HR-3437-119
Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI)
What it does
This bill would eliminate the subpoena power of two federal offices — the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) and the Office of Financial Research (OFR) — over insurance companies. It would also require financial regulators, when collecting insurance data under consumer protection laws, to first seek that data from other regulators or publicly available sources before going directly to insurers. If direct collection from an insurer is necessary, the regulator would have to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act, which imposes procedural requirements on federal data collection.
Who benefits
Insurance companies of all sizes, which would face fewer mandatory data disclosure demands from federal agencies. Smaller and mid-size insurers, which may have fewer compliance resources to respond to federal subpoenas. Insurance industry trade associations. State insurance regulators, who would retain primary oversight authority over insurers. Policyholders whose data is held by insurers, who may see reduced federal access to their personal financial information.
Who is hurt
Federal financial regulators — particularly the FIO and OFR — who would lose direct investigative tools. Researchers and policymakers who rely on comprehensive insurance industry data to monitor systemic financial risk. Consumers who benefit from federal oversight of systemic risk in the insurance sector, which could affect the stability of the broader financial system. Taxpayers who could bear costs if undetected systemic risks in the insurance industry contribute to a financial crisis. State regulators who may face pressure to fill federal oversight gaps with limited resources.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the FIO and OFR's subpoena powers duplicate oversight already performed by state insurance regulators, who are the primary and historically established regulators of the insurance industry under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. They contend that federal subpoena authority imposes significant compliance burdens on insurers — particularly smaller companies — without a demonstrated benefit, since the same data can often be obtained through state regulators or public filings. Requiring regulators to exhaust alternative sources first, they argue, is a common-sense procedural safeguard that reduces regulatory redundancy without eliminating federal oversight entirely.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the FIO's subpoena power was specifically created after the 2008 financial crisis to give federal regulators visibility into systemic risks that state-by-state oversight failed to detect — risks that contributed to the near-collapse of AIG and required a $182 billion federal bailout. They contend that requiring regulators to exhaust alternative sources before collecting data directly from insurers would slow investigations and create gaps in systemic risk monitoring at precisely the moments when speed matters most. Eliminating these tools, they argue, weakens the federal government's ability to identify and respond to the next financial crisis before it spreads.
Constitutional context
The bill touches on the Nondelegation and Vesting Clauses (Art. I, §1) and the post-Loper Bright landscape: by restricting agency subpoena authority, Congress is reclaiming oversight power it previously delegated to the FIO and OFR. Under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts now independently review whether agencies have clear statutory authority for their actions, making the scope of any remaining agency data-collection authority more legally significant and potentially more contested.
Checks and balances
Congress would reduce executive branch agency power by eliminating subpoena authority held by the FIO and OFR; remaining data collection by financial regulators would be subject to Paperwork Reduction Act review, adding an additional procedural check on executive action.
Historical precedent
The Federal Insurance Office and its subpoena authority were created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 in direct response to the 2008 financial crisis; no prior federal legislation has directly curtailed this specific authority.