tv US House of Representatives Special Orders CSPAN July 6, 2016 7:00pm-9:01pm EDT
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 220, the nays are 16. the decision -- 168. the decision of the chair stands as the judgment of the committee. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.
mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 5485, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 45 -- 5485 and has come to nos remain title of the resolution thereon. -- no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i would, pursuant to clause 7 of rule 22, i present a privileged report. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: conference report to accompany senate 524, to authorize the attorney general to award grants to address the national epidemics of prescription opioid abuse and heroin use. the speaker pro tempore: ordered printed.
the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 5485 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for financial services and general governance for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2017, and for other purposings. -- purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, a ruling of the chair on the point of order raised by the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, had been sustained. no amendment to the bill shall be made in order except those prinned in house report 114-639, amendments en bloc described in section 794 and pro forma amendments described in section 4 of that resolution. each amendment shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable by the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it shall be in order at any time for the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee to offer amendments en bloc, consisting of amendments printed in the report not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section 4 of house resolution 794 and shall not be subject to demand for quigs of the question. during consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york, mr.
serrano, seek recognition? mr. serrano: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. serrano: i'd like to yield my time to mr. by shop of georgia. the chair: the -- to mr. bishop of georgia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: i'd like to say a few words about the fiscal year 2017 appropriation act. aye been privileged to serve on this subcommittee since the beginning of the 114th congress. i first want to commend the excellent work of chairman crenshaw, who will be retiring at the end of this congress, ranking member serrano, as well as the staffs of both the majority and the minority. unfortunately, i have to oppose this bill on final passage for a numb of reasons. for example, i know that it's not the post popular or most politically wise thing to defend the internal revenue service, but it does not make any sense to complain about the work of the i.r.s. and then slash its
ability to function by cutting its budget $246 million below the f.y. 2016 level and $1.4 billion below the president's budget request. the budget cuts have led to fewer audits, longer appeals, delayed refunds and poor service for the american people. it's also led to billions of dollars in lost tax revenue. must be that could be used to repair our nation's infrastructure. reduce the deficit. instead of the cuts have only served to line the pockets of tax cheats, people who can't be audited and have collection by the internal revenue services. taxpayer services, however, does get funding at the amount requested, which is a positive step for turning around the i.r.s.'s customer service issues. at the very least, it's encouraging to see that congress
-- to see congress taking the first steps to improving customer service and tax compliance, resulting from unfair and unnecessary tax on the agency but now they are taking it seriously. i'm also concerned that the f.y. 2017 financial services appropriations act contains a number of contentious policy riders that will hinder the government's ability to do its job. first of all, the bill unnecessarily micromanages the district of columbia's budget and its laws restricting home law and the ability of the district of columbia to manage its own finances. also the federal communications commission is prohibited from implementing its popular net neutrality rules until all lawsuits contesting the rules have been resolved. the commission has carefully tailored these rules to ensure approval by the courts and the provisions -- provision simply
delays the implementation of consumer and small business protection from unscrupulous business practices. the bill severely undermines the affordable care act by prohibiting funds to implement the individual mandate and the transfer of funds to the i.r.s. for the use of implementing the affordable care act. additionally, the bill inhibits corporate transparency by blocking the securities and exchange commission from requesting information on political contributions by corporations. finally, it continues to prohibit individuals traveling to cuba, educational exchanges outside of a degree program. that policy is a relic of the last century and it has absolutely no part in today's globalized economy. as i said, i cannot support the f.y. 2017 financial services appropriation act as it
currently stands. while we are still in tough economic times, this bill contains too many harmful policies and does not allocate resources in a way to grow our nation's economy. i thank you, mr. chairman, and i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york. does the gentleman yield back? the gentleman from new york. mr. serrano: yes, i do. the chair: it is now in order this consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison and a member opposed each will
control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, we can raise living standards for working families across the country if we use federal dollars to create good jobs. my amendment would reprogram funds to create an office of good jobs in the treasury department that would help ensure the department's procurement, grant making, and regulatory decisions to encourage the creation of good-paid, decently paid jobs, collective bargaining rights and responsible employment practices. mr. chairman, i am actually a little bit shocked to know that right now the u.s. government is america's leading low wage job creator, funding over two million poverty jobs through contracts, loans and grants with corporate america. that's more than the total number of low wage workers employed by wal-mart and mcdonald's combined.
u.s. contract workers earn so little, mr. chairman, that nearly 40% of them use public assistance. like food stamps, section 8, and medicaid to feed and shelter their families. to add insult to injury, many of these low-wage u.s. contract workers are driven deep entire poverty because their employers still their -- steal their wages and break other federal employment and labor laws. mr. chairman, i would like to reserve my time and yield a minute and a half to ranking member serrano at this time. the chair: the gentleman yields to the gentleman from new york. mr. serrano: thank you. i support the amendment. the aim of this amendment is to create an office of good jobs within the department of the treasury. this office would help ensure that the treasury makes contracting and employment decisions encouraging the creation of decently paid jobs. implementation of fair labor practices, and responsible
employment practices. the federal government ought to be setting an example for the nation when it comes to contracting decisions. members of congress who are committed to creating good paying jobs and supporting workers have a chance with this amendment to see those values reflected throughout our government. this office will help guide the treasury to make responsible contracting and employment decisions and do right by the countless men and women who help us perform the nation's business each and every day. i urge adoption of the amendment. mr. ellison: mr. chairman, we reserve for now. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek regular in addition? mr. crenshaw: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crenshaw: this amendment is duplicative and ignores an existing contractor awards system we have in place. contracting officers must already consult the system for award management to ensure a
contractor can be awarded a contract. business on the excluded parties list systems have been suspended or debarred through a due process system and may not be eligible to receive or renew federal contracts for cited offenses. the best way to ensure that the government contracts to the best employers is to enforce the existing suspension and disbarment system. bad actors who are in violation of the basic worker protections should not be awarded federal contracts. everybody agrees with that. that's why we have the federal government -- that's why the federal government already has a system in place to deny federal contracts to bad actors. if a federal contractor fails to maintain standards, agencies already have the authority to suspend or debar the employer from government contracting. in 2014, for instance, federal
agencies issued more than 1,000 suspensions and nearly 2,000 disbarments to employees who bid on federal contracts. this amendment is going to delay the procurement process with harmful consequences on numerous occasions, the nonpartisan government accountability office has highlighted costly litigation stemming from the complex regulatory rules, including from the fair labor standards act this amendment shimply punishes employers who may unknowingly or unwillingingly get caught in the federal government's maze of bureaucratic rules and reporting requirements from the procurement process that's already plagued by delays an beneficiaries so i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and yelled back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. mr. ellison: mr. chairman, this is not duplicative.
this amendment actually is not about debarment. debarment says if you are the worst actor then you're going to get a sanction. this amendment says we're going to prioritize contractors who have good employment practices. imagine yourself being a businessperson with a government contract. and you're over here trying to make sure that you are respecting the union that the workers may have, you're trying, making sure you never get hit with wage theft. you're making sure that you are having a good benefits program for your mes, you're a good employer, the kind that we want to have working for the federal government. and yet you're competing with somebody who does the bare minimum they can do to avoid debarment. that's the mistake the gentleman from california is making. the office of good jobs would prioritize good employers who make it a priority to say that we value our employees. we're not going to pay them the very least we can get by with.
we're not going to try to force them on government benefits by not paying them a fair wage. i mean, it should be compelling to all of us that 40% of contract workers make so little that they are eligible for government welfare programs. and these are people who work. people who work a job. and they might be working at mcdonald's or they might be doing cleanup in a federal building or they might be doing any number of jobs but if somebody is making meal for our heroes at the pentagon they ought to be able to get a fair, decent job and there should be somebody to make sure it happens. if there is nobody to make sure it happens, it won't happen. that's why our government today funds more low-wage jobs than wal-mart or mcdonald's combined. it's time to end this race to the bott. and it's time to say that the biggest buyer of goods and services in the world, the united states government, should use its power to promote good
jobs, not get by jobs, not substandard job this is a just barely eke past debarment, but good jobs. i would think that everybody in this body would want to use the dollar that way. i think the american taxpayer would want to use the dollar that way. what if the american taxpayer knew that the employer, the contract, federal contractors are paying 40% of the workers so little these workers are eligible for welfare programs though they work hard every single day. you know, mr. chairman, we ask that we get a yes vote on this because i think that everybody in this body wants to see good jobs for the american people. i guess i yield back because i'm out of time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. ellison: i ask for a recorded vote.
the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 offered by mr. duffy of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. chairman. the house financial services committee in conjunction with the judiciary committee has been engaging in an investigation in regard to bank settlement agreements that were reached that created a slush fund to drive money to third party organizations. that's that's offensive because if we look at the constitution, it's the congress that's supposed to
appropriate. not the administration, not the d.o.j., but the congress. in these bank settlement agreements, you have the administration, along with approval from the judiciary, actually appropriating money to groups that this institution did not approve. so, to be clear, we're looking at funding for cdfi. my amendment will reduce that funding by. before you're all shocked, let's talk about the numbers. the committee has increased funding by $16.5 million, bringing the number from $233.5 million to $250 million. that's an over 7% increase in funding for cdfi. all right? but if you add in the money that came from the bank settlements, the $45 billion from bank settlements, this is a $62 million increase, or as a
percentage, it's 26% of an increase for cdfi. it's huge. if we want to increase that funding by 26%, that's our decision. in this house. not the d.o.j., not the president. not the judiciary. it's our decision. so all i do is say, hey, let's bring this back by $20 million, that's all, and still, if you include the $16 million that's currently in the bill, and then the $25 million that they got from the slush fund, it's still a 17% increase. this makes sense. i ask you all to join my amendment -- join in a little effort to stand up for article 1 of the constitution and do what's right. i'll reserve my balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> this happens to be one of the most bipartisan accounts in the bill. mr. crenshaw: it's a lean
program, it fills a niche that provides capital and credit in areas where often it's difficult. these are competitive grants and it's complicated to a certain extent. it's not as simple as flowing money back and forth. so, i just want to urge people to say, we don't want to reduce the funding in these areas. and i'd like to yield two minutes to the ranking member, mr. serrano. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. serrano: i thank the chairman. i was going to open up by saying the same thing. this is probably the most bipartisan account that we have in this bill. it has been for years. i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. this amendment would slash funding for the community development financial institutions funds or cdfi fund by $20.7 million. this is a harmful and totally misguided cut. fact is that the cdfi fund helps generate economic growth and opportunity in some of our nation's most distressed communities. the fund supports financial institutions recognized for their expertise in providing
services and support to distressed communities. these institutions have federal funds to draw in new or increased sources of private funding. according to the discretion providing to the rules committee, the gentleman's mendment says, to offset the inappropriate augmentation of this account outside the appropriations process by the department of justice through settlement agreements, which require banks to donate $20.7 million to certified cdfi entities. but the fact is that the fund is not receiving money from d.o.j. or from any bank. it's completely inaccurate and inappropriate to reduce the cdfi fund in any amount as a result of the gentleman's assertion. any settlement with banks for fraudulent activity during or leading up to the financial crisis was delivered by banks directly through cdfi's.
at no point has the fund benefited or seen an increase in funding as a result. the fact that some of our large banks have entered into civil settlements with the department of justice should not even enter into this discussion. the fact is that the need for investment in these communities is far greater than the resources that have been provided. the passage of this amendment would do a great deal of harm. we're not just talking about cutting $20.7 million from the fund because of the leveraging of private sector investment, we're actually talking about an amendment that would effectively cut many times that number of investments in job creation, community facilities, housing. i strongly urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. duffy: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from -- mr. crenshaw: i'd like to now yield two minutes to the gentleman from alaska, mr.
young. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. young: i rise in strong opposition to mr. duffy's amendment. i have listened to his arguments very closely. my interest in this is the american indian, alaskan native and hawaiian native. my interest is because this program, the cdfi, is one program where they have access to moneys and they cannot get it from the standard lending institutions, for their businesses that are trying to create -- they're trying to create. it has worked successfully in las and the lower 48 too -- in alaska and the lower 48 too. i would suggest respectfully, a lot of people don't understand, we don't have a road system. most of our villages don't have banks. and this program can work and does work very well to try to improve their lot and they've been successful in creating new jobs that create money. mr. chairman, i'd like to
suggest one thing. i listened to these arguments about the money we're appropriating, and i wish everybody to understand in this body, we cannot create jobs by creating government jobs. that's not real money. that's money that's being consumed. this body has been neglectful in creating jobs from resources and manufacturing. have not supported nor made the suggestion that this should be done. so we talk about these programs, we need to have money available to create jobs and create real money. a lot of this is done in the rules committee in my -- rural communities in my state of alaska and the indian country in the lower 48. i suggest the gentleman has a point, but not a strong enough point to have me vote for his amendment. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i reserve. the chair: reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. duffy: i'll close. thank you, mr. chair. i heard the gentleman from across the aisle talk about harmful cuts. when you look at the money
that's going to this program, cdfi, even with my reduction, there is a $41 billion increase or a 17% increase in funding. you can't disregard the money that went from the bank settlement. that's money that we should have appropriated, that's been taken from us, but we have to consider it. you cannot consider it -- can't not consider it. i listened to the debate in this chamber, among my colleagues, especially on the right. they talk about, oh, my goodness, we need to regain congressional authority, we want to start an article 1 movement. where we actually control spending. hey, here's your opportunity. when the department of justice and the administration circumvents the congress, we should take it seriously. and we should take into account the money that they appropriated through a bank settlement. i also hear my colleagues talk about, oh, my gosh, we have a really big debt. $19 trillion in debt is going to tank our economy.
i agree. if you care about $19 trillion in debt, we can reduce this fund by $20 million and still have it $41 million more than it was last year. oh, by the way, this appropriations is $3 million more than the president's request. we're not harming the fund. we're not harming people. more money is going to cdfi. it's just that we're considering the amount of money that came through bank settlements that circumvented congress and i think that's only appropriate. i would ask all of my colleagues to join with me and do what's right by this institution and do what's right by way of our debt and our next generation and make sure that we consider those bank settlements and reduce it this fund by $20.7 million. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: thank you, mr. chairman. i wish it were as simple as the gentleman suggests. but it's important to realize, this amendment would literally reduce almost every program in the cdfi.
and remember, these funding cuts would devastate some of our nation's most distressed populations. including native americans, people with disabilities, people in rural communities. so i urge my colleagues to vote no. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. duffy: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. becerra: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. becerra of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman
from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. becerra: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, secret money is killing our democracy. more and more our elections are being driven by organizations that are receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in secret donations. we don't know and can't find out who's giving all this money. these secret organizations use the tax code to hide the source of their money by operating under a law meant for not for profit social welfare organizations. these organizations get tax-exempt treatment and don't have to report donors of their dollars. and the result is this, what was meant to be for a social welfare organization, -- organizations we would recognize like voluntary fire departments, or the naacp, all those organizations are now being used as cover by other organizations,
which are using the tax code to be able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars driving our elections every year now. so much so that today those organizations that are social -- so-called social welfare organizations are spending more money than the political parties, the democratic political party and the republican political party, spend combined. in 2006, these so-called social welfare organizations spent about $1.5 million campaigning, politicking. in 2012, our last presidential election, these so-called social welfare organizations spent more than $257 million. more than the two political partieses spent in 2012 for the presidential election. mr. speaker, there's a provision in this bill that would prevent the i.r.s. from giving guidance to make sure that no one is abusing the tax code to
influence our politics. and i simply have an amendment that would strike that provision. so that the i.r.s. can tell us, what is a social welfare organization and what is really a political organization, so we don't give special tax treatment to these so-called social welfare organizations that are really politicking and we don't let them hide behind that particular tax provision, to hide the names of their donors. we have no idea who's giving this money. mr. speaker, it's time for us to have transparency and openness in our election system, not hide this secret -- hide this. secret money is killing our elections with that i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. crenshaw: i'd like to rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: first, let me say that the i.r.s. made a real mess of this 501-c-4. you remember that? that was the section of the code that they used to single out individuals and groups of
individuals based on their political philosophy, then they went around to intimidate them, to bully them, to put extra scrutiny on them and they made a real mess of it. let me interrupt my opposition to yield a minute to my good friend, the ranking member, to speak in support. then i'll continue. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. serrano: that will confuse some people. i urge support of the amendment. this amendment would strike language that prevents reform of the 501-c-4 rules, that caused confusion in the campaign finance field. we've heard from a number of charities and foundations that these rules governing electoral campaign activity must be made more clear and be effectively enforced. the language in the underlying bill prevents that and should be stricken. i urge support for the amendment and thank my chairman for the minute. the chair: the gentleman from
florida. mr. crenshaw: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. becerra: mr. speaker, let me know how much time remains. the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. becerra: let me yield -- i can field 45 seconds to the gentlelady from new mexico. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 45 seconds. ms. lujan grisham: i thank my colleague for yielding time. in the 2012 presidential election, dark money groups such as the -- such as these spent over a quarter of a billion dollars on partan political campaign be ativities. in 2014 we saw the greatest wave of secret special interest money ever raised in the congressional election, and in 2016 dark money groups spent nearly 10 times what they did at the same point last year. . we must ensure that social welfare groups exclusively spend their money on their social welfare mission, like early childhood groups. i urge my colleagues to vote for this sensible amendment to help ensure our elections are
transparent. mr. becerra: i yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. schiff: i rise in support of the amendment offered by mr. becerra. special interest groups have increasingly been raising money for political campaigns, exploding loopholes in. r.s. regulations. they identify as 51-c-4 organizations allowing them to raise money anonymously. tax exempt status was to be limited to social welfare organizations which focused on just that, social welfare. but i.r.s. audits of these organizations can take years and at that point the damage is done. ea the announcement that the i.r.s. would release clear guidelines on what constitutes activity should have been welcomed, not blocked by a rider. real campaign finance reform is still needed and this would be
an important step to help the i.r.s. clamp down on organizations illegally funneling anonymous money into our elections. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. becerra: i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i have the right to close. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. becerra: mr. speaker, when you make a contribution to the local volunteer fire department, you know what the money will be used for. when you make a contribution to the league of women voters you know what the contribution will be used for. when you make a contribution to the naacp, you know what the contribution will be used for. there are a whole bunch of organization this is a we don't understand why they're using their money for something other than social welfare. they're influencing our elections. it has to stop. we can't even find out what the source of the money. is it could be money laundered from some drug sale, it could be
money from some foreign government, we don't know where the money from some of these organizations is coming from to influence our leches. it is time for us to have clarity this provision in this bill has no reason new york purpose to be here. it simp he keeps secret the dark money that's influenced our elections. my amendment simply strike this is a provision so that the i.r.s. can give us clarity on who can and who cannot use the tax exempt laws to try to be social welfare organizations. it's time for clarity in the law, get rid of secret organizations, i urge members to vote for this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: as i said, the i.r.s. made an incredible mess of this section of the i.s. code, the 501-c-4. after they messed it up, intimidated people, then sayed they let's just write a new regulation. and so in 2013, they came along and said, here's how we're going
to determine tax exempt status. and a lot of people said, here's an effort to kind of just shut down freedom of speech. what's interesting is, instead of clearing the air, the i.r.s. generated this incredible fire storm of criticism from all across the political spectrum. not surprisingly, the american center for law and justice, which represents tea party organizations targeted by the i.r.s., they describe the regulation as an attack on free speech. 160,000 the other comment this is a came, the american civil liberties union, they said that, quote, the proposed rule threatens to discourage or sterilize an enormous amount of political discourse in america. the i.r.s. has plenty of do -- plenty to do. they always complain they don't have enough money. they don't need to go out and clear the air of what they
messed up a few years ago. the only thing this regulation did was united liberals and conservatives. the best thing to do is leave it like it is, reject this amendment. i encourage a no vote. with that, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion -- the gentleman from california requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. ellison: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 114-639, offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman
from minnesota, mr. ellison, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: i'm pleased to join with ranking member johnson to strike section 506 of this appropriations bill. this is anti-anti--- this is another anti-consume brother vision insert intod a funding bill that doesn't belong here. the language i ask my colleagues to remove restricts the consumer financial protection bureau's ability to curb mandatory arbitration. last month the cfpb proposed prohibitions on class action lawsuits and mandatory predispute, mandatory arbitration and financial contracts. i strongly supported the cfpb's action. we must limit this well known scourge on the rights of everyday americans, forced arbitration clauses. people talk about how the rules are rigged, they say the deck is stacked in fare of powerful interests. forested arbitration clauses are an example of that powerful
corporations rig the rules to make it more ool difficult for people to hold companies accountable for wrongdoing. i now would like to reserve my time and to extend two minutes and 30 seconds to mr. johnson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the ellison mendment which strikes section 506 from the bill, a deeply flawed provision that would restrict the consumer financial protection bureau's ability to fulfill its statutory mandate to regulate predispute mandatory clauses in contracts for financial products and services. over the past several decades, forced arbitration clauses have proliferated in countless consumer, employment, and small business contracts, depriving countless americans of their right to a jury trial in a court of law while insulating corporations from public
accountability. that's why when congress passed the dodd-frank act in 2010, we explicitly empowered the cfpb to study predispute forced arbitration thnd then based on the study's results, ban or limit the practice through regulation. in march, 2015, the cfpb issued a seminal report finding that forced arbitration agreements restrict consumers' access to relief in disputes involving financial services and products. as overwhelmingly and methodically documented in this report, the cfpb confirmed what we already knew. forced arbitration clauses block consumers from suing wrong doers in court individually or in class action lawsuits. now it's time for the cfpb to ensure that consumers have their day in court by adopting a strong rule banning forced arbitration clauses and
contracts for financial services and products. this amendment ensures that the cfpb can do just that. i urge my colleagues to support the ellison amendment and i yield back to mr. ellison. mr. ellison: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i'd like to claim time in opposition to the amendment and yield three minutes to a valued member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. womack: i thank the gentleman for the time and also his great work as chairman of the subcommittee. as a proud member of the subcommittee we're going to miss mr. crenshaw and it's been a delight to work with him as well as the ranking member, mr. serrano, for his tireless effort on behalf of these issues. . speaker, for 90 years, for
90 years federal law has protected the enforceability of arbitration agreements. because arbitration provides an alternative method of resolving disputes that is quicker and cheaper than the expensive, overburdened court system. hundreds of millions of contracts are based on this principle. credit card contracts. checking accounts. internet agreements. cell phones. cable tv. there are dozens of contracts that have this provision. don't let my colleagues across the aisle fool you on this subject. arbitration empowers individuals , injured parties can obtain fares lution of disputes without the -- can obtain fares lution of disputes -- fair resolution
of disputes without the help of an attorney but many oppose it because it can't be used to bring lawyer-driven class action this is a provide millions in legal fees but little or no benefit to the consumer. dodd-frank authorized the cfpb to conduct a study of arbitration and at the same time granted cfpb authority to promulgate a regulation for related products and services within the bureau's jurisdiction. however this was caveated with the requirement that any rule be in the public interest and for proextext of consumers while -- protection of consumers while remaining consistent with the ruts of the bureau's arbitration studies. congress wanted any regulation to be based on a fair, complete study of real world implications of regulating or banning arbitration. and yet, cfpb study which led to its may, 2016, proposed regulation, effectively
eliminated arbitration fell far short of the requirements set by congress. can i get an additional 30 seconds? so mr. speaker, that's why the house appropriations committee approved language in our bill to address this issue an we did so unanimously. now congress has to step in again to restore basic fairness to the effort to regulate arbitration. section 506 of this bill simply ensure this is a no rule issued by the bureau shall be effective until the bureau evaluates the cost an benefits to consumers associated with conditioning or limiting the use of arbitration and specifically, mr. speaker, finds that the demonstrable benefits of the rule outweigh the cost to consumers. any attempt to strike it would be misguided. so i urge a no vote on the amendment by the gentleman from minnesota and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: mr. chairman, may i
inchoir how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. ellison: mr. chairman, if you live in minnesota and you get into a dispute with a bank over a bank account or credit card or cell phone company, you know that might just be too bad because the arbitration court is in delaware. you can pack up an move to a hotel for a week, you have no option. instead of an impartial judge, your case will be decided by an arbitrator chosen and paid for by the firm. what if the arbitrator makes a mistake in rule? we have appellate courts for a reason. if you have forced arbitration, and that -- the arbitrator makes a mistake, too bad for you. the ruling likely cannot be appealed or reversed and you want to know what happened to other people who might have had the same problem with your company? you're out of luck there too because the documents in the and the arbitrator's decisions are
not publicly available. this is unfair. it's wrong. it's no way to treat consumers in our country. we should strike this impopper -- improper provision. we should accord the this issue carefully in the public interest. strike section 506 of this appropriations bill, doesn't belong that there i hope they're following this debate. when they find that a financial product with forced arbitration clause is hurting them and their family, they're going to know who stood up for them and i hope all members as they choose their on this bill think carefully about who is on their side. i would like to just add as i close, we should support the cfpb's efforts to join our
claims together and hold financial companies accountable when they make mistakes and when they break the law. we should encourage, not prevent a fair financial marketplace. if you want a fair system, you want to greater economic freedom, those mandatory arbitration clauses need to stop. please support the ellison-johnson amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's r. crenshaw: for 90 years, the courts. they provided resolving dispute our w the provision in bill merely requires this cfpb to study the use of arbitration before moving forward. in their own study and they idn't have credit cards oy
i-phones and the studies vice president shown that they received more compensation. you have to ask yourself and consumers they don't care about but benefit from. so i urge, rejection of this amendment and i yield. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it and the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from minnesota. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i request a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. is now in order to consider
america number 5. >> i ask unanimous consent that be ments number , and onsidered en bloc. the chair: without objection. >> purpose to the previous order i ask. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk: amendments number 5, 6 and 7 offered by many moore of wifblesm e chair: the gentlelady from wisconsin will have five minutes. ms. moore: i would like to grige to this en bloc amendment
request, these three amendments, ms. waters, mrs. maloney and mr. ellison address the attacks to the cfpb. it is one of the central pillars the dodd flake act. $11. yer oof has returned billion to millions of consumers who have been harmed. let me repeat that, 11. billion has been returned to our squints as a result of the work of the crmp f brppmp. our colleagues want to gene side lenders. redatory
advocacy.ve the let me stop here and yield two minutes to mr. elleson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ellison: 11. billion to the consumers. it has been working on behalf of consumers. how many house households are better off? how much justice has been accorded and yet here we are and our friend on the other side of the aisle want to walken and water it up. it is a good thing that the crmp f pmpbrn is independent. and good thing they don't have
to worry about political essures and a singled minded pressures. oy the way, we have oversight. and the financial services committee. he comes all the time and has to answer question after question, day in and day out and he answers the questions as well as anybody could. there is accountability. and questions he has to answer. but there is not the ability for the republic caps we are going to snatch your money. we are going to take your independent and tie down that in a five-person commission.
right now, the consume rs have it on their side. i urge support for the moore amendment. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. mr. crenshaw: i rise time to opposition. this is one of the most important provisions and putting would process and strike the law and whenever they request from the federal government. and it strikes the provision that changes the director through a five-member commission. it introduces congressional checks that every agency abides
about we are note asking for the department of justice to do. that makings ironic more transparent and financial institutions more accountable is not. . from the federal reserve. it is deemed necessary. the federal reserve doesn't exrs authority but it must transfer asking any without questions. so the bureau has diverted over $2 billion from the general fund d increased the federal debt
without any input or approval. now other agencies such as the consumer trade commission, they are funded. why not the cfp bmp. structure, some view points would help them understand the skirmings and make it a little more accountable. the commission rnings fred trade commission and they are all nded and they are all led by five-member commissions. so this provision in the bill, neat they are -- doesn't eliminate the bureau and allow us to understand what it is they are doing and how they are going
about it and make it transparent and with that, i urge a no vent on this amendment. the chair: the depol yields back. the gentlelady has a minute and half remaining. >> i appreciate that he has budgetary coonstraints and f.t.c. and had the authority but not had the opportunity and the proceedings process hides the hands of these agencies and the e bright star is the independent agency. i want to point out in a the changing the structure to a
commission would add to our deficit, some my friend, i look forward to our vote and but it continues to ensure that u.s. market are the narest and it protects consumers from mischief in this appropriations process and with that, i would yield whack. the chair: the question is on the amendment enolympic offered by the gentlelady by wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> i would ask for the yapes. the chair: pursuant to clause rule 18, amendments offered by the gentlelady from wism will be
amendment number 10. for what purpose does joosm connecticut soak recognition in >> i have even amendment. the clerk: offered by mr. hipes of connecticut. the chair: yasm connecticut will each control 20 minutes. himes hinchese my amendment does one very simple thing to ncrease the nunding by $00 millon to the level to of cremplet?r the s.e. 2016. this is lower than the president's request of $7 funny 8 billion. he work of the s.e.c. is about
protecting investors who are essential functioning and protect the system. oose this body knows, the dodd-frank act which i understand is controversial but has gone a very long way to avoiding the long way and a avoided in $17 trillion atlanta ts worth as wells the jobs act which attract tractsed strong okt and they required to write fromegular rations and and my friends for the writing of the rules, we are seeing a real
cut in the budget for the s.e.c. just to give you a chance, it is w responsible for seeing 26,000 market participants. increased since trillion and ffle and this is a an organization which is essential to one of the jangs is the licked chit that the world has for our capital markets. it has not funded by taxes but by fees it that collects.
ut and raising anybody's taxes but authorize delors 50 thors in the million. where that, i would like to thank for the opportunity to bill. he and with that, i reserving. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: the bill before us today takes a measured approach to the securities and exchange commission. that agency has received some of the largest increases over the last decade. today, we cut the s.e.c.'s funding by $50 million from the 2016 because the commission estimates that $50 million is a carryover funding from the last
year. in addition, we send re-sind money from the section's reserve fund, that was set -- the s.e.c.'s reserve fund, set up like a slush fund under dodd-frank. but because the commission has been using the reserve fund for important information technology projects, we have increased funding for the i.t. in the bill. now, i believe that we upgrade information technology, the commission is better able to leverage its resources, catch bad actors, provide the quality review that curt filings reserve. to that end, the bill targets funding for another area of need within the commission, that's the economic analysis. i believe continuing to set aside funding to fully fund the s.e.c.'s division of economic and research analysis is going to help the s.e.c.'s work withstand any kind of judicial review. i happen to believe that the current chair, mary jo white, is
steering the s.e.c. toward prioritizing enforcement and investor protection and not so much the politically charged rule making. because of that, we've kept the s.e.c.'s funding at a reasonable level a level of funding included in this bill is more than fair and does not need to be adjusted in any way. the fact that this agency is fee-based in no way diminishes the need for congressional oversight over the commission's funding. so i would say the s.e.c. is not stashed for resources and i urge a no vote on this amendment. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. himes: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the gentleman's perspective but disagree. he is correct that in fact the funding for the s.e.c. has risen in the last eight year bus so has the dramatic amount of work required of it. and mr. chairman, i'll close with just one important point, which is we saw over the course of the last two weeks the
dramatic market volatility that was introduced by british decision to remove itself from the e.u.: there wasn't a stock market or an asset market anywhere on the globe that didn't suffer a significant jolt. these are moments of uncertainty, maybe even chaos in the capital markets. we have a fairly significant election coming up this november. we are not looking at a moment in which the capital markets are going to experience smooth sailing into the foreseeable future. we saw precisely the volatility that we need to have a cop on the beat to watch. this is not the moment to cut the s.e.c.'s funding and i urge my colleagues in the chamber to pass this amendment and fully fund the cop that we need on this beat. with that, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i want to reiterate, we're treating the s.e.c. very fairly. we want to make sure the markets
are safe and orderly and they are. just giving more money to the s.e.c. is not necessarily going to make things better. over the years, as my colleague understands, we have increased their funding and they still miss an occasional madoff scandal and things like that. so you don't just buy the regulation. you spend the money where you ought to spend it, cost benefit, help them keep the markets orderly. that's what we do in this bill. i urge rejection of this amendment and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. himes: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: the yeas and nays are requested. further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut will e postponed.
it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: i have an amendment at the desk. choi the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 114-639, offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, and a member oppose each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i yield myself 90 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: this bipartisan amendment would zero out funding for an obsolete, archaic system, selective service.
the russians argentina, and president carter decided to boycott the olympics and reinstate the draft. they tried to recall all of the reports they didn't, senator mark hatfield obtained one, it was printed in the congressional record. the selective service itself decided its time was past but we reinstated it as a symbol of our opposition to the russians. so here we are today. 39 years later. wasting $23 million a year, making every male american at the age of 18 register for draft that will never, ever again happen, under penalty of felony law, deprivation of federal assistance, federal jobs, and other things for life if they fail to register. and yet, we're still here tonight to defend that.
the chairman will say, well, year going to study this. we're going to study it and decide whether or not we might still need this someday. yet of course the department of defense itself says we do not want a draft wem like the -- like to select highly qualified people for our all-volunteer military. in march, secretary of defense carter said the thing i'd like to say about the selective service system and the draft generally is this, we want to pick our own people. we don't want people forced to serve us. wret the chairman of the committee will rise in a vain attempt to defend this wasteful system. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. crenshaw: i claim time in opposition. i think most of us hope we never need to use the draft again. i think the agency is an important insurance policy we can use against unforeseen threats.
in an emergency, in a wartime situation, the effects of this amendment could be disastrous. this is a small price to pay for an agency that has the potential to avert a crisis, should the draft ever need to be reinstated. the voluntary military we've maintained for 40 years is certainly the preferred method of defending our nation. we've got the best-trained, best-equipped military in the world. but the decision on the issue to support and maintain a selective service system is a decision that should be made by the expect of defense. so -- by the department of defense. so i believe that this is a small price to pay to make sure that we have this ability should we ever need it. with that, i urge a no vote on this amendment. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i yield the gentleman from colorado a minute and a half. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half.
mr. coffman: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the defazio amendment. i'm a proud co-sponsor of the amendment. as the gentleman from oregon mentioned, the draft ended in 1973, conscription ended, and then it was put on the shelf, inactivated, the selective service system, and only activated when in a show of resolve the president, jimmy carter, in the aftermath of the december, 1979, russian or viet invasion of afghanistan basically reinstituted the draft, conscription, reinstituted signing fup for selective service and the elective service system. as well as our participation in the olympic games ski jowled to be in moscow. it is never -- it has never been used. there's never even been a
discussion in the height of iraq and afghanistan. within the department of defense. even with personnel shortages about using the draft. in a recent study by the army recruiting command, they determined that something like 75% of young people, military age people, are ineligible to serve in the united states army. either they're overweight, they don't have high school, have high school but don't have a high enough score on the armed orces entrance exam, or they have altercations with the law or drug and alcohol issues. so we have very high standards today. mr. defazio: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. coffman: we have extremely high standards today and i think having conscription, having people, having served in the united states army, when there was a draft, that having people being forced to serve
compromises the extraordinary, i think, capability of our military. so this is about putting it back on the shelf as it was in 1973. if the president as commander in chief ever felt it needed to come off the shelf he or she could do so. with that, i yield back to the gentleman from oregon. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire this egentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i'm ready to close and have the right to close, so i reserve. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. for those who persist in the fantasy that someday we will need to reinstate the draft, this legislation allows the president the authority to restore funding should he believe that such action is in
the interest of national defense. the report from 1979 from selective service itself said we don't have the training capacity for the old kays of training young troops with broom sticks to go into war. today we have a professional military. the best in the world. you believe in our military, and you believe in an all-volunteer force, you'll vote for this amendment. if you want to send a message that someday, we're going to conscript young men involuntarily to go into the military with training capacity that doesn't exist to have hundreds or thousands or millions of bodies, untrained, go into a mass i land war, unlike the way wars are fought today with a professional military, much more targeted, with drones and air strikes, then vote for this. say we're going to go back to korea. we're going to go back to the way it was in world war ii. we're going to go back to world war i. but if you believe we've entered
the 21st century and we're never going to involuntarily conscript americans to serve in the military again, the all volunteer force is the best in the world and yes it needs to be the best trained and best equipped. let's focus on that let's spend $23 million on their training and their equipment instead of wasting it on an obsolete system that penalizes young americans urn felony penalty if they don't register and register their change of address. by the way, selective service doesn't know where most people live and their computers are obsolete and don't work. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: thank you, mr. chairman. just want to note that the overwhelming fantasy that the gentleman refers to is shared on a bipartisan basis in rejecting this amendment. a couple of years ago overwhelmingly. so this is not a brand new idea. and we appreciate the gentleman bringing it before us. but in the military, they talk
about thing this is a you don't know. you don't know what you don't know. and i believe that this is a small price to pay to make sure that we have this ability should a crisis occur. we might save thousand, if not millions of lives. so i urge a no vote on this amendment and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of this echair the noes have it. mr. the -- mr. defazio: i request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. grayson: i have an amendment at the desk.
the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in the house report 114-639. offered by mr. grayson of florida. the chair: the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. grayson: this language strikes the anti-abortion language in section 613 which restricts abortion coverage for those who participate in federal employee health benefit plans. in other words, federal employees. singling out abortion care and requiring its exclusion from health insurance plans is discrimination. federal employees commit their lives to public service and should not be penalized because of the source of their health insurance and who their employer happens to be. government employees contribute to the cost of their coverage and they pay their out of pocket expenses. they deserve the same benefits and access to comprehensive health care as those in the private sector. this ban separates public
servants from private sector employees and treats them as unequal. ll federal and they receive. one employer. he government is free to den and we are prohibiting these plans from covering abortions and that constitutes interference. restricting abortion is a bad policy that harms women. one might find out that the fetus is abnormal and that is ar personal decision that should be made personally and the government should not weigh in in making that decision. f a woman does decide that her
could in jeopardy, she be looking at experiences and hile allowing them to have hundreds of thousands of dollars. this does not mandate, it permits the benefit plans to cover abortion and we need to get to the hat of the matter, which is this. most fundamental right of anyone, a man or woman is the right to control your own body and that includes a womb. if liberty means anything, that's what it means. that's true for me and true for you, true for membership and true for women. and includes pregnant women and
women who happen to be federal employees. abortion has to be fully equal. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman reservings. mr. crenshaw: i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from to mr. smith. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i thank the chairman. 33 years ago, i sponsored the n to the subsidize the program. e smith amendment passed and has been in effect almost continuously ever sense.
nd a january 2016 poll found a supermajority of all response dents and 9% of women opposed taxpayer funding of abortion. why do they trend to pro-life. wim and sion nature, men. second, they are silent no more and speaking to the harm they have endured from abortion. nd they have remindeds l us, women deserve better rment. and the game changer. countless parents have watched as their child appears on the
screen. first baby pictures today are of the child before birth. that furs picture is a powerful confirmation that their child exists and they are parents now and that is an event in the life of a child. ltrasounds have been a tool to treat disease and some children are the youngest parets. i would note to my colleagues after the past several years, there has been a gleeble movement providing for supplementation to the health a wellness. the consequences of caring for children is revolutionary and eath takeic boosting their
immunity. abortion on the other hand, is opposite of life. death.soning them to and pain and suffering on the child, especially during the dismember beerment procedure. it would have and ensures that they do not abortion. the law governing the government's employee's program plans% of the cost of all and taxpayers. ch the chair: the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson is
recognized. mr. grayson: i yield to the gentleman from. women who have abortion should ave be incarcerated? mr. smith: smith the born alive t, every single piece of act has a specific clause that women are held crimeless. mr. grayson: again, if you maintain that abortion is murder, then why do you not believe the women who have these abortions. mr. smith: i call it the taking of human life. are the pro-life movement victims. you'll of h women,
dr. had abortions including king's wife who had two abortions. grace gays claiming my time and i appreciate my time, but i would maintain the simpler that abortion is not murder. i yield one minute to congressman serrano. mr. serrano: -- the chair: the gentleman has 5 second remaining. mr. serrano: the problem with this argument it has become an abortion argument. it's an issue about a doctor and woman about her health care decision and one person can have
rtain rights and another one cannot. there is some federal dollars and personal dollars but no right according to some people. thank you. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida, mr. crenshaw. the chair: mr. grayson is recognized. mr. grayson: i yield myself 158g seconds. mr. crenshaw: it's very clear that the taxpayers eve funds should not be used on abortions. and not only this prohibition be in place since 1981 but requested by the administration as part of its 2017 budget
request. so i urge a no vote on amendment and i yield back. the chair: the jabbed. the question is on the amendment offered by mr. grayson. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. grayson: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be post pornede. t is now to consider amendment 1. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. kildee of michigan. the chair: the gentleman from michigan and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
mr. kildee: this amendment offered by myself and my colleagues would section 625 of this bill and if adopted would allow the fmpt e.v. to require corporations to disclose their olitical contributions and and would simply allow them to do so if they deem it, something to deem it so voters no where the hubs of thousands, millions of dollars would go to affect the outcome of elections. it has happened the floodgates to spind money to affect our democracies that we can never ind out about it and
dramatically the outcome of elections than any other knowledge is power and the american citizens have the right to know how corporations are pending money to allow the s.e.c. that would allow for that disclosure. this democracy should not be for sail. the citizens of this country have the right to know how they are knowing. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. crenshaw: i rise time to claim opposition. this is the law to date that he is trying to remove. s.e. frlt c. doesn't have to be
involved. the language in this bill keeps the s.e.c. on track and prevents hem from issuing a rule from political will will contributions and let's call the amendment, it's an end run around the citizens you flighted decision. and they have been focus understanding on those. ash going after people who are trader. and prollingting investigators. and so i urge a no vote on thement and i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan. the chair: i would 3 and-a-halfa minutes.
mr. deutch: thank my friend. mr. speaker, this is a simple amendment and strikes a policy ide are that would bar the s.e.c. from spending. we have seen an explosive deproth and even under the interpretation of the first amendment in that case, disclosure would mean some level of accountability. and now these corporations are secretly s to influence our elections. this would completely bar any und to require a rule. this represents a behind a closed doors trick from requiring corporations to.
corporations shouldn't be able to hide behind complex webs of social webs and they are more than p.o. boxes and until then i support. colleagues to 3 >> i yield one minute to the gentleman, mr. sarbanes. mr. sarbanes: i want to thank mr. kildee for this amendment which encourages more transparency and disclosure when that's what people are asking for they've want to know where the credit money is coming from and where it's going. they say sunshine is the best disinfectant. but yet again, this house is acting to shield corporate and big money donors from the light of day. it's this russian doll technique, right? you open the russian doll
because you think you can see what's inside. when you open it, there's another doll inside. then you open that and there's another doll inside that one. you can never get to where the money really is. you can never get to -- figure out who is bankrolling these it's commercials than mega phone that's taking over our politics from secret interests. all mr. kildee is seeking is we provide the transparency that the american people are seeking. we need more of that we need more disclosure. we need more accountability. we need more transparency. that's what the american people are demanding. that's what this amendment would do. let's pass this amendment and ensure that accountability in our politics. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. kildee: i'd like to yield one minute to the ranking member of the zphe, mr. serrano of new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. serrano: if i didn't know
better i'd be confused osm one hand we cut money from s.e.c. because they shouldn't be the cop on wall street that it should be and on the other hand we want to continue to cut money and prevent them from telling us where the other money is coming from which is the one that funds elections. what is the problem with the american people knowing that such a candidate with such a committee got money from such a corporation? i want to know, they want to know, so sure, our ratings are low. you know why our ratings are low? because there's so much secrecy in what we do. there shouldn't be. this is a great amendment. it's one that should be in a bipartisan basis accepted. and this stops trying to tell the s.e.c. that they don't exist. they exist and i'll tell you one last point, very short. when i was chairman of the committee, they came to us and said we don't want any more money. we're fine. we found out years later why they didn't want money. they didn't want to enforce
anything and we fell into a big hole. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from michigan has 30 seconds remaining. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. chairman. fundamentally this amendment is about the right of the american people to know who is influencing the elections that determine the leadership in this country. this law as written this legislation as presented, would actually prohibit the s.e.c. from rerequiring that kind of disclosure. the american people deserve democracy that is transparent. this amendment would provide the s.e.c. with the tools to make rule this is a would provide that. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. with that, i yield back. choi the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: as i pointed out earlier. this is existing law. this is law today.
they want to strike that law. i would encourage them to look up something called the federal elections commission. that's a place where people disclose their political contributions. and it's right there for everybody to see. so why they want to say, take existing law that says that's not the role of the s.e.c., it's the role of the f.e.c., they want to change the law that basically today says s.e.c. has got better things to do than equire -- excuse me. certainly. >> are the corporate contributions made under the provisions that we're speaking of disclosed to the federal elections commission? corporate spending under the citizens united case for example? are those disclosed by corporations to the f.e.c.? mr. crenshaw: i understand this is an end run about that lawsuit
but there's disclosure that takes place and again the law today, it was added last year, part of the omnibus bill, the s.e.c. ought to be trying to find tax cheats they ought to be trying to find people doing insider trading. and quite frankly, they really don't have it on their high list of things to do because right now the law prevents them from doing that. i think it's better to keep the law just like it is today, reject this amendment and vote no. with that, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes appear to have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. kildee: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 14 brinted in house report 114-639.
for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. eshoo: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will dez egg nate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in house report 114-639, offered by ms. eshoo of kale. the chair: pursuant to house rule 794, the gentlelady from california ms. eshoo and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: this amendment strikes what i believe is an unnecessary provision in the bill that would block the f.c.c.'s in it neutrality rules until the court took final action to determine their legality. the provision my amendment strikes was written before the court announced its decision. on tuesday, june 14, the federal appeals court issued its long-awaited ruling in this case and the decision could not be clearer.
the court fullyup held the f.c.c.'s net neutrality rules and that's why i'm offering the amendment. it found that the f.c.c. -- f.t.c. acted within its authority, acted consistent with supreme court precedent, consistent with the administrative procedure act and consistent with the constitution. every issue raised by opponents in court was rejected. whether it was procedural or substantive. following this clear and decisive ruling, there's simply no reason for congress to be blocking the rules. the courts have spoken and legal scholars agree. i think the american people also spoke very clearly. over four million offered their comments by filing them at the f.c.c. during the rule making process and the vast majority of them were in support of strong rules.
so this level of public input broke records at the f.c.c. he late justice an that -- antonin scalia's dissent in the 2005 brand x case reflects the same commonsense view the american people expressed in public comments. justice scalia said, quote, after all is said and done, after all the regulatory cant has been translated and the smoke of agency expertise blown away, it remains perfectly clear that someone who sells cable mo democrat service is offering telecommunications, unquote. so congress need not block these rules now in the hopes that an appeal to the supreme court will overturn this clear ruling. and that's why i'm offering the amendment and i urge my colleagues to support it and strike what now is unnecessary -- an unnecessary section from
the bill. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for fife minutes. mr. crenshaw: this language is merely a legislative stay on the f.c.c.'s net neutrality order. it's the same language that was in last year's bill this net neutrality rule was very, very controversial. she mentioned there were four million, i guess inputs into the proproposed rule, some for, some against. an let me be clear, there's no dispute about the desire for a free and open internet. but i think when you look at the consumers you look at the businesses, you look at government, they've benefited greatly from the absence of regulatory restrictions on the internet. and at the end of the day, this is an issue for the courts to decide. and even in light of recent circuit court decisions,
litigation this rule is no way finished. i think it's just fair in a controversial rule like this to wait until its legality has been finally determined before we implement the rule. so i urge a no vote and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: mr. chairman, the gentleman really offers a lack of response to the amendment. because the federal appeals court issued a very broad decision and it really couldn't be clearer. i understand that this language was written before the court came out with its decision. but now that the court has, i think that this language really doesn't mean anything. unless the majority simply wants to leapfrog over the decision
even though they don't like it and have fought it. but i just don't think that this belongs in the legislation anymore. it was put in before the court spoke and i believe that it's appropriate to remove the language now. and with that, i will -- i will reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from california. the gentleman from new york. >> i'd like to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in support of this amendment. mr. serrano: it strikes section 63 of the bill that prohibits implementing itsrd on net neutrality until three court cases are resolved. yet again the majority are trying to hijack the regulatory process this rule went into
effect a year ago and none of the fears raised about the net neutrality rule have come to pass. there's been increased investment and profits for internet service providers. there's no reason to continue the crusade against this rule. though section 632 sets out to only last as long as the lawsuits are ongoing, the actual text encourages the plaintiffs in those lawsuits to do everything in their power to delay a resolution to the cases in question. four million people wrote about the rule, about this that the committee is now trying to stop. the normal process of objecting to a rule would be that you go to the courts. that already happened here. the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit denied a petition by several telecom companies and industry. trade groups. to delay implement eags of the federal communications
commission. f.c.c. net neutrality rules. organizations like the consumers union have pointed out that there was plenty of public notice with the net neutrality rules. there was an initial notice of proposed rule making, an extensive description released before the f.c.c. vote and in waiting two months after the federal register publication before the rules took effect, throwing in an additional hurdle to -- departs from established process.ng ironically, last week, the district of columbia upheld the 2015 net neutrality rules in these cases, giving the agency unquestionable authority to regulate the internet. of course they can still appeal, which demonstrates how harmful this rider is because it would delay net neutrality while the court process plays out.
blocking net neutrality means blocking an open internet. it allows a broadband provider to block any website or application it wants and would allow pay for priority schemes where all traffic is slowed down to make way for the contents of deep pocketed giants who can pay for preferential treatment. it seems to me that republicans are trying to give corporations more freedom and options to do whatever they want while trying to place more restrictions and burdens on individual citizens like denying them access to a free and open internet. section 632 is harmful to our economy, our democracy, and should be stricken from the bill. i thank you for your amendment. i urge support for the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california. >> one and a half minutes.
ms. eshoo: i close with these comments, mr. chairman. i often say to my constituents that we love our history once it's been made, but we don't always appreciate it when we're making history. and i think that this issue itstive to the internet and entire future will be now because of the court decision totally uninterrupted. no anyone, no i.s.p., can block or throttle online paid or have prioritization agreements that would create fast and slow lanes. imagine if private companies owned all of the freeways in california and every time there's an exit or an onramp