S. 985: Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2013
Before you vote › Federal bills
S. 985: Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2013
113th Congress · introduced 2013-05-16 · Finance and Financial Sector · Latest: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
federal
Follow this bill, step by step
- Where it came from: introduced 2013-05-16 · official record
- Who proposed it: Sen. Harkin, Tom [D-IA] · what a sponsor is
- What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
- Where it stands now: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
- If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.
Official title
Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2013
Plain summary
Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2013 - Amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA) to prohibit an insured depository institution from being an affiliate of any broker or dealer, investment adviser, investment company, or any other person or entity engaged principally in the issue, flotation, underwriting, public sale, or distribution of stocks, bonds, debentures, notes, or other securities. Prohibits officers, directors and employees of securities firms from simultaneous service on the boards of depository institutions, except in specified circumstances. Requires any such individual serving as an officer, director, employee, or other institution-affiliated party of any insured depository institution to terminate such service as soon as practicable after enactment of this Act. Requires an insured depository institution to wind-down in an orderly manner and terminate any affiliation prohibited by this Act. Amends the Banking Act of 1933 (Glass-Steagall Act) to expand its prohibition against the transaction of banking activities by securities firms. Declares that Congress ratifies the interpretation by the Supreme Court of specified statutory language in the case of Investment Company Institute v. Camp ( ICI ) regarding permissible activities of banks and securities firms. Declares that the reasoning of the Court in that case shall continue to apply to the limitations placed upon security affiliations under the FDIA as enacted by this Act. Prohibits a federal banking agency or federal court from issuing an interpretation regarding such security affiliations that is narrower than that of the Court in ICI . Makes technical and conforming changes to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Revised Statutes of the United States, and specified federal law. Requires the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller of the Currency, or another appropriate federal banking agency to report to Congress a detailed description of the basis for its decision each time it makes a determination or grants an extension concerning an affiliation between insured depository institutions and investment banks or securities firms.
Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in Senate), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.
What a vote does
A “Yea” vote
If it passes both chambers and is signed, it becomes law.
A “Nay” vote
If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.
PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).
What does this mean? (plain words)
Official text
Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2013
Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in Senate)
AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text
No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.
Limited to a few requests an hour per person.
The strongest published arguments
Arguments for (supporters)
Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
Arguments against (opponents)
Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
Alternatives
Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes
Officials and money
Sponsor: Sen. Harkin, Tom [D-IA] · 0 cosponsors
Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.
No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.
Words on this page, explained (4)
- Appropriation
- Money a legislature sets aside by law for a specific purpose. Government agencies may spend public money only as it has been appropriated.
- Bond
- A way to borrow money. A government sells bonds to raise money now and promises to pay it back with interest over time. Bonds repaid from taxes often need voter approval.
- Securities
- Financial investments that can be bought and sold, such as stocks and bonds.
- Statute
- A written law passed by a legislature. A statute can be changed by a later law; changing a constitution needs an amendment.
Plain meanings written from linked sources. All words.
Sources
- Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in Senate)
- Congress.gov
- Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-113s985.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/113/s>
Record fed-us-cong113-s985 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong113 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong113