[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19788-19800]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
            PRIVACY NOTIFICATION TECHNICAL CLARIFICATION ACT

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 657, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 2396) to amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to update 
the exception for certain annual notices provided by financial 
institutions, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 657, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Financial Services, printed in the bill, is adopted, and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 2396

       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 ``Privacy Notification 
     Technical Clarification Act''.

     SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO ANNUAL NOTICE REQUIREMENT.

       Section 503 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6803) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Additional Exception to Annual Notice Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--A financial institution that 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 if--
       ``(A) the financial institution makes its current policy 
     available to consumers on its website and via mail upon 
     written request sent to a designated address identified for 
     the purpose of requesting the policy or upon telephone 
     request made using a toll free consumer service telephone 
     number; and
       ``(B) the financial institution conspicuously notifies 
     consumers of the availability of the current policy, 
     including--
       ``(i) with respect to consumers who are entitled to a 
     periodic billing statement, a message on or with each 
     periodic billing statement; and
       ``(ii) with respect to consumers who are not entitled to a 
     periodic billing statement, through other reasonable means 
     such as on its website or with other written communication, 
     including electronic communication, sent to the consumer.
       ``(2) Treatment of multiple policies.--If a financial 
     institution maintains more than one set of policies described 
     under paragraph (1) that vary depending on the consumer's 
     account status or State of residence, the financial 
     institution may comply with the website posting requirement 
     in paragraph (1)(A) by posting all of such policies to the 
     public section of the financial institution's website, with 
     instructions for choosing the applicable policy.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Financial Services.
  After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as amended, it shall be in order 
to consider the further amendment printed in House Report 115-462, if 
offered by the Member designated in the report, which shall be 
considered read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified 
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the 
question.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2396, the Privacy 
Notification Technical Clarification Act, which is an important bill 
cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Members of the House and a bill 
that was approved by the Financial Services Committee with a strong 
bipartisan vote of 2-1, quite literally: 40-20. Additionally, this bill 
builds upon an issue that has a long track record of strong bipartisan 
support in Congress.
  I thank Congressman Trott, a member of the Financial Services 
Committee, for introducing this legislation and for leading 
congressional efforts to modernize the privacy notification process for 
consumers and to provide regulatory relief for our struggling financial 
institutions.
  There is a serious issue, Mr. Speaker, with the sheer volume, 
complexity, weight, load, and cost of the regulatory burden upon, 
particularly, our struggling community financial institutions, our 
community banks, and credit unions.
  It is no one specific regulation, but the totality, the combination 
of them all, are causing us to lose a community bank or credit union a 
day in America. As we lose them, our constituents lose their 
opportunity for credit opportunities to share in their version of the 
American Dream. It makes it more costly, more difficult for them to 
finance someone to go to college, for them to perhaps buy an auto to 
get them to work, or perhaps capitalize their own small business. So we 
frequently hear from our community financial institutions.
  I heard from a community banker in Nebraska, not long ago, who 
explained: ``I have explained about how things have changed since I 
started in banking 10 years ago. In efforts for our government to make 
things more fair or easier for consumers, it has actually become 
increasingly more difficult for people to obtain favorable loan terms 
and, not to mention, obtain loans in a timely manner.''
  I heard from a banker in Alabama about real estate regulations, who 
said: They were intended to help customers, but it is actually hurting 
them. As wait times increase and banks are no longer offering certain 
products, not all of these people can be protected from themselves, no 
matter how many rules and regs the banks follow to protect them.
  I heard from a community banker in Utah, who said: I have been in 
banking for 29 years. In that time, the regulatory burden has increased 
dramatically. The ability to help customers and small businesses 
succeed in rural America has been greatly hampered by regulation 
intended to protect the customer from Wall Street banks, but in the 
process, smaller community banks, such as mine, have been caught in the 
fray or broad brush of regulations.
  A banker in Oklahoma said that, because of Dodd-Frank regulations: 
``We no longer offer/purchase house loans.''
  The list goes on and on and on.
  So this is one regulation that simply says: under the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act, if a financial institution doesn't change their privacy 
notification, they don't have to send out a piece of paper annually--a 
piece of paper like this that 99 percent of the time customers throw 
away and don't read in the first place.
  Don't take my word for it. Professor Adam Levitin, who is a frequent 
Democrat witness before the House Financial Services Committee 
testified before our committee: ``One thing that I think should go the 
way of the dodo bird are the Gramm-Leach-Bliley privacy notices. Nobody 
reads them.''

[[Page 19789]]

  That is a Democrat witness, Mr. Speaker. It is not a Republican 
witness. It is a Democrat witness.
  He goes on to say: ``There's no reason anyone should--even the large 
banks--should be spending money on giving these notices.''
  But that is not what this bill does. It just simply says, if a 
financial institution does not change their privacy notification, they 
don't have to send out a paper notification that creates more costs, 
that gets passed on to the customer, and that nobody reads in the first 
place.
  Number one, it is important regulatory relief for our financial 
institutions. But it is also important when we think in terms of the 
sheer volume of financial disclosures that our constituents receive.
  This goes back to the fact, Mr. Speaker, if you disclose everything, 
you effectively disclose nothing because you overwhelm the customer.
  So we must vigilantly ensure that our constituents are receiving 
effective disclosure, not just voluminous disclosure, but effective 
disclosure of material items written in clear, understandable, common 
language. Again, not voluminous disclosure of irrelevant items written 
in legalese and fine print. That doesn't do anybody any good, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for his 
leadership. The bill that he is bringing today has earned bipartisan 
support because it is a simple technical correction to clarify that 
customers have to be physically mailed an annual privacy notice only 
when the privacy policies have actually changed from the previous year.
  Importantly, this bill was carefully crafted to maintain and retain 
current privacy and opt-out policies and does not exempt any financial 
services provider from an initial privacy notice, nor does it allow any 
loopholes for an institution to avoid issuing an updated notice.
  In fact, this legislation, Mr. Speaker, does not change privacy 
provisions at all, just how they are delivered. Let me repeat: the 
legislation does not change privacy provisions at all, just how they 
are delivered.
  Again, Mr. Trott's bill has strong bipartisan support. It provides a 
simple and flexible approach that modernizes privacy notification to 
the benefit of our customers and to the benefit of our financial 
institutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure and urge every Member to 
vote for it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R. 2396, the 
Privacy Notification Technical Clarification Act.
  Contrary to the bill's title, this bill is far from a technical 
clarification. So I want to be very clear about what this bill would 
actually do.
  H.R. 2396 would reduce the meaningful and clear disclosures that 
financial institutions must currently provide to their customers every 
year, even if those companies share their customers' nonpublic personal 
information broadly with nonaffiliated third-party companies.
  Unlike other privacy bills Congress has considered, this bill comes 
with no guardrails whatsoever to discourage the company from broadly 
sharing consumer-sensitive personal information.
  While the bill provides several alternative mechanisms to deliver 
privacy reminders, one option would result in the customer receiving no 
written disclosure at all.
  The current annual privacy notices serve as a reminder describing a 
customer's right to restrict the sharing of their nonpublic, personal 
information to nonaffiliated third parties and information about how to 
exercise this right if they so choose.
  This privacy right was created in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which 
was signed into law in 1999. I served on the conference committee, so I 
know firsthand that the initial and annual privacy notices in the 
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act were enacted partly in response to public 
concerns about the sale of personal data for marketing purposes that 
were highlighted in a number of legal actions brought by State 
attorneys general at the time.
  In 1999, for example, there was a settlement between the Minnesota 
attorney general and U.S. Bank resolving allegations that the bank 
misrepresented its practice of selling highly personal and confidential 
information about its customers to telemarketers.
  These concerns are just as relevant today. In fact, I find the timing 
of the consideration of this bill very troubling, as it is being 
brought to the floor just months after the massive Equifax data breach.
  In the Equifax breach, 145.5 million Americans had their Social 
Security numbers, dates of birth, and other sensitive financial and 
personally identifiable information exposed to thieves.
  Equifax is not the only major credit bureau to experience a large 
data breach. About 2 years ago, Experian, one of the other three major 
credit bureaus in this country, had a breach that exposed millions of 
T-Mobile customers' information.
  These breaches are on top of a long list of other breaches we have 
seen at other companies where sensitive customer information was 
compromised. Consumers have called on their Representatives in Congress 
to enact tougher laws that would strengthen their control over their 
personal information, not weaken it.
  Consumers are increasingly wary about the unfettered sharing of their 
personal information by financial firms to nonaffiliated third parties 
that can result in consumer profiling, fraud, aggressive target 
marketing, and identity theft.
  Unfortunately, this bill goes in the opposite direction. Instead of 
working to strengthen consumers' privacy protections, H.R. 2396 would 
ease obligations on financial institutions to provide notices to their 
customers describing their privacy practices and policies, and 
importantly, fully explaining to these customers their right to 
restrict the sharing of their information to nonaffiliated third 
parties.
  This is commonly referred to as a consumer's right to opt out of 
having a financial institution share their information to companies 
that are outside of their common corporate structure or organization. 
These nonaffiliated third-party companies are generally not ones that 
the consumers have an existing relationship with, meaning that they 
have not received a product or service from the company in the past.
  The proponents of H.R. 2396 may say the bill has nothing to do with 
Equifax, or that Equifax would not be covered, if the amendment being 
offered later today is agreed to. But the bill would roll back privacy 
notice requirements for many financial institutions that engage in 
vehicle financing, including megabanks like Wells Fargo, even if they 
broadly share their customers' nonpublic, personal information with 
other companies.

                              {time}  0930

  Let's discuss Wells Fargo and their auto lending practices and their 
work with nonaffiliated third parties. Earlier this year, the 
Democratic staff of the Financial Services Committee produced a report 
on Wells Fargo's egregious misconduct, which has consulted in extensive 
consumer harm.
  For example, Wells Fargo charged over 570,000 consumers for 
automobile insurance policies they did not need, which resulted in at 
least 20,000 customers, including Active Duty servicemembers, having 
their vehicles inappropriately repossessed. These auto insurance 
policies were provided through a nonaffiliated third-party company 
called National General Insurance.
  The bank has also demonstrated a clear pattern of misusing millions 
of their customers' information to open accounts in their name without 
their permission.
  So why should Congress consider relaxing the privacy requirements for 
a recidivist bank like Wells Fargo?
  Let me also address arguments that suggest customers don't read these 
notices anyway. That is a quote that we hear oftentimes.
  As I have discussed, I think consumers are paying closer attention 
now after the Equifax incident. Proponents

[[Page 19790]]

say that a company posting a link on their website isn't so bad, and 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau allowed for it.
  But the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau provided an alternative 
to the annual privacy notices for companies that do not share data in 
ways that trigger consumers' opt-out rights under the law. Over the 
last decade, Congress has heard repeatedly from banks and credit unions 
that if a company does not share personal information with an 
unaffiliated third party that allows consumers to opt out from having 
it shared, and if they do not change their privacy policies, they 
should be exempt from the annual notice requirements. In those 
instances, the customer does not have the ability to opt out of having 
the information shared.
  After several years of research and debate, we made that targeted 
change in the last Congress. Since then, other companies, specifically 
captive auto finance companies, have made the case they should have 
more flexibility satisfying the annual notice requirement because they 
have a unique and close relationship with automobile dealers they work 
with that still requires them to send the annual notice.
  This unaffiliated third-party relationship triggers a consumer's 
right under the law to opt out and not have their information shared. I 
offered an amendment in committee that would have granted this targeted 
relief, but it was rejected.
  So, while I appreciate that H.R. 2396 provides flexibility to captive 
auto finance companies, the bill is not limited to them and goes much, 
much further. Mr. Speaker, over 30 consumer, community, privacy, and 
civil rights groups have publicly opposed this bill, including U.S. 
PIRG, and so do I. This is an area where more study is needed before 
policymakers craft sweeping changes.
  The bottom line is that I believe we should not open the door too 
widely at this time to give this same degree of flexibility to all and 
every financial institution, including recidivist banks like Wells 
Fargo.
  Furthermore, there needs to be more, not less, privacy protections 
and consumer control relating to personal information following the 
massive data breach at Equifax this year.
  Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I urge opposition to H.R. 
2396, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that I 
listened very carefully. It was a fascinating speech from the ranking 
member. Too bad it has absolutely nothing to do with the bill that is 
before us. Ms. Waters was speaking of privacy policies. The bill has to 
do with notification.
  But I do agree with the ranking member that we do need more effective 
disclosure. In H.R. 2396, we require financial institutions to make 
their current policies available on its website at all times. That 
actually improves disclosure. The only people who can be for the status 
quo are those who own paper mills so that we can waste more paper.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Trott), the sponsor of this legislation and an outstanding, hardworking 
member of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. TROTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, for 
yielding me time and for bringing this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2396, the Privacy Notification 
Technical Clarification Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Clay, for his leadership on 
this bill. It has been a pleasure to work across the aisle on this 
commonsense measure with someone for whom I have such great respect.
  This bill makes a simple technical correction to Federal law. Under 
the legislation, financial institutions are no longer required to mail 
duplicative and confusing privacy notifications every year when no 
changes have been made to the policy. Privacy information must be made 
available on the company website, and financial institutions must send 
paper copies to consumers upon request.
  Under this legislation, companies are required to provide a toll-free 
number so customers can request the policy at any time.
  Additionally, consumers will be reminded of their right to opt out of 
information-sharing when they receive their bills. If you are like me, 
you throw away these documents. They are confusing, dense, and full of 
fine-print legalese. I can never tell if anything has changed, and I am 
a lawyer.
  This legislation will ensure that consumers are alerted of changes 
and will no longer be inundated with junk mail.
  This measure will also help companies provide better service to their 
customers. Some companies spend over $2 million annually on these 
mailings--money that could be put to better use making more car loans 
or perhaps even lowering the cost of their product.
  During a recent hearing on this bill, a community banker told us 
about a similar provision that had passed for banks last year. He spoke 
about how positive it had been for his community and his customers. He 
took the money he would have spent on postage and paper and gave it 
back to the community in the form of more loans. This, in turn, helped 
people start new businesses, create more jobs, and even resulted in a 
few mortgages being made to purchase new homes.
  I believe every Member should support getting rid of outdated, 
unnecessary regulations. This bill will allow those who lend money when 
we buy a new car to realize the same savings and efficiencies as banks. 
Not only will this legislation reduce unnecessary costs, it will 
improve transparency and accountability, and ensure individuals better 
understand when a company has actually changed its privacy policy.
  A few minutes ago, the ranking member spoke in opposition to this 
bill. I am not sure what bill she read, but it was not H.R. 2396. The 
bill in no way puts consumers' privacy information at risk. It in no 
way denies consumers important privacy protections. It in no way has 
anything to do with Equifax. It has nothing to do with Wells Fargo. It 
has nothing to do with servicemembers having their cars improperly 
repossessed. It has nothing to do with consumer profiling. It has 
nothing to do with fraud. And--she didn't bring it up--it has nothing 
to do with the President's tax returns.
  This bill should have been on the suspension calendar. There are only 
two groups that can oppose this bill: the United States Postal Service, 
because it is going to mean less business for them; and, as the 
chairman mentioned, paper mills.
  The ranking member did, in fact, offer an amendment. The amendment 
was so convoluted that if I was a bank, a financial institution, or a 
car lender, I would prefer to do the mailings, because the amendment, 
at the end of the day, was really just a haven for class action lawyers 
to file frivolous lawsuits when someone didn't put something on their 
website exactly as outlined in the amendment.
  This is a pro-consumer piece of legislation. I have letters from the 
American Financial Services Association, the National Bankers 
Association, the American Bankers Association, the Consumer Bankers 
Association, and the National Association of Minority Automobile 
Dealers. I also have a letter signed by the Ford Motor Credit Company, 
General Motors Financial Company, Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation, 
Toyota Financial Services, and VW Credit in support of H.R. 2396.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record these letters.
                                                American Financial


                                         Services Association,

                                   Washington, DC, April 20, 2017.
     Hon. Dave Trott,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Rep. Trott: The American Financial Services 
     Association (AFSA) supports the ``Privacy Notification 
     Technical Clarification Act,'' which amends the Gramm-Leach-
     Bliley Act (GLBA) to update the exception for certain annual 
     notices provided by financial institutions.
       The GLBA requires financial institutions (FIs) to issue 
     privacy notices to consumers if the FIs share consumers' non-
     public personal information with affiliates or third parties. 
     Such disclosures are required to occur when a relationship is 
     first established between

[[Page 19791]]

     the FI and the consumer, as well as annually in written form 
     as long as the relationship continues, even if no changes to 
     the disclosure policies have occurred.
       Annual privacy notices without policy changes are 
     redundant, unnecessary, and confusing. They contain several 
     pages of small-print legalese, which have little value for 
     consumers. In fact, they are largely discarded--unread--
     immediately upon receipt. However, producing and mailing 
     these notices costs millions of dollars.
       In the fall of 2014, the CFPB finalized a rule allowing FIs 
     to post their annual privacy notices online instead of 
     delivering them individually if they meet a series of 
     conditions, including not sharing the consumers' nonpublic 
     personal information with unaffiliated third parties. In 
     December 2015, Congress went further by enacting an outright 
     exemption from the mailing requirement for FIs that: (1) do 
     not share non-public personal information about consumers to 
     unaffiliated third parties, and (2) have not changed its 
     disclosure policies and practices since the most recent 
     disclosure was sent to consumers.
       Unfortunately, certain FIs cannot take advantage of the 
     exemption. We ask Congress to pass the Privacy Notification 
     Technical Clarification Act to level the playing field for 
     all FIs. If a financial institution's privacy policy has not 
     materially changed, the institution should be permitted to 
     satisfy the intent of GLBA by delivering its privacy notice 
     through an electronic medium, or by mail upon request.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Himpler,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                                 National Bankers Association,

                                Washington, DC, December 12, 2017.
     Hon. William Lacy Clay,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. David Trott,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Clay and Trott: On behalf of the 
     National Bankers Association (NBA), I write to express our 
     member banks' support for H.R. 2396, the Privacy Notification 
     Technical Corrections Act. The NBA is the nation's leading 
     trade organization for the country's minority and women-owned 
     depository institutions. We write in support of H.R. 2396 
     because our member banks believe updating the delivery of 
     privacy notices should be modernize and reflective of the 
     technological choices available to institutions and 
     customers. As you are aware, the CFPB and Congress have made 
     changes to the privacy notification process in 2014 and 2015. 
     These changes excluded specific financial institutions and we 
     believe a simple method for alternative delivery for these 
     companies is warranted.
       Producing and mailing privacy notices costs millions of 
     dollars. Eliminating the requirement would reduce the cost of 
     delivering financial services, save paper and discontinue 
     this annual nuisance. At the same time, it would also make 
     the mailings more significant to the consumer because they 
     would only come after a change in policy. The primary 
     function of the annual notice is to remind consumers of their 
     right to opt out of information-sharing for marketing 
     purposes, but it is not obvious that mailing a paper 
     disclosure is the most effective or reliable medium for 
     accomplishing this objective.
       H.R. 2396 is a sensible and balanced approach that enjoys 
     broad bipartisan support, that we believe addresses concerns 
     shared by our bankers regarding the need for modernization in 
     the delivery of privacy notifications. We commend you for 
     your leadership on this important issue, and we would urge 
     your colleagues to support this legislation.
           Respectfully,
                                                 Michael A. Grant,
     President, National Bankers Association.
                                  ____

       H.R. 2396, the Privacy Notification Technical Clarification 
     Act, a bipartisan bill introduced by Rep. David Trott (MI) 
     and Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee 
     Ranking Member William Lacy Clay Jr. (MO) and the substitute 
     language, would simplify the notice requirements for 
     financial institutions that have not changed their privacy 
     policies. In addition to the relief provided by the FAST Act 
     for financial institutions that only share information within 
     the statutory exceptions, it would create a simple disclosure 
     mechanism using the Internet for financial institutions that 
     have not changed their privacy practices. The ABA supports 
     H.R. 2396.
       H.R. 2706, the Financial Institution Customer Protection 
     Act. This legislation, as introduced by House Financial 
     Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee Chairman Blaine 
     Luetkemeyer would dictate that federal banking agencies could 
     not request nor order a financial institution to terminate a 
     banking relationship unless the regulator has material 
     reason. The legislation further states that account 
     termination requests or orders would be required to be made 
     in writing and rely on information other than reputational 
     risk. We thank Chairman Luetkemeyer for his attention to this 
     issue as he well knows that banks are in the business of 
     providing financial services for law-abiding customers, and 
     they share a common goal with law enforcement of maintaining 
     the integrity of the payments system. If there is reasonable 
     concern regarding a customer, it works best when banks work 
     together with our regulatory agencies and law enforcement. 
     This legislation supports that concept. The ABA supports H.R. 
     2706.
       H.R. 2954, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act. 
     This legislation, as introduced by Rep. Tom Emmer (MN), would 
     provide community banks with relief from compliance burdens 
     that are ill-suited and unnecessary for community banks.
       Specifically, the bill exempts small banks and credit 
     unions from new reporting requirements of the Home Mortgage 
     Disclosure Act (HMDA) if they are lenders that have 
     originated 1,000 or fewer closed-end mortgages in each of the 
     two preceding calendar years or are lenders that have 
     originated 2,000 or fewer open-end lines of credit (such as a 
     typical home equity loan) in each of the two preceding 
     calendar years. Additionally, the bill repeals the HMDA 
     amendments included in the Dodd-Frank Act and withdraws the 
     CFPB's rule to impose the new and modified HMDA data points 
     scheduled to take effect in January of next year.
       The pending HMDA changes were imposed after the financial 
     crisis. Although well-intentioned, the new reporting 
     requirements were overly broad in their coverage and have the 
     potential to add significant cost and regulatory burden, as 
     well as privacy concerns for customers, to small institutions 
     which have an excellent track record of fairly and honestly 
     serving their customers' needs.
       So great is the cost of compliance with these new 
     regulations that many smaller banks may be forced to 
     reconsider their ability to continue to make mortgage and 
     other covered loans. H.R. 2954 provides needed relief to keep 
     more lending options available in the markets that these 
     banks serve. The ABA supports H.R. 2954.
                                  ____



 H.R. 3299, the ``Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act of 2017''

       The decision by the Second Circuit Court in the Madden v. 
     Midland Funding, LLC case undermined a long-standing legal 
     principle, the ``valid-when-made'' doctrine, which 
     establishes that if a loan is valid when it is made with 
     respect to its interest rate then it cannot become invalid or 
     unenforceable when assigned to another party. CBA strongly 
     supports H.R. 3329 that solidifies the ``valid-when-made'' 
     doctrine, which has been a cornerstone of U.S. banking law 
     for over 100 years and prevent uncertainty for financial 
     institutions.


   H.R. 2706, the ``Financial Institution Customer Protection Act of 
                                 2017''

       CBA strongly supports H.R. 2706, the ``Financial 
     Institution Customer Protection Act,'' that would require 
     federal banking regulatory agencies to establish requirements 
     for the termination of bank accounts and prohibit federal 
     banking regulators from formally or informally suggesting, 
     requesting, or ordering a depository institution to terminate 
     a customer account except in circumstances affecting the 
     security of our country or specific illegal activity.


  H.R. 2396, the ``Privacy Notification Technical Clarification Act''

       CBA supports H.R. 2396, the Privacy Notification Technical 
     Correction Act, to reduce unnecessary paperwork by 
     streamlining the reporting of bank privacy policies. 
     Specifically, H.R. 2396 would relieve a bank of its annual 
     privacy policy notice requirement if it has not changed its 
     policies and practices, makes its current policy publically 
     available, notifies customers of the availability of the 
     notice on periodic billing statements or electronically, and 
     posts all notices if it maintains more than one policy.


                               Conclusion

       CBA stands ready to work with Congress to ensure a sound 
     regulatory framework for financial institutions and promote 
     competition in the financial marketplace. On behalf of the 
     members of CBA, we appreciate the opportunity to submit this 
     letter in support of a number of legislative proposals that 
     would ease regulatory burdens and provide greater access to 
     capital for consumers.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                  Minority Automobile Dealers,

                                     Largo, MD, December 12, 2017.
     Hon. David Trott,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. William Lacy Clay,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Trott and Clay: On behalf of the 
     National Association of Minority Automobile Dealers (NAMAD), 
     I write to express our members support for H.R. 2396, the 
     Privacy Notification Technical Corrections Act. NAMAD is the 
     nation's leading trade organization for the country's ethnic 
     minority dealers. Our primary objective is to pursue the 
     meaningful presence and participation of minority businesses 
     and diverse employees across all aspects of the automotive 
     economic sector, including:
       Increasing the number of minority-owned dealerships in 
     communities across America.
       Advocating workplace and supplier diversity in the 
     automotive manufacturing environment.
       Supporting minority engagement in the automotive retail 
     sales and service sectors.

[[Page 19792]]

       We write in support of H.R. 2396 because it is a sensible 
     and balanced approach that enjoys broad bipartisan support, 
     which we believe addresses concerns related to modernizing 
     the delivery of privacy notifications shared by the indirect 
     auto financing companies that work with our dealers as well 
     as those dealers that also provide in-house financing of 
     their own directly to consumers.
       As you all know, the CFPB and Congress have made changes to 
     the privacy notification process in 2014 and 2015. These 
     changes excluded specific financial institutions and we 
     believe a simple method for alternative delivery for these 
     companies is warranted. Eliminating this requirement would 
     reduce the cost of delivering financial services, save paper, 
     and discontinue this annual nuisance. At the same time, it 
     would also make the mailings more significant to the consumer 
     because they would only come after a change in policy. The 
     primary function of the annual notice is to remind consumers 
     of their right to opt out of information-sharing for 
     marketing purposes, but it is not obvious that mailing a 
     paper disclosure is the most effective or reliable medium for 
     accomplishing this objective.
       NAMAD appreciates the commonsense solution proposed in H.R. 
     2396 as our members believe the delivery of privacy notices 
     should be modernized and reflective of the current suite of 
     technological choices available to institutions and 
     customers. We commend you for your leadership on this 
     important issue, and we would urge your colleagues to support 
     this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Damon Lester,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                December 13, 2017.
       Dear Member of Congress: The undersigned vehicle financial 
     institutions (FIs), consisting of captive finance companies 
     directly affiliated with a manufacturer and who engage in 
     dealer facilitated financing or indirect auto financing, are 
     pleased to express our support for H.R. 2396, the Privacy 
     Notification Technical Clarification Act. We thank 
     Representatives David Trott (R-MI) and William Lacy Clay, Jr. 
     (D-MO) for introducing commonsense legislation to amend the 
     Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) by updating the exception for 
     certain annual notices provided by vehicle FIs to allow for 
     an electronic delivery mechanism. We urge Members of Congress 
     to support this important bipartisan legislation.
       The GLBA requires FIs to issue privacy notices to consumers 
     if the FIs share consumers' non-public personal information 
     with affiliates or unaffiliated third parties. These 
     disclosures are required to be sent annually by mail, even if 
     no changes to the policy have occurred. Unfortunately, annual 
     privacy notices without policy changes are redundant, 
     unnecessary, and confusing to our consumers. They contain 
     several pages of small-print legalese, which have little 
     value for consumers. In fact, they are largely discarded--
     unread--immediately upon receipt. However, producing and 
     mailing these notices is financially costly and time 
     consuming.
       For background, in December 2015, Congress provided for an 
     outright exemption from the mailing requirement for FIs that: 
     (1) do not share non-public personal information about 
     consumers to unaffiliated third parties, and (2) have not 
     changed disclosure policies and practices since the most 
     recent disclosure was sent to consumers. Unfortunately, 
     vehicle FIs remain unable to even utilize an electronic 
     delivery mechanism for these notices.
       We ask members of the House of Representatives to pass H.R. 
     2396 to help level the playing field. Specifically, if a 
     vehicle FI's privacy policy has not materially changed, the 
     company should be permitted to satisfy the intent of GLBA by 
     delivering its privacy notice through an electronic medium, 
     or by mail upon request. The legislation also includes a 
     requirement that a website address or toll-free number would 
     be included in regular communications to consumers, such as 
     monthly statements, as well as a description of where to 
     locate procedures for the consumer to opt-out at any time. 
     This would ensure that our consumers have ready access to 
     privacy policies 365 days a year, including a paper notice if 
     they choose to receive it.
       We respectfully request your support in favor of H.R. 2396. 
     Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Ford Motor Credit Company.
     General Motors Financial Company, Inc.
     Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation.
     Toyota Financial Service.
     VW Credit, Inc.

  Mr. TROTT. Mr. Speaker, it will lower the costs for these companies, 
which will help consumers obtain more loans. This is a bipartisan, 
commonsense piece of legislation with true community benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H.R. 2396.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), a senior member of the 
Financial Services Committee and the ranking member of the Small 
Business Committee.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to thank 
Ranking Member Waters for her extraordinary leadership on these issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2396, the Privacy 
Notification Technical Clarification Act.
  This bill claims to amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to exempt 
vehicle finance companies from providing customers with annual privacy 
statements if the company hasn't released recently changed its policies 
and practices and the company makes its policy available online.
  But this bill goes far beyond providing a small exemption and 
tailored flexibility to captives and vehicle finance companies, as the 
proponents of this bill will have you believe, and something I am 
really ready to support. This bill will exempt all financial 
institutions from providing customers with annual privacy notices.
  As currently drafted, under the bill, financial institutions such as 
payday lenders, check cash servicers, and large institutions like Wells 
Fargo are exempted from providing annual privacy notices and are 
unconstrained on who they can share their customers' personal 
information with. This goes far beyond the original intent of the bill.
  As we have seen in the growing number of data breaches at companies 
like Equifax, the protection of consumers' personal information is 
something Congress must consider carefully.
  While I continue to think that it makes sense for captive auto 
finance companies to have some degree of flexibility, to the extent 
they only share customers' personal information with the dealership, 
this legislation is far too broad.
  Mr. Speaker, to that end, I ask my colleagues to oppose this measure.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Financial Services 
Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
his diligent work on this issue. I also thank Chairman Hensarling from 
Texas for all of the leadership that he has given us throughout the 
year on this particular issue as well.
  Several years ago, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and I 
introduced bipartisan legislation to require depository institutions to 
provide privacy information to their customers only if they had changed 
any policy or practice related to that customer's privacy. That bill 
was ultimately signed into law by President Obama. It has eliminated 
millions of confusing and often-ignored mailings that cost millions of 
dollars to produce each year.
  While our legislation provided relief to banks and credit unions, it 
did not extend relief to other financial companies regulated under the 
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act; namely, captive finance companies that operate 
in a manner largely similar to depository institutions.
  The safeguards featured in the bill from the 114th Congress and 
codified into law are included in Mr. Trott's bill. This relief will 
not be granted to a financial company that has changed its policies or 
practices with regard to disclosure of nonpublic personal information; 
only if it kept it the same.
  There is also a requirement that the privacy notice must be made 
available to consumers in a variety of ways. Consumers will continue to 
have access to privacy notices through online resources and billing 
statements.
  Requirements for financial institutions to release annual privacy 
notices to customers, even when no changes have been made, are both 
redundant and a waste of resources. With the 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 privacy 
policy.
  Mr. Speaker, this is about accountability for the institution to 
their customer for holding that information. It

[[Page 19793]]

is about access for the customer to their own information, with regards 
to privacy of it. A good example, as pointed out by the ranking member, 
was Equifax. But let's stop and talk about Equifax for a second.

                              {time}  0945

  What happened? They had, I believe, the largest breach in history, 
150 million people.
  Mr. Speaker, there is probably you and I and everybody in this room 
and probably the 12 people watching right now who are affected by this, 
but I guarantee you that you and I and all in this room and the 12 
people watching, nobody kept their privacy notices that were sent out 
last year, did we? They are all in file 13 somewhere, long forgotten, 
and all of the information in those privacy notices is forgotten about 
and not even probably read to begin with.
  So it is important. The gentleman's bill here has in here that the 
privacy notice can be accessed online. And in the Equifax breach, 
anybody who was concerned could then go online and check for the 
privacy policies of Equifax and see what the policies were and whether 
they were adhered to by the company itself in notifying them, in taking 
care of their concerns, in reimbursing them. Whatever was in the notice 
was in that online notice as well. So it provided that access, which 
the consumer is not going to have in a piece of paper. That is probably 
going to get in file 13.
  I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, when I was home last weekend, I got one 
of those things. You know what, I looked at it, opened the envelope, 
and said: ``I don't want to read this.'' I threw it away. This is 
nonsense. This is a waste of time and resources.
  And, in this situation with the Equifax breach, I think this bill 
points out the great things that can happen if you enact this 
legislation from the standpoint of allowing consumers to have access, 
24/7, to the notifications and the privacy policies.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
picking up the mantle on this issue, and I ask my colleagues to join me 
in supporting H.R. 2396. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
bringing the bill before us today.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I have heard, more than once, Members speaking for consumers, saying: 
These privacy notices are not that important. Nobody reads them. They 
throw them in the wastebasket.
  Well, I don't know how Members would know that, and I don't think 
that we should be satisfied that consumers are being represented that 
way with indications that they don't really care about these notices 
and the opportunity to opt out so that their information won't be 
shared.
  But let me tell you what consumers are saying to us. I have, here, 
letters that have been sent by consumer organizations that really do 
care about what is happening with this bill today, and I would like to 
share that information with you.
  Let me just tell you who these consumer organizations are and whom 
they represent:
  There is Americans for Financial Reform. Americans for Financial 
Reform is a nonpartisan and nonprofit coalition of more than 200 civil 
rights, consumer, labor, business, investor, faith-based, civic, and 
community groups formed in the wake of the 2008 crisis, working to lay 
the foundation for a strong, stable, and ethical financial system, one 
that serves the economy and the Nation as a whole.
  Then there is Allied Progress. Allied Progress is a consumer watchdog 
organization that uses hard-hitting research to stand up to Wall Street 
and powerful special interests and hold their allies in Congress and 
the White House accountable.
  Then there is Center for Digital Democracy. The Center for Digital 
Democracy is recognized as one of the leading consumer protection and 
privacy organizations in the United States; and since its founding in 
2001 and, prior to that, through its predecessor organization, the 
Center for Media Education, CDD has been at the forefront of research, 
public education, and advocacy, protecting consumers in the digital 
age.
  Then there is Consumer Action. Through multilingual financial 
education materials, community outreach, and issue-focused advocacy, 
Consumer Action empowers underrepresented consumers, nationwide, to 
assert their rights in the marketplace and to financially prosper.
  There is the Consumer Federation of America. The Consumer Federation 
of America is an association of nonprofit consumer organizations that 
was established way back in 1968 to advance consumer interests through 
research, advocacy, and education. Today, nearly 300 of these groups 
participate in the federation and govern it through their 
representatives on the organization's board of directors. CFA is a 
research, advocacy, education, and service organization.
  Then there is Consumer Watchdog. Consumer Watchdog is a nonprofit 
organization dedicated to providing an effective voice for taxpayers 
and consumers in an era when special interests dominate public 
discourse, government, and politics, and they describe themselves as 
deploying an in-house team of public interest lawyers, policy experts, 
strategists, and grassroots activists to expose, confront, and change 
corporate and political injustice in every way, every day, saving 
Americans billions of dollars and improving countless lives. For 
decades, Consumer Watchdog has been the Nation's most aggressive 
consumer advocate, taking on politicians of both parties and the 
special interests that fund them.
  Then there is the National Association of Consumer Advocates. The 
National Association of Consumer Advocates is a nonprofit association 
of more than 1,500 attorneys and consumer advocates committed to 
representing consumers' interests. Our members, they say, are private 
and public sector attorneys, legal services attorneys, law professors, 
and law students whose primary focus is the protection and 
representation of consumers. They have represented hundreds of 
thousands of consumers victimized by fraudulent, abusive, and predatory 
business practices.
  As a national organization fully committed to promoting justice for 
consumers, NACA's members and their clients are actively engaged in 
promoting a fair and open marketplace that forcefully protects the 
rights of consumers, particularly those of modest means. NACA also has 
a charitable and educational fund incorporated under 501(c)(3).
  There is another very prominent consumer organization, the National 
Consumer Law Center, working on behalf of low-income clients. Since 
1969, the nonprofit National Consumer Law Center has used its expertise 
in consumer law and energy policy to work for consumer justice and 
economic security for low-income and other disadvantaged people, 
including older adults in the United States. This organization's 
expertise includes policy analysis and advocacy, consumer law and 
energy publications, litigation, expert witness services, and training 
and advice for advocates.
  This organization works with nonprofit and legal services 
organizations, private attorneys, policymakers, and Federal and State 
government and courts across the Nation to stop exploitative practices, 
help financially stressed families build and retain wealth, and advance 
economic fairness.
  Then there is Privacy Times. Privacy Times is the leading 
subscription-only newsletter covering privacy and freedom of 
information law and policy. It is read largely by attorneys and 
professionals who must stay abreast of the legislation, litigation, and 
executive branch activities, as well as consumer news, technology 
trends, and business developments. Since 1981, Privacy Times has 
provided its readers with accurate reporting, objective analysis, and 
thoughtful insight into the events that shape the ongoing debate over 
privacy and freedom of information.

[[Page 19794]]

  Then there is the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. Privacy Rights 
Clearinghouse, a nonprofit consumer education and advocacy organization 
located in San Diego, California, their mission is to engage, educate, 
and empower consumers to protect their privacy. They engage in 
outreach, provide educational materials and services to individuals 
nationwide, and have an active media presence. The PRC uses the 
information we learn directly, they say, from consumers to form the 
basis of their advocacy work.
  Then there is Public Citizen. Public Citizen has a team of 
researchers. They uncover the facts. Their staff brings their findings 
to the public through the media as well as one-on-one interactions. 
Their advocates bring the voice of the public to the halls of power on 
behalf of consumers.
  Then there is Public Knowledge. Public Knowledge promotes freedom of 
expression and open internet and access to affordable communication 
tools and creative works. They work to shape policy on behalf of the 
public interest.
  Then there is Reinvestment Partners. Reinvestment Partners' mission 
is to advocate for economic justice and opportunity. They do this by 
providing direct services to people, revitalizing places, and 
advocating for just policies. Founded as a project of Legal Services in 
1986 as the Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina, the 
agency has worked to ensure fair lending to underserved communities in 
order to build and protect wealth. In 2012, they changed their name to 
recognize the expanded diversity of their programs and their local and 
State and national outreach.
  And then there is U.S. PIRG. U.S. PIRG is an advocate for the public 
interest, working to win concrete results on real problems that affect 
millions of lives and standing up for the public against powerful 
interests when they push the other way. They say: ``The problems we 
face don't care if you are liberal or conservative, if you live in a 
red or blue State. They affect each and every one of us.'' That is why, 
for decades, they have taken a nonpartisan, facts-driven, results-
oriented approach to their work.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not like hearing that our consumers don't care, 
that they don't need a yearly notification about their privacy rights, 
that they simply throw this information that describes their rights 
into the wastebasket; and I am so pleased that, over the years and 
through the history of this Nation when too many consumers have been 
ignored, taken advantage of, didn't know what their rights were, all of 
these organizations that I have taken time to share with you today work 
on behalf of consumers. They work not only in organizing and educating, 
but they send this information to their Members of Congress. All of 
these organizations have sent in this information not only about their 
backgrounds, but about this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say I hope 
that schoolchildren from around the Nation have been listening to this 
debate because they would be educated on the House version of the 
filibuster.
  I thought that the ranking member was going to break out the 
Washington, D.C., phone book and begin to read from it. It was a 
fascinating discussion of a litany of Washington-based special interest 
groups. I know they appreciated the shout-out; I know it will help them 
in their fundraising efforts; but it has absolutely nothing--nothing--
to do with the bill that we are debating, nothing to do with the bill 
that we are debating.

                              {time}  1000

  So the ranking member said how important it is that consumers receive 
an annual--an annual--notice of the privacy policies of financial 
institutions. Well, under this bill, H.R. 2396, they don't get it 
annually, they get it monthly. They get it weekly. They get it daily. 
They get it hourly.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
  In fact, under H.R. 2396, the privacy notification must be 
continuous. It has to be put on the website. This helps the consumer. 
The consumer has access 24/7 to the privacy notification under the 
gentleman from Michigan's bill, as opposed to the status quo being 
defended by my friends on the other side of the aisle, who say, once a 
year--once a year--you ought to get a piece of paper that is probably 
going to end up in the round file anyway.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, this debate has nothing to do with the privacy 
policies of financial institutions. It has everything to do with the 
notification of such policies. What we provide for is the continuous 
notification; and should that policy change, then, and only then, does 
that necessitate the killing of trees.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Loudermilk), an outstanding member of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding time so that I can speak, and not just in support of this 
legislation, but in strong support of the legislation by my colleague 
and friend from Michigan (Mr. Trott).
  In the short time I have been in Congress, Mr. Speaker, one thing I 
have come to realize, there are some people in this Chamber who never 
met a regulation that they didn't like. Regardless of how effective or 
ineffective or misguided that regulation is, or how outdated the 
regulation is, they always just want to hold on to a piece of 
government regulation.
  I, too, appreciate the ranking member for going through the litany of 
mission statements of special interest groups here in Washington, D.C. 
But this is precisely what the American people are tired of. They are 
tired of the Washington, D.C., swamp. They are tired of the special 
interests, and they want legislation that affects them personally. This 
piece of legislation will affect millions of Americans directly.
  Now, I am not just speaking today from prepared remarks, which I 
have, but I am speaking from someone with experience in this area. I 
spent 30 years, Mr. Speaker, in the IT services business. Ten of those 
years I spent protecting some of our Nation's secrets, through military 
intelligence, and then working in the defense industry. Twenty of those 
years I had my own business, and we were responsible for protecting the 
sensitive information of businesses and their customers. So I am well 
versed in the idea of protection, and, as a constitutional 
conservative, I am very sensitive to privacy protection.
  This piece of legislation is commonsense legislation. It is exactly 
what the American people want us to pass, and I can give you some great 
examples of why, because one of the aspects of security, especially 
data security, is being continually aware of the threat.
  Now, what happens--and I remember when this happened. I was still in 
my IT business when the original legislation was passed; and all of a 
sudden, I am receiving a privacy notice of what my rights are, and, 
unlike most Americans, I sat down and actually read all of it.
  Now, where the confusion came in is when, a year later, I receive 
another one, and then I receive another one, and I am literally 
comparing the two to see what has changed, and I find out that nothing 
has changed.
  So what was the reaction after that? Every time I get a notice in a 
big envelope, instead of just a bank statement, I would just take it 
and throw it in the trash, not knowing if something has actually 
changed, which would be important.
  Now, Mr. Luetkemeyer, another colleague of mine on the Financial 
Services Committee, passed a bill 2 years ago to provide correction to 
that problem. All Mr. Trott's bill is doing now is expanding that to 
other industries.
  This is a consumer protection bill because now, if someone in those 
industries, if there is a change, they receive a notice, they know that 
there has been a change.
  But, as the chairman has pointed out time and time again, this is 
actually going to give more immediate access to know what the privacy 
policy is of financial institutions, to identify if

[[Page 19795]]

there have been any changes because they can go online to see it. I 
mean, you can get that instantaneous with these devices that almost 
everyone carries. It is time to bring us up into the current century 
and the technology that we have.
  So I commend my colleague on actually bringing commonsense 
legislation, the type of legislation that Americans want, that 
consumers want. They want to know what their rights are, but they don't 
want to be inundated with useless information continually, over and 
over again, because then they would actually not be aware of what their 
rights are and what has changed.
  Now, this is especially beneficial to Georgia because Georgia has 
become an auto manufacturing hub. And as we continue to grow this 
economy, and more people--I believe in the next few days, when we pass 
this tax bill, you are going to see a rise in people buying 
automobiles. Why? Because they are going to have more money in their 
back pocket. They are going to spend more money, and they are going to 
be taking out more loans.
  So we need to make sure that they know immediately what their privacy 
rights are, and this bill will make it to where those will be available 
online. This simply makes--it right-sizes government by making 
government smarter, more effective, and, actually, that the regulation 
is tailored toward the consumer, not toward the special interest groups 
and the trial lawyers in Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in a favorable vote for this.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Again, it is interesting how my colleagues on the opposite side of 
the aisle describe their consumers. These are people, they say, who 
don't want to be inundated with useless information. They are saying 
that the privacy information is of no use.
  It is interesting that Mr. Loudermilk said he read his privacy 
notice, unlike most other Americans who don't read their privacy 
notice. I think that is very interesting to describe himself as someone 
who read his privacy notice, but able to speak for all other Americans 
who don't read their privacy notice.
  What is very interesting also about his comments is he refers to the 
consumer groups as special interests, while he is representing the 
banks and the financial institutions, the real special interests.
  Why is it Representatives who come to this Congress to represent 
people who vote for them somehow see their responsibility to protect 
the real special interests, such as the financial institutions who have 
lobbyists running up and down these Halls every day, who make 
contributions to Members of Congress, rather than the consumers who are 
represented by the kinds of groups that I have taken time to describe 
here this morning, because these individuals and the average citizen do 
not have paid lobbyists from financial institutions and banks 
representing them here.
  So it is also interesting that Mr. Loudermilk talked about how many 
of these consumers are going to be buying automobiles because of the 
tax fraud bill that he is referring to that is being advanced by the 
opposite side of the aisle. The only thing that bill is going to do for 
consumers, which will hurt our economy, is create a $1.5 trillion debt.
  Well, he said that consumers were going to be buying more cars. Yeah, 
the wealthy will be, the ones who are given the breaks in this tax 
bill. The wealthy may be buying more automobiles, but the very people 
who are represented by these consumers that I have shared the 
information on this morning, they won't be able to buy automobiles 
because they are going to be harmed. It is only the wealthy, only those 
who are making extraordinary amounts of money, and corporations, that 
are going to benefit from the tax bill.
  I don't even know how and why he talked about it in the same breath 
that we are talking about our consumers being able to be respected with 
privacy information that they would get because we have laws that give 
them the right to have this information.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Trott), the sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. TROTT. Mr. Speaker, we are having an argument here about a bill 
that has strong bipartisan support. When you boil it all down, the 
argument is pretty simple, and the question for us to consider this 
morning, and I would submit we have more important things to work on 
than that question, but that is what we are debating this morning, so 
let's consider it.
  The question we are arguing about is: Do consumers, when they get 
their mail and they find an envelope filled with 30 pages of small-
print legalese, boilerplate language, do they open up that envelope and 
pour themselves a cup of coffee and settle in--we have 9 inches of snow 
today back in Michigan, so they settle in next to a fire and spend the 
next 2 hours reading that privacy notice? That is the question.
  The ranking member has been quite critical of the speeches that have 
been given this morning, submitting that people do read these notices, 
and who are we to judge whether people read these notices.
  We are not making judgment, we are just submitting, on a commonsense 
basis, an argument that people don't read these notices; people throw 
these notices away. And that logic and common sense would dictate that 
if the privacy notice changes, and a new notice arrives, and the 
consumer realizes, gosh, I got a new privacy notice because the policy 
changed; I don't get it when the policy doesn't change; I'd better read 
this. If they are ever going to read it, that is the time they are 
going to read it.
  But if the ranking member is correct in her analysis, and that 
millions of consumers are waiting by the mailbox each and every day so 
that they can study, dissect, compare, and contrast these privacy 
notices, then she is correct. This bill would add an extra step 
because, instead of going to the mailbox, they would have to click on 
the website or perhaps call a toll-free number and have the document 
mailed to them. So if that burden is more important, because people are 
reading these notices, then her arguments are compelling.
  Now, let's examine all those groups that she spent so much time 
telling us about this morning, all those proconsumer watchdog groups. 
All those groups are interested in one thing. They are interested in 
making sure the laws are as complicated and convoluted as possible 
because all those groups, including the ranking member, believe, 
incorrectly, all business is bad; all banks are bad; we have to make it 
as convoluted and as complicated as possible so that class action 
lawyers can find a reason to file frivolous lawsuits to sue them, 
because that is what consumers need.
  That is illogical because when these class action lawsuits and all 
these convoluted regulations get placed on the books and the banks have 
to hire hundreds of lawyers to deal with compliance, who do you think 
pays for that? The consumer pays for it.
  So this bill saves a little money, saves a few trees. Maybe we will 
have a few more forests for our grandchildren. It is a simple bill, and 
I feel bad for some of the Democrats, the 20 in our committee----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield the gentleman from Michigan an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. TROTT. I feel bad for all those Democrats who support this bill 
because, apparently, they are against consumers, too. This bill has got 
nothing to do with any of the arguments that the ranking member has 
proffered this morning. I ask for strong support for H.R. 2396.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no other 
Members, so I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
  It is very simple. The consumer groups that I took time to help 
people

[[Page 19796]]

to understand who they are and what they do, representing the 
consumers, are the folks who are concerned about people knowing their 
rights. This is what they work at doing.
  Those of us who align ourselves with consumer groups care about the 
average citizen. We care that the average citizen gets the kind of 
information that is going to make their lives much easier.
  The people on the opposite side of the aisle represent banks and 
financial institutions. We are not opposed to business, and we work 
with businesses in various ways.

                              {time}  1015

  We are opposed to rip-offs. We are opposed to fraud. We are opposed 
to denying consumers the opportunity to know their rights.
  But those Members of Congress who come here and basically mimic and 
mock the consumers by talking about those consumers who wait by their 
mailboxes for privacy information certainly are not representing the 
citizens of their district.
  I can tell you this: When you take a look at who the real special 
interests are, who is representing the interests of the special 
interests, who in this House stands up for banks, financial 
institutions, and Wall Street and hedge funds, you look at the opposite 
side of the aisle, time and time again, and you will find them putting 
all of their time and their effort into representing those special 
interests.
  For those of us who stand on the side of the average citizen, yes, we 
align ourselves with consumer groups. No, we don't dismiss them as 
unnecessary people just messing around in the business of big business.
  These are the representatives, again, of people who don't have fancy 
lobbyists walking these Halls and following the Members of Congress, 
getting into their area and influencing them.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand today with our consumers. I applaud all of our 
consumer groups and I stand on the side of our consumers being able to 
know their rights and all of the work that went into providing this 
opportunity in law. I stand with them and I resist any effort by the 
opposite side of the aisle to deny the right of our citizens to be 
notified about their rights and their ability to opt out if they do not 
want their information shared with these unaffiliated groups.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very proud. I know that we are doing what our 
citizens want us to do, why they sent us to this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, there have been several surreal moments on the House 
floor this week, and today certainly is one more of them.
  The debate today is not between regulation and deregulation, but in 
many respects, the debate is between smart regulation and dumb 
regulation. What we have today is a dumb regulation that forces a 
number of financial institutions annually to send out a paper 
notification even if they don't change their privacy policy; cut down 
trees, engage an expense--by the way, an expense that, my guess is, 
doesn't come out of executive bonuses, but probably comes out of the 
credit availability and the credit cost to the customer. It gets passed 
on to the consumer.
  What we are also having a debate about--and I would encourage all my 
friends on the other side of the aisle, if in doubt, read the bill.
  In this particular case, guess what, Mr. Speaker. It is a 2-page 
bill. It really doesn't take that long to read. If you read it, what 
you will find out is that this is a bill that is pro-consumer because 
we go from a notification that happens once a year to a continuous 
notification. We improve the consumer notification by ensuring that it 
is consistently on the website of the financial institution.
  What we hear from the ranking member is: No. I want to stay in the 
20th century. Gramm-Leach-Bliley is a law from the 20th century.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we are in the 21st century. Why don't we ensure 
that the privacy notification for the consumer is actually on the 
website?
  This is what is truly pro-consumer, not forcing people to go and 
subsidize the paper mills and the U.S. Postal Service by sending out a 
notification on paper that doesn't change anything and merely confuses 
consumers. If you are really pro-consumer, then try to respect their 
markets and try not to pass additional cost on to them.
  Again, regardless of what you have heard from the other side of the 
aisle, this is everything to do with how we notify people of privacy 
policies, not the underlying privacy policy itself. It is 21st century. 
It is not 20th century. It is pro-consumer, regardless of all the 
special interests and Washington, D.C.-based lobbyists that the ranking 
member has cited.
  The gentleman from Michigan brings us pro-consumer legislation, the 
Privacy Notification Technical Clarification Act. I am kind of 
embarrassed that we are having to spend this much time debating 
something that should have been on our expedited suspension calendar. 
It is almost like there is just simply a knee-jerk reaction anytime we 
attempt to modify any government regulation.
  This is pro-consumer. Frankly, it is pro-environment. Every Member of 
the House should embrace H.R. 2396. I am sorry we have had to take up 
so much time for it, but there are thousands and thousands of 
regulations that hurt our financial institutions, that hurt our 
consumers. We are trying to get rid of every dumb one, one at a time.
  Again, this should be passing unanimously. I don't understand it, but 
I am glad the American people could see this debate for what it is.
  Mr. Speaker, again, let's be pro-consumer, let's be pro-community 
financial institution, let's be pro-environment, and let's enact H.R. 
2396.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Clay

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 11, strike ``financial institution'' and 
     insert ``vehicle financial company''.
       Page 3, line 18, strike ``financial institution'' and 
     insert ``vehicle financial company''.
       Page 3, line 24, strike ``and''.
       Page 4, line 1, strike ``financial institution'' and insert 
     ``vehicle financial company''.
       Page 4, line 6, strike ``or with'' and insert ``the front 
     page of''.
       Page 4, beginning on line 10, strike ``on its'' and insert 
     ``through a link on the landing page of the company's''.
       Page 4, line 13, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 4, after line 13, insert the following:
       ``(C) the vehicle financial company--
       ``(i) provides consumers with the ability to opt out, 
     subject to any exemption or exception provided under 
     subsection (b)(2) or (e) of section 502 or under regulations 
     prescribed under section 504(b), of having the consumer's 
     nonpublic personal information disclosed to a nonaffiliated 
     third party; and
       ``(ii) includes a description about where to locate the 
     procedures for a consumer to select such opt out in each 
     periodic billing statement sent to the consumer.''.
       Page 4, line 15, strike ``financial institution'' and 
     insert ``vehicle financial company''.
       Page 4, line 18, strike ``financial institution'' and 
     insert ``vehicle financial company''.
       Page 4, line 21, strike ``financial institution'' and 
     insert ``vehicle financial company''.
       Add at the end the following:
       ``(3) Vehicle financial company defined.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term `vehicle financial company' means--
       ``(A) a financial institution that--
       ``(i) is regularly engaged in the business of extending 
     credit for the purchase of vehicles;
       ``(ii) is affiliated with a vehicle manufacturer; and
       ``(iii) only shares nonpublic personal information of 
     consumers with nonaffiliated third parties that are vehicle 
     dealers; or
       ``(B) a financial institution that--
       ``(i) regularly engages in the business of extending credit 
     for the purchase or lease of vehicles from vehicle dealers; 
     or

[[Page 19797]]

       ``(ii) purchases vehicle installment sales contracts or 
     leases from vehicle dealers.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 657, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, the amendment offered makes important changes 
to our bill, H.R. 2396, which is a straightforward, commonsense measure 
that seeks to streamline the privacy information consumers get from 
financial institutions and makes the information available much more 
frequently via electronic delivery.
  We have been working on what I consider to be a simple but necessary 
fix to a 20-year-old law throughout this year, and I believe the 
amendment we have presented for your consideration will undoubtedly 
benefit consumers. We have worked with our colleagues on the Financial 
Services Committee to modify and strengthen the underlying bill, and I 
appreciate everyone's efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the committee's ranking 
member, Ms. Waters, for her and her staff's efforts to improve our 
bill. I consider this amendment to be an effort to improve the 
underlying legislation. While Ms. Waters still has some outstanding 
concerns, I do appreciate her working with us.
  The amendment clarifies the process by which consumers can opt out of 
having their information shared with unaffiliated third parties. It 
limits the application of the alternative delivery mechanism to vehicle 
financial companies--that is simply what the amendment does--rather 
than all financial institutions, as defined under the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act and other technical and conforming changes.
  Mr. Speaker, we believe these changes make our bill stronger and we 
urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Clay's 
effort to make the bill better. He is absolutely correct, we have been 
attempting to work together to see if there was a way that we could 
deal with the issue at hand and absolutely ensure that our consumers 
not only have a right to information that explains to them what their 
rights are and how they can opt out when their information is being 
sold, really, to unaffiliated organizations.
  Mr. Speaker, just in case people are not following exactly what we 
are talking about when we talk about opt-out rights, let me draw your 
attention to the fact that you oftentimes are receiving loads of mail 
in your mailbox, everything from somebody who is selling pet food to 
clothing, to services, to all kinds of products, and you don't know why 
they are sending you all this junk. Well, they are sending you this 
junk because somebody sold your information to all of these 
organizations because you didn't know that you had not opted out. You 
maybe didn't know what your rights are. But citizens have a right to 
have that information, and they have a right to be respected and not 
thought to be simply throwing it into the wastebasket.
  It doesn't matter whether it is for all businesses in the United 
States or just for automobile dealers. It is about every citizen having 
the right to have their privacy protected and not having people sell 
their information to unaffiliated organizations that will cause them to 
be pressured or solicited over and over again and their mailboxes 
filled with information because their privacy information has been sold 
to one of those unaffiliated organizations.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that Mr. Clay is attempting to streamline the 
bill. I appreciate the efforts that he has put into attempting to do 
this, but this does not correct the problem. This undermines the 
efforts of all of these consumer groups that worked for years to get 
these notices sent to our consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that we have tried and we have worked 
and we have listened to each other, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on 
the amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, just in closing, let me offer some 
clarification.
  In the fall of 2014, the CFPB finalized a rule allowing financial 
institutions to post their annual privacy notices online instead of 
delivering them individually if they met a series of conditions, 
including not sharing the customer's nonpublic information with 
unaffiliated third parties.
  In December of 2015, Congress went further by enacting an outright 
exemption from the mailing requirement for financial institutions that, 
one, do not share nonpublic personal information about a consumer with 
unaffiliated third parties; and, two, have not changed its disclosure 
policy and practices since the most recent disclosure was sent to 
consumers.

                              {time}  1030

  Institutions that provide financing for vehicle purchases or leases 
do not meet the criteria set forth by Congress and are, therefore, 
required to continue issuing paper privacy notices to consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment helps to improve this bill. It modernizes 
this requirement. I just urge the body to adopt the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question 
is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the 
bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Maxine Waters of California moves to recommit the bill 
     H.R. 2396 to the Committee on Financial Services with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendment:
       In subsection (g)(3) of the matter proposed to be inserted 
     by section 2 of the bill, insert after subparagraph (B) the 
     following flush-left text: ``For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `vehicle financial company' does not include a 
     financial institution that is engaging or has engaged in a 
     pattern or practice of unsafe or unsound banking practices 
     and other violations related to consumer harm.''.
       Add at the end the following:
       ``(4) Additional definitions.--For purposes of this 
     section:
       ``(A) Federal consumer financial law.--The term `Federal 
     consumer financial law' has the meaning given that term under 
     section 1002 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 
     (12 U.S.C. 5481).
       ``(B) Pattern or practice of unsafe or unsound banking 
     practices and other violations related to consumer harm.--The 
     term `pattern or practice of unsafe or unsound banking 
     practices and other violations related to consumer harm' 
     means engaging in all of the following activities, to the 
     extent each activity was discovered or occurred at least once 
     in the 10 years preceding the date of the enactment of this 
     Act:
       ``(i) Having unsafe or unsound practices in the 
     institution's risk management and oversight of the 
     institution's sales practices, as evidenced by--

       ``(I) an institution lacking an enterprise-wide sales 
     practices oversight program that enables the institution to 
     adequately monitor sales practices to prevent and detect 
     unsafe or unsound sales practices and mitigate risks that may 
     result from such unsafe and unsound sales practices; and
       ``(II) an institution lacking a comprehensive customer 
     complaint monitoring process that--

       ``(aa) enables the institution to assess customer complaint 
     activity across the institution;
       ``(bb) adequately monitors, manages, and reports on 
     customer complaints; and

[[Page 19798]]

       ``(cc) analyzes and understands the potential risks posed 
     by the institution's sales practices.
       ``(ii) Engaging in unsafe and unsound sales practices, as 
     evidenced by the institution--

       ``(I) opening more than one million unauthorized deposit, 
     credit card, or other accounts;
       ``(II) performing unauthorized transfers of customer funds; 
     and
       ``(III) performing unauthorized credit inquiries for 
     purposes of the conduct described in subclause (I) or (II).

       ``(iii) Lacking adequate oversight of third-party vendors 
     for purposes of risk-mitigation, to prevent abusive and 
     deceptive practices in the vendor's provision of consumer 
     products or services.
       ``(iv) Having deficient policies and procedures for sharing 
     customers' personal identifiable information with third-party 
     vendors for litigation purposes that led to inadvertent 
     disclosure of such information to unintended parties.
       ``(v) Violating Federal consumer financial laws with 
     respect to mortgage loans, including charges of hidden fees 
     and unauthorized or improper disclosures tied to home 
     mortgage loan modifications.
       ``(vi) Engaging in unsafe or unsound banking practices 
     related to residential mortgage loan servicing and 
     foreclosure processing.
       ``(vii) Violating the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.''.

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I 
ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the final 
amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to 
committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final 
passage, as amended.
  My motion would prevent institutions that have engaged in a pattern 
or practice of unsafe or unsound banking practices and other violations 
related to consumer harm from being able to evade important consumer 
protections.
  When companies repeatedly exhibit indifference to consumer protection 
and demonstrate that they are incapable of complying or are unwilling 
to comply with U.S. laws and regulations, they should not be allowed to 
benefit from those bad actions.
  As I have already mentioned, under this bill, as amended, companies 
like Wells Fargo would be free to share or sell customer information 
with any company, with minimal reminders to their customers.
  We all know that Wells Fargo has engaged in illegal student loan 
servicing practices, inappropriate checking accounts, overdraft fees, 
unlawful mortgage lending practices, overcharging veterans for 
refinanced loans, enrolled customers in life insurance policies without 
their consent, delayed mortgage closing dates until after the 
expiration of the borrower's interest rate lock to levy additional 
fees, and charged over 570,000 customers with auto insurance policies 
they did not need, which resulted in at least 20,000 customers, 
including Active-Duty servicemembers, having their vehicles 
inappropriately repossessed.
  Companies like Wells Fargo are why I introduced H.R. 3937, the 
Megabank Accountability and Consequences Act, to make sure that lenders 
that have engaged in abusive practices face real consequences for their 
wrongdoing. It is time we truly hold companies that demonstrate a 
pattern of harming consumers accountable. These institutions must no 
longer be allowed to abuse hardworking Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of my motion, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, again, I would encourage the ranking 
member and all Members on the other side of the aisle to read the 
underlying bill. It is 2 pages long. It has now been amended by perhaps 
a 1-page amendment. This has nothing to do with Wells Fargo. It has 
nothing to do with Equifax. It is limited to the annual paper 
notification from auto finance companies, pure and simple.
  Again, for those who listened to the earlier debate, the question is 
whether or not these auto finance companies are going to be forced to 
spend money that comes out of their customers' pockets to send out a 
paper notification of privacy policies even when the policy doesn't 
change, or whether or not we should modernize into the 21st century and 
ensure that there is continuous notification on a website and that a 
paper notification only goes out upon a change, an actual change.
  What the ranking member is doing with the motion to recommit is once 
again empowering the unconstitutional and unaccountable CFPB to engage 
in even more activities that harm consumers. It ought to be rejected, 
and we ought to ensure that we adopt H.R. 2396 and simplify and 
modernize one regulation that is harming consumers and harming 
financial institutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the motion to recommit, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on:
  Passage of H.R. 2396, if ordered;
  The motion to recommit on H.R. 4324; and
  Passage of H.R. 4324, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 185, 
nays 235, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 681]

                               YEAS--185

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--235

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn

[[Page 19799]]


     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Clay
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Barletta
     Blumenauer
     Bridenstine
     Katko
     Kennedy
     Knight
     Marchant
     Moore
     Pocan
     Visclosky
     Walz

                              {time}  1101

  Messrs. FITZPATRICK, BACON, MARSHALL, GROTHMAN, Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER, 
and Mr. YOHO changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. CARSON of Indiana, GRIJALVA, DOGGETT, Ms. WILSON of Florida, 
Messrs. GUTIERREZ, and CLEAVER changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 275, 
nays 146, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 682]

                               YEAS--275

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barragan
     Barton
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gomez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Hanabusa
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Keating
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lewis (MN)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Ruiz
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Torres
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Veasey
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--146

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Bass
     Beyer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kilmer
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Barletta
     Blumenauer
     Bridenstine
     Katko
     Kennedy
     Marchant
     Pocan
     Trott
     Visclosky
     Walz


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1109

  Mses. MOORE and WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. DELANEY and KEATING changed their vote from ``nay'' to yea.''

[[Page 19800]]

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________