That's perhaps the better question Carlan! (And thanks for reading the Bill detail, which being a Kiwi I'm not so inclined to bother doing.)
A 1:1 peg would then make the stablecoin a non-profit. But "dollars to doughnuts" (pun intended) someone is out to make profit from every crypto transaction, so where's the slack gonna be? Who is going to spend more than their income (in $US)? The user transaction fee — which goes to the stablecoin vender? So nothing but a regular bank by other means? It all then just seems so pointless, and a waste of Congress working hours. So maybe it amounts to just a change in who gets defined to be a "banker" charging customer fees for clearing payments or holding $ denominated savings? But that's all. Unless it goes ponzi and stablecoin operators emit stablecoin by fiat (without a buyer in US$), and then are in the tank for US$ redemptions later on, which they might not be able to redeem at some point, then perhaps LLC laws will effect the overall redistribution to the venders who get off the hook, so yet another basic income scheme for people who already have a lot of money. Other than that, is stablecoin going to be tax exempt? So it's also potentially a fancy tax evasion scheme? This is one story of how it might go.
If Congress props up the stablecoin vender, that's just the FDIC by another name, no?