About David Rugg

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far David Rugg has created 73 blog entries.

H. R. 5358, DRIVE-Safe Act.

Bill Summary:

This bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations relating to commercial motor vehicle drivers under the age of 21, and for other purposes.

Bill Sponsor: Duncan Hunter (R-CA)


H. R. 5358, DRIVE-Safe Act. 2018-04-19T09:03:48+00:00

H.R. 4790, Volcker Rule Regulatory Harmonization Act.

This bill amends the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 to exempt from the Volcker Rule banks with total assets: (1) of $10 billion or less, and (2) comprised of 5% or less of trading assets and liabilities. (The Volcker Rule prohibits banking agencies from engaging in proprietary trading or entering into certain relationships with hedge funds and private-equity funds.) The bill also grants exclusive rulemaking authority under the Volcker Rule to the Federal Reserve Board. (Currently, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission also have regulatory authority under the Volcker Rule.)

Why This Bill Is Against Our Values:

H.R. 4790 is the latest attempt to weaken the Volcker Rule, a cornerstone of Wall Street reform enacted in the wake of the financial crisis that prohibits taxpayer-backed banks from risky proprietary trading and from owning hedge and private equity funds. The bill would create a dangerous loophole by providing a blanket exemption from the Volcker Rule for banks with consolidated assets of $10 billion or less and with less than 5% of those assets in trading assets. The bill would also delegate sole rulemaking authority on the Volcker Rule to the Federal Reserve, inappropriately and unnecessarily taking away the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and making it easier for the Trump Administration to weaken or repeal the rule.” (Source: Minority Views, Committee on Financial Services Report 115-621)

“HR 4790 contains several measures that would significantly weaken implementation of the Volcker Rule. First, the bill would grant sole rulemaking authority for Volcker implementation to the Federal Reserve, as opposed to the multiple agencies that currently have responsibility. Delegating sole rulemaking authority to the Federal Reserve would cut the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) entirely out of the implementation of the rule. Yet a core purpose of the Volcker Rule is to prevent deposit insurance funds from being used to finance speculative trading. The FDIC is the custodian and institutional protector of the deposit insurance fund, but HR 4790 would entirely eliminate their role in writing and interpreting the rule. This would greatly weaken the interpretation of the rule and its enforcement. The FDIC does not directly oversee any of the largest trading banks or trading desks, so eliminating the FDIC’s role in rulemaking would effectively eliminate them from implementation of the Volcker Rule. Defining the Federal Reserve as the sole rulemaking agency would also have the effect of significantly speeding up and facilitating the Trump Administration’s announced agenda of weakening Volcker Rule restrictions on proprietary trading.” (Source: Americans for Financial Reform)

More Info See Bill


H.R. 4790, Volcker Rule Regulatory Harmonization Act. 2018-04-14T20:42:44+00:00

H. J. Res. 2, Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment.

This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment prohibiting total outlays for a fiscal year from exceeding total receipts for that fiscal year unless Congress authorizes the excess by a three-fifths roll call vote of each chamber. The prohibition excludes outlays for repayment of debt principal and receipts derived from borrowing. The amendment requires a three-fifths roll call vote of each chamber of Congress to increase the public debt limit. It requires a majority roll vote of each chamber to increase revenue. It also requires the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress annually. Congress is authorized to waive these requirements when a declaration of war is in effect or if the United States is engaged in a military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security.

NOTE:  This joint resolution failed the 2/3rds majority required for passage.  Representative Lewis voted in favor of the bill against at least three DFL members of the Minnesota delegation.

Why This Bill Is Against Our Values:

Proposing a balanced budget amendment after enacting a tax cut that will increase the debt by almost $2 trillion dollars and an omnibus appropriation bill that will further add to our nation’s debt proves that in Washington, D.C. hypocrisy knows no bounds. The truth is that the proponents of H.J. Res 2 are not motivated by deficit concerns; rather, they are using a deficit they created to force severe budget cuts in programs that will harm the most vulnerable among us, especially seniors, children, veterans and people with disabilities, as well as slash funding for public health and safety, education and medical research. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, if a balanced budget amendment were in place in 2019, when revenue are projected to be 16.5 percent of GDP, federal programs would have to be cut by an average of more than 25%. A balanced budget amendment would result in massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other essential programs.” (Source: AFL-CIO)

“A balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be an unusual and economically dangerous way to address the nation’s long-term fiscal problems. It would threaten significant economic harm, as explained below.  It also would raise a host of problems for the operation of Social Security and other vital federal programs.  It’s striking that the House Republican leadership intends to schedule a vote on a balanced budget amendment just a few months after the President and Congress enacted a tax cut that will increase deficits by as much as $2 trillion over the next decade.” (Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)

“Democrats support responsible measures to get our long-term budget outlook in check. H.J.Res. 2 does not do that; it is a political stunt that is meant for Republicans to appear to care about fiscal responsibility. Instead, it is an extreme and dangerous proposal that would potentially force cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid by requiring a three-fifths vote to run a deficit, regardless of recessions or major disasters. Ironically, Republicans are pushing this proposal the same week in which the Congressional Budget Office released its new baseline projection showing massive new deficits resulting from Republican policies, nearly entirely from their tax law.  Under CBO’s projections, with no changes to their tax law, H.J.Res. 2 would impose a cut to federal spending larger than the entire Medicare program if it were in effect for 2019.  Even President Trump’s own budget proposal stopped short of that level of cuts. It would also make it more difficult to raise the debt limit in the future, even if a majority of Members support it. This would further promote the brinkmanship and uncertainty that has been pursued by Republicans during debt limit debates ever since they took the Majority in 2011. It would also limit Congress’ ability to respond to a national crisis, though it provides one sole exemption in the case of a declaration of war.” (Source: Democratic Whip, Steny Hoyer)

More Info See Bill


H. J. Res. 2, Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment. 2018-04-14T19:09:07+00:00

H. R. 4061, Financial Stability Oversight Council Improvement Act of 2017.

This bill amends the Financial Stability Act of 2010 to require the Financial Stability Oversight Council, in determining whether a nonbank financial company shall be designated as systematically important and consequently be supervised by the Federal Reserve Board and subject to prudential standards, to consider the appropriateness of imposing such standards as opposed to other forms of regulation to mitigate identified risks to U.S. financial stability. Every five years, the council must, upon request by a nonbank financial company, reevaluate such a determination and hold a vote on whether to rescind it. The bill revises procedural requirements related to council determinations.

Why This Bill Is Against Our Values:

H.R. 4061 is an attempt to prevent the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) from doing its statutorily-required job of preventing another financial crisis by bogging it and its designation process down in endless analysis and litigation. Congress created the FSOC when it passed the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd- Frank) for the purpose of identifying and responding to risks to financial stability, as well as eliminating expectations the government will shield market participants from losses. Congress specifically granted the FSOC authority to determine that a U.S. nonbank financial company should be supervised by the Federal Reserve and subject to enhanced prudential standards if financial distress at, or the activities of the company, would pose a threat to U.S. financial stability.” (Source: Minority Views, House Report 115-592, Committee on Financial Services)

“This bill adds numerous additional procedural obstacles to the already cumbersome and time-consuming process which the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) uses to designate large non-bank financial entities for increased oversight. The 2008 financial crisis made it abundantly clear that proper consolidated oversight of large non-banks is critical to financial stability, and that problems can develop rapidly at such companies. Non-bank financial institutions, ranging from investment bank broker-dealers to insurance companies such as AIG, were central contributors to the 2008 crisis and the ensuing economic collapse. Since the crisis, regulators have raised significant concerns about potential systemic risks posed by large multi-trillion dollar asset managers. The FSOC’s ability to designate non-bank financial companies for enhanced prudential supervision is a crucial line of defense against future systemic risks from non-banks.” (Source: Americans for Financial Reform)

More Info See Bill


H. R. 4061, Financial Stability Oversight Council Improvement Act of 2017. 2018-04-14T20:43:31+00:00

H. R. 4293, Stress Test Improvement Act of 2017.

This bill amends the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to modify testing requirements applicable to bank holding companies and certain nonbank financial companies, including by: (1) establishing limitations on Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review by the Federal Reserve Board, (2) reducing the frequency of stress testing from semiannual to annual, and (3) otherwise revising provisions related to stress testing.

Why This Bill Is Against Our Values:

One of the most important policy developments following the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression was the enactment of stress testing for our nation’s largest banks. H.R. 4293 would make several harmful changes to the current bank stress test regime, specifically the stress tests required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act as well as the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) program administered by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. While it is appropriate for Congress to examine the effectiveness of enhanced prudential standards, and how they are applied and tailored to our largest banks, H.R. 4293 would make a series of one-sided changes that weaken oversight of Wall Street banks.” (Source: Minority Views, House Report 115-593, Committee on Financial Services)

“Twice a year, large financial intuitions prepare reports for federal financial regulators regarding their ability to withstand financial stress. Under H.R. 4293 those institutions would prepare annual reports instead. The bill also would prohibit the Federal Reserve from using its qualitative assessment of a financial institution’s ability to withstand financial stress as a basis for objecting to that institution’s plan to draw down capital. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4293 would increase the deficit by $14 million over the 2018-2027 period. That figure includes an increase in direct spending of $16 million and an increase in revenues of $2 million. Because enacting the bill would affect direct spending and revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4293 would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits by more than $2.5 billion in one or more of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028. H.R. 4293 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.”  (Source: Congressional Budget Office)

“On behalf of Americans for Financial Reform, we are writing to urge you to vote in opposition to H.R. 4293, the “Stress Test Improvement Act,” which is being considered on the House floor this week.[1] This bill would significantly weaken stress testing, a crucial element of bank supervision, by preventing regulators from assessing the capacity of big banks to perform adequate data analysis or risk management as part of the stress testing process. Since the Federal Reserve only assesses these issues for the largest and most complex banks in the country, H.R. 4293 would benefit only these banks.” (Source: Americans for Financial Reform)

More Info See Bill


H. R. 4293, Stress Test Improvement Act of 2017. 2018-04-14T20:43:46+00:00

H. R. 5247, Right to Try Act of 2018

Full Title: Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2018.

Bill Summary:

From the text of the bill: To authorize the use of eligible investigational drugs by eligible patients who have been diagnosed with a stage of a disease or condition in which there is reasonable likelihood that death will occur within a matter of months, or with another eligible illness, and for other purposes.

Why This Bill Is Against Progressive Values:

“This bill, posted just before midnight on Friday night without committee action, threatens to undermine the drug development process and subject patients to serious risk of harm.  Proponents of the bill argue that it will enable seriously ill patients to access unapproved, experimental drugs that could be potentially life-saving.  However, the FDA already has an “expanded access” program in place to enable terminally ill patients to access investigational drugs.  Under the expanded access program, 99.7% of all expanded access requests for patients with immediately life-threatening illnesses are approved by the FDA. Often when patients are denied access to these treatments it is due to the lack of availability of the drug or a pharmaceutical company’s concern about dangerous side effects. This bill will do nothing to compel manufacturers to provide drugs to these patients.
This bill would also weaken FDA’s ability to oversee adverse events or other clinical outcomes from the use of an investigational drug and provide broad liability protections for manufacturers and health care providers —leaving patients with no recourse in the case of an adverse event. This unnecessary legislation ultimately seeks to undermine the FDA’s authority to ensure safety and efficacy in the nation’s drug supply while providing false hope to patients.” (Source: House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD)) (#7 in the list of bills)

“Removing FDA from the process of obtaining investigational drugs greatly increases the risk of patient harm, creates confusion, and endangers existing clinical trails.” (Source: National Organization of Rare Disorders)

“The undersigned organizations collectively represent millions of patients with serious and life- threatening diseases. We write to express our concern with, and opposition to, the latest version of the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act released on March 10, 2018. While this version of the legislation includes patient safety improvements compared to previous versions of the legislation, we reiterate our concern with creating a secondary pathway for accessing investigational therapies outside of clinical trials that would remove Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and consultation, and would not increase access to promising therapies for our patients because it does not address the primary barriers to such access. FDA’s expanded access program, though imperfect, facilitates access to investigational therapies for over a thousand patients facing serious and life-threatening conditions each year. FDA repeatedly approves over 99 percent of requests while sometimes making important dosing and safety improvements to proposed expanded use. Conversely, it is often times the pharmaceutical company that denies access to its investigational therapy outside of its clinical trials for any number of reasons.” (Source: American Cancer Society, Cancer Action Network)

“Supporters of this legislation have claimed that it will provide seriously ill patients who have exhausted all of their available treatment options access to experimental therapies free from the barriers of FDA oversight.  While it is understandable that someone suffering from a disease that has no more options would want to try anything that could help them fight their disease, this legislation delivers the false hope to patients and their families that they will receive a cure to their underlying disease or condition.  In fact, this legislation provides patients and their families nothing more than the right to ask a manufacturer for access to early stage unproven treatments.” (Source: Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ))

More Info See Bill


H. R. 5247, Right to Try Act of 2018 2018-03-24T08:35:29+00:00

H. R. 4545, Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act.

This bill amends the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978 to:  set deadlines for final examination reports and exit interviews of a financial institution by a federal financial regulatory agency, and establish the Office of Independent Examination Review to adjudicate appeals and investigate complaints from financial institutions concerning examination reports. The bill also requires the establishment of an independent internal agency appellate process at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) for the review of supervisory determinations made at institutions supervised by the CFPB.

Why This Bill Is Against Our Values:

“H.R. 4545 would enable any bank, regardless of size, to appeal and postpone material supervisory determinations by the bank’s regulator, which include adverse determinations such as a downgrade of a bank’s rating for capital, asset quality, management, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risks (CAMELS); significant deficiencies in the institution’s Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering (BSA/AML) program; findings related to violations of various regulations; or a downgrade of a bank’s Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating. The bill would create a new Office of Independent Examination Review within the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (“FFIEC”) and allow depository institutions that receive such a determination to be able to appeal the determination to the review office. This bill would make it more likely that megabanks would be able to escape or delay accountability for egregious violations of federal laws protecting consumers and the economy.” (Source: Minority Views, House Report 115-589, Committee on Financial Services)

“On behalf of Americans for Financial Reform, we are writing to urge you to vote in opposition to H.R. 4545, the “Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act,” which is being considered on the House floor this week.[1] “Examination fairness” may sound innocuous, but make no mistake—this legislation would put unprecedented new limits on the powers of bank examiners. The impact of this legislation in weakening bank supervision would be especially great at the nation’s largest banks. Its effect would be to substantially increase the risk of systemic problems, and of unfair and predatory treatment of consumers.

H.R. 4545 would grant banks the right to appeal any supervisory determination made by any bank regulatory agency, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), to a new “Office of Independent Examination Review” that is outside of any regulatory agency. Upon appeal by a supervised bank, this new office would be required to undertake a de novo review of the agency’s supervisory decision. No deference to the initial examination findings or the supervisory agency’s judgment would be required in this review.” (Source: Statement from Americans for Financial Reform)

More Info See Bill


H. R. 4545, Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act. 2018-03-17T16:35:35+00:00

H. R. 1119, Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act (SENSE Act).

This bill eases emission limits for hazardous air pollutants from electric utility steam generating units (electric power plants) that convert coal refuse into energy. The Environmental Protection Agency must allow utilities to select a standard for either hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide with which to comply from a list of specified standards.

Why Jason Lewis’ vote is against our values

We oppose H.R. 1119 and the legislative remedy offered by this bill. It comes as no surprise that the majority is once again offering legislation to undermine CAA regulations to benefit coal-fired power plants at the expense of public health. What is surprising is that the SENSE Act puts major coal-fired plants at a disadvantage relative to waste coal plants by granting them unnecessary and unwarranted regulatory relief. All of this is being done for no other reason than to benefit approximately 20 waste coal plants that exist in a handful of states. While these plants address one of coal’s major legacy problems–dangerous, polluting piles of coal mine tailings from abandoned coal mining operations–cleanup of these piles can and should be done without undue transfer of mercury, SO2 and other pollutants from the land to the air. None of this is necessary. There are waste coal plants that meet the MATS requirements today, and there is technology available to enable waste coal plants to comply with the requirements of this rule. There is no justification for treating them differently from other coal-fired generation facilities. For the reasons stated above, we dissent from the views contained in the Committee’s report.” (Source: Dissenting Views, House Report 115-514, Committee on Energy and Commerce

“On behalf of our millions of members, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose the amended Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act, or SENSE Act (H.R. 1119). This bill would weaken health safeguards for Americans on behalf of special interest groups and result in more toxic air pollution and health hazards. The SENSE Act would provide a giveaway to power plants that burn waste coal under EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). The bill favors waste coal-burning power plants at the expense of other in-state coal power plants and the public through blunt political favoritism. Specifically, the SENSE Act would permanently exempt power plants that burn waste coal from having to meet certain pollution limits. Power plants, including waste coal plants, are already meeting these standards – passing this bill would be a free giveaway to polluters, and nothing more.” (Source: Letter from the Natural Resources Defense Council)


More Info See Bill


H. R. 1119, Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act (SENSE Act). 2018-03-10T18:08:29+00:00

H. R. 3299, Protecting Consumers’ Access to Credit Act of 2017.

This bill amends the Revised Statutes, the Home Owners’ Loan Act, the Federal Credit Union Act, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to state that bank loans that are valid when made as to their maximum rate of interest in accordance with federal law shall remain valid with respect to that rate regardless of whether a bank has subsequently sold or assigned the loan to a third party.

Why Jason Lewis’ vote is against our values

H.R. 3299 attempts to codify the “valid when made” doctrine, which provides that if a loan is valid at its inception, it cannot subsequently become usurious if it is sold or transferred to another person. H.R. 3299 would overturn the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, which declined to uphold the “valid when made” doctrine in the case. However, as drafted, the bill goes further than simply reverting back to the pre-Madden landscape and broadly expands the ability of non-banks to preempt state- level usury and consumer protection laws. In other words, the bill makes it easier for nonbanks, such as payday lenders, to use rent-a-bank arrangements to ignore state interest rate caps and make high-rate loans. Additionally, the bill includes no federal usury cap to limit the sweeping preemption of all state interest rate caps. Although “valid when made” is a longstanding principle, it is a contrived modern doctrine that does not exist universally in state or federal statute or case law. As a consequence, instead of simply overturning the Madden decision, H.R. 3299 would codify an expanded preemption power. This is especially disconcerting when non-bank third parties would be able, under the bill, to avail themselves of the privilege to preempt state interest rate laws.” (Source: Minority Views, House Report 115-538, Committee on Financial Services

On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, I urge you to oppose H.R. 3299, the “Protecting Consumers’ Access to Credit Act of 2017.” H.R. 3299 would allow payday lenders and other non-bank institutions to use “rent-a-bank” arrangements to evade state usury laws and make loans with interest rates in the triple digits, enabling the kind of “access to credit” that will drive low-income consumers into even deeper debt and do them more harm than good. Non-bank lenders have attempted “rent-a-bank” arrangements to take advantage of the federal charters of banks, which allow federal preemption of state interest rate caps and other state consumer protection laws to charge interest rates that are far higher than legally permissible for nonbanks in some states. Under these arrangements, banks effectively “rent” their federal charter powers to non-bank lenders, in exchange for a fee associated with each loan.” (Source: Vanita Gupta, President & CEO of The Leadership Center)

The undersigned 202 national and state organizations write in strong opposition to H.R. 3299 (McHenry) and S. 1642 (Warner), the Protecting Consumers’ Access to Credit Act of 2017. The primary impact of this bill will be enabling nonbank lenders to make high-cost loans that exceed state interest rate limits by using a bank to originate the loan. The bill poses a serious risk of enabling predatory lending and unsafe lending practices. Unaffordable loans have devastating consequences for borrowers—trapping them in a cycle of unaffordable payments and leading to harms such as greater delinquency on other bills.” (Source: National Consumer Law Center, coalition of 202 national and state organizations)

“Critics say this arrangement has all the hallmarks of a rent-a-bank relationship that effectively evades state laws limiting payday loans, but the existing rules regarding such rent-a-bank partnerships are murky at best and only intermittently enforced. Now Congress, in trying to help expand credit for poor people, may be inadvertently codifying the rent-a-bank partnerships that allow payday and high-interest lenders legally avoid state usury laws, according to those critics.” (Source: The Center for Public Integrity)

More Info See Bill


H. R. 3299, Protecting Consumers’ Access to Credit Act of 2017. 2018-02-19T08:43:13+00:00

H. R.4771, Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act of 2018.

This bill will raise the consolidated assets threshold under the small bank holding company policy statement, and for other purposes. 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.

Why Jason Lewis’ vote is against our values

“In 2014, Democrats worked with Republicans to reach a reasonable compromise to increase the threshold for the Federal Reserve’s Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement (Policy Statement) for bank holding companies (BHCs’) and savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs’), from $500 million to $1 billion in total assets. In general, the Federal Reserve limits the debt levels of BHCs and SLHCs to ensure that they are able to serve as a source of strength for their depository subsidiary. The Policy Statement allows certain small BHCs and SLHCs to hold more debt at the holding company level than would otherwise be permitted by capital requirements if the debt is used to finance up to 75% of an acquisition of another bank. The 2014 law included some conditions, such as excluding any BHC or SLHC with less than $1 billion that was engaged in significant nonbanking activities, and it gave the Federal Reserve the ability to exclude any BHC or SLHC from the Policy Statement, regardless of size, if exclusion is determined warranted for supervisory purposes. H.R. 4771 would dramatically raise the Policy Statement threshold without giving policymakers sufficient time to evaluate the benefits and costs of the 2014 adjustment. One such potential downside could be the acceleration of industry consolidation through more mergers and acquisitions that leads to fewer, not more, community banks and encouraging BHCs and SLHCs to increase debt, which could pose safety and soundness risks.” (Source: Minority View, Committee on Financial Services Committee Report. 115-543).

“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, 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.” (Source: Americans for Financial Reform)

H. R.4771, Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act of 2018. 2018-02-11T16:37:49+00:00