Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, there have been several surreal moments on the House floor this week, and today certainly is one more of them. The debate today is not between regulation and deregulation, but in many respects, the debate is between smart regulation and dumb regulation. What we have today is a dumb regulation that forces a number of financial institutions annually to send out a paper notification even if they don't change their privacy policy; cut down trees, engage an expense--by the way, an expense that, my guess is, doesn't come out of executive bonuses, but probably comes out of the credit availability and the credit cost to the customer. It gets passed on to the consumer. What we are also having a debate about--and I would encourage all my friends on the other side of the aisle, if in doubt, read the bill. In this particular case, guess what, Mr. Speaker. It is a 2-page bill. It really doesn't take that long to read. If you read it, what you will find out is that this is a bill that is pro-consumer because we go from a notification that happens once a year to a continuous notification. We improve the consumer notification by ensuring that it is consistently on the website of the financial institution. What we hear from the ranking member is: No. I want to stay in the 20th century. Gramm-Leach-Bliley is a law from the 20th century. But, Mr. Speaker, we are in the 21st century. Why don't we ensure that the privacy notification for the consumer is actually on the website? This is what is truly pro-consumer, not forcing people to go and subsidize the paper mills and the U.S. Postal Service by sending out a notification on paper that doesn't change anything and merely confuses consumers. If you are really pro-consumer, then try to respect their markets and try not to pass additional cost on to them. Again, regardless of what you have heard from the other side of the aisle, this is everything to do with how we notify people of privacy policies, not the underlying privacy policy itself. It is 21st century. It is not 20th century. It is pro-consumer, regardless of all the special interests and Washington, D.C.-based lobbyists that the ranking member has cited. The gentleman from Michigan brings us pro-consumer legislation, the Privacy Notification Technical Clarification Act. I am kind of embarrassed that we are having to spend this much time debating something that should have been on our expedited suspension calendar. It is almost like there is just simply a knee-jerk reaction anytime we attempt to modify any government regulation. This is pro-consumer. Frankly, it is pro-environment. Every Member of the House should embrace H.R. 2396. I am sorry we have had to take up so much time for it, but there are thousands and thousands of regulations that hurt our financial institutions, that hurt our consumers. We are trying to get rid of every dumb one, one at a time. Again, this should be passing unanimously. I don't understand it, but I am glad the American people could see this debate for what it is. Mr. Speaker, again, let's be pro-consumer, let's be pro-community financial institution, let's be pro-environment, and let's enact H.R. 2396. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, again, I would encourage the ranking member and all Members on the other side of the aisle to read the underlying bill. It is 2 pages long. It has now been amended by perhaps a 1-page amendment. This has nothing to do with Wells Fargo. It has nothing to do with Equifax. It is limited to the annual paper notification from auto finance companies, pure and simple. Again, for those who listened to the earlier debate, the question is whether or not these auto finance companies are going to be forced to spend money that comes out of their customers' pockets to send out a paper notification of privacy policies even when the policy doesn't change, or whether or not we should modernize into the 21st century and ensure that there is continuous notification on a website and that a paper notification only goes out upon a change, an actual change. What the ranking member is doing with the motion to recommit is once again empowering the unconstitutional and unaccountable CFPB to engage in even more activities that harm consumers. It ought to be rejected, and we ought to ensure that we adopt H.R. 2396 and simplify and modernize one regulation that is harming consumers and harming financial institutions. Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 657, I call up the bill (H.R. 2396) to amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to update the exception for certain annual notices provided by financial institutions, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say I hope that schoolchildren from around the Nation have been listening to this debate because they would be educated on the House version of the filibuster. I thought that the ranking member was going to break out the Washington, D.C., phone book and begin to read from it. It was a fascinating discussion of a litany of Washington-based special interest groups. I know they appreciated the shout-out; I know it will help them in their fundraising efforts; but it has absolutely nothing--nothing-- to do with the bill that we are debating, nothing to do with the bill that we are debating. So the ranking member said how important it is that consumers receive an annual--an annual--notice of the privacy policies of financial institutions. Well, under this bill, H.R. 2396, they don't get it annually, they get it monthly. They get it weekly. They get it daily. They get it hourly.

Mr. HENSARLING. I yield myself an additional 1 minute. In fact, under H.R. 2396, the privacy notification must be continuous. It has to be put on the website. This helps the consumer. The consumer has access 24/7 to the privacy notification under the gentleman from Michigan's bill, as opposed to the status quo being defended by my friends on the other side of the aisle, who say, once a year--once a year--you ought to get a piece of paper that is probably going to end up in the round file anyway. Again, Mr. Speaker, this debate has nothing to do with the privacy policies of financial institutions. It has everything to do with the notification of such policies. What we provide for is the continuous notification; and should that policy change, then, and only then, does that necessitate the killing of trees. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), an outstanding member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that I listened very carefully. It was a fascinating speech from the ranking member. Too bad it has absolutely nothing to do with the bill that is before us. Ms. Waters was speaking of privacy policies. The bill has to do with notification. But I do agree with the ranking member that we do need more effective disclosure. In H.R. 2396, we require financial institutions to make their current policies available on its website at all times. That actually improves disclosure. The only people who can be for the status quo are those who own paper mills so that we can waste more paper. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Trott), the sponsor of this legislation and an outstanding, hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2396, the Privacy Notification Technical Clarification Act, which is an important bill cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Members of the House and a bill that was approved by the Financial Services Committee with a strong bipartisan vote of 2-1, quite literally: 40-20. Additionally, this bill builds upon an issue that has a long track record of strong bipartisan support in Congress. I thank Congressman Trott, a member of the Financial Services Committee, for introducing this legislation and for leading congressional efforts to modernize the privacy notification process for consumers and to provide regulatory relief for our struggling financial institutions. There is a serious issue, Mr. Speaker, with the sheer volume, complexity, weight, load, and cost of the regulatory burden upon, particularly, our struggling community financial institutions, our community banks, and credit unions. It is no one specific regulation, but the totality, the combination of them all, are causing us to lose a community bank or credit union a day in America. As we lose them, our constituents lose their opportunity for credit opportunities to share in their version of the American Dream. It makes it more costly, more difficult for them to finance someone to go to college, for them to perhaps buy an auto to get them to work, or perhaps capitalize their own small business. So we frequently hear from our community financial institutions. I heard from a community banker in Nebraska, not long ago, who explained: ``I have explained about how things have changed since I started in banking 10 years ago. In efforts for our government to make things more fair or easier for consumers, it has actually become increasingly more difficult for people to obtain favorable loan terms and, not to mention, obtain loans in a timely manner.'' I heard from a banker in Alabama about real estate regulations, who said: They were intended to help customers, but it is actually hurting them. As wait times increase and banks are no longer offering certain products, not all of these people can be protected from themselves, no matter how many rules and regs the banks follow to protect them. I heard from a community banker in Utah, who said: I have been in banking for 29 years. In that time, the regulatory burden has increased dramatically. The ability to help customers and small businesses succeed in rural America has been greatly hampered by regulation intended to protect the customer from Wall Street banks, but in the process, smaller community banks, such as mine, have been caught in the fray or broad brush of regulations. A banker in Oklahoma said that, because of Dodd-Frank regulations: ``We no longer offer/purchase house loans.'' The list goes on and on and on. So this is one regulation that simply says: under the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act, if a financial institution doesn't change their privacy notification, they don't have to send out a piece of paper annually--a piece of paper like this that 99 percent of the time customers throw away and don't read in the first place. Don't take my word for it. Professor Adam Levitin, who is a frequent Democrat witness before the House Financial Services Committee testified before our committee: ``One thing that I think should go the way of the dodo bird are the Gramm-Leach-Bliley privacy notices. Nobody reads them.'' That is a Democrat witness, Mr. Speaker. It is not a Republican witness. It is a Democrat witness. He goes on to say: ``There's no reason anyone should--even the large banks--should be spending money on giving these notices.'' But that is not what this bill does. It just simply says, if a financial institution does not change their privacy notification, they don't have to send out a paper notification that creates more costs, that gets passed on to the customer, and that nobody reads in the first place. Number one, it is important regulatory relief for our financial institutions. But it is also important when we think in terms of the sheer volume of financial disclosures that our constituents receive. This goes back to the fact, Mr. Speaker, if you disclose everything, you effectively disclose nothing because you overwhelm the customer. So we must vigilantly ensure that our constituents are receiving effective disclosure, not just voluminous disclosure, but effective disclosure of material items written in clear, understandable, common language. Again, not voluminous disclosure of irrelevant items written in legalese and fine print. That doesn't do anybody any good, Mr. Speaker. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for his leadership. The bill that he is bringing today has earned bipartisan support because it is a simple technical correction to clarify that customers have to be physically mailed an annual privacy notice only when the privacy policies have actually changed from the previous year. Importantly, this bill was carefully crafted to maintain and retain current privacy and opt-out policies and does not exempt any financial services provider from an initial privacy notice, nor does it allow any loopholes for an institution to avoid issuing an updated notice. In fact, this legislation, Mr. Speaker, does not change privacy provisions at all, just how they are delivered. Let me repeat: the legislation does not change privacy provisions at all, just how they are delivered. Again, Mr. Trott's bill has strong bipartisan support. It provides a simple and flexible approach that modernizes privacy notification to the benefit of our customers and to the benefit of our financial institutions. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure and urge every Member to vote for it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Trott), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be schizophrenic. They can't seem to figure out whether they want to coddle Iran or to ``stand up to'' Iran. We were also told that H.R. 4324 was designed to ``blame and shame'' financial institutions, and now they offer a motion to recommit to blame and shame financial institutions. So here is what is going on, Mr. Speaker: What we have is a regime that wakes up every morning shouting ``Death to America; death to Israel,'' and yet we have a motion to recommit trying to relitigate the 2016 Presidential election. We have a regime which has been certified as the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism whom we are trying to hold accountable and from whom we are trying to get information, and our friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to relitigate the 2016 Presidential election. We know that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps supports the Assad regime in Syria. According to the U.N., the Assad government, with the help of Iran, has now carried out 27 chemical weapon attacks since the start of the Syrian conflict, including an April 2017 sarin gas attack that killed more than 80 people, including scores of women and children, and my friends on the other side of the aisle want to relitigate the 2016 Presidential election. Mr. Speaker, Iran continues to imprison foreign nationals, including Americans--including Americans--including 81-year-old Baquer Namazi, who has lost his teeth in prison due to malnutrition. We have had another American prisoner, a student at Princeton, who has suffered health problems, and yet my friends on the other side of the aisle, with their motion to recommit, want to relitigate the 2016 Presidential election. This is a serious moment, Mr. Speaker. H.R. 4324 by the gentleman from Texas is an important piece of legislation to ensure that civilian aircraft sales to Iran remain civilian aircraft and that our financial institutions are not unwittingly helping to finance this rogue terrorist regime, and it is no time to relitigate an election that my friends on the other side of the aisle lost. We need to reject the motion to recommit, and we need to enact H.R. 4324. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, from time to time in my Congressional career I come to the House floor, and I have a surreal moment. Iran is the world's foremost state sponsor of terror, and we have Members on the other side of the aisle saying: Well, we shouldn't learn anything about them. We shouldn't learn about who is financing their aircraft. We shouldn't learn whether or not aircraft will be converted for military purposes. Iran is a regime where every day the leadership wakes up shouting: ``Death to Israel, Death to America.'' Yet I have friends on the other side of the aisle who say: Well, we shouldn't have any reporting on Iran because it might hurt their feelings. This is a surreal moment, Mr. Speaker, an absolute surreal moment. We have been told over and over that somehow this stops the JCPOA, the nuclear deal with Iran. I wish it did, but it doesn't. I would suggest to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if they actually read the bill, it is 10 pages long, 6 pages of findings. You can put the findings aside and read the 4 pages. It is a reporting bill. It has certifications. And guess what the implications are if the administration can't give the proper certifications? Nothing. The deal continues to go on. It is perhaps the single worst foreign policy agreement in the history of America that legitimizes Iran's nuclear program and, on its best day, slows up their nuclear weapons by maybe a few years, at best, on its best day. When the JCPOA was sold to us by the previous administration, we were told: This would be for civilian aircraft use only. Don't worry about it. This is not going to exacerbate terrorism in any way. But we know Boeing itself says their aircraft, which are being sold to Iran, can be used for combat purposes, and, in fact, have been. Iran Air was cited in 2011. It was sanctioned for supporting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has been designated as a terrorist organization. This isn't just theory, Mr. Speaker. It is a fact. Then we had my colleague, the gentleman from Washington, say: Well, it is important that we sell aircraft to Iran so companies can make profits. Well, using his logic, maybe we ought to sell weapons to North Korea if some company can make a profit. I think not, Mr. Speaker. There are some things that are more important. Our security is even more important than the profit of any one particular company. So, again, this is a simple reporting requirement. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams) for his leadership here. It is incredibly important that we understand from those who sold us this terrible Iranian deal, they need to make good on their promises. We need to make sure that civilian aircraft are being used for civilian purposes. We need to make sure that the banks who are financing these deals are not financing terrorism. Yet those on the other side of the aisle say: No, let's put our heads in the sand. Let's just trust--let's trust the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism. They will do the right thing. Let's just ignore this terrorism thing. No. No, Mr. Speaker. That is why it is so important that we enact H.R. 4324, and I urge all my colleagues to vote for it. It is important to America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), a member of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), my friend, the sponsor of this legislation, and a great member of the Financial Services Committee.