Maxine Waters (D-CA)
American Access to Banking Act
A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House 405–4
- In Senate committee
What this bill would do
The American Access to Banking Act directs Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies to promote the formation of de novo regulated institutions. The bill aims to streamline the application process by reviewing application forms and minimizing information requests. It also instructs agencies to review how these institutions raise capital in consultation with the SEC. Additionally, the act establishes a caseworker system to assist applicants and creates a mentor-protege partnership program. Agencies are also required to develop engagement plans to consult with State regulators and various stakeholders. Finally, the act includes a provision to reduce a specific dollar amount in the Federal Reserve Act.
Yes· 3 of 12
- Scored +5
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
The bill streamlines the application process and provides mentorship for new de novo regulated institutions.
- Scored +4
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill makes it easier for entrepreneurs to establish new regulated financial institutions.
- Scored +3
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The bill mandates engagement with stakeholders to support rural institutions.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
What Congress actually voted on
One recorded vote has been taken on this bill.
- The House: a fast-track vote, needing two-thirds to pass The House sets aside its normal procedure to move quickly: no amendments, little debate, and a two-thirds bar instead of a simple majority. It is used for measures expected to be uncontroversial, so a bill that fails here failed despite broad expectations that it would not. Passed 405 yes · 4 no
05/20/2026 · Roll call 178 · recorded as “On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Streamlined Application Processes: Agencies will review application forms and attempt to gather information from other government sources to minimize requests sent to applicants (Section 2(a)). This could make it easier for new institutions to get started.
-
Improved Capital Raising: The bill directs a review of how de novo institutions raise capital, specifically looking at restrictions related to individuals who are not accredited investors (Section 2(a)(3)).
-
Direct Support through Caseworkers: Agencies will designate employees as caseworkers to provide tutorials on the application process and serve as a primary point of contact (Section 3).
-
Mentorship Opportunities: The act allows institutions to request a list of similar, recently approved institutions that can serve as mentors to provide advice on the application process (Section 4).
-
Increased Collaboration and Guidance: Agencies must develop plans to consult with State regulators and stakeholders, and provide guidance, training material, and regular workshops (Section 5).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Reductions in Federal Reserve Funds: The act includes a provision that reduces the dollar amount specified under section 7(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act by $24,000,000, effective September 1, 2036 (Section 7).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill makes it easier for entrepreneurs to establish new regulated financial institutions. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill mandates engagement with stakeholders to support rural institutions. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The bill specifically highlights engagement with minority depository institutions. Would farmers be better off under this? — The emphasis on rural institutions can assist rural populations including farmers with financial access. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The focus on community development and minority depository institutions can improve access to financial services for low-income areas.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill streamlines the application process and provides mentorship for new de novo regulated institutions. Is this likely to grow the economy? — The bill aims to foster economic growth by easing the formation of new regulated financial institutions. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The review of capital raising methods includes a mandate to maintain investor protections. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill reduces the discretionary surplus fund by $24,000,000 in 2036.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires agencies to publish reports and provide opportunities for public comment on engagement plans. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill mandates regular consultation with State regulators regarding the creation of de novo institutions.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill requires agencies to consult with stakeholders including minority depository institutions.
- 5/21/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
- 5/20/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 405 - 4 (Roll no. 178).
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 405 - 4 (Roll no. 178).
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3645)
- 5/19/2026
- At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4544.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3584-3586; text: CR H3584-3585)
- Mr. Hill (AR) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 9/8/2025
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 119-253.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 210.
- 7/23/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 49 - 0.
- 7/22/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- 7/17/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.