Transcripts For CSPAN U.S. House Of Representatives 20171214

May all that is done within the peoples house, be for your greater honor and glory, amen. The speaker the chair has examined the journal of the last days proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. Pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. The pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. Lance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The speaker the chair will entertain up to five requests for oneminute speeches on each side of the aisle. I pledge all to the flag of the United States of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. For what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition . Without objection, the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Lance thank you, mr. Speaker. I rise today to congratulate three State High School in new champions jerseys seventh congressional district. Westfield high school, north hunterton high school, and Summerville High School. Westfield high school finished its year with its third consecutive state championship and with its 37 consecutive game winning streak intact. The north hunterton lions won their division. And Summerville High School finished as state football champions with Award Winning coach jeff at the helm. I congratulate the communities and families supporting student athletes. I also congratulate all of the faculty and coaches who devote themselves in cultivating and nurturing the talent of these athletes. Each of these Public Schools in addition to athletic achievement has also been recognized for academic achievement. Regularly across the nation. Highlighting that new jerseys reputation as having among the best Public Schools in the nation continues. Mr. Speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition . Mr. Kildee mr. Speaker, i seek to address sent the house for one minute. The speaker pro tempore without objection. The gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. Mr. Kildee thank you, mr. Speaker. To address the house for one minute. The speaker pro tempore as republicans continue to rush their tax plan through both houses of congress, they leave behind tens of millions of americans funded by deficit exploding takes to the tax breaks to the absolute wealthiest. They are also leaving behind some really important americans, our native american brothers and sisters. For years issues of taxation and how federal tax policy impacts tribal governments has been the subject of discussion. And for those years that we have talked about the need for tax reform, there have been to inuous promises made tribal governments that we will deal with these inequities, these issues of double taxation in tribes. For example, the ability of a tribal member who gets an adoption through a tribal court, they dont qualify for an adoption tax credit. Thats one example of the many ways that federal tax policy does not anticipate or recognize tribal governments. But they have been left behind again. This bill should be written in way that actually addresses the real problems in the tax code. It does not. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute thank you, mr. Speaker. Today i wish to commemorate the of rights day. Mr. Lamalfa initially this was passed by congress in 1941 as a joint resolution, signed by Franklin Delano of roosevelt on 1941. Er 27, where in his words he says do hereby designate december 15, 1941 bill of rights day. I call upon the officials of the government, upon the people of the United States to 1941. Where in his observe flag by displaying the of the United States on public buildings and by meeting together for such prayers and ceremonies as may seem to them appropriate. It was first introduced by James Madison who later became the fourth president. Initially 12 amendments were proposed. Two were not ratified. One did become ratified later on. There were 14 original copies produced of the bill of rights at the time. One each for the 13 states and one for the national archives. 12 of them survive today. When Franklin Delano roosevelt signed that proclamation on november 27, 1941, he had no idea what was coming just nine days later. Indeed, his words in the letter at the time, those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy, forget in time that died to win them. They come in time to take these rights for granted and assume the protections assured. We however now seen these privileges lost on another continents in other countries. Indeed. Prescient words for the time. Back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . Without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. Back the speaker pro tempore mr. Speaker, in California Wildfires have become a yearround threat. Because of these fires, communities across mr. Speaker, state have suffered devastating loss of life and property. Last year in my kiss trict district on the Central Coast of california, we had the most expensive fire in United States history. This year we have had some of the most deadliest and costliest fires in california history. Sonoma. Nd we watch fires burn in the hills from los angeles to santa barbara, and oakland and big sur. Mr. Panetta the governor calls this a new normal. We should call it unacceptable and must do something. We must fully we watch fires bu in the hills from Los Angeles Fund the cost of fire suppression. And include fire relief in this years disaster package and think outside the box when it comes to Fire Prevention and focus our efforts to better manage our force in the future. Thank you, i yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition . I request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. Mr. Speaker, millions of american Truck Drivers helped elect President Trump last november and im calling on him to step in and give them a hand. President Obama Left Office back in january, but a 2 billion regulation that he wrote in 2015 to require electronic tracking devices to be put in every truck in america is still scheduled to go into effect this monday. Yes, an obama regulation that shamefully seems to remain on the books is going into effect this monday under a Republican Congress and white house. The department of ransportation can give a 90day waiver for all truckers from this mandate giving several waivers for specific industries, including one just this week. Instead of offering fairness and relief, they are picking win earns losers. Millions of american truckers are pleading 24 7 for relief from this mandate using the hash tag eld or me. It has fallen on deaf heres in the department of transportation. Mr. President , you call the shots in your administration. Please issue an executive order today and instruct the department of transportation to give all truckers relief from this mandate for three months. Dont implement this colossal obama mandate a week before christmas. Thank you. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore members are advised to direct their comments to the chair. For what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition . I ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. Revise and extend. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. Mr. Speaker, on this day in 2012 we watched together in horror as news broke of a shooting in newtown, connecticut. 20 innocent children and six brave educators were gunned down at sandy hook. Since this ears house has paused 40 times in silence to recognize the victims of mass shootings. The names a since this house has familiar, las vegas, sutherland springs. Since newtown there have been more than 1,700 mass shootings, nearly one every single day. Mr. Schneider across the country there have been 170,000 gun deaths. Let me repeat that figure, 170,000 gun deaths since newtown. In those five years this house has taken no significant action to improve on gun safety laws. Were not debating universal background checks or restricting assault weapons, or even banning bump stocks used two months ago in the Las Vegas Shooting for the worst mass shooting in our history. I met some of the parents of newtown. Wee we all grieve for them and their loss. Our moments of silence are not enough. The 26 who lost their lives deserve more. We must honor them with action. I urge this house to end the obstruction and finally would r legislation that improve safety for all of our communities. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition . Unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman from utah is recognized for one minute. Mr. Speaker, would improve safety for all the hous the midst of historic tax reform. Now that the house and senate have almost reached agreement, i would like to take a moment to express a few ideals that i hope will be Guiding Principles as we complete this process. The final tax bill should cut tax force all americans while also retaining important incentives making homeownership, raising a family, and obtaining Higher Education possible. Additionally the bill should continue to uphold American Values by encouraging our people to be generous and charitable. Of our Corporate Tax rate is critical. As a former Business Owner i know firsthand the difficulty of the tax burden. Most of our Corporate Tax rate is critical. As a former Business Owner i know firsthand the difficulty of the tax burden. Most importantly, the bill must help working American Families keep more of their hardearned money. Mr. Curtis i am confident that congress will deliver on its promise to simplify the tax code and to cut taxes to all americans. I know that this historic legislation will spur Economic Growth and prosperity. With that, mr. Speaker, i yield my time. Thank you. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman rom oregon seek recognition . To address the house for one minute. Revise and extend. The speaker pro tempore does the gentleman seek unanimous consent . Yes, sir. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Thank you. Mr. Schrader how do you make a bad inequitable tax bill better . For my republican colleagues that means cutting tax rates for the wealthy even more than the original bills we heard over the last couple days. Wheres the fairness for average hardworking americans . Medical expenses are no longer deductible. Student loan and tuition waivers are no longer deductible. Interest is not deductible for families but for business. Employee business deductions go away. Mortgage Interest Deduction is reduced. State and local taxes are now fully deductible. Small businesses dont get the same tax cuts that big businesses do. No help for capital gains. No help for dividends. Advertising, entertainment, other business expenses no longer deductible. Renewable energy tax credits go away. Private activity to help veterans and others are also gone. Worst of all, individual tax cuts flip back and rescinded in a few years while corporations go on forever. Wheres the fairness for seniors, for our youth, for our families, and for Small Businesses . Not in this partisan tax bill. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri seek recognition . I ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentlelady from missouri is recognized. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, i rise today to congratulate the university of Central Missouri womens soccer team on winning the Ncaa Division 2 National Championship. This is the first ncaa womens Soccer National Championship in program history. Mrs. Hartzler they completed the season with a perfect record of 260. Making them only the third Womens Division 2 National Champion to finish a season with a perfect record. The teams 26 wins set a new single season Ncaa Division 2 womens record. In addition to winning the National Championship, they had five athletes join the division 2 Conference Commissioners Association allamerican team. The teams outstanding accomplishments mark a great milestone for the university of Central Missouris Athletics Department and its head coach of 11 years. Please join me in congratulating the Central Missouri gennies on this achievement. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition . Without objection, the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. Thank you, mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, i stand here today on the anniversary of the tragic shooting at sandy hook elementary school. Mr. Mceachin on december 14, 2012, newtown, connecticut lost 20 innocent children. Most 6 years old, to gun violence. We also lost six brave teachers and taff who did Everything Possible to protect the students in their care. As a father i cannot imagine anything more painful as the loss of a child. As an american i struggle to imagine the more horrific tragedy than that which happened in newtown. Mr. Speaker, many of us thought this tragedy would finally move the needle onpolicy. That did not happen. Just last week the house passed major legislation loosening gun safety laws. I want to remind my colleagues and the majority that it is not too late to act. We cannot bring back those that we have lost, but we can and must ensure that more families do not face the pain that newtown families faced. I urge my colleagues and the majority to join this side of the aisle in supporting commonsense gun safety reform. Thoughts and prayers are not enough. Help us to end this scourge. Thank you, mr. Speaker. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition . Mr. Hensarling mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 657, i call up h. R. 2396 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will report the title of the bill. The clerk Union Calendar bill 321, h. R. 2396, a to amend the grammleachbliley act to update the exception for certain annual notices provided by Financial Institutions. 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 as read. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on Financial Services. After one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed in house report 115462 if offered by the member designated in the report which shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The gentleman from texas, mr. Hensarling, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. Waters, each will control 30 minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. Mr. Hensarling mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and submit heir remarks and extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Hensarling mr. Speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Hensarling 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 21, quite literally, 4020. This bill builds upon an important upon an issue that has a long track record of strong bipartisan support in congress. I want to 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 are there is a serious issue, mr. Speaker, with the sheer volume, complex, weight load and cost of the Regulatory Burden upon particularly our struggling Community Financial institutions, our Community Banks, and Credit Unions. Its 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, and 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 somebody to go to college, for them to perhaps buy an auto to get them to work, or perhaps capitalize their own Small Business. And so we frequently hear from our Community Financial institutions. You know, i heard from a banker, a Community Banker from nebraska not long ago who explained, quote, i have explained about how things have changed since i started in banking 10 years ago. Efforts for our government to make things fairer, easier for consumers, it has 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 that said they were intended to help customers but its 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 banker in utah, Community Banker in utah who said, ive been in banking for 29 years and at 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. Banker in oklahoma said, because of doddfrank regulations, quote, we no longer offer purchase house loans. And the les goes on and on and the list goes on and on and on. And so this is one regulation, one regulation that simply says under the grammleachbliley act that if a Financial Institution doesnt change their privacy notification they dont have to send out a piece of paper annually. A piece of paper like this that 99 of the time customers throw away and dont read in the first place. D dont take my word for it, professor adam levinton who is a frequent democrat, democrat witness before the house Financial Services committee, testified before our committee, quote, one thing i think should go the way of the doodoo bird are the grammleachbliley Privacy Notices. Nobody reads them. Thats a democrat witness, mr. Speaker. Its not the republican. Its a democrat witness. Goes on toway say, no one should, even the large banks, should be spending money on giving these notices. Thats not what this bill does. It just simply says if a Financial Institution does not, does not change their privacy notification, they dont have to send out a paper notification that creates more cost, that gets passed onto the customer that nobody reads in the first place. Number one, its important regulatory relief for our Financial Institutions, but its also important when we think in terms of the sheer volume of Financial Disclosures that our constituents receive. And this goes back to the fact, mr. Speaker, that if you disclose everything, you effectively disclose nothing because you overwhelm the customer. And so we must vigilantly ensure that our constituents are receiving effective disclosure, not just volume ous disclosure, volumi disclosure, written in clear, understandable, language. Not vow luminous disclosure written in leaguies and fine print. Doesnt nt do that do anybody any good. I want to thank the gentleman for his bipartisan support because it is a simple, technical correction to clarify that customers have to be mailed physically physically ailed an annual Privacy Notice only if the privacy changed from the previous year. Importantly, this bill was carefully crafted to maintain and retain current privacy and opt out policy and does not, 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 theyre delivered. Let me repeat. The legislation does not change privacy provisions at all. Just how they are delivered. Again, mr. Trotts bill has strong bipartisan support, provides a simple and flexible approach that modernizes privacy notification to the benefit of our customers and to the benefit of our Financial Institutions. I urge adoption of the measure and urge every member to vote for it and i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time is reserved. The gentlewoman from california. Ms. Waters thank you very much. I yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman is recognized. Ms. Waters thank you. I rise to speak in opposition to h. R. 2396, the privacy notification technical clarification act. Contrary to the bill title, this bill is far from a technical clarification, so i want to be very clear 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 thirdparty companies. Unlike other privacy Bills Congress has considered, this ill comes with no guardrails whatsoever to discourage the company from broadly sharing consumers 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 customers 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 grammleachbliley 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 grammleachbliley 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 large data breach. About two years ago, experian, one of the other three major Credit Bureaus in this country, had a breach that exposed millions of tmobile 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 weary 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 the consumers 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 thirdparty companies are generally not ones that the consumers have an existing relationship with. Meaning they have not received a product or service from the company in the past. Now 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. So lets 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 fargos egregious misconduct which has resulted in Extensive Consumer harm. For example, wells fargo consumers 570,000 for automobile insurance policies they did not need, which resulted in at least 20,000 customers, including active duty Service Members, having their vehicles inappropriately repossessed. These Auto Insurance policies were provided through a nonaffiliated Third Party Company called national general. 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 recidivist bank like wells fargo . Let me also address arguments that customers dont read these notices anyway. As we have discussed, i think customers are paying closer ttention now after the equifax incident. Posing a lincoln their website isnt so bad and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau allowed for it, but in the consumer 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 both instances the customer does not have the ability to opt out of having the information shared. 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 consumers 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 and Auto Finance Company, the bill is not limited to them and goes much, much further. Mr. Chairman, over 30 consumer community, prifecy, and civil Rights Groups have publicly opposed this bill, including u. S. Herg and so do i. This is an area where more study is needed before policymakers craft sweeping changes. The bottom line is i believe we should not open the door too widely at this time to give the same degree of flexibility to all and every Financial Institution. Including resid vist banks like wells fargo recidivist banks like wells fargo. There should be more not less privacy protections and consumer control relating to personal information following e mass niff data breach at equifax this year. For all these reasons i urge opposition to h. R. 2396. I reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore equifax this year. The l these gentleladys time is reserved. The gentleman from texas. Mr. Hensarling i yield myself 30 seconds to say i kwlinsed very carefully. It was a the gentleladys time is reserved. The gentleman from texas. Mr. Hensarling i yield myself 30 seconds to say i kwlinsed 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. She was speaking of privacy policies. The bill has to do with notification. Notification. But i do agree with the Ranking Member that we do need more effective disclosure and 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 more the status quo are those who own paper mills. So we can waste more paper. Mr. Speaker, im now pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from michigan, the sponsor of the legislation, and outstanding hardworking member of the Financial Services committee, mr. Trott. The speaker pro tempore gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Trott thank you, mr. Speaker. Thank the e to gentleman from texas, the chairman of our committee, for yielding time and for bringing this bill to the floor. I rise in support of h. R. 2396, the privacy notification technical correction act. I would like to thank my good friend, thank the gentleman from texas, the chairman of our committee, for yielding time and for bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Cla leadership on this bill. Its 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 dupe anive dupe canive and confusing privacy notifications every year when no changes have been made. Privacy information must be made available on the Company Website and Financial Institutions must send paper copies to consirmse upon request. Under the 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 of information sharing when they receive their bills. If youre like me you throw away these documents. They are confusing, dense, full of fine print legalese. I can of information sharing has changed and im a lawyer. This legislation will ensure ne that consumers are alerted of changes and will no longer be mail. Ed with junk 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 current loans or perhaps will also help companies provide Better Service to their customers. Lowering the cost of ver their product. During a recent hearing on this bill a Community Banker told us about a similar provision that 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 paper and eage and postage and paper and give it back to the community in terms of more loans. This helped people start new business, create more jobs, and resulted in a few mortgages being made to purchase new homes. Lowering the cost of their product. 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. Im not sure when bill she read but it was not 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. Has nothing to do with wells fargo. Has nothing to do with Service Members having their cars improperly repossessed. Has nothing to do with consumer profiling. Has nothing to do with fraud. And she didnt bring it up, 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 group. The United States Postal Service because its going to mean less business for thefment and as the chairman mentioned, paper mills. She didntd, the Ranking Member, offer an amendment, the amendment was so convoluted if i was bank or 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 didnt put something on their website exactly as outlined in the amendment. This is a proconsumer piece of legislation. I have letters from that id like to include with my comments from the american Financial Services association, the National Bankers association, the american bankers association, the consumer bankers association, the National Association of minority automotive dealers, and letters signed by ford tor credit, toyota financial and e, ebb and v. W. V. W. Credit. It will lower the cost for these companies which will help consumers obtain more loans. This is a bipartisan, commonsense piece of legislation which True Community benefits. I urge all members to support h. R. 2396. Mr. Speaker, i yield back the alance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the speaker pro tempore without objection, the letters are included as a matter of the record. The gentlewoman from california. Ms. Waters thank you very much. I yield three minutes to the gentlelady from new york, a Senior Member of the Financial Services committee, and the Ranking Member of the Small Business committee, ms. Velazquez. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for three v. W. Credit. It will lower the cost for these companies which will help consumers obtain more loans. Mi ms. Velazquez thank you, mr. Speaker. Let me take this opportunity to thank Ranking Member waters for her extraordinary leadership on this issue. I rise in opposition to h. R. 2396, the privacy notification technical clarification act. His bill claims to amend the grahamleechbliley act to exempt Vehicle Finance companies from providing customers with privacy statements. If a company hasnt recently changed its policies and practices and the Company Makes online. Cy available but this bill goes far beyond providing a small exemption and taylored tailored flexibility to Vehicle Finance companies as the proponents of this bill will have you believe. And something im really ready to support. This bill will exempt online. But this bill goes far all Financial Institutions from providing customers with Privacy Notices. As currently drafted under the bill, Financial Institutions such as payday lernsd, check cash service, and large institutions like wells fargo, are exempted from providing and are vacy notices constrained on who they can share and are constrained on who they can share their customers personal information unconstrained with 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 customers personal information is Something Congress must consider carefully. While i continue to think that t makes sense for Auto Finance Company to have some degree of exibility to the extend they only share customer personal information with the dealership, this legislation is far too broad. To that end, i will ask my colleagues to oppose this measure. I thank the gentlelady from california. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from texas. Mr. Hensarling mr. Speaker, at this time i am very pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from missouri, mr. Luetkemeyer, the chairman of the Financial Services subcommittee on Financial Institutions and consumer credit. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from missouri is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Luetkemeyer thank you, mr. Speaker. I want to start by thanking the gentleman from michigan for his diligent work on this issue and all the leadership our chairman, chairman hensarling om texas, has given us throughout the years on this particular issue as well last year when i carried the bill also. Several years ago the gentleman from california, mr. Sherrman, 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 customers privacy. That bill was ultimately signed into law by president obama. It has eliminated millions of confused mailings that costs millions to produce each year. Our legislation provided relief to banks and Credit Unions, it did not extend relief to other companies. Namely captive finance companies to operate in a manner largely similar to depository institutions. Safeguards featured in our bill from the 114th congress and codified into law are included in mr. Trotts bill. To leaf will not be granted a Company Relief will not be granted to a companyalso there is a requirement the Privacy Notice must be made to consumers in a variety of ways. The consumers will continue to have access to Privacy Notices to 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 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 or the institution to their customer for holding that information. Ts about access for the privacy to their information own information with regards to privacy of it. And while the a good example as pointed out by the Ranking Member was equifax. Lets stop and talk about equifax for a second. What happened . They had the largest breach in history, 150 million people. Mr. Speaker, theres probably you and i and everybody in this room and 12 people watch right now affected by this. But i guarantee you that you and i all the people in this room, nobody kept their Privacy Notices sent out last year d. We . They are all in file privacy information own information with regards to privacy of it. And 13, long forgotten about. And the information in those notices is forgotten about and not probably read to begin with. Its important the gentlemans bill here as in here that the Privacy Notice can be accessed online. They could 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 and taking care of their concerns and reimbursing them, whatever was in the notice was in that online notice as well. So it provided that access which is not going to have consumers not going to have in a piece of paper thats probably going to get filed. I will tell you when i got home last weekend, got home, said i am not going to read this, threw it away. This is a waste of time and resources. And in this situation with the equifax breach, this bill points out the great things that can happen if you enact this legislation allowing consumers have access 24 7 through the notifications and privacy policies. Once again, i want to thank the gentleman from michigan for picking up the mantle on this issue, ask my colleagues to join me in supporting h. R. 2396. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman from california. Ms. Waters thank you. Mr. Speaker and members, i heard more than once members speaking for consumers are saying, these Privacy Notices are not that important. Nobody reads them. They throw them in the waste basket. Well, i dont know how members would know that, and i dont think we should be satisfied that consumers are being represented that way with indications that they dont really care about these notices and the opportunity to opt out so that their information wont 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 id like to share that information with you. Let me just tell you who these consumer organizations are and who they represent. Americans for financial reform. Americans for financial reform is a nonpartisan and Nonprofit Coalition of more than 200 civil rights, consumer, labor, business, investor, faithbased, and 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. Allied eres l. I. Progress. Its a Consumer Watchdog Organization that uses hardhitting research to stand up to wall street and powerful special interests and hold their allies in congress and the white house accountable. And then theres 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, c. D. D. Has been at the forefront of research, public education, anded a vow casey protecting consumers and advocacy protecting consumers in the digital age. And then theres consumer action. Through Multilingual Education materials, community outreach, and issue focused advocacy, consumer action empowers underrepresented consumers nationwide to assert their rights in the marketplace and financially prosper. Theres 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 the 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 organizations board of directors. C. F. A. Is a research, advocacy, education, and service organization. And then theres 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 inhouse 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 nations most aggressive consumer advocate, taking on politicians of both parties and the special interests that fund them. And then theres the National Coalition 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 the National Organization fully committed to promoting justice for consumers, their 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. They also have a charitable and Educational Fund incorporated under 501c3. Theres another very prominent consumer organization, the National Consumer law center, working on behalf of lowincome 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 lowincome and other disadvantaged people, including older adults in the United States. This organizations expertise includes policy analysis anded a vow case and advocacy, consumer law, litigation, Expert Witness services, and training and advice for advocates. This Organization Works with nonprofits and Legal Services organizations, private attorneys, policymakers and federal, state governments and courts across the nation to exemploy tative practices, exploited practices. And then theres 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 may stay abreast of the legislation, litigation, and the 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. And then theres the private rights clearing privacy rights clearinghouse. Privacy rights clearinghouse, an advocacy organization, located in san diego, california, the 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 p. R. C. Uses the information we learn directly, they say, from consumers to form the basis of their advocacy work. And then theres public citizen. Public citizen has a team of researchers. They uncover the facts. Their staff brings their. Ndings to the public they bring the voice of the public to the halls of power on behalf of consumers. And then theres public knowledge. Public knowledge promotes freedom of expression and open internet and access to affordable communitycations tools and creative works. They work to shape policy on behalf of the Public Interest. And then theres 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. Purge. N theres u. S. U. S. Purge is an advocate for the Public Interest, working to n concrete results on real problems that affect millions of lives and standing up for the public against powerful interests when they push away. They say, and i quote, the problems we face dont care if youre liberal or conservative, if you live in a red or blue state. They affect each and every one of us. Thats why for decades they have taken a nonpartisan, factdriven, resultsoriented approach to their work. And so, mr. Speaker and members, i do not like hearing that our consumers dont care, that they dont need a yearly notification about their privacy rights, that they simply throw this information that describes their rights into the waste basket. And im so pleased that over the years and through the history of this nation too many consumers have been ignored, taken advantage of, that know what their rights were and all of these organizations that i have taken time to share with you today work on behalf of consumers. And 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 background but about this bill. And so i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the ladys time is reserved. The gentleman from texas. Mr. Hensarling mr. Speaker, i yield one 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 washingtonbased special Interest Groups i know appreciated the shoutout, i know helps them in their Fundraising Efforts but has absolutely nothing to do with the bill that we are debating. Nothing to do with the bill that we are debating. 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 dont get it annually, they get it monthly. They get it weekly. They get it daily. They get it hourly. I yield myself another minute. N fact, under h. R. 2396, the privacy notification must be continuous, continuous. It has to be put on the website. This helps the consumer. To consumer has access 24 7 the privacy notification under the gentleman from michigans bill as opposed to the status quo being defended by my friends on the other side of the aisle who says once a year, once a year you ought to get a piece of paper thats 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 am now pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from georgia, an outstanding member of the Financial Services committee, mr. Loudermilk. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Loudermilk thank you, mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from texas for yielding time that i can speak not just support of this legislation but in strong support of legislation by my colleague and friend from michigan, mr. Trott. Short time i have been in congress, one thing i have come to realize, there are some people in this chamber that never met a regulation it didnt like. Regardless how effective, ineffective, or misguided that regulation is or how outdated it is, they always want to hold on to a piece of government regulation. I do 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 washington, d. C. Swamp. They are tired of the special interest. And they want legislation that affects them personally. This piece of legislation will affect millions of americans directly. Im not just speaking today from prepared remarks which i have, but im speaking from someone with experience in this area. I spent 30 years, mr. Speaker, in the i. T. Services business. 10 of those years i spent protecting some of our nations secrets. Through military intelligence and then working in the defense industry. 20 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, im very sensitive to privacy protection. This piece of legislation is commonsense legislation. This is exactly what the American People want us to pass. I can give you some great examples of why. Because one of the aspects of security, especially data security, is being continuously continue yowlly aware of the continually aware of the threat. I was still in my i. T. Business when the original legislation was passed and all of a sudden im receiving a Privacy Notice of what my rights are and unlike most americans, i probably i sat down and actually read all of it. Where the confusion came in is when a year later i receive another one and then i receive another one and im literally comparing the two to see whats changed and i find out that nothing has changed. What was the reaction after that . Every time i get a notice, a big envelope instead of 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. Mr. Luetkemeyer, another colleague of my mine, passed a bill two years ago to provide correction to that problem. All mr. Trotts bill is doing now is expanding that to other industries. This is a Consumer Protection because now if someone in those industries, there is a change, they receive a notice, they know that theres because 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 there has been any changes because they can go online to see it. Mean, you can get that stains instantaneous with these devices that almost everyone carries to bring us into the current century antitechnology that we have. So i and the technology that we have. 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 dont 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. This is especially beneficial to georgia because georgia has become an auto manufacturing hub. As we continue to grow this economy and more people i believe in the next few days when we pass this tax bill, youre going to see a rise in people buying automobiles. Why . Because they are going to have more money in their back pocket, spend more money, and take out more loans. 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 it right sizes government by making government smarter, more effective, and actually that the regulation is tailored toward the consumer not the special Interest Groups and the trial lawyers in washington, d. C. With that, mr. Speaker, i strongly support this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in a favorable vote for this. With that i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman from california with 5 1 2 minutes remaining. Ms. Waters thank you very much. Mr. Speaker and members, again it is interesting how my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle describe their consumers. These are people, they say, that dont 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 of the americans who dont read their Privacy Notice. I think thats very interesting. To describe himself as someone who read his Privacy Notice but able to speak for all other it is interesting americans who dont read their Privacy Notice. Whats very interesting also about his comments is he refers to the consumer groups as special interests. While hes representing the banks. And the Financial Institutions. The real special interests. Why is it representatives who come to this congress to represent people who will vote for them somehow see their responsibility to protect the real special interests such as the Financial Institutions who have lobbyists running up and who hese halls every day make contributions to congress, rather than consumers represented by the kinds of groups i have taken time to describe here this morning because these individuals and the average citizen does not have paid lobbyists from Financial Institutions and banks representing them here. And 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 thats been 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 wealth they will be. The ones who are given the breaks in this tax bill. The wealthy may be buying more automobiles. But the very people represented by these consumers that i have shared the information on this to ng, they wont be able 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 dont even know how i why he talked about it in the same reath that were talking about our consumers than able to be respected with privacy information that they would get because we have laws that give them the right to have this information. And so with that i will reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from texas with seven minutes remaining. Mr. Hensarling mr. Speaker, i once again am happy to yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. Trott, the sponsor of this legislation, three minutes. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. Friend i thank my and chairman from texas for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, were 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 this question, but thats what were debating this morning. So lets consider it. The question were arguing about is do consumers when they get their mail and they find an envelope filled with 30 pages f small print, legalese, boilerplate language, do they open up that envelope and pour themselves a cup of could haveine settle in, we have nine inches of snow today back in michigan, they settle in next to the fire and spend the next two hours reading that Privacy Notice. Thats 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. Who are we to judge whether people read these notices. Were not making judgment, were just submitting on a commonsense basis an argument that people dont read these notices. People throw these notices away. Nd that logic and common sense would particular date if the Privacy Notice changes dictate if the Privacy Notice changes and a new one realizes, got he consumer realizes i a notice because the policy changed, i better reid this. If there is ever a time they will read it, they will read t if the Ranking Member is correct in her aal since millions of consumers are the mailbox each and every day so they can study, dissect, compare and contrast these Privacy Notices, then shes correct. This bill would add an extra step because instead of going to the mailbox they have to click on the website or perhaps call a toll free number and have the document mailed to them. If that burden is more important because people the ma reading these notices, then her arguments are compelling. Just lets exam all those groups she spent examine all those groups she spent so much time telling us about this morning. 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 complicated as possible so that class action lawyers can find reason to file frivolous lawsuits to sue them because thats what consumers need. Thats 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 well have a few more forests for our grandchildren. Its a simple bill. And i feel bad for some of the democrats, the 20 in our ommittee thank you, mr. Chairman. I feel bad for all those democrats that 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. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman from california. Ms. Waters thank you very much, mr. Speaker and members, i have no other members. So i will close. Will i take this time to close. I will take this time to close. It is very simple, the consumer groups that i took time to help people 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. Hose of us who align ourselves with consumer groups care about the average citizen. We care that the average citizen gets the kind of information thats going to make their lives much easier. The people on the opposite side of the aisle represent banks and Financial Institutions. Were not opposed to business and we work with businesses in various ways. Were opposed to ripoffs. Were opposed to fraud. Were opposed to denying consumers the opportunity to know their rights, but for 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. And i can tell you this, when you take a look at who the real special interests are and who are 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. And for those of us that stand on the side of average citizens, yes, we align ourselves with consumer groups. No, we dont dismiss them as unnecessary people just messing around in the business of big business. These are the representatives, again, of people who dont have fancy lobbyists walking these halls and following the members of Congress Getting into their ear and influencing them. And so 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 aw, 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. And so im very proud. I know that were doing what our citizens want us to do, why they send us to this congress, and i say to the opposite side of the aisle the speaker pro tempore the gentleladys time has expired. The gentleladys time has expired. Ms. Waters you should give more respect to our the speaker pro tempore 3 1 2 minutes remaining. Mr. Hensarling thank you, i yield myself the balance of the time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Hensarling 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 many respects the debate is between smart regulation and dumb regulation. And 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 dont change their Privacy Policy. Cut down trees, engage an expense and by the way, the expense, i guess, doesnt come out of executive bonuses but comes out of the Credit Availability and the credit cost of the customer. It gets passed on to the consumer. And the debate were having, and i encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if in doubt, read the bill. In this particular case, guess what, mr. Speaker, its a twopage bill. It really doesnt take that long to read. And if you read it, what youll find out is that this is a bill that is proconsumer 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. And what we hear from the Ranking Member is, no. I want to stay in the 20th century. Grammleachbliley is a law from the 20th century. Mr. Speaker, were in the 21st century. Why dont we ensure that the privacy notification for the consumer is actually on the website . This is what is truly proconsumer, not forcing people to go and subsidize the paper mills and the u. S. Postal service by sending out a notification on paper that doesnt change anything and merely confuses consumers. If youre really proconsumer, then try to respect their market and try not to pass additional costs onto them. Again, railroad regardless what you heard on the other again, regardless what you heard on the other side of the aisle, it is 21st century, not 20th century. Its proconsumer regardless what the special interests and washington, d. C. Based lobbyists cited. The gentleman from michigan brings us proconsumer legislation. The privacy notification technical clarification act. And im kind of embarrassed were having to spend this much time debating something that should have been on our expedited suspension calendar. I mean, its almost like there is a knee jerk reaction anytime we attempt to modify any government regulation. This is proconsumer. Frankly, its proenvironment. Every member of the house should embrace h. R. 2396. Im sorry weve had to take so much time for it. There are thousands of regulations that hurt our Financial Institutions, that hurt our consumers. Were trying to get rid of every dumb one one at a time. This should again, this should be passing unanimously. I dont understand it, but im glad the American People could see this debate for what it is. Again, lets be proconsumer. Lets be proCommunity Financial institution. Lets be proenvironment. Lets enact 2396, and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore all time for debate on the bill has expired. For what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition . Mr. Clay mr. Speaker, i move for the adoption of the amendment i have an amendment. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 1 printed in house report 115462 offered by mr. Clay of missouri. The speaker pro tempore pursuant to House Resolution 657, the gentleman from missouri, mr. Clay, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. Mr. Clay thank you, mr. Speaker. The amendment offered makes important changes to our bill,. 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. Have been working on this what i consider a simple but necessary fix to a 20yearold law. Throughout this year, and i believe the amendment we present 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 everyones efforts. I would also like to thank the committees Ranking Member, ms. Waters, for her and her staffs efforts to improve our bill. I consider this amendment to be n effort to improve on the underlying legislation. And 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. Its simply what the amendment does. Rather than all financial under tions as defined grammleachbliley and other technical and conforming changes. And we believe these changes make our bill stronger, and we urge the adoption of the amendment. Mr. Speaker, i reserve my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves his time. For what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition . Ms. Waters i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. Ms. Waters thank you very much. Clays effort to make the bill better, and hes absolutely correct. Weve been attempting to Work Together to see if there was some 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. And just in case people are not following exactly what were talking about when we talk about opt out rights, let me draw your attention to the fact that you oftentimes are your ing loads of mail in mailbox from everything from to ody selling pet food lothing to services to all you dont oducts and know why theyre sending you all this junk. Theyre sending you this junk because somebody sold your information to all of these organizations because you didnt know that you had not opted out, you didnt maybe know what your rights are. But the 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 waste baskets, and it doesnt matter whether its for all businesses in the United States or just for automobile dealers. It is about every citizen having the right to have their and not rotected 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 these unaffiliated organizations. So i think that mr. Clay is attempting to streamline the bill, and i appreciate the efforts that hes put into attempting to do this, but this oes not correct the problem. This undermines the efforts for all of these consumer groups who worked for years to get these notices sent to our consumers. 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. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady yields back his time. The gentleman from missouri to close. Mr. Clay yeah, mr. Speaker, ust in closing, let me offer some clarification. N 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 customers 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 consumers with unaffiliated third parties and, two, have not changed its disclosure policy and practices since the most recent disclosure was sent to consumers. 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 brife is notices to consume Privacy Notices to consumers. Mr. Speaker, this amendment helps to improve this bill. It modernizes this requirement, and 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 amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri, mr. Clay. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Third reading. The clerk a bill to amend the grammleachbliley act to update the exception for certain annual notices provided by Financial Institutions. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition . Ms. Waters i have a motion to recommit at the desk. The speaker pro tempore is the gentlewomans time has expired opposed to the bill is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill . The clerk ms. Maxine waters of california moves to recommit the bill to the committee on Financial Services with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment in subsection g3 of the matter proposed to be inserted by section 2 of the bill, insert after subparagraph 2 the following flush left text, for purposes of this subsection, the term Vehicle 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 four, additional definitions ms. Waters i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading . The speaker pro tempore is there objection . Without objection, the reading is dispensed with. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. Ms. Waters mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. Bill will he immediately proceed to final passage as 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 a Consumer Protection and demonstrate that they are incape vabble of incapable of complying or 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 Services practices, inappropriate checking accounts, overdraftees, unlawful mortgage lending practices, overcharge veterans loans, enroll customers in Life Insurance policies without their consent. Delay mortgage closing dates of l after the loans, enroll en the borrowers Interest Rate lock to levy additional fees and charge over 570,000 customers for Auto Insurance policies they did not need. Which resulted in at least 20,000 customers, including active duty Service Members, having their vehicles inappropriately repossessed. Companies like wells fargo are why introduced h. R. 393 , 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. So i urge adoption of my motion and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition . Mr. Hensarling i claim time in opposition. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for five 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 two pages long. It has now been amended by perhaps a onepage 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, privacy the policy n when doesnt change. Or whether or not we should modernize into the 21st century and ensure there is continuous otification on a website and a paper notification only goes out upon a change, an actual change. So what the Ranking Member is doing with the motion to recommit is once again empowering the unconstitutional cfpb to ountable 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. 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. The question is on the motion. So many as are in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The gentlelady from california. Ms. Waters i ask for the yeas and nays. The speaker pro tempore the yeas and nays are requested. Those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. A sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. Members will record their votes y electronic device. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by fiveminute votes on passage of h. R. 2396, if ordered. The motion to recommit on h. R. 4324. D passage of h. R. 4324, if ordered. This is a 15minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ]