[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5474-5475]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1100
                 ELIMINATE PRIVACY NOTICE CONFUSION ACT

  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 3506) to amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to 
provide an exception from the continuing requirement for annual privacy 
notices for financial institutions which do not share personal 
information with affiliates, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3506

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Eliminate Privacy Notice 
     Confusion Act''.

     SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO ANNUAL PRIVACY NOTICE REQUIREMENT UNDER 
                   THE GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT.

       Section 503 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6803) 
     is amended by adding the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Exception to Annual Notice Requirement.--A financial 
     institution that--
       ``(1) provides nonpublic personal information only in 
     accordance with the provisions of subsection (b)(2) or (e) of 
     section 502 or regulations prescribed under section 504(b); 
     and
       ``(2) has not changed its policies and practices with 
     regard to disclosing nonpublic personal information from the 
     policies and practices that were disclosed in the most recent 
     disclosure sent to consumers in accordance with this 
     subsection,

     shall not be required to provide an annual disclosure under 
     this subsection until such time as the financial institution 
     fails to comply with any criteria described in paragraph (1) 
     or (2).''.

     SEC. 3. BUDGET COMPLIANCE.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory

[[Page 5475]]

     Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference 
     to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
     Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the 
     Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget of the House of Representatives, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Minnesota, Representative 
Erik Paulsen, a member of our Financial Services Committee, as well as 
the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee that I chair. I was 
pleased to introduce H.R. 3506, the Eliminate Privacy Notice Confusion 
Act, with him and our colleague, Representative Peter Roskam, who 
originally introduced this bill in the 110th Congress when he served on 
the Financial Services Committee.
  In the last Congress, Mr. Speaker, this legislation was included in a 
bank and thrift regulatory bill I introduced, which was later included 
in a comprehensive regulatory reform measure this House approved by 
voice vote. But as is too often the case, the Senate failed to act.
  The legislation we consider today will help minimize confusion 
consumers have about their privacy rights regarding two conflicting 
provisions of two prior laws. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 
specifically prohibits subject companies from sharing personal 
information with third parties. Yet the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act still 
requires these firms to provide annual privacy notices that allow 
consumers to opt out of having their information shared with third 
parties. Since this practice is already prohibited by law, these annual 
notices only confuse the consumers that receive them.
  H.R. 3506 will amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to exempt from its 
annual privacy policy notice requirement any financial institution 
which meets several criteria and are already prohibited by the Fair 
Debt Collection Practices Act from sharing personal information with 
third parties. Waiving the privacy notice requirement will reduce 
confusion for consumers who may incorrectly think, by receiving the 
notice, that the companies have the right to share their personal 
information with third parties.
  This should not be confused with the privacy policy financial 
institutions must provide to consumers when they open an account, which 
will be unaffected by this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3506, and I reserve the balance 
of my time, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3506, the Eliminate 
Privacy Notice Confusion Act.
  This bill will help reduce the burden and confusion of privacy notice 
requirements by providing exemption from sending an annual privacy 
notice for those institutions that do not share nonpublic customer 
information with unaffiliated third parties or those that do not change 
their privacy policies at all.
  Under current law, banks and other financial institutions are 
required to send out an annual privacy notification to their customers 
informing them that nothing has changed, and they still do not share 
privacy information. This is often quite very confusing to customers.
  Essentially, under my legislation, financial institutions are 
relieved of an unnecessary and redundant regulatory burden which will 
help lower costs and reduce junk mail that the customers receive in the 
mail every day. It will also lessen confusion to customers because they 
will no longer receive letters informing them that their bank's privacy 
policy has not changed at all.
  Madam Speaker, it's important to note that this legislation only 
applies to those institutions that do not share personal financial 
information with third parties and do not change their privacy 
policies. This means that the privacy policy that banks must provide to 
consumers when they open an account remains completely unaffected. The 
bottom line is that nothing in this legislation in this bill allows for 
the disclosure of private information and companies are still 
prohibited from sharing any personal information with third parties.
  Similar legislation has passed the House in previous Congresses with 
strong, bipartisan support; and I want to recognize the bipartisan 
manner in which that legislation was again handled this year.
  Madam Speaker, I especially want to thank Chairman Frank and Ranking 
Member Bachus for their assistance with the legislation and their 
willingness to bring this legislation and assist me in bringing it to 
the House floor.
  Finally, I want to thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for 
his hard work on this legislation. He has done exemplary work 
throughout his 12 years here in this body, and we are going to miss his 
spirit and commitment of working in a bipartisan manner, and I 
appreciate his friendship as well.
  I ask for a ``yes'' vote on this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. I want to thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker, 
for his very kind comments.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Madam Speaker, in closing, this bill is a win/win. It 
reduces an unnecessary and redundant regulatory burden for consumers, 
and I ask for adoption of the bipartisan legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, again, I commend the gentleman from Minnesota for his 
work on this bipartisan legislation, and it is bipartisan legislation. 
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3506.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3506, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``To amend the 
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide an exception from the continuing 
requirement for annual privacy notices for financial institutions which 
do not change their policies and practices with regard to disclosing 
nonpublic personal information from the policies and practices that 
were disclosed in the most recent disclosure sent to consumers, and for 
other purposes.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________