Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
The bill restricts federal financial regulators’ direct collection of nonpublic data from insurance companies. It removes certain subpoena/enforcement authority, requires regulators to seek data first from relevant federal or state agencies and public sources, and limits direct collection to cases compliant with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Federal oversight vs. state primacy and limits on collection authority
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory change that is fairly specific in the statutory edits and procedural requirements it imposes (definitions, pre-collection coordination, PRA compliance, confidentiality protections), but it omits several implementation and accountability elements that would be expected for a cross-agency restriction on data collection.
The bill restricts federal financial regulators’ direct collection of nonpublic data from insurance companies.
It removes certain subpoena/enforcement authority, requires regulators to seek data first from relevant federal or state agencies and public sources, and limits direct collection to cases compliant with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
It strengthens confidentiality protections for insurer data, clarifies that sharing does not waive legal privileges, and constrains the Office of Financial Research’s subpoena reach regarding insurance companies.
Narrow, deregulatory focus and industry/state appeal help prospects, but high federalism impact, regulator opposition, and cross-agency implications lower odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory change that is fairly specific in the statutory edits and procedural requirements it imposes (definitions, pre-collection coordination, PRA compliance, confidentiality protections), but it omits several implementation and accountability elements that would be expected for a cross-agency restriction on data collection.
Federal oversight vs. state primacy and limits on collection authority
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Federal oversight vs. state primacy and limits on collection authority
Likely skeptical and generally opposed.
Concerned this reduces federal regulators’ ability to gather timely data for systemic-risk monitoring, consumer protection, and oversight.
Views limits on subpoenas and added hurdles as weakening national prudential surveillance, though privacy protections are positive.
Mixed appraisal balancing privacy, federal efficiency, and oversight needs.
Appreciates coordination with state regulators and privilege protections but worries about procedural delays and diminished federal tools.
Would look for clarifying language ensuring timely access during emergencies.
Generally supportive.
Sees the bill as reining in federal bureaucracy, preventing heavy-handed data collection, and preserving state primacy over insurance regulation.
Values added privacy and procedural safeguards limiting agency subpoenas and information grabs.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, deregulatory focus and industry/state appeal help prospects, but high federalism impact, regulator opposition, and cross-agency implications lower odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Federal oversight vs. state primacy and limits on collection authority
Narrow, deregulatory focus and industry/state appeal help prospects, but high federalism impact, regulator opposition, and cross-agency imp…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory change that is fairly specific in the statutory edits and procedural requirements it imposes (definitions, pre-collection coordination, PRA…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.