PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 7, 1995
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1995 - Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (FHLBA) to require the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), after consultation with the Financing Corporation (FICO), (currently, FICO, with FDIC Board approval) to place a prescribed assessment against each Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) member in order to cover interest payments, issuance costs, and custodial fees of certain FICO obligations. Amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA) to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to provide to the FDIC, upon its request, certain funds not needed by the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), in order to cover the same FICO costs. Authorizes the FDIC to transfer, for an appropriate period of time, up to a certain percentage of a fund's assessment base between the Bank Insurance Fund (BIF) and the SAIF as necessary to achieve or maintain the designated reserve ratio of the transferee fund. Amends the FDIA to authorize the FDIC to impose a one-time special SAIF capitalization assessment. Reformulates the designated reserve ratio for each deposit insurance fund to establish a minimum instead of a target amount. Empowers the FDIC Board of Directors to reduce semiannual assessments if an insurance fund's reserve ratio is equal to or greater than its minimum designated reserve ratio. Mandates that insurance assessments be used primarily for insurance fund purposes and not be unduly diverted to other uses. Amends the FHLBA to include within FICO assessment authority specified SAIF members as well as BIF members whose deposits are treated as insured by the SAIF. Amends the FDIA to repeal the minimum assessment requirements for any insured deposit insurance fund (including the SAIF).
People & committees
Rep. LaFalce, John J. [D-NY-29] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
Referred to the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E855, E857)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 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.1481 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.1481 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.1481 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.1481 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.