Banks get wider leeway to invest in community projects—but no guarantee they will.

What it does

This bill raises the cap on how much money national banks and state member banks can invest in community development and public welfare projects from 15% to 20% of their capital and surplus. It allows banks to dedicate a larger share of their investment portfolios to affordable housing, small business lending, and similar community-focused activities.

Why we flagged it

The bill's sole operative mechanism is a numerical amendment raising a regulatory cap on permissible bank investment in community development. It is a straightforward deregulatory adjustment with no hidden riders or misdirection.

What the text implies

• The bill does not mandate community investment — it only permits banks to allocate up to 20% rather than 15%. Actual deployment to underserved communities depends on bank discretion and profitability incentives, which may not align with public welfare.
• Raising the cap may allow banks to count more activities as 'public welfare' investments, potentially including projects that generate returns or serve affluent areas, depending on how regulators define the term in implementing guidance.
• The bill applies equally to national banks and state member banks but does not address non-member banks or credit unions, creating potential competitive disparity in community investment capacity.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill expands banks' authority to invest in community development, which could increase affordable housing and small business lending available to ordinary people. However, the mechanism is permissive (banks 'may' invest, not 'must'), so actual community benefit depends on banks' voluntary choices and market conditions; the bill removes a regulatory ceiling but does not guarantee deployment to underserved communities.

Who stands to gain

• national banks
• state member banks
• community development financial institutions (CDFIs) receiving bank investment
• affordable housing developers and small business borrowers (indirect, conditional on bank deployment

Named in the bill

Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, national banking associations, state member banks, 12 USC § 5136 (Revised Statutes), Federal Reserve Act § 9

Where it stands

8 cosponsors: 6 Democrats, 2 Republicans.

• Nov 4, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Nov 4, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Financial Services · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

5 lobbying clients named this bill on 8 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $787,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 7 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 78% of bills with at least one filing.

Michael Lawler, the sponsor, reported $2,081,571 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle. $4,000 of that came from 2 PACs tied to these lobbying clients.

• The Affordable Housing Tax Credit Coalition — $250,000 on 2 filings
• Huntington Bancshares Incorporated — $170,000 on 1 filing
• Enterprise Community Partners, Inc. . — $167,000 on 1 filing
• Affordable Housing Tax Credit Coalition — $100,000 on 2 filings
• Keycorp — $100,000 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.