PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Apr 20, 2010
Deposit Restricted Qualified Tuition Programs Act of 2010 - Amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to prescribe requirements for deposit restricted qualified tuition programs which are exempt from federal income tax.
Defines such a program as one in which: (1) the cash provided to it by a contributor may be invested only in deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); (2) the contributor may become a participant in the program by depositing funds through the program into an account at a depository institution participating in the program; and (3) the program may include multiple depository institutions.
Deems a deposit restricted qualified tuition program to be an identified banking product for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Denies treatment as a security under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Investment Company Act of 1940 of: (1) the investment of cash in deposits at an insured depository institution through a deposit restricted qualified tuition program; (2) any certificate of deposit or other instrument evidencing any such deposit; or (3) any participation by a contributor to a deposit restricted qualified tuition program.
Declares that in no event shall a deposit restricted qualified tuition program, the state entity designated by statute to oversee such program, or the administrator appointed to operate it on behalf of the state or a participating depository institution, be deemed to be an issuer of a security or an investment company.
Declares that the budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest statement titled `Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives, provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
People & committees
Rep. Cleaver, Emanuel [D-MO-5] · D–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2651)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H2651)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4178.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2651-2654)
Mr. Cleaver moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4178 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4178 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4178 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4178 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.