[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 74 (Monday, May 17, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3800-S3801]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FINANCIAL REGULATORY REFORM
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have had some concerns over the consumer
protection part of the financial reform bill, mostly because I do not
think there are very many limitations on it. Particularly in the area
of personal privacy, I have some major concerns. So I have developed an
amendment that I think will solve that. It is the kind of amendment I
have often seen brought up by both sides of the aisle to make sure no
agency is going through your personal finances without your permission
or any other thing that is personal.
So if you think full-body scans at the airport security is bad, they
do pale in comparison to the consumer protection provisions in the
financial regulatory bill we are debating. Even if you are okay with
the heightened airport security measures, will you be OK with a full
scan of your financial records?
If left alone, this bill will set up a Federal bureaucracy that will
be able to comb through the personal financial records of millions of
Americans in the name of protecting consumers.
Also, in the name of protecting us from ourselves, this bill would
require banks to keep and maintain records of all bank account activity
and financial activity of their clients for at least 3 years, while
also requiring this information to be sent regularly to the bureau for
safekeeping.
I have serious concerns about our government collecting information
on the daily activities of its citizens and equal concerns about the
government approving or disapproving the financial choices of its
citizens. For those who agree with me, and even those who disagree with
me on the consequences or meaning of the language in this bill, I have
a straightforward and easy solution.
My amendment, 4018, simply says that if the new bureau created in
this bill wants to investigate a consumer's individual transactions,
then the bureau must get written permission from that individual. All
this means is that the bureau cannot investigate someone's banking
activities or credit card purchases without that person's permission.
The bill is simply that. This is one page going into thousands of
pages. It says:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any
provision of the enumerated consumer laws or any provision of
Federal law, the Bureau may not investigate an individual
transaction to which a consumer is a party without the
written permission of that consumer.
It is pretty straightforward. It makes sure they aren't going to
investigate a consumer's individual transactions without written
permission from that individual, and they can't investigate someone's
banking activities or their credit card purchases without that person's
permission.
My amendment would also make it so that the government can't watch
over my financial transactions without my saying so or without you
saying so on yours. My amendment gives consumers a choice. I don't
think the bureau should be allowed to look over my credit card
statement to see if I am spending too much money. I don't think the
bureau should be allowed to monitor my purchases and note that I bought
a new car, a new boat, or a gun.
I recognize there are consumers out there who may want the government
in their lives, monitoring their transactions. I don't claim to
understand that desire. But my amendment would not take away their
choice in the matter. In fact, as a consumer, if I get into credit card
trouble and want the bureau's help, all I have to do is contact the
bureau and give them permission to look at my financial documents. My
amendment would also give consumers that ability. As long as the bureau
has my written permission as a consumer, they can look at my financial
past, present, and future.
Our State offices have that kind of a procedure when they do case
work for individuals. Our State offices have a process where they will
look into problems that an individual is having with the Federal
Government. But in order to do that, they have to get a signed privacy
release. That is so we can't just be looking into constituents'
problems that we think might be a problem for them without their
knowledge or their permission. That is all I am doing with this
government bureau, is making sure the consumer knows that bureau will
be going through their records with their permission.
In reality, this bill encourages consumers to rely on the government
to protect them from bad decisions instead of empowering due diligence.
The role of the Federal Government should not be to stand over our
shoulders telling us if our decisions are right or good. I was here on
the Senate floor just a few short days ago saying that you and I have
the inherent freedom to make choices, even the freedom to make bad
choices. In America, that is the way it works. Big Brother is not
allowed to hang over your shoulder to decide whether you are making a
poor decision.
Because of this bill and the actions of the current administration,
people are more concerned about their freedoms right now than they ever
have been,
[[Page S3801]]
and this underlying bill--specifically title X, with its ironic name,
``consumer protection''--would take away those freedoms without this
amendment.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created through this bill
would suddenly become the most powerful agency within the Federal
Government. By placing this bureau within the Federal Reserve,
Congress's last ability to oversee this agency would be when the
director of the bureau is nominated by the President and the Senate
gets to vet that candidate. That is it. Congress would have no
oversight of the bureau's budget. Congress would have no oversight of
the rules created by the bureau either.
By the way, this bureau would not only have the authority to create
its own rules for banks and consumers to follow, it would have the
authority to enforce those rules as well. No other agency has that kind
of unchecked power. Let me tell my colleagues, unchecked power does not
lend itself to accountability.
Why am I so concerned about this supposed consumer protection bureau?
I am concerned about our freedoms. I know the Federal Government should
not operate with the belief that it always knows best. Protecting
consumers doesn't always mean naming advocates to work on their behalf.
It also means allowing them the freedom and power to advocate for
themselves.
I mentioned this earlier, but I want to illustrate an example of why
I am concerned about this bureau's unchecked power and why every
citizen in the country should be up in arms, beating down the doors of
Congress to keep big government powers from getting even bigger in
their lives. The example I am about to give would be small compared to
the powers of this proposed bureau.
Let me tell my colleagues, this is not a small issue to the public.
Not too long ago, the Transportation Security Administration, TSA,
announced its intention to put full body scanning into major airports.
Let me remind my colleagues, this was not even in every major airport,
only a few. Many may not have seen one of these scanning machines.
Travelers go into a three-sided piece of equipment fully clothed, and
the machine essentially creates an x-ray-like scan of the traveler. The
resulting image from the scan can be used to determine whether someone
is carrying an explosive, has objects hidden under their clothing, or
merely had a joint replaced. This new step in security was all done in
the name of protecting citizens from terrorists. This new measure was
for our physical safety.
I have heard from hundreds of Wyoming citizens and from hundreds of
citizens across the country desperate not to have the government
intrude into their lives even in the name of physical safety from
terrorism. There was such a rush of emotion from these folks, anger at
the inconvenience and intrusion, nervousness and anxiety that the
government would be able to image them for 30 seconds or the
possibility that the government could keep the scanned image in a file.
I even had some of the more middle-of-the-road folks tell me they just
wanted a choice of whether to have the full body scan or simply an in-
person screening. That is what is done over most of the country.
My point with this story is that with TSA screening, we are talking
about a single image of a person as they travel through the Nation's
airports. What the bureau of consumer protection proposes to do in the
name of financial security is not just a snapshot of us during a single
day of travel. What the bureau proposes to do is scrutinize the
transactions of our daily lives, our spending habits, monitor our
financial decisions as we plan for retirement, as we plan and spend for
our families, and, as consumers, as we make choices on loans for
education, vehicles, homes, and any other expenses. This isn't a single
step encroaching on privacy like a body scan image. What the bureau
proposes to do skips over the privacy boundary. It is not a single
scan; it is a life audit.
This bureau may create some much needed protections for consumers,
but it could also go much further. Without my amendment, the bureau
will be required to collect daily transactional information on every
consumer. The government would see every time you needed money for a
college loan, for $20 from the nearest ATM. The bureau would require
your community bank to not only keep all the information on file but to
regularly share that data with the government.
Some may say they don't care if the government knows they buy
groceries at Safeway every Tuesday, but I daresay allowing the
government to assess and analyze every transaction could easily
escalate beyond mundane details and consumer protection to truly having
Big Brother watching over us. You may not care about the government
knowing your shopping habits or how and when you fill your car with
gas, but you will care if the government has the ability to say how,
when, and why you spend your own money.
We already give the government control of our tax dollars. I would
say that isn't going so well for us. A $12 trillion, almost $13
trillion deficit shows this. So why should the public be OK with
allowing the Federal Government to watch over our shoulders, saying
whether our financial decisions are OK? The point is that the Federal
Government should not have this power, but this bill will be giving it
unless we have this amendment.
I have risen to bring light and awareness to the additional, enormous
unchecked power that would be given to the bureau of consumer
protection in the name of protecting consumers. This power would be
given not in the name of protecting us from physical threat or harm but
in the name of making decisions for us.
I offer another choice to my colleagues and to the people. This
choice allows consumers to let the bureau into their personal lives if
they so choose. My amendment would not stop the bureau from existing.
My amendment would not prevent the bureau from assisting consumers with
their finances or debt. My amendment would simply require the bureau to
get written permission from consumers. It is that simple. I urge
colleagues to consider the amendment so that we are empowering
consumers, not perpetuating big government growth in the name of
protecting us from ourselves.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Shelby be added as a cosponsor
to the amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, with the permission of the bill manager, I
ask unanimous consent to set aside any pending amendments and to call
up amendment No. 3986.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill is not yet pending.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I understand the bill has not yet been
reported, but I would like to make a few comments on my amendment. As
soon as the bill is reported, I will call up the amendment more
specifically.
I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15
minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am advised the bill is ready to be
reported.
____________________