Summary#
The FDIC Board Accountability Act would amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act; it would not create a separate agency. Its stated goal is to revise membership requirements for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Board. The bill is pending, so these changes are not in effect.
- The bill would replace two existing board-member categories with four members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It leaves in place the member named in another part of the current law, but the supplied material does not identify that member.
- Of the four appointees, one must have state bank supervisory experience, and a separate appointee must have primary experience working in or supervising depository institutions with less than $10 billion in assets.
- The Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection would become a non-voting observer on the FDIC Board.
- A person could not be appointed for more than two terms or serve more than 12 years in total. Both limits would apply.
What it means for you#
- FDIC Board and presidential appointees: The President would nominate four board members, subject to Senate confirmation. The bill sets experience requirements for two of those seats.
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director: The Director could observe board proceedings but would not vote.
- Banks and the public: The bill changes who sits on the FDIC Board. It does not directly change deposit insurance, bank fees, or customer eligibility in the text supplied.
- Current board members: The bill does not explain how its limits would apply to people already serving or how vacancies and transitions would be handled.
Money#
No publicly available information.
- The supplied materials give no cost estimate or budget information.
- The bill requires presidential nominations and Senate confirmation, but does not state staffing or other implementation costs.
What is unclear#
- The Federal Deposit Insurance Act was not supplied, so the identity of the member retained under subsection (a)(1)(A), the current board structure, and the existing term rules could not be verified against current law.
- The bill does not say how the new membership rules would affect current members or when the changes would take effect.
- It does not explain how the two-term limit relates to the 12-year total-service limit if the existing law sets term lengths.
- It does not provide a process for selecting nominees or explain how the required experience would be assessed.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to give board seats to people with state bank supervisory experience and experience with smaller depository institutions.
- A possible argument for the change is that presidential nomination and Senate confirmation would make those appointments subject to public scrutiny and confirmation.
- Term limits could bring new members onto the board over time.
Case against#
- The CFPB Director would lose a vote, and two existing board-member categories would be replaced. The supplied text does not explain why that change is needed.
- Four presidential appointees could shift more of the board’s membership to presidentially selected officials; the bill does not explain how that balance would work with the retained member.
- Term limits could reduce continuity and experience on the board.
- The bill does not explain how current members, vacancies, or the experience requirements would be handled.