[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4802-4803]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 ELIMINATE PRIVACY NOTICE CONFUSION ACT

  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 601) 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. 601

       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''.

[[Page 4803]]



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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Capuano) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
to add extraneous material on this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the original author of 
this bill and one who has done a lot of work in this area.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, year after year, millions of dollars are spent on 
privacy notices that are either disregarded or are confusing to 
consumers. Let's think about the cost of this.
  This outdated requirement doesn't cost in postage alone, but it also 
adds its compliance costs, the cost of supplies, printing fees, and man 
hours. Under current law, financial institutions are required to 
provide annual privacy notices explaining information-sharing practices 
to customers. Banks and credit unions have had to give these notices 
each year even if the privacy policies have not changed. This creates 
not only waste for financial institutions but confusion and increased 
costs to consumers.
  I talked to one community bank in my district recently that said they 
spend, roughly, 70 cents per disclosure. With a minimum of 250,000 
accounts and customers, this one bank spends at least $175,000 on this 
one requirement. It may not seem like a lot of money to my colleagues, 
but I can tell you that $175,000 is a lot of money for a small 
institution like the one in my district. By the way, this is an 
institution with less than $10 billion in assets, so it will not be 
helped by the recent changes implemented by the CFPB.
  I want to be completely clear on what exactly this bill will do. This 
legislation will only remove the Gramm-Leach-Bliley annual privacy 
notice requirement if an institution has not in any way changed its 
privacy policies or procedures. This legislation does not exempt an 
institution from an initial privacy notice, nor does it allow a 
loophole for an institution to avoid using an updated notice.
  The language is not controversial; it does not jeopardize consumer 
privacy; and it does not exempt any institution from having to produce 
an initial or an amended privacy notice. This legislation does 
eliminate millions of costly, confusing, and often ignored mailings; 
and with the passage of this bill, information included in these 
mailings would likely become more significant to the consumer because 
it would come only when a change in the privacy notice policy is 
effected.

                              {time}  1615

  I would like to remind my colleagues that similar language passed the 
House by a voice vote in the 111th, 112th, and 113th Congresses.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. In March of this year, this legislation passed the 
Committee on Financial Services by a voice vote of 57-0. This 
legislation is supported by a litany of trade associations representing 
banks and credit unions.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), my good 
friend across the aisle, for his bipartisan work on this bill.
  I ask my colleagues for their support.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) for his 
tireless work on this bill. This bill has passed virtually unanimously 
this House in the 111th, 112th, and 113th Congresses. Now it has passed 
our committee 57-0.
  I want to commend Director Cordray of the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau for moving in the direction of this bill as far as 
they could, but now it is time to codify this important change. This 
will not only save money for the small- and medium-sized institutions 
and the entire financial services industry; it is going to get the 
consumer to focus on changes that are important.
  There is no better way to hide a tree than to put it in the forest, 
and there is no better way to trivialize and cause consumers to ignore 
important legally required notification than to deluge them with 
unnecessary, meaningless, and repetitive notifications.
  This bill will make our system more efficient. It is not only 
consistent, I believe, with what the regulators would like to do; it 
has passed, overwhelmingly, every time Members of the House have had a 
chance to deal with it.
  I commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I don't have any other speakers, so I 
will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add my voice to those 
who support this bill, another commonsense bill that hopefully won't 
take us three more Congresses to get our friends on the other side to 
actually take action on something that is relatively simple and 
straightforward. I personally throw out six or seven of these 
notifications every month, so I would assume that millions of people 
are doing the same.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to add my support as well to 
this bill. This is a commonsense bill. This bill passed 57-0 in our 
committee. It ends a lot of confusion. You get those privacy notices 
when you open those accounts, and then all of a sudden next year you 
get another one, and you are trying to figure out whether you should 
have gotten one, if you should read that. What we have found is that 
probably a lot of people aren't reading those. This is a very 
commonsense bill, and I encourage people to support that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 601.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________