Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 314.
This bill amends Section 29(i) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to change how much of an agent institution’s reciprocal deposits are excluded from the definition of funds obtained by or through a deposit broker. It sets tiered percentage exclusions: 50% for liabilities up to $1 billion, 40% for the portion between $1 billion and $10 billion, and 30% for the portion between $10 billion and $250 billion.
Progressives emphasize FDIC exposure and CAMELS 3 risk expansion.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive statutory amendment that is drafted with high specificity and clear integration into existing law, supplemented by a defined agency study and report requirement.
This bill amends Section 29(i) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to change how much of an agent institution’s reciprocal deposits are excluded from the definition of funds obtained by or through a deposit broker.
It sets tiered percentage exclusions: 50% for liabilities up to $1 billion, 40% for the portion between $1 billion and $10 billion, and 30% for the portion between $10 billion and $250 billion.
The bill also broadens the definition of eligible agent institutions to include those most recently rated CAMELS 1, 2, or 3, and directs the FDIC, with the Federal Reserve, to study reciprocal deposits and report to Congress within six months.
Technically narrow but affects deposit insurance incentives; likely to pass House more easily than Senate absent broad regulator support.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive statutory amendment that is drafted with high specificity and clear integration into existing law, supplemented by a defined agency study and report requirement.
Progressives emphasize FDIC exposure and CAMELS 3 risk expansion.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize FDIC exposure and CAMELS 3 risk expansion.
Likely cautious or skeptical.
Support for strengthening community banks and keeping municipal deposits local is recognized, but concerns about increased FDIC exposure and weakened safeguards predominate.
Cautiously positive if paired with the mandated study and oversight.
Sees potential benefits for deposit competition and local banks but wants evidence and guardrails against systemic risks.
Generally supportive.
Views bill as deregulatory, pro-local banking, and helpful to community institutions by reducing regulatory constraints on reciprocal deposits.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow but affects deposit insurance incentives; likely to pass House more easily than Senate absent broad regulator support.
The House fast-tracked this bill — skipping normal debate — and it passed with a two-thirds majority. It now moves to the Senate.
Suspending the rules allows the House to bypass normal debate procedures and pass a bill immediately with a two-thirds vote.
Progressives emphasize FDIC exposure and CAMELS 3 risk expansion.
Technically narrow but affects deposit insurance incentives; likely to pass House more easily than Senate absent broad regulator support.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive statutory amendment that is drafted with high specificity and clear integration into existing law, supplemented by a defined agency…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.