The House Financial Services Committee has advanced legislation that would put a U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve on a statutory footing and require Bitcoin deposited into it to remain untouched for at least 20 years. H.R. 8957, the American Reserve Modernization Act of 2026, was ordered to be reported favorably on September 16 by a recorded 28–21 vote. Before that vote, the committee adopted by voice vote a substitute amendment offered by Rep. Bryan Steil of Wisconsin that substantially rewrote the measure.
Introduced by Rep. Nicholas Begich of Alaska, the bill would require the Treasury secretary to establish both a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a separate Digital Asset Stockpile within 180 days of enactment. The legislation would convert elements of the existing executive reserve policy into a statutory framework, but it has not yet become law. President Donald Trump established the current reserve by executive order in March 2025 using government-owned Bitcoin obtained primarily through completed forfeiture proceedings.
Twenty-Year Lock Applies Specifically to Bitcoin
Under the committee-approved text, qualifying Bitcoin includes BTC owned by the federal government that is not legally required for another purpose, including assets obtained through criminal or civil forfeitures or civil penalties. All Bitcoin acquired by the United States and deposited into the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve would have to be held for at least 20 years from the law’s enactment, regardless of the acquisition method. During that period, it could not be sold, swapped, auctioned, encumbered or otherwise disposed of.
The restriction is narrower than the draft suggests for non-Bitcoin assets. Other qualifying digital assets would enter a separate Digital Asset Stockpile, where Treasury would have authority to manage and potentially dispose of holdings under a rule-based process. The 20-year statutory lock is a Bitcoin-specific requirement, while other federal digital assets operate under a different management framework. The bill also establishes rules for forks and airdrops, including an initial one-year holding requirement for resulting assets.
Custody and verification are another major component. The bill would require Treasury to establish a public cryptographic proof-of-reserve system and publish detailed information on holdings, transactions and private-key control. The prescribed verification cycle is annual rather than quarterly: an independent third-party auditor with cryptographic-attestation expertise would verify the annual report, while the Comptroller General would conduct regular oversight. Government custody has become a wider operational issue internationally, including cases where authorities have moved toward specialized custody for seized cryptocurrency after security failures.
Bill Does Not Authorize Deficit-Funded Bitcoin Purchases
H.R. 8957 also directs Treasury and Commerce to study whether additional Bitcoin could be acquired without increasing costs to taxpayers or the national debt. That study would be due within 180 days of enactment and does not itself authorize a federal Bitcoin purchasing program. The text directs officials to examine mechanisms including forfeitures, transactions involving non-Bitcoin stockpile assets and cooperative arrangements, while explicitly stating that the section does not authorize borrowing, new taxation, deficit spending or pledging government assets as collateral to buy Bitcoin.
The approach is broadly consistent with the March 2025 executive order, which directed Treasury and Commerce to explore budget-neutral strategies for acquiring additional government Bitcoin without incremental taxpayer costs. The legislation would add congressional requirements around custody, reporting, retention and acquisition studies to a reserve structure that currently rests on executive authority. Similar questions about whether confiscated Bitcoin should be retained rather than sold have emerged internationally, including in Taiwan’s ongoing debate over a potential Bitcoin reserve.
The markup also reflected disagreement over the broader crypto-policy environment. The committee rejected, 28–21, an amendment from Ranking Member Maxine Waters that would have added digital-asset restrictions covering the president, vice president, members of Congress and specified family members, including limits on certain ownership, promotional and trading activities. Those proposed conflict-of-interest provisions are not part of the committee-approved H.R. 8957.
The immediate legislative milestone is now action beyond committee. H.R. 8957 still requires passage by the full House and Senate and presidential approval before its 20-year holding rule or other statutory requirements can take effect. The committee vote therefore advances the reserve legislation procedurally while leaving the existing executive-order framework in place for now.