tv Newt Gingrich Campaigns with Donald Trump CSPAN July 6, 2016 9:12pm-10:44pm EDT
industry. what happens is they limit access to financing and you limit options for manufactured housing. got to understand that these new regulations don't reflect the unique nature of manufactured homes. the sales process, the lendsers, the lenders can't offer small balance loans anymore because of these regulations and that's what the -- they use to purchase affordable housing. if you really care about folks and you want them to be able to access the housing market, if you really want them to be able to pursue the american dream of owning a home someday, then you will reject this amendment and allow the provision that we put in this bill to stand. let me once again urge that my colleagues vote no on this amendment and with that 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 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: mr. chairman, we ask for a recorded vote. the chair: 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 16 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, sir. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16 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 will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: mr. chairman, this is another amendment protecting consumers in manufactured housing. it strikes section 638.
section 638 weakens rules preblingting buyers of mobile -- protecting buyers of mobile homes or manufactured homes from being sold products that can ruin them financially. it strikes language that prevents staff at the consumer financial protection bureau from protecting buyers of manufactured homes from high-cost financing. new manufactured homes are of good quality. however, the financing of these homes has a long and sorted history of abuse. if a site-built homeowner can get a mortgage for 5%, why should manufacturing homebuyer need to pay 15%? if a homebuyer is offered a loan of 15%, -- 15%, i think they should receive counseling that lower cost options may be available. two years ago i wrote letters to the heads of the major financing firms for manufactured homes. i asked them for information on their default rate. why should a buyer of a manufactured home be charged three times more than a buyer of
a site-built home? i was told by the trade association that they could share that information but only if i promised confidentiality. i declined that because i wasn't going to be an aider and abetter to their conspiracy. this is a paradox. a they want to charge 10% above prime and 14% and 15% and only way to attract lenders to the market. why do they have to charge 3 times. they are financing and let them build quit. here were a series of articles on how they ued to prey.
dem contrast gave them the milliony ip clueding 17 people. brought topped the and votedll and $1 2 members depeps it and the majority needs to override the veto. so people who what happens buyers who want high hive interest loans authorizing an appropriations pill. we should apossess their efforts. urge support ap everybody hould get a piece of their own
home op shouldn't have to pay three times just because they might be with in a different situation. i know col ocean might say we are strige to make sure people will get in a home. what provides? three times, what average? three times what the average of a site built home, andion that is right. and strike the language in section 368 and stand up for those colleagues. ey are trying to get a piece of the america cap dream ap some lenders that are taking money out of their pockets ap i think united ess of the
states should stand up. ap i will reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek reck next? mr. crenshaw: we just had a discussion earlier about access to affordable and manufacturing folks d a lot of times can't afford to pie a anufacturing home and crmp ffb and den ining is those folks and i think that is brong and i urge iu to reject cha amendment ap yield to my good friend. the chair: the gentleman from is
recognized. >> i rise in opposition to the gentleman from minnesota. and the only thank the gentleman amendment on is his ap i ask the the manufacturing housing earl industry. the dream of owning a home is part of the america can drome. it offers an opportunity to ose who are less after few ent. now what has happened? and d.o.d. frank itself and i would have voted gets but i have opposed to that, dodd-frank llows what this gentleman is
opposing. as bad as the law that has come from this very bad law is, i want to talk about what happens when we do this. this is a miscalculation and a form law by the lules and it scares away lenders and scares away those who want to depiff credit. what does it do? didqueezes the consumer and he prives them of the credit and home and it did he prives them of the part of the american dream. i have seen this. who will profit? hose who are vultturs and have be tal when they will not
and they will swoop in and those .m. who want to sigh their first home and they will be harmed. this is the government over wreach and this is an attempt to construe with d.o.d. frank that is december try mental. reserve a no vote. he the chair: the gentleman from minnesota hats 45 sends. >> there are loans to be had in this space. there is no need to allow skeern umh to be get paid three times
what people pay for a moorge for a site built home. if this is on people who are economically vullneble and i demand and information that might justify these maffered home buyers and no information was forth coming. this is an advantage. .o the american dreams, i urge a yes jote. mr. crenshaw: let me say wops again, we appreciate the effort that we have to protect scoomers, but you could go so far toll regula late and that is what is happening with the
agency and all we are trying to to is bring common sense back into that. i would urge folk to reswrect is. eave the bill a it and maybe can't own a great big house, but they can by a maffered home that might be less expensive and take that into consideration and leave the bill as it is, resquect this amendment and i urge people to vote no and i yield back. 13450
used to enforce rules with espect tom payday loans or other loans. m proud to be joined by my offering this simple yet critical important amendment. president obama's visit to announce the efforts to address were four offering this times s many four time its and more title loan lenders than any other state. only hast contrast not the participant but the critical need to fight against the practices.
oftentimes, african america rans are diss proportions are pay day loans. well at check aadvanced loans. this targets the under communities while looking at access. icy this come promises. and it is a problem this is too g to ignore and it should be applauded. et proposed rules are not are not undualy burdensome and who do not ask for any i can or whether the borrower has the
and ty to repay, that is lenders should have the ability to repay. studies show that 69 of the borrowers yous the loans for would ills, and and it require to pay back the loips in the same way when they present pay loans. and it comes to making sure that people who are lending money to to repay.belt and i would restrict through aweding member i don't remember. d the proposed rules would
strengthen and make the harder. the proposed rules have bipartisan support and empower them to make belter decisions. there are are needs that provide scoumers. i will continue to work with the however, it isnd body toabbling for this protect americans. i support the acoppings of these lemmings. this would allow for resource us to be able to enforce thinks new regulations and i urge my colleagues to support this
amendment and i reserve. pause nshaw: it puts a until it submits the report and to tell us other good reasons why we ought to reject this amendment and i would like toll yield two minutes to mr. mchenry. mr. mchenry: i thank the chairman ap i thank him for his great work and i have enormous will rm will work. and cutting off access. under the plan, not only would that their eliminate small dollar loans pu would underwrite the expenses.
be lift ity, they will in the dark. it need to be did he searched study and carefully studded. steam want to be full questions.ut aps the that's the deeper ks harder issue. and the tough part rg the moss to as policy makeers is make it deprate that need short-term excellenting. that ms. sewell: i yield to 40
seconds to my colleague. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for 40 seconds. mr. ellison: you know, mr. chairman, i thank the gentlelady. the way that payday loans work is they rely on the fact that you'll borrow the money and then you have an exorbitant interest rate and then you're going to have to borrow money to repay the last loan, plus a fee in the interest rate. you roll it over, you roll it over, so before you know it, your whole check is going to pay this loan. no one has ever asked you whether you can afford it. they just took advantage of your desperate situation. it makes sense for the cfpb to make sure people don't get caught in this cycle of debt. it is the way americans are going to get back to financial health and not be taken advantage of when they're in a vulnerable financial state. there are many alternatives. we need to be exploring those, not just going in for payday lending. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from alabama reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i'd
like to yield two minutes now to the gentleman from ohio, mr. stivers. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. stivers: thank you. i'd like to thank the chairman for yielding me time and for his great work on the underlying bill, including the provisions that are in the bill as we stand. i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. while i have great respect for my colleague from alabama, the language that is proposed would strip bipartisan language that was inserted into the bill that merely puts a pause on the cfpb's short-term lending rule and the result of passing this amendment would hurt millions of consumers having any access to capital. in fact, the community bankers and the national credit union association who don't agree on much recently wrote a letter to the cfpb voicing their strong opposition to the current rule that's being proposed because they believe that it will drive them out of the short-term credit making market and stop them from serving consumers in their local communities. in fact, even the cfpb admits
that 84% of short-term loan vols will disappear as a result -- as a result of this. that will leave millions of americans without access to money they need might to get emergency medical assistance to pay for unexpected automobile repairs, to heat or cool their home. this amendment is a problem, we need to allow the language in the bill to last. all it does is require the cfpb to provide documentation for what they're doing and show where consumers will be able to turn to meet their financial needs. this is a bipartisan amendment that's in the bill now. we should reject the sewell-waters amendment. i urge members to vote no on the amendment and urge them to vote yes on the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentlelady from alabama is recognized for the balance of her time. sewell sewell -- ms. sewell: thank you.
i just wanted to say that i think it's really important that we not give reward -- reward battalion bad actors. i think that the -- bad actors. i think the fact is that while access to credit is critically important, to reward bad behavior is not something that should happen. i ask that you support this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, nobody wants to reward bad actors. let me just say that payday lending today is regulated at the state level and my home state of florida has one of the most prosecute pro-- progressive and effective small dollar lending loan statutes in the country. it's become somewhat of a national example of the successful compromise between strong consumer protection and increased access to capital. i hope that when the cfpb exercises the pause that we ask for this in bill, they'll take a look -- for in this bill,
they'll take a look at some of the progressive laws that are around the country and they can balance that without denying folks access, as was pointed out. i urge a no vote on this amendment and 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 gentlelady from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. sewell: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentlelady asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from alabama will be postponed. the chair understands that amendment number 18 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 19 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentlelady from the district of columbia seek recognition? ms. norton: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 19 printed in house report 114-639 offered by ms. norton of the
district of columbia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentlelady from the district of columbia and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the district of . lumbia, ms. norton ms. norton: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. norton: my amendment strikes the repeal of the district of columbia budget autonomy referendum which allows d.c. to spend its own local funds, consisting of local taxes and local fees, after a 30-day congressional review period. astonishingly house republicans appear to be so afraid of a local jurisdiction spending its local funds without the approval of a federal body, the u.s. congress, no less, that they will be voting for a second time in little over a month to repeal the referendum. d.c.'s budget autonomy referendum is in effect as i speak. the d.c. council recently passed
its first local budget pursuant to the referendum. therefore the repeal would, if done here, would be the most significant reduction in the district's authority to govern itself. since congress granted the city limited home rule in 1973. lawyers differed about the validity of the referendum when d.c. enacted it. however, the referendum has been litigated and there is only one judicial opinion in effect. in march, the d.c. superior court upheld the referendum. no appeal was filed. and the court ordered d.c. employees to implement it. some house republicans have either been disguising or are simply mistaken in their opposition to the referendum. because they're using legalistic arguments. fork, the speaker revealed a
reason that some may oppose the -- for example, the speaker revealed a reason that some may oppose the referendum. i'm quoting, there are real consequences. the d.c. government wants to use revenues to fund abortions in the district. house republicans will not stand for that. well, the speaker was wrong. about the effect of the budget autonomy referendum. congress loses nothing under budget autonomy. congress retains the authority to legislate on any d.c. matter, including local budgets at any time. mr. speaker, this is not statehood. i'm here to tell the floor this evening. the referendum is a modest attempt by a local jurisdiction to get enough control of its local funds to be able to implement its own budget soon after it is passed, like other merican jurisdictions that are
having congressional debates that have nothing to do with our local budget. indeed, the riders in this bill prohibiting d.c. from spending its local funds on marijuana commercialization and abortion services for low-income women were changed from those in prior appropriation bills to apply whether or not d.c. has budget autonomy. hiser to you canly d.c. riders a-- historically d.c. riders applied only to funds included on appropriation bills. because only appropriation bills authorize d.c. spending. in this bill, the riders apply to any d.c. funds. however authorized. including those in budgets passed pursuant to budget you a autonomy -- budget autonomy. the riders congress passes in the d.c. appropriations bill will be untouched by budget autonomy. local control over local dollars
raised by local taxpayers is a principle much cited by congressional republicans and is central, it i may say so, to the american form of government. beyond this core principle, budget autonomy has practical benefits for the district, including lower borrowing costs, more accurate revenue and expenditure forecasts, improved agency operations and the removal of the threat of d.c. government shutdown because the federal government shuts down. the d.c. budget is bigger than the budgets of 14 states, mr. speaker. it raises more than $7 billion in local funds. while d.c. in is in a better financial position than most -- is in a better financial position than most states with a rainy day fund of $2.17 billion on a total budget of $13.4
billion, budget autonomy would make the district economy even stronger. why would anybody in this house oppose that possibility? the repeal of the referendum is not only bad policy, it is a blight on this country's most revered principle, local control. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to the amendment and -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. med med thank you, mr. speaker. i'd -- mr. meadows: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank the gentleman from florida, the chairman of the committee, for his fine work, for his friendship, and i just want to say, you'll be missed. i rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. this is something that we have
debated for many, many hours. she knows full well what is the issue and what is not shoot, mr. speaker. i'm here tonight to clear the record once again. to suggest that this is all just about local control and local budget autonomy miss the foundational principles of where they have this limited right in d.c. already. it goes back to our founding fathers and the principles found in the constitution. it goes back to when this was debated and actually signed into law, where democrats and republicans came together to say, we're going to give d.c. the ability to have local control over local issues with one major exception. and that major exception had to do with the appropriation of funds and truly the power that rests and resides in this
esteemed body. so to suggest that anything nefarious is happening would be to ignore not only history, but to ignore debate that has happened in this very chamber before. the gentlewoman from d.c. has offered a number of times the -- a bill to actually repeal this very right, so to suggest that d.c. automatically has this right to be able to have budget autonomy would go against previous arguments that the gentlewoman has made. so i'm here tonight to say that not only am i in strong opposition, but this is something that we must stand up to for the integrity of this body and certainly because of the principles that our founding fathers laid at this incredible city that we call our nation's capital, washington, d.c., it was to preserve it in a way that allowed for this body to not only manage and appropriate, but
to oversee what is the nation's city and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: just very briefly, i think mr. meadows said it well. the bill before us right here continues to appropriate d.c. local funds, just like it has been doing for the last 43 years. under democratic and republican majorities, democratic and republican administrations. so this bill is no radical departure from the past. i urge a no vote on the gentlewoman's amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. serrano: i'd like to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognizes -- is recognized for five minute. mr. serrano: thank you so much. mr. chairman, when i became chairman of this committee in the past, i think i was the first chairman ever to say that i wanted less power rather than more power. and the reason i said that was
because i didn't want to oversee the district of columbia as chairman of the committee, as one overseeing a colony. for me that was a very important -- that was very important, since i was born in the colony of puerto rico and i now represent the bronx, new york, in congress. so it's very personal for me that i should not do to others what i don't like people doing to my birlingt place. let us understanding something. in my opinion and i have been saying this for years, this is about the ability to say that you stand for things that you really don't stand for in your own districts. so people who camp in their district, control the budget and say i'm strong on controlling
and you say where. d they say i oppose exchange projects and they say i do it in the district of columbia. and stop getting women from getting their health care and getting an abortion, but it's legal here, but i did it in the district of columbia. and what has happened is that d.c. has become this playground for members of grouped to say i stand strong on those shoes. they only stand issues on the abuse of the district of clalm yeah. we will see it again and again and again. i don't want to fuel this, but they can't vote on her own amendment, because she does
president have a vote. puerto eman from help rico, and mr. did you have if i, and he can't vote on it. that's the situation we have. debatest vote on the continued try of worth and how we we be democratic and don't practice it on a place can wee block of us, how tell puerto rico that it can't deal with its own situation and tell latin america it must change its ways this we continue to have this contradiction and need to take care of it. his one is a refer dumb.
conching had the opportunity and they didn't and it is now coming to come back by putting language in the bill. please, ladies and gentlemen, think of this vote that can't score you points back home but they spend it as they see fit. florida. i ask that you support ms. norton's amendment but we will continue to fight this fight because it is right and the same constitution that may have said some things about drs that we are expanding on and overusing
and the constitution that arantees the right to govern ourselves and our resources and with that, i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the amendment is not depreed to. the gentlelady asks for on recorded vote. further proceedings on the mendment offered by golf strict of column will be postponed. >> mr. chairman, i seek the recognition to support the amendment and offer it on floor. i have an amendment at the desk the clerk: amendment number 20 printed in house report offered
by mr. amodei of nevada. the chair: the gentleman from nevada and a member opposed will each control 20 minutes. mr. amodei: my amendment would ohibit fund to the trade associations. the requirement is the requirement that trade associations must acquire written approval from member corporations to solicit hack donations and must further require stock holders and member companies to contribute to one strayed association. it is you nike about those who are trade associations. therefore, the object jeblingttive is to say ut of all
and we should treat everybody the same who is the result of a result of law passed in 1938 and has been a solution in search of a problem and i would reserve. tcharmente for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek reck anything? yield.k the gentleman to the chair: the gentleman from nevada is recognized. >> i would like to yold. >> make a little statement that think it's a very good amendment and levels the playing field and impact the dem creates and republic caps. >> mr. chairman, woy reserve the balance much my tifmente
the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seeks recksnigs? . serrano: i claim time in opposition. you ronald reagan, there go again again and things should be out in the open. rrent laup limits the p.a.c. from soliciting member ell corporations and without permission from the corporation pac each to to a year. this amendment would remove these solicitation and remove he corporation of corporate. i don't know about you, but most
sickening of these emails. and the chamber of commerce and that is not right. sast i heard, trade association were not lacking for money and they have plenty of loopholes in our system. if the gentleman from nevada seems to think differently, this bill is not the right place to change campaign finance law or in a way that are hurts the american vote rs. i oppose the amendment. things. are stubborn ade associations may give it
2-1 for republicans. but the once are not regulated. we aren't asking you to pick one or the other but pick one. we aren't hiding anything. so it's not a question of are we mide hiding something. he top 20 p arch cs were all outside the prior apolve aquifmente. this is probably the firts time these outfits have been minged. by the way, independent elect call contractors should enjoy the rights. i reserve, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from nevada reserves.
the gentleman from new york is recognized. certain certain my quote was better than the other quote. and i stand by that will comment. who closes? the chair: the gentleman from nevada has the right to close. mr. serrano: i just think this is a good amendment and we should passengers to the chair: the gentleman from new york has the right to close. mr. serrano: i reserve. scharmente the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. >> i will concede the point that you are better and i welcome you to the reagan quote club. playing the level field. it's the treat everybody the same. and the e woffered is aquailt.
and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. does the gentleman from new york seek time? mr. serrano: i apoll gizz to the chair. i think this is one of those opportunities to insert language into appropriations bill that doesn't belong there. i think the gentleman who is a very nice guy to rethink and we err discuss it at length and because of recent events or the bronx to the yankee game. but i think we are spending toosm time putting things too uch things in this bill and we may never see what i saw here
to the ability to see a bill stand alone and get passed by the president. we should look at that. and look at what we are doing to e committees and and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nevada, thaped. thofere. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from from new york request a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, pursuant proceedings on the amendment offered will be postponed. for what purpose does gentlelady . om
the clerk: offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee and a member opposed will each control 20 minutes. mrs. blackburn: i want to thank he committee on identifying to count ways and the 1% spending cut and i'm comeing again this year with this amendment. this bill provides a net total of $21.7 billion in physician 2.7 year 2017, that is billion be lon the president's requiet and the fiscal year 2016 level and $ pine 89 billion. on the other amendment.
i have two back to back and the 1%. i will go to 84. i know you would like to defeat both. but we are going to do them one at a time and start with 84. i am an amendment that bringingford that would prohibit funs made available by the act being use todd implement administer or enforce any of the rules in the notice of proposed rulemaking adopted by the f.c.c. 1639.ch 21, 2016, objections. there are two problems with the f.c.c. actions that warrant a delay in the adoption of rules by this agency. first, the f.c.c.'s proposed
rules are extreme and go well beyond anything they should be oing in the says and it is a bipartisan space. there are several republicans sent a letter to all, all of the f.c.c. commissionerses the privacy rulemaking and i'm quoting, intends to go beyond the framework from data practices from the internet services and consistency on how the personal data is protect thed. has been our sole sbrnt privacy regulator. it will recrate confusion within system, the f.c.c.
erm tore and he testified before the house uniquery ki that has the expertise and providing the obligations to provide the security of security data. . . an economist recently said there has been no economic analysis on the rules' -- rule's impact. he said, that's a bad thing to be clear. let me tell you something. the fact that we have an agency that is not studying and working on the economic impact and reviewing what this is going to do to the economy is absolutely unbelievable. especially when you look at the
fact that the f.c.c. does not have the authority and expertise to move into privacy. that is the f.t.c.'s domain and place where this new rule has caused the f.t.c. to bring forward two dozen additional questions and the stakeholders have proposed 500 questions and the rule is a 147-page rule. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee reserves. for what purpose does the entleman seek recognition? >> i would like to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, americans overwhelmingly agree that online privacy is a fundamental right. according to the pew research center, a large majority of americans want the government to do more to protect their privacy. consumers want a voice in how their data is shared and sold.
but despite this loud cry from the american people that we in congress do more, this amendment would do less. it would make it harder for consumers to decide how their data is treated. let me re-read the amendment. none of the funs made available by this act can be used to implement, administer or enforce the rules pursuant to section 222 of the communications act. mr. mcnerney: these are privacy protection rules. these are rules meant to protect consumers' privacy. if this amendment becomes law, consumers will have little or no choice on how their internet service providers sell our most personal data. we need strong rules to protect consumers' most sensitive information and we need those rules to be enforced. americans -- american consumers need to choose for themselves, where their location, their search history or their purchasing habits, including medical equipment, should be
sold, traded or otherwise used without their permission. i believe that consumers who consistently demand greater privacy protection online would oppose this amendment. which takes away their protections. my republican colleagues claim that the f.c.c.'s proposed rules for privacy protection will confuse consumers. let's be clear. the data shows that consumers are already confused when it comes to privacy. just a few weeks ago, a georgetown law professor testified before the telecommunications subcommittee of the energy and commerce committee that privacy in the u.s. has never been uniformly controlled. for example, there are sector-specific privacy laws for consumers' health, credit and educational information. this is not to mention the 50-state patchwork of state
privacy laws all across this country. consumers want to be heard. they want more privacy, we have an obligation to respond to their request by opposing this amendment. i urge my colleagues to poe pose -- to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. a couple of points here. we have a privacy regulator. it is the federal trade commission, the f.t.c. has that jurisdiction. to add the f.c.c. is going to cause confusion as to who is in charge of what. everyone knows that. do we need to pass a privacy bill? absolutely. a data security bill? absolutely. that's the responsibility of this body. it is not the responsibility of unelected bureaucrats that are sitting down at the f.c.c. who come up with a 147-page rule and then they're not even looking necessarily at where the problem is with privacy, they're going
to focus on the i.s.p.'s. so they are out in front of their skis, if you will, on this one. we have a privacy regulator they deserve to keep that authority because they have expertise in that area and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker, i warned you that the other side would say that this is going to be confusing to consumers. consumers are already pretty confused about their privacy protections. in fact, i bet everyone in this room is confused about their privacy protection. we need a body that can put privacy protection up front, create rules that make sense, and can be enforced uniformly across the country. that's going to make customers more confident that their data is being protected, that's what we need. again, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlelady from tennessee has the right to close. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized.
mrs. blackburn: i will reserve until the close since i have the right to close. mr. mcnerney, if you want to close, then i'll close. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcnerney: i thank my colleague from tennessee. preventing the f.c.c. from using funds to enforce any proposed privacy rules would have the effect of leaving the f.c.c. with very little room to protect consumer privacy. i don't think that's what the americans want. americans want their privacy protected. if we remove all funds from enforcement capabilities from the f.c.c., we're going to be left with no privacy protection. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: yes. what we have is an issue of jurisdiction. the jurisdiction is with the f.t.c. and they have the funds. and they do a good job of this. let them do their job. preemption. yes. that is something that we should discuss and pass in a privacy
and data security bill within this body. it should not be done by the f.c.c. who is saying, hey, just trust us. just trust the federal agency and we'll come in here and do this through the rules. it is a big government power grab. i think people have had enough of that. it is expensive. it is confusing. i urge support for my amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. mr. mcnerney: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman from california requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee will e postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in
house report 114-639 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by mr. ellison of minnesota. amendment number 2 by mr. duffy of wisconsin. amendment number 3 by mr. becerra of california. amendment number 4 by mr. ellison of minnesota. amendments number 5, 6 and 7 by ms. moore of wisconsin. amendment number 10 by mr. himes of connecticut. amendment number 11 by mr. defazio of oregon. amendment number 12 by mr. gray sovepb florida. amendment number 13 by mr. kildee of michigan. amendment number 14 by ms. herb oo of california -- ms. herb oo of california -- ms. herb auto of california. amendment -- eschoo of california. amendment number 20 by mr. amodei of nevada. and amendment number 21 by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote from this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-639 offered by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redess the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this lab 15-minute vote. -- this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, on which further proceedings were postponed and on whiches not -- and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. duffy of wisconsin. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 166, the nays are 255 the amendment is not adopted -- 254. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-639 offered by the gentleman from california, mr. becerra, on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. becerra of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 183, the nays are 29, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 offered by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, on which further proceedings were postponed and on whiches ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.