Joe Barton: “I thank the gentlelady from West Virginia for her courtesy. She didn't have to yield me time since I'm in opposition to…”

“I thank the gentlelady from West Virginia for her courtesy. She didn't have to yield me time since I'm in opposition to the bill, and I appreciate it. I am in opposition to this bill, although it is very well-meaning and well-intentioned. Who could be opposed to saving some money for our struggling financial institutions when they have to send out these privacy notices? And for the smaller institutions, there's no question that they're very expensive. The problem is that you can't just give away your privacy rights. And while this bill does nothing about the underlying issue of privacy, it does, at least, require that once a year, banks and financial institutions subject to Gramm-Leach-Bliley inform people that there are some privacy protections in the law. I don't think they're very strong. I think they need to be upgraded. And Congressman Markey and I, who are cochairmen of the bipartisan Privacy Caucus, have legislation that does that. Having said that, we should not willingly give up the privacy protections that we have. And this bill would eliminate a requirement of notification, which is, I admit, not the same as reducing the privacy that is in the law. But when you start down that slippery slope where you know that you don't have to notify of privacy protection, the next step is to not even have privacy at all. So I do oppose this bill--respectfully so--and would ask for a ``no'' vote when we call for the yeas and nays.…”