Blaine Luetkemeyer

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the National Churchill Museum in Fulton, MO for its recent award from the Missouri Humanities Council honoring its ``The Kingdom at Work'' exhibit. As part of the ``The Way We Worked'' program instituted by the Missouri Humanities Council, this effort provided an excellent opportunity to display the cultural history of the area and also demonstrated the power of collaboration in our local community. ``The Kingdom at Work'' exhibit focused on sharing the stories of how work became a central element of American culture and the many challenges and innovations affecting the workforce and work environment. Concentrating on several broad categories, the exhibit shared the unique stories of work from different walks of life in Callaway County over the past century. In addition to the National Churchill Museum, I would like to extend special recognition to the local groups and organizations that cooperated to make the exhibit possible, including: the City of Fulton, the Callaway County Chamber of Commerce, the Kingdom of Callaway Historical Society, the Fulton Area Development Corporation, Westminster College and student organization, the University of Missouri Extension Program--Labor Education Program, Sunrise Sign Company and local trade unions. The final exhibit is an outstanding example of how one community's commitment to collaboration and learning can bring the humanities to life and make our cultural history accessible to current generations. The exhibit and activities surrounding its debut not only highlighted the past but also gave Callaway County the opportunity to explore the future. In closing, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring the National Churchill Museum's ``The Kingdom at Work'' exhibit and its contribution to the humanities.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, the President's just-released budget calls for higher taxes, more spending, and bigger government, all of which would make it more difficult for hardworking Americans, like those in the Third District of Missouri, to find jobs. More troubling yet is the President's budget simply does not balance. Every family must balance their budget, and we in Washington should, too. We cannot continue to spend money we don't have, and it's not right for the President to take more to spend more. Several weeks ago, I proudly supported a Republican budget that provides for a balanced budget, will foster a healthier economy and help create jobs. The President's budget, meanwhile, holds any reforms and spending cuts hostage in exchange for more tax hikes. The American people are tired of the same old song and dance from the President and his allies when it comes to spending their hard-earned tax dollars. This budget proposal, which is months overdue, isn't a serious plan. Mr. Speaker, I'm from the ``Show Me'' State, and this budget doesn't show me anything.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jefferson College located in Jefferson County in Missouri, as the community celebrates its fiftieth anniversary this year. The Community College District of Jefferson County was approved by voters on April 2, 1963. Senator Earl Blackwell of Hillsboro sponsored Senate Bill Number Seven, which made possible the formation and financing of public junior colleges in Missouri. Jefferson became the second junior college district in Missouri to be approved. Seventeen months later the first courses are offered at Hillsboro High School with 14 faculty members and 303 students. Jefferson College moved into its first permanent building on the Hillsboro campus in September of 1965, and held its first commencement in June of 1966, where 31 graduates received associate degrees. In 1967, Jefferson College became the first community college in Missouri to be designated as an area vocational school. Today, in addition to the Hillsboro campus, the college has expanded to sites in Arnold, Cedar Hill and Imperial, which offers programs in Certified Nurse Assistant, EMT-Paramedic and a Law Enforcement Academy, as well as a fifth campus which offers online instruction. As a testament to their vision to make higher education more accessible to their community, Jefferson College has successfully now grown to over 5,500 full and part-time college credit students and 4,300 plus students in continuing education classes. In closing, I ask all my colleagues to join me in wishing the community of Jefferson College congratulations on their fiftieth anniversary.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, today it is my privilege to introduce Monsignor Robert A. Kurwicki as an esteemed guest to deliver the opening prayer of the United States House of Representatives. Monsignor Kurwicki is the Reverend Monsignor of the Cathedral of Saint Joseph in Jefferson City, Missouri. The monsignor has served the great State of Missouri as the chaplain of the Missouri House of Representatives since 2011, a position in which he is responsible for leading the members of the State house in prayer and helping to improve the strong tradition of faith in our capitol in Missouri. In addition to his important role in the Missouri House of Representatives, he is also a member of the Priests Senate and Vice- Chancellor of the Diocese of Jefferson City. Monsignor Kurwicki is and has been a tremendous spiritual influence, not only to myself and my family, but also the Third District, as well as the entire State of Missouri. It is an honor to welcome him here to Congress and thank him for his invaluable service to our community and our country.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 75, final passage of the SKILLS Act on March 15, 2013, it was my intention to vote in support of final passage. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to again reiterate my thanks to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) for his hard work on this issue. I know we had a little bump in the road last fall when we were working on this, and it was through his efforts that we were able to solve the problem. He's been tireless on this, and again today he's brought a lot of energy and information to this issue, and we certainly appreciate his support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 749) to amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide an exception to the annual privacy notice requirement.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials for the Record on H.R. 749.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 749, the Eliminate Privacy Notice Confusion Act. Businesses in America are drowning in a sea of red tape, and the never-ending regulatory onslaught threatens financial institutions' ability to lend to consumers. One banker that testified before the Financial Services Committee last year said that, as a senior executive, he currently spends as much as 80 percent of his time working on compliance-related issues, compared to approximately 20 percent as little as 3 years ago. As he said in that hearing: Every dollar spent on compliance is a dollar less that we have to lend and invest in the communities we serve. Every hour I spend on compliance is an hour I could be spending with customers and potential customers, acquiring new deposits and making new loans. In the Financial Services Committee, we have heard from countless bankers and credit unions that the costs associated with complying with rules and regulations are ballooning rapidly and diminishing financial institutions' ability to lend, forcing them to raise the fees they charge their customers for basic services. The costs stemming from red tape vary, from managerial expenses for monitoring employees' compliance, to printing and postage expenses to provide written disclosures to customers. This bipartisan bill will help reduce compliance burdens and confusion among consumers. Federal law currently requires financial institutions to issue disclosure notices to consumers that detail the institution's privacy policies if it shares customers' nonpublic personal information, as well as the customer's right to opt out of sharing this information. These disclosures must be issued when a customer relationship is first established and annually in paper form, even if no policy changes have occurred. My bill would require institutions to provide these notices only if they have changed a policy or practice related to the privacy of the consumer. This may seem like a simple change, but its impact on financial institutions is significant. Requiring these institutions to send annual notices even when no changes have been made is redundant, unnecessary, and costly. Mr. Speaker, this bill would permit financial institutions to redirect these resources towards lending, staffing, and lowering the cost of financial services. For consumers, these mailings typically serve to clog up mailboxes and confuse even the best of us. In fact, a recent voter survey conducted by Voter/Consumer Research indicated that fewer than one-quarter of consumers read the privacy notifications they receive, and over three-quarters of consumers would be more likely to read them if they were only sent when a financial institution changed its policies. This bill will make the mailings more significant to the consumer because they would only come after a change in policy. Let me reiterate: This legislation will only remove the annual privacy notice requirement if an institution has not, in any way, changed its privacy policies or procedures. This legislation does not exempt any institution from an initial privacy notice, nor does it allow a loophole for an institution to avoid using an updated notice. This language is not controversial; it does not jeopardize consumer privacy; and it does not exempt any institution from having to produce an initial or amended privacy notice. This legislation does eliminate millions of costly and confusing mailings. H.R. 749 enjoys broad support within the financial services industry, from credit unions and community services to money center banks; and here in Congress, this bill is one of the few that both Republicans and Democrats can agree on. In fact, previous versions of this bill passed on voice vote in both the 111th and 112th Congresses, with the most recent vote occurring just before this past Christmas. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) for his work on this bill. He has been tireless; he has been relentless; he has been a huge supporter, and it is a big issue to him and his constituents as well. I also want to thank Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member Waters for helping to ensure swift passage of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to again voice their support in favor of this bill. H.R. 749 may be short and simple, but it will have a meaningful impact on financial institutions by increasing their resources so they can do what they do best--lend. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

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

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1035) to require a study of voluntary community-based flood insurance options and how such options could be incorporated into the national flood insurance program, and for other purposes.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I want to again congratulate and thank the gentlelady from Wisconsin for her hard work on this issue. I know that it's something near and dear to her heart, and I think it's absolutely something that is a good way to approach this issue from the standpoint of let's get a study done to see if this is a viable option. If it is, it can be a really beneficial tool to a lot of our communities that are in some difficult positions because of the flood situations they may be in. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials for the Record on H.R. 1035.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 1035, legislation introduced by my Financial Services Committee colleague, Congresswoman Gwen Moore, and chairman emeritus, Spencer Bachus. H.R. 1035 would require the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the agency which administers the National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, to conduct a study on the advantages and disadvantages of providing voluntary community-based flood insurance through the NFIP and report its recommendations for implementation to Congress within 18 months. Additionally, H.R. 1035 requires the Government Accountability Office to analyze FEMA's report and submit its comments or recommendations to Congress within 6 months. Community-based flood insurance is an insurance technique where a risk assessment is made for all the buildings in the community, and then premiums to cover that risk are paid collectively by that community, rather than the current practice of assessing each building individually and having each individual owner pay a premium. This innovative tool may represent a new and better way for some communities at risk of flooding to take the necessary steps to protect their citizens. In fact, FEMA has stated in congressional testimony that voluntary community-based flood insurance could help NFIP better account for the full cost of flood risk, as well as provide incentives to encourage communities to implement greater flood mitigation measures. Thus, we think that it is appropriate to commission this study of the community-based flood insurance concept so that FEMA can understand how it could be put to its greatest benefit. Congresswoman Moore's community-based flood insurance study provision was originally included as part of H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011, the bipartisan, long-term NFIP reauthorization that passed the House with over 400 votes in 2011. It was also included as part of the long-term NFIP reauthorization efforts that passed the House three other times in different bills in 2012. An identical bill passed as a stand-alone on September 10, 2012, by a vote of 346-11, so I think you can see that we've had this issue before us many times. It's always been supported. I urge the support for H.R. 1035. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Chairman Capito, for yielding. I rise today in strong support of the amended version of H.R. 5817, the Eliminate Privacy Notice Confusion Act. Under current law, all financial institutions are required to provide annual privacy notices explaining information-sharing practices to customers. Banks and credit unions are required to give these notices each year even if their privacy notice has not changed. This creates not only waste for financial institutions but confusion among and increased costs to consumers. In his book entitled ``The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure,'' John Allison reports that one bank offered at the end of its privacy notice to pay $100 to any customer that read its notice in full. Only one customer took the bank up on that offer. Year after year, millions of dollars are spent on privacy notices that are either disregarded by or confuse the customers. Let's think about this cost for a second. This outdated requirement doesn't cost only in postage alone, but also costs in compliance costs, cost of supplies, printing fees, and man hours. I talked to one community bank in my district that said they spent roughly 70 cents per disclosure. With a minimum of 250,000 accounts and customers, this one bank spends $175,000 a year on this requirement. It may not seem like a lot of money to some of my colleagues, but I can tell you that $175,000 is a lot of money for a small institution like this one in my district, especially when a lot of those costs are passed on to the customer. There is some debate over what this legislation will do. Let me be completely clear: this legislation will only remove the Gramm-Leach- Bliley annual privacy notice requirement of an institution if an institution has not, in any way, changed its privacy notice or procedures. This legislation does not exempt any institution from an initial privacy notice, nor does it allow a loophole for an institution to avoid issuing an updated notice. We worked in a bipartisan fashion to amend this legislation to remove the stipulations for State-regulated financial institutions. The amended language is now identical to the legislation that passed the House by a voice vote in the 111th Congress. Additionally, I would like to remind my colleagues that similar language, language that was the basis for the first version of legislation, passed in both the 109th Congress and the 110th Congress. This language is not controversial, it does not jeopardize consumer privacy, and it does not exempt an institution from having to produce an initial or amended privacy notice. This legislation does eliminate millions of costly, confusing, and often ignored mailings. And, with the passage of this bill, the information included in these mailings would likely become more significant to the consumer because it would come only after a change in the privacy policy. This legislation is supported by the Independent Community Bankers of America, the Credit Union National Association, the American Bankers Association, the National Association of Federal Credit Unions, and the Consumer Bankers Association, among others. I'd like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) for his work on this bill. I would also like to thank Chairman Bachus, Ranking Member Frank, Chairman Capito, and Ranking Member Maloney for their work with us toward swift passage of this legislation. With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues for their support.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I thank Chairwoman Capito. I would like to respond to some of the comments that have been made. First, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for their work on the privacy notice and protection of our private information. I think it is extremely important, and I applaud those efforts, and I support those efforts. If you will look at this particular bill, this is not an effort to thwart any sort of ability for people to protect their private information. Within the privacy law, there are all sorts of other protections. So it doesn't change one single dot of an I or a cross of a T on the rest of the notifications there, whether it deals with the kind of information you can collaborate on or the different kinds of information that you can be a part of. All it does is just say that the notification that is supposed to be required annually is not made unless there is a change. The gentleman from Massachusetts made some comments with regards, Madam Speaker, to the amount of mail that he gets from the banks. That's not necessarily something that is the compliance area; it's called marketing. Whenever they're trying to market for their credit cards or market for their services, that's part of their marketing budget. That's where those dollars come from to be able to do those things. That's part of being a business. When it comes time for an individual to be notified of changes, such as you merge another bank or another institution with others and you're one of the individuals whose institution was bought out, you will receive a new notice because obviously there will be a change in the information that's going to be held by the banks. You'll be notified of that because it is a significant change. I'm not sure that the gentlemen that spoke in opposition have quite thought through their arguments. Basically, all we're doing is allowing for some bookkeeping things to be done here. We're not impacting the individual's privacy at all. I think if you went on the street and you asked 10 people whether they thought this was a good idea or not, I guarantee there would be at least nine, and probably one would say, I can take it either way. I don't see any opposition from the consumers themselves whenever they're actually paying for these notices through higher charges through their bank accounts. I think that there is a lot of good we're trying to do here. We're not trying to change the world. All we're trying to do is continue to protect the integrity of the information the banks and credit unions are holding on these individuals and provide for the ability of those institutions to do it in a more effective and cost-effective manner.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Chairwoman Capito, for yielding. Also, I want to thank Mr. Sherman for his fine remarks. We certainly will take no offense to a recorded vote and will not oppose that. We understand and support collegiality among ourselves, especially in this time when it seems to be more partisan and toxic than it is friendly, so no problem there, Representative. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5817, the Eliminate Privacy Notice Confusion Act. I introduced this legislation earlier this year in an effort to reduce yet another unnecessary burden facing consumers and financial institutions alike. Under current law, financial institutions of all sizes are required to provide annual privacy notices explaining information sharing practices to all customers. Banks and credit unions are required to give these notices each year even if their privacy policies have not changed in the slightest. This creates not only waste for financial institutions, but confusion among and increased indirect cost to consumers. H.R. 5817 would require institutions to provide privacy policy information to their customers only if they've changed any policy or practice related to that customer's privacy. This bill would eliminate millions of costly, confusing, and often ignored mailings that cost millions of dollars to produce each year. And 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 the privacy policy. Again, I want to remind my colleagues that this legislation specifically ensures that a financial institution cannot be exempted from annual privacy notices if that institution changes in any way its policies or practices related to the disclosure of nonpublic personal information. This legislation is supported by Independent Community Bankers of America, the Credit Union National Association, the American Bankers Association, and the National Association of Federal Credit Unions, among others. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) for his fine support and his good work on this issue. Also, I want to thank Chairman Bachus, Ranking Member Frank, Chairwoman Capito, and Ranking Member Maloney for their assistance in ensuring that this legislation passes without delay. This commonsense legislation has garnered widespread bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to add extraneous material to this bill.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2453, the Mark Twain Commemorative Coin Act. The underlying legislation, which passed the House by a vote of 408-4 on April 18 and the Senate by unanimous consent in September, will allow the U.S. Treasury to mint $1 and $5 commemorative coins in 2016, which will promote the important legacy of Mark Twain and benefit four institutions that bear his name: the Mark Twain House & Museum in Hartford, Connecticut; the University of California Berkeley; Elmira College in New York; and in my congressional district, the Mark Twain Boyhood Home & Museum in Hannibal, Missouri. I want to remind my colleagues that this bill will cost the American taxpayers nothing. In fact, the Senate has included language that specifically ensures that the minting and issuing of coins under this act will not result in any net cost to the United States Government and that no funds can be disbursed to the recipients until the total cost of designing and issuing all coins is first recovered by the U.S. Treasury. I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, for his leadership on this legislation. I also would like to acknowledge Hannibal's Mark Twain Boyhood Home & Museum executive director Dr. Cindy Lovell and the museum's curator Henry Sweets, as well as their dedicated staff, for their incredible work to promote awareness and appreciation of the life and works of Mark Twain. The bill we consider today honors the legacy of a great American and will greatly help to educate the public of his great accomplishments and contributions to society. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to close by inviting my colleague from New York to come to the district to see the landmarks that inspired Mark Twain to write about Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer. And you can see from those landmarks where he got the inspiration to do what he did and the type of people that he was around to see how he came up with his ideas. It's really a neat place to visit, and I certainly welcome and encourage you to come. With that, Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 2453) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of Mark Twain.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Eldon FFA knowledge team of Eldon FFA Chapter for winning the National FFA Knowledge Career Development Event. This team and their advisor should be commended for all of their hard work throughout this past year and for bringing home the national title to their chapter and their community. I ask you to join me in recognizing the Eldon FFA knowledge team for a job well done!

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Centralia Lady Panthers softball team of Centralia High School for winning the Class 3 Missouri State Softball Championship. The Centralia Lady Panthers and their coaches should be commended for all of their hard work throughout the regular season and for bringing home the state title in Class 3 to their school and their community. This is their second straight state title. I ask that you join me in recognizing the Centralia Lady Panthers softball team for a job well done!

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Anthony Allen as the 17th President of Hannibal-LaGrange University. Dr. Allen, a native of North Carolina, attended Duke University where he played football for four years while studying history and religion. He earned both a Master of Divinity and Master of Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and then went on to earn his doctorate in higher education administration at North Carolina State University. Dr. Allen, his wife Stacy, and their five children currently reside in Kansas City, where he is Senior Vice President of Administration at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Allen's dedication to Christian higher education and the shared values of Hannibal-LaGrange University, or HLGU, make him an ideal candidate for the position. I am proud to represent HLGU, a 4-year liberal arts school situated in ``America's Hometown,'' Hannibal, Missouri. HLGU is known for its Christian commitment that has been preserved since its founding in 1858. Dr. Allen shares this commitment and is dedicated to leading HLGU into the future while preserving its Christian heritage. I am confident he will be an outstanding leader both at HGLU and in the greater Hannibal area. Please join me in congratulating Dr. Allen on his appointment as HLGU's new president and welcoming him and his family to the Hannibal community.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express some concerns regarding S. 2039, introduced by Sen. Hoeven, and sent to this body after unanimous consent in the Senate. I am concerned that this language, though well intentioned, is vague and could potentially result in negative consequences downstream, should this language be signed into law. I remain concerned that the language could be applied to rivers beyond the Souris and the Red, without explicit Congressional intent. There is potential, although small, for levee construction to take place up and down the stretch of Missouri River that runs through North Dakota, resulting in negative consequences throughout the Missouri River basin. I am comforted by the fact that there seems to be a rigorous FEMA review and approval process for construction of these levees, and I trust that the author's intentions are to allow for construction of new levees along only the Souris River and the Red River at specified locations. I appreciate the steps taken by the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Berg, to address these concerns and to make very clear for future reference that Congressional intent is to show that this legislation is intended to apply only to locations along the Souris and Red Rivers. Mr. Speaker, our nation has gone too long without improving our levee systems. I do applaud the efforts to allow municipalities to take into their own hands efforts to rehabilitate systems. At the same time, it is important that they meet all necessary guidelines and do not injure other states and communities along a river bank. I look forward to continuing this important conversation with the gentlemen from North Dakota.