- Potential benefitIncreases transparency about why systemic risk authority was used in particular bank failures.
- Federal agenciesCreates detailed, time‑bound GAO and agency reports to inform congressional oversight and policy reforms.
- Potential benefitCan identify supervisory shortcomings and lead to regulatory or legislative recommendations to reduce future failures.
Systemic Risk Authority Transparency Act
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 169.
The bill amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to require additional reporting and reviews when the FDIC (or other agencies) invokes the systemic risk exception to wind up a failed insured depository institution. It directs the Government Accountability Office to produce a review within 60 days and again 180 days after such a determination, and requires the appropriate federal banking agency to deliver detailed reports to Congress within 90 days and again 210 days.
Progressives emphasize accountability and prevention of future bailouts
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified reporting mandate that amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to require timely GAO reviews and agency reports with detailed content and procedural safeguards, but it omits any discussion of fiscal or resource implications for executing the new reporting obligations.
The bill amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to require additional reporting and reviews when the FDIC (or other agencies) invokes the systemic risk exception to wind up a failed insured depository institution.
It directs the Government Accountability Office to produce a review within 60 days and again 180 days after such a determination, and requires the appropriate federal banking agency to deliver detailed reports to Congress within 90 days and again 210 days.
Reports must cover basis for the determination, mismanagement, supervisory shortcomings, related regulator actions, and other contributing entities; agencies must publish materials to the fullest extent practicable while preserving legal privileges and may consult Congressional committee leaders before omitting materials.
Administrative transparency bill has plausible bipartisan appeal, but agency/industry pushback and Senate procedural obstacles lower overall odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified reporting mandate that amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to require timely GAO reviews and agency reports with detailed content and procedural safeguards, but it omits any discussion of fiscal or resource implications for executing the new reporting obligations.
Progressives emphasize accountability and prevention of future bailouts
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
- Federal agenciesIncreases administrative and reporting burdens on federal banking agencies and GAO, raising operational costs.
- Potential burdenPublishing detailed supervisory materials risks exposing sensitive information that could harm market confidence or com…
- Potential burdenMandatory reports and consultations could slow rapid crisis responses or complicate emergency resolution timelines.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Progressives emphasize accountability and prevention of future bailouts
Likely supportive: sees the bill as improving accountability and transparency around public interventions for failed banks.
Would view GAO and agency reports as tools to expose mismanagement, regulatory failures, and to inform reforms preventing future bailouts.
Cautiously supportive: values increased oversight and structured timelines but worries about operational burdens and preserving crisis management flexibility.
Sees the bill as a reasonable balance between transparency and protecting privileged supervisory information.
Skeptical or somewhat opposed: values transparency in principle but worries this imposes new constraints on regulators, risks politicizing crisis responses, and may harm market confidence.
Concerned about disclosure of privileged supervisory materials and added administrative burdens.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Administrative transparency bill has plausible bipartisan appeal, but agency/industry pushback and Senate procedural obstacles lower overall odds.
- Strength of regulator and industry opposition
- Absent cost estimates and administrative burden quantification
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Progressives emphasize accountability and prevention of future bailouts
Administrative transparency bill has plausible bipartisan appeal, but agency/industry pushback and Senate procedural obstacles lower overal…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified reporting mandate that amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to require timely GAO reviews and agency reports with detailed content and procedu…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.