Loading bill breakdown…
Loading bill breakdown…
Sponsored by Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN) · 11 active : 8 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Latest action: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
This bill increases the amount insured depository institutions may accept as reciprocal deposits. (Reciprocal deposits are used by institutions to increase the availability of deposit insurance by splitting large deposits using a reciprocal network of institutions.) The bill creates a tiered system so that the allowable amount is based on the institution's total liabilities.
Additionally, the bill changes certain qualifications insured depository institutions may be required to have to accept reciprocal deposits. Under current law, institutions may qualify by having a composite rating of outstanding or good, among other requirements. The bill allows institutions with a 1, 2, or 3 rating under the CAMELS scale to qualify. (The Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System uses the characteristics of capital adequacy, asset quality, management, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk (i.e., CAMELS ratings) to rate the health of financial institutions, with a 1 indicating the highest rating and least degree of supervisory concern and a 5 indicating the lowest rating and highest degree of supervisory concern.)
Each member’s recorded vote compared with their swing projection from before the vote. A member by voting against most of their own party.
| BandBand before the vote | VotedVoted yea or nay | BrokeBroke with party | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Swing | 44 | 0 | 0% |
| Middle | 245 | 0 | 0% |
| Entrenched | 113 | 0 | 0% |
Members fall into . 6 representatives don’t have enough data yet and are marked “insufficient data”. Non-voting delegates are not counted. The bill is not before the House right now; these scores show where members would stand.
Bars show each input from 0 to 100: ideology gap, scorecard gap, , and the . is the seat’s partisan lean, and shows how much of the input data a score has. Where the House has voted, each member’s appears with the projection made before it.
Loading similar votes
| Insufficient data |
|---|
| 3 |
| 0 |
| 0% |
| All voting members | 405 | 0 | 0% |
|---|
Too few members broke with their party to measure .
Projections from swing-v3, computed with data from before the vote. Present and not voting never count as breaking.


These members have less than half of the model’s inputs, so their scores are not banded or ranked.






Ideology is each member’s score. The cluster low on the chart includes the bill’s 12 sponsor and cosponsors in the House: they have already committed, so they score as entrenched. 6 representatives without a DW-NOMINATE score or with insufficient data are not plotted.
Similar votes count toward swing-v3 in the House: total similarity weight 21.5 (needs 5.0).