Video: 2024 Hill Day Priorities

Online Event Archive Recorded March 21, 2024

During the webinar, NCRC staff review the policy priorities for this year’s Hill Day. This session will help grow your policy knowledge and is the first step in preparing Hill Day participants for their meetings.



Rion Dennis, Senior Government Affairs Director, NCRC


NCRC video transcripts are produced by a third-party transcription service and may contain errors. They are lightly edited for style and clarity.

Dennis 0:00
Welcome, everyone to the 2024 Hill Day priorities prep call. My name is Rion Dennis, I am the Senior Director for government affairs for NCRC. This call is for all participants of Hildy, in order for us to be able to the go through all of our priorities, and take any questions that folks have and just generally get you as prepared as we can for Hill Day. So, without further ado, we have a very chock-filled agenda. And so we will get right to it.

Priorities. So just to kind of set the stage, our priorities this year are there, it’s a very complex interplay between all of our priorities, they all speak to the important work that NCRC is doing and important events that are happening that we have to address. And so getting into the Hill Day priorities, we’ll start off with the new Community Reinvestment Act Final Rule. As you scroll down in the first section, here, there is background. And let me back up, I will start to say, a lot of this document is background information in order for you to review before your meetings and to leave behind with the offices once you met with them. But the facts, the actual talking points are at the bottom of this section, and we’ll go over those. But to start off in the beginning, this is kind of background information. So for anyone worried that it’s very text-heavy, this is just background information for you as you go into the meetings. So we start off talking about how great the CRA is, how pleased we are with the new rules that were promulgated and how important these new rules are for economic justice. We also note that the new rules do fall short in some important ways. The CRA was always intended to end racist practices and reverse their impacts on families and communities. But because of our jurisprudence, we cannot the law has not does not specifically speak to a race. And that was a missed opportunity in the new rule. The new rule also made great strides in trying and attacking grade inflation and CRA examinations, but we know that there’s a lot more that can be done. Looking at the positive changes there’s areas where you get the talking points. So the positive changes in the rule. The retail lending test is much more objective and transparent thanks to the changes the expansion of the tests reach and reformulation of its scoring process for large banks should make the CRA components incentives much stronger. The expansion of eligible activities in the community development financing test, sharpens the tests message to banks and rewards creative proactive investment. newly eligible community development activities and native land areas in weather resiliency and financing that contributes to the health and well-being of low- and moderate-income households are all significant positive steps. But new, explicit encouragement for a special purpose credit programs under the CRA. This provides confidence for lenders to continue to expand this innovative approach to lending that has taken off in the last 25+ years and since the last significant update to CRA. The unhelpful changes, the new rules raised thresholds, which leaves CRA under enforce that many institutions, fewer banks will be covered by the positive changes in the final rule than would have been covered under the proposed rule due to ill-advised changes to asset and loan thresholds. New auto lending provisions will apply to fewer lenders or too few lenders V though incorporating auto lending have a positive grand scheme change to the CRA the final rule greatly restricts the changes reach only institutions where car loans are more than half of all retail lending will be evaluated on their auto lending. Two key areas of evaluation have only contribute positively caveats that mean poor performance doesn’t hurt bank scores, affordable and sustainable bank retail products can increase a bank score but unaffordable and unsustainable ones cannot lower a score. This weakens CRAs incentives and signals to banks that these are of lower priority. The missed opportunities as I said, the rules perpetuate CRA is troublesome, racial blindspot. While CRA was designed to address racist policies and business practices institutions still will not be evaluated on the demographic mix of their borrowers. Nothing has changed to strengthen the link between CRA performance and merger or brand citing review processes. Advocates encourage the agencies to more strongly invite community input in merger reviews, and to update the if then consequences of poor CRA performance on branch closure and merger review processes, but they changed nothing there. Weather resiliency if incentives fall short on climate change challenges. In addition to incentivizing weather resiliency projects on the ground, regulators could have required an analysis of the climate impacts of banks’ financing, they chose not to. So though we are happy with the overall rule, these are some unhelpful changes and some missed opportunities within the rule. We hope in this section to get across the offices just the importance of the new rule and understanding that there is still work to be done.

I’ll take a second to just let go really chat and see if there any questions in the chat. If anyone has any questions, you can put them in the chat and I will try to get to them in between sections. Moving on to the next section because we have a lot on this agenda. The next section are the CRA modernization bills. But 2 ones that we are asking offices to support are the American Housing and Economic Mobility Act. This was introduced in 2019 by Senator Elizabeth Warren and then-Representative Cedric Richmond. The bill calls for reforms to the Community Reinvestment Act NCRC supports the reintroduction of this bill. In addition to updating CRA as it applies to banks, the bill extends CRA to mortgage companies and requires evaluation of their retail lending, community development, lending and investments and community development services. The bill also includes significant investments in housing resources, because it includes a $445 billion investment over 10 years in the Housing Trust Fund, which would provide up to 2.1 7 million homes for low-income families and several billion dollars for a variety of other housing supports. It will reduce the racial wealth divide by targeting investments in downpayment assistance as well. NCRC has also supported the Making Communities Stronger through the Community Reinvestment Act. This bill was introduced by then House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters in September 2022. The bill will direct regulators to cut points from CRA scores when there’s evidence of discriminatory conduct, including business practices that displace and otherwise harm low- and moderate-income communities. It will provide credit for small dollar mortgages, require new biannual interagency studies on racial discrimination and disparities in access to credit to better enable regulators to respond to ongoing inequities, and extend coverage to loans originated in partnership with nondepository institutions. NCRC supports the passage of both of these bills and encourages offices to contact Senator Warren’s and Representative Waters’ offices to cosponsor these bills when they are reintroduced in the 118th. Congress.

Let’s pause for a second to see if any questions. Yes, all the docs will be, all of this information will be available to all participants through the conference app. And, and we will send out this document to all participants as well. So you have a copy of it before you have access to the doc to the app. This is just the draft all of this information is gonna go to graphic designers that will make it nice and pretty and presentable and easily readable on the app as well as on a computer.

Okay, I think that was the only question. Yes. Okay. Moving to the next section. The CRA lawsuit, though bank lobbyists hollow challenge to the CRA. As many of you have heard, some of the largest banking lobbying trade associations have filed a complaint in the ultra-conservative Texas federal district court challenging the updated CRA rule. The trade associations include the American Bankers Association, the Independent Community Bankers of America, the Chamber of Commerce, and three Texas space banking lobbying groups. Their complaint mainly centers around the car but new rules, a complaint that the new rules violated the administrative procedures acts in a seated the authority that Congress gave those agencies in, in promulgating these new rules. There are several reasons it’s clear that this lawsuit is legally unsupportable. It is an unsupportable effort primarily engineered to delay implementation of the CRA rule. The bank lobbyists similar APA arguments in their complaint were not adopted by the Texas by this court, in a case challenging the 1071 rule last year. As many of you know, when the CFPB issued its 1071 rule, the ABA and a number of Texas banking groups sued to impede the 1071 rule going into effect even though their lawsuit was successful in in staying 1071, and the court rejected their administrative procedure, act arguments and they just rehash those same arguments in this complaint to bet against the CFPB rule. The bank lobbyists argue that the CRA regulators exceeded their congressional authority because they are considering deposit products and also lending activity by banks outside the communities wherever those banks take deposits. However, in their comments on the earlier proposed rule and 20 pages later in their very same lawsuit, the banks both want credit for banking activities outside their assessment areas, and do not even dispute the CRA regulators finding that there is sufficient nexus between deposit products and provision of credit. All of that is to say that the main points of the CRA lawsuit have been were 1, rejected by the very court that they filed this lawsuit and, and even in their own comments, and in their own complaint, they recognize that there is a significant connection between deposit products and provision of credit, though they are still suing to stop the regulators from being able to take those into account. And so we oppose this lawsuit. We think it’s frivolous and unnecessary. And we are doing everything we can at NCRC to try to affect a lawsuit, but also call out those who have brought the lawsuit as a very cynical and hollow attempt to get out from under their CRA obligations.

And I’ll check the chat to see any questions.

From Bethany Sanchez, should we bring up the lawsuit if the staffers don’t? We believe that we should we need to get out as much information on the Hill to offices about the lawsuit and about how frivolous we believe it is and that we think that to arm them with the arguments against but arguments within the lawsuit. Okay, let’s see what another way. Thank you. Okay.

Moving on to the next section, bank merger reform? Well, before I get to that, let me pause for a second. As you can see, our first three topics, all kind of are all interconnected. The new rule updating the new rule with new legislation that will require the regulators to take more, take the missed opportunities, take things like race and add in other nonbank actors to the CRA  that legislation why we need that legislation, even though we are still happy with the rule as it’s come out. And then of course, this lawsuit that is attacking bill, the rule, and how bills lead both new legislations, if enacted would make the arguments within the CRA lawsuits null and void as they would explicitly direct through legislation, the agencies to take more into account in their CRA examination examinations.

And Uh, one question is: What remedies are we looking to for the missed opportunities? That’s what the legislation that we have the American Housing and Economic Mobility Act and the Making Communities Stronger Through the CRA bills, bills will be to speak to those missed opportunities in the in the final rule

Dennis 20:37
Okay, moving on to the next section on bank merger reform. Now, of course, this section is also related to the CRA as well. And so, but for more than 50 years federal law has compelled regulators to consider the public’s interests when approving bank mergers and acquisitions. Under the Bank Merger Act and the Bank Holding Company Act, merger reviews must consider the convenience and needs of the community to be served. When Congress passed the BMA it established a public benefit as one of the four primary requirements for merger approval. In spite of those instructions, regulators have embraced consolidation. Today, three banks hold more than 40% of all US deposits. While agency scuttled some applications in private Prudential regulators have not denied a publicly announced merger application in 15 years. New too big to fail combinations are being approved to the detriment of the safety and soundness of our banking system. Moreover, evidence that consolidation at this scale has led to a corresponding benefit to us households is unproven. Rural committed communities and communities of color have disproportionately suffered from the closure of bank branches. Rates of new business formations have fallen. Millions remain unbanked returns, the workers are falling in the racial wealth divide persists. These outcomes have occurred since the introduction of Reagan era theories that prioritize competition above the other prongs of merger review. And the problems that have manifested themselves now underscore why merger review must put the public interests at the forefront. The best way to assess the potential public benefits of a merger is through a specific and concrete plan described in the bank’s application regarding commitments to future levels of lending investments and services in low and moderate-income communities. To realize Congress’s intent when it passed the BMA regulators should revise merger reviews towards an accountability framework that puts greater weight on public benefits. community benefits agreements should play a central part in discerning public benefits from a merger. We call on agencies to require that banks must submit such plans in all merger applications that regulators must review them, the public should have the ability to provide input and regulators should hold those banks accountable to meet the terms of the agreements post-merger. For larger merger, mergers, regulators should apply stricter public benefits tests CPAs and community benefit plans must specifically include goals for loans and services for these areas. And so our main thrust of bank merger reform is one we want to make sure that community benefits agreements are required for mergers, and that regulators have strong tools to hold banks accountable when they don’t live up to their promises in their community benefits agreement. So bank merger reforms are required regulatory agencies to offer a template for banks to outline the public benefits of a proposed merger require specific descriptions with verifiable performance measures of how future CRA and fair lending performances will improve. Not shorten the merger application time periods for banks, including those with outstanding CRA ratings. Although a bank may have an overall standing rating, its performance in some or many of its assessment areas may not be adding outside In the level, or may have deteriorated since the last CRA exam. That merger application time period must be sufficient to identify and rectify inconsistencies in performance. Issue regularly evaluate whether banks are meeting goals established in either conditional merger approvals or community benefits agreements. Ensure that low ratings such as low satisfactory in any assessment area trigger public hearing requirements so that all parties have time to thoroughly consider how bank performance can improve after a merger. Ensure that a CRA rating does not become a safe harbor providing expedited merger approvals or automatic approvals as suggested by some banks. NCRC supports the Bank Merger Review Modernization Act of 2019, We’ll get to that later. Any questions on bank merger reform?

Dennis 26:32
Okay, seeing none. The next section is on Key Bank. When banks do not live up to their CBAs, regulators must hold them accountable. NCRC has urged the office of the OCC and the Federal Reserve to investigate Key Bank’s compliance with its CBA in connection with its acquisition of First Niagara Bank. In 2016 NCRC worked with Key Bank to establish a forward looking community benefits plan that clearly detailed how underserved borrowers and communities would benefit from key banks merger with First Niagara and offset anti-competitive effects over the first five years of expanded Key Bank. Key Bank CBA commitments were cited by the Federal Reserve in its approval of key banks merger will first and I agree Key Bank not only failed to meet many of the commitments of the plan but also failed to achieve even baseline levels of lending to underserved borrowers relative to pre-merger lending rates. Since their merger will First Niagara there has been a decrease in key banks percentage of lending to borrowers with low or moderate income and to black bars. Since 2018, Key Bank has decreased its percentage of home purchase loans to both LMI and Black borrowers with each passing year kept this percentage of total mortgage lending flat to LMI borrowers and decreases percentage of total mortgage loans to Black borrowers. Among the top 50 lenders in 2021, Key Bank ranked dead last and loans made to Black borrowers. Key Bank originated only 46 almost 47,000 mortgage loans in the US in 2021. Just 1,036 of them included a black applicant. This was 2.2% of Key Bank’s total originations, so substantially less than other major lenders where the share of Black borrowers ranged from 2.9 to 20.8%. Banks must be held accountable to meet public commitments they make during a merger application period or CBAs are meaningless. public commitments banks make during merger review periods are of paramount importance in ensuring that mergers result in a combined bank that will remain committed to the convenience and needs of the communities to be served by the need larger bank footprint. Regulators must hold banks accountable to honor these commitments. Otherwise, banks like Key Bank will continue to exploit the merger review process with false promises to communities that will be left behind. Any questions about Key Bank?

Okay, seeing no questions.

Okay, next section is the Capital One-Discover merger, and why NCRC opposes it. NCRC opposes the Capital One’s application to acquire Discover Financial Services and asks the OCC and the Federal Reserve to deny this merger that poses a significant economic threat to all of us. Capital One is built on extracting as much wealth as possible from low- and moderate-income customers. And if this merger goes through, they will have the ability and incentives to take even more. This would also make Capital One the sixth-largest bank in the country, greatly increasing risks to the entire financial system. In the event of an economic downturn given their limited business model dependent on credit cards, and auto loans. Capital One’s merger history and repeat violations casts further doubt on how this deal could possibly meet the requirement that mergers benefit the public. The main reasons why we oppose the new if the deal goes through, it will likely raise debit card interchange fees, debit card interchange fees are what debit card networks charge businesses when they use a debit card to make a purchase. A key component of Capital One’s acquisition is Discover’s debit card network, which would allow Capital One to exploit Discover so-called three-party Durbin amendment exemption, which the Federal Reserve inserted into regulations in 2011. As a result, Capital One can sidestep federal debit interchange fee caps in routing mandates and be the sole payment network on issued or odd network debit cards. This would basically allow them to charge as high as they want for the swipe fees, and if you’ve ever gone to a retailer or restaurants and they had some incentive for you to use cash instead of credit card or debit card, it’s because of these interchange fees. And there’s the possibility that if Capital One controls the Discover network, they will be able to hike these fees as high as they want. And businesses will be forced to pass those costs on to consumers.

Fine with its significant number of bank accounts this loophole would give Capital One the legal shield and leverage to raise debit interchange fees. Next reason: increased concentration of US credit card market Capital One-Discover would create the largest US credit card lender with a projected market share of over 20% of the market based on credit card balances. The market for credit cards issuing is already highly concentrated. A 2024 report by the CFPB found high levels of concentration in practices that imply anti-competitive behavior in the industry, noting that the top 10 credit card banks dominate the market. NCRC compared Capital One’s medium APR is to small issuers using info from the CFPB report. We found a capital lens medium APR for poor credit customers is 43% higher than smaller issuers and 67% higher than customers who have great credit. Capital One also has a history of automatically increasing credit limits as customers approach their upper limit in order to get customers more in debt. And if it gets to a point where the customers can’t pay back, then they will take them to court.

Capital One-Discover merger will eliminate a top US credit card issuer and further consolidate the industry potentially leading to even higher prices. This merger NCRC does not believe will add more competition to the Visa and MasterCard network. This merger will not reduce the Visa MasterCard duopoly on credit cards instead it would submit Visas advantage even more. Visa could lose about 39 million cards if Capital One left the Visa network, but MasterCard, which is already, the smaller of the two would lose twice as many upwards of 80 million cards when Capital One moves its cards over to the Discover network. If it’s allowed to move, it’s acquired Discover. And so, what we we foresee is that this will probably be the end of MasterCard and we probably be in a scenario where the the credit card market would just be dominated by Visa and this Capital One-Discover merged entity. It also will increase stability risks and create another too big to fail bank. If this merger were approved Capital One would be the sixth largest bank in the US with $625 billion in assets. But with none of the extra resolution standards in place that the globalise systematically important banks the too big to fail, in other words need to abide by if Capital One were to fail, it would most likely be resolved by selling to another too big to fail bank, making that bank even more entrenched, and further consolidating the US banking industry. A massive bank like Capital One that largely relies on credit cards and auto loans, we’d be more vulnerable in the event of a recession, which is more depressing given trends in subprime auto lending. Capital One does a significant amount of subprime auto lending with nearly half of their auto loans going to subprime borrowers. subprime auto lending is in bad shape right now as of 2023. The percentage of borrowers 60 days past due on their auto loans has reached the highest level since 1996. Capital One has been affected by this reporting in January, January that it had to charge off 2.5 3 billion in auto loans and credit cards a 77% jump on the prior year and higher than the 2.3 6 billion predicted by analysts. And of course, with the bank with a bank like Capital One, the losses could be more severe than they are letting on in 2013 capital and settled with the SEC for understating billions of dollars and auto loan losses. Capital and settlement history should disqualify them from merging, the OCC revised their bank enforcement manual and 2023 to define banks above 50 billion in assets with persistent weaknesses and penalties. The LCC would consider for these banks in clean restrictions on bank growth, capital and meets vlccs definition of banks with persistent weaknesses due to their two federal set of settlements since 2021, and long laundry list of settlements over the last 20 or 30 years. In summary, if approved, this merger will hurt businesses and consumers and lead to even more expensive credit cards and make the result of a recession more damaging to the US financial system as a whole. For all of these reasons, that’s why NCRC opposes this merger and I feel it’s that if there’s a very almost insurmountable bar for them to reach for this merger to be approved

Speaker 1 39:27
Yes, everyone will get a copy of this document we just want once it is has been laid out and all the graphics and everything has been added to it but he should have it before some of the by next week.

There’s no other questions. We’ll move to the bank merger reform legislation Here we have the bank merger review Modernization Act of 2023, which is similar to the one from 2019. This bill has been updated now to take into account the new changes to the CRA rule that were released late last year. This bill was introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren and it will update fastly and it would update and vastly improve the bank merger review process. The bank strengthens the requirements for mergers to benefit the public. It gives the CFPB the authority to approve or deny mergers, so it will add the CFPB to the regulators that can deny mergers or approve them. And it greatly improves analysis of how a merger could reduce competition around lending and quality of financial products offered. Other features. It forbids mergers if the largest banks evolve hasn’t received an outstanding rating on two of their three last CRA exams, requires community benefit plans, in consultation with community-based organizations. It requires public hearings if any of the banks have received failing ratings and any assessment areas on their last CRA exams. It amends the CRA to factor in performance on community benefits plans, requires regulators to take into account who would acquire the bank if it failed, expands markets for competitive analysis to include all geographies. Sorry about that. The geographies the bank operates in error requires public disclosure of pre-filing discussions with regulators and it gives individuals 10 days to appeal merger approvals. And mergers can’t be consummated until court issues final decisions. We also are have been working with Representative Rashida Tlaib and she plans to introduce a bill that will require merger applications to include community benefits agreements. That’s why we require banks in most circumstances to work with community organizations to develop plans that spell out how to the merger would benefit the public through increased lending, investments and product offerings. This bill would also make CBAS a binding condition for merger approvals, established penalties for non-compliance ensure that CBAS are still in effect if the merging bank gets acquired before the end of the timeframe of the CBA. So as you can see, these bills take NCRC’s recommendations for bank merger reform requiring CBAs requiring better examination of what lending investments and product offerings banks are offering all of those being taken into account for before approving a bank merger. Any questions?

Okay, seeing none, last we will go to NCRC appropriations as we are axing offices, once again to support the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, lie tech. As most of you all are familiar with live tech is the largest affordable housing production program in the US and gives states and local light tech allocating agencies the authority to issue tax credits for the acquisition, rehabilitation or new construction of rental housing for some of the nation’s poorest renters between 1987 and 2021 litex placed in service approximately 2.5 5 million affordable housing projects.

Checked We are also supporting the child tax credit. In 2021. The child tax credit which provides a tax break for families with qualifying children was expanded. In the American rescue plan, the child tax credit was increased from 2000 per child to 3000 per child. For children over the age of six and from 2000 to 3600. For children under the age of six, the American rescue plan raised the age limit from 16 to 17. Full credit would be provided to families making up to 150,000 for a couple are 112,500 for a family bill for a single parent. The fact that this credit was felt almost immediately the Center for poverty and social policy at Columbia found that the new payment kept 3 million children for poverty in its first month. It also found that if all likely eligible children are covered the CTC has the potential to reduce monthly child poverty by up to 40%. Unfortunately, by Well, unfortunately, the American rescue plan only authorized a year of these payments. So the expansion of the CTC ended in 2021 NCRC urges offices to support these important tax credits for families and communities across the country. Okay.

Okay, seeing no questions. Lastly, we have the NCRC 2025 budget chart. We basically have what was enacted in 2023. In some of our most important programs, we have it compared to what the President released in his budget request that for 2025. As you all should know, last year, there was no budget approved pretty much the the, the government was funded through continuing resolutions, which just continued the funding levels from but 2023 budget. But 2025, President requests came out two weeks ago. And we have put where he where that budget has allocations for these programs. And last column is our 2024 and NCRC ask, these were the levels that we had for 2024. So we just wanted to give you a comparison of where wherever the last allocations were, what the President’s asking for and what we have been requesting for the last year. You can take time on your own to look through all of those programs. And see where they are, I’ll just bring you down to the key at the bottom. The NCRC s are calculated by taking the highest proposed appropriation from congressional reports. passper presidential budget requests are developed in consultation with our NCRC members and allies. If you have any questions or concerns about any of these programs and their allocations, please reach out to me and I’ll be happy to talk to you all talk about bills and see if we can come to a consensus. So that’s in the sorry, I thought I was on camera. I could not see myself. Well, that ends the overall vote. uh three major areas of our Hilde priorities, the CRA rule. And under that the new rule of modernization legislation and the CRA lawsuit, bank merger reform. But me for bank merger reform the bank merger reform legislation Key Bank and the Key Bank as a example of bank merger that had a CBA that had that has not lived up to it and needs the regulator’s to hold them accountable for it. The bank merger legislation that would require lead regulators to hold banks accountable if they don’t live up to their CBAS as well as making sure that they take a broader view of the competition when they look at Bank merger review. And then looking at why we oppose the Capital One-Discover merger based off of the principles of what we believe is necessary for a functioning bank merger review process. And then lastly, our appropriation acts around supporting lie tech supporting the child tax credit and support supporting the allocations in our budget short.

We will be sending out a recording of this entire webinar to all participants, you will get a copy of B Hill day priorities document as well. As well as it will be in the app questions.

Here just we’re asking to support those two bills to tax credits will levels I’m sorry, we are axing offices to support the levels for those bills to tax credits, but light tech and the child tax credit that are in the President’s budget. And so we will make that more explicit in the in the hill day priorities document but bear the levels that are in the President’s budget. Lastly, I wanted to just share with you all see words that emulates a meeting agenda.

Okay, here is a template for Hill Day meetings. So, you want to start the meeting. You want to welcome and introductions of everybody there. I believe the state leak and take can handle that. It should be about three minutes. One speaker can speak about the new Community Reinvestment Act final rule that should take about three minutes to go over the positive changes the unhelpful changes and the missed opportunities. Another speaker can speak about the CRA modernization legislation the American Housing and Economic Mobility Act and the making community stronger through the CRA that should be about three minutes out After those should pause, acts if the if the office will support these bills, give the staffer a minute to give you an answer, but they should be framed as a yes or no question. And then after that, three, the next speaker can do two minutes on the CRA lawsuit, pause and allow the staff or they ask any questions that they have. After that, that should be about two minutes, move on to bank merger reform. set the stage for that that should be about three minutes. The same speaker can talk about Key Bank and Capital One-Discover merger all together. And that should be about four minutes. You should pause that allow the staff really asks any questions that they have. Then another speaker can talk about the bank merger reform legislation. That should be another three minutes at the end of that acts the staffer if their office will support these bills, frame that also as a yes or no question. And then then another speaker can get into the NCRC appropriation acts, talk about lie tech, Child Tax Credit, give them the budget chart. And then at the end x the staffer will they support our appropriations acts to close the meeting, thank the staffer for their time, and acts to see if you can set up a meeting for your delegation with their district office of that Congress member. We want to we want these meetings to be to help your organizations or, or your work to connect with your congressional offices to build a relationship with them. So you know the staffers in the office and email the point of contact in case you need anything or in case we have a very important issue on the Hill that we need you to contact your congressional office. So you already have a relationship with that office, and they know your organization and your work. So any questions?

Yes, okay. Quick question on engaging Republican offices. And so I’ll say the most important thing for you to know is you are not there to argue with the staffer, you are there to let them know as their constituent, your position, and what you support. And in that you expect their office as their as your representative to represent your perspective. You’re there to educate them and give them the information that they have. If they have any questions that you don’t feel comfortable answering, please just direct them to myself. And we will be able to follow behind you all and answer any of their questions. But under no circumstances are you should you try to feel the need to argue or having get in a back and forth with any staffers. If they I mean Your job is to give them the information and let them know your position and your perspective and those of your your organization and those bills that your organization serves.

Good question and I’m when Will everyone get the meeting schedules? We should be the meeting schedules are being finalized over the next week. We should be able to get those out to y’all. We’re hoping to have the initial schedule ready by next Thursday for the Hill Day participant prep. All three.

Okay, moving on to the Hill Day congressional meeting form. So their state leads will have this form where we’re hoping that each delegation will assign a note taker for the meeting. But as you can see, the form is pretty self-explanatory. State group number of people attending the meeting, which office no NCRC attendees, name of meeting facilitator, group notetaker. taker, there’s a box here for some mean for you to put down if they support care modernization legislation. Another box to for support bank merger reform legislation. And finally, on the back, there will be a support NCRC appropriations acts. And lastly, a section just for other issues or concerns that may have come up in the meeting. We will be collecting these forms at the end of the day after all of the meetings happened, so that we can put together a report of what all the offices said in all of the meetings. So we can use that information in our advocacy going forward. See any questions about the Hill Farm? Yes, NCRC is scheduling all the meetings for Hill day. Except for like California delegation is scheduling their own meetings. But all the other meetings, we are scheduling the we are working with a consulting firm, ice Miller, who has so graciously been helping us along with this process. And so we should have all of the meetings that we should have the meeting schedule, at least the initial one ready for the meeting next Thursday on the 28th for all the Hill participants.

Any other questions. Yes, sorry, the date is wrong here. Seems that can’t do that now. I will change that before that goes out. Lastly, just we’re including some information about 501 C threes for any member organizations that are 501 C threes and just any guidelines and about lobbying and in short answer is yes, you can lobby and you can join NCRC Hill days Okay. I will stop sharing that. Go back.

So, that is all that is a rundown of our held a priorities and our sample agenda and held a meeting form. I hope this webinar was informative. You all will be receiving these documents once they get cleaned up and beautified by our graphic design team. And they will be all in the conference app. Thank you all for joining us. We’re a little bit over time. But thank you all for sticking through with us and we look forward to seeing everybody April 2 For Hill Day. Thank you so much. Hope you all have a good rest of your day.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Scroll to Top