Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. In closing, I should say that I would have brought my concerns regarding the Committee Report language directly to the Committee Chairman, Senator Gramm, and his staff but I did not have the opportunity to read the Committee Report language discussing my amendment prior to its publication.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to voice my disagreement with a portion of Senate Report Number 106-44, which accompanied S. 900, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. The Report describes an amendment that I offered that was adopted by a unanimous vote of the Senate Banking Committee during its consideration of S. 900. I want to explain what I intend that amendment to mean and how I intend its language to be interpreted. At issue is the standard for determining whether State laws, regulations, orders and other interpretations regulating the sale, solicitation and cross-marketing of insurance products should be preempted by federal laws authorizing insurance sales by insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries and affiliates. Since the inception of the national banking system, the insurance sales powers of national banks have been heavily restricted. In addition, since the inception of the insurance industry in this country, the States have been the virtually exclusive regulators of that business. Although S. 900 seeks to tear down the barriers that separate the banking, insurance and securities industries, at the same time it seeks to preserve functional regulation. This means that the extensive regulatory systems that have been developed to protect consumer interests in each area of financial services should be retained. For that reason, one of the principles of the proposed legislation is to ensure that the activities of everyone who engages in the business of insurance should be functionally regulated by the States. After all, the States are the sole repository of regulatory expertise in this area. During my review of the Committee Print before the mark-up and during my conversations with my Senate colleagues, it became evident that the Committee Print's provisions regarding the preemption of State insurance laws and regulations did not adhere to this principle. The Committee Print disregarded the Supreme Court's holding in Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25 (1996), regarding the standard for preempting State regulation of insurance sales activity. I therefore introduced an amendment that replaced the Committee Print's insurance sales preemption provisions with substitute provisions based on the Supreme Court's Barnett standard. My amendment deleted all of the provisions in the Committee Print regarding the permissible scope of state regulation of the insurance sales activities of insured depository institutions, their subsidiaries and affiliates. My amendment substituted language that had been developed and analyzed during prior considerations of these issues in previous Congresses, in particular during senate consideration of H.R. 10 last year. The core preemption standard included in my amendment now appears as Section 104(d)(2)(A) of S. 900. It states: In accordance with the legal standards for preemption set forth in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Barnett Bank of Marion County N.A. v. Nelson, 116 U.S. 1103 (1996), no State may, by statute, regulation, order, interpretation, or other action, prevent or significantly interfere with the ability of an insured depository institution, or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof, to engage, directly or indirectly, either by itself or in conjunction with a subsidiary, affiliate, or any other party, in any insurance sales, solicitation, or cross-marketing activity. The ``prevent or significantly interfere'' language was taken directly from the Supreme Court's Barnett decision and is intended to codify that decision. No further amplification of the standard was included because my colleagues and I intended to leave the development of the interpretation of that standard to the courts. There is a great deal of disagreement among both regulators and members of the affected industries as to the manner in which the standard should be amplified. Indeed, State insurance regulators and significant portions of the insurance industry did not support the usage of the ``significant interference'' test at all but instead sought a clarification, supported by the Barnett opinion, that only state laws and regulations that ``prohibit or constructively prohibit'' an insured depository institution, or an affiliate or subsidiary of an insured depository institution, from engaging in insurance sales activities should be preempted.

Mr. BRYAN. My colleague from Maryland asks a perceptive question. The Committee Report attempts to clarify the core preemption standard in a way that is contrary to the meaning of the provision. Page 13 of the Report states that State laws are preempted not only if they `` `prevent or significantly interfere' with a national bank's exercise of its powers'' but also if they `` `unlawfully encroach' on the rights and privileges of national banks;'' if they `` `destroy or hamper' national banks' functions;'' of if they `` `interfere with or impair' national banks' efficiency in performing authorized functions.'' The clauses after the initial restatement of the standard are paraphrases of the holdings of the cases cited in Barnett. As I noted earlier, I intentionally omitted any amplification of the Barnett standard. In addition, the last paraphrase (regarding ``efficiency'') is correct and harmful. It is incorrect because it implies that it applies to any authorized function. In fact, the case cited by the Supreme Court in Barnett said that a State cannot impair a national bank's ability to discharge its duties to the government. The last paraphrase is harmful because it could dramatically expand the scope of the preemption provision. It could do so if read to prohibit the application of any State law that impairs a national bank's or its affiliate's or subsidiary's efficiency in selling insurance. The Barnett opinion does not support any such reading. Moreover, if this language had been suggested as an amendment to my amendment, I would not have supported it nor would the majority of my colleagues. The Committee Report also lists several examples of State law provisions that the Report states should be preempted under the standard, incorporated into S. 900. As noted above, this violates my intent in offering an amendment based on the Barnett standard. For example, page 13 of the Committee Report states that an ``example of a State law that would be preempted under the standard set forth in subsection 104(d)(2)(A) would be a statute that limits the volume or portion of insurance sales made by an insurance agent on the basis of whether such sales are made to customers of an insured depository institution or any affiliate of the agent.'' I strongly disagree. State statutes that limit sales in this manner or that effectively require all insurance agents to engage in public insurance agency activities, and not limit their sales efforts to their captive customers, are not preempted under the Section 104(d)(2)(A) preemption standard. In addition, page 14 of the Committee Report offers a requirement that insurance activities take place more than 100 yards from a teller window as an example of a State law provision that would be preempted. I wish to note that less restrictive provisions that merely require the physical separation of insurance activities from other activities within a bank are not preempted under the Section 104(d)(2)(A) preemption standard. The intent underlying the amendment was to leave these determinations of what is or is not preempted to the courts, based on the applicable legal standards identified in Barnett. Finally, I fell compelled to note that page 15 of the Committee Report states that nothing in the preemption provisions can be read to require licensure of the bank itself, only of employees acting as agents. While this is technically true, it creates some potential confusion with the core licensure requirement. This should be read as allowing institution licensure so long as that licensure does not ``prevent or significantly interfere with'' the exercise of authorized insurance sales powers.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague from Michigan. I rise today as a strong supporter and original co-sponsor of the amendment offered by my colleagues, Senator McCain and Senator Levin, to consolidate our defense infrastructure and authorize an additional round of base closures. For months, Pentagon officials, military leaders and key Members of the House and Senate have painted a picture of an American military force seriously compromised by years of declining or flat-budgets. No one questions that the integrity of our force structure must be fortified, and I strongly support efforts to divert greater funding to modernization and readiness priorities--funding which, in my judgment, is critical if we are to continue to maintain the most powerful and proficient military force on the planet. And I think we are all cognizant of the grave retention and recruitment problems prevalent throughout the military and the serious morale impacts of this lack of funding. These are real problems in our military. Every recent defense-related appropriations measure--including last year's omnibus appropriations bill, the FY 1999 supplemental bill passed by this body just last week, and the legislation that is before us today--has included billions of dollars that the Pentagon did not request nor want. Unquestionably, a large part of the problem has been the insistence of the Congress to continue the time-honored practice of forcing the Pentagon to purchase aircraft it does not want, to build ships it does not need, and to maintain military bases that have long outlived their usefulness. And every dollar that we spend on these wasteful and unnecessary programs and infrastructure is a dollar that we cannot spend on such critical needs as readiness and quality of life programs for our military personnel. Last year, a bipartisan coalition of Senators, led by Senator McCain, and others, offered a proposal supported by the Secretary of Defense and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, to shut down military bases that had outlived their usefulness and to save the Pentagon billions of dollars. And Remarkably, the Senate said no. I am hopeful this body will not make the same mistake twice. The manner in which we fund the Department of Defense borders on the absurd, and continues to undermine our credibility with the American people when it comes to our ability to exercise fiscal responsibility. I am confounded by a Congress that on one hand bemoans the state of readiness of our military, and fights tooth and nail to add billions of unrequested dollars to the Pentagon's budget, and yet refuses to heed the advice of our military leaders and make sensible changes to our defense infrastructure. We micromanage the Defense Department to the point where we tell the generals and the admirals not only how many ships and planes they need to provide for our national security, but also where to place these ships and planes once they are built. It is armchair quarterbacking at its worse. Two years ago, the Congress passed--with great fanfare I might add--a balanced budget agreement that put in place a series of tough spending caps, requiring the Congress to reform its free-spending ways and make the tough decisions that are necessary to maintain fiscal responsibility. Over the past two years, I have watched countless members of Congress duck, dodge, and evade those tough spending decisions as part of a systematic effort to sustain programs that have no justification and no purpose other than to divert funding from other more critical defense needs. The examples are boundless. Last year, we included a $45 million down payment on a $1.5 billion amphibious landing ship that the Navy told us they had no need for. This year, the Pentagon asked for ten new MV-22 Osprey aircraft, and the bill before us tells them to buy twelve. The Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs tell the Congress that we have over 23 percent excess capacity in our current base structure and that it is time to consolidate our infrastructure and use the savings to shore up our readiness deficiencies. And the Congress says no. We shuttle precious defense dollars to shipbuilding, aircraft, and weapon systems programs that the Pentagon has deemed unnecessary and unimportant. And unless the pending amendment is passed today, the Senate will continue to shun the advice of our military leaders, and divert precious dollars away from readiness and modernization programs to support an infrastructure that is clearly in excess of our needs. Today, we have a modest, bipartisan proposal offered by Senators McCain and Levin, supported by the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that would unquestionably save billions of dollars that could be used to improve readiness, enhance pay, retirement, family housing, and other benefits for our military personnel, and bolster our national security. For three consecutive years, the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have asked us to allow the Pentagon to close those military bases it believes no longer hold operational value. And for three years, the Congress has punted this political football, refusing to make the tough choices that we promised the American people we would make just two years ago. Senator after Senator has come to the Senate floor to lament the lack of adequate funding for our Nation's defense. We have heard that the readiness of our forces is at severe risk, that we do not have the funding we need to invest in the weapons technology of tomorrow, and that personnel problems threaten the integrity of our force structure, both at home and abroad. This Senator believes those concerns are real and legitimate. Just last week, my colleagues approved some $13 billion from the Social Security trust funds to address some of these needs, I do not question the urgency in addressing all of our modernization, readiness and personnel shortfalls. With that in mind, I cannot understand how the Senate, with a clear conscience, can fail to adopt the amendment that is pending before us, which was requested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and which would save an estimated $3 billion a year. Not just this year, but $3 billion every year, for years to come. My colleagues, Senator Levin and Senator McCain, have already made reference to a letter sent by the Joint Chiefs in support of this amendment. In that letter, the Joint Chiefs characterize an additional round of base closures as ``absolutely necessary.'' Not just a ``good idea,'' Mr. President, but ``absolutely necessary.'' While legions of men and women have courageously stepped forward to defend this Nation and serve their fellow Americans, the Congress has continued to shortchange readiness and quality of life programs to finance questionable programs and weapons systems unrequested and in some cases outright opposed by the Pentagon. There is no greater national security issue at stake than the readiness of our military and our ability to respond to global crisis. Mr. President, the amendment before us is politically unpleasant, but fiscally prudent and imperative and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I yield the floor and ask unanimous consent that the remainder of time be allocated to the Senator from Michigan, who controls the time.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Even though the language mandating a new signal standard and predictive model was not adopted in committee, I think the chairman would agree that such language needs to be incorporated into a final measure. Many of my colleagues have been stunned to learn of the crazy circumstance that is facing many of our rural constituents as they attempt to get a network signal that they can actually watch. We shouldn's be making it more difficult for them to get this valuable service.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to engage my good friend from Arizona, our chairman of the Commerce Committee, in a colloquy concerning an issue I raised in committee on signal reception standards.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, consumers who live in small and rural markets deserve access to network television service via satellite and the competition with cable it provides just as much as their fellow citizens living in urban markets. The local-into-local service that will be made possible by the legislation we are considering today will provide this much-needed service to consumers, thereby enhancing competition to cable in many urban markets. Unfortunately, because local-into-local will not be available in small and rural markets in the immediate future, consumers who live there must depend on satellite delivery of network signals from distant markets. Recent court-imposed limitations on the delivery of distant network signals, however, will affect households that cannot receive viewable local network signals over-the-air. To correct this imbalance, we should grant the Federal Communications Commission the authority to set a modern television signal reception standard. If the new signal reception standard is set at a level that will provide consumers with a viewable picture, then the new standard will produce a more realistic and accurate separation between ``served'' and ``unserved'' households for purposes of SHVA. In addition, such a standard would provide consumers who do not qualify to receive distant network signals with a reasonable expectation that, if they go to the trouble and expense of installing a ``conventional'' rooftop antenna, they will be able to receive a television picture they can actually watch. To make application of the new standard more consumer friendly, I also urge that we give the FCC the authority to establish the most accurate point-to-point predictive model. Such a model would enable a consumer to know whether or not he or she will be able to receive a signal of the strength established by the rulemaking quickly, accurately, and without expensive testing.

Mr. BRYAN. If this law isn't revised we can expect more consumer confusion and frustration. The ``Grade B'' standard that is used as the signal reception standard today measures the amount of signal intensity that a consumer must receive at his or her rooftop antenna to produce what is considered an ``acceptable'' television picture. Unfortunately, this was a determination made in 1952. Consumer expectations of what constitutes an ``acceptable'' picture have increased substantially in the past 50 years. What constituted an acceptable picture to a focus group in 1951 watching black and white television would almost certainly not be a picture that modern consumers would want to watch on state-of-the-art color sets. In addition, interference has increased substantially since the early 1950's. Background noise produced by aircraft, automobile and truck traffic, power lines, and the like, and electronic interference produced by computers, cell phones, and other electronic equipment interfere with signal propagation. Because of this increased interference, consumers need higher signal intensity in order to receive a viewable television picture.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, next Sunday and Monday, NBC is scheduled to air a miniseries entitled ``Atomic Train.'' The plot of this movie includes a runaway train carrying nuclear weapons and high-level nuclear waste causing a massive accident and catastrophe in Denver. The movie is obviously fiction. Let me just tell you how the network initially described the scenario: A runaway train carrying armed nuclear weapons and deadly nuclear waste suddenly careens out of control down the Rocky Mountains. All of this made the nuclear power industry very nervous, because although the scenario is fictional, much of what is depicted, in part, is a scenario that is entirely possible, given the proposed legislation I will describe that this Congress is considering. Earlier this week, just days before this was to air, all of a sudden NBC changes the story line of the television miniseries, and now we have: A runaway train carrying a Russian atomic weapon and hazardous materials, suddenly careening out of control. All reference to high-level nuclear waste is dropped. The Nuclear Energy Institute, which is the lobbying arm of the atomic energy lobby, was forced to go into high gear. They sent out what they called an ``Info Wire.'' They were very concerned. They say, in effect: NEI, in consultation with industry communicators and representatives of the U.S. Department of Energy and the American Association of Railroads, has adopted a containment strategy for the upcoming movie. We do not want to do anything to provide additional publicity for this movie prior to the airing. The containment strategy is not a passive one, in that it envisions an aggressive effort prior to the broadcast. It is the belief of this Senator that indeed it was a very aggressive effort, and the Nuclear Energy Institute put pressure on the network to drop all references to dangerous high-level nuclear waste. The last thing this industry wants the American people to understand is that legislation which has been supported in previous Congresses, and in this Congress, would result in the shipment of 77,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste within a mile or less of a total population of 50 million residing in 43 States. The blue lines depict rails, and indeed there is a transportation corridor going through the State of Colorado, as well as others. So why did NBC do an ``el foldo''? NBC is owned by General Electric and, surprise, General Electric has a nuclear division, and one of its senior officers is a member of the board of directors of NEI. I acknowledge it is a fictional scenario. But what is very real is that in point of fact the proposal is to transport high-level nuclear waste through all these rail corridors that are depicted on this map. That is not fictional. That is real. It is, in fact, real that high-level nuclear waste is deadly, as NBC first described it. In fact, it is deadly for tens of thousands of years. In point of fact, as we know, every year there are thousands of train accidents in America. A runaway train is not a fictional scenario. That is something that occurs, sadly, from time to time. It is not a fictional scenario for a train and an automobile or a truck to collide at an at-grade crossing. That occurred tragically earlier this year in Illinois. It is not fictional for trains to be derailed. The last thing this industry wants the American people to know and to understand is that, indeed, the shipment of high-level nuclear waste, proposed to be sent to a temporary--allegedly temporary--storage area in my own State, at the Nevada Test Site, is a scenario that would involve the transshipment of 77,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste, with all of the risks that are inherent therein. What is even more outrageous is that it is totally unnecessary. The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board tells us it is unnecessary. The Department of Energy has indicated it is unnecessary. The President has indicated he would veto such legislation. All the risks depicted in this scenario with high-level nuclear wastes could be a reality if there was a tragic train accident and, indeed, the canisters were compromised and high-level nuclear waste was scattered along the route. I think this is a very dangerous proposal. I think the fact the network would cave in is equally dangerous, because the American people have a right to know what is being proposed. In Nevada, we understand the risk. Sadly, there are hundreds of millions of Americans in this country who are not familiar with the nuclear industry's proposal to make their backyards the corridor by which high-level nuclear waste is to pass. I must say, with tongue in cheek, if this is to be the standard, one might contemplate that the cruise line industry might have put pressure upon the producers of ``Titanic'': Please do not make any reference to the fact that the ship is sinking. This may be bad for business. Or the producers of ``Planet Of The Apes'' might have been subjected to pressure from PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, saying: Look, we object to the way in which these apes are being treated in the film; please make changes. Or if some of the advocates of my own State approached the producers of ``Casino'' and said: Look, we don't want you to make any references to ``Casino'' in this story line; please delete that. In my judgment, the circumstantial evidence is powerful here. The description I have given, namely of deadly nuclear waste, was the network's own description just days ago. The NEI goes into a full court press, what they call a containment strategy--what we all know is damage control--and, miraculously, days before this miniseries is scheduled to air, the story line is changed and all references to deadly nuclear waste are deleted. I hope the American people will not be misled, that they will understand the risks that affect them and their neighborhoods. Mr. President, 43 different States are affected in this scenario. This map I have here depicts essentially the States. Because, by their nature, highway corridors and rail corridors connect the major metropolitan communities of our country, this high-level nuclear waste would in fact go through major cities in America. That fact is largely unknown. Last year, I had occasion to travel with my senior colleague to the two communities of Denver and St. Louis, and to share with those communities the risks that are involved. Most people in the community did not have any understanding that this scenario is not fictional and far-fetched but, indeed, it is contemplated that those shipments will occur. I regret NBC felt it was necessary to respond to the pressure of the nuclear power industry. Having been involved in this battle for the last 17 years, I am not unmindful of what a powerful force they are, not only in Washington but around the country. They have every right to advocate their point of view. As to their concern that somehow their industry would be exposed for what it is, a high-risk industry that threatens the health and safety of many Americans with this ill- conceived and unnecessary plan to ship nuclear waste to a temporary nuclear waste facility in my own State, at least this movie would have made the public aware that high-level nuclear waste is dangerous, to use the description NBC initially gave; that it was indeed going to pass through major cities such as Denver; and that indeed the health and safety of citizens of those communities and many others across the country could be compromised. Mr. President, I yield the floor and the remainder of my time.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an outstanding Nevadan for his exemplary volunteer service to the disabled community both in Northern Nevada and across the United States. Jerry Crum has become a recognized leader through his advocacy on behalf of people afflicted with Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome, CFIDS. Since being diagnosed with CFIDS himself in the mid 1980's, Jerry has worked to increase awareness of this often misunderstood disease, and to improve the lives of those who suffer from it. Jerry was incapacitated through much of the 1980's. After several years in and out of hospitals, however, he made a strong, though not complete recovery. As his strength increased, so did his efforts to help others with this debilitating condition. At the same time, he also saw that people with other disabilities and chronic illnesses had encountered many of the obstacles he had. He then sought to share his story with others, and to teach others with disabilities how to be effective advocates for themselves. In 1990, Jerry became a charter member of the CFIDS lobbying organization called CACTUS. In 1992, he helped start the CFIDS Association of America's Public Policy Action Committee, and later founded ``Lobby Day,'' an opportunity for people with CFIDS to travel to Washington, DC to meet with their federal representatives and advance funding and policy needs of CFIDS. Since then, he has testified at a Senate hearing examining the affects of this illness. Although Jerry has always spoken on behalf of all people with disabilities, he specifically expanded his focus in 1998 to include people with lymphoma when he was diagnosed with this rare form of cancer himself. He became active in the Carson Advocates for Cancer and was the Nevada co-chair of the 1998 National Cancer March. He came to Washington again, and marched along-side cancer survivors such as Norman Schwarzkoph as they crusaded to encourage research to find a cure for this terrible disease. Jerry has been a catalyst in bringing advocates together to achieve victories for the disabled. I thank him for his service to Nevada and to all who suffer from chronic, disabling conditions such as CFIDS. He has made Nevada proud.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. If I may engage the floor manager and the distinguished chairman, I have an amendment, and I would like about 10 to 15 minutes. I do not intend to ask for a rollcall vote.

Mr. BRYAN. I want to accommodate the Senator in any way I can. I want to make sure what I am agreeing to. There are several other Senators who may have amendments. I do not want to be at the end. I am simply willing to yield for the purpose of the amendment.

Mr. BRYAN. I am not sure I understand. I want to offer the amendment before we have a final rollcall vote itself.

Mr. BRYAN. I am willing to enter into an agreement of 10 minutes.

Mr. BRYAN. Yes.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I will be willing to do that. Can I have a little flexibility, if you are still trying to work things out. I am not trying to delay this.

Mr. BRYAN. Procedurally, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment, and I ask that an amendment dealing with personal privacy be sent to the desk for immediate consideration.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senate adopted an amendment offered by the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee dealing with the fraudulent procurement of personal information by information brokers. Last Congress, Senator D'Amato and I offered an identical provision, and we were successful in incorporating that in last year's financial modernization bill, H.R. 10. Unfortunately, that measure died along with H.R. 10 which was filibustered at the end of the last session. I commend the Senator from Texas. The antifraud provision is a good first step, but as Senator Sarbanes articulated earlier today, it is in no way a substitute for meaningful privacy protections. The Gramm amendment deals with a small, but pernicious, group of information brokers that obtain personal information under false pretenses. This practice should be shut down. In fact, the Federal Trade Commission recently brought action against such practices. While thousands of Americans are harmed by fraudulent information brokers, each and every American who has a bank account, stock portfolio or an insurance policy is subject to a massive invasion of his or her personal privacy that cries out for legislative remedy. I applaud the fact that the chairman has indicated we are going to hold a series of hearings. I applaud the chairman's promise to hold a series of hearings on the financial privacy issue. Many of us who worked on the Community Reinvestment Act would have hoped we might have had similar opportunities before moving forward with the CRA changes in this bill. While the chairman's amendment and his hearings are good first steps, I encourage us to take one more step that Senator Sarbanes and Senator Dodd and I have been urging for some time. My amendment is quite simple. What we are talking about is financial privacy. I want to make it very clear that I am a strong supporter of the restructuring bill that is before us, the financial modernization. I freely acknowledge and recognize that we need a regulatory framework which comports with the realities of the marketplace today. So my purpose in offering this amendment is in no way to denigrate the need to make the kind of changes which essentially are outlined in S. 900, or a part of H.R. 10 in the previous session. But I think my colleagues and the American people would be absolutely shocked if they knew how little privacy they have in their personal financial information with the very people who are going to be players in this financial reorganization--banks, security brokerages, and insurance. Here is what the American people have to say on the issue of privacy. When asked recently: ``Would you mind if a company you did business with sold information about you to another company?'' Ninety-two percent said yes, they would object to it. The source of that information is the AARP. Let me cite an illustration of precisely what does occur and will continue to occur. This is a financial transaction, I say to my colleagues, that occurred at a bank. A lady came in and deposited $109,451.59. At this bank, teller No. 12 made the following notation: ``She came in today,'' referring to the depositor, ``and wasn't sure what she would do with her money.'' That is the bank teller. This bank has a relationship with a brokerage house. Here is what the teller then did. The teller then contacts ``David''--David is the individual with the brokerage house--and says, ``See what you can do! Thank you.'' So in effect the privacy of this individual's personal bank account is compromised, as the bank teller then notifies the brokerage house: ``You'd better get ahold of this lady. She has $109,000. She doesn't know what she wants to do with it. You contact her.'' This is a real-life situation. Under the current law--under the current law--your information with respect to your insurance accounts may be freely sold to a third party, or maybe transferred to an affiliate under the proposed arrangements that are contemplated in this bill. Your bank account information can be sold to a third party--a total stranger to you and to your financial transaction. So you have a situation in which all of a sudden you have a certificate of deposit that is coming due next month, and you start to get a stream of information from vendors who are marketing financial services and saying, ``Mrs. Smith,'' ``Mr. Jones, I know your certificate of deposit is due next month. Let me show you what our financial package can provide for you.'' And you are saying, ``How does this outfit know that I've got a certificate of deposit that is maturing next month?'' And the answer is, that information can be sold to a third party, and that information is valuable to a particular vendor of services. So the amendment that we propose does two things: No. 1--and I do not see how you can argue against this proposition--

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Presiding Officer. The point that I was making is that your financial information with respect to insurance brokerage accounts and bank accounts is not protected under the present law. That information can be sold or marketed to a total stranger. An outfit, for example, that may be selling penny stocks all of a sudden contacts you and says, ``Look, I know you've got a certificate of deposit or bank account with a sufficient balance involved.'' So what we are proposing in this amendment is something very hard to argue against. We are saying that with respect to these financial organizations--banking, insurance and brokerage--that they cannot sell to a total stranger, a third party, without your consent. What is wrong with that? So rather than being able to sell to any vendor your very personal and private information--your insurance coverages, whatever information might be available about any medical condition that you might have, your brokerage account, your bank account--cannot be sold to a third party without your prior consent. I suspect if you ask the American people--Democrat, Republican, independent, whether they are to the right of center or to the left of center or in between--you would get almost a unanimous vote that would say, ``That is what I want as a protection for my privacy.'' I understand that in this modern consolidation of financial services the thrust of this bill is going to permit banks and insurance and brokerage to be involved in affiliated relationships. I understand that. So we are told, ``Do not, Senator, do anything that would impair or compromise the synergy of the marketplace. Don't do that.'' Well, this is what we propose with respect to those affiliate arrangements. This would not be a total stranger or a third party. If they are going to transfer and make available that information, they need to notify you and give you the opportunity to opt out. They do not have to get your prior consent, but they have to give you the right to opt out. That concept is recognized in the law. Many of you will recall that I took the lead some years back in securing amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. And we said there, with respect to information that is collected, with respect to your credit history, that before that information can be made available for marketers and others, they need to notify you where that information came from and that you had the right, after receiving a solicitation, to say, ``Look, no more. Take me off the list'' in effect the right to opt out. So that is what we are proposing in this amendment--An absolute requirement that if the information is made available to a total stranger, a third party, that has no affiliate relationship, a vendor of any number of financial services, they must obtain your prior consent; that if the information, the financial information, is to be transferred from one of their affiliates, they need to give you the opportunity to opt out if you choose to avail yourself of that option. Now, I am hard pressed to understand why anybody would object to that. I think any one of us would be somewhat surprised to know that our bank accounts, our insurance, and our brokerage accounts can be made available to anyone under the existing law. If we are going to provide these new financial services, which I believe we ought to provide to recognize the change in the marketplace, that does not strike me as being an unreasonable proposition to advocate. So this is a provision that I think needs attention. I must say that the ranking member has taken a lead on this. He has been a strong advocate, as has the senior Senator from Connecticut. I know he had a question or two to which I would be happy to respond.

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator is pleased to yield.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's commitment. If I might engage the distinguished chairman in a follow-up inquiry--I know the Senator is trying to process this bill. As Henry VIII said to his third wife, I shall not keep you long--the question I have of the able chairman is, Would the Senator not agree that before a financial services institution sells personal information about your bank accounts, your insurance policies, about your brokerage accounts, it is not unreasonable that they get your consent before doing so?

Mr. BRYAN. Yes.

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator is delighted to take yes for an answer. I am most appreciative of the response. If the able chairman is saying that perhaps my time has expired, I will be happy to yield the floor in just a moment. I inquire whether or not the ranking member has further colloquy he wishes to engage me in.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I believe the situation the Senator describes would fall under Section 104(c)(2) of the bill. That language allows states to take action on required applications or other documents concerning proposed changes in or control of a company that sells insurance, unless the action has the practical effect of discriminating against an insured depository institution. The concern the Senator voiced is one of the situations we envisioned when we made the changes from the earlier text, and it is my intent that the current language would protect the North Carolina state law on the Blue Cross/Blue Shield of North Carolina conversion agreement. low-income housing