S-2144-119
Held at the desk.
Sponsored by Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
What it does
This bill would let members of Congress, their immediate family, and congressional staff request removal of personal information (home address, phone, email, Social Security number, financial account numbers, vehicle identifiers, children's school details, and precise geolocation data) from government agency public records and from websites within 72 hours. It would also bar data brokers from selling or purchasing this "covered information" about these individuals and would create a right to sue for injunctive or declaratory relief when the law is violated.
Who benefits
Members of Congress, their spouses, children, parents, siblings, and household members; congressional staff designated by members or officers; former members of Congress; and the Sergeants at Arms and Secretary/Clerk offices that administer the process gain new authority to police compliance.
Who is hurt
Data brokers and websites that currently collect and sell this information would lose a segment of revenue and face new compliance costs, including 72-hour removal deadlines and record-keeping burdens. Journalists, watchdog groups, and researchers who rely on public records or data-broker information to investigate lawmakers' finances, properties, or conflicts of interest could face practical obstacles, though the bill exempts news reporting and matters of public concern.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that threats and violence against members of Congress and their families have risen sharply, including high-profile incidents like the 2022 attack on Speaker Pelosi's husband, and that data brokers make it trivially easy to locate a lawmaker's home, children's school, or daily routes. They contend this bill mirrors existing federal judge protections under the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act and closes a similar gap for legislative branch officials and their families.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that lawmakers already enjoy far more security resources than ordinary citizens and that broad, vaguely defined categories like "personal email" or "routes taken to employment" could be used to suppress legitimate scrutiny of public officials' potential conflicts of interest. They contend the 72-hour removal mandate and liability exposure could chill smaller publishers, researchers, and data services who lack legal staff to interpret exceptions for "matters of public concern," even though news reporting is nominally exempted.
Constitutional context
Congress has authority under Article I to regulate its own members' security and to legislate on interstate commerce involving data brokers, but restrictions on publishing information already exempt for press and public-concern speech implicate the First Amendment, following the framework in cases like Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989) on publication of lawfully obtained information.
Checks and balances
Congress creates new statutory restrictions on private data brokers and public agencies, with enforcement through private civil suits rather than a new executive or agency enforcement body, limiting expansion of executive power.
Historical precedent
The Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2022 established similar protections for federal judges' personal information against data brokers and public disclosure.