PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 16, 2013
Basel III Impact Study Act - Directs the federal banking agencies (the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC]), before issuing any final rule amending their general risk-based capital requirements for revising advanced-approaches risk-based capital requirements, determining risk-weighted assets, and determining minimum regulatory capital ratios as proposed in certain August and June 2012 notices of proposed rule making (NPRs), to study and report to Congress on the impact of the NPRs on the minimum regulatory capital requirements of insured depository institutions and insured depository institution holding companies.
Requires the banking agencies to determine current capital levels at covered financial institutions and separately identify specific provisions of: (1) the Basel III framework devised by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision; (2) the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank); and (3) estimate and evaluate their impact as well as the cumulative impact of the NPRs and the identified provisions on required regulatory capital levels, capital quality, asset quality, and risk management at covered U.S. financial institutions. Permits the banking agencies to solicit participation in the study from insured depository institutions and insured depository institution holding companies provided that such request does not impose an undue burden upon participants and is entered into on a voluntary basis.Amends the International Lending Supervision Act of 1983 to revise capital adequacy requirements by directing the banking agencies to seek to ensure that any differences in rules implementing the capital standards do not: (1) give competitive advantages to any class or group of institutions unless otherwise required by federal law, or (2) undermine Dodd-Frank requirements for enhanced supervision and prudential standards.
People & committees
Sen. Shelby, Richard C. [R-AL] · R–AL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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 S.737 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 S.737 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 S.737 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 S.737 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.