On September 16, the U.S. House Financial Services Committee passed amended H.R. 8957 by a 28-21 vote, advancing legislation that would put a U.S. strategic Bitcoin reserve and digital asset reserve program into federal law and require certain government-held Bitcoin to remain locked for at least 20 years.

The amended bill would require Bitcoin legally held by the federal government, where no other statutory use applies, to be held for at least 20 years from the law’s effective date. During that period, the Bitcoin could not be sold, exchanged, auctioned, pledged, or otherwise disposed of, according to the measure described by the committee action.

The legislation also directs the Treasury Department to establish the relevant reserves within 180 days of enactment. It further requires the publication of an annual reserve proof report covering holdings, transactions, and private key control. Treasury and the Commerce Department would be tasked with studying legal and budget-neutral ways to increase Bitcoin holdings, though the measure does not authorize direct purchases.

Different sources describe the matter differently, and the relevant details still require official confirmation.

That conflict mainly centers on the bill’s formal naming and some reporting provisions described elsewhere. Even so, the core policy direction in the current committee action is clear: the proposal is aimed at converting a federal Bitcoin reserve framework into statute and setting tighter rules for custody, reporting, and long-term retention of government-held Bitcoin.

Why It Matters

This is one of the more concrete U.S. federal legislative steps tying Bitcoin to sovereign reserve policy. If eventually enacted, it would shift the reserve concept from an administrative arrangement to statutory law, making it harder for a future administration to reverse and giving the market a clearer framework for how federally held Bitcoin is managed.

The bill also matters because it separates reserve governance from immediate accumulation. By focusing on custody, transparency, and retention rather than authorizing direct purchases, the measure points to a policy-first approach that could shape how institutions interpret U.S. digital asset strategy without creating an instant new source of market demand.