In each instance, the insurance industry complains that the legislation, while well-intended, imposes unfair costs and burdens on financial service providers.

Looking first at Social Security numbers, the Senate Judiciary Committee recently approved S.848, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would prohibit the sale or display of Social Security numbers to the public. The bill is aimed at fighting the growing problem of identify theft, which Sen. Feinstein said increased by 500 percent from 1998 to 2001.

The bill would prohibit the sale or display of a Social Security number without the individual's consent, except for certain business-to-business or business-to-government transactions. In addition, it would give consumers the right to refuse to give out their Social Security numbers to companies and to enforce their rights with a private right of action.

"This legislation strikes a balance between the need for legitimate business uses of the Social Security number and the need to prevent identity theft," Sen. Feinstein said.

But Jim Pitts, executive director of the Washington-based Financial Services Coordinating Council, said S.848 would impose unnecessary costs and burdens on financial institutions without providing additional protection to consumers.

He said that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act already places significant restrictions on the use of Social Security numbers. "No further regulation of the industry is needed," he said.

Moreover, Mr. Pitts said, S.848 is self-defeating. He said Social Security numbers provide the best identifier that financial institutions can use to determine whether a person is who they say they are. "Without access to this unique identifier, crimes like identity theft, fraud and money laundering would be more rampant," Mr. Pitts argued.

FSCC members include the American Insurance Association, the American Council of Life Insurers, the American Bankers Association, and the Securities Industry Association, all of Washington.

S.848 will next be considered by the Senate Finance Committee.

On commercial e-mail, or "spamming," the Senate Commerce Committee recently approved unanimously S. 630, sponsored by Sens. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., that would require e-marketers to allow recipients of commercial e-mails to opt out of receiving any further communications. It would subject e-marketers who intentionally disguise their identities to criminal penalties. Those who violate the act could be fined up to $1.5 million.

Sen. Burns said spamming causes consumers to waste both time and money. "On this issue, either you are for the consumer or against the consumer," he said. "There is no middle ground."

However, David Winston, vice president of government affairs for the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors in Falls Church, Va., said that S.630 unduly burdens and restricts legitimate commercial e-mails.

He noted, for example, that the bill requires all business to provide an opt-out notice to all customers dating back three years. This requirement, he said, would force all NAIFA members to retroactively review their entire database and retrieve information necessary to comply with the requirement.

Moreover, he said, the bill imposes strict liability on e-marketers, meaning that businesses can be held liable for inadvertent violations, giving rise to enormous cumulative liability exposure, even if there is no showing of actual harm.

Finally, the Senate Commerce Committee approved and sent to the floor of the Senate S.2201, which would bar commercial Web-site operators from collecting or disclosing a user's personally identifiable information without clear and conspicuous notice, including notice of their right to opt out. The bill would allow private lawsuits against violators.

The committee approved S.2201 by a 15-8 vote, but a parliamentary maneuver delayed its movement to the floor of the Senate. That maneuver was overcome recently and the bill was sent to the floor.

Mr. Pitts said S. 2201 would create a flood of new and frivolous litigation and result in increased costs to consumers. Moreover, he said, it would have a disproportionate impact on financial services firms because it does not include exceptions for normal business practices that are at the core of providing financial services.