PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 679.
Congressional Research Service
Version 79 · Reported to House without amendment · Dec 12, 2016
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Risk-Based Capital Study Act of 2015
(Sec. 2) This bill directs the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) to study the appropriate capital requirements for federal credit unions and state credit unions, including:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
whether the NCUA has the clear legal authority to prescribe separate risk-based capital thresholds for both "adequately capitalized" and "well capitalized" credit unions;
a discussion of the differences between credit unions and other types of depository institutions and reasons why they should have similar or different risk-weights for their capital requirements;
a discussion of the rationale behind the risk-weights assigned in the proposed NCUA rule "Risk-Based Capital"; and
an analysis of the impact the proposed rule would have upon excess capital above the minimum level for a credit union to be "well capitalized" (a credit union's "capital cushion"), including the potential impact upon credit union lending and credit union examinations.
A credit union may not be required to provide information regarding the capital standards sought in the NCUA study, but may provide it voluntarily.
(Sec. 3) The NCUA may not issue or implement any final rule or regulation governing risk-based capital (including the proposed rule) earlier than 120 days after it reports to Congress on the study.
People & committees
Rep. Fincher, Stephen Lee [R-TN-8] · R–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 679.
Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 114-869.
Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 114-869.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 50 - 9.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E894)
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: Apr 7, 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.2769 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.2769 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.2769 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.2769 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.