Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. and Mrs. Chazz and Sue Humphrey, who will be celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary on April 11, 2018. Chazz and Sue are a great example of the lifelong bond of marriage and illustrate the strength of love.

Chazz and Sue both grew up in Mission, Kansas and were married on April 11, 1958, just one year after they met. Sue, a lover of flying, earned her FAA student's license in 1985. From that day forward, Sue and Chazz have enjoyed flying ultralight planes. And if that was not enough, they have volunteered for nearly 15 years at the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) Airshow in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Throughout their time with the EAA, Chazz has served on the Experimental Aircraft Association's Ultralight Council and as the Ultralight Chairman. In recent years, Chazz volunteered at the National Museum of Transportation steam train display.

Chazz and Sue have 3 children, Chuck, Dave, and Rachel, 5 grandchildren, and 18 great-grandchildren. When they are not volunteering or flying, both Chazz and Sue enjoy traveling and spending time with family and friends.

Please join me in congratulating Chazz and Sue Humphrey on their 60th Wedding Anniversary and wishing them happiness and health in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I missed votes on March 13, 2018 due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call No. 102 and Yea on Roll Call No. 103.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his hard work and leadership on our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton, for being such a champion for this initiative and others to bring about a more responsible, effective regulatory regime. For years, Members on both sides of the aisle have advocated for a more tailored, commonsense approach to Federal banking regulation. We have all said, time and time again, that rules designed for large institutions shouldn't apply to community banks and smaller credit unions.

We pressed the Federal financial regulators to take into consideration the risk profile and business models of institutions. In their appearances before the Financial Services Committee and in response to congressional letters and calls, the regulators tell us they are tailoring regulations and supervisory requirements based on individual institutions. They tell us what we want to hear, that one size fits all; but, Mr. Speaker, these institutions have yet to see this relief that they really need.

We lose a community bank or a credit union every day in this country. Today we have an opportunity to work together in an effort to change that, to make sure that our constituents continue to have access to the services they need and to achieve financial independence. We are doing a disservice to our communities and the people we represent if we continue to allow rules intended for the largest firms to be forced upon our small financial institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I have got a couple of 6-year-old grandsons. When they come over to the house and they want to play basketball, they can't hit a 10-foot goal, so we need to lower the goal in order for them to be able to play. Otherwise, they are going to quit; they get tired, frustrated; and they go away.

This is what is happening with our smaller institutions. They are saddled with rules and regulations that are for the larger institutions, yet they have to play that same game and experience the same costs. As a result, they are going out of business at the rate of one a day.

This bipartisan bill is straightforward and one that every Member of this body should be able to support. Mr. Tipton's legislation simply requires the Federal financial regulators to actually consider the risk profile and business model of a financial institution and to tailor regulatory actions accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for his outstanding work on this legislation and ask my colleagues for the support of the TAILOR Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling for all his great work and leadership on our Financial Services Committee and also thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk) for crafting a commonsense, bipartisan bill that requires the Federal financial regulators and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to conduct a comprehensive review of all the regulations promulgated with the intent of identifying those that are outdated or duplicative.

Across the Nation, financial companies continue to suffer as a result of the burdensome regulations. What my friends on the other side of the aisle don't always recognize is the impact that has on the ability of those companies to serve their customers.

Take cybersecurity as an example. Financial firms of all sizes are forced to adhere to an overlapping regulatory regime that is focused on fighting yesterday's war.

I spoke with a major bank just last week that has cybersecurity examinations from the Federal Reserve, the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, the Treasury Department, and multiple State banking agencies; and that doesn't include the foreign entities that regulate the international businesses of this bank. Each agency has a slightly different exam process and requires slightly different information.

This type of regime doesn't protect companies from cybersecurity threats. The lack of coordination means this institution spends more time reacting to the regulators than it does protecting its customers.

Or look at the antiquated regime surrounding examination and enforcement of the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering laws. What was originally intended to be a reasonable process that fostered collaboration between financial institutions and law enforcement to root out bad actors and

illicit financing has become so onerous that banks are choosing to drop customers or close entire books of businesses just to avoid compliance burdens. Processes like these do very little to help consumers or the integrity of the financial system.

Every time I speak to a bank or credit union in Missouri, I ask what one rule or regulation they find to be the most burdensome or they would like to see changed. The answer is always the same: It isn't just one. It is the weight of all the rules combined that is restricting credit and the availability of financial services in our communities.

We have to make a change, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Loudermilk's legislation would institute a more thoughtful approach to regulations that will not only offer regulatory relief, but also foster a more responsible and stable financial marketplace.

As the gentleman from Georgia has said in the past, this bill isn't just about regulatory relief; it is about good government. This should not be a partisan exercise. I hope every Member of this body stands for responsible government and joins me in supporting H.R. 4607 today.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this matter today.

It is kind of interesting that we have before us an amendment that basically is something that deals with a financial services bill, something that deals with a financial services issue, yet we had the EPA and a whole bunch of other agencies brought into the discussion here, which has nothing to do with what we are trying to talk about here today.

The amendment talks about the President or his immediate family members. How is it possible that, unless those family members have the authority to make the request, they even should be considered?

This is sort of pulling things out of the air here that make no sense to me. This is a very simple bill that we have where all we are looking at trying to do is take the EGRPRA law that says that, every 10 years, all the rules and regulations are reviewed.

All we are doing is putting two agencies back into this group of agencies that are under review, one that was not even in existence at the time of the bill's passage back in the nineties, the CFPB; and the other one that needs to be included is the National Credit Union. All we are doing is taking that 10-year review down to 7.

Why is this controversial? We are taking an agency that was not even included in this originally and putting it under the purview of this bill so that there can be a review of the rules and regulations.

Is there lack of transparency on the other side?

Do we no longer want to be concerned about what is going on?

Do we no longer want to know that the rules and regulations are appropriately adjudicated here by these agencies?

I think that is the wrong way to go. I think that we need to have more transparency. Reducing from 10 years down to 7 gives us an opportunity to have a more constant review of these things to make sure that the bureaucratic folks in the executive branch of the government don't run away with what should be, in my view, the authority of the Congress.

Madam Speaker, I think that the motion to recommit is way out of line here, and I don't think we need to waste any more time on it.

Madam Speaker, I ask folks to decline the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the combined rule for H.R. 4296, my bill that addresses difficulties with operational risk capital requirements imposed on financial institutions, and H.R. 4607, the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act. Both of these bills are commonsense reforms to regulation that will improve the efficiency of our financial system. My legislation, H.R. 4296, will replace misguided capital standards imposed by the international standard setters, the Basel Committee.

The Basel Committee requires U.S. institutions to hold excessive capital based on a ``look back'' approach of an organization's risks, previous earnings, and other provisions that provide no indication of future risks. The methodology employed by this international body has forced our banks to hold hundreds of billions of dollars in reserve rather than putting the money to work in the form of loans and investments. That is money that could be used to fund mortgage loans, car loans, and other day-to-day financing for American consumers.

I recognize the importance of our Nation's financial institutions to hold capital in the event of a future crisis or distress, and H.R. 4296 maintains those capital requirements. As a former regulator, I can tell you that it is important to have adequate capital to regard against loss. But there is a sweet spot that needs to be attained, and regulators can do that if you have proper regulation in place.

What this bill does is amend the method by which the reserve capital is calculated by focusing standards based on an organization's current business activities. This approach offers a better assessment of the amount of capital that should be held to withstand any future crisis.

The methods-based approach proposed in H.R. 4296 properly calibrates operational capital requirements. It maintains strong and healthy financial institutions, while unshackling billions of dollars for lending purposes.

The second bill we are discussing here today provides another opportunity to advance a more practical approach to regulation. H.R. 4607, the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act, sponsored by Mr. Loudermilk from Georgia, offers a holistic approach to U.S. prudential financial regulation.

This bill requires all Federal financial agencies, including the CFPB and National Credit Union Association, to participate in the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act's, or EGRPRA, comprehensive review of rules and regulations. The purpose of the review is to ensure that regulation is not overly burdensome, duplicative, or outdated, while maintaining standards to promote safety and soundness.

Additionally, H.R. 4607 requires the agencies to meet every 7 years for a comprehensive regulatory evaluation, as opposed to the current 10-year cycle in statute.

I am hard pressed to think of a less controversial bill than this one. Requiring regulators to review the impact of their actions on a more frequent basis is a simple and straightforward way to improve efficiency.

H.R. 4296 and H.R. 4607 have garnered bipartisan support, Mr. Speaker, because they are practical solutions that will properly guide supervisors to enforce more effective regulation. The result of these modest bills will be the promotion of a vibrant and open economy that works for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this rule and the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his great leadership and for helping us with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4296, legislation that would set reasonable parameters for Federal financial regulators when establishing operational risk capital requirements so that banks can best leverage their capital to grow their local economies.

In the wake of the financial crisis, operational risk capital requirements were first agreed to at the Basel Committee. That is a foreign group of folks who get together. We have accepted some of their advice, unfortunately, and then it was implemented in the United States by the FDIC, the OCC, and the Federal Reserve.

Like many concepts fashioned at the Basel Committee, the original intent may have seemed to be a good idea, but the implementation has brought about confusion and unintended consequences.

The committee, realizing it didn't get it right, has revised its recommended operational risk standards on more than one occasion in the last few years. The first was in the fall of 2014, when the committee found that its original standards were under-calibrated. The second came in 2016, when the Basel Committee suggested a requirement that would force banks to look back and hold capital against discounted activities and products. This is not an appropriate way to determine capital requirements.

So what does this mean?

It means that today a bank that exited a particular line of business must still hold the same amount of capital as another bank that is still engaged in that business. It also means that a bank that spends money to improve risk management will be saddled with the same capital standards as a bank that has done nothing to improve its risk management.

My legislation would instill confidence by instituting clear guardrails for operational risk capital requirements. This is particularly important considering that the European regulators have moved the goalposts on U.S. regulators and financial institutions several times.

H.R. 4296 will also ensure that the imposition of forward-looking capital requirements focus on the bank's current activities and businesses.

Equally important, this bill would incentivize institutions to mitigate operational risk, creating safer banks and a safer financial system.

To be clear, this legislation does not prevent Federal financial regulators from instituting operational risk capital requirements. It does not eliminate the authority of a regulator to assess operational risk, nor does it prevent regulators from requiring that capital be held against riskier activities or businesses.

In other words, it would allow the regulators to continue their business of regulating, but putting some common sense in the regulation and allowing the flexibility to be able to use a forward-looking way of assessing risk rather than being forced to do a look-back-type of risk analysis.

This bill puts forth a thoughtful framework that sets parameters while allowing regulators the flexibility needed to ensure that capital standards are appropriately tailored.

Given my background as both a banker and a regulator, I am often one of the loudest voices in favor of strong capital standards. At the same time, those standards need to make sense, Mr. Speaker. They need to reflect the actual risk posed by the institution to the financial system.

These standards have a tremendous impact on a bank's capital levels, and it is important that the regulators get them right so that they don't hamstring the bank's ability to meet the credit needs of its local economy and community.

I hope my colleagues will join me in voting in favor of this commonsense bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank the chairman for his support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Coach Chris Wyrick from Jefferson City, Missouri on his recent induction into the Missouri High School Baseball Coaches Association Hall of Fame.

Coach Wyrick graduated from Helias Catholic High School and helped lead the Crusaders to three state championships. After his high school graduation, he played for the University of Missouri, then professionally for the St. Louis Cardinals and Detroit Tigers. His coaching career began in St. Elizabeth, Missouri from 1997 to 1999 as an assistant. Coach Wyrick then returned to his alma mater, Helias Catholic High School where he's been since 2000.

Over the last 20 years Coach Wyrick's achievements are nothing short of incredible. He has a 336-210 overall record, a Class 3 State Championship in 2000 and 2001, and District Championships in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2012, 2016, and 2017. During this time he has coached 108 all-district players and 41 all-state players. In 2000, Coach Wyrick was awarded Coach of the Year by the Missouri High School Baseball Coaches Association and the following year he received the same honor from the Greater St. Louis MLB Scouts Association and the National Federation of State High School Associations.

More important than the accolades, Coach Wyrick has touched the lives of countless young athletes. Many players and individuals have praised the skills of Coach Wyrick not only because of his success on the field, but because he consistently puts his players first. This has been a key component of his coaching career and has paved the way for a longstanding trust between him and generations of Missouri ballplayers. Of the hundreds of athletes he has coached over the years, 42 of them have gone on to play for college teams. Coach Wyrick's mentality can be summed up in his own words: ``as a coach, you hope you have some influence on a player's life to when they hit adversity, they get through it and come out better on the other side.'' Coach Wyrick has been supported throughout the years by his loving wife, Janie, and their three children, Emma, Erin, and Sam.

Please join me in congratulating Coach Wyrick for a well-deserved induction into the Missouri High School Baseball Coaches Association Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling for the time. To say that the current regulatory climate presents challenges for small financial institutions would be a drastic understatement. Today, regulators require more and more from community banks in terms of both regulatory oversight and capital requirements.

The gentlewoman from Utah has crafted legislation that seeks to alleviate some of these pressures facing our community banks. Small bank and thrift holding companies confront unique challenges with regard to capital formation, which is a particular concern at times when regulators demand more and more capital.

Understanding these challenges, the Fed has recognized that small banks have limited access to equity financing. The Federal Reserve small bank holding policy statement gives relief from certain capital guidelines and requirements, making it easier for a community bank to raise capital and issue debt, and to make acquisitions and form new bank and thrift holding companies.

I would like to digress for just a little second here. I haven't heard anybody talk about it, and I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker, that we talk about the timeframe prior to 2008, whenever we were averaging about 150 to 175 new banks and credit unions every year. But between the timeframe of 2010 and 2006, we averaged one.

That is significant because small businesses get their loans from small banks. And without this access to capital for small businesses, we will dry up our small businesses in this country that are the job creators.

So by increasing the threshold, the Fed's policy statement from $1 billion to $3 billion, we have the opportunity to help more banks operating in our community, and hopefully be formed in our communities, and help our lending to our constituents.

Similar legislation has been contemplated in the House on a number of occasions. The language in this latest iteration is identical to the bipartisan language proposed in the Senate Banking Committee bill and is similar to legislation that passed the House in the 114th Congress and included in my CLEARR Act.

H.R. 4771 will go a long way in ensuring that our Nation's smallest institutions are able to grow stronger and continue to serve their constituents.

I want to thank Mrs. Love for her leadership on this legislation and Chairman Hensarling for his commitment to issues facing community banks and credit unions.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend either vote series on January 30, 2018 due to a death in the family.

Had I been present, I would have voted yea on Roll Call No. 47; yea on Roll Call No. 48; yea on Roll Call No. 49; and yea on Roll Call No. 50.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his hard work on our committee and leadership as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer) for sponsoring this very important legislation. Banks and credit unions of all sizes are drowning in a sea of paperwork. We hear about it every day from lenders that appear before the Financial Services Committee. The reality is that, because of the regulatory environment, mortgage lending is simply too burdensome for some community banks and credit unions. Lenders have little choice but to limit the products and services made available to customers or, in some cases, exit the mortgage business all together, which some have actually done.

The changes we have seen on the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requirements are a great example of regulation run amuck. On every loan, lenders must check a lengthy series of boxes. One mistake lands a bank or credit union out of compliance, in hot water with the field examiners, and potentially exposed to litigation.

In committee, I had a matrix. It is almost 300 boxes of things that they have to look at. Then if there is one box that is out of compliance, you could be exposed.

The Obama administration CFPB significantly expanded regulatory requirements associated with HMDA. Financial institutions now have to report a total of 48 different data fields for each individual borrower. In fact, today's HMDA requirements are more than double the statutory requirements established by Congress.

What do we get for all of this box checking? Not a lot, beyond a more burdensome process that, in the best case scenario, slows the borrowing process. These rules and regulations make it more and more difficult for small institutions to absorb costs and results in constricted credit and higher price for consumers' and customers' needs.

Compliance with HMDA requirements is one of the top concerns and frustrations I hear from community banks in Missouri. And, in fact, we had a hearing recently, where we had the president of an institution in there, and he had a file that was this thick, Mr. Speaker, over 3- inches thick. And I asked him: How many pages do you have in that file? And he said: Congressman, we don't measure it by the page anymore. We measure it by the pound.

This legislation aims to address some of those concerns. H.R. 2954 would exempt small community banks and credit unions from new HMDA reporting requirements. It is my understanding that this relief would apply to other mortgage lending institutions as well, including lenders who make loans on manufactured housing.

We have an opportunity today to put our vote where our mouth is and support legislation that will grant relief to the Nation's smallest financial institutions and enable more access to credit for our customers and members of our local communities.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank, again, the gentleman from Minnesota for his outstanding work on this legislation and his work on behalf of our financial institutions and their customers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his steadfast support on so many important financial services issues.

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to quickly lend my support to the tax package slated to be considered by the House today. This legislation will bring simplicity and fairness to the Tax Code. It will lower tax rates so individuals and job creators can invest in our communities and hire more workers. I also want to commend Chairman Brady and the House leadership for their incredible work on this issue.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, there is another bill slated to be considered today by this body, H.R. 3312, my Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act. It will remove the ill-conceived approach taken in Dodd-Frank to designate bank holding companies as systemically important financial institutions, or SIFIs.

Under the current regulatory framework, the designation of SIFIs is based solely on size. Any bank holding company with more than $50 billion in assets is subject to enhanced regulatory supervision and a variety of special assessments.

This approach fails to take into account differences in business models or risks posed to the financial system. As a former bank regulator, I can tell you this isn't a responsible basis for supervision, a fact that has been recognized by Federal Reserve Chair Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin, former Treasury Secretary Lew, and many Members of Congress. Even Barney Frank, the former Democratic chairman of the Financial Services Committee and author of Dodd-Frank, has said the $50 billion threshold is completely arbitrary and has negative implications on our economy.

This legislation closely ties the safeguards intended in the designation of a bank holding company with real risk to the system.

My legislation would require the Federal Reserve to examine not just size, but also interconnectedness, the extent of readily available substitutes, global cross-jurisdictional activity, and complexity, criteria they already use in their own risk calculation analysis.

An inefficient regulatory structure that does not reflect the reality of the U.S. banking system can have real economic consequences. We should no longer let the SIFI process lead to marketplace disruption or penalize companies based on size alone.

It is time to take a more pragmatic approach to the SIFI designation process and, more generally, the punitive regulatory regime hitting financial institutions and their customers. It is time to actually manage risk and limit real threats to our financial system.

This legislation received broad bipartisan support when it was reported by the Financial Services Committee with a vote of 47-12. That means nearly 80 percent of our committee members voted in favor of this legislation. I hope our House colleagues will join us in supporting H.R. 3312 later today. I thank the chairman for his leadership and help with this initiative.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking Chairman Hensarling for his support of this legislation and his dedication to a more reasonable regulatory regime.

I would also like to thank my good friend, Representative David Scott from Georgia, for being a cosponsor on the Democrat side and for all the hard work and support he has given us throughout this labor of love here on trying to get this thing done. He has been a champion for us, and we thank him sincerely.

Today, the House will consider H.R. 3312, the Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act of 2017, a bipartisan piece of legislation to address an inefficient regulatory structure by accounting for actual risk, rather than the size alone in the designation of systemically important financial institutions, or SIFIs.

Under the current regulatory framework for SIFI designations, any bank holding company with more than $50 billion in assets is subject to enhanced regulatory supervision and special assessments. This approach fails to take into account differences in business models or risks posed to the financial system. It has real world implications, too, stunting economic growth and limiting access to credit.

The risk of a traditional bank is not the same as an internationally active complex firm. In fact, the Fed has produced data showing the risk of every single midsize and regional bank which pales in comparison to risks posed by many and almost all global systemically important banks.

H.R. 3312 will remove the completely arbitrary approach taken today and replace it with analysis of actual risk posed to the financial system. The bill would require regulators to examine not just size, but also interconnectedness, the extent of readily available substitutes, global cross-jurisdictional activity, and the complexity of each bank holding company.

Today's method isn't a reasonable basis for supervision, a fact that has been recognized by Fed Chair Yellen, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, and former Treasury Secretary Lew, and many Members of this body. Even Barney Frank, as Chairman Hensarling just noted, the former Democratic chairman of the Financial Services Committee and author of the Dodd- Frank Act, has said the $50 billion threshold is completely arbitrary and has had negative implications on our economy.

It is important to note that this bill will not impact the authority of the Federal Reserve to oversee institutions. The focused standards set forth in the bill don't guarantee that any institution will be permanently freed from the rigors that are associated with SIFI designation. If the Fed so feels that a bank needs to have continuous oversight, they will do so.

I want to take a moment to discuss the score issued by the Congressional Budget Office. CBO opined that this bill would result in direct spending. I disagree with the CBO interpretation of what this legislation will do, and I believe that my bill will actually create a safer financial system.

At the same time, it is important to me and my colleagues that the bill comes to the taxpayers at no cost. The offset included in the Rules Committee Print will more than cover any potential hit to the Deposit Insurance Fund and makes this legislation budget-neutral.

The bottom line is this: an inefficient regulatory structure that does not reflect the reality of the U.S. banking system can have real economic consequences. We should no longer let the SIFI process lead to marketplace disruption or penalize companies for size alone.

I have worked on this legislation surrounding the SIFI designation process for the last 4 years, but I have not done it alone. H.R. 3312 was drafted in good faith with--and with considerable input from--many of my friends on the other side of the aisle as well.

Because we worked together, this legislation received broad bipartisan support when it was reported by the Financial Services Committee with a vote of 47-12. That means nearly 80 percent of the committee members voted in favor of this legislation.

I want to thank my colleagues for their help in this effort, namely, Mr. Scott, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Hill, Mr. Williams, Mr. Stivers, Mrs. Beatty, Mr.

Budd, Mr. Meeks, and Mr. Gottheimer. This is an important issue, and I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this bipartisan, commonsense measure.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, this is a bill about being able to allow these banks that are caught in a ``California Hotel'' situation here to be able to get out of this with a good analysis of their risk profile, their business model, because, at the end of the day, this is what this is all about. Their business model is not a risk to this country or the economic system that we have. It is not like the international connected banks, and, therefore, they shouldn't be treated as such.

As a result, this is important for not only the midsize banks, but for the banks below them because the regulators have been also allowing these sorts of requirements and rules to roll downhill on community banks as well. So it is time we put a stop to this.

It is important that we take a pragmatic approach to this designation process, to manage actual risk, and limit the real threats to our financial system.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his diligent work on this issue. I also thank Chairman Hensarling from Texas for all of the leadership that he has given us throughout the year on this particular issue as well.

Several years ago, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and I introduced bipartisan legislation to require depository institutions to provide privacy information to their customers only if they had changed any policy or practice related to that customer's privacy. That bill was ultimately signed into law by President Obama. It has eliminated millions of confusing and often-ignored mailings that cost millions of dollars to produce each year.

While our legislation provided relief to banks and credit unions, it did not extend relief to other financial companies regulated under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act; namely, captive finance companies that operate in a manner largely similar to depository institutions.

The safeguards featured in the bill from the 114th Congress and codified into law are included in Mr. Trott's bill. This relief will not be granted to a financial company that has changed its policies or practices with regard to disclosure of nonpublic personal information; only if it kept it the same.

There is also a requirement that the privacy notice must be made available to consumers in a variety of ways. Consumers will continue to have access to privacy notices through online resources and billing statements.

Requirements for financial institutions to release annual privacy notices to customers, even when no changes have been made, are both redundant and a waste of resources. With the passage of this bill, information included in these mailings would likely be more significant to the consumer because they would only come after a change in privacy policy.

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

What happened? They had, I believe, the largest breach in history, 150 million people.

Mr. Speaker, there is probably you and I and everybody in this room and probably the 12 people watching right

now who are affected by this, but I guarantee you that you and I and all in this room and the 12 people watching, nobody kept their privacy notices that were sent out last year, did we? They are all in file 13 somewhere, long forgotten, and all of the information in those privacy notices is forgotten about and not even probably read to begin with.

So it is important. The gentleman's bill here has in here that the privacy notice can be accessed online. And in the Equifax breach, anybody who was concerned could then go online and check for the privacy policies of Equifax and see what the policies were and whether they were adhered to by the company itself in notifying them, in taking care of their concerns, in reimbursing them. Whatever was in the notice was in that online notice as well. So it provided that access, which the consumer is not going to have in a piece of paper. That is probably going to get in file 13.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, when I was home last weekend, I got one of those things. You know what, I looked at it, opened the envelope, and said: ``I don't want to read this.'' I threw it away. This is nonsense. This is a waste of time and resources.

And, in this situation with the Equifax breach, I think this bill points out the great things that can happen if you enact this legislation from the standpoint of allowing consumers to have access, 24/7, to the notifications and the privacy policies.

Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the gentleman from Michigan for picking up the mantle on this issue, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2396. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing the bill before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Brianna Haller of the Fatima Comets Cross Country team on winning the Class 2 Girls Individual Cross Country State Championship.

Brianna Haller and her coach should be commended for all of their hard work throughout this past year and for bringing home the state championship to their school and community.

I ask you to join me in recognizing Brianna Haller on a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Fatima Comets Girls Cross Country team on winning the Class 2 Cross Country State Championship.

This team and their coach should be commended for all of their hard work throughout this past year and for bringing home the state championship to their school and community.

I ask you to join me in recognizing the Fatima Comets Girls Cross Country team for a job well done.