[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16065-16069]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 ELIMINATE PRIVACY NOTICE CONFUSION ACT

  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 5817) to amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide an 
exception to the annual privacy notice requirement.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5817

       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 subsections:
       ``(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),
       ``(2) does not share information with affiliates under 
     section 603(d)(2)(A) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and
       ``(3) 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), 
     (2), or (3).
       ``(g) Exception to Notice Requirement.--A financial 
     institution shall not be required to provide any disclosure 
     under this section if--
       ``(1) the financial institution is licensed by a State and 
     is subject to existing regulation of consumer confidentiality 
     that prohibits disclosure of nonpublic personal information 
     without knowing and expressed consent of the consumer in the 
     form of laws, rules, or regulation of professional conduct or 
     ethics promulgated either by the court of highest appellate 
     authority or by the principal legislative body or regulatory 
     agency or body of any State of the United States, the 
     District of Columbia, or any territory of the United States; 
     or
       ``(2) the financial institution is licensed by a State and 
     becomes subject to future regulation of consumer 
     confidentiality that prohibits disclosure of nonpublic 
     personal information without knowing and expressed consent of 
     the consumer in the form of laws, rules, or regulation of 
     professional conduct or ethics promulgated either by the 
     court of highest appellate authority or by the principal 
     legislative body or regulatory agency or body of any State of 
     the United States, the District of Columbia, or any territory 
     of the United States.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from West Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would first like to thank Mr. Luetkemeyer and Mr. Sherman for 
authoring the bill before the House today. I would also like to thank 
Mr. Luetkemeyer for his hard work on the Financial Institution and 
Consumer Credit Subcommittee, where he has championed many initiatives 
to provide commonsense regulatory relief for small financial 
institutions.
  The House of Representatives has already passed one bill to remove an 
outdated requirement for duplicative disclosure of ATM fees on the 
machines--commonsense reform. I urge our colleagues in the Senate to 
pass both of these bills to provide this commonsense regulatory relief 
for banks and credit unions across the country.
  I know Mr. Luetkemeyer shares my concerns that in recent years 
Federal financial regulatory agencies have piled on more regulations 
without properly assessing the current regulatory regime to remove 
outdated, unnecessary, or overly burdensome regulations. Last year, 
members of our House Financial Services Committee urged the Treasury 
Secretary to make good on a promise from the summer of 2010 to take 
care, as the Dodd-Frank Act was implemented, to ensure that Federal 
agencies conducted a thorough assessment of the current regulatory 
structure, to ensure this opportunity to truly modernize and streamline 
the Federal code. We wanted to make sure this opportunity was not 
missed. Although Secretary Geithner claims that this streamlining is a 
priority, we've really seen very little progress on this front.
  H.R. 5817 provides an example of how both sides can come together--
and I would like to thank Mr. Sherman for his work on this as well--to 
identify outdated and duplicative regulatory requirements. Under 
current law, financial institutions are required to provide annual 
privacy notices to their customers that explain all of their 
information and practices. Financial institutions are required to mail 
those notices regardless of whether or not the information-sharing 
practices have changed. These annual mailings cost millions of dollars 
each year and do not provide consumers with new information if the 
financial institution has not changed their practice.

[[Page 16066]]

  The legislation before us today will require a financial institution 
to provide annual privacy notices only if they have changed privacy 
policies that affect the customer. This is an important, commonsense 
bill that will provide further clarity to customers and consumers and 
eliminate an unnecessary regulatory burden for our financial 
institutions.
  Again, I would like to thank Mr. Luetkemeyer and Mr. Sherman for 
their leadership on this issue, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHERMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume in support of 
H.R. 5817, the Eliminate Privacy Notice Confusion Act. I want to thank 
Representative Luetkemeyer for his work in introducing this bill. I've 
enjoyed working with him on it.
  Madam Speaker, this is commonsense legislation that makes a minor 
change to our banking laws to revise a very costly and unnecessary 
requirement that financial institutions such as banks and credit unions 
and other depository institutions must send each of their customers a 
copy of their privacy policy every year, even when that policy hasn't 
changed from the prior year when they got the same exact privacy 
notification. For banks, credit unions, and other financial 
institutions of all sizes, this means spending a small fortune to 
reprint millions of complicated and long documents, then mailing them 
to every consumer, even when there's been no change in the policy.

                              {time}  1610

  It is disadvantageous not only because of the time and cost in 
mailing these--and the trees that are no doubt consumed--but also 
because customers have no way to separate the wheat from the shaft. 
They're getting these notices every year from every financial 
institution with whom they have dealings without any indication as to 
whether there's been a change from the privacy policy that they 
received just a year ago. By sending out less, we attract attention to 
those situations where there's been a change in the privacy policy.
  Our bill makes a simple fix to this problem, requiring financial 
institutions to provide their customers with this additional 
notification only when there's been a change that affects the policy or 
practice as it relates to that consumer. As a result, consumers will 
know that the privacy notices that arrive in their mailbox actually 
require their attention. And banks, credit unions, other financial 
institutions that have been spending millions of dollars to mail out 
duplicative notices and redundant notifications each year can redirect 
those savings back to providing for the consumer, to their community, 
or to loans to help our economy grow.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank, as I did at the beginning of my 
presentation, our colleague and chief sponsor of this bill, 
Representative Luetkemeyer of Missouri, and thank him for his 
leadership on this issue. I also want to thank our long-time colleague, 
ranking member of our Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, for 
his work in getting us to this point where we can consider this bill on 
the floor today.
  I will, in short order, be asking for a recorded vote on this bill, 
not because it needs a recorded vote, but because I've been informed by 
my leadership that it's important to this House that we have time on 
the floor tomorrow to confer with each other on Members and that we 
have a sufficient number of recorded votes. So my colleagues should not 
interpret my request for a recorded vote as any statement that this 
bill is something we have to go on record on or that I would disagree 
with the outcome of any voice vote, but simply as an act of 
collegiality, showing that I think we ought to spend more time with 
each other on this floor tomorrow, and I know we will all enjoy that 
process.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he 
wishes to consume to the principal sponsor of this bill, a great member 
of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Luetkemeyer).
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Chairwoman Capito, for yielding.
  Also, I want to thank Mr. Sherman for his fine remarks. We certainly 
will take no offense to a recorded vote and will not oppose that. We 
understand and support collegiality among ourselves, especially in this 
time when it seems to be more partisan and toxic than it is friendly, 
so no problem there, Representative.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5817, the Eliminate Privacy 
Notice Confusion Act. I introduced this legislation earlier this year 
in an effort to reduce yet another unnecessary burden facing consumers 
and financial institutions alike.
  Under current law, financial institutions of all sizes are required 
to provide annual privacy notices explaining information sharing 
practices to all customers. Banks and credit unions are required to 
give these notices each year even if their privacy policies have not 
changed in the slightest. This creates not only waste for financial 
institutions, but confusion among and increased indirect cost to 
consumers.
  H.R. 5817 would require institutions to provide privacy policy 
information to their customers only if they've changed any policy or 
practice related to that customer's privacy. This bill would eliminate 
millions of costly, confusing, and often ignored mailings that cost 
millions of dollars to produce each year. And with 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 the privacy policy.
  Again, I want to remind my colleagues that this legislation 
specifically ensures that a financial institution cannot be exempted 
from annual privacy notices if that institution changes in any way its 
policies or practices related to the disclosure of nonpublic personal 
information.
  This legislation is supported by Independent Community Bankers of 
America, the Credit Union National Association, the American Bankers 
Association, and the National Association of Federal Credit Unions, 
among others.
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) 
for his fine support and his good work on this issue. Also, I want to 
thank Chairman Bachus, Ranking Member Frank, Chairwoman Capito, and 
Ranking Member Maloney for their assistance in ensuring that this 
legislation passes without delay. This commonsense legislation has 
garnered widespread bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting its passage.
  Mr. SHERMAN. I'll take a minute to put into the Record the statements 
of Adam Levitin, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law 
School, in support of this bill. He came before our committee in May of 
2012 and stated ``there are unquestionably financial regulations that 
do little other than add to regulatory burdens.'' He cited, in 
particular, the provision that this bill addresses, and said: ``I would 
also urge the elimination of the privacy disclosure requirement even if 
there is no substantive replacement for it.'' But then he added: ``And, 
at the very least, eliminate the requirement of an annual disclosure 
when there has been no change to the policy.'' I couldn't agree more 
with the professor.


                    SMALL BANKS' REGULATORY BURDENS

       While many small banks and credit unions believe that their 
     regulatory burden is too great, it has little to do with the 
     Dodd-Frank Act. Therefore, concerns about the regulatory 
     burdens on small banks do not provide a good justification 
     for altering or repealing provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. 
     If there is a problem with the burdens created by specific 
     regulations, then by all means, we should reexamine those 
     regulations and decide if they make sense.
       There are unquestionably financial regulations that do 
     little other than add to regulatory burdens. For example, the 
     Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act/Reg P privacy disclosures create an 
     ongoing regulatory burden for financial institutions, which 
     have to craft their privacy policies and send annual 
     disclosures to consumers, irrespective of whether there have 
     been changes to the policies. Yet the benefits from these 
     disclosures are at best small and likely non-existent or 
     negative; few consumers read the policies, and

[[Page 16067]]

     they cannot be negotiated. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act privacy 
     disclosures instead substitute for meaningful substantive 
     privacy protections. While I would urge Congress to consider 
     more substantive privacy protections rather than mere 
     disclosure that there are few protections, I would also urge 
     the elimination of the entire Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act privacy 
     disclosure requirement even if there is no substantive 
     replacement, and, at the very least, eliminate the 
     requirement of an annual disclosure when there has been no 
     change to the policy.

  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much.
  The language which is in question here is language which was spurred 
by Mr. Barton and I in 1999 as part of the consideration of the Gramm-
Leach-Bliley bill. The language for privacy, none had been included in 
the Senate and none had been included in the rest of the process. But 
as the bill came to the Energy and Commerce Committee in 1999, Mr. 
Barton and I, we added privacy language, believing that as companies 
are able to consolidate banking records, insurance records, brokerage 
records, the physical examinations of customers and their medical 
secrets, that there should be privacy here. We were no longer talking 
about just going into a bank and having old Mr. Wentworth there that 
you and your family had known your entire life, and you trusted Mr. 
Wentworth, and there was actually a whole long family history. That is 
no longer the case. We are now basically living in a world where we 
have moved from an era of privacy keepers to privacy peepers and data-
mining reapers trying to create profiles of people, using all of their 
financial information as a way of basically making their companies more 
efficient, but simultaneously compromising the privacy of families all 
across our country. So, while ultimately the language which Mr. Barton 
and I included on the House side in Gramm-Leach-Bliley was watered down 
in the final compromise, that's the privacy that's in the bill.
  So, one of the things, of course, that I believed and Mr. Barton 
believed was that people should get the information that their privacy 
could be compromised by these now huge mega-banks.

                              {time}  1620

  So what this bill is saying is, you don't have to notify people of 
that each year. You don't have to tell them. If they didn't figure that 
out when the bank first signed you up as a company, they never have to 
tell you again because they notified you once right there in the 
beginning.
  Ladies and gentlemen, the amount of information which we get at home 
from these banks, massive, as you know. You open up your mailbox every 
day, and there's like 25 solicitations from financial institutions all 
across the country. They've got loads of money to do that, loads of 
money. You look at their TV commercials, loads of money. ``You're in 
safe hands when you give your family's wealth over to this financial 
institution.''
  But if you ask them to just provide a scintilla of information on 
what privacy rights they have in terms of protecting all of their 
family secrets inside of that financial information, the banks say, Oh, 
no, that's too expensive. We can't do that. How can you afford that?
  So this just gets right back to the same argument that we had during 
Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the same exact debate, the same exact terms. And 
all I can tell you is, there's a looming privacy catastrophe coming in 
this country. People just don't understand the full consequences of 
what this new cyberworld makes possible in terms of the compromise of 
information.
  You know, when you're writing out the information to buy the Ritalin 
for your child, that's a check that the bank has. There it is. You 
haven't told anyone else in your family that you have a daughter who 
needs it. All of this has to be told to the public on an ongoing basis.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this suspension.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Texas 
(Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentlelady from West Virginia for 
her courtesy. She didn't have to yield me time since I'm in opposition 
to the bill, and I appreciate it.
  I am in opposition to this bill, although it is very well-meaning and 
well-intentioned. Who could be opposed to saving some money for our 
struggling financial institutions when they have to send out these 
privacy notices? And for the smaller institutions, there's no question 
that they're very expensive.
  The problem is that you can't just give away your privacy rights. And 
while this bill does nothing about the underlying issue of privacy, it 
does, at least, require that once a year, banks and financial 
institutions subject to Gramm-Leach-Bliley inform people that there are 
some privacy protections in the law. I don't think they're very strong. 
I think they need to be upgraded. And Congressman Markey and I, who are 
cochairmen of the bipartisan Privacy Caucus, have legislation that does 
that.
  Having said that, we should not willingly give up the privacy 
protections that we have. And this bill would eliminate a requirement 
of notification, which is, I admit, not the same as reducing the 
privacy that is in the law. But when you start down that slippery slope 
where you know that you don't have to notify of privacy protection, the 
next step is to not even have privacy at all. So I do oppose this 
bill--respectfully so--and would ask for a ``no'' vote when we call for 
the yeas and nays.
  Again, I want to thank the gentlelady for her courtesy, and I commend 
the sponsor for his efforts on the bill.
  Mr. SHERMAN. I rise again in support of this bill, and I yield to no 
Member in terms of my dedication to privacy.
  If this bill passes, you're going to get notification of what the 
privacy rules are when you start with the financial institution. You 
are going to get notified every time they make a change. And you are 
going to be notified any time of the night or day when you simply go 
onto the Web site and look at the required privacy notification.
  When Gramm-Leach-Bliley was passed, not everybody had access to the 
Internet. I realize today not everybody does. But a much larger 
percentage of Americans are familiar with the Internet, have access to 
the Internet, and know that if they want to see the privacy 
notification, the privacy rules of their financial institution, it's 
there on the Internet in a way that most Americans are going to have 
easy access to.
  The idea that you are mailed a copy of something you've already been 
mailed a copy of, which hasn't changed, that does little or nothing to 
provide additional privacy, except that we can say, Oh, we're for 
privacy.
  If we want to protect the privacy of our constituents, we ought to do 
so in a meaningful way, not to simply say, The same thing you got a 
copy of a year ago today, which is available to you any time of the day 
or night, is something we're going to chop down some more trees and 
send you a copy of again. And that's the best idea we can come up with 
to protect your privacy.
  I think, instead, we ought to pass this bill, know that we've given 
everybody a copy of the privacy policy of the financial institution on 
paper, that they get another paper notice if there's any change, and 
there is a continuous notice on the Internet every day of the year, 
every night of the year.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. For the record, for anyone who's listening, the American 
Civil Liberties Union opposes this; the American Library Association 
opposes this; the Consumer Union opposes this; the Liberty Coalition 
opposes this; and the Coalition for Patient Privacy opposes this.
  And the reason is this: You signed up with a bank 10 years ago--
Megabank Inc. They sent you a privacy notice. Then every year for the 
next 10 years, they buy a new entity that locks right in as an 
affiliate. And you've already signed off on everything they do, but 
they don't have to notify you that this new entity, this new affiliate 
is going

[[Page 16068]]

to have a totally new use for that information. But you are supposed to 
have already been notified in 2002.
  Moreover, ladies and gentlemen, why can't they just email this notice 
each year to people? Why can't they just email it to people? ``Here's 
your privacy.'' And every year it goes out. No tree is chopped down. 
There is nothing done that affects the environment. Everybody just gets 
the email each year. ``Here are your privacy rights.'' And it goes in a 
separate email so that everyone is really getting the opportunity to 
single it out. It doesn't cost anything. It gives everyone all the 
information they need.
  Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman for his presentation.
  I would be happy to cosponsor legislation to require an email 
notification once a year to every customer who's willing to provide 
their email address to the financial institution. There are some who 
would say, I don't want to give my email address to my financial 
institution. But to everybody who is willing to provide that email. I 
couldn't agree with you more. If this was done by email, it ought to be 
done at least annually.
  I look forward to joining with the Members who are here in this room 
and are interested in requiring an annual email notification. I don't 
know if the sponsor of the bill would be interested in that. But I will 
join the gentleman from Massachusetts in legislation on that.
  But let's act today to end the expensive and resource-consuming 
annual paper notification.
  And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri, the principal sponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I thank Chairwoman Capito.
  I would like to respond to some of the comments that have been made. 
First, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for their work on the privacy 
notice and protection of our private information. I think it is 
extremely important, and I applaud those efforts, and I support those 
efforts.
  If you will look at this particular bill, this is not an effort to 
thwart any sort of ability for people to protect their private 
information. Within the privacy law, there are all sorts of other 
protections. So it doesn't change one single dot of an I or a cross of 
a T on the rest of the notifications there, whether it deals with the 
kind of information you can collaborate on or the different kinds of 
information that you can be a part of.

                              {time}  1630

  All it does is just say that the notification that is supposed to be 
required annually is not made unless there is a change.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts made some comments with regards, 
Madam Speaker, to the amount of mail that he gets from the banks. 
That's not necessarily something that is the compliance area; it's 
called marketing. Whenever they're trying to market for their credit 
cards or market for their services, that's part of their marketing 
budget. That's where those dollars come from to be able to do those 
things. That's part of being a business.
  When it comes time for an individual to be notified of changes, such 
as you merge another bank or another institution with others and you're 
one of the individuals whose institution was bought out, you will 
receive a new notice because obviously there will be a change in the 
information that's going to be held by the banks. You'll be notified of 
that because it is a significant change.
  I'm not sure that the gentlemen that spoke in opposition have quite 
thought through their arguments. Basically, all we're doing is allowing 
for some bookkeeping things to be done here. We're not impacting the 
individual's privacy at all. I think if you went on the street and you 
asked 10 people whether they thought this was a good idea or not, I 
guarantee there would be at least nine, and probably one would say, I 
can take it either way. I don't see any opposition from the consumers 
themselves whenever they're actually paying for these notices through 
higher charges through their bank accounts.
  I think that there is a lot of good we're trying to do here. We're 
not trying to change the world. All we're trying to do is continue to 
protect the integrity of the information the banks and credit unions 
are holding on these individuals and provide for the ability of those 
institutions to do it in a more effective and cost-effective manner.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would just state that I agree with the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, that we ought to require email notification of what the 
privacy policy is annually as a good compromise. I would hope that some 
of the others here on the floor would take a minute to comment on that, 
or I would yield to them. Obviously, such an email could be sent only 
to those customers who voluntarily provide their email address to the 
financial institution.
  When you look at the idea of an expensive postal mailing using 
resources to provide an exact copy of something that was previously 
mailed in hard copy on paper to the same consumer a year earlier, on 
balance, that is not a good use of societal resources nor a good use of 
most consumers' time. I think the fact that these policies are up on 
the Web and available whenever somebody takes an interest in them is 
also important.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Does the gentleman have any more speakers? I'm prepared 
to close if you're prepared.
  Mr. SHERMAN. I have no further speakers, and I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I would just add that there are many of us who are dedicated to 
privacy, but not every privacy requirement makes sense. Here's a case 
where people are notified on paper.
  Finally, I want to address the gentleman from Massachusetts' comment 
that maybe when you were notified on paper your financial institution 
only had two or three subsidiaries and 10 years later they have several 
more subsidiaries with whom they may share information. The fact is 
that isn't disclosed in another copy of the financial institution's 
privacy policies. It may, in fact, be that your financial institution 
is offering more products, sharing your information with more 
subsidiaries. But voting down this bill is not a solution to that 
issue.
  What is a solution is to have a policy where you have to send it in 
writing once, send it in writing when it changes, provide it on the 
Web. And I would join with others, I would hope, in introducing 
legislation requiring annual email distribution.
  With that, I have no speakers, I have no further comments, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I recognize myself just simply to close 
to say privacy is an issue that is of concern to all of us. In these 
new ways of communicating that we have--and we can only imagine in our 
future--I think it becomes more and more difficult.
  I would respond to the gentleman from California when he says that 
email notices--I haven't discussed it with the bill's sponsor. I 
wouldn't have an objection to that. However, many of us live in areas 
where the penetration of email is not like it is in California or 
Massachusetts or probably areas of Texas. There is a long way to go 
before that could be. Maybe next time this is debated in 10 years or 
whatever, that would be the norm. So I would make sure that that option 
for those who want to receive the paper can still do this.
  Frankly, I think we're overcomplicating this issue. I think it is a 
commonsense revision. If we took the gentleman's 10 people that he met 
on the street and said, What would you think if the bank didn't mail 
these privacy notices to you every year, if he further questioned them 
and asked them how many read these point by point--and I put myself in 
this category--it is probably very small, as well. Not to say that it 
doesn't need to be publicly available. When changes are made, we

[[Page 16069]]

have to have public notification. I agree with that.
  But I do believe, serving on the Financial Services Committee, I 
think it's become very apparent, when you talk to institutions and when 
you talk to customers that the piling on of new regulations, without 
weeding out some of these old regulations that have either been 
antiquated or duplicative or repetitive or wasteful or whatever, is 
burdening not just the institution, it is burdening the customer, too. 
I'm not sure it gets the wanted understanding of what's going on to the 
customer that we're trying to achieve here, and I do believe it's been 
overcomplicated.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SHERMAN. This bill was passed by the House as part of a package 
on March 8, 2006; this bill was pretty much in this exact form and was 
passed by this House June 24, 2008, as part of a package; then finally, 
as a separate bill, H.R. 3506 was passed by this House on April 14, 
2010. So the House has a strong record of passing this legislation, and 
I hope we continue to do so.
  With that, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I thank the gentleman for bringing that up. I think it's 
an important point.
  With that, I urge support of this bill, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5817.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________