FDIC Law, Regulations, Related Acts
4000 - Advisory Opinions
Full Faith and Credit of U.S. Government Behind the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund
November 9, 1987
Alan J. Kaplan, Counsel
Your October 7, 1987 letter asks whether the full faith and credit of the United States Government stands behind the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and its deposit insurance fund. You noted that in my earlier letter to you, dated August 26, 1985, I stated that a joint resolution of Congress (H.R. Con. Res. 290) adopted in March 1982, which reaffirmed that the United States pledges its full faith and credit behind the federal deposit insurance funds, may have served as a moral pledge on the part of Congress to support the deposit insurance funds should they ever need it, but, because of its status as a non-binding resolution, did not serve to create any legal liability on the part of the United States Government to support the funds. You now ask whether Congress has passed a statute that makes the United States Government legally liable for any and all obligations of the FDIC.
Title IX of the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 ("CEBA"), signed into law by President Reagan on August 10, 1987, provides:
TITLE IXFULL FAITH AND CREDIT OFFEDERALLY INSURED DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS
SEC. 901. REAFFIRMATION OF SECURITY OF FUNDS DEPOSITEDIN FEDERALLY INSURED DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS.
(a) FINDINGS.--The Congress finds and declares that--
(1) since the 1930's, the American people have relied upon Federal Deposit insurance to ensure the safety and security of their funds in federally insured depository institutions; and
(2) the safety security [sic] of such funds is an essential element of the American financial system.
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.--In view of the findings and declarations contained in subsection (a), it is the sense of the Congress that it should reaffirm that deposits up to the statutorily prescribed amount in federally insured depository institutions are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.
While any final conclusion on this matter rests with the Attorney General of the United States and ultimately with the courts, it is our opinion that Title IX of CEBA merely represents an expression of the intent of Congress to support the FDIC's deposit insurance fund should the need arise. Title IX does not change any existing underlying law. It does not amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, nor does it or any other provision of CEBA alter the method by which the FDIC is funded. The FDIC continues to receive no government appropriations, and its funding continues to consist entirely of its income obtained from insurance assessments and from the return on investments made in government securities. In addition, the FDIC's statutory authority to borrow up to $3.0 billion from the Treasury remains unchanged.