[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16683-16684]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               AMENDING THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE ACT

                                 ______
                                 

               AMENDING THE ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFER ACT

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of the following bills en bloc: Calendar 
No. 344, H.R. 4014; and H.R. 4367, which was received from the House 
and is at the desk.
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bills 
en bloc.


                           ATM Fee Disclosure

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in the last few years, a number of 
colleagues and I have grown increasingly worried about the fees that 
consumers face when using an automated teller machine, ATM. According 
to Bankrate.com 2010 Checking Survey, the average surcharge a consumer 
pays to use an ATM has increased to $2.33. Over 99 percent of ATM 
operators charge this fee. Some ATM operators also charge balance 
inquiry fees.
  In addition, consumers are also increasingly likely to face a fee 
from their own financial institution for using an ATM not owned by 
their institution. According to the same Bankrate study, 75 percent of 
checking accounts charge this fee, which is now up to $1.41 on average. 
Therefore, frequently, consumers may face fees of almost $4.00 for 
accessing their own cash.
  Consumers who use prepaid cards are especially likely to pay a 
variety of fees for using an ATM. They can face ATM withdrawal fees, 
balance inquiry fees, and denied transaction fees. They may get no 
notice at the ATM of fees charged by the prepaid card.

[[Page 16684]]


  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I thank the Senator.
  I too am concerned by the rising consumer ATM costs. As you know, the 
Senate recently passed legislation that does away with the requirement 
that ATMs post a physical sign notifying consumers that they may be 
charged multiple fees for a transaction. In many ways this requirement 
was outdated and it put our local institutions at risk for frivolous 
lawsuits. While I supported the bill we passed, I believe we must 
proceed with caution.
  All of my friends speaking on this issue today, myself included, 
believe that this legislation was only intended to remove duplicative 
disclosures and not to lessen the important information consumers rely 
on when making an ATM transactions. We are concerned that one of the 
unintended consequences of this legislation is that consumers will lose 
access to information about the fees that they might face at an ATM, 
including, for example, fees for simple transactions like a balance 
inquiry and additional fees imposed by their own institution.
  I would like to ask Senator Johnson, the distinguished chairman of 
the Banking Committee, for his input on this point as well.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. I thank Senators Udall and Harkin.
  The Senator has raised an important point about this legislation. The 
intent of this legislation is not to lessen the amount of information 
that a consumer receives prior to conducting a transaction at an ATM. 
As the Senator has laid out, it is important that consumers be fully 
informed of the types of fees that they may face at the time of the 
transaction. The point was to modernize the information that consumers 
get, taking into account technological changes. But this bill is only 
one step toward modernization. The CFPB may wish to look at other steps 
to ensure that consumers are fully informed about the fees they may 
incur, whether that be through improved onscreen ATM disclosures, 
better disclosures at point of sale, or other methods.
  I understand that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is already 
taking a look at this issue as part of an existing rulemaking to 
streamline inherited regulations, and I agree that it is important for 
them to keep this fact in mind as they move forward on this rulemaking.
  Mr. MERKLEY: I thank Chairman Johnson.
  Yes, I would like to reiterate that the intent of this bill is to 
streamline duplicative disclosures and not make consumers less aware of 
potential fees that they face. Like you, I encourage the Bureau to use 
their upcoming rulemaking to ensure that this is not the case. I now 
turn to my friend from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. I thank Senator Merkley.
  I would like to echo the concerns of my friends and colleagues, 
Senators Harkin, Udall, Merkley, and Chairman Johnson. This legislation 
is intended to provide relief from a physical signage requirement that 
is subject to abuse, not reduce the disclosure available to consumers 
using ATM machines. I encourage the CFPB to issue regulations that 
clarify that consumers should have, at a minimum, the same access to 
timely information as they had prior to the passage of this 
legislation. Consumers are in the best position to make the financial 
decisions that are best for them, but to do so, they must have the 
relevant information at the appropriate time. I am pleased that so many 
of my colleagues have come together to support this legislative 
effort--one that remedies a problem affecting so many of our community 
banks and credit unions, but that retains protections for American 
consumers.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be 
read three times and passed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid 
upon the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate, and any 
related statements to these matters be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bills (H.R. 4014 and H.R. 4367) were ordered to a third reading, 
were read the third time, and passed.

                          ____________________