PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 29, 2010
American Community Investment Reform Act of 2010 - Revises the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 with regard to assessments of regulated financial institutions.
Revises the list of appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to include: (1) the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (established by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act); and (2) the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with regard to any U.S. nonbank financial company for which the SEC acts as the primary financial regulatory agency, and any broker or dealer that is a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. Specifies the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System as the appropriate federal financial supervisory agency for securities holding companies, and, in consultation with its primary financial regulatory agency, any regulated financial institution not otherwise indicated.
Specifies the community development and other related activities of a regulated financial institution or a U.S. nonbank financial company, including lending and investment in low- and moderate-income and other traditionally underserved neighborhoods, which the appropriate federal financial supervisory agency is required to assess.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the examination of a regulated financial institution to: (1) take into consideration public comments on its record of meeting the credit or other financial needs of its entire community; and (2) require an improvement plan for an institution that receives certain low ratings. Prescribes requirements for an improvement plan, including availability for public comment.
Revises requirements for assessment of the record of a regulated financial institution that is a nonminority-owned, nonwomen-owned institution and that is not a certified community development financial institution.
Requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agency, in assessing the record of a regulated financial institution, to consider the complexity, innovativeness, effectiveness of its efforts in meeting particularly difficult community needs, or any significant effort extended in specific loans, investments, or services.
Requires the evaluation of a depository institution holding company to incorporate evaluations of its subsidiary regulated financial institutions.
Requires the public section of the written evaluation of a regulated financial institution to disclose whether it provided, or offered to provide, a consumer financial product that the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection has determined is unfair, deceptive, or abusive.
Replaces the top rank "outstanding record of meeting community credit needs" rating for an institution with the current second rank rating of "satisfactory record." Makes the second rank rating now "sufficient record of meeting community credit or other financial needs." Requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to develop and implement a process to permit a regulated financial institution to apply for a rating of "outstanding record of meeting community credit or other financial needs." Reserves an "outstanding" rating to an applicant that significantly exceeds the requirements for receiving a "satisfactory" rating and meets other specified criteria. Allows the supervisory agency to consider community development activities and investments made outside the institution's service area if the financial institution has adequately met the needs of its local assessment area.
Requires the recipient of an "outstanding rating" to be given preference over lower-rated regulated financial institutions in connection with the award of government contracts. Specifies the effect of a "satisfactory" rating.
Prohibits the award of government contracts to, and certain other actions by, any regulated financial institution that receives a rating of: (1) "needs to improve record of meeting community credit or other financial needs" or lower on its two most recent performance evaluations; or (2) "substantial noncompliance in meeting community credit or other financial needs" on its most recent performance evaluations.
People & committees
Rep. Gutierrez, Luis V. [D-IL-4] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6334 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6334 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6334 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6334 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.