who have brought this bill to the floor, claim they care about 
community banks, even when we know this bill will just result in more 
consolidation among small financial institutions.
  Just yesterday the Republicans repealed the mechanism by which we 
would wind down systemically important firms. This puts us back to the 
days of September 2008, when our largest financial institutions could 
not only threaten the entire economy, but also the stability of our 
community banks.
  Remember that when Wall Street banks cratered our mortgage system, 
they devastated the entire economy in ways that damaged not just 
workers and borrowers, but also small financial institutions.
  Republicans, likewise, later today will repeal the independent 
funding for the Financial Stability Oversight Council, our regulator 
expressly charged with examining the largest, most interconnected, most 
complex, Wall Street firms.
  Again, the Republicans want the biggest players to escape scrutiny, 
thereby threatening our smaller community institutions.
  Republicans also have failed to put forward credible housing finance 
reform. Recall that in 2013 the chairman brought up his PATH Act, which 
would have all but excluded small banks and credit unions from the 
secondary market, especially handing the keys to our mortgage markets 
over to the largest Wall Street banks.
  By eliminating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, community financial 
institutions across the country would have had mortgage lending come to 
a halt.
  Finally, remember that Republicans are willing to hold our government 
hostage over favors that help the largest banks and only expose our 
community financial institutions to more risk.
  We need not go too far back to remember the 2014 fight over the 
government spending bill, where Republicans were willing to risk a 
government shutdown in order to repeal Dodd-Frank's swaps pushout rule, 
which would have required our largest banks to separate their riskier 
derivatives activity from the accounts holding depositors' money.
  Let us be clear. My chairman has said over and over again, and never 
fails to remind us, that he hates Dodd-Frank. He wants to get rid of 
Dodd-Frank reforms. He said he would do anything to get rid of Dodd-
Frank and the reforms that were put in place by the Congress of the 
United States and signed by the President.
  He forgets what happened in 2008. He forgets the meltdown. He forgets 
the risk. He forgets about the almost depression that we found 
ourselves in.
  He does not want to strengthen the hand of regulators. He does not 
believe that our regulators should have on their agenda consumer 
protection.
  That is why, in all of this struggle, whether it is talking about the 
small banks or--you should hear him on the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau. He hates that Bureau, and he wants to dismantle that 
Bureau because they do not want regulations, really, for the biggest 
banks in this country.
  Oftentimes, what they are doing is they are benefiting the big banks, 
but they are making it look as if they are benefiting the smaller 
banks. So we have to push back very hard on these attempts.
  Moving from $1 billion to $5 billion is an absolute unraveling of our 
agreement. It is wrong to work so hard with the opposite side of the 
aisle and come to an agreement, only to have them renege on it.
  But, in the final analysis, it is because they would rather put their 
influence and their time in on what amounts to helping the big banks 
and not the small banks and forget about what this does to our 
communities.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and, also, my good 
friend Congresswoman Love. She actually has become a very valuable 
member of the Financial Services Committee.
  I appreciate this bill. We have to talk through something because 
there is something here that is just bordering on--you know, we are 
passing each other in the night here. That makes absolutely no sense.
  Dodd-Frank: I accept some folks bathe in love for it, but it has made 
the big, money-center banks bigger. So a bill comes along that says 
there is this concentration--if you believe it is a concentration of 
risk--because these banks are growing bigger and bigger and bigger. And 
one of the big reasons they are growing bigger is because they can 
amortize the regulatory risk over a much bigger book of business.
  The money-center banks are $2 trillion institutions. We are talking 
about a $5 billion step-up here. The small banks, which we are losing 
one a day, cannot cover these costs. Their regulatory costs on a much 
smaller book of business is putting them out of that business.
  So if you want to make the big banks smaller, you can try to regulate 
them more. But they have demonstrated that actually is their 
competitive edge in the world right now. What you need to do is compete 
them out of their hugeness, if that is a word.
  If you care about competition, if you want to stay with your rhetoric 
that, hey, we need to deal with these big banks and we need to keep 
regulating them, then create a market where other banks can start to 
take parts of their market share because the big banks have a different 
cost of money.
  They have this ability to take this huge regulatory environment--
sometimes five different agencies that have some level of prudential 
coverage--and amortize it over a book that is $2 trillion.
  How about giving smaller institutions a chance to start taking some 
of their market share? That is what Mrs. Love's bill does.

[[Page H1695]]

  It starts to say--and we are still talking something that is tiny in 
the banking world--let these holding companies get up to $5 billion. 
Let them actually start having a fighting chance to take some of this 
regulatory burden that has been shoved down their throats and start to 
amortize it over a little bit larger book. Because if you leave it at 
the smaller institutions, they cannot compete.

  If you want to make the big banks smaller, create an environment 
where they face competition. This is a classic argument around here. Do 
you believe that you make the world safer by layer and layer and layer 
of regulation? Well, that worked great in 2008, didn't it?
  We are going to file our paperwork and maybe next quarter some 
regulator will look at it and maybe the next 6 months someone will 
write a letter about it. Or do you want an environment where there is 
so much competition out there that there is lots of optionality in the 
financial markets? That is what we are looking for here.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, it is a fairly simple argument. If you 
want a competitive, robust financial market in our banking world, where 
institutions have the ability to survive because of the crushing costs 
that Dodd-Frank has created. This is a simple, simple bill. It is just 
a chip off the iceberg that is Dodd-Frank.
  Think about it in a way that this is the first step to try to create 
more competition to those big banks that I hear the left rail on day 
after day. This is a good piece of legislation.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on both sides, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 13 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 13\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, also, whether the other 
side has any more speakers?
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, we have no more 
speakers.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), the chairman of the Financial Institutions and 
Consumer Credit Subcommittee.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time. I 
also want to commend the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love) for an 
outstanding piece of legislation.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 3791. Sometimes we get up here and we 
talk about things in a technical way. And let me just explain to you 
what this good piece of legislation does.
  Unfortunately, over the last few years, we have lost over 1,000 
community banks in our country. In fact, we are losing them at the rate 
of about one a day right now.
  That is important to my district because I am from the 19th 
Congressional District, which is a relatively rural district. I have a 
lot of small communities that have community banks in there. Some of 
them have been in business 75 or 100 years.
  Unfortunately, in this environment, because of all of the regulations 
coming out of Dodd-Frank, many of these financial institutions are no 
longer viable on a standalone basis.
  What is the alternative? Well, the alternative for those small banks 
is to search for someone to purchase them so that that bank can remain 
in that community.
  In Texas, for example, this bill would allow 44 small bank holding 
companies to be able to help absorb some of those smaller banks.
  Why is that important? Because in many of those communities, that 
little community bank is really one of the last corporate citizens 
standing there. They are the ones that sponsor the scoreboard for 
Friday night football, which is kind of big in Texas. They are the ones 
that support the chamber of commerce.
  So what the Federal Reserve recognized is that, normally, they don't 
allow debt to be used as the transaction for larger holding companies, 
but they realized going out and getting capital for these small 
purchases is difficult.
  So what the Federal Reserve has said is: Well, we are going to allow 
them to use up to 75 percent of the purchase price that can be debt.
  Now, this does nothing about the safety and soundness. In other 
words, the holding companies that are purchasing these still have to 
maintain the appropriate capital ratios and all of those other things.
  So this in no way affects the health of the banking industry, but it 
does facilitate the ability to make sure that these small community 
banks are able to stay in the communities they are in by being 
purchased by an entity that is a little bit larger that can amortize 
that cost.
  I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 3791 and support community 
banks.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, Congresswoman Love stands with Main Street. 
Main-Street-based community banks are why we are on the floor today, 
because they are at the heart of helping our families start new 
restaurants, get consumer financing, finance our farmers.
  I come from a very rural state, Arkansas, and 70 percent of the 
agricultural production loans in this country are made by our locally 
owned community banks.
  Making it easier for them to raise capital makes it easier for our 
consumers and businesses to get the credit they need. For every dollar 
raised in capital at our banks, $10 can be put into lending into our 
communities. And small bank holding companies have less access to 
equity financing than their larger counterparts. It has always been 
that way. So this effort makes complete common sense, to allow small 
bank and thrift holding companies to expand their capital base in an 
easier and more directed manner.
  Dodd-Frank made it harder to raise capital because of the changes in 
the law about trust preferred securities and other ways that many, many 
small banks raised capital. So this policy statement change that Mrs. 
Love proposes is well-timed.

                              {time}  1315

  There is bipartisan support for raising this threshold to $5 billion, 
notwithstanding the comments heard in today's floor conversation. 
Senator Brown, Democrat in the Senate, with Mr. Vitter in the Senate 
last Congress, proposed $5 billion as the appropriate level for this 
effort.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, concerning the ranking member's comments 
about raising the threshold on carte blanche relief under the policy 
statement that might lead to unsafe conditions, that is, in my view, 
not correct, Mr. Speaker, as there are numerous other restrictions and 
criteria that continue to apply, and the Federal Reserve retains the 
right to impose capital standards if it determines it necessary to 
protect the safety and soundness of the institutions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. HILL. This bill is about Main Street and economic growth, and it 
surprises me as just a Member of Congress that our President, President 
Obama, would issue a veto message on this bill.
  This bill is about economic growth, and I applaud my good friend from 
Utah's efforts at championing this bill. I urge my colleagues to 
support its commonsense design and measure.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. I have in my 
hand a statement from United States Senator Sherrod Brown. It is a 
statement on House Bill to Alter Federal Reserve Small Bank Holding 
Policy Statement. U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown, ranking member of the 
U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, issued 
the following statement today on legislation--that is this legislation, 
H.R. 3791--that would increase

[[Page H1696]]

the asset threshold for the Federal Reserve small bank holding company 
policy statement: ``I understand that proponents of H.R. 3791 have 
mentioned a similar provision that I included in a larger bill in 2013 
as somehow relevant to the current debate before the House of 
Representatives. It might be relevant if the House was also engaged in 
a real effort to address too big to fail, and it might be relevant if 
time had stood still. But since 2014, Congress and regulators have 
provided significant regulatory relief to community banks and raised 
the threshold of the small bank holding company policy statement to $1 
billion. Raising the threshold to $1 billion was where Congress, 
regulators, and stakeholders could find broad bipartisan consensus on 
this issue, and I support that. I do not believe we should take further 
action to raise the threshold, and it is wrong to suggest otherwise.''
  So, ladies and gentlemen on the opposite side of the aisle, don't use 
Sherrod Brown's name one more time because this statement puts that to 
rest. He is not in support of raising this threshold to $5 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).
  Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. I rise in support of 
the gentlewoman from Utah's bill that would allow more small bank 
holding companies to raise the necessary capital to better serve not 
only their customers, but their communities.
  H.R. 3791 would raise the consolidated asset threshold from the 
Federal Reserve small banking holding company policy statement from $1 
billion to $5 billion. By simply raising this asset threshold, more 
institutions would be able to qualify for coverage under the policy 
statement and be exempt from the ongoing burdensome regulatory 
guidelines.
  My home State of New Hampshire is chock-full of community banks and 
community-based financial institutions, and having a higher threshold 
would help more community banks in my State and others across the 
country meet their higher capital requirements under Basel III.
  I appreciate this commonsense approach that the gentlewoman from Utah 
is taking, and I appreciate her leadership because just in my State, we 
have had a 20 percent reduction of community banks. That means the 
average individual who is looking for an additional loan, whether it is 
personal or to start a new business, they can't get access to that 
capital. That is hurting the very people that the other side tries to 
claim to support.
  Just last week I heard about a woman who recently was divorced, had 
two kids, and is a nurse. She was looking for a mortgage to start her 
new life again. She was denied because of these burdensome regulations. 
That should not be the intent in this country. We should be able to 
help those individuals who are trying to succeed, create a better life, 
give their children opportunity. H.R. 3791 does just that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill. I, again, thank the 
gentlewoman from Utah for her leadership.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Katko).
  Mr. KATKO. Mr. Speaker, while the financial crisis certainly showed 
that targeted regulations were needed to protect our financial system, 
it also showed that the real threats to the system did not come from 
community banks and other small financial institutions. Yet, because of 
high compliance costs and a fiendish complexity of the Dodd-Frank law, 
which all too often fails to recognize the lower risks posed by these 
institutions, they have been put at a disadvantage.
  This bill is part of the effort by the House to institute targeted 
reforms and ensure that we are not holding back small, stable 
institutions that millions of individuals and small businesses trust.
  H.R. 3791 is a well-targeted bill that will make it easier for small 
bank holding companies to raise capital and provide needed regulatory 
relief by raising the consolidated asset threshold for small bank 
holding companies. In doing so, this bill will benefit local economies 
and improve the health of the American economy as a whole.
  At the same time, the bill contains important safeguards to ensure 
that the financial system isn't put at greater risk. In short, this 
bill is exactly the kind of measured approach that Congress should take 
to protect homeowners and investors while also ensuring that we have a 
vibrant, well-functioning financial sector.
  I would like to thank Representative Love for her work on this bill 
and Chairman Hensarling for his hard work and leadership. I urge my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  On Tuesday in the Committee on Rules, I reminded Members that I came 
to the Committee on Financial Services--it was known as the Banking 
Committee back then--in the wake of the savings and loan crisis. One of 
the biggest lessons I took away from that time was that we must be 
precise when we mandate changes to bank safety and soundness rules, 
even when our intent is to help community financial institutions.
  Congress' intent may have been to help savings and loans serve their 
communities, but by not being measured and considered in its actions, 
Congress transformed the savings and loan industry into one that serves 
speculative investments and irresponsible CEOs.
  That recklessness led to a banking crisis that brought down more than 
a thousand institutions, cost taxpayers more than $120 billion, and 
robbed many communities of access to affordable banking products.
  As I have said, it is important that the small bank holding company 
policy statement threshold is carefully calibrated so it cannot be 
abused by speculative investors. If the threshold is raised too high, 
it will have the opposite of the intended impact. It will lead to 
mergers and acquisitions, riskier banking activities, and a reduction 
in banking services and credit availability to rural, low-income, 
minority, and underserved communities.
  That is why 2 years ago I worked diligently with my Republican 
counterparts to pass a bill that raised the threshold to $1 billion in 
assets, providing additional funding resources to 89 percent of the 
banks in the United States. That was smart, bipartisan legislating, a 
decision that we came to after consulting the regulators, researching 
the industry, and carefully considering the ramifications of the 
proposal.
  In addition to that bill on the small bank holding company policy 
statement, I and my fellow Democrats in both the House and the Senate 
also introduced comprehensive legislation that would reduce compliance 
costs at community banks. We introduced this legislation, which 
included carefully targeted reforms that would allow small banks to 
thrive rather than encouraging consolidation, as this bill would do.
  Our support for small institutions is also why my fellow Democrats 
and I have been supportive of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 
which has used SMART data analysis to thoughtfully calibrate their 
rules for the needs of small banks.
  We often forget that in the run-up to the crisis, many small banks 
were pushed out of the lending business by unregulated, nonbank 
lenders. The CFPB has now created an even playing field, and small 
banks and credit unions are a bigger share of the mortgage market now 
than they have been in years.
  Carefully considered reforms provide relief to community banks 
without creating unintended consequences in a complex financial system 
with many players. Unfortunately, the legislation before us today 
would, as my friends across the aisle say over and over again, hurt the 
people it is trying to help.
  After we worked in good faith with Republicans to come up with a 
smart, targeted reform, we are now attempting to use this issue as a 
political wedge. It is exactly that kind of thinking that set the 
groundwork for the savings and loan crisis and left thousands of 
communities without access to banking services.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

[[Page H1697]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, ever since the Dodd-Frank law was passed, none of the 
promises that were made have been kept. It didn't end too big to fail. 
Big banks have gotten bigger. Small banks have gotten fewer. Working 
Americans continue to fall behind. They have seen their paychecks 
either remain stagnant or shrink. They have certainly seen their bank 
accounts shrink.
  After Dodd-Frank, we have seen free checking at banks cut in half. 
Since other financial laws of the Obama administration have been 
passed, we have seen 15 percent fewer credit card offerings, and on 
average, many of them have increased by 2 percentage points in cost, 
hurting working Americans who need access to credit.
  For purposes of the debate today, Mr. Speaker, what is undeniable is 
that we are losing a community financial institution a day in America. 
As we lose those financial institutions, we are also losing the hopes 
and dreams and financial security of millions of our fellow countrymen, 
particularly those who live in rural areas, like huge portions of the 
Fifth District of Texas that I have the honor of representing in 
Congress.
  I keep on hearing the ranking member talk about a ``deal,'' something 
from the last Congress. The last time I read my Constitution, there is 
nothing to say that because one Congress acted on a matter, another 
Congress can't act on a matter. And, indeed, I am not sure we have any 
more urgent matter in the House Committee on Financial Services than to 
save community banking.
  It is urgent, almost bordering on a crisis, Mr. Speaker, the loss of 
these banks. Small business lines of credit have been hampered, small 
business, the job engine of America, fueling our entrepreneurs, fueling 
new businesses, fueling the American Dream.
  So I was happy that we passed a number of bipartisan regulatory 
relief provisions in this Congress. Now, regrettably, many of them were 
opposed by the ranking member. So I hear the rhetoric in helping 
community banks, and yet she opposed H.R. 766, Financial Institution 
Customer Protection Act supported by community banks; H.R. 1210, 
Portfolio Lending and Mortgage Access Act supported by community banks; 
H.R. 1266, Financial Product Safety Commission Act of 2015 supported by 
community banks; H.R. 1408, the Mortgage Servicing Asset Capital 
Requirements Act, supported by community banks; and the list goes on 
and on.
  So I think the proof is kind of in the voting card, Mr. Speaker. It 
is Members of this side of the aisle, especially, that are consistent 
in trying to help our community banks, our rural communities.

                              {time}  1330

  So right now they are all, again, Mr. Speaker, suffering from the 
sheer weight, volume, load, complexity, and cost of this massive 
Washington takeover of our banking system--the micromanagement, the 
control by Washington.
  Again, that is the primary reason we are losing a community financial 
institution a day. And let me tell you, they are not going to get 
bought up by JPMorgan. JPMorgan is not coming to Jacksonville, Texas. 
Goldman Sachs isn't coming to Forney, Texas.
  If we don't allow these smaller banks to consolidate, we will lose 
them. That is the choice, Mr. Speaker. Are we going to lose our 
community banks in rural America?
  And again, if the other side of the aisle would want to repeal their 
number one threat--Dodd-Frank--maybe this bill from the gentlewoman 
from Utah wouldn't be necessary. But it is necessary. It is an urgent 
situation that we deal with today.
  So I want to urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 3791. It is 
modest. It will help at least 400 community banks. Four hundred 
community banks will be helped. It will help them, hopefully, not only 
survive, but to thrive, so that they can fuel and finance the American 
Dream through better home mortgages, through better auto loans, through 
better small business lines of credit.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman from Utah for her hard work, for her 
leadership. And, again, I urge all my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3791.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.


            Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Kelly of Illinois

  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 15, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``for bank holding companies and savings and loan 
     holding companies which have submitted to the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System a credible plan to 
     expand access to banking accounts and services, consumer and 
     small business credit products, and bank branches in rural, 
     low-income, minority, and otherwise underserved communities, 
     which has been made available to the public via the holding 
     company's website and submitted to the Committee on Financial 
     Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 671, the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues have put 
this bill forward under a simple proposition: small- and mid-size banks 
need the ability to provide more lending opportunities to best serve 
their depositors and their communities. I agree with that premise. 
Access to credit is crucial to economic development, rebuilding our 
economy, and creating jobs.
  Banks and deposit institutions are vital to creating economic 
opportunity. From small business loans, farm loans, and mortgage loans, 
to a simple checking account, access to banking services is essential 
for all Americans.
  I firmly believe that allowing banks to access additional capital is 
a good idea, and good policy, so long as those banks are using those 
funds to lend in a fair and responsible manner to those people and 
entities that need it most.
  My amendment is simple. It merely adds a clause at the end of the 
bill stating that the increase to a level of $5 billion in assets will 
only apply to lenders who serve rural, minority, low-income, and 
otherwise underserved communities. These lenders will be required to 
have a clear and credible plan to expand access to banking services in 
those communities, and submit their plan to the Federal Reserve and to 
Congress.
  Let me put it this way, Mr. Speaker. Suppose a very common scenario: 
a high school student has a part-time job after school and receives a 
little money each week from her parents to round out her spending cash. 
Suppose that student asked her parent to increase her allowance by 500 
percent. She says she needs it because with school obligations, she 
will be working less and won't have enough money to both fill her car 
with gas, go to the movies, or out to dinner with friends.
  Would a reasonable parent simply start handing over five times as 
much money as they used to? Or would they ask their daughter a few 
questions, making sure that the money is truly being spent on a 
productive thing?
  The student may be completely right--a 500 percent increase may be 
justified--and they may have nothing but good intentions with the 
additional money.
  But what is the harm in asking? What is the harm in making sure? It 
is what a responsible authority would do.
  My Republican colleagues say this bill is needed to allow banks to 
lend--to spur economic growth and ensure banks are able to serve their 
customers.
  What is the harm in making sure that lending goes to those 
creditworthy businesses and individuals who need it most?
  If we want to encourage expansion of access to credit, let's make 
sure it goes to where it will do the most good: a mortgage loan for a 
single mom working hard to achieve her vision of the

[[Page H1698]]

American Dream; a business loan for a small manufacturing company 
looking to open a new facility in an urban community that hasn't seen 
new jobs in years or decades; a farm loan for a small family farm so 
they can continue operations and raise the grain and produce what will 
feed the world.
  My district is urban, suburban, and rural. So I have farmers, I have 
people from the city, and I have suburbanites. And I see the need in 
all of those communities.
  My amendment simply states: the threshold increase will apply to you 
if you promise to responsibly lend to those who qualify and need it 
most and where it will do the most good, and to report to the Fed and 
Congress about how you plan on going about it. No regulations, just a 
simple justification.
  Mr. Speaker, all creditworthy borrowers deserve fair access to the 
funds our banks have available to lend. Expanding lending opportunities 
and ensuring lenders can access capital to create more jobs and 
economic growth is something we all should be able to support. I simply 
want to ensure that when doing so, banks are responsible and provide 
credit broadly and fairly, including to the communities where it will 
do the most good.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at best, this amendment is duplicative. Under section 3 
of the Bank Holding Company Act, the Federal Reserve already requires 
all companies seeking to acquire a bank to submit an application 
describing how that acquisition would ``meet the convenience and 
needs'' of the target bank's community. Listing ``any significant 
changes in services or products'' and discussing ``the programs, 
products, and activities that would meet the existing or anticipated 
needs of its community under the applicable criteria of the Community 
Reinvestment Act, including the needs of low- and moderate-income 
geographies or individuals.''
  But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, as our community banks continue to 
close, as they continue to suffer under the weight of the load, they 
don't need duplicative law. And my fear is that it is not actually 
duplicative. This is one more report, one additional report they are 
going to have to file in addition to the hundreds of other reports and 
paperwork that they have to fill out, one more cost that, at best, is 
duplicative. But the amendment is vague.
  What does it mean to have a plan deemed credible? What is credible?
  So here we are as a United States Congress, under the gentlewoman's 
amendment, yielding more of our article I authority to the Federal 
Reserve. The amendment lacks procedural safeguard. It doesn't provide 
for a public comment on the submitted plan. It doesn't allow the 
company to appeal an arbitrary determination. It does not permit a 
company posting a plan on its Web site to necessarily redact trade 
secrets or personally identifiable information.
  Mr. Speaker, we just need to reject this amendment. It absolutely 
undercuts what the gentlewoman from Utah is doing.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering, if this is 
duplicative, why are banks closing in these communities? If there are 
some concerns, why not work with me instead of rejecting this 
amendment? If it is duplicative, then why can't we add it and see how 
we can make things better? I still get a lot of concerns that people 
who need loans in various communities that I serve still don't get 
them.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I would just like to point out that 
here is a Democrat on this side of the aisle who is offering to the 
Republican side to support the idea that you would raise the asset 
level for these small banks if only you would support minority banks, 
if only you would have a plan for CRA, if only you would do the right 
thing, if you care about the constituents, and they are rejecting it.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 3 minutes 
remaining. The time of the gentlewoman from Illinois has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Utah (Mrs. Love), the author of H.R. 3791.
  Mrs. LOVE. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, while I have much 
respect for my colleague on the other side of the aisle, I am opposed 
to the amendment.
  Let me reiterate again what this does. I understand that the other 
side of the aisle believes that we have already helped our community 
banks by raising the threshold from $500 million to $1 billion. 
However, we don't want to help our communities any longer or anymore?
  This, again, would give access and the ability for 400 small banks to 
help their community. And I don't want you to think about this as 400 
small banks. Please think of this as how many thousands of people these 
small banks are going to be able to help--people who are going to 
receive access to credit that they need in order to achieve their 
dreams.
  It is time for us in Washington to stop giving people exactly what 
they need to stay exactly where they are and start giving them the 
opportunities to go beyond, to go to the middle class and beyond, if 
they choose; to have the opportunities to be as ordinary or 
extraordinary as they choose to be.
  This is going to help many people from all walks of life in all sorts 
of communities. And that is why I believe that we in Congress should do 
our job and give as many people access to this credit so that they can 
help their families.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Again, I just want to thank the gentlewoman from Utah for her 
leadership. She has made such a great impact on our Financial Services 
Committee.
  Again, I am not sure we have a more urgent matter on our committee--
we have many important matters--but when you are losing a financial 
institution a day in America, and thus losing the hopes and dreams of 
millions who count on the community financial institutions to help buy 
their homes, fund their cars, capitalize their small businesses, it is 
an urgent matter. This is an important underlying bill that will grant 
relief to an additional 400 community banks to survive and, hopefully, 
go beyond surviving to actually thriving.
  As ever well-intended as the amendment is from the gentlewoman on the 
other side of the aisle, it puts one more stumbling block in front of 
these community banks who are just withering on the vine, who are 
struggling.
  Again, it is, at best, duplicative. Everything the ranking member 
brought up theoretically is already addressed in section 3 of the Bank 
Holding Company Act.
  Why would you have to turn in essentially two different versions of a 
similar report?
  More paperwork burden. At some point, it is the straw that breaks the 
camel's back, which absolutely breaks the back of community banking.
  So it is time to reject the amendment. It is time for all Members to 
support H.R. 3791.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question 
is ordered on the bill and on the amendment by the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Kelly).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Kelly).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, and the

[[Page H1699]]

order of the House of today, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________