Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Requires the three Federal banking agencies (Fed, OCC, FDIC) to jointly study ways to improve growth, capital adequacy, and profitability of depository institutions that primarily serve rural areas. The agencies must identify federal statutes or agency regulations (excluding appropriations) that limit those methods or the establishment of new rural depository institutions, and deliver a report to Congress within one year.
Progressive worries study could justify deregulatory rollbacks.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused, well-scoped study mandate that clearly assigns responsibility and a deadline, but it leaves operational details, resourcing, and procedural safeguards largely to the agencies.
Requires the three Federal banking agencies (Fed, OCC, FDIC) to jointly study ways to improve growth, capital adequacy, and profitability of depository institutions that primarily serve rural areas.
The agencies must identify federal statutes or agency regulations (excluding appropriations) that limit those methods or the establishment of new rural depository institutions, and deliver a report to Congress within one year.
Definitions for "depository institution," "Federal banking agencies," and "rural" are provided.
Narrow, administrative study with minimal cost and few ideological stakes is historically likely to clear both chambers, subject to scheduling.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused, well-scoped study mandate that clearly assigns responsibility and a deadline, but it leaves operational details, resourcing, and procedural safeguards largely to the agencies.
Progressive worries study could justify deregulatory rollbacks.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressive worries study could justify deregulatory rollbacks.
Generally supportive of a study aimed at strengthening rural banks and access to banking services, but cautious about potential deregulatory outcomes.
Wants the study to prioritize community reinvestment, consumer protections, and financial inclusion for underserved rural communities.
Will watch for recommendations that could weaken capital or consumer safeguards.
Likely supportive as a pragmatic, informational step to assess rural banking challenges.
Values evidence-based analysis from relevant agencies before pursuing policy changes.
Concerned with clear scope, timely delivery, and that recommendations consider stability and costs.
Generally favorable because it focuses on helping rural depository institutions grow and become more profitable.
Sees potential to remove regulatory barriers and support de novo bank formation in rural markets.
Prefers deregulatory or market-oriented solutions if the study shows burdensome rules.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, administrative study with minimal cost and few ideological stakes is historically likely to clear both chambers, subject to scheduling.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressive worries study could justify deregulatory rollbacks.
Narrow, administrative study with minimal cost and few ideological stakes is historically likely to clear both chambers, subject to schedul…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused, well-scoped study mandate that clearly assigns responsibility and a deadline, but it leaves operational details, resourcing, and procedural saf…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.