PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 4, 1995
Lending Enhancement Through Necessary Due Process Act - Amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to make the following affirmative defenses available to a director, officer, or institution-affiliated party of an insured depository institution facing a civil action before a Federal banking agency or a court of jurisdiction: (1) business judgment; (2) regulatory approval; and (3) unforeseeable economic conditions. Sets forth a minimum standard for the order of production of personal financial information by a regulatory agency or court. Declares the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to prejudgment attachment of assets applicable to Federal banking regulatory agencies. Prohibits the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from bringing a civil action under State law against an officer or director of an insured depository institution for monetary damages for losses due to a disregard of a duty of care unless the State standard for such duty is as great or greater than the Federal standard.
People & committees
Rep. McCollum, Bill [R-FL-8] · R–FL
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.
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.316 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.316 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.316 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.316 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.