Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 4771

Should Banks be Considered Small if They Have Up to $3 Billion in Assets Instead of $1 Billion?

Argument in favor

Applying the Federal Reserve’s policy statement to bank holding companies with up to $3 billion in assets rather than only those with under $1 billion will allow firms to make more investments with businesses and consumers in the communities they serve.

Matthew's Opinion
···
02/08/2018
No constitutional authority to regulate banks anyway. Leave that up to states.
Like (20)
Follow
Share
Mart's Opinion
···
02/06/2018
That's the banks' decision, but then NO bailouts.
Like (4)
Follow
Share
libertyLOL's Opinion
···
02/08/2018
Less regulations for smaller banks? Yes please. Go ahead and increase that to 50 billion while you are at it. Think Deregulation is what caused 2008? Go read a book. This was a good start: https://tomwoods.com/your-friends-still-think-deregulation-caused-the-financial-crisis/
Like (3)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

By expanding the policy statement to cover banks that are three times larger than those it originally covered, this bill could cause covered banks to engage in more risk-taking and ultimately lead to more small bank failures.

Kara's Opinion
···
02/08/2018
There's nothing small about 1billion dollars, upping that definition to3billion is fucking ridiculous. Do y'all just enjoy watching the economy be ruined? Cause that's the only reason you'd be voting for this, so don't say we didn't warn you when this fails.
Like (45)
Follow
Share
A.B.'s Opinion
···
02/08/2018
All of this loosening of financial regulation can only lead to another crash. This particularly seems like a way to have large banks branch off into “small” subsidiaries and increase our risk.
Like (36)
Follow
Share
Michael's Opinion
···
02/06/2018
It was less than a decade ago that reckless lending practices nearly destroyed the economy. Is our collective memory really that short?
Like (25)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
  • The house Passed February 8th, 2018
    Roll Call Vote 280 Yea / 139 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Financial Services
    IntroducedJanuary 11th, 2018

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

Bill Activity

  • action
    Introduced in House
  • referral
    Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
  • action
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • action
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • calendar
    Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 41 - 14.
  • action
    Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 115-543.
  • calendar
    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 408.
  • action
    Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 725 Reported to House. The resolution provides for one hour of debate on each measure. The resolution also waives the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative day of February 9, 2018. It shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of February 8, 2018 or February 9, 2018 for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules.
  • action
    Rule H. Res. 725 passed House.
  • action
    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 725.
  • action
    The resolution provides for one hour of debate on each measure. The resolution also waives the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative day of February 9, 2018. It shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of February 8, 2018 or February 9, 2018 for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules.
  • action
    DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 4771.
  • action
    DEBATE - The House resumed debate on H.R. 4771.
  • action
    The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 4771, the Chair put the question on passage of the bill, and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Hensarling demanded the yeas and nays, and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of passage until a time to be announced.
  • action
    Considered as unfinished business.
  • vote
    On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 280 - 139 (Roll no. 66).
  • action
    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
  • referral
    Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
  • The house Passed February 8th, 2018
    Roll Call Vote 280 Yea / 139 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Financial Services
    IntroducedJanuary 11th, 2018

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    No constitutional authority to regulate banks anyway. Leave that up to states.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    There's nothing small about 1billion dollars, upping that definition to3billion is fucking ridiculous. Do y'all just enjoy watching the economy be ruined? Cause that's the only reason you'd be voting for this, so don't say we didn't warn you when this fails.
    Like (45)
    Follow
    Share
    All of this loosening of financial regulation can only lead to another crash. This particularly seems like a way to have large banks branch off into “small” subsidiaries and increase our risk.
    Like (36)
    Follow
    Share
    It was less than a decade ago that reckless lending practices nearly destroyed the economy. Is our collective memory really that short?
    Like (25)
    Follow
    Share
    All banks should be held to the strictest standard, and the CFPB needs to be un-neutered
    Like (23)
    Follow
    Share
    Read history, learn from it. Super simple stuff.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    Increasing the definitive size of what is considered "small" doesn't help American consumers or make their financial services more secure.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    I don’t even think $1 billion is small. $3 billion is definitely not small. Stop finding ways to let billionaires shirk the law while causing the working class to suffer.
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    No. Just no. Stop empowering the banks and corporations at the expense of the people.
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    No, need more regulations on banks else we will have another collapse. How quickly people forget how that mess was created....
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Another excuse to rape the public
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    There is no additional benefit to Americans when banks become huge, only additional risk. Furthermore, the fraudulent practice of fractional reserve lending, makes all savings and loan type banks literally money making machines, inventing new dollars every day.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    Remember the crash?
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    SMALL biz benefit should target ma-n-pa bizs. Easy to find a smaller threshold than $1B in an era of oligarchal-sized “small” bizs. I agree: un-neuter CFPA.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Why on Earth are we voting to repeat literally the exact same thing that led us to the crash of 2008? Have we not learned ANYTHING?!
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    No I’m supportive of only very conservative bank policies. Weren’t these the folks that had a principle role in our last financial meltdown at the end of the W. Bush administration? Yes they were. Just No.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    How many times will we allow banks to get in over their heads and then expect taxpayers to pick up the tab? All banks need to be regulated to protect the consumers and the taxpayers.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Is this another bright idea from Mulvaney - the guy who thinks consumers should not be protected from predatory financial institutions? Do any of you study or even remember history? Banks are playing with the money deposited by their clients. There should be no regulation, law, proposal or thought passed to undermine the protections each bank customer deserves. You have an obligation to PROTECT THE CITIZENS, NOT THE BUSINESSES.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Regulations on ALL banks need to be strong and strict. ALL banks, regardless of size, need to be held accountable. ALL banks need to be transparent to the public. It is the people’s money they are handling.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill would be disastrous to consumers, and could eventually lead to the crash of the economy (again) because banks engage in risky behavior.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE