[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 52 (Wednesday, April 14, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H2513-H2514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1100
ELIMINATE PRIVACY NOTICE CONFUSION ACT
Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 3506) to amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to
provide an exception from the continuing requirement for annual privacy
notices for financial institutions which do not share personal
information with affiliates, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3506
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Eliminate Privacy Notice
Confusion Act''.
SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO ANNUAL PRIVACY NOTICE REQUIREMENT UNDER
THE GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT.
Section 503 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6803)
is amended by adding the following new subsection:
``(f) Exception to Annual Notice Requirement.--A financial
institution that--
``(1) provides nonpublic personal information only in
accordance with the provisions of subsection (b)(2) or (e) of
section 502 or regulations prescribed under section 504(b);
and
``(2) has not changed its policies and practices with
regard to disclosing nonpublic personal information from the
policies and practices that were disclosed in the most recent
disclosure sent to consumers in accordance with this
subsection,
shall not be required to provide an annual disclosure under
this subsection until such time as the financial institution
fails to comply with any criteria described in paragraph (1)
or (2).''.
SEC. 3. BUDGET COMPLIANCE.
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall
be determined by reference to the latest statement titled
``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act,
submitted for printing in
[[Page H2514]]
the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Committee on
the Budget of the House of Representatives, provided that
such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on
passage.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
General Leave
Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to congratulate the gentleman from Minnesota, Representative
Erik Paulsen, a member of our Financial Services Committee, as well as
the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee that I chair. I was
pleased to introduce H.R. 3506, the Eliminate Privacy Notice Confusion
Act, with him and our colleague, Representative Peter Roskam, who
originally introduced this bill in the 110th Congress when he served on
the Financial Services Committee.
In the last Congress, Mr. Speaker, this legislation was included in a
bank and thrift regulatory bill I introduced, which was later included
in a comprehensive regulatory reform measure this House approved by
voice vote. But as is too often the case, the Senate failed to act.
The legislation we consider today will help minimize confusion
consumers have about their privacy rights regarding two conflicting
provisions of two prior laws. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
specifically prohibits subject companies from sharing personal
information with third parties. Yet the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act still
requires these firms to provide annual privacy notices that allow
consumers to opt out of having their information shared with third
parties. Since this practice is already prohibited by law, these annual
notices only confuse the consumers that receive them.
H.R. 3506 will amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to exempt from its
annual privacy policy notice requirement any financial institution
which meets several criteria and are already prohibited by the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act from sharing personal information with
third parties. Waiving the privacy notice requirement will reduce
confusion for consumers who may incorrectly think, by receiving the
notice, that the companies have the right to share their personal
information with third parties.
This should not be confused with the privacy policy financial
institutions must provide to consumers when they open an account, which
will be unaffected by this bill.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3506, and I reserve the balance
of my time, Madam Speaker.
Mr. PAULSEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3506, the Eliminate
Privacy Notice Confusion Act.
This bill will help reduce the burden and confusion of privacy notice
requirements by providing exemption from sending an annual privacy
notice for those institutions that do not share nonpublic customer
information with unaffiliated third parties or those that do not change
their privacy policies at all.
Under current law, banks and other financial institutions are
required to send out an annual privacy notification to their customers
informing them that nothing has changed, and they still do not share
privacy information. This is often quite very confusing to customers.
Essentially, under my legislation, financial institutions are
relieved of an unnecessary and redundant regulatory burden which will
help lower costs and reduce junk mail that the customers receive in the
mail every day. It will also lessen confusion to customers because they
will no longer receive letters informing them that their bank's privacy
policy has not changed at all.
Madam Speaker, it's important to note that this legislation only
applies to those institutions that do not share personal financial
information with third parties and do not change their privacy
policies. This means that the privacy policy that banks must provide to
consumers when they open an account remains completely unaffected. The
bottom line is that nothing in this legislation in this bill allows for
the disclosure of private information and companies are still
prohibited from sharing any personal information with third parties.
Similar legislation has passed the House in previous Congresses with
strong, bipartisan support; and I want to recognize the bipartisan
manner in which that legislation was again handled this year.
Madam Speaker, I especially want to thank Chairman Frank and Ranking
Member Bachus for their assistance with the legislation and their
willingness to bring this legislation and assist me in bringing it to
the House floor.
Finally, I want to thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for
his hard work on this legislation. He has done exemplary work
throughout his 12 years here in this body, and we are going to miss his
spirit and commitment of working in a bipartisan manner, and I
appreciate his friendship as well.
I ask for a ``yes'' vote on this bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE of Kansas. I want to thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker,
for his very kind comments.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PAULSEN. Madam Speaker, in closing, this bill is a win/win. It
reduces an unnecessary and redundant regulatory burden for consumers,
and I ask for adoption of the bipartisan legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE of Kansas. I yield myself 1 minute.
Madam Speaker, again, I commend the gentleman from Minnesota for his
work on this bipartisan legislation, and it is bipartisan legislation.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3506.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3506, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``To amend the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide an exception from the continuing
requirement for annual privacy notices for financial institutions which
do not change their policies and practices with regard to disclosing
nonpublic personal information from the policies and practices that
were disclosed in the most recent disclosure sent to consumers, and for
other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________