US Federal House Bill HB3716

US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/4/25
• Refer: 6/4/25
• Report Pass: 6/10/25
• Engrossed: 12/2/25

Caption

Systemic Risk Authority Transparency Act

Summary

HB3716, the Systemic Risk Authority Transparency Act, would amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to require additional congressional reporting when federal authorities use the systemic risk exception in connection with winding up a failed insured depository institution. The bill directs the Government Accountability Office to review and report on the basis for the determination, the purpose of any action taken, the likely effects on bank and depositor behavior, and whether executive mismanagement, compensation practices, supervisory failures, regulators’ actions, or other entities such as auditors, credit rating agencies, underwriters, or emergency liquidity providers contributed to the failure. The bill also requires the appropriate federal banking agency to submit reports to Congress within 90 days of such a determination, and again 210 days later, with specified examination reports, supervisory communications, analysis of mismanagement and regulatory shortcomings, and recommendations for improving safety and soundness. It includes procedures to protect sensitive information, preserve legal privileges, allow limited publication redactions, and permit short extensions or consolidated reports when needed for banking-system stability.

Impact

The bill would not change deposit insurance coverage or the substantive authority to resolve failed banks, but it would add new statutory reporting and disclosure obligations under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. It would affect the FDIC and other appropriate federal banking agencies, the GAO, and congressional banking committees by creating a structured post-failure review process and requiring more detailed documentation and explanation when the systemic risk exception is used. It also reinforces that these reporting requirements do not limit federal enforcement authority or waive privileges or FOIA exemptions.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as a transparency and oversight bill rather than a policy reversal of bank-resolution authority. Its stated purpose suggests support for greater accountability after bank failures and for congressional visibility into emergency actions taken by regulators. The House passed the bill, indicating at least some bipartisan or majority support for the transparency approach, though the available record does not show detailed floor or committee sentiment.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are the scope of disclosure and the balance between transparency and confidentiality. Banking agencies are required to release substantial information, but they may redact personally identifiable customer information, preserve privilege, and withhold materials only after consulting congressional leaders and providing a written explanation. Another likely point of debate is whether the bill could expose supervisory materials or second-guess regulators’ crisis decisions, although the bill expressly states that the reports do not limit enforcement authority. Stakeholders most likely to support the bill are transparency advocates and congressional overseers, while federal banking regulators and institutions concerned about confidential supervisory information may be more cautious.