[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8301-8302]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      FINANCIAL REGULATORY REFORM

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have had some concerns over the consumer 
protection part of the financial reform bill, mostly because I do not 
think there are very many limitations on it. Particularly in the area 
of personal privacy, I have some major concerns. So I have developed an 
amendment that I think will solve that. It is the kind of amendment I 
have often seen brought up by both sides of the aisle to make sure no 
agency is going through your personal finances without your permission 
or any other thing that is personal.
  So if you think full-body scans at the airport security is bad, they 
do pale in comparison to the consumer protection provisions in the 
financial regulatory bill we are debating. Even if you are okay with 
the heightened airport security measures, will you be OK with a full 
scan of your financial records?
  If left alone, this bill will set up a Federal bureaucracy that will 
be able to comb through the personal financial records of millions of 
Americans in the name of protecting consumers.
  Also, in the name of protecting us from ourselves, this bill would 
require banks to keep and maintain records of all bank account activity 
and financial activity of their clients for at least 3 years, while 
also requiring this information to be sent regularly to the bureau for 
safekeeping.
  I have serious concerns about our government collecting information 
on the daily activities of its citizens and equal concerns about the 
government approving or disapproving the financial choices of its 
citizens. For those who agree with me, and even those who disagree with 
me on the consequences or meaning of the language in this bill, I have 
a straightforward and easy solution.
  My amendment, 4018, simply says that if the new bureau created in 
this bill wants to investigate a consumer's individual transactions, 
then the bureau must get written permission from that individual. All 
this means is that the bureau cannot investigate someone's banking 
activities or credit card purchases without that person's permission.
  The bill is simply that. This is one page going into thousands of 
pages. It says:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any 
     provision of the enumerated consumer laws or any provision of 
     Federal law, the Bureau may not investigate an individual 
     transaction to which a consumer is a party without the 
     written permission of that consumer.

  It is pretty straightforward. It makes sure they aren't going to 
investigate a consumer's individual transactions without written 
permission from that individual, and they can't investigate someone's 
banking activities or their credit card purchases without that person's 
permission.
  My amendment would also make it so that the government can't watch 
over my financial transactions without my saying so or without you 
saying so on yours. My amendment gives consumers a choice. I don't 
think the bureau should be allowed to look over my credit card 
statement to see if I am spending too much money. I don't think the 
bureau should be allowed to monitor my purchases and note that I bought 
a new car, a new boat, or a gun.
  I recognize there are consumers out there who may want the government 
in their lives, monitoring their transactions. I don't claim to 
understand that desire. But my amendment would not take away their 
choice in the matter. In fact, as a consumer, if I get into credit card 
trouble and want the bureau's help, all I have to do is contact the 
bureau and give them permission to look at my financial documents. My 
amendment would also give consumers that ability. As long as the bureau 
has my written permission as a consumer, they can look at my financial 
past, present, and future.
  Our State offices have that kind of a procedure when they do case 
work for individuals. Our State offices have a process where they will 
look into problems that an individual is having with the Federal 
Government. But in order to do that, they have to get a signed privacy 
release. That is so we can't just be looking into constituents' 
problems that we think might be a problem for them without their 
knowledge or their permission. That is all I am doing with this 
government bureau, is making sure the consumer knows that bureau will 
be going through their records with their permission.
  In reality, this bill encourages consumers to rely on the government 
to protect them from bad decisions instead of empowering due diligence. 
The role of the Federal Government should not be to stand over our 
shoulders telling us if our decisions are right or good. I was here on 
the Senate floor just a few short days ago saying that you and I have 
the inherent freedom to make choices, even the freedom to make bad 
choices. In America, that is the way it works. Big Brother is not 
allowed to hang over your shoulder to decide whether you are making a 
poor decision.
  Because of this bill and the actions of the current administration, 
people are more concerned about their freedoms right now than they ever 
have been, and this underlying bill--specifically title X, with its 
ironic name, ``consumer protection''--would take away those freedoms 
without this amendment.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created through this bill 
would suddenly become the most powerful agency within the Federal 
Government. By placing this bureau within the Federal Reserve, 
Congress's last

[[Page 8302]]

ability to oversee this agency would be when the director of the bureau 
is nominated by the President and the Senate gets to vet that 
candidate. That is it. Congress would have no oversight of the bureau's 
budget. Congress would have no oversight of the rules created by the 
bureau either.
  By the way, this bureau would not only have the authority to create 
its own rules for banks and consumers to follow, it would have the 
authority to enforce those rules as well. No other agency has that kind 
of unchecked power. Let me tell my colleagues, unchecked power does not 
lend itself to accountability.
  Why am I so concerned about this supposed consumer protection bureau? 
I am concerned about our freedoms. I know the Federal Government should 
not operate with the belief that it always knows best. Protecting 
consumers doesn't always mean naming advocates to work on their behalf. 
It also means allowing them the freedom and power to advocate for 
themselves.
  I mentioned this earlier, but I want to illustrate an example of why 
I am concerned about this bureau's unchecked power and why every 
citizen in the country should be up in arms, beating down the doors of 
Congress to keep big government powers from getting even bigger in 
their lives. The example I am about to give would be small compared to 
the powers of this proposed bureau.
  Let me tell my colleagues, this is not a small issue to the public. 
Not too long ago, the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, 
announced its intention to put full body scanning into major airports. 
Let me remind my colleagues, this was not even in every major airport, 
only a few. Many may not have seen one of these scanning machines. 
Travelers go into a three-sided piece of equipment fully clothed, and 
the machine essentially creates an x-ray-like scan of the traveler. The 
resulting image from the scan can be used to determine whether someone 
is carrying an explosive, has objects hidden under their clothing, or 
merely had a joint replaced. This new step in security was all done in 
the name of protecting citizens from terrorists. This new measure was 
for our physical safety.
  I have heard from hundreds of Wyoming citizens and from hundreds of 
citizens across the country desperate not to have the government 
intrude into their lives even in the name of physical safety from 
terrorism. There was such a rush of emotion from these folks, anger at 
the inconvenience and intrusion, nervousness and anxiety that the 
government would be able to image them for 30 seconds or the 
possibility that the government could keep the scanned image in a file. 
I even had some of the more middle-of-the-road folks tell me they just 
wanted a choice of whether to have the full body scan or simply an in-
person screening. That is what is done over most of the country.
  My point with this story is that with TSA screening, we are talking 
about a single image of a person as they travel through the Nation's 
airports. What the bureau of consumer protection proposes to do in the 
name of financial security is not just a snapshot of us during a single 
day of travel. What the bureau proposes to do is scrutinize the 
transactions of our daily lives, our spending habits, monitor our 
financial decisions as we plan for retirement, as we plan and spend for 
our families, and, as consumers, as we make choices on loans for 
education, vehicles, homes, and any other expenses. This isn't a single 
step encroaching on privacy like a body scan image. What the bureau 
proposes to do skips over the privacy boundary. It is not a single 
scan; it is a life audit.
  This bureau may create some much needed protections for consumers, 
but it could also go much further. Without my amendment, the bureau 
will be required to collect daily transactional information on every 
consumer. The government would see every time you needed money for a 
college loan, for $20 from the nearest ATM. The bureau would require 
your community bank to not only keep all the information on file but to 
regularly share that data with the government.
  Some may say they don't care if the government knows they buy 
groceries at Safeway every Tuesday, but I daresay allowing the 
government to assess and analyze every transaction could easily 
escalate beyond mundane details and consumer protection to truly having 
Big Brother watching over us. You may not care about the government 
knowing your shopping habits or how and when you fill your car with 
gas, but you will care if the government has the ability to say how, 
when, and why you spend your own money.
  We already give the government control of our tax dollars. I would 
say that isn't going so well for us. A $12 trillion, almost $13 
trillion deficit shows this. So why should the public be OK with 
allowing the Federal Government to watch over our shoulders, saying 
whether our financial decisions are OK? The point is that the Federal 
Government should not have this power, but this bill will be giving it 
unless we have this amendment.
  I have risen to bring light and awareness to the additional, enormous 
unchecked power that would be given to the bureau of consumer 
protection in the name of protecting consumers. This power would be 
given not in the name of protecting us from physical threat or harm but 
in the name of making decisions for us.
  I offer another choice to my colleagues and to the people. This 
choice allows consumers to let the bureau into their personal lives if 
they so choose. My amendment would not stop the bureau from existing. 
My amendment would not prevent the bureau from assisting consumers with 
their finances or debt. My amendment would simply require the bureau to 
get written permission from consumers. It is that simple. I urge 
colleagues to consider the amendment so that we are empowering 
consumers, not perpetuating big government growth in the name of 
protecting us from ourselves.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Shelby be added as a cosponsor 
to the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, with the permission of the bill manager, I 
ask unanimous consent to set aside any pending amendments and to call 
up amendment No. 3986.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill is not yet pending.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I understand the bill has not yet been 
reported, but I would like to make a few comments on my amendment. As 
soon as the bill is reported, I will call up the amendment more 
specifically.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 
minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am advised the bill is ready to be 
reported.

                          ____________________