Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will be brief. We passed substantially the same language unanimously by voice vote 2 years ago. This bill has been amended by unanimous consent so as to be virtually identical with what was passed 2 years ago. It now has the support of the ranking member.

I urge an ``aye'' vote and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri for his work and leadership on this bill. I also want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Frank, for his support, and, of course, the gentlelady from West Virginia.

If this bill becomes law, a written copy of the privacy policy will still go by postal mail to every customer when he or she becomes a customer of the financial institution. Another copy will go every time that policy is changed, and the policy will be available day and night on the Internet on the Web site of the financial institution. The privacy policy will be known to everyone who has an interest in reading it, whether $100 is paid as a bonus for reading it or not.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of millions of hard-working people who are citizens of foreign nations want to become Americans. That is a testament to the greatness of our country.

America can only accept a limited number of those who wish to move to our shores each year. Accordingly, we should provide visas in a manner that reflects they are a valuable asset to be allocated carefully.

I do not believe the Diversity Visa Lottery is a good way to allocate the inherently limited number of immigrant visas. I believe that a rational, well-designed immigration system would not include the Diversity Visa Lottery.

Given the political climate and legislative rules that we face, the passage of the bill before us on Friday, November 30, 2012, was not a step toward enacting a well-designed, rational immigration system. Nor was the Democratic Motion to Recommit likely to be the basis of a bipartisan reform bill. In any case, the bill will not be acted on by the Senate.

Some of the visas we allocate should go to those who can provide the investment capital to create jobs within the United States. Some of the visas should go for family unification and for the humane treatment of refugees and persecuted persons. And some visas should go to those who have talents and skills that our economy needs. However, we need a better system than the one provided in this bill.

I look forward to creating a rational immigration system in 2013.

I yield myself such time as I may consume in support of H.R. 5817, the Eliminate Privacy Notice Confusion Act. I want to thank Representative Luetkemeyer for his work in introducing this bill. I've enjoyed working with him on it.

Madam Speaker, this is commonsense legislation that makes a minor change to our banking laws to revise a very costly and unnecessary requirement that financial institutions such as banks and credit unions and other depository institutions must send each of their customers a copy of their privacy policy every year, even when that policy hasn't changed from the prior year when they got the same exact privacy notification. For banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions of all sizes, this means spending a small fortune to reprint millions of complicated and long documents, then mailing them to every consumer, even when there's been no change in the policy.

It is disadvantageous not only because of the time and cost in mailing these--and the trees that are no doubt consumed--but also because customers have no way to separate the wheat from the shaft. They're getting these notices every year from every financial institution with whom they have dealings without any indication as to whether there's been a change from the privacy policy that they received just a year ago. By sending out less, we attract attention to those situations where there's been a change in the privacy policy.

Our bill makes a simple fix to this problem, requiring financial institutions to provide their customers with this additional notification only when there's been a change that affects the policy or practice as it relates to that consumer. As a result, consumers will know that the privacy notices that arrive in their mailbox actually require their attention. And banks, credit unions, other financial institutions that have been spending millions of dollars to mail out duplicative notices and redundant notifications each year can redirect those savings back to providing for the consumer, to their community, or to loans to help our economy grow.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank, as I did at the beginning of my presentation, our colleague and chief sponsor of this bill, Representative Luetkemeyer of Missouri, and thank him for his leadership on this issue. I also want to thank our long-time colleague, ranking member of our Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, for his work in getting us to this point where we can consider this bill on the floor today.

I will, in short order, be asking for a recorded vote on this bill, not because it needs a recorded vote, but because I've been informed by my leadership that it's important to this House that we have time on the floor tomorrow to confer with each other on Members and that we have a sufficient number of recorded votes. So my colleagues should not interpret my request for a recorded vote as any statement that this bill is something we have to go on record on or that I would disagree with the outcome of any voice vote, but simply as an act of collegiality, showing that I think we ought to spend more time with each other on this floor tomorrow, and I know we will all enjoy that process.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I'll take a minute to put into the Record the statements of Adam Levitin, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law School, in support of this bill. He came before our committee in May of 2012 and stated ``there are unquestionably financial regulations that do little other than add to regulatory burdens.'' He cited, in particular, the provision that this bill addresses, and said: ``I would also urge the elimination of the privacy disclosure requirement even if there is no substantive replacement for it.'' But then he added: ``And, at the very least, eliminate the requirement of an annual

disclosure when there has been no change to the policy.'' I couldn't agree more with the professor.

I rise again in support of this bill, and I yield to no Member in terms of my dedication to privacy.

If this bill passes, you're going to get notification of what the privacy rules are when you start with the financial institution. You are going to get notified every time they make a change. And you are going to be notified any time of the night or day when you simply go onto the Web site and look at the required privacy notification.

When Gramm-Leach-Bliley was passed, not everybody had access to the Internet. I realize today not everybody does. But a much larger percentage of Americans are familiar with the Internet, have access to the Internet, and know that if they want to see the privacy notification, the privacy rules of their financial institution, it's there on the Internet in a way that most Americans are going to have easy access to.

The idea that you are mailed a copy of something you've already been mailed a copy of, which hasn't changed, that does little or nothing to provide additional privacy, except that we can say, Oh, we're for privacy.

If we want to protect the privacy of our constituents, we ought to do so in a meaningful way, not to simply say, The same thing you got a copy of a year ago today, which is available to you any time of the day or night, is something we're going to chop down some more trees and send you a copy of again. And that's the best idea we can come up with to protect your privacy.

I think, instead, we ought to pass this bill, know that we've given everybody a copy of the privacy policy of the financial institution on paper, that they get another paper notice if there's any change, and there is a continuous notice on the Internet every day of the year, every night of the year.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I thank the gentleman for his presentation.

I would be happy to cosponsor legislation to require an email notification once a year to every customer who's willing to provide their email address to the financial institution. There are some who would say, I don't want to give my email address to my financial institution. But to everybody who is willing to provide that email. I couldn't agree with you more. If this was done by email, it ought to be done at least annually.

I look forward to joining with the Members who are here in this room and are interested in requiring an annual email notification. I don't know if the sponsor of the bill would be interested in that. But I will join the gentleman from Massachusetts in legislation on that.

But let's act today to end the expensive and resource-consuming annual paper notification.

And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just state that I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts, that we ought to require email notification of what the privacy policy is annually as a good compromise. I would hope that some of the others here on the floor would take a minute to comment on that, or I would yield to them. Obviously, such an email could be sent only to those customers who voluntarily provide their email address to the financial institution.

When you look at the idea of an expensive postal mailing using resources to provide an exact copy of something that was previously mailed in hard copy on paper to the same consumer a year earlier, on balance, that is not a good use of societal resources nor a good use of most consumers' time. I think the fact that these policies are up on the Web and available whenever somebody takes an interest in them is also important.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just add that there are many of us who are dedicated to privacy, but not every privacy requirement makes sense. Here's a case where people are notified on paper.

Finally, I want to address the gentleman from Massachusetts' comment that maybe when you were notified on paper your financial institution only had two or three subsidiaries and 10 years later they have several more subsidiaries with whom they may share information. The fact is that isn't disclosed in another copy of the financial institution's privacy policies. It may, in fact, be that your financial institution is offering more products, sharing your information with more subsidiaries. But voting down this bill is not a solution to that issue.

What is a solution is to have a policy where you have to send it in writing once, send it in writing when it changes, provide it on the Web. And I would join with others, I would hope, in introducing legislation requiring annual email distribution.

With that, I have no speakers, I have no further comments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

This bill was passed by the House as part of a package on March 8, 2006; this bill was pretty much in this exact form and was passed by this House June 24, 2008, as part of a package; then finally, as a separate bill, H.R. 3506 was passed by this House on April 14, 2010. So the House has a strong record of passing this legislation, and I hope we continue to do so.

With that, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to congratulate Shepherd of the Hills Church in Porter Ranch, California, on the celebration of its 100th Anniversary. For a century, the leaders and parishioners of the Church have dedicated themselves to upholding their faith and bringing the San Fernando Valley community closer together. Originally known as the Van Nuys First Baptist Church, the Church began in 1912 in an railroad car in the town of Van Nuys, California, with less than 100 congregants. Under the direction of senior pastor Dr. Jess Moody, the congregation grew steadily, moving in 1991 to a new building in Porter Ranch, California, where it became known as Shepherd of the Hills Church. In 1995, the congregation merged with nearby Hillcrest Christian Church.

Since its founding, Shepherd of the Hills Church has continued to explore new venues and opportunities for worship throughout the greater Los Angeles area. Today, the Church is a vibrant, diverse congregation of more than 12,000 members, four ``daughter'' churches, and two satellite campuses throughout Los Angeles County. Since 1999, Shepherd of the Hills Church has also hosted an annual 4th of July Fireworks Spectacular, which attracts over 50,000 residents of the San Fernando

Valley. The annual celebration has brought our community together year after year.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate senior pastor Dudley Rutherford on this special occasion. Under the leadership of Pastor Rutherford, who is also celebrating his 25th Anniversary, the Church has seen its congregation and community outreach efforts continue to expand. Pastor Rutherford spearheaded the development of four self-sufficient satellite campuses within Los Angeles County, the opening of the Church's Family Life Center, and he helped to organize the ``Miracle in the Making'' Campaign to raise funds for a new church building. Known nationally for his dynamic leadership and communication skills, Pastor Rutherford served as president of the 2011 North American Christian Convention, and was the featured Chapel Speaker at the World Series.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Shepherd of the Hills Church on its 100th Anniversary, and to Pastor Dudley Rutherford for his commitment, dedication and vision in helping this praiseworthy congregation carry out its mission of fellowship and community service throughout the San Fernando Valley.

Mr. Speaker, as I have stated in the past, I am inclined to vote ``no'' on any suspension bill that seeks to enact complex and controversial legislation through a process designed for non- controversial legislation and relatively minor changes in law.

I have consistently opposed the diversity visa lottery program. However, there are substantial flaws in H.R. 6429. Congress should consider abolishing the diversity visa lottery through the regular process with full debate and with the consideration of amendments.

For the same reason, I also voted against H.R. 5987 because I believe that bill deserves further analysis, debate and amendment.

There are times when I will vote for a complex or controversial suspension bill when the merits are overwhelming and the bill is, in my view, not in need of amendment. Both of the last two votes of Thursday, September 20, 2012, did not meet that standard.

H.R. 6429 failed to pass under suspension of the rules. I believe that the diversity visa lottery should be abolished, but that the approach taken by H.R. 6429 is not the best policy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the unique and essential work being done by Chabad. Chabad is known by many for its annual telethon. Where else on the TV dial can one go to see dancing rabbis once a year? Chabad is better known for meeting the spiritual needs of millions, for meeting the economic and counseling needs of thousands who are faced with destitution or faced with the scourge of substance abuse.

I would like to extend my regards to Rabbi Cunin and the entire Cunin family for their tireless efforts on behalf of Chabad and Yiddishkeit everywhere.

For decades, I've had a chance to work with Rabbi Mordy Einbinder and Rabbi Joshua Gordon, and all of the rabbis of Chabad in the San Fernando Valley, an organization that has grown from one storefront to now 25 centers of vibrant communities dedicated to worship and to study across the San Fernando Valley.

Chabad does hugely important work for the local community. They have taken a commercial-grade kitchen and turned it into a one-stop social service center to feed and care for thousands. And Chabad's drug prevention and treatment program, PRIDE, reaches thousands of at-risk youth in the San Fernando Valley and across the Los Angeles area.

For the last decade, I've worked with Chabad to achieve something very important to the Jewish people, the return from Russia of the Rebbe's papers. The Schneerson Library and Archives are of such important sacredness to Chabad and to many others, and yet they are still held in Moscow by the Russian regime.

This Congress passed Jackson-Vanik. There's discussion of us changing that important law to allow for Russian goods to be sold in the United States more freely, but Jackson-Vanik's purpose was to force Russia to let our people go. That process will not, in my mind, be complete until Russia lets the Rebbe's papers go as well.

So I look forward to Russia releasing those spiritually important documents. And I look forward to working with all the Chabad rabbis on issues from Moscow to the San Fernando Valley.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to thank the chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her work on this bill and for reaching an agreement with the Senate Banking Committee, and I rise in strong support of this measure.

I especially want to thank the chairman for working with me on title III of this bill, as it reflects several years of our work together. Title III targets the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps and began its life as H.R. 2379, then designated the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps Designation Implementation Act, which I introduced along with the chairman in May of 2009.

These provisions impose tough secondary sanctions against any person, including foreign companies, that conduct any significant transaction with the IRGC or any of its designated fronts and affiliates. The IRGC, through its support of Hezbollah and its direct action, has much blood on its hands.

I want to thank the chairman and her staff for including section 303, which applies sanctions to countries and governments--not just companies--that conduct transactions or provide support for the IRGC and for provisions which indicate that if you want to be a Federal contractor, you must certify that you do not do prohibited business with the IRGC.

This bill also includes important provisions I first proposed in the Stop Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program Act that will provide sanctions against those who lend money to the Iranian Government. It includes another provision I authored which will implement sanctions against those firms that give the Iranian Government the technologies for surveillance and repression of their own people.

This is not the final act, literally or figuratively. What we've done so far is not enough to force Iran to abandon its nuclear program. We ought to stay in session and pass even more sanctions against Iran.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice to those who have come forward to denounce the unwarranted attacks on Huma Abedin, a key aid to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a woman who has given years of service to this Nation and to the State Department.

As it happens, my wife has given her entire career to the State Department, and I know how angry I would be if she were attacked based on some twisted exaggeration of something that her relatives may have done decades ago, notwithstanding her absolutely spotless record.

No one in this House is more dedicated to combatting radical Islamist ideologies and the governments and organizations that espouse them, but the unwarranted attacks on Huma Abedin undermine our effort to do just that.

Now we face, in Egypt and elsewhere, the outrageous attack that our decision to engage with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is not a decision made in our own national interest, but somehow is the result of undue influence.

Let me simply say that I join Senator John McCain in calling for these dangerous accusations, unwarranted accusations, to be withdrawn.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor today to welcome to the House of Representatives His Holiness, Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad. He is with us today in the gallery. His Holiness is the worldwide spiritual leader of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, which has tens of millions of adherents around the world in 190 countries and tens of thousands of adherents here in the United States.

Today at a historic event in the Gold Room of the Rayburn Building, we recognized His Holiness' commitment to world peace, to brotherhood, to justice, and to religious freedom. I am proud to join with my colleague from California, Zoe Lofgren, and others in introducing a resolution today in honor of His Holiness' visit here to our Nation's Capitol. In the United States, the Ahmadi community is one of the oldest and most organized Islamic communities.

I also want to take this opportunity to recognize two distinguished leaders from Los Angeles, Dr. Asif Mahmood and Kareem Ahmed, who are also in the gallery here and who show such leadership of the Muslim community in the Los Angeles area.

It is my honor to recognize His Holiness, to invite him to be with us here in the people's House. And I want to commend the Ahmadi motto: ``Love for all. Hatred for none.''

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent yesterday. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 315, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 316, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 317, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 318.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Woody Smeck for his extraordinary service as Superintendent of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. After 21 years of service in the park, Mr. Smeck will depart from his position in order to become the Deputy Superintendent at Yosemite National Park.

The Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, the nation's largest urban national park, consists of 153,750 acres of mixed public open space and private lands surrounded by a metropolitan region of more than 19 million people. Annual visitation to local, state and federal parklands within the national recreation area exceeds 33 million visitors, making it one of the most visited recreation destinations in the country. More than 70 agencies and organizations are involved in partnership efforts to preserve open space resources and provide outdoor recreation opportunities. This level of partnership has served as a national model for other parklands and attracted the attention of key government and non-profit leaders looking to replicate the success of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

As Superintendent, Mr. Smeck serves on a variety of commissions and boards in Los Angeles and Ventura counties dealing with conservation of protected areas and connecting people to nature and places of historical significance. During his tenure as Superintendent, Mr. Smeck has overseen some of the largest and most significant parkland acquisitions, the development of an interagency visitor center, and the completion of the 65-mile Backbone Trail. His steadfast leadership and advocacy has increased the visibility of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. Mr. Smeck has also hosted visits from Presidents, cabinet secretaries, Members of Congress, governors, international governments, blue ribbon commissions and environmental leaders.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Woody Smeck for his extraordinary service as Superintendent of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. Under his leadership, the National Park Service has helped to promote conservation, protect thousands of acres of parkland, and enhance recreational opportunities for millions of people that visit the Santa Monica Mountains and its renowned beaches.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, February 29, 2012, I was absent from the House Chamber. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 80.

Mr. Speaker, this month marks the 24th anniversary of a dark chapter in modern history. During the Nagorno-Karabakh War of 1988 to 1994, Armenian civilians were indiscriminately attacked.

On the evening of February 27, 1988, Armenian civilians living in Sumgait, in Soviet Azerbaijan, were violently targeted in a three-day rampage. Armenian civilians were hunted down and brutally assaulted. Some were raped, and some were burned alive at the hands of rioters. Local police reportedly ignored repeated calls for help by Armenian civilians. The official figure from Soviet authorities, who prohibited journalists from entering the area, was just over 30 people dead and over 200 injured. However, it is believed that more--perhaps hundreds-- were murdered by roving mobs.

The Sumgait Pogrom was, sadly, only the beginning.

Despite international condemnation of the pogrom in Sumgait, another anti-Armenian pogrom occurred later that year in Kirovabad, Azerbaijan, from November 21st to 27th Due to the brutality, the Armenians of Kirovabad and the surrounding areas were forced to flee their homes.

Another crime against humanity occurred yet again from January 13th to the 19th, in 1990. Members of the Armenian community of Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, were assaulted, tortured and killed again by violent mobs.

I would like to commemorate the Armenian victims of the Sumgait, Kirovabad, and Baku massacres to honor the memory of the murdered, and to stop future bloodshed. If we hope to stop future massacres, we must acknowledge these horrific events and ensure they do not happen again.

We will not forget the ethnic-cleansing of the Armenians from Azerbaijan.

But we need to do more--we need to demonstrate to Azerbaijan that the United States is committed to peace and to the protection of Artsakh from coercion.

We must urge Azerbaijan to cease all threats and acts of coercion against the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh.

In 1992, Congress prohibited aid to Azerbaijan because of its continuing blockade against Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. Unfortunately, Congress in 2001 approved a waiver to this provision and administrations have used the waiver since then to provide aid to Baku. Congress should strengthen Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act by removing the President's ability to waive U.S. law prohibiting aid to Azerbaijan because of its continuing blockade against Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh.

I urge the Administration to remove all barriers to broad-based U.S.- Nagorno Karabakh governmental and civil society communication, travel, and cooperation.

We must reaffirm America's commitment to an enduring, peaceful and democratic resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 26, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Mr. Speaker, on Monday January 23, 2012 I was unavoidably absent from the House Chamber. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 5 and 6.