[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 204 (Thursday, December 14, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H9905-H9916]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
PRIVACY NOTIFICATION TECHNICAL CLARIFICATION ACT
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 657, I call
up the bill (H.R. 2396) to amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to update
the exception for certain annual notices provided by financial
institutions, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 657, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Financial Services, printed in the bill, is adopted, and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 2396
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 ``Privacy Notification
Technical Clarification Act''.
SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO ANNUAL NOTICE REQUIREMENT.
Section 503 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6803)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Additional Exception to Annual Notice Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--A financial institution that 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 section shall not
be required to provide an annual disclosure under this
section if--
``(A) the financial institution makes its current policy
available to consumers on its website and via mail upon
written request sent to a designated address identified for
the purpose of requesting the policy or upon telephone
request made using a toll free consumer service telephone
number; and
``(B) the financial institution conspicuously notifies
consumers of the availability of the current policy,
including--
``(i) with respect to consumers who are entitled to a
periodic billing statement, a message on or with each
periodic billing statement; and
``(ii) with respect to consumers who are not entitled to a
periodic billing statement, through other reasonable means
such as on its website or with other written communication,
including electronic communication, sent to the consumer.
``(2) Treatment of multiple policies.--If a financial
institution maintains more than one set of policies described
under paragraph (1) that vary depending on the consumer's
account status or State of residence, the financial
institution may comply with the website posting requirement
in paragraph (1)(A) by posting all of such policies to the
public section of the financial institution's website, with
instructions for choosing the applicable policy.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services.
After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as amended, it shall be in order
to consider the further amendment printed in House Report 115-462, if
offered by the Member designated in the report, which shall be
considered read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the
question.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2396, the Privacy
Notification Technical Clarification Act, which is an important bill
cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Members of the House and a bill
that was approved by the Financial Services Committee with a strong
bipartisan vote of 2-1, quite literally: 40-20. Additionally, this bill
builds upon an issue that has a long track record of strong bipartisan
support in Congress.
I thank Congressman Trott, a member of the Financial Services
Committee, for introducing this legislation and for leading
congressional efforts to modernize the privacy notification process for
consumers and to provide regulatory relief for our struggling financial
institutions.
There is a serious issue, Mr. Speaker, with the sheer volume,
complexity, weight, load, and cost of the regulatory burden upon,
particularly, our struggling community financial institutions, our
community banks, and credit unions.
It is no one specific regulation, but the totality, the combination
of them all, are causing us to lose a community bank or credit union a
day in America. As we lose them, our constituents lose their
opportunity for credit opportunities to share in their version of the
American Dream. It makes it more costly, more difficult for them to
finance someone to go to college, for them to perhaps buy an auto to
get them to work, or perhaps capitalize their own small business. So we
frequently hear from our community financial institutions.
I heard from a community banker in Nebraska, not long ago, who
explained: ``I have explained about how things have changed since I
started in banking 10 years ago. In efforts for our government to make
things more fair or easier for consumers, it has actually become
increasingly more difficult for people to obtain favorable loan terms
and, not to mention, obtain loans in a timely manner.''
I heard from a banker in Alabama about real estate regulations, who
said: They were intended to help customers, but it is actually hurting
them. As wait times increase and banks are no longer offering certain
products, not all of these people can be protected from themselves, no
matter how many rules and regs the banks follow to protect them.
I heard from a community banker in Utah, who said: I have been in
banking for 29 years. In that time, the regulatory burden has increased
dramatically. The ability to help customers and small businesses
succeed in rural America has been greatly hampered by regulation
intended to protect the customer from Wall Street banks, but in the
process, smaller community banks, such as mine, have been caught in the
fray or broad brush of regulations.
A banker in Oklahoma said that, because of Dodd-Frank regulations:
``We no longer offer/purchase house loans.''
[[Page H9906]]
The list goes on and on and on.
So this is one regulation that simply says: under the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act, if a financial institution doesn't change their privacy
notification, they don't have to send out a piece of paper annually--a
piece of paper like this that 99 percent of the time customers throw
away and don't read in the first place.
Don't take my word for it. Professor Adam Levitin, who is a frequent
Democrat witness before the House Financial Services Committee
testified before our committee: ``One thing that I think should go the
way of the dodo bird are the Gramm-Leach-Bliley privacy notices. Nobody
reads them.''
That is a Democrat witness, Mr. Speaker. It is not a Republican
witness. It is a Democrat witness.
He goes on to say: ``There's no reason anyone should--even the large
banks--should be spending money on giving these notices.''
But that is not what this bill does. It just simply says, if a
financial institution does not change their privacy notification, they
don't have to send out a paper notification that creates more costs,
that gets passed on to the customer, and that nobody reads in the first
place.
Number one, it is important regulatory relief for our financial
institutions. But it is also important when we think in terms of the
sheer volume of financial disclosures that our constituents receive.
This goes back to the fact, Mr. Speaker, if you disclose everything,
you effectively disclose nothing because you overwhelm the customer.
So we must vigilantly ensure that our constituents are receiving
effective disclosure, not just voluminous disclosure, but effective
disclosure of material items written in clear, understandable, common
language. Again, not voluminous disclosure of irrelevant items written
in legalese and fine print. That doesn't do anybody any good, Mr.
Speaker.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for his
leadership. The bill that he is bringing today has earned bipartisan
support because it is a simple technical correction to clarify that
customers have to be physically mailed an annual privacy notice only
when the privacy policies have actually changed from the previous year.
Importantly, this bill was carefully crafted to maintain and retain
current privacy and opt-out policies and does not exempt any financial
services provider from an initial privacy notice, nor does it allow any
loopholes for an institution to avoid issuing an updated notice.
In fact, this legislation, Mr. Speaker, does not change privacy
provisions at all, just how they are delivered. Let me repeat: the
legislation does not change privacy provisions at all, just how they
are delivered.
Again, Mr. Trott's bill has strong bipartisan support. It provides a
simple and flexible approach that modernizes privacy notification to
the benefit of our customers and to the benefit of our financial
institutions.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure and urge every Member to
vote for it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R. 2396, the
Privacy Notification Technical Clarification Act.
Contrary to the bill's title, this bill is far from a technical
clarification. So I want to be very clear about what this bill would
actually do.
H.R. 2396 would reduce the meaningful and clear disclosures that
financial institutions must currently provide to their customers every
year, even if those companies share their customers' nonpublic personal
information broadly with nonaffiliated third-party companies.
Unlike other privacy bills Congress has considered, this bill comes
with no guardrails whatsoever to discourage the company from broadly
sharing consumer-sensitive personal information.
While the bill provides several alternative mechanisms to deliver
privacy reminders, one option would result in the customer receiving no
written disclosure at all.
The current annual privacy notices serve as a reminder describing a
customer's right to restrict the sharing of their nonpublic, personal
information to nonaffiliated third parties and information about how to
exercise this right if they so choose.
This privacy right was created in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which
was signed into law in 1999. I served on the conference committee, so I
know firsthand that the initial and annual privacy notices in the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act were enacted partly in response to public
concerns about the sale of personal data for marketing purposes that
were highlighted in a number of legal actions brought by State
attorneys general at the time.
In 1999, for example, there was a settlement between the Minnesota
attorney general and U.S. Bank resolving allegations that the bank
misrepresented its practice of selling highly personal and confidential
information about its customers to telemarketers.
These concerns are just as relevant today. In fact, I find the timing
of the consideration of this bill very troubling, as it is being
brought to the floor just months after the massive Equifax data breach.
In the Equifax breach, 145.5 million Americans had their Social
Security numbers, dates of birth, and other sensitive financial and
personally identifiable information exposed to thieves.
Equifax is not the only major credit bureau to experience a large
data breach. About 2 years ago, Experian, one of the other three major
credit bureaus in this country, had a breach that exposed millions of
T-Mobile customers' information.
These breaches are on top of a long list of other breaches we have
seen at other companies where sensitive customer information was
compromised. Consumers have called on their Representatives in Congress
to enact tougher laws that would strengthen their control over their
personal information, not weaken it.
Consumers are increasingly wary about the unfettered sharing of their
personal information by financial firms to nonaffiliated third parties
that can result in consumer profiling, fraud, aggressive target
marketing, and identity theft.
Unfortunately, this bill goes in the opposite direction. Instead of
working to strengthen consumers' privacy protections, H.R. 2396 would
ease obligations on financial institutions to provide notices to their
customers describing their privacy practices and policies, and
importantly, fully explaining to these customers their right to
restrict the sharing of their information to nonaffiliated third
parties.
This is commonly referred to as a consumer's right to opt out of
having a financial institution share their information to companies
that are outside of their common corporate structure or organization.
These nonaffiliated third-party companies are generally not ones that
the consumers have an existing relationship with, meaning that they
have not received a product or service from the company in the past.
The proponents of H.R. 2396 may say the bill has nothing to do with
Equifax, or that Equifax would not be covered, if the amendment being
offered later today is agreed to. But the bill would roll back privacy
notice requirements for many financial institutions that engage in
vehicle financing, including megabanks like Wells Fargo, even if they
broadly share their customers' nonpublic, personal information with
other companies.
{time} 0930
Let's discuss Wells Fargo and their auto lending practices and their
work with nonaffiliated third parties. Earlier this year, the
Democratic staff of the Financial Services Committee produced a report
on Wells Fargo's egregious misconduct, which has consulted in extensive
consumer harm.
For example, Wells Fargo charged over 570,000 consumers for
automobile insurance policies they did not need, which resulted in at
least 20,000 customers, including Active Duty servicemembers, having
their vehicles inappropriately repossessed. These auto insurance
policies were provided through a nonaffiliated third-party company
called National General Insurance.
The bank has also demonstrated a clear pattern of misusing millions
of their customers' information to open accounts in their name without
their permission.
[[Page H9907]]
So why should Congress consider relaxing the privacy requirements for
a recidivist bank like Wells Fargo?
Let me also address arguments that suggest customers don't read these
notices anyway. That is a quote that we hear oftentimes.
As I have discussed, I think consumers are paying closer attention
now after the Equifax incident. Proponents say that a company posting a
link on their website isn't so bad, and the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau allowed for it.
But the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau provided an alternative
to the annual privacy notices for companies that do not share data in
ways that trigger consumers' opt-out rights under the law. Over the
last decade, Congress has heard repeatedly from banks and credit unions
that if a company does not share personal information with an
unaffiliated third party that allows consumers to opt out from having
it shared, and if they do not change their privacy policies, they
should be exempt from the annual notice requirements. In those
instances, the customer does not have the ability to opt out of having
the information shared.
After several years of research and debate, we made that targeted
change in the last Congress. Since then, other companies, specifically
captive auto finance companies, have made the case they should have
more flexibility satisfying the annual notice requirement because they
have a unique and close relationship with automobile dealers they work
with that still requires them to send the annual notice.
This unaffiliated third-party relationship triggers a consumer's
right under the law to opt out and not have their information shared. I
offered an amendment in committee that would have granted this targeted
relief, but it was rejected.
So, while I appreciate that H.R. 2396 provides flexibility to captive
auto finance companies, the bill is not limited to them and goes much,
much further. Mr. Speaker, over 30 consumer, community, privacy, and
civil rights groups have publicly opposed this bill, including U.S.
PIRG, and so do I. This is an area where more study is needed before
policymakers craft sweeping changes.
The bottom line is that I believe we should not open the door too
widely at this time to give this same degree of flexibility to all and
every financial institution, including recidivist banks like Wells
Fargo.
Furthermore, there needs to be more, not less, privacy protections
and consumer control relating to personal information following the
massive data breach at Equifax this year.
Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I urge opposition to H.R.
2396, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that I
listened very carefully. It was a fascinating speech from the ranking
member. Too bad it has absolutely nothing to do with the bill that is
before us. Ms. Waters was speaking of privacy policies. The bill has to
do with notification.
But I do agree with the ranking member that we do need more effective
disclosure. In H.R. 2396, we require financial institutions to make
their current policies available on its website at all times. That
actually improves disclosure. The only people who can be for the status
quo are those who own paper mills so that we can waste more paper.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Trott), the sponsor of this legislation and an outstanding, hardworking
member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. TROTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hensarling), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, for
yielding me time and for bringing this bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2396, the Privacy Notification
Technical Clarification Act.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Clay, for his leadership on
this bill. It has been a pleasure to work across the aisle on this
commonsense measure with someone for whom I have such great respect.
This bill makes a simple technical correction to Federal law. Under
the legislation, financial institutions are no longer required to mail
duplicative and confusing privacy notifications every year when no
changes have been made to the policy. Privacy information must be made
available on the company website, and financial institutions must send
paper copies to consumers upon request.
Under this legislation, companies are required to provide a toll-free
number so customers can request the policy at any time.
Additionally, consumers will be reminded of their right to opt out of
information-sharing when they receive their bills. If you are like me,
you throw away these documents. They are confusing, dense, and full of
fine-print legalese. I can never tell if anything has changed, and I am
a lawyer.
This legislation will ensure that consumers are alerted of changes
and will no longer be inundated with junk mail.
This measure will also help companies provide better service to their
customers. Some companies spend over $2 million annually on these
mailings--money that could be put to better use making more car loans
or perhaps even lowering the cost of their product.
During a recent hearing on this bill, a community banker told us
about a similar provision that had passed for banks last year. He spoke
about how positive it had been for his community and his customers. He
took the money he would have spent on postage and paper and gave it
back to the community in the form of more loans. This, in turn, helped
people start new businesses, create more jobs, and even resulted in a
few mortgages being made to purchase new homes.
I believe every Member should support getting rid of outdated,
unnecessary regulations. This bill will allow those who lend money when
we buy a new car to realize the same savings and efficiencies as banks.
Not only will this legislation reduce unnecessary costs, it will
improve transparency and accountability, and ensure individuals better
understand when a company has actually changed its privacy policy.
A few minutes ago, the ranking member spoke in opposition to this
bill. I am not sure what bill she read, but it was not H.R. 2396. The
bill in no way puts consumers' privacy information at risk. It in no
way denies consumers important privacy protections. It in no way has
anything to do with Equifax. It has nothing to do with Wells Fargo. It
has nothing to do with servicemembers having their cars improperly
repossessed. It has nothing to do with consumer profiling. It has
nothing to do with fraud. And--she didn't bring it up--it has nothing
to do with the President's tax returns.
This bill should have been on the suspension calendar. There are only
two groups that can oppose this bill: the United States Postal Service,
because it is going to mean less business for them; and, as the
chairman mentioned, paper mills.
The ranking member did, in fact, offer an amendment. The amendment
was so convoluted that if I was a bank, a financial institution, or a
car lender, I would prefer to do the mailings, because the amendment,
at the end of the day, was really just a haven for class action lawyers
to file frivolous lawsuits when someone didn't put something on their
website exactly as outlined in the amendment.
This is a pro-consumer piece of legislation. I have letters from the
American Financial Services Association, the National Bankers
Association, the American Bankers Association, the Consumer Bankers
Association, and the National Association of Minority Automobile
Dealers. I also have a letter signed by the Ford Motor Credit Company,
General Motors Financial Company, Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation,
Toyota Financial Services, and VW Credit in support of H.R. 2396.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record these letters.
American Financial
Services Association,
Washington, DC, April 20, 2017.
Hon. Dave Trott,
Washington, DC.
Dear Rep. Trott: The American Financial Services
Association (AFSA) supports the ``Privacy Notification
Technical Clarification Act,'' which amends the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act (GLBA) to update the exception for certain annual
notices provided by financial institutions.
The GLBA requires financial institutions (FIs) to issue
privacy notices to consumers if the FIs share consumers' non-
public personal information with affiliates or third parties.
[[Page H9908]]
Such disclosures are required to occur when a relationship is
first established between the FI and the consumer, as well as
annually in written form as long as the relationship
continues, even if no changes to the disclosure policies have
occurred.
Annual privacy notices without policy changes are
redundant, unnecessary, and confusing. They contain several
pages of small-print legalese, which have little value for
consumers. In fact, they are largely discarded--unread--
immediately upon receipt. However, producing and mailing
these notices costs millions of dollars.
In the fall of 2014, the CFPB finalized a rule allowing FIs
to post their annual privacy notices online instead of
delivering them individually if they meet a series of
conditions, including not sharing the consumers' nonpublic
personal information with unaffiliated third parties. In
December 2015, Congress went further by enacting an outright
exemption from the mailing requirement for FIs that: (1) do
not share non-public personal information about consumers to
unaffiliated third parties, and (2) have not changed its
disclosure policies and practices since the most recent
disclosure was sent to consumers.
Unfortunately, certain FIs cannot take advantage of the
exemption. We ask Congress to pass the Privacy Notification
Technical Clarification Act to level the playing field for
all FIs. If a financial institution's privacy policy has not
materially changed, the institution should be permitted to
satisfy the intent of GLBA by delivering its privacy notice
through an electronic medium, or by mail upon request.
Sincerely,
Bill Himpler,
Executive Vice President.
____
National Bankers Association,
Washington, DC, December 12, 2017.
Hon. William Lacy Clay,
Washington, DC.
Hon. David Trott,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Clay and Trott: On behalf of the
National Bankers Association (NBA), I write to express our
member banks' support for H.R. 2396, the Privacy Notification
Technical Corrections Act. The NBA is the nation's leading
trade organization for the country's minority and women-owned
depository institutions. We write in support of H.R. 2396
because our member banks believe updating the delivery of
privacy notices should be modernize and reflective of the
technological choices available to institutions and
customers. As you are aware, the CFPB and Congress have made
changes to the privacy notification process in 2014 and 2015.
These changes excluded specific financial institutions and we
believe a simple method for alternative delivery for these
companies is warranted.
Producing and mailing privacy notices costs millions of
dollars. Eliminating the requirement would reduce the cost of
delivering financial services, save paper and discontinue
this annual nuisance. At the same time, it would also make
the mailings more significant to the consumer because they
would only come after a change in policy. The primary
function of the annual notice is to remind consumers of their
right to opt out of information-sharing for marketing
purposes, but it is not obvious that mailing a paper
disclosure is the most effective or reliable medium for
accomplishing this objective.
H.R. 2396 is a sensible and balanced approach that enjoys
broad bipartisan support, that we believe addresses concerns
shared by our bankers regarding the need for modernization in
the delivery of privacy notifications. We commend you for
your leadership on this important issue, and we would urge
your colleagues to support this legislation.
Respectfully,
Michael A. Grant,
President, National Bankers Association.
____
H.R. 2396, the Privacy Notification Technical Clarification
Act, a bipartisan bill introduced by Rep. David Trott (MI)
and Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee
Ranking Member William Lacy Clay Jr. (MO) and the substitute
language, would simplify the notice requirements for
financial institutions that have not changed their privacy
policies. In addition to the relief provided by the FAST Act
for financial institutions that only share information within
the statutory exceptions, it would create a simple disclosure
mechanism using the Internet for financial institutions that
have not changed their privacy practices. The ABA supports
H.R. 2396.
H.R. 2706, the Financial Institution Customer Protection
Act. This legislation, as introduced by House Financial
Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee Chairman Blaine
Luetkemeyer would dictate that federal banking agencies could
not request nor order a financial institution to terminate a
banking relationship unless the regulator has material
reason. The legislation further states that account
termination requests or orders would be required to be made
in writing and rely on information other than reputational
risk. We thank Chairman Luetkemeyer for his attention to this
issue as he well knows that banks are in the business of
providing financial services for law-abiding customers, and
they share a common goal with law enforcement of maintaining
the integrity of the payments system. If there is reasonable
concern regarding a customer, it works best when banks work
together with our regulatory agencies and law enforcement.
This legislation supports that concept. The ABA supports H.R.
2706.
H.R. 2954, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act.
This legislation, as introduced by Rep. Tom Emmer (MN), would
provide community banks with relief from compliance burdens
that are ill-suited and unnecessary for community banks.
Specifically, the bill exempts small banks and credit
unions from new reporting requirements of the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act (HMDA) if they are lenders that have
originated 1,000 or fewer closed-end mortgages in each of the
two preceding calendar years or are lenders that have
originated 2,000 or fewer open-end lines of credit (such as a
typical home equity loan) in each of the two preceding
calendar years. Additionally, the bill repeals the HMDA
amendments included in the Dodd-Frank Act and withdraws the
CFPB's rule to impose the new and modified HMDA data points
scheduled to take effect in January of next year.
The pending HMDA changes were imposed after the financial
crisis. Although well-intentioned, the new reporting
requirements were overly broad in their coverage and have the
potential to add significant cost and regulatory burden, as
well as privacy concerns for customers, to small institutions
which have an excellent track record of fairly and honestly
serving their customers' needs.
So great is the cost of compliance with these new
regulations that many smaller banks may be forced to
reconsider their ability to continue to make mortgage and
other covered loans. H.R. 2954 provides needed relief to keep
more lending options available in the markets that these
banks serve. The ABA supports H.R. 2954.
____
H.R. 3299, the ``Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act of 2017''
The decision by the Second Circuit Court in the Madden v.
Midland Funding, LLC case undermined a long-standing legal
principle, the ``valid-when-made'' doctrine, which
establishes that if a loan is valid when it is made with
respect to its interest rate then it cannot become invalid or
unenforceable when assigned to another party. CBA strongly
supports H.R. 3329 that solidifies the ``valid-when-made''
doctrine, which has been a cornerstone of U.S. banking law
for over 100 years and prevent uncertainty for financial
institutions.
H.R. 2706, the ``Financial Institution Customer Protection Act of
2017''
CBA strongly supports H.R. 2706, the ``Financial
Institution Customer Protection Act,'' that would require
federal banking regulatory agencies to establish requirements
for the termination of bank accounts and prohibit federal
banking regulators from formally or informally suggesting,
requesting, or ordering a depository institution to terminate
a customer account except in circumstances affecting the
security of our country or specific illegal activity.
H.R. 2396, the ``Privacy Notification Technical Clarification Act''
CBA supports H.R. 2396, the Privacy Notification Technical
Correction Act, to reduce unnecessary paperwork by
streamlining the reporting of bank privacy policies.
Specifically, H.R. 2396 would relieve a bank of its annual
privacy policy notice requirement if it has not changed its
policies and practices, makes its current policy publically
available, notifies customers of the availability of the
notice on periodic billing statements or electronically, and
posts all notices if it maintains more than one policy.
Conclusion
CBA stands ready to work with Congress to ensure a sound
regulatory framework for financial institutions and promote
competition in the financial marketplace. On behalf of the
members of CBA, we appreciate the opportunity to submit this
letter in support of a number of legislative proposals that
would ease regulatory burdens and provide greater access to
capital for consumers.
____
National Association of
Minority Automobile Dealers,
Largo, MD, December 12, 2017.
Hon. David Trott,
Washington, DC.
Hon. William Lacy Clay,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Trott and Clay: On behalf of the
National Association of Minority Automobile Dealers (NAMAD),
I write to express our members support for H.R. 2396, the
Privacy Notification Technical Corrections Act. NAMAD is the
nation's leading trade organization for the country's ethnic
minority dealers. Our primary objective is to pursue the
meaningful presence and participation of minority businesses
and diverse employees across all aspects of the automotive
economic sector, including:
Increasing the number of minority-owned dealerships in
communities across America.
Advocating workplace and supplier diversity in the
automotive manufacturing environment.
Supporting minority engagement in the automotive retail
sales and service sectors.
We write in support of H.R. 2396 because it is a sensible
and balanced approach that enjoys broad bipartisan support,
which we believe addresses concerns related to modernizing
the delivery of privacy notifications shared by the indirect
auto financing companies that work with our dealers as well
as
[[Page H9909]]
those dealers that also provide in-house financing of their
own directly to consumers.
As you all know, the CFPB and Congress have made changes to
the privacy notification process in 2014 and 2015. These
changes excluded specific financial institutions and we
believe a simple method for alternative delivery for these
companies is warranted. Eliminating this requirement would
reduce the cost of delivering financial services, save paper,
and discontinue this annual nuisance. At the same time, it
would also make the mailings more significant to the consumer
because they would only come after a change in policy. The
primary function of the annual notice is to remind consumers
of their right to opt out of information-sharing for
marketing purposes, but it is not obvious that mailing a
paper disclosure is the most effective or reliable medium for
accomplishing this objective.
NAMAD appreciates the commonsense solution proposed in H.R.
2396 as our members believe the delivery of privacy notices
should be modernized and reflective of the current suite of
technological choices available to institutions and
customers. We commend you for your leadership on this
important issue, and we would urge your colleagues to support
this legislation.
Sincerely,
Damon Lester,
President.
____
December 13, 2017.
Dear Member of Congress: The undersigned vehicle financial
institutions (FIs), consisting of captive finance companies
directly affiliated with a manufacturer and who engage in
dealer facilitated financing or indirect auto financing, are
pleased to express our support for H.R. 2396, the Privacy
Notification Technical Clarification Act. We thank
Representatives David Trott (R-MI) and William Lacy Clay, Jr.
(D-MO) for introducing commonsense legislation to amend the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) by updating the exception for
certain annual notices provided by vehicle FIs to allow for
an electronic delivery mechanism. We urge Members of Congress
to support this important bipartisan legislation.
The GLBA requires FIs to issue privacy notices to consumers
if the FIs share consumers' non-public personal information
with affiliates or unaffiliated third parties. These
disclosures are required to be sent annually by mail, even if
no changes to the policy have occurred. Unfortunately, annual
privacy notices without policy changes are redundant,
unnecessary, and confusing to our consumers. They contain
several pages of small-print legalese, which have little
value for consumers. In fact, they are largely discarded--
unread--immediately upon receipt. However, producing and
mailing these notices is financially costly and time
consuming.
For background, in December 2015, Congress provided for an
outright exemption from the mailing requirement for FIs that:
(1) do not share non-public personal information about
consumers to unaffiliated third parties, and (2) have not
changed disclosure policies and practices since the most
recent disclosure was sent to consumers. Unfortunately,
vehicle FIs remain unable to even utilize an electronic
delivery mechanism for these notices.
We ask members of the House of Representatives to pass H.R.
2396 to help level the playing field. Specifically, if a
vehicle FI's privacy policy has not materially changed, the
company should be permitted to satisfy the intent of GLBA by
delivering its privacy notice through an electronic medium,
or by mail upon request. The legislation also includes a
requirement that a website address or toll-free number would
be included in regular communications to consumers, such as
monthly statements, as well as a description of where to
locate procedures for the consumer to opt-out at any time.
This would ensure that our consumers have ready access to
privacy policies 365 days a year, including a paper notice if
they choose to receive it.
We respectfully request your support in favor of H.R. 2396.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ford Motor Credit Company.
General Motors Financial Company, Inc.
Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation.
Toyota Financial Service.
VW Credit, Inc.
Mr. TROTT. Mr. Speaker, it will lower the costs for these companies,
which will help consumers obtain more loans. This is a bipartisan,
commonsense piece of legislation with true community benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H.R. 2396.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), a senior member of the
Financial Services Committee and the ranking member of the Small
Business Committee.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to thank
Ranking Member Waters for her extraordinary leadership on these issues.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2396, the Privacy
Notification Technical Clarification Act.
This bill claims to amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to exempt
vehicle finance companies from providing customers with annual privacy
statements if the company hasn't released recently changed its policies
and practices and the company makes its policy available online.
But this bill goes far beyond providing a small exemption and
tailored flexibility to captives and vehicle finance companies, as the
proponents of this bill will have you believe, and something I am
really ready to support. This bill will exempt all financial
institutions from providing customers with annual privacy notices.
As currently drafted, under the bill, financial institutions such as
payday lenders, check cash servicers, and large institutions like Wells
Fargo are exempted from providing annual privacy notices and are
unconstrained on who they can share their customers' personal
information with. This goes far beyond the original intent of the bill.
As we have seen in the growing number of data breaches at companies
like Equifax, the protection of consumers' personal information is
something Congress must consider carefully.
While I continue to think that it makes sense for captive auto
finance companies to have some degree of flexibility, to the extent
they only share customers' personal information with the dealership,
this legislation is far too broad.
Mr. Speaker, to that end, I ask my colleagues to oppose this measure.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Financial Services
Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
his diligent work on this issue. I also thank Chairman Hensarling from
Texas for all of the leadership that he has given us throughout the
year on this particular issue as well.
Several years ago, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and I
introduced bipartisan legislation to require depository institutions to
provide privacy information to their customers only if they had changed
any policy or practice related to that customer's privacy. That bill
was ultimately signed into law by President Obama. It has eliminated
millions of confusing and often-ignored mailings that cost millions of
dollars to produce each year.
While our legislation provided relief to banks and credit unions, it
did not extend relief to other financial companies regulated under the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act; namely, captive finance companies that operate
in a manner largely similar to depository institutions.
The safeguards featured in the bill from the 114th Congress and
codified into law are included in Mr. Trott's bill. This relief will
not be granted to a financial company that has changed its policies or
practices with regard to disclosure of nonpublic personal information;
only if it kept it the same.
There is also a requirement that the privacy notice must be made
available to consumers in a variety of ways. Consumers will continue to
have access to privacy notices through online resources and billing
statements.
Requirements for financial institutions to release annual privacy
notices to customers, even when no changes have been made, are both
redundant and a waste of resources. With the passage of this bill,
information included in these mailings would likely be more significant
to the consumer because they would only come after a change in privacy
policy.
Mr. Speaker, this is about accountability for the institution to
their customer for holding that information. It is about access for the
customer to their own information, with regards to privacy of it. A
good example, as pointed out by the ranking member, was Equifax. But
let's stop and talk about Equifax for a second.
{time} 0945
What happened? They had, I believe, the largest breach in history,
150 million people.
Mr. Speaker, there is probably you and I and everybody in this room
and probably the 12 people watching right
[[Page H9910]]
now who are affected by this, but I guarantee you that you and I and
all in this room and the 12 people watching, nobody kept their privacy
notices that were sent out last year, did we? They are all in file 13
somewhere, long forgotten, and all of the information in those privacy
notices is forgotten about and not even probably read to begin with.
So it is important. The gentleman's bill here has in here that the
privacy notice can be accessed online. And in the Equifax breach,
anybody who was concerned could then go online and check for the
privacy policies of Equifax and see what the policies were and whether
they were adhered to by the company itself in notifying them, in taking
care of their concerns, in reimbursing them. Whatever was in the notice
was in that online notice as well. So it provided that access, which
the consumer is not going to have in a piece of paper. That is probably
going to get in file 13.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, when I was home last weekend, I got one
of those things. You know what, I looked at it, opened the envelope,
and said: ``I don't want to read this.'' I threw it away. This is
nonsense. This is a waste of time and resources.
And, in this situation with the Equifax breach, I think this bill
points out the great things that can happen if you enact this
legislation from the standpoint of allowing consumers to have access,
24/7, to the notifications and the privacy policies.
Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the gentleman from Michigan for
picking up the mantle on this issue, and I ask my colleagues to join me
in supporting H.R. 2396. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
bringing the bill before us today.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I have heard, more than once, Members speaking for consumers, saying:
These privacy notices are not that important. Nobody reads them. They
throw them in the wastebasket.
Well, I don't know how Members would know that, and I don't think
that we should be satisfied that consumers are being represented that
way with indications that they don't really care about these notices
and the opportunity to opt out so that their information won't be
shared.
But let me tell you what consumers are saying to us. I have, here,
letters that have been sent by consumer organizations that really do
care about what is happening with this bill today, and I would like to
share that information with you.
Let me just tell you who these consumer organizations are and whom
they represent:
There is Americans for Financial Reform. Americans for Financial
Reform is a nonpartisan and nonprofit coalition of more than 200 civil
rights, consumer, labor, business, investor, faith-based, civic, and
community groups formed in the wake of the 2008 crisis, working to lay
the foundation for a strong, stable, and ethical financial system, one
that serves the economy and the Nation as a whole.
Then there is Allied Progress. Allied Progress is a consumer watchdog
organization that uses hard-hitting research to stand up to Wall Street
and powerful special interests and hold their allies in Congress and
the White House accountable.
Then there is Center for Digital Democracy. The Center for Digital
Democracy is recognized as one of the leading consumer protection and
privacy organizations in the United States; and since its founding in
2001 and, prior to that, through its predecessor organization, the
Center for Media Education, CDD has been at the forefront of research,
public education, and advocacy, protecting consumers in the digital
age.
Then there is Consumer Action. Through multilingual financial
education materials, community outreach, and issue-focused advocacy,
Consumer Action empowers underrepresented consumers, nationwide, to
assert their rights in the marketplace and to financially prosper.
There is the Consumer Federation of America. The Consumer Federation
of America is an association of nonprofit consumer organizations that
was established way back in 1968 to advance consumer interests through
research, advocacy, and education. Today, nearly 300 of these groups
participate in the federation and govern it through their
representatives on the organization's board of directors. CFA is a
research, advocacy, education, and service organization.
Then there is Consumer Watchdog. Consumer Watchdog is a nonprofit
organization dedicated to providing an effective voice for taxpayers
and consumers in an era when special interests dominate public
discourse, government, and politics, and they describe themselves as
deploying an in-house team of public interest lawyers, policy experts,
strategists, and grassroots activists to expose, confront, and change
corporate and political injustice in every way, every day, saving
Americans billions of dollars and improving countless lives. For
decades, Consumer Watchdog has been the Nation's most aggressive
consumer advocate, taking on politicians of both parties and the
special interests that fund them.
Then there is the National Association of Consumer Advocates. The
National Association of Consumer Advocates is a nonprofit association
of more than 1,500 attorneys and consumer advocates committed to
representing consumers' interests. Our members, they say, are private
and public sector attorneys, legal services attorneys, law professors,
and law students whose primary focus is the protection and
representation of consumers. They have represented hundreds of
thousands of consumers victimized by fraudulent, abusive, and predatory
business practices.
As a national organization fully committed to promoting justice for
consumers, NACA's members and their clients are actively engaged in
promoting a fair and open marketplace that forcefully protects the
rights of consumers, particularly those of modest means. NACA also has
a charitable and educational fund incorporated under 501(c)(3).
There is another very prominent consumer organization, the National
Consumer Law Center, working on behalf of low-income clients. Since
1969, the nonprofit National Consumer Law Center has used its expertise
in consumer law and energy policy to work for consumer justice and
economic security for low-income and other disadvantaged people,
including older adults in the United States. This organization's
expertise includes policy analysis and advocacy, consumer law and
energy publications, litigation, expert witness services, and training
and advice for advocates.
This organization works with nonprofit and legal services
organizations, private attorneys, policymakers, and Federal and State
government and courts across the Nation to stop exploitative practices,
help financially stressed families build and retain wealth, and advance
economic fairness.
Then there is Privacy Times. Privacy Times is the leading
subscription-only newsletter covering privacy and freedom of
information law and policy. It is read largely by attorneys and
professionals who must stay abreast of the legislation, litigation, and
executive branch activities, as well as consumer news, technology
trends, and business developments. Since 1981, Privacy Times has
provided its readers with accurate reporting, objective analysis, and
thoughtful insight into the events that shape the ongoing debate over
privacy and freedom of information.
Then there is the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. Privacy Rights
Clearinghouse, a nonprofit consumer education and advocacy organization
located in San Diego, California, their mission is to engage, educate,
and empower consumers to protect their privacy. They engage in
outreach, provide educational materials and services to individuals
nationwide, and have an active media presence. The PRC uses the
information we learn directly, they say, from consumers to form the
basis of their advocacy work.
Then there is Public Citizen. Public Citizen has a team of
researchers. They uncover the facts. Their staff brings their findings
to the public through the media as well as one-on-one interactions.
Their advocates bring the voice of the public to the halls of power on
behalf of consumers.
Then there is Public Knowledge. Public Knowledge promotes freedom of
expression and open internet and access to affordable communication
tools and
[[Page H9911]]
creative works. They work to shape policy on behalf of the public
interest.
Then there is Reinvestment Partners. Reinvestment Partners' mission
is to advocate for economic justice and opportunity. They do this by
providing direct services to people, revitalizing places, and
advocating for just policies. Founded as a project of Legal Services in
1986 as the Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina, the
agency has worked to ensure fair lending to underserved communities in
order to build and protect wealth. In 2012, they changed their name to
recognize the expanded diversity of their programs and their local and
State and national outreach.
And then there is U.S. PIRG. U.S. PIRG is an advocate for the public
interest, working to win concrete results on real problems that affect
millions of lives and standing up for the public against powerful
interests when they push the other way. They say: ``The problems we
face don't care if you are liberal or conservative, if you live in a
red or blue State. They affect each and every one of us.'' That is why,
for decades, they have taken a nonpartisan, facts-driven, results-
oriented approach to their work.
Mr. Speaker, I do not like hearing that our consumers don't care,
that they don't need a yearly notification about their privacy rights,
that they simply throw this information that describes their rights
into the wastebasket; and I am so pleased that, over the years and
through the history of this Nation when too many consumers have been
ignored, taken advantage of, didn't know what their rights were, all of
these organizations that I have taken time to share with you today work
on behalf of consumers. They work not only in organizing and educating,
but they send this information to their Members of Congress. All of
these organizations have sent in this information not only about their
backgrounds, but about this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say I hope
that schoolchildren from around the Nation have been listening to this
debate because they would be educated on the House version of the
filibuster.
I thought that the ranking member was going to break out the
Washington, D.C., phone book and begin to read from it. It was a
fascinating discussion of a litany of Washington-based special interest
groups. I know they appreciated the shout-out; I know it will help them
in their fundraising efforts; but it has absolutely nothing--nothing--
to do with the bill that we are debating, nothing to do with the bill
that we are debating.
{time} 1000
So the ranking member said how important it is that consumers receive
an annual--an annual--notice of the privacy policies of financial
institutions. Well, under this bill, H.R. 2396, they don't get it
annually, they get it monthly. They get it weekly. They get it daily.
They get it hourly.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
In fact, under H.R. 2396, the privacy notification must be
continuous. It has to be put on the website. This helps the consumer.
The consumer has access 24/7 to the privacy notification under the
gentleman from Michigan's bill, as opposed to the status quo being
defended by my friends on the other side of the aisle, who say, once a
year--once a year--you ought to get a piece of paper that is probably
going to end up in the round file anyway.
Again, Mr. Speaker, this debate has nothing to do with the privacy
policies of financial institutions. It has everything to do with the
notification of such policies. What we provide for is the continuous
notification; and should that policy change, then, and only then, does
that necessitate the killing of trees.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Loudermilk), an outstanding member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding time so that I can speak, and not just in support of this
legislation, but in strong support of the legislation by my colleague
and friend from Michigan (Mr. Trott).
In the short time I have been in Congress, Mr. Speaker, one thing I
have come to realize, there are some people in this Chamber who never
met a regulation that they didn't like. Regardless of how effective or
ineffective or misguided that regulation is, or how outdated the
regulation is, they always just want to hold on to a piece of
government regulation.
I, too, appreciate the ranking member for going through the litany of
mission statements of special interest groups here in Washington, D.C.
But this is precisely what the American people are tired of. They are
tired of the Washington, D.C., swamp. They are tired of the special
interests, and they want legislation that affects them personally. This
piece of legislation will affect millions of Americans directly.
Now, I am not just speaking today from prepared remarks, which I
have, but I am speaking from someone with experience in this area. I
spent 30 years, Mr. Speaker, in the IT services business. Ten of those
years I spent protecting some of our Nation's secrets, through military
intelligence, and then working in the defense industry. Twenty of those
years I had my own business, and we were responsible for protecting the
sensitive information of businesses and their customers. So I am well
versed in the idea of protection, and, as a constitutional
conservative, I am very sensitive to privacy protection.
This piece of legislation is commonsense legislation. It is exactly
what the American people want us to pass, and I can give you some great
examples of why, because one of the aspects of security, especially
data security, is being continually aware of the threat.
Now, what happens--and I remember when this happened. I was still in
my IT business when the original legislation was passed; and all of a
sudden, I am receiving a privacy notice of what my rights are, and,
unlike most Americans, I sat down and actually read all of it.
Now, where the confusion came in is when, a year later, I receive
another one, and then I receive another one, and I am literally
comparing the two to see what has changed, and I find out that nothing
has changed.
So what was the reaction after that? Every time I get a notice in a
big envelope, instead of just a bank statement, I would just take it
and throw it in the trash, not knowing if something has actually
changed, which would be important.
Now, Mr. Luetkemeyer, another colleague of mine on the Financial
Services Committee, passed a bill 2 years ago to provide correction to
that problem. All Mr. Trott's bill is doing now is expanding that to
other industries.
This is a consumer protection bill because now, if someone in those
industries, if there is a change, they receive a notice, they know that
there has been a change.
But, as the chairman has pointed out time and time again, this is
actually going to give more immediate access to know what the privacy
policy is of financial institutions, to identify if there have been any
changes because they can go online to see it. I mean, you can get that
instantaneous with these devices that almost everyone carries. It is
time to bring us up into the current century and the technology that we
have.
So I commend my colleague on actually bringing commonsense
legislation, the type of legislation that Americans want, that
consumers want. They want to know what their rights are, but they don't
want to be inundated with useless information continually, over and
over again, because then they would actually not be aware of what their
rights are and what has changed.
Now, this is especially beneficial to Georgia because Georgia has
become an auto manufacturing hub. And as we continue to grow this
economy, and more people--I believe in the next few days, when we pass
this tax bill, you are going to see a rise in people buying
automobiles. Why? Because they are going to have more money in their
back pocket. They are going to spend more money, and they are going to
be taking out more loans.
So we need to make sure that they know immediately what their privacy
rights are, and this bill will make it to where those will be available
online.
[[Page H9912]]
This simply makes--it right-sizes government by making government
smarter, more effective, and, actually, that the regulation is tailored
toward the consumer, not toward the special interest groups and the
trial lawyers in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation. I urge my
colleagues to join me in a favorable vote for this.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Again, it is interesting how my colleagues on the opposite side of
the aisle describe their consumers. These are people, they say, who
don't want to be inundated with useless information. They are saying
that the privacy information is of no use.
It is interesting that Mr. Loudermilk said he read his privacy
notice, unlike most other Americans who don't read their privacy
notice. I think that is very interesting to describe himself as someone
who read his privacy notice, but able to speak for all other Americans
who don't read their privacy notice.
What is very interesting also about his comments is he refers to the
consumer groups as special interests, while he is representing the
banks and the financial institutions, the real special interests.
Why is it Representatives who come to this Congress to represent
people who vote for them somehow see their responsibility to protect
the real special interests, such as the financial institutions who have
lobbyists running up and down these Halls every day, who make
contributions to Members of Congress, rather than the consumers who are
represented by the kinds of groups that I have taken time to describe
here this morning, because these individuals and the average citizen do
not have paid lobbyists from financial institutions and banks
representing them here.
So it is also interesting that Mr. Loudermilk talked about how many
of these consumers are going to be buying automobiles because of the
tax fraud bill that he is referring to that is being advanced by the
opposite side of the aisle. The only thing that bill is going to do for
consumers, which will hurt our economy, is create a $1.5 trillion debt.
Well, he said that consumers were going to be buying more cars. Yeah,
the wealthy will be, the ones who are given the breaks in this tax
bill. The wealthy may be buying more automobiles, but the very people
who are represented by these consumers that I have shared the
information on this morning, they won't be able to buy automobiles
because they are going to be harmed. It is only the wealthy, only those
who are making extraordinary amounts of money, and corporations, that
are going to benefit from the tax bill.
I don't even know how and why he talked about it in the same breath
that we are talking about our consumers being able to be respected with
privacy information that they would get because we have laws that give
them the right to have this information.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Trott), the sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. TROTT. Mr. Speaker, we are having an argument here about a bill
that has strong bipartisan support. When you boil it all down, the
argument is pretty simple, and the question for us to consider this
morning, and I would submit we have more important things to work on
than that question, but that is what we are debating this morning, so
let's consider it.
The question we are arguing about is: Do consumers, when they get
their mail and they find an envelope filled with 30 pages of small-
print legalese, boilerplate language, do they open up that envelope and
pour themselves a cup of coffee and settle in--we have 9 inches of snow
today back in Michigan, so they settle in next to a fire and spend the
next 2 hours reading that privacy notice? That is the question.
The ranking member has been quite critical of the speeches that have
been given this morning, submitting that people do read these notices,
and who are we to judge whether people read these notices.
We are not making judgment, we are just submitting, on a commonsense
basis, an argument that people don't read these notices; people throw
these notices away. And that logic and common sense would dictate that
if the privacy notice changes, and a new notice arrives, and the
consumer realizes, gosh, I got a new privacy notice because the policy
changed; I don't get it when the policy doesn't change; I'd better read
this. If they are ever going to read it, that is the time they are
going to read it.
But if the ranking member is correct in her analysis, and that
millions of consumers are waiting by the mailbox each and every day so
that they can study, dissect, compare, and contrast these privacy
notices, then she is correct. This bill would add an extra step
because, instead of going to the mailbox, they would have to click on
the website or perhaps call a toll-free number and have the document
mailed to them. So if that burden is more important, because people are
reading these notices, then her arguments are compelling.
Now, let's examine all those groups that she spent so much time
telling us about this morning, all those proconsumer watchdog groups.
All those groups are interested in one thing. They are interested in
making sure the laws are as complicated and convoluted as possible
because all those groups, including the ranking member, believe,
incorrectly, all business is bad; all banks are bad; we have to make it
as convoluted and as complicated as possible so that class action
lawyers can find a reason to file frivolous lawsuits to sue them,
because that is what consumers need.
That is illogical because when these class action lawsuits and all
these convoluted regulations get placed on the books and the banks have
to hire hundreds of lawyers to deal with compliance, who do you think
pays for that? The consumer pays for it.
So this bill saves a little money, saves a few trees. Maybe we will
have a few more forests for our grandchildren. It is a simple bill, and
I feel bad for some of the Democrats, the 20 in our committee----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. I yield the gentleman from Michigan an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. TROTT. I feel bad for all those Democrats who support this bill
because, apparently, they are against consumers, too. This bill has got
nothing to do with any of the arguments that the ranking member has
proffered this morning. I ask for strong support for H.R. 2396.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no other
Members, so I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
It is very simple. The consumer groups that I took time to help
people to understand who they are and what they do, representing the
consumers, are the folks who are concerned about people knowing their
rights. This is what they work at doing.
Those of us who align ourselves with consumer groups care about the
average citizen. We care that the average citizen gets the kind of
information that is going to make their lives much easier.
The people on the opposite side of the aisle represent banks and
financial institutions. We are not opposed to business, and we work
with businesses in various ways.
{time} 1015
We are opposed to rip-offs. We are opposed to fraud. We are opposed
to denying consumers the opportunity to know their rights.
But those Members of Congress who come here and basically mimic and
mock the consumers by talking about those consumers who wait by their
mailboxes for privacy information certainly are not representing the
citizens of their district.
I can tell you this: When you take a look at who the real special
interests are, who is representing the interests of the special
interests, who in this House stands up for banks, financial
institutions, and Wall Street and hedge funds, you look at the opposite
side of the aisle, time and time again, and you will find them putting
all of their time and their effort into representing those special
interests.
For those of us who stand on the side of the average citizen, yes, we
align
[[Page H9913]]
ourselves with consumer groups. No, we don't dismiss them as
unnecessary people just messing around in the business of big business.
These are the representatives, again, of people who don't have fancy
lobbyists walking these Halls and following the Members of Congress,
getting into their area and influencing them.
Mr. Speaker, I stand today with our consumers. I applaud all of our
consumer groups and I stand on the side of our consumers being able to
know their rights and all of the work that went into providing this
opportunity in law. I stand with them and I resist any effort by the
opposite side of the aisle to deny the right of our citizens to be
notified about their rights and their ability to opt out if they do not
want their information shared with these unaffiliated groups.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud. I know that we are doing what our
citizens want us to do, why they sent us to this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, there have been several surreal moments on the House
floor this week, and today certainly is one more of them.
The debate today is not between regulation and deregulation, but in
many respects, the debate is between smart regulation and dumb
regulation. What we have today is a dumb regulation that forces a
number of financial institutions annually to send out a paper
notification even if they don't change their privacy policy; cut down
trees, engage an expense--by the way, an expense that, my guess is,
doesn't come out of executive bonuses, but probably comes out of the
credit availability and the credit cost to the customer. It gets passed
on to the consumer.
What we are also having a debate about--and I would encourage all my
friends on the other side of the aisle, if in doubt, read the bill.
In this particular case, guess what, Mr. Speaker. It is a 2-page
bill. It really doesn't take that long to read. If you read it, what
you will find out is that this is a bill that is pro-consumer because
we go from a notification that happens once a year to a continuous
notification. We improve the consumer notification by ensuring that it
is consistently on the website of the financial institution.
What we hear from the ranking member is: No. I want to stay in the
20th century. Gramm-Leach-Bliley is a law from the 20th century.
But, Mr. Speaker, we are in the 21st century. Why don't we ensure
that the privacy notification for the consumer is actually on the
website?
This is what is truly pro-consumer, not forcing people to go and
subsidize the paper mills and the U.S. Postal Service by sending out a
notification on paper that doesn't change anything and merely confuses
consumers. If you are really pro-consumer, then try to respect their
markets and try not to pass additional cost on to them.
Again, regardless of what you have heard from the other side of the
aisle, this is everything to do with how we notify people of privacy
policies, not the underlying privacy policy itself. It is 21st century.
It is not 20th century. It is pro-consumer, regardless of all the
special interests and Washington, D.C.-based lobbyists that the ranking
member has cited.
The gentleman from Michigan brings us pro-consumer legislation, the
Privacy Notification Technical Clarification Act. I am kind of
embarrassed that we are having to spend this much time debating
something that should have been on our expedited suspension calendar.
It is almost like there is just simply a knee-jerk reaction anytime we
attempt to modify any government regulation.
This is pro-consumer. Frankly, it is pro-environment. Every Member of
the House should embrace H.R. 2396. I am sorry we have had to take up
so much time for it, but there are thousands and thousands of
regulations that hurt our financial institutions, that hurt our
consumers. We are trying to get rid of every dumb one, one at a time.
Again, this should be passing unanimously. I don't understand it, but
I am glad the American people could see this debate for what it is.
Mr. Speaker, again, let's be pro-consumer, let's be pro-community
financial institution, let's be pro-environment, and let's enact H.R.
2396.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Clay
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 11, strike ``financial institution'' and
insert ``vehicle financial company''.
Page 3, line 18, strike ``financial institution'' and
insert ``vehicle financial company''.
Page 3, line 24, strike ``and''.
Page 4, line 1, strike ``financial institution'' and insert
``vehicle financial company''.
Page 4, line 6, strike ``or with'' and insert ``the front
page of''.
Page 4, beginning on line 10, strike ``on its'' and insert
``through a link on the landing page of the company's''.
Page 4, line 13, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 4, after line 13, insert the following:
``(C) the vehicle financial company--
``(i) provides consumers with the ability to opt out,
subject to any exemption or exception provided under
subsection (b)(2) or (e) of section 502 or under regulations
prescribed under section 504(b), of having the consumer's
nonpublic personal information disclosed to a nonaffiliated
third party; and
``(ii) includes a description about where to locate the
procedures for a consumer to select such opt out in each
periodic billing statement sent to the consumer.''.
Page 4, line 15, strike ``financial institution'' and
insert ``vehicle financial company''.
Page 4, line 18, strike ``financial institution'' and
insert ``vehicle financial company''.
Page 4, line 21, strike ``financial institution'' and
insert ``vehicle financial company''.
Add at the end the following:
``(3) Vehicle financial company defined.--For purposes of
this subsection, the term `vehicle financial company' means--
``(A) a financial institution that--
``(i) is regularly engaged in the business of extending
credit for the purchase of vehicles;
``(ii) is affiliated with a vehicle manufacturer; and
``(iii) only shares nonpublic personal information of
consumers with nonaffiliated third parties that are vehicle
dealers; or
``(B) a financial institution that--
``(i) regularly engages in the business of extending credit
for the purchase or lease of vehicles from vehicle dealers;
or
``(ii) purchases vehicle installment sales contracts or
leases from vehicle dealers.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 657, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, the amendment offered makes important changes
to our bill, H.R. 2396, which is a straightforward, commonsense measure
that seeks to streamline the privacy information consumers get from
financial institutions and makes the information available much more
frequently via electronic delivery.
We have been working on what I consider to be a simple but necessary
fix to a 20-year-old law throughout this year, and I believe the
amendment we have presented for your consideration will undoubtedly
benefit consumers. We have worked with our colleagues on the Financial
Services Committee to modify and strengthen the underlying bill, and I
appreciate everyone's efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the committee's ranking
member, Ms. Waters, for her and her staff's efforts to improve our
bill. I consider this amendment to be an effort to improve the
underlying legislation. While Ms. Waters still has some outstanding
concerns, I do appreciate her working with us.
The amendment clarifies the process by which consumers can opt out of
having their information shared with unaffiliated third parties. It
limits the application of the alternative delivery mechanism to vehicle
financial companies--that is simply what the amendment does--rather
than all financial institutions, as defined under the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act and other technical and conforming changes.
Mr. Speaker, we believe these changes make our bill stronger and we
urge the adoption of the amendment.
[[Page H9914]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in
opposition to the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Clay's
effort to make the bill better. He is absolutely correct, we have been
attempting to work together to see if there was a way that we could
deal with the issue at hand and absolutely ensure that our consumers
not only have a right to information that explains to them what their
rights are and how they can opt out when their information is being
sold, really, to unaffiliated organizations.
Mr. Speaker, just in case people are not following exactly what we
are talking about when we talk about opt-out rights, let me draw your
attention to the fact that you oftentimes are receiving loads of mail
in your mailbox, everything from somebody who is selling pet food to
clothing, to services, to all kinds of products, and you don't know why
they are sending you all this junk. Well, they are sending you this
junk because somebody sold your information to all of these
organizations because you didn't know that you had not opted out. You
maybe didn't know what your rights are. But citizens have a right to
have that information, and they have a right to be respected and not
thought to be simply throwing it into the wastebasket.
It doesn't matter whether it is for all businesses in the United
States or just for automobile dealers. It is about every citizen having
the right to have their privacy protected and not having people sell
their information to unaffiliated organizations that will cause them to
be pressured or solicited over and over again and their mailboxes
filled with information because their privacy information has been sold
to one of those unaffiliated organizations.
Mr. Speaker, I think that Mr. Clay is attempting to streamline the
bill. I appreciate the efforts that he has put into attempting to do
this, but this does not correct the problem. This undermines the
efforts of all of these consumer groups that worked for years to get
these notices sent to our consumers.
Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that we have tried and we have worked
and we have listened to each other, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on
the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, just in closing, let me offer some
clarification.
In the fall of 2014, the CFPB finalized a rule allowing financial
institutions to post their annual privacy notices online instead of
delivering them individually if they met a series of conditions,
including not sharing the customer's nonpublic information with
unaffiliated third parties.
In December of 2015, Congress went further by enacting an outright
exemption from the mailing requirement for financial institutions that,
one, do not share nonpublic personal information about a consumer with
unaffiliated third parties; and, two, have not changed its disclosure
policy and practices since the most recent disclosure was sent to
consumers.
{time} 1030
Institutions that provide financing for vehicle purchases or leases
do not meet the criteria set forth by Congress and are, therefore,
required to continue issuing paper privacy notices to consumers.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment helps to improve this bill. It modernizes
this requirement. I just urge the body to adopt the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question
is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay).
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to
recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the
bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Maxine Waters of California moves to recommit the bill
H.R. 2396 to the Committee on Financial Services with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
In subsection (g)(3) of the matter proposed to be inserted
by section 2 of the bill, insert after subparagraph (B) the
following flush-left text: ``For purposes of this subsection,
the term `vehicle financial company' does not include a
financial institution that is engaging or has engaged in a
pattern or practice of unsafe or unsound banking practices
and other violations related to consumer harm.''.
Add at the end the following:
``(4) Additional definitions.--For purposes of this
section:
``(A) Federal consumer financial law.--The term `Federal
consumer financial law' has the meaning given that term under
section 1002 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010
(12 U.S.C. 5481).
``(B) Pattern or practice of unsafe or unsound banking
practices and other violations related to consumer harm.--The
term `pattern or practice of unsafe or unsound banking
practices and other violations related to consumer harm'
means engaging in all of the following activities, to the
extent each activity was discovered or occurred at least once
in the 10 years preceding the date of the enactment of this
Act:
``(i) Having unsafe or unsound practices in the
institution's risk management and oversight of the
institution's sales practices, as evidenced by--
``(I) an institution lacking an enterprise-wide sales
practices oversight program that enables the institution to
adequately monitor sales practices to prevent and detect
unsafe or unsound sales practices and mitigate risks that may
result from such unsafe and unsound sales practices; and
``(II) an institution lacking a comprehensive customer
complaint monitoring process that--
``(aa) enables the institution to assess customer complaint
activity across the institution;
``(bb) adequately monitors, manages, and reports on
customer complaints; and
``(cc) analyzes and understands the potential risks posed
by the institution's sales practices.
``(ii) Engaging in unsafe and unsound sales practices, as
evidenced by the institution--
``(I) opening more than one million unauthorized deposit,
credit card, or other accounts;
``(II) performing unauthorized transfers of customer funds;
and
``(III) performing unauthorized credit inquiries for
purposes of the conduct described in subclause (I) or (II).
``(iii) Lacking adequate oversight of third-party vendors
for purposes of risk-mitigation, to prevent abusive and
deceptive practices in the vendor's provision of consumer
products or services.
``(iv) Having deficient policies and procedures for sharing
customers' personal identifiable information with third-party
vendors for litigation purposes that led to inadvertent
disclosure of such information to unintended parties.
``(v) Violating Federal consumer financial laws with
respect to mortgage loans, including charges of hidden fees
and unauthorized or improper disclosures tied to home
mortgage loan modifications.
``(vi) Engaging in unsafe or unsound banking practices
related to residential mortgage loan servicing and
foreclosure processing.
``(vii) Violating the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.''.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the final
amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to
committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final
passage, as amended.
My motion would prevent institutions that have engaged in a pattern
or practice of unsafe or unsound banking practices and other violations
related to consumer harm from being able to evade important consumer
protections.
When companies repeatedly exhibit indifference to consumer protection
and demonstrate that they are incapable of complying or are unwilling
to comply with U.S. laws and regulations, they should not be allowed to
benefit from those bad actions.
[[Page H9915]]
As I have already mentioned, under this bill, as amended, companies
like Wells Fargo would be free to share or sell customer information
with any company, with minimal reminders to their customers.
We all know that Wells Fargo has engaged in illegal student loan
servicing practices, inappropriate checking accounts, overdraft fees,
unlawful mortgage lending practices, overcharging veterans for
refinanced loans, enrolled customers in life insurance policies without
their consent, delayed mortgage closing dates until after the
expiration of the borrower's interest rate lock to levy additional
fees, and charged over 570,000 customers with auto insurance policies
they did not need, which resulted in at least 20,000 customers,
including Active-Duty servicemembers, having their vehicles
inappropriately repossessed.
Companies like Wells Fargo are why I introduced H.R. 3937, the
Megabank Accountability and Consequences Act, to make sure that lenders
that have engaged in abusive practices face real consequences for their
wrongdoing. It is time we truly hold companies that demonstrate a
pattern of harming consumers accountable. These institutions must no
longer be allowed to abuse hardworking Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of my motion, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, again, I would encourage the ranking
member and all Members on the other side of the aisle to read the
underlying bill. It is 2 pages long. It has now been amended by perhaps
a 1-page amendment. This has nothing to do with Wells Fargo. It has
nothing to do with Equifax. It is limited to the annual paper
notification from auto finance companies, pure and simple.
Again, for those who listened to the earlier debate, the question is
whether or not these auto finance companies are going to be forced to
spend money that comes out of their customers' pockets to send out a
paper notification of privacy policies even when the policy doesn't
change, or whether or not we should modernize into the 21st century and
ensure that there is continuous notification on a website and that a
paper notification only goes out upon a change, an actual change.
What the ranking member is doing with the motion to recommit is once
again empowering the unconstitutional and unaccountable CFPB to engage
in even more activities that harm consumers. It ought to be rejected,
and we ought to ensure that we adopt H.R. 2396 and simplify and
modernize one regulation that is harming consumers and harming
financial institutions.
Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the motion to recommit, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on:
Passage of H.R. 2396, if ordered;
The motion to recommit on H.R. 4324; and
Passage of H.R. 4324, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 185,
nays 235, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 681]
YEAS--185
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--235
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Clay
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--11
Barletta
Blumenauer
Bridenstine
Katko
Kennedy
Knight
Marchant
Moore
Pocan
Visclosky
Walz
{time} 1101
Messrs. FITZPATRICK, BACON, MARSHALL, GROTHMAN, Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER,
and Mr. YOHO changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
[[Page H9916]]
Messrs. CARSON of Indiana, GRIJALVA, DOGGETT, Ms. WILSON of Florida,
Messrs. GUTIERREZ, and CLEAVER changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 275,
nays 146, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 682]
YEAS--275
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barragan
Barton
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Carbajal
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Chabot
Cheney
Clay
Cleaver
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gomez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Hanabusa
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Keating
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Krishnamoorthi
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lawrence
Lewis (MN)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Ruiz
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schneider
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Torres
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Veasey
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--146
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Bass
Beyer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Capuano
Cardenas
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Jones
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kihuen
Kilmer
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Vargas
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Barletta
Blumenauer
Bridenstine
Katko
Kennedy
Marchant
Pocan
Trott
Visclosky
Walz
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1109
Mses. MOORE and WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. DELANEY and KEATING changed their vote from ``nay'' to yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table
____________________