A Republican bill with 3 Democratic cosponsors · See all 11 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 405–0
- In Senate committee
What this bill would do
The Keeping Deposits Local Act seeks to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act regarding reciprocal deposits. It modifies how much of an agent institution's reciprocal deposits are excluded from being considered funds obtained through a deposit broker. The bill also updates the definition of an agent institution based on its CAMELS rating. Additionally, it mandates that the FDIC conduct a study on reciprocal deposits in consultation with the Federal Reserve. Finally, the Act reduces the dollar amount specified under section 7(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act by $28,000,000 effective September 1, 2036.
Yes
- Scored +2
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
By modifying the treatment of reciprocal deposits based on institution liability thresholds, the bill adjusts how local institutions can manage deposit structures.
- Scored +1
Would business owners be better off under this?
The modification of reciprocal deposit rules may benefit businesses that utilize these deposit products for liquidity management.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill reduces the specified amount of the discretionary surplus fund by $28,000,000 effective in 2036.
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 · 0 no
05/20/2026 · Roll call 177 · recorded as “On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Information regarding reciprocal deposits: The FDIC is required to conduct a study that analyzes how these deposits perform, their usage by institution size, and their usage during periods of stress (Section 4). This study is intended to include an analysis of benefits and potential risks (Section 4(b)(3)).
-
Understanding end-user demand: The required study will attempt to analyze end-user depositors, such as businesses, non-profits, and municipalities, that drive demand for these products (Section 4(b)(1)(D)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Reduction in funds: The Act reduces the dollar amount specified under section 7(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act by $28,000,000 (Section 5).
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 modification of reciprocal deposit rules may benefit businesses that utilize these deposit products for liquidity management.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — By modifying the treatment of reciprocal deposits based on institution liability thresholds, the bill adjusts how local institutions can manage deposit structures. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill reduces the specified amount of the discretionary surplus fund by $28,000,000 effective in 2036.
- 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 - 0 (Roll no. 177).
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 405 - 0 (Roll no. 177).
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3644-3645)
- 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. 3234.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3582-3584; text: CR H3582)
- Mr. Hill (AR) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 11/4/2025
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 119-362.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 314.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/18/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/16/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 51 - 0.
- 9/15/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/11/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/2/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 5/20/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/7/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 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.
Joyce BeattyDemocrat · Ohio
Andy BarrRepublican · Kentucky
Jack BergmanRepublican · Michigan
Mike EzellRepublican · Mississippi
Mike FloodRepublican · Nebraska
Jared GoldenDemocrat · Maine
Gwen MooreDemocrat · Wisconsin
Daniel MeuserRepublican · Pennsylvania
Mike RogersRepublican · Alabama
Pete SessionsRepublican · Texas
Roger WilliamsRepublican · Texas