Frank Lucas (R-OK)
Main Street Depositor Protection Act
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "Main Street Depositor Protection Act" amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and the Federal Credit Union Act to provide additional insurance for noninterest-bearing transaction accounts. It requires the Corporation to set a maximum insurance amount for these accounts, which must be at least the standard maximum deposit insurance amount and no more than $5,000,000. This additional coverage applies to both insured depository institutions and insured credit unions. However, certain institutions, such as branches of foreign banks and subsidiaries of global systemically important bank holding companies, are excluded from this specific insurance. The bill also outlines a 10-year transition period for implementing these changes and provides some assessment protections for smaller depository institutions.
Yes· 3 of 15
- Scored +9
Would business owners be better off under this?
Directly benefits businesses that maintain large operating balances in noninterest-bearing transaction accounts.
- Scored +7
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
Provides significantly higher deposit insurance for transaction accounts used by small businesses and protects smaller banks from specific assessment increases.
- Scored +6
Would high-income households be better off under this?
Significant increase in insured limits for large noninterest-bearing accounts.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Deposit Protection: Depositors in noninterest-bearing transaction accounts can receive insurance beyond the standard maximum amount, up to a limit of $5,000,000 as determined by the Corporation. This is found in SEC. 2 (a)(1)(B)(ii)(II).
-
Expanded Coverage for Credit Union Members: Members of insured credit unions will also have their noninterest-bearing transaction accounts insured up to the same maximum amount determined for depository institutions. This is found in SEC. 2 (b)(1)(ii).
-
Support for Smaller Banks: Depository institutions with total assets of $10,000,000,000 or less are protected from paying certain special assessments or assessment increases specifically used to offset the impact of extending this new insurance. This is found in SEC. 2 (a)(3).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Limited Availability of Coverage: People who keep their money in insured branches of foreign banks or at depository institutions that are subsidiaries of global systemically important bank holding companies cannot benefit from this additional insurance. This is found in SEC. 2 (a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV)(bb).
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? — Directly benefits businesses that maintain large operating balances in noninterest-bearing transaction accounts. Would farmers be better off under this? — Farmers often use large transaction accounts for seasonal operating capital. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Significant increase in insured limits for large noninterest-bearing accounts. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Increased insurance coverage for substantial deposits. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Strongly benefits those using local small banks and credit unions. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Protects higher balances of business and personal transaction accounts. Would retired people be better off under this? — Increases safety for funds held in noninterest-bearing accounts. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Provides increased security for deposits in noninterest-bearing accounts. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Benefit extends to accounts up to $5 million. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Marginal benefit for a small portion of their liquidity. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Provides additional peace of mind for those with larger transaction balances.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Provides significantly higher deposit insurance for transaction accounts used by small businesses and protects smaller banks from specific assessment increases. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Increases the insurance limit for noninterest-bearing transaction accounts up to $5 million. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Increases financial stability for businesses and depositors by protecting larger transaction balances.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Grants the FDIC and NCUA authority to set and regulate new insurance limits.
- 3/25/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- Introduced in House
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.