HR-8671-119
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 612.
Sponsored by Mike Flood (R-NE)
What it does
This bill would require federal banking regulators — including the FDIC, Federal Reserve, OCC, and NCUA — to jointly conduct an 18-month study on how banks and credit unions use advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and blockchain tools to detect and prevent fraud. The agencies would report findings and recommendations to Congress within 18 months of enactment. The bill would also authorize (but not require) the agencies to establish a voluntary, time-limited pilot program to help community banks and credit unions with under $10 billion in assets access fraud detection tools, with the pilot expiring three years after the study report is submitted.
Who benefits
Community banks and credit unions (under $10 billion in assets) that currently lack resources to deploy advanced fraud detection tools. Bank customers and credit union members who may experience reduced fraud losses. Smaller financial technology vendors who could gain access to new institutional clients through shared-service or consortium models. Law enforcement agencies that could benefit from improved public-private information sharing. Consumers broadly, if fraud detection improvements reduce financial crime losses passed on through fees or losses.
Who is hurt
Large financial institutions that already invest heavily in proprietary fraud detection systems may face competitive pressure if smaller institutions gain subsidized access to comparable tools. Technology vendors currently serving large banks could face new competition from consortium or shared-service models. Taxpayers and agency budgets would bear the administrative cost of conducting the study and any pilot program, though no specific appropriation is made. Privacy advocates may have concerns about expanded data-sharing frameworks the study is directed to evaluate.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that community banks and credit unions — which serve tens of millions of Americans, particularly in rural and underserved areas — are disproportionately disadvantaged by the high cost of AI-based fraud tools that large banks deploy at scale. They contend that financial fraud costs U.S. consumers and institutions tens of billions of dollars annually, and that a targeted study followed by an optional pilot program is a low-cost, evidence-based first step toward closing the technology gap without imposing mandates or new regulations on smaller institutions.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill is largely a study mandate with no guaranteed policy outcome — the pilot program is permissive ("may establish"), meaning agencies could complete the study and take no further action. They contend that existing banking regulators already have authority and resources to examine fraud technology adoption without a new statutory directive, and that adding another interagency reporting requirement risks duplicating ongoing work by FinCEN, the CFPB, and the FFIEC, consuming agency resources without producing binding improvements for consumers or institutions.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate banking and financial institutions rests firmly on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), and directing federal agencies to conduct studies and establish voluntary pilot programs is well within established congressional power. Because the bill does not delegate broad rulemaking authority to agencies on a matter of vast economic significance, the major questions doctrine from West Virginia v. EPA (2022) is unlikely to be implicated. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any agency guidance or rules that emerge from the study's recommendations would face independent judicial review rather than deference, but the bill itself raises no significant constitutional tension.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (federal banking agencies) gains a directed research and optional pilot authority; Congress retains oversight through mandatory reporting to the House Financial Services and Senate Banking Committees, and the pilot program carries a statutory sunset of three years.
Historical precedent
The Financial Technology Innovation and Defense (FTID) Act and various FFIEC guidance initiatives have previously directed interagency coordination on technology adoption in banking, though no directly analogous statute has established a pilot program specifically for community institution fraud technology access.