Technical corrections only. The diff between v3 and v4 reflects procedural updates related to the bill's referral to the Senate, including the addition of the Clerk's name in the attestation. No substantive policy changes were made to the bill's text.
American Access to Banking Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Waters, Maxine [D-CA-43]
- Committees
- Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 21, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to reduce regulatory barriers and provide support to encourage the formation of new banks and credit unions, while also including a future budget offset.
What it actually does
This bill directs Federal financial regulatory agencies to streamline the application process for new (de novo) banks and credit unions, review capital raising methods for these institutions, and establish programs to improve communication and provide mentorship. It also mandates agencies to develop plans for engaging with State regulators and stakeholders to foster the creation of new regulated institutions, including those serving rural, community development, and minority communities. Additionally, it includes a provision to reduce a Federal Reserve surplus fund by $24 million, effective in 2036.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill will foster competition, increase access to financial services in underserved communities, and support the growth of community-focused institutions by making it easier for new banks and credit unions to form. They contend that streamlining processes and providing guidance will reduce unnecessary burdens and encourage innovation in the financial sector.
Opponents contend
Critics might express concerns that streamlining regulatory processes or easing capital raising restrictions could potentially introduce new risks to the financial system or compromise investor protections. They may also question the effectiveness of new bureaucratic structures like caseworkers and mentorship programs in significantly altering market dynamics, or raise concerns about the administrative burden on agencies.
The bill is short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its provisions quickly.
Section 2
Streamlining De Novo Application and Capital Review
This section directs Federal financial regulatory agencies to review and streamline the application forms for new banks and credit unions (de novo institutions). It requires agencies to minimize information requests by gathering data from other government sources where possible. Furthermore, agencies must consult with the Securities and Exchange Commission to review how de novo institutions raise capital, specifically examining the impact of general and non-accredited investor capital raising restrictions. Agencies are required to report annually for five years on their actions and recommendations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision will reduce unnecessary hurdles for new institutions, fostering innovation and competition, and allowing for more efficient capital formation, which is crucial for their establishment and growth.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that streamlining could inadvertently reduce necessary oversight, potentially increasing risks to the financial system or investors if capital raising rules are loosened without adequate safeguards.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire to ease entry for new financial institutions against the need to maintain robust regulatory oversight and investor protection.
Section 3
Dedicated Caseworkers for Applicants
This section mandates that Federal financial regulatory agencies, upon request from an applicant seeking to become a de novo regulated institution, designate an employee as a caseworker. This caseworker's duties include meeting with lead organizers to provide a tutorial on the application process and serving as the primary point of contact for the applicants throughout the process, aiming to improve communication and guidance.
Section 4
Establishing Mentor-Protege Partnerships
This section directs Federal financial regulatory agencies to provide a list of recently approved de novo regulated institutions that are interested in volunteering to serve as mentors to new applicants. These mentors would offer advice about the de novo application process. Within one year of enactment, agencies must also provide public information on how institutions can request a mentor or volunteer to serve as one.
Section 5
Enhanced Engagement with State Regulators and Stakeholders
This section requires Federal financial regulatory agencies to develop a plan for regular consultation with State regulators to promote cooperation in the creation of de novo institutions, including assisting State-chartered institutions seeking Federal insurance. The plan must also include regular consultation with various stakeholders, such as applicants, recently approved institutions, rural institutions, community development financial institutions (CDFIs), and minority depository institutions (MDIs), to inform reforms. Agencies must also provide guidance, training material, and workshops. These plans must be submitted to Congress every five years after providing an opportunity for public comment.
This section reduces the dollar amount specified under section 7(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 289(a)(3)(A)) by $24,000,000. This specific section of the Federal Reserve Act relates to the payment of surplus funds by Federal Reserve banks to the U.S. Treasury. The amendment is set to take effect on September 1, 2036.
Section 7
Why it matters:This provision appears to be a budget offset or a 'pay-for' for the bill's administrative costs, or a standalone provision attached to a bill with a different primary focus. Its placement at the end and specific reference to a future date and existing statute makes it less immediately obvious to a casual reader, which is common for such fiscal adjustments.
Case for: Supporters would argue this provision demonstrates fiscal responsibility by providing a specific, albeit delayed, budget offset. It reduces a Federal Reserve surplus fund, which could be seen as a way to help cover any potential administrative costs associated with the bill's primary objectives.
Case against: Critics might argue that this is an unrelated provision 'tacked on' to a bill primarily focused on financial institution formation, potentially obscuring its fiscal impact. The delayed effective date (2036) could also be seen as pushing fiscal responsibility far into the future, rather than addressing immediate costs.
Estimated impact: A reduction of $24,000,000 from the Federal Reserve's discretionary surplus fund, which will take effect on September 1, 2036.