[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 25 (Thursday, February 8, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H983-H990]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             SMALL BANK HOLDING COMPANY RELIEF ACT OF 2018

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 725, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 4771) 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 (Mr. Byrne). Pursuant to House Resolution 
725, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text 
of Rules Committee Print 115-57 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 4771

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Small Bank Holding Company 
     Relief Act of 2018''.

     SEC. 2. 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 $3,000,000,000.
       (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. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) 
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  February 8, 2018, on page H983, the following appeared: The 
SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The SPEAKER pro 
tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 
30 minutes. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 



                             General Leave

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within 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 as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of H.R. 4771, the 
Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act of 2018. It is a bipartisan bill 
which passed our committee with a strong bipartisan vote of 41-14.
  Mr. Speaker, this exact same provision came out of the Senate Banking 
Committee also with a very strong bipartisan vote of 16-7.
  First, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love) who is a 
very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee. I want to 
thank her for introducing this legislation and helping lead our 
congressional efforts to provide regulatory relief to our Nation's 
community banks. She is a great asset to our committee and widely 
respected.
  The Federal Reserve Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement is a 
regulation that allows certain bank holding companies that have less 
than $1 billion in assets to hold more debt at the holding company 
level than would otherwise be permitted by current capital 
requirements. They do this as long as they meet a number of ongoing 
requirements and restrictions.
  H.R. 4771 would raise that threshold for qualifying institutions from 
$1 billion to $3 billion, thus allowing more community banks to raise 
more capital by the issuance of debt. By increasing this threshold, 
H.R. 4771 provides much needed relief for bank holding companies from 
overly burdensome capital and leverage requirements that were truly 
intended, Mr. Speaker, for the largest and most complex global 
financial institutions.
  It is a reoccurring problem, Mr. Speaker. Again, over and over, the 
regulatory burden on our community financial institutions is causing us 
to lose one approximately every other day in America. These are rules 
that have made it, again, more difficult for small banks to raise 
capital. And while the bank holding companies will no longer have to 
abide by these rules under this bill, again, there are plenty of 
safeguards that continue to be in place to protect the safety and 
soundness of the institution and its customers. But these institutions 
present no threat to the safety and soundness of our financial system.
  First and foremost, the Federal Reserve retains the right to impose 
capital standards on a holding company if they determine it is needed. 
In other words, this is a ``may'' bill and not a ``shall'' bill. The $3 
billion threshold remains totally within the discretion of the Federal 
Reserve. It is permissive.
  Next, capital rules and regulations will continue to apply to the 
subsidiary banks of the holding company level. Again, let me repeat, 
the capital rules and regulations continue to apply to subsidiary 
banks.
  All institutions must continue to meet certain qualitative 
requirements, including those pertaining to non-banking activities, 
off-balance-sheet activities, and publicly registered debt and equity. 
These requirements ensure that the higher leverage the policy statement 
allows does not pose any undue burden on subsidiary depository 
institutions.
  So the Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act will indeed make it 
easier for small, hometown community banks to raise capital. And as 
they raise more capital, they can turn it into more Main Street jobs, 
more economic growth, and more home ownership opportunities for our 
constituents.
  In fact, passing this bill will immediately benefit community banks 
all across America. Not the big banks, not Wall Street banks, as I have 
no doubt the ranking member will say in her remarks, but again, it will 
be community banks that will benefit.
  If you don't believe me, ask them. Ask the Independent Community 
Bankers of America and its 5,700 community bank members.
  As a matter of fact, the passage of this bill, Mrs. Love's bill, has 
been an important, longstanding goal of the Independent Community 
Bankers of America because they have been suffering and suffocated by 
an avalanche of red tape with massive increases in regulatory burdens, 
which has caused consolidation with much, much larger competitors. 
Because of increased regulation and compliance costs, again, many of 
them have found it difficult to access and raise capital. This is the 
capital that is needed to capitalize our small businesses.
  Small businesses are struggling for access to credit, and the 
incredible regulatory burden placed on home buyers has simply 
complicated the buying process.

                              {time}  1115

  These higher costs are being felt at the same time that paychecks are 
only now beginning to grow for working families thanks to the Tax Cuts 
and Jobs Act.
  Just don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Let's listen to just one 
community banker who happens to be from West Virginia. They wrote in 
and said:

       What no one in a position of power seems to realize is that 
     many customers in our

[[Page H984]]

     country prefer to deal with a smaller, hometown institution, 
     with people they know and trust. If a customer has a question 
     about their loan or their deposit, they simply pick up the 
     phone and call or drop by. If we don't know the answer, we 
     find out and let them know as soon as possible. But it 
     appears that Congress and the administration are attempting 
     to get rid of smaller institutions, so there are a lot fewer 
     institutions to deal with, and those are the large ones who 
     are too big to fail.

  Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what happened under the Dodd-Frank Act.
  Continuing:

       Please just try to remember that small financial 
     institutions and small businesses are the heart of America. 
     The American Dream is to work hard, learn, and make a good 
     life for yourself and your family. In the meantime, it 
     includes working in your community or neighborhood to help 
     others out. Even as a small institution as ours, we sponsor 
     Little League Baseball teams, soccer teams, the county junior 
     fair, and many other activities. We realize if we don't 
     support local small businesses, they soon won't be here.

  Those words could have been written by almost any community financial 
institution in America, Mr. Speaker, and they ring so true. In order to 
keep our small communities alive, we have to keep their small 
businesses alive and we must keep their small banks alive.
  So, again, it is so important that we enact H.R. 4771 and that we 
reduce this red tape on our community financial institutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Utah for introducing the 
legislation, and 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, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4771, the Small Bank 
Holding Company Relief Act of 2018. This bill is another Republican-led 
measure to roll back appropriately tailored policies to regulate the 
financial services sector that ignores the hard-learned lessons of the 
catastrophic 2008 financial crisis.
  We have seen this same flawed approach in H.R. 10, which I called the 
``Wrong Choice Act,'' last year, and we are seeing it again in the 
Senate as it considers advancing Senator Crapo's Wall Street giveaway, 
which includes a provision identical to the bill that we are 
considering today, along with several other harmful provisions.
  The Federal Reserve's Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement was 
first issued in 1980 to enable the transfer of ownership of small 
community banks by allowing small, noncomplex bank holding companies to 
operate with higher levels of debt than would normally be permitted.
  The original policy statement established a threshold of bank holding 
companies with less than $150 million in assets, but this level was 
increased to $500 million in 2006.
  The policy statement allows certain small bank holding companies and 
savings and loan holding companies to hold more debt at the holding 
company level than would otherwise be allowed by capital requirements 
if the debt is used to finance up to 75 percent of an acquisition of 
another bank. Put another way, the policy statement is important 
because it allows small institutions like community banks and minority-
owned insured depository institutions to access additional debt so they 
can continue serving their communities without compromising bank safety 
and soundness.
  Thus, it is important that the threshold level be carefully 
calibrated so it cannot be abused by speculative investors. If the 
threshold is raised too high, it will encourage more mergers and 
acquisitions, riskier banking activities, and reduced banking services 
and credit availability to rural, low-income, minority, and underserved 
communities.
  In 2014, Democrats worked with Republicans to examine this threshold 
and reached a reasonable compromise to raise the threshold to $1 
billion. This change was implemented only after closely consulting with 
regulators to determine the appropriate threshold level to help 
community banks grow without making them targets for mergers and 
acquisitions.
  The $1 billion threshold is sensible and reasonable in light of the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's exhaustive study several years 
ago on the definition of ``community bank.'' While the FDIC factors in 
other considerations, their definition of a community bank includes a 
dollar threshold of banks with less than $1 billion in assets.
  According to 2016 data from the Federal Reserve, 87 percent of all 
bank holding companies are covered by the current $1 billion threshold. 
This means that a large majority of the industry currently benefits 
from the adjusted 2014 threshold increase in the policy statement, 
including all truly small community banks.
  Furthermore, it is worth highlighting that the bipartisan compromise 
reached in 2014 included other important safeguards, such as excluding 
any bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies with 
less than $1 billion that are engaged in significant nonbanking 
activities. It also gives the Federal Reserve the ability to exclude 
any bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies from 
the policy statement, regardless of size, if it concludes that the 
exclusion is warranted for supervisory purposes.
  But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not hesitated 
to try and push the threshold higher. Last Congress, just a little more 
than a year after a bipartisan compromise to increase the threshold, 
Republicans pushed through the House another bill, H.R. 3791, that 
would have significantly increased the threshold from $1 billion to $5 
billion. That bill faced a veto threat from the Obama administration, 
as it should have, and it went nowhere in the Senate.

  Last year, Chairman Hensarling included a provision in H.R. 10, the 
``Wrong Choice Act,'' to drastically raise the $1 billion threshold to 
$10 billion. Because the Senate now appears set to move a bill that 
raises the threshold, but to nowhere near that level, we now find 
ourselves back on the floor of the House today considering a new bill 
to triple the threshold from $1 billion to $3 billion.
  While it is a slightly less drastic increase than the one in the bill 
Republicans pushed through the House last Congress, tripling the policy 
statement threshold to $3 billion so soon since the last threshold 
increase is still unwise. There simply has not been sufficient time to 
see what effect doubling the policy statement threshold from $500 
million to $1 billion really means for community banks.
  Congress should at least examine the data and understand the effects 
of the last change before making another one. We should not ignore the 
concerns raised by experts that this approach will allow small banks to 
take on more debt than they otherwise need and may actually promote 
mergers and acquisitions so that we have fewer community banks, not 
more.
  While Republicans push bills like H.R. 4771 in the name of helping 
community banks, this is yet another proposal that would likely result 
in fewer, not more, community banks.
  Even the Treasury Department under this President, President Trump, 
only recommended raising the threshold to $2 billion. So they are $1 
billion even beyond what the President supports. That was in a report 
issued last year.
  As I mentioned, H.R. 4771 is one of the many harmful provisions in 
Senator Crapo's financial deregulatory bill that is advanced in the 
Senate. Senator Crapo's bill also includes many other harmful rollbacks 
that would fundamentally weaken our framework. It would roll back 
certain stress testing requirements for megabanks like Wells Fargo and 
would exempt or weaken enhanced standards for many of the large banks 
in the country.
  The Senate bill also would gut rules for foreign banks like Deutsche 
Bank and Credit Suisse.
  It would also eliminate a requirement that many banks collect and 
publicly report critical Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, or HMDA, data. 
HMDA data is used for many important policy purposes, including to 
identify mortgage lending discrimination against many Latinos, African 
Americans, and other minority groups.
  I could go on and on, but the list is longer than the time that we 
have allotted. The bottom line is I strongly urge my colleagues to 
reject H.R. 4771 and the other efforts by congressional Republicans and 
this administration to deregulate Wall Street and the banking industry 
and roll back the clock to a time not long ago when we had weak

[[Page H985]]

oversight and few safeguards that protect consumers, investors, and 
taxpayers.
  You can see what is happening. At one point, the opposite side of the 
aisle said: ``Let's jump to $5 billion.'' And then, Mr. Hensarling 
said: ``No, let's jump to $10 billion.'' This is done without any 
thought or consideration for what they are doing and the risks that 
they are placing on these little banks to be bought up and the mergers 
to take place.
  You can see there is no real thought, no real review, no real 
consideration given when you say: ``Let's go from $1 billion to $3 
billion to $5 billion to $10 billion, whatever we can get.'' We are 
saying: ``No, that is wrong. Don't do that. Don't do that to these 
community banks.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Utah (Mrs. Love), the sponsor of this legislation.
  Mrs. LOVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4771.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank Chairman Hensarling for his 
support of this bill, as well as the cosponsors, Mr. Gottheimer and Mr. 
Meeks, for making this a bipartisan effort to help community banks.
  Economic freedom and personal freedom run hand in hand. In order to 
ensure personal freedoms, Americans need access to credit as 
individuals, on behalf of their families, and in their businesses. That 
is why I am proud to have introduced this bill.
  H.R. 4771 is a very simple bill to help small banks and savings and 
loan companies get access to the capital they need to make credit 
available in their communities. These small banking institutions are 
critical to people in the local communities in which they reside. They 
support the credit needs of families, small businesses, farmers, and 
entrepreneurs.
  Community banks are often the principal lending source for many 
people, whether they are purchasing a home or starting a business. In 
many counties around the Nation, our community banks are 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 families and low-income Americans 
in those communities that suffer.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is about people. Community banks give people 
the credit they need to pursue their dreams, buy a home, buy a car, and 
own and grow their businesses. In fact, proximity to a community bank 
increases the chance that a new small business will be approved for a 
loan that they need to succeed.
  By raising the consolidated asset threshold under the Federal 
Reserve's Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement from $1 billion 
to $3 billion in assets, hundreds of additional small banks and thrift 
holding companies will qualify for the coverage under the policy 
statement and, therefore, 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.
  The exemptions provided in the policy statement make it easier for a 
small holding company to raise capital and issue debt. This bill is 
about making sure that regulations fit the size of the institution.
  Mr. Speaker, a similar effort was passed into law during the 113th 
Congress under suspension by the House and by unanimous consent in the 
Senate. That bill raised the threshold from $500 million, where it had 
been since 1996, to $1 billion.

                              {time}  1130

  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 roughly helped 500 small bank and thrift holding 
companies, why wouldn't we extend those benefits further?
  H.R. 4771 would bring even more small institutions within the scope 
of the policy statement. We have already seen the benefits of the last 
increase. One success story we have heard was an instance where 35 bank 
holding companies pooled their resources together to issue debt under 
the policy statement. That debt was then downstreamed to their 
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. 4771 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 not one but several 
safeguards designed to ensure that the small bank holding companies 
that operate with the higher levels of debt permitted under the policy 
statement do not present an undue risk to the safety and the soundness 
of the subsidiary banks.
  Mr. Speaker, to sum it up, this bill is not about supporting banks. 
It is about supporting families. It is about supporting communities and 
small business. It is about making sure that small-business owners have 
access to the credit they need to expand and to thrive.
  I recently heard of a businessowner in my community who employs about 
30 people. Most of these people that she employs are women who are 
trying to take care of their families and make a little bit more so 
that they could put some money in their pocket or buy a car. She would 
like to expand her business, but it----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Byrne). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Utah.
  Mrs. LOVE. Mr. Speaker, she would like to expand her business to 
employ even more people, but she continuously receives red tape, and it 
makes it very difficult for her to be able to provide for her 
community. This is about families sitting around the kitchen table 
imagining the possibilities of renovating their home and the 
entrepreneur dreaming of starting a restaurant or being her own boss.
  Raising the threshold received strong bipartisan support in the 
Financial Services Committee, and I hope that it will receive equal 
support in this Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for this bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the 
other side wants. They want $5 billion at one point, they want $10 
billion at one point, and now they want $3 billion. They just throw it 
up against the wall and hope something sticks, and we are saying: Don't 
put these community banks at risk.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the vice ranking member of the Financial 
Services Committee.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Waters for yielding. 
I know she understands the danger in yielding to me as much time as I 
may consume. I will just take a couple of minute on this.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 4771, the Small Bank Holding Company 
Relief Act. There are unaddressed concerns as to the effect this bill 
will have on community banks that serve so many of our constituents, 
whether it be through more bank consolidation or whether it will 
encourage small banks to take on more unsustainable debt.
  The Federal Reserve has a small bank holding company policy statement 
that outlines ownership transfer of small community banks and savings 
associations ``by allowing their holding companies to operate with 
higher levels of debt than would normally be permitted.''
  The holding companies that qualify for the policy statement can have 
up to $1 billion in assets, a limit that was reached, in a bipartisan 
effort, in the 113th Congress. Yet, even though this new threshold was 
enacted just at the end of 2014, we have seen multiple efforts to raise 
the limit even higher.
  According to data from the Federal Reserve, under the current $1 
billion

[[Page H986]]

threshold, 87 percent of all bank holding companies and 72 percent of 
savings and loan holding companies are holding nearly $1 trillion in 
assets under that billion-dollar threshold.
  It is too soon to know the effects of increasing the threshold to $1 
billion. Why are we pushing to raise it even further without sufficient 
information as to the effect on the market of the last increase?
  And we may disagree on the conclusion we come to, but a concern I 
would like to address is that while we are raising this question, while 
we are debating whether to raise this threshold without, I believe, 
sufficient knowledge as to the full impact of the last increase, we are 
taking time on the floor when we have so many other unaddressed 
concerns that get no time on this floor.
  You know, as members of the committee, and certainly other Members of 
the House understand, I spent a good deal of my time working on issues 
related to the conditions of America's cities and towns. A whole subset 
of American towns, even in a period of economic growth, which we all 
acknowledge has been sustained now over the period of the last 8 years, 
many communities are continuing to be left behind.
  Why is that? I am sure there are a lot of reasons. I am sure some of 
my friends would argue that some of the issues addressed in this 
legislation might touch on them. But one thing I know for sure, the 
crumbling roads and bridges and water and sewer systems in those 
communities are so serious, the problem is so great. The unaddressed 
issues of violent crime in many of those same cities, which this House 
continues to leave unaddressed, essentially ensures that any change in 
the regulatory structure in the marketplace is not sufficient to deal 
with the underlying and really troubling problems that these 
communities face.

  You know, a year ago, the President came to the floor of this House 
and talked about a $1 trillion infrastructure plan. He came back and 
said it was going to be $1.5 trillion with one little asterisk, only 
$200 billion from the Federal Government. State and local government is 
supposed to make up the rest of it.
  I raise this because often the arguments in favor of taking some of 
the regulatory protections off these institutions are that it is 
supposed to unlock the marketplace to rebuild these communities when 
these communities are so shackled to the bottom of the ocean that no 
rising tide will raise them.
  If we don't get control of the incredible struggle and deterioration 
in these older cities, nothing we do on this floor otherwise is going 
to make it right for those folks.
  I represent one of those towns. You have heard me talk about my own 
hometown of Flint. There are so many other communities that are 
struggling. The jurisdiction of a committee does include addressing the 
condition of urban America. I would just hope, and really ask, that we 
spend a bit more time on those questions.
  I would feel much more comfortable having a debate about what the 
regulatory structure looks like if I felt like there was sufficient 
attention being given to those issues. In the meantime, because of the 
questions that I have already raised about the impact of this 
legislation not being fully understood, even the last increase in the 
threshold not being fully understood, I am going to urge my colleagues 
to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that, 
as the ranking member appears to be vexed at where the $3 billion 
number came from, it is the product of bipartisan compromise, something 
I invite her to engage in more often, and this particular bill is 
supported by almost half the Democrats on the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer 
Credit Subcommittee.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling for the 
time. To say that the current regulatory climate presents challenges 
for small financial institutions would be a drastic understatement. 
Today, regulators require more and more from community banks in terms 
of both regulatory oversight and capital requirements.
  The gentlewoman from Utah has crafted legislation that seeks to 
alleviate some of these pressures facing our community banks. Small 
bank and thrift holding companies confront unique challenges with 
regard to capital formation, which is a particular concern at times 
when regulators demand more and more capital.
  Understanding these challenges, the Fed has recognized that small 
banks have limited access to equity financing. The Federal Reserve 
small bank holding 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 
bank and thrift holding companies.
  I would like to digress for just a little second here. I haven't 
heard anybody talk about it, and I think it is very important, Mr. 
Speaker, that we talk about the timeframe prior to 2008, whenever we 
were averaging about 150 to 175 new banks and credit unions every year. 
But between the timeframe of 2010 and 2006, we averaged one.
  That is significant because small businesses get their loans from 
small banks. And without this access to capital for small businesses, 
we will dry up our small businesses in this country that are the job 
creators.
  So by increasing the threshold, the Fed's policy statement from $1 
billion to $3 billion, we have the opportunity to help more banks 
operating in our community, and hopefully be formed in our communities, 
and help our lending to our constituents.
  Similar legislation has been contemplated in the House on a number of 
occasions. The language in this latest iteration is identical to the 
bipartisan language proposed in the Senate Banking Committee bill and 
is similar to legislation that passed the House in the 114th Congress 
and included in my CLEARR Act.
  H.R. 4771 will go a long way in ensuring that our Nation's smallest 
institutions are able to grow stronger and continue to serve their 
constituents.
  I want to thank Mrs. Love for her leadership on this legislation and 
Chairman Hensarling for his commitment to issues facing community banks 
and credit unions.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
commonsense bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am so honored to have this 
opportunity. I thank the chairman as well, and I want to thank the 
ranking member for all of the work that she has done in this area. She 
has been a part of the avant-garde to protect and maintain 
community banks.

  One of the great difficulties that we have had with our committee is 
defining what a community bank is. We have had testimony to indicate 
that a community bank can be $50 billion or more. We want to make sure 
that the small institutions that the chairperson is talking about 
continue to exist.
  It is unfortunate, but if we pass this legislation, there is a good 
likelihood that the level of consolidation that will take place will be 
antithetical to the very commentary that we are hearing with reference 
to the need for community banks, small banks to make sure small 
businesses will receive loans. There is a contradiction contained 
within the very effort that is being made.
  I am honored to have with me a statement from over 200 civil rights 
community organizations, labor unions, businesses, investors, faith-
based businesses, community and civic groups; and this statement 
reads--this is from them, but I concur with it: ``Raising the limit to 
$3 billion is a policy well calculated to significantly reduce the 
number of community banks in the U.S. First, raising the limit will 
allow medium-sized community banks of $2 to $3 billion in size to more 
easily acquire smaller community banks. . . .''
  That is a significant comment because the acquisition of smaller 
banks is going to cause us to have fewer smaller banks, and the 
argument that is being made is that the smaller banks are the ones that 
are servicing small businesses.

[[Page H987]]

  It goes on to read: ``. . . reducing the number of independent 
community banks. Second, allowing holding companies to borrow 
excessively will raise the risk of bank failure the next time the 
financial system is under stress.
  ``A $3 billion limit is unjustified, as there is no evidence that 
community banks over $1 billion in size are currently too small to 
survive. According to a recent FDIC report, `While economies of scale 
are important for community banks, historical trends in the size 
distribution of community banks that have survived over the last 
quarter century do not suggest that economies of scale require a 
community bank to grow or merge to asset sizes larger than $1 
billion.''
  My point is that I am a proponent of community banks.

                              {time}  1145

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 
30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. The point is that I am a proponent of having 
small banks. I call small banks community banks. I am a proponent of 
this. If I am a proponent of it, then I support the notion that we 
cannot allow them to be consolidated such that we will have fewer of 
them.
  I think this legislation is a little bit misguided in that it 
contradicts the very premise upon which it rests.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say 
that I am shocked that anybody would come here and say that they want 
to support community banks and they supported Dodd-Frank--the very 
reason these community banks are being gobbled up. The whole idea of 
this legislation is to allow them to come together and protect 
themselves and not be gobbled up by the big banks they vilify in the 
first place.
  Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing some of the details 
of the bill, but here is the real message: this is about our small 
communities and small banks that are the lifeblood of those 
communities.
  A little earlier you heard the ranking member talk about this being 
about Wall Street.
  Do you know what?
  She is right. This is about Wall Street. Wall Street was one block 
away from where I lived on Sanford Street in Zeeland, Michigan. By the 
way, we were connected by Main Street and Central Avenue. That is what 
it is about. Whether it is Wall Street in Zeeland, Michigan, or Sanford 
Street, or my friends in Baldwin, Michigan, this is about our small 
communities.
  What does a strong local community bank bring?
  It brings local investment.
  And what does that local investment bring?
  Stability, predictability, trust, trust among the farmers, among 
those corner pub owners, or among those small hotel owners that may be 
depending on the stray traveler that is going to be coming through.
  This has been sort of viewed as a risk to these small banks. It is 
actually the opposite of that. Either, A, one small community bank is 
going to merge with another small community bank and they are going to 
remain small community banks under that $3 billion threshold; or, B, 
what we have been seeing a lot of--and this is what the chairman was 
talking about--they are going to get gobbled up by a large bank that 
doesn't qualify under this legislation.
  And guess what.
  They are far more likely to remove those ATMs and far more likely to 
move those local branches out of places like Tustin and Luther and 
Baldwin and Holland.
  I can tell you this: if you went and said that this is anything other 
than about strengthening our small community banks, it shows, A, one is 
either wildly out of touch or, B, playing politics.
  That is the sad part, because I can tell you this: if you go talk to 
my friend Debbie Smith-Olson, who is the CEO of Lake-Osceola State Bank 
in Baldwin, Michigan--located in the poorest county in the State of 
Michigan, one of the top 100 poorest counties in the Nation--and you 
told her that this was about Wall Street, she would laugh.
  If I went and talked to my friends at Macatawa Bank and tried to 
describe this as being about helping big banks and Wall Street and 
rolling back Dodd-Frank, they would first look at me in stunned 
silence, and then they would ask me: Are you serious?
  Well, unfortunately, that is the kind of rhetoric that you are 
hearing out here today.
  Let's make sure that we understand what this is really about: 
strengthening our small banks, which strengthen our small communities 
and strengthen our small-business owners. That is what is going to 
continue this economic comeback that we are experiencing here in the 
United States.
  I commend the gentlewoman from Utah in her work on a bipartisan 
manner on the basis that this has been coming together with people of 
goodwill trying to come up with a solution to make sure that we don't 
see needless consolidation in a banking community that has already been 
so hit.
  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 Michigan.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. As I wrap up, this is about making sure that we have a 
solid community banking system. We know that they have been under 
assault under these Dodd-Frank provisions that have come through, which 
I don't think were necessarily maliciously put in, but they were 
misunderstood about what those effects were going to be. The 
gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love) is rectifying that.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage my colleagues to support that and to 
vote ``yes'' for this very important bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to understand the support 
that community banks have gotten from this side of the aisle.
  I know that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, 
oftentimes, advance the argument that they are the only ones who care 
about community banks and that we don't understand community banks. 
And, oftentimes, they have arguments that basically would have one 
conclude that we don't really advance the cause of community banks.
  I would just like to remind my colleagues in this Congress of the 
work that we have done in support of community banks. We have 
supported, and successfully supported, less frequent exams for well-
rated community banks with less than $1 billion. The exam cycle is now 
18 months instead of 12 months for these strong small banks.
  We took into consideration the concerns of community banks about the 
examiners coming too often, disturbing the banks, oftentimes, tying up 
the personnel in the bank. So we agreed to not have them come in every 
12 months and to extend that so that 18 months will give some relief to 
the community banks so that they don't have to deal with the auditors 
in such a way that disturbs the bank.
  We also moved successfully to eliminate an annual privacy notice for 
community banks and credit unions whose policies have not changed and 
the consumer has already notified. Well, we did that. We eliminated 
these annual privacy notices for the community banks and for credit 
unions who have not changed their policies, and there is no need to 
have to continue to insist that they have these annual privacy notices.
  Well, we went further with less stringent SEC registration rules for 
small thrifts, providing parity with other banks; and access to credit 
for privately insured credit unions, allowing them to join the Federal 
Home Loan Banks program; improving mortgage licensing for community 
banks and credit unions by allowing regulator access to the nationwide 
mortgage licensing system and registry, while maintaining 
confidentiality protections.
  I just cite this because it is so important to understand what we 
have done on this side of the aisle to ensure that our community banks 
are strong, that they are there for our communities, that they provide 
the loans, that they

[[Page H988]]

assist in developing our communities. What we don't understand 
oftentimes is why our friends on the opposite side of the aisle, in the 
name of community banks, will come with proposals that hurt community 
banks.
  We have pointed out that our friends on the opposite side of the 
aisle have gone so far as to try and get everyone to believe that we 
should increase this amount of debt that they could carry up to $10 
billion. That is totally irresponsible, totally. And even when they 
attempted to go to $5 billion, totally irresponsible, down to $3 
billion, because I guess they just say: Well, we have to try to get 
some more opportunities for small banks to carry this debt.
  Well, they don't answer the question about what happens when these 
small community banks are burdened with debt that they cannot take care 
of, that they cannot pay. They don't talk about the fact that that is 
going to cause the community bank to close. And they certainly don't 
talk about putting them in a position where they will be brought up.
  So I would simply say for those of us who have proven our support for 
community banks and who continue to engage with community banks about 
what we can do to ensure their strength, to ensure that they are there 
to provide the loans in the neighborhoods and in the communities that 
they serve, I think we have identified ourselves and we have defined 
ourselves. We would simply ask those who are listening to this debate 
to continue to know and understand what is happening between these 
different sides of the aisle, to look at what we have done, and to 
understand how we have been helpful in our support for community banks.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to simply use 
a term popularized on the other side of the aisle. These are crumbs, 
deregulatory crumbs, offered by the ranking member when, in fact, she 
and others on the other side of the aisle have their handprints all 
over Dodd-Frank, which 90 percent of community bankers will tell you is 
the number one reason they are going out of business, which is why we 
have to enact this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the vice chairman of our Subcommittee 
on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 4771, the 
Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act.
  I also want to thank my colleague from Utah, Representative Love, for 
her hard work on this important issue.
  We have extensively discussed the challenges that small banks face in 
the current regulatory environment, both on the House floor and in the 
Financial Services Committee, including, just yesterday, a debate on 
the Mortgage Choice Act.
  These challenges contribute to the continued retreat of community 
banks from small towns and underserved communities across our country, 
including those that dot my district in the hills and valleys of 
western Pennsylvania.
  This hurts families and Main Street businesses by depriving them of 
the access to financial services that they desperately need.
  The Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act will allow more 
institutions to operate under the Small Bank Holding Company Policy 
Statement, which will help them raise additional capital by issuing 
debt.
  It will also make it easier for covered institutions to form new 
holding companies, fund existing holding companies, and make 
acquisitions.
  Altogether, this is a smart, targeted bill that will help more small 
financial institutions grow and adjust to the changing economic and 
regulatory landscape.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleagues on the 
opposite side of the aisle that the community banks with $1 billion to 
$5 billion in assets already have sufficient access to capital markets 
and, as a group, are exhibiting help and resilience.

  Raising a threshold to exempt banks with over $1 billion from 
important minimum leverage and capital requirements will do little more 
than encourage banks to take on debt--as I have reminded you time and 
time again today--endangering their soundness and potentially depriving 
their customers of much-needed banking services should the bank fail.
  Setting the consolidated assets threshold at $1 billion was a 
bipartisan decision that struck a balance between allowing small banks 
to access capital to better serve their customers and ensuring their 
safety and soundness. Raising the threshold would be an unnecessary and 
risky change.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), vice chairman of the Housing and 
Insurance Subcommittee.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mrs. Love, from Utah for 
presenting this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand here in support of H.R. 4771.
  It is said that all politics are local, but might I also suggest that 
all economic growth is local as well. Local in the sense of small 
businesses. Small businesses, the moms and pops who put their ideas at 
risk in order to create their American Dream of growing a business and 
creating jobs.
  Yet, what does it take?
  It takes access to capital. Yet, since Dodd-Frank, we have not seen 
that access to capital available to our small businesses, who so 
desperately need it, in order to grow our economies, especially at the 
community level.
  In fact, might I even suggest that Dodd-Frank has only one attribute 
in terms of job growth, and that is the creation of the one fastest 
growing job out there: compliance officer--compliance officers that 
banks and financial institutions now have to hire in order to meet 
regulatory burdens that take away from the bottom line of consumers who 
want to achieve the American Dream.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4771, the Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act, 
will allow that access to capital that is so desperately needed at the 
local level, and I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

                              {time}  1200

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Okay. So we have heard it again. We hate Dodd-Frank. We hate Dodd-
Frank. We hate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We don't 
believe that Dodd-Frank should have created the reforms that they did.
  Just forget about the fact that there was a subprime meltdown in 
2008, that this country went into a recession, almost a depression. 
Throw all of that out of the window. Forget about what was happening 
when the big banks failed and we bailed them all out. Forget about 
reforms.
  Oh, how much we hate Dodd-Frank. We just blame Dodd-Frank for 
everything.
  Please. I think that, as credible legislators, we are beyond the 
point of wrapping up everything that we don't like and accusing Dodd-
Frank reforms for causing problems to everything and everybody, 
including the community banks. The fact of the matter is, if we want to 
strengthen, preserve, and make sure community banks are available to 
our communities, we won't take on public policy that would put them at 
risk with having more debt than they can take care of, and we won't put 
them at risk of being bought up and these mergers taking place.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds just to 
request of the ranking member, on her time, if she will begin to name 
the community banks that were responsible for the 2008 financial 
crisis, ostensibly, that was supposed to be answered by Dodd-Frank. She 
will have some time to think about that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Zeldin).

[[Page H989]]

  

  Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4771, the 
Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act, and I commend my friend from 
Utah, Mia Love, for her amazing leadership on this important issue and 
her tireless effort to bring relief to the community banks that lend to 
small businesses and families in my district and in towns all across 
America.
  By reforming the onerous one-size-fits-all regulations mandated by 
the Dodd-Frank law that roped small community financial institutions in 
with large global too-big-to-fail megafirms, this commonsense bill will 
give community banks and the customers they serve more clarity and 
allow them to focus on their important mission of lending to homeowners 
and businesses.
  This legislation also makes it easier for small- and medium-sized 
institutions subject to Dodd-Frank mandates to form new holding 
companies, fund existing holding companies, and make acquisitions by 
issuing debt at the holding company level.
  Now that they are subject to the Basel III capital requirements, many 
community banks have found it difficult to access and raise capital.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield the gentleman from New York an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. ZELDIN. The consequence of this choke hold on community lending 
means less mortgages, less small business loans, and less economic 
growth. H.R. 4771 fixes this and facilitates the ability of community 
banks and savings institutions to raise needed capital.
  I urge adoption of this bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further 
requests for time and I am prepared to close, so I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats support targeted, measured relief for our 
community financial institutions. We recognize that these smaller banks 
and credit unions intimately know their communities and how best to 
serve them. But we also know that changes to the rules that are 
designed to ensure that community banks are safe and sound can have 
unintended consequences.
  While community banks did not cause the 2008 financial crisis, they 
were at the center of another crisis just two decades before. When I 
came to the Financial Services Committee, thousands of savings and loan 
holding companies were failing and causing serious harm to the 
communities they were supposed to serve. This was due, in part, to the 
fact that lawmakers thought it was wise to weaken safeguards on these 
savings and loan holding companies, allowing them to take on more 
leverage and offer riskier products. I fear that Congress will again 
pass legislation today that will ultimately cause harm to both the very 
community banks we want to help and the hardworking Americans that rely 
on them.
  And now, Republicans are trying to raise the threshold as high as 
possible. In the chairman's ``Wrong Choice Act,'' he would raise the 
threshold tenfold, to $10 billion. At the end of last Congress, 
Republicans sought to raise it to $5 billion. A few months ago, the 
Trump administration recommended raising it to $2 billion, and now, a 
little less than 3 years after we reached a bipartisan compromise, we 
are inexplicably considering legislation to raise it to $3 billion.
  I tried to tell you just a few moments ago, they don't know. They are 
just throwing it up against the wall: whatever we can get. Next they 
will be asking for $20 billion. No, you have moved away from $10 
billion; you have moved away from $5 billion; now you are at $3 
billion. Your President wants $2 billion. We say, leave it as it is.
  Mr. Speaker, if you are listening to this and feeling dizzy, it is 
understandable. None of these levels are backed by the same careful 
consideration Congress gave to the threshold 2 years ago, and I am 
afraid it is exactly the kind of legislating that set the groundwork 
for the savings and loan crisis and left thousands of communities 
without access to banking services.
  When I came on, Members of Congress were fleeing the old Banking 
Committee. They wanted to get out of there because they had been 
responsible for public policy that had put the S&L business at risk, 
and now that was all failing. They were fleeing it, and they were 
punishing people, all the new Members coming on, and making them go on 
this committee because they knew that they had nobody else to serve on 
it.

  So I have been there. I have seen it. I have experienced it. I am a 
part of Dodd-Frank reforms. I served on the conference committee. I 
worked with Dodd. I worked with Frank. I know what we should be doing.
  Before I close, I would like to remind my colleagues that this bill 
and many of the other one-off financial services bills Republicans are 
pushing should really be viewed as setting the table for the dangerous 
deregulatory package making it through the Senate. That package, which 
our committee has not even considered to thoroughly understand the 
interactions of all the rollbacks it contains, weakens oversight of 
Wall Street and the Nation's largest banks under the guise of community 
bank relief.
  H.R. 4771 is one of the many provisions in the Senate bill that, when 
taken together, will risk further bailouts and harm homeownership in 
America. Every time this House passes another provision of that bigger 
bill, we make it more likely that critical safeguards and protections 
will be eviscerated at the expense of our Nation's homeowners and 
consumers.
  I urge all Members to soundly reject H.R. 4771 today and to reject 
the larger Senate legislation if it comes to the House. I comfortably 
say, despite the fact that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle 
are trying to frame this in a certain way, they really don't know what 
they are doing. Reject this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Davidson), a hardworking member of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for H.R. 
4771, the Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act. This bill is another 
example of the rollback of burdensome regulations of the Dodd-Frank 
Act, which Barney Frank himself says missed the mark, particularly with 
respect to small banks.
  I appreciate the Member opposed calling attention to Democrats who 
have worked across the aisle to benefit community banks. In fact, 11 of 
them support this bill in our committee, and I appreciate them for 
doing that. I appreciate the cosponsors who are Democrats, who worked 
across the aisle with my colleague, Mrs. Love, to pass this good bill 
through our committee, and I look forward to seeing more colleagues 
pass this in a bipartisan way across the floor of the House today.
  How about giving small institutions a chance to start taking back 
some of their market share? Instead of too big to fail, what Dodd-Frank 
has done is made things so that small banks are too small to succeed. 
These exemptions that are in this bill make it easier for small bank 
holding companies to raise capital, to issue debt.
  Under the current capital requirements, small businesses just can't 
compete with the larger banks, and the large banks have celebrated this 
in their own statements, celebrating the effect of Dodd-Frank in 
protecting their market share and helping them grow it.
  Under current capital requirements, that is what we have seen: bigger 
banks getting bigger, and smaller banks getting fewer. We need to give 
community banks the ability to breathe from the regulatory burden that 
has been shoved down their throats. And if you want to make big banks 
smaller, you can try to regulate them more, but we have demonstrated 
that is their competitive advantage.
  Frankly, all benchmarks are easier to audit. Just picking a number 
here in D.C. is easier to audit, and this is a compromise to what would 
be a good solution to look at systemic risk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield the gentleman from Ohio an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. We are losing nearly one community bank a day, and that 
is having a devastating impact on local businesses and communities. I 
urge all of our colleagues to support H.R. 4771.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is 
remaining.

[[Page H990]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 4\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, our community financial institutions play a vital role 
in our local communities, particularly in rural areas like the Fifth 
District of Texas, our east Texas counties, and yet they are being 
crushed, crushed by the sheer weight, volume, complexity, and expense 
of regulation brought about by Dodd-Frank.
  I hear so much from the ranking member about how much her side of the 
aisle cares about community banks, but their words are belied by their 
actions in supporting Dodd-Frank, supposedly meant for Wall Street, but 
it is hurting Main Street.
  We have a bill before us today, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4771, that will 
give a little bit of ability for community banks to protect themselves 
from the onslaught of this regulatory burden. The whole idea, again, 
Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that community banks can at least gather and 
merge amongst themselves so they are not gobbled up by the big banks 
that are vilified by the other side of the aisle in the first place.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, this is actually--you wouldn't know it from the 
ranking member--a bipartisan proposal, supported by almost half--half--
of the Democrats on the Financial Services Committee. And again, there 
is great bipartisan work on our committee. Almost three-quarters of our 
bills are bipartisan; it is just few of them that are supported by our 
ranking member.
  Let's do one small thing today. Let's have the House do one small 
thing today, Mr. Speaker, that will help them survive a day more so 
that they can lend money to a hardworking family to buy that first 
home, so that they can lend money to somebody to realize their American 
Dream of perhaps starting their own small business. After having to get 
that paycheck at the local factory for so many years, now they can 
finally go out and start their own small business. Maybe it is a matter 
of sending the first kid to college.
  But all of this, all of this disappears. These hopes and dreams 
disappear with our community banks who are still failing, 
unfortunately, at the rate of one approximately every other day. This 
is unacceptable. This is totally unacceptable.
  So we have one deregulatory measure here--one--to help our community 
banks survive. And we hear from so many of them, Mr. Speaker.
  Here is one from Indiana that says:

       Regulations have significantly reduced our ability to make 
     judgment calls on credit decisions. When I first came to 
     First Savings Bank, I had a number of people tell me that the 
     First Savings Bank gave them their first loan, probably when 
     they didn't deserve it. Today, they are business and civic 
     leaders. And I guess we made the right call then. However, 
     today we cannot make that call. Washington has made that 
     call, and the answer is no.

  One reason, one voice of one banker telling us why we need the bill 
from the gentlewoman from Utah.
  Here is another from a banker in Texas, who said:

       When I started banking, the community bank business model 
     was built around bankers helping their communities to thrive. 
     Today, customers are confused when they have to sign so many 
     papers to open a deposit account or borrow money. I can only 
     think of one explanation, and that is our government thinks 
     our customers are too stupid to come into the bank and 
     negotiate a private transaction with their banker, the 
     community banker that they go to church with, the community 
     banker whose kids go to school with the customers' kids, and 
     the community banker whose wife is in the local charity with 
     the wives of the banker's customers' wives.

                              {time}  1215

  Here is another one from Nevada:

       I have been a banker for over 30 years, and I have never 
     been more discouraged than I am now. Good bankers are fleeing 
     the industry. The days of making a commonsense decision for 
     the benefit of a customer are gone. For me, retirement can't 
     come soon enough.

  I have got binders and binders full of these testimonies, Mr. 
Speaker. As the local community banks leave, so leave the credit 
opportunities of so many low-and moderate-income Americans. It has got 
to stop.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for the House to enact H.R. 4771. Let's stop 
the carnage, let's encourage community bank living, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 725, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________