Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
TO THE HOUSE NOW.
DEBATE ON NONCONTROVERSIAL
BILLS UNDER SUSPENSION OF THE
RULES HAPPENING NOW. MAY
OBTAIN A CONSUMERS INFORMED
WRITTEN CONSENT ON AN ONGOING
BASIS AND THAT CONSENT MAY BE
OBTAINED THROUGH THE INTERNET AS
AMENDED.
THE
CLERK WILL REPORT THE TITLE OF
THE BILL.
UNION CALENDAR NUMBER
211, H.R. 2471, A BILL TO AMEND
SECTION 2710 OF TITLE 18 UNITED
STATES CODE TO CLARIFY THAT A
VIDEOTAPED SERVICE PROVIDER MAY
OBTAIN A CONSUMERS INFORMED
WRITTEN CONSENT ON AN ONGOING
BASIS AND THAT CONSENT MAY BE
OBTAINED THROUGH THE INTERNET.
PURSUANT TO THE RULE, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA, MR.
GOODLATTE, AND THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MICHIGAN, MR. CONYERS, EACH
WILL CONTROL 20 MINUTES.
.
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT ALL MEMBERS MAY
HAVE FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO
REVISE AND EXTEND THEIR REMARKS
AND INCLUDE EXTRANEOUS
MATERIALS ON H.R. 2471 AS
AMENDED.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. SPEAKER, I
CONSUME.
YIELD MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I MAY
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. SPEAKER,
TODAY I AM PLEASED THAT WE ARE
CONSIDERING A BIPARTISAN BILL
TO UPDATE THE VIDEO PRIVACY
PROTECTION ACT OF 1998.
BILL WILL ENSURE THAT A
LAW RELATED TO THE HANDLING OF
VIDEOTAPED RENTAL INFORMATION
IS UPDATED TO REFLECT THE
REALITIES OF THE 21ST CENTURY.
THE VPPA WAS PASSED BY CONGRESS
IN THE WAKE OF JUDGE ROBERT
BORK'S SUPREME COURT NOMINATION
BATTLE DURING WHICH A LOCAL
WASHINGTON, D.C., NEWSPAPER
OBTAINED A LIST OF VIDEOTAPES
THAT THEY RENTED FROM THEIR
NEIGHBORHOOD VIDEO RENTAL
STORE.
IT CAUSED BIPARTISAN OUTRAGE
WHICH RESULTED IN THE ENACTMENT
OF THE VPPA.
THE COMMERCIAL VIDEO
DISTRIBUTION LANDSCAPE HAS
CHANGED DRAMATICALLY SINCE
1988.
BACK THEN THE PRIMARY CONSUMER
CONSUMPTION OF VIDEO
CONSUMPTION OCCURRED THROUGH
THE SALE OR RENTAL OF
PRERECORDED VIDEO CASSETTE
TAPES.
THIS REQUIRED USERS TO TRAVEL
TO THE LOCAL VIDEO STORE TO
PICK UP A RENTAL.
THEY HAD TO GO BACK TO THE
STORE TO RETURN THE RENTAL.
IT WAS RECOMMENDED TO FRIENDS
PRIMARILY THROUGH YOU
FACE-TO-FACE CONVERSATIONS.
WITH TODAY'S TECHNOLOGY,
CONSUMERS CAN QUICKLY AND
EFFICIENTLY ACCESS VIDEO
PROGRAMMING THROUGH A VARIETY
OF PLATFORMS, INCLUDING THROUGH
INTERNET PROTOCOL-BASED VIDEO
SERVICES, ALL WITHOUT LEAVING
THEIR HOMES.
THIS BILL UPDATES THE VPPA TO
ALLOW VIDEOTAPED SERVICE
PROVIDERS TO FACILITATE THE
SHARING ON SOCIAL MEDIA
NETWORKS OF THE MOVIES WATCHED
OR RECOMMENDED BY USERS.
IT IS NARROWLY CRAFTED TO HAVE
THE PROTECTIONS FOR CONSUMERS
PRIVACY WHILE MODERNIZING THE
LAW TO EMPOWER CONSUMERS TO
COMORE WITH THEIR VIDEO
CONSUMPTION PREFERENCES,
INCLUDING SHARING NAMES OF NEW
OR FAVORITE TV SHOWS OR MOVIES
ON SOCIAL MEDIA IN A SIMPLE
WAY.
HOWEVER, IT PROTECTS THE
CONSUMERS' CONTROL OF THE
INFORMATION BY REQUIRING
CONSUMER CONSENT BEFORE ANY OF
THIS OCCURS, AND IT MAKES CLEAR
THAT A CONSUMER CAN OPT IN TO
THE ONGOING SHARING OF HIS OR
HER FAVORITE MOVIES OR TV SHOWS
WITHOUT HAVING TO PROVIDE
CONSENT EACH AND EVERY TIME A
MOVIE IS RENTED.
IT ALSO MAKES CLEAR THAT RENTAL
AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT CAN BE
PROVIDED THROUGH THE INTERNET
AND CAN BE WITHDRAWN AT ANY
TIME.
FINALLY, THANKS TO AN AMENDMENT
BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK,
THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE
CONSTITUTION SUBCOMMITTEE, MR.
NADLER, THE AMENDED BILL WE ARE
CONSIDERING TODAY REQUIRES THAT
THE CONSENT BE DISTINCT AND
SEPARATE FROM ANY OTHER FORM
SETTING FORTH OTHER LEGAL AND
FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS.
THIS BILL IS TRULY PRO-CONSUMER
AND PLACES THE DECISION OF
WHETHER OR NOT TO SHARE VIDEO
RENTALS WITH ONE'S FRIENDS
SQUARELY IN THE HANDS OF THE
CONSUMER.
IN FACT, THE CO-CHAIRS OF THE
FUTURE OF PRIVACY FORUM
CORRECTLY POINTED OUT IN AN
OPINION PIECE IN "ROLL CALL" ON
NOVEMBER 29 THAT THE ANTIQUATED
LAW ON THE BOOKS IS A HINDRANCE
TO CONSUMERS.
THIS LEGISLATION DOES NOT
CHANGE THE SCOPE OF WHO IS
VPPA OR THE
DEFINITION OF PERSONALLY
IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION.
IN ADDITION, IT PRESERVES THE
REQUIREMENT THAT THE USER
PROVIDE AFFIRMATIVE WRITTEN
CONSENT.
IT IS TIME THAT CONGRESS
UPDATES THE VPPA TO KEEP UP
WITH TODAY'S TECHNOLOGY AND THE
CONSUMER MARKETPLACE.
THIS BILL DOES JUST THAT.
I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL JOIN
ME IN SUPPORTING THIS IMPORTANT
PIECE OF BIPARTISAN
LEGISLATION.
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA
RESERVES HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN.
MR. SPEAKER, I
WOULD YIELD MYSELF SUCH TIME AS
I MAY CONSUME.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FROM
VIRGINIA, MR. GOODLATTE, FOR
HIS EXCELLENCE PRESENTATION.
I AGREE WITH HIM THAT WHAT
PROBABLY TRIGGERED THIS BILL IN
COURT NOMINEE
ROBERT BURKE'S VIDEO RENTAL
HISTORY IN WHICH HIS PRIVACY
WAS VIOLATED IN A VERY MAJOR
WAY.
AND SO I JOIN HIM AND THE
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE IN SUPPORTING THE
VIDEO PIRACY PROTECTION ACT
WHICH PROVUDES CONTINUED
CONSUMER -- PROVIDES CONTINUED
CONSUMER PROTECTION.
H.R. 2471 IS VERY IMPORTANT IN
THIS RESPECT.
BECAUSE OVER THE COURSE OF THE
23 YEARS THAT THIS MEASURE HAS
BECOME LAW, THERE HAVE BEEN
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE WAYS
AND MEANS BY WHICH PEOPLE VIEW
TECHNOLOGICAL CONTENT.
TO
MOBILE PHONES.
LIVE EVENTS CAN BE STREAMED IN
REAL TIME TO LAPTOPS USING
MOBILE INTERNET SERVICES.
AND SO THERE WERE SO MANY OTHER
THINGS HAPPENING IN THE
TRANSFORMATIONS THAT GOES ON AT
ALL TIMES THAT WOULD HAVE --
THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
CONTEMPLATED IN 1988.
SO THERE WAS AMBIGUITY ABOUT
WHETHER THE STATUTE APPLIES
ONLY TO PHYSICAL GOODS SUCH AS
VIDEO CASSETTES AND D.V.D.'S.
UNDER THIS BILL A VIDEOTAPE
SERVICE PROVIDER MEANS ANYBODY
ENGAGED IN BUSINESS AND/OR
AFFECTING INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE OF RENTAL, SALE OR
DELIVERY OR PRERECORDED VIDEO
OR SIMILAR
AUDIO/VISUAL MATERIALS.
IT'S THE PHRASE SIMILAR
AUDIO/VISUAL MATERIALS THAT
HAVE CREATED SOME AMBIGUITY.
AND SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS
SPECIFYING THE REQUIREMENT OF
INFORMED WRITTEN CONSENT FOR
DISCLOSURE.
MAY INCLUDE CONSENT THROUGH
ELECTRONIC MEANS USING THE
INTERNET.
AND SO AS THE BILL MOVED
THROUGH COMMITTEE MARKUP, I --
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE BILL
PROVIDES FOR THE GREATEST
PROTECTION FOR CONSUMER
PRIVACY.
ACCORDINGLY, LIKE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIR, I SUPPORTED
THE NADLER AMENDMENT BUT
SUCH CONSENT REQUESTS
BE CLEARLY AND PERMANENTLY
PRESENTED TO THE CONSUMER.
FORTUNATELY, THOSE AMENDMENTS
WERE ACCEPTED.
AND THOUGH I FEEL THAT THE BILL
COULD HAVE GONE FURTHER, I
BELIEVE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE
CONSUMER SHOULD BE ASKED
PERIODICALLY IF THEIR CONSENT
SHOULD BE RENEWED.
IT IS A GOD BILL, AND
ACCORDINGLY -- IT IS A GOOD
BILL AND ACCORDINGLY, I SUPPORT
ITS PASSAGE AND I RESERVE THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN
RESERVES HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MICHIGAN FOR HIS SUPPORT FOR
THE LEGISLATION.
AND RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN.
I'M PLEASED TO
YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
NORTH CAROLINA, MY FRIEND, MEL
COMMITTEE.
WATT OF THE JUDICIARY
I THINK HE'S THE RANKING
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBER OF THIS
PART OF THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE.
I YIELD TO HIM AS MUCH TIME AS
HE MAY CONSUME.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
AND I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MICHIGAN FOR YIELDING TIME.
AND I REGRET THAT I HAVE TO BE
THE SKUNK AT THE PARTY TODAY.
IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL,
WHILE I SUPPORT INNOVATION ON
THE WEB, I DO NOT SUPPORT IT AT
.
THE EXPENSE OF CONSUMER PRIVACY
I BELIEVE WE'VE RUSHED THIS
BILL TO THE FLOOR WITHOUT
SUFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT AND
CONSEQUENTLY WITHOUT GIVING ANY
THOUGHT TO ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR
CONSUMER PRIVACY.
THE BILL WOULD AMEND WHAT IS
WIDELY CONSIDERED TO BE ONE OF
THE STRONGEST PROTECTIONS OF
CONSUMER PRIVACY RECORDS IN THE
UNITED STATES, THE VIDEO
PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT.
WITHOUT RECEIVING TESTIMONY
FROM A SINGLE PRIVACY EXPERT.
IT ALSO IGNORES THE IMPACT THIS
BILL MAY HAVE ON STATE LAWS
PROVIDING SIMILAR OR GREATER
PROTECTIONS, AT A TIME WHEN WE
KNOW THAT TECHNOLOGY HAS BECOME
ALMOST COMMONPLACE, THIS
PERVASIVE AND INVASIVE, OUR
RESPONSIBILITY AS POLICYMAKERS
IS NOT TO SURRENDER TO
TECHNOLOGY AND TO SACRIFICE THE
VALUES THAT WE HAVE HELD DEAR
SINCE THE FOUNDING OF THIS
NATION.
TECHNOLOGY AND PRIVACY ARE NOT
INCOMPATIBLE.
WE CAN AND SHOULD PROMOTE
TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION WHILE
SIMULTANEOUSLY PROVIDING THE
UNINFORMED DISSEMINATION OF
PERSONAL INFORMATION.
THIS BILL FALLS SHORT OF THAT
OBJECTIVE.
THE SUPPORTERS OF THIS BILL
POINT TO THE WIDESPREAD SHARING
ALREADY TAKING PLACE OVER THE
INTERNET, BUT THEY NEGLECT TO
PUBLICIZE THE PRIVACY LAWSUITS,
SOME OF WHICH ARE STILL PENDING
AGAINST THOSE VIDEO AND MUSIC
SITES THAT PERMIT THEIR USERS
TO SHARE THEIR PLAY LIST.
THE VIDEO PRIVACY PROTECTION
ACT WAS NOT ONLY A REACTION TO
THE PUBLICATION OF JUDGE ROBERT
BORK'S RENTAL RECORDS DURING
HIS NOMINATION PRECEDING TO THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
THE COMMITTEE REPORT ALSO NOTED
WHERE AN ATTORNEY OBTAINED
VIDEO RECORDS IN A CUSTODY
DISPUTE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
FATHER WAS UNFIT TO HAVE
CUSTODY OF HIS CHILDREN BASED
LARGELY ON HIS VIDEO RENTAL
RECORDS.
MANY OF THE LAWSUITS TODAY
REFLECT CONSUMER CONCERNS WITH
PRECISELY THIS TYPE OF ABUSE
AND MISUSE OF RENTAL RECORDS
AND OTHER EQUALLY PRIVATE
INFORMATION.
STATED PURPOSE OF THE BILL IS
TO RESPOND TO THE NEW
COMMERCIAL VIDEO DISTRIBUTION
LANDSCAPE BY EMPOWERING
CONSUMERS TO DO MORE WITH THEIR
VIDEO CONSUMPTION PREFERENCES,
INCLUDING SHARING NAMES OF NEW
OR FAVORITE TV SHOWS OR MOVIES
ON SOCIAL MEDIA IN A SIMPLE
WAY.
BUT WHEN YOU REALLY PEEL AWAY
THE LAYERS, YOU HAVE TO ASK
YOURSELF ONE QUESTION, WHO DOES
THIS BILL BENEFIT?
IT REALLY DOESN'T BENEFIT THE
CONSUMER, THE CONSUMER ALREADY
HAS THE CAPACITY TO SHARE HIS
OR HER VIDEO PREFERENCES ONLINE
HOWEVER SHE PLEASES.
THE BILL INSTEAD BENEFITS
COMPANIES BY RELIEVING THEM OF
THE BURDEN OF PROTECTING
CONSUMER RECORDS BY GETTING A
ONE-TIME, ONE-TIME UNIVERSAL
CONSENT TO DISCLOSE USERS'
VIEWING HISTORY IN ORDER TO
SHARE THEM ON SOCIAL MEDIA
SITES.
BUT BECAUSE SOCIAL MEDIA SITES
ARE OFTEN DYNAMIC WITH USERS,
ROSTERS OR FRIENDS
EVER-CHANGING CONSUMER'S
CONSENT TODAY TO ALLOW ACCESS
TO THEIR VIEWING HISTORY IS
CLEARLY NOT INFORMED BY WHO
WILL BE THEIR FRIEND TOMORROW.
TODAY WHEN ONLINE BULLYING OF
TEENS AND YOUNG ADULTS IS
INCREASING AND LEADING TO
DEPRESSION OR SUICIDE, YOU
SHOULD HAVE GREATER CARE TO
ENSURE THAT THEIR INTERESTS ARE
NOT CAVALIERLY DISREGARDED.
ALLOWING VIDEO SERVICE
PROVIDERS TO RELEASE
INFORMATION AS PRIVATE AS A
PERSON'S VIEWING HISTORY, WHICH
CLEARLY SHOWS TO THE WORLD
THEIR LOVES, LIKES AND DISEASE
LIKES, SHOULD NOT BE DONE
WITHOUT CAREFUL CONTEMPLATION
AND CONSIDERATION.
IN CLOSING I WOULD EMPHASIZE
THAT I BELIEVE TECHNOLOGICAL
ADVANCE AND INNOVATION -- ARE
BOTH EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
IT IS THE FUTURE OF AMERICA'S
ECONOMY, I DON'T QUESTION THAT.
IT IS RECKLESS ON OUR PART AND
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE NO
ON THIS LEGISLATION AND I THANK
THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING
TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.
MR. SPEAKER, I
YIELD MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I MAY
CONSUME.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
TO RESPOND TO MY
GOOD FRIEND FROM NORTH CAROLINA
AND HE AND I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO
WORK TOGETHER TO RESOLVE HIS
DIFFERENCES.
IN FACT, I BELIEVE THAT THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK, MR.
NADLER, DOES RESOLVE SOME OF
THE CONCERNS THE GENTLEMAN HAD,
OBVIOUSLY AS HE HAS JUST
EXPRESSED, NOT ALL OF THEM.
THE INTERNET COMMUNITY AND
CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUPS
SUPPORT THE BIPARTISAN.
HULU, GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, I.A.C.,
APPLE, THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY
AND TECHNOLOGY, AND THE FUTURE
OF PRIVACY FORUM ARE AMONG
THOSE WHO SEE H.R. 2471 FOR THE
SIMPLE MODERNIZING AMENDMENT
THAT IT IS.
THE VVPA CONTAINS STRICT
PRIVACY, OPT-IN CONSENT.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE
VVPA KEEPS THE OPT-IN STANDARD
FULLY IN TACT.
H.R. 2471 ENHANCES THE
PROTECTION PROVIDED BY THE VPPA
BY ENSURING THAT THE OPT-IN
CONSENT REQUIRED MUST BE
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ANY
OTHER END USER AGREEMENT.
THIS MEASURE FURTHER EMPOWERS
CONSUMERS TO MAKE DECISIONS
ABOUT THEIR INFORMATION IN A
MANNER THAT IS FULLY INFORMED.
NONE OF THE EXAMPLES PROVIDED
BY MR. WATT ILLUSTRATE A
DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
COMMENTERS HE HIGHLIGHTED WITH
THE CONSUMER EMPOWERMENT
MEASURES THAT H.R. 2471
PROVIDES.
H.R. 2471 SIMPLY GIVES
CONSUMERS THE FREEDOM TO SHARE
WHAT THEY'VE WATCHED WITH THEIR
FRIENDS IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO.
IT GRANTS CONSUMERS THE SAME
RIGHT TO SHARE MOVIES AND
TELEVISION SHOWS THAT THEY'VE
ENJOYED AS IS ALREADY POSSIBLE
BOOKS.
FOR MUIC -- MUSIC, NEWS AND
AND HE CORRECTLY NOTES THAT
SOMEONE CAN RIGHT NOW GO ON
FACEBOOK OR SOME OTHER SOCIAL
MEDIA AND SAY, I WATCHED THIS
MOVIE OR THAT TELEVISION SHOW
AND I LIKE IT OR DON'T LIKE IT.
THE DIFFERENCE HOWEVER IS THAT
CONSUMERS DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY
THEY CAN HAVE AN ARRANGEMENT
FOR THE MUSIC THEY LISTEN TO TO
IMMEDIATELY GO UP ONLINE SO
THAT THEIR FRIENDS CAN LISTEN
THE SAME MUSIC
SIMULTANEOUSLY BUT WITH REGARD
TO MOVIES THEY HAVE TO TAKE
ADDITIONAL STEPS THAT CAN UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES BE INCONVENIENT
TO THEM.
THAT'S WHY THEY LIKE THIS
CONVENIENCE AND THAT'S WHY
CONSUMERS SHOULD HAVE IT AND
THAT'S WHY THIS BILL EMPOWERS
CONSUMERS IN WAYS THAT THEY ARE
NOT EMPOWERED TODAY AND WHY IT
IS A REAL CONSUMER BILL.
H.R. 2471 ENSURES THAT THE
VPPA'S HIGH STANDARD OF PRIVACY
PROTECTION REMAINS UNTOUCHED.
CONSUMERS MUST AFFIRMATIVELY
OPT IN TO SHARE WITH FRIENDS
THE MOVIES AND TELEVISION SHOWS
THEY'VE WATCHED.
A CONSUMER CAN WITHDRAW HIS OR
HER CONSENT AT ANY TIME AND
H.R. 2471 IS NARROWLY TAILORED
TO UPDATE THE VPPA, A 1980'S
LAW, TO MAKE IT CAPACITY WITH
CONSUMERS' DESIRES, WITH
CONSUMERS' COMMUNICATIONS, WITH
CONSUMERS' SOCIALIZING ON THE
INTERNET IN THE 21ST CENTURY.
AND THE COMMITTEE HAS INDICATED
IN ITS REPORT LANGUAGE THAT
THERE IS NO INTENTION FOR THIS
TO NEGATE IN
ANY -- CLARIFICATION TO NEGATE
IN ANY WAY EXISTING LAWS,
REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES
DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY
OF CHILDREN ON THE INTERNET.
AS ALWAYS, HOWEVER, THE FIRST
LINE OF
THE PROBLEM IS THAT HIS
DEFINITION OF PROTECTING
PRIVACY IS NOT AS EXTENSIVE AS
MY DEFINITION OF PROTECTING
PRIVACY AND I THINK MY
DEFINITION IS MORE CONSISTENT
CONSUMERS BECAUSE
CONSUMERS KEEP FILING THESE
LAWSUITS TO TRY TO PROTECT
THEMSELVES FROM THE DISCLOSURE
OF THEIR PERSONAL INFORMATION.
THE ELECTRONIC PRIVACY
INFORMATION CENTER WHICH HAS
BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT OF
ENSURING PRIVACY PROTECTIONS --
PROTECTIONS FOR CONSUMERS IN
THE INFORMATION AGE, JUST LAST
WEEK, SECURED A VICTORY FOR
FACEBOOK USERS WHEN ITS
COMPLAINT TO THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION RESULTED IN A
SETTLEMENT REQUIRING FACEBOOK
TO ESTABLISH AN EXTENSIVE
PRIVACY PROGRAM.
ANALYTICS COMPANY AND WEB VIDEO
AND OTHER PRIVACY LAWSUIT OVER
THEIR ALLEGED USE OF
SUPERCOOKIES TO TRACK PEOPLE.
THERE ARE -- THERE'S CASE AFTER
CASE AFTER CASE OF CONSUMERS'
INFORMATION BEING USED, ABUSED,
MISUSED AND HERE WE ARE MAKING
IT EASIER FOR THAT TO OCCUR BY
SAYING THEY ALREADY HAVE THE
AUTHORITY -- INFORMATION WHEN
THEY RELEASE A MOVIE, BUT THIS
WILL GIVE ONE-TIME UNIVERSAL
CONFERENCE TO RELEASE
EVERYTHING THAT -- COVERAGE TO
RELEASE EVERYTHING THAT I VIEW
ON VIDEO.
AND THAT'S INCONSISTENT WITH
WHAT I THINK IS NECESSARY TO
PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF PEOPLE
IN THIS ELECTRONIC AGE.
NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE
ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE AN INTEREST
IN THIS, I MEAN, THERE ARE
PEOPLE WHO PROFIT FROM MINING
THIS KIND OF INFORMATION.
BUT OUR INTERESTS SHOULD BE IN
PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF
CONSUMERS, PROTECTING THEM FROM
HAVING THIS KIND OF PRIVATE
INFORMATION, I WOULD THINK,
SINCE THE ORIGINAL VIDEO
PROTECTION WAST ACT WAS ABOUT
PROTECTING THE PRIVACY OF JUDGE
ROBERT BORK, AND REVIEWING --
AND PEOPLE GOING INTO HIS
RECORDS TO REVIEW HIS VIDEO
VIEWING PRIVACY, THAT MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE
OF THE AISLE WOULD BE THE MOST
VIGOROUS IN TRYING TO PROTECT
THIS.
BUT HERE WE ARE GIVING IN TO
THE INTERESTS THAT WILL MAKE
MONEY OUT OF THIS AND EXPOSING
OUR CHILDREN AND OUR OWN
VIEWING HABITS TO THIS KIND OF
INTRUSIVE ACTION ON OUR PART.
WE'RE DOING IT WITHOUT THE
BENEFIT OF ANY TESTIMONY AT A
HEARING TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
WE SHOULD SIMPLY NOT BE DOING
THIS.
I WANT TO SUBMIT, WE'RE IN THE
HOUSE SO, I'LL SUBMIT FOR THE
RECORD A LETTER DATED DECEMBER
5, 2012.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
SUBMIT FOR THE RECORD.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
A LETTER DATED
DECEMBER 5, 2012, FROM THE
ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION
CENTER IN WHICH THEY
AGGRESSIVELY OPPOSED THIS
LEGISLATION.
THEY SAY THEY ARE A NONPARTISAN
PUBLIC RESEARCH ORGANIZATION.
THE VIDEO PROTECTION -- PRIVACY
PROTECTION ACT WAS PASSED IN
1988 FOLLOWING DISCLOSURE OF
PRIVATE VIDEO RENTAL RECORDS OF
SUPREME COURT NOMINEE BY A
RENTAL STORE TO A NEWS
ORGANIZATION.
THEIR BROAD BASED SUPPORT FOR
-- THERE WAS BROAD BASE SUPPORT
FOR PASSAGE OF THE ACT AND WAS
SIGNED BY PRESIDENT RONALD
REAGAN.
AND THIS ACT WAS CONSIDERED A
MILD PRIVACY ACT IN MANY
RESPECTS.
IT'S TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL, AND
THIS BILL UNDERMINES THIS VIDEO
PRIVACY ACT THAT WAS THE MODEL
ACT THAT WAS DESIGNED TO
PROTECT A REPUBLICAN NOMINEE TO
THE SUPREME COURT AND WAS
SIGNED INTO LAW BY A REPUBLICAN
PRESIDENT.
AND HERE WE ARE IN THIS
CONGRESS GETTING READY TO SEND
THE BILL OVER TO THE SENATE
WHICH HOPEFULLY THEY WON'T ACT
ON.
THEY WILL SAVE US FROM OUR OWN
INEPTITUDE WHICH WOULD
UNDERMINE THE KEY PROVISION OF
THE VIDEO PROTECTION ACT WHICH
IS THE RIGHT OF USERS TO GIVE
MEANINGFUL CONSENT TO THE
DISCLOSURE OF THEIR PERSONAL
INFORMATION.
THIS BLANKET CONSENT, ACCORDING
TO THE ELECTRONIC PRIVACY
INFORMATION CENTER, AND I AGREE
WITH THEM WHOLEHEARTEDLY, THE
BLANKET CONSENT PROVISION
TRANSFERS CONTROL FROM THE
INDIVIDUAL USER TO THE COMPANY
IN POSSESSION OF THE DATA AND
DIMINISH THE CONTROL THAT NET
FLICKS CUSTOMERS WOULD --
NETFLIX CUSTOMERS WOULD HAVE IN
THE USE OF DISCLOSURE.
WHILE WE KNOW OTHERS REPORT ON
THE ROUTINE OF THEIR CUSTOMERS,
WE KNOW THAT FACEBOOK USERS
HAVE NEVER BEEN PARTICULARLY
HAPPY ABOUT THIS.
THE HISTORY OF BEACON IS
WELL-KNOWN AND ALSO THAT THE
ROUTINE DISCLOSURE OF VIDEO
VIEWING ACTIVITY IS NOT
SOMETHING THAT MOST FACEBOOK
USERS ARE CLAMORING FOR.
FACT, FACEBOOK JUST ENTERED
INTO A SETTLEMENT OF A PRIVACY
LAWSUIT.
AND HERE WE ARE ON THE FLOOR OF
THE HOUSE SAYING THAT WE VALUE
THAT, THE BUSINESS INTEREST
MORE THAN WE VALUE THE PERSONAL
PRIVACY INTEREST OF INDIVIDUAL
CITIZENS.
THIS IS A BAD IDEA.
IT SHOULDN'T BE HERE ON THE
SUSPENSION CALENDAR AS IF IT'S
A NONCONTROVERSIAL
CLARIFICATION OF THE LAW.
THIS IS A DRAMATIC UNDERMINING
OF THE VIDEO PROTECTION --
PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT.
WE ARE DOING DISSERVICE TO OUR
CONSTITUENTS BY GIVING THIS
AUTHORITY.
THEY ALREADY HAVE THE AUTHORITY
TO DO IT ON A
CASE-BY-CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
IT MAY BE INCONVENIENT TO THE
COMPANIES TO GET THE AUTHORITY
GIVEN TO THEM THAT WAY, BUT
THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE
GIVEN TO THEM, NOT IN SOME
BLANKET AUTHORITY THAT JUST
ALLOWS THE COMPANIES TO GO IN
AND USE THIS INFORMATION AS
WILLY-NILLY AND WITHOUT REGARD
TO THE PRIVACY.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR
YIELDING AGAIN AND I MAY ASK
HIM TO YIELD AGAIN DEPENDING ON
WHAT HAPPENS BUT -- HE SAYS NOT
GOING TO YIELD TO ME ANY MORE.
I JUST THINK MY COLLEAGUES
SHOULD VOTE AGAINST THIS BILL,
DEFEAT IT ON SUSPENSION.
LET'S AT LEAST DEBATE IT UNDER
REGULAR ORDER ON THE FLOOR OF
THE HOUSE OR SEND IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE SO WE CAN HAVE
SOME HEARINGS ABOUT THE PRIVACY
DONE.
IMPLICATIONS SO WE CAN GET THIS
I APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN FOR
YIELDING.
I YIELD BACK TO HIM.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.
MR. SPEAKER, IN
NO WAY DOES THIS LEGISLATION IN
ANY WAY UNDERCUT THE PRINCIPAL
PURPOSE OF THE VIDEO PROTECTION
PRIVACY ACT -- PRIVACY
PROTECTION ACT BECAUSE THE
POWER RESTS WITH THE CONSUMER.
BASICALLY WHAT THIS LEGISLATION
DOES IT IS EMPOWERS CONSUMERS
TO DO THINGS IN THE 21ST
CENTURY WITH REGARD TO THEIR
MOVIE AND TELEVISION VIEWING
COMMOUNCATIONS WITH THEIR
FRIENDS THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE
WITH MUSIC, THEY ALREADY HAVE
WITH NEWS, THEY ALREADY HAVE
WITH BOOKS, THEIR MAGAZINE
ARTICLES THAT THEY READ AND WE
SHOULD HAVE THAT KIND OF
CONSISTENCY IN THE LAW.
THE VIDEO PROTECTION PRIVACY
ACT REMAINS STRONG AND ITS
PRINCIPAL PURPOSES REMAINS
THERE INTACT AND IT'S AN OPT IN
REQUIREMENT, AN OPT IN
REQUIREMENT THAT ANYONE WHO
WANTS TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF
THIS CONVENIENCE HAS TO GIVE
INFORMED CONSENT TO DO SO AND I
URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT
THIS VERY BIPARTISAN
LEGISLATION, IT HAS STRONG
SUPPORT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE, AND I AM PREPARED TO
BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN IF
HE HAS ANY FURTHER SPEAKERS.
DOES
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN --
VIRGINIA RESERVE HIS TIME?
I RESERVE MY
TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
I AM GOING TO
YIELD TO A DISTINGUISHED MAN
STRAIGHT FROM GEORGIA, A MEMBER
OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THE
BALANCE OF OUR TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR TWO
MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
RANKING MEMBER.
MR. SPEAKER, I RISE TODAY IN
OPPOSITION TO PASSAGE OF H.R.
2471.
YOU KNOW, THIS BILL WILL MAKE
IT EASY FOR VIDEO PRODUCERS TO
BE ABLE TO SELL TO OTHERS
INFORMATION THAT CONSUMERS MAY
PRIVATE.
NOW, I MYSELF DON'T WANT FOLKS
TO KNOW THAT I HAVE ORDERED UP
"DEBBIE DOES DALLAS."
I MAY NOT MIND IF THEY ORDERED
UP "JAY EDGAR," BUT I DON'T
WANT THEM TO KNOW THAT I
ORDERED "GOOD GIRLS GONE BAD."
AND I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT
ON BEHALF OF JUDGE ROBERT BORK,
I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT
ANYONE TO BE ABLE TO UNCOVER
THE FACT THAT HE'S BEEN
ORDERING UP RELENTLESSLY THE
FILM "BAD BOYS OF SUMMER."
WE HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY, AND
BE
GIVEN AWAY WITHOUT ADEQUATE
KNOWLEDGE ON BEHALF OF THE
AWAY.
CONSUMER WHAT THEY'RE GIVING
AND SO THIS BILL HAS PROCEEDED
TO THE SUSPENSION CALENDAR
WITHOUT ANY KIND OF HEARING
BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
ON WHETHER OR NOT THE BILL
SHOULD BE MARKED UP OR NOT.
AND SO WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM
EXPERTS.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF
WAIVER BY INTERNET, WE DON'T
KNOW THE MECHANICS OF THAT
WAIVER.
WE DON'T KNOW HOW EASY IT COULD
BE TO WAIVE YOUR RIGHTS.
IT COULD BE AS WAIVING YOUR
RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IN A CELL
PHONE CONTRACT.
FOR THOSE REASONS I VOTE OR I
ASK THAT THIS BILL BE DENIED.
AND I THANK THE CHAIR.
THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.
MR. SPEAKER, I
YIELD MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I MAY
CONSUME JUST TO SAY TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA THAT I
HAVE GOOD NEWS FOR HIM.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THAT
ANYONE CAN UNDER THIS
LEGISLATION FIND OUT ANY OF HIS
VIDEO VIEWING HABITS UNLESS HE
CONSENTENCE WITH INFORMED
CONSENT, WITH A SEPARATE
CONSENT TO ALLOWING THAT
INFORMATION TO BE MADE KNOWN TO
ANYBODY.
SO AGAIN THIS LEGISLATION MAKES
GOOD SENSE.
21ST CENTURY.
IT'S WHAT CONSUMERS WANT IN THE
IT'S HOW THEY SHARE THEIR
INFORMATION ONLINE AND THOSE
WHO DON'T WANT TO SHARE THEIR
INFORMATION THIS WAY DO NOT
HAVE TO GIVE THIS CONSENT AND
THEREFORE THIS LEGISLATION I
BALANCE.
THINK STRIKES THE RIGHT
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT
THE LEGISLATION AND YIELD BACK
THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
ALL TIME HAS EXPIRED.
THE QUESTION IS WILL THE HOUSE
2471.
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS H.R.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
2/3 HAVING RESPONDED IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE, THE RULES ARE
--
SUSPENDED, THE BILL IS PASSED
MR. SPEAKER, ON THAT
I ASK FOR A RECORDED VOTE.
THE
GENTLEMAN ASK FOR THE YEAS AND
NAYS?
I ASK FOR THE YEAS
AND NAYS.
ALL
THOSE IN FAVOR OF TAKING THIS
VOTE BY THE YEAS AND NAYS WILL
RISE AND REMAIN STANDING UNTIL
COUNTED.
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING
ARISEN, THE YEAS AND NAYS ARE
ORDERED.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 8 OF RULE
20, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THIS
QUESTION WILL BE POSTPONED.
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK
THAT THE HOUSE SUSPEND THE
RULES AND PASS H.R. 1021, THE
TEMPORARY BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIPS
EXTENSION ACT OF 2011, AS
AMENDED.
THE
CLERK WILL REPORT THE TITLE OF
THE BILL.
H.R. 1021, A BILL TO
PREVENT THE TERMINATION OF THE
TEMPORARY OFFICE OF BANKRUPTCY
JUDGES IN CERTAIN JUDICIAL
DISTRICTS.
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS, MR.
PURSUANT TO THE RULE, THE
SMITH, AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MICHIGAN, MR. CONYERS, EACH
WILL CONTROL 20 MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS.
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK
MEMBERS MAY HAVE FIVE
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT ALL
LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO REVISE AND
EXTEND THEIR REMARKS AND
INCLUDE EXTRANEOUS MATERIALS ON
H.R. 1021, AS AMENDED,
CURRENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN SEEK
RECOGNITION?
MR. SPEAKER, I YIELD
CONSUME.
MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I MAY
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. SPEAKER, ONE OF
THE RESULTS OF THE SLACKED
ECONOMY IS THAT MORE
INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES HAVE
FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY.
IN FACT, OVER THE PAST THREE
YEARS THE NUMBER OF BANKRUPT
PETITIONS FILED IN BANKRUPTCY
COURTS HAVE DOUBLED.
WHILE RECENT DATA SHOWS THAT
THE NUMBER OF CASES IS
BEGINNING TO SUBSIDE, OUR
BANKRUPTCY JUDGES REMAIN HARD
AT WORK.
THEY ARE CRITICAL TO THE
OPERATION OF OUR FEDERAL
BANKRUPTCY COURTS.
THE IMPORTANT BANKRUPTCY
REFORMS CONGRESS PASSED IN
2005, FOR EXAMPLE, CALLED ON
JUDGES TO DO MORE TO HELP
PREVENT BANKRUPTCY ABUSE.
AND LARGE CONFLICTS, CHAPTER 11
CASES, LIKE THE RECENTLY FILED
MEGACASE OF AIRLINES IS TIME
SENSITIVE FOR OUR BANKRUPT
JUDGES.
IN THE LAST CONGRESS, THE BILL
JUDGESHIPS.
WOULD EXTEND TEMPORARY
THE HOUSE PASSED THAT BILL BUT
IT DID NOT PASS THE SENATE.
AS A RESULT SEVERAL TEMPORARY
JUDGESHIPS ARE IN DANGER OF
UNABLE TO BE REFILLED IF THERE
IS A VACANCY BUT THE NEED FOR
BANKRUPTCY JUDGES REMAINS HIGH.
I INTRODUCED THE LEGISLATION
UNDER CONSIDERATION WITH THE
RANKING MEMBER OF THE COURTS,
COMMERCIAL SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, STEVE
COHEN, THE CHAIRMAN OF THAT
SUBCOMMITTEE, HOWARD COBLE, AND
THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE FULL
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, JOHN
CONYERS.
THIS BILL PERMITS 23 TEMPORARY
BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIPS IN
JUDICIAL DISTRICTS THROUGHOUT
THE COUNTRY TO BE FILLED IF
THERE IS A JUDGESHIP VACANCY
DURING THOSE DISTRICTS DURING
THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AS A RESULT
OF A JUDGE'S DEATH, REMOVAL,
RETIREMENT OR RESIGNATION.
CONGRESS SHOULD ENSURE THERE
ARE ENOUGH BANKRUPTCY JUDGES TO
HANDLE THE INCREASED CASELOADS
AS A RESULT OF THE RECESSION.
BUT CONGRESS SHOULD ALSO
CONSERVE FEDERAL RESOURCES AND
CONDUCT PERIODIC OVERSIGHT OF
JUDICIAL CASELOADS.
H.R. 1021 AUTHORIZES A
FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION WHICH
PRESERVES CONGRESS' ABILITY TO
REASSESS THE NEED FOR
BANKRUPTCY JUDGES IN A FEW
YEARS.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.
I URGE THE SENATE, ALSO, TO ACT
QUICKLY ON THIS MEASURE SO THAT
OUR BANKRUPTCY SYSTEM MAY
AND EFFICIENTY.
CONTINUE TO OPERATE WITH SPEED
I WANT TO THANK THE BILL'S
CO-SPONSORS FOR THEIR
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND I
RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES THE BALANCE
OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN.
MR. SPEAKER, I
CONSUME.
YIELD MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I MAY
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
KONG KONG AND I APPRECIATE --
AND I APPRECIATE
THE EXCELLENT DESCRIPTION OF
THE CHAIRMAN, LAMAR SMITH, ON
1021, THE TEMPORARY BANKRUPTCY
JUDGESHIPS EXTENSION ACT.
THIS IS A VERY BIPARTISAN PIECE
OF LEGISLATION.
THE
AUTHORIZATIONS FOR 30 TEMPORARY
BANKRUPTCY JUDGES IN MORE THAN
20 JUDICIAL DISTRICTS AROUND
THE COUNTRY.
I MIGHT POINT OUT THAT WE'RE
NOT ADDING BANKRUPTCY JUDGES,
AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE,
THAT'S WHAT WE OUGHT TO BE
DOING, REALLY, INSTEAD OF JUST
CONTINUING THE SAME NUMBER, WE
NEED MORE.
WHY?
BECAUSE BANKRUPTCY JUDGES ARE
NEEDED MORE THAN EVER.
THE BANKRUPTCY FILINGS HAVE
INCREASED DURING THE WORST
ECONOMIC DOWNTURN THE NATION
HAS EXPERIENCED SINCE THE GREAT
DEPRESSION.
BECAUSE LONG-TERM HIGH
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES AND REDUCED
INCOMES HAVE SENT MORE PEOPLE
INTO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.
BECAUSE OF THE CONTINUING
MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE CRISIS
WHICH HAVE AFFECTED SO MANY
PEOPLE, AND THE INCREASINGLY
ONEROUS CREDIT CARD OBLIGATIONS
AND THE SKY HIGH STUDENT LOANS
THAT ARE BEING COLLECTED ON AND
THE UNINSURED MEDICAL DEBT.
LAST YEAR 1.6 MILLION
BANKRUPTCY CASES WERE FILED
REPRESENTING MORE THAN 8%
INCREASE OVER THE PRIOR YEARS.
AND SO TWO OF THE NATION'S
LARGEST AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURERS IN DETROIT,
GENERAL MOTORS AND CHRYSLER,
FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY RELIEF
UNDER CHAPTER 11.
THESE TWO CASES ALONE INVOLVED
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF
SUBSTANCE, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
WORKERS, THOUSANDS OF AUTO
DEALERS AND THOUSANDS OF
CREDITORS LOCATED IN ALL PARTS
OF OUR NATION.
LAST MONTH AMERICAN AIRLINES
FILED FOR CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY
RELIEF.
AND THE NATIONAL BOOKSTORE
CHAIN BORDERS FILED LAST MONTH.
A THIRD FACTOR MUST BE KEPT IN
MIND THAT WHILE WE MAINTAIN THE
STATUS QUO, MORE NEEDS TO BE
DONE.
BANKRUPTCY COURTS HAVE BEEN
PERFORMING ADMIRABLY BUT UNDER
CRITICAL STRAIN AND SO THE
BANKRUPTCY COURTS' -- COURT'S
WORK LOAD INCREASES BUT THE
JUDICIAL RESOURCES ARE IN FACT
DIMINISHING.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE
JUDICIAL
MEMBERSHIP IN THE BANKRUPTCY
COURTS IN THE COMING YEAR, IF
EVERYTHING WORKS OUT AS WE
ANTICIPATE.
RIGHT NOW, THOUGH, WE MERELY
ASK THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES TO SUPPORT THE
BILL THAT I AND CHAIRMAN SMITH
HAVE CO-SPONSORED WHICH WOULD
CONTINUE THE NEW JUDGES THAT
ARE ON THE BENCH BUT WILL NOT
ADD ANY MORE.
I URGE YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE
ADDITIONAL JUDGE SHMS AND
RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME
-- JUDGESHIPS AND RESERVE THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES THE BALANCE
OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS.
MR. SPEAKER, I YIELD
BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN.
YES.
I WOULD LIKE TO NOW YIELD AS
MUCH TIME AS HE MAY CONSUME TO
THE DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN
FROM GEORGIA, MR. HANK JOHNSON.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA IS
RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU, MR.
RANKING MEMBER.
MR. SPEAKER, I RISE IN SUPPORT
OF H.R. 1021, THE TEMPORARY
BANKRUPTCY JUDGES EXTENSION ACT
OF 2011.
SPONSORED BY MY GOOD FRIEND,
REPRESENTATIVE SMITH OF TEXAS,
WHO IS ALSO THE CHAIR OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHICH I AM
PLEASED TO SERVE ON.
AND I WOULD POINT OUT HOW
IRONIC IT IS BECAUSE WE ARE NOW
IN THE 336TH DAY OF THIS
IRANIAN OF THE TEA PARTY --
REIGN OF THE TEA PARTY
REPUBLICAN PARTY WHICH IS
LINKED WITH THE IN A ER TOIOUS
GROVER NORQUIST -- WITH THE
NOTORIOUS GROVER NORQUIST AND
HIS TAX PLEDGE.
HIS PLEDGE TO NOT RAISE TAXES.
WE'RE GETTING READY, MR.
SPEAKER, TO GET TO THE END OF
THIS YEAR AND WE STILL HAVE 160
MILLION AMERICANS AT RISK FOR
SUFFERING A MASSIVE OR I'LL SAY
A TAX INCREASE, $1,000 A PERSON
ON AVERAGE, MAYBE ABOUT -- I
DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS THAT THAT WILL TAKE OUT
OF CONSUMERS' POCKETS.
AND I DON'T HEAR GROVER
NORQUIST OR THE TEA PARTY
REPUBLICANS CRYING ABOUT THAT.
IF IT'S THE MIDDLE CLASS, THE
WORKING PEOPLE TAX INCREASE,
IT'S OK.
IF IT IS THE TOP 1% MAKING OVER
$1 MILLION A YEAR, THEN CAN'T
TOUCH THIS.
WELL, I THINK THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE KNOW THAT IT'S HAMMER
TIME OUT HERE.
IT'S TIME FOR THERE TO BE
FAIRNESS, JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS
FOR ALL UNDER THE LAW.
AND IT'S IRONIC BECAUSE WE NEED
THESE BANKRUPTCY COURT JUDGES'
TENURES TO BE EXTENDED AS THIS
ACT WOULD ALLOW BECAUSE THERE'S
GOING TO BE MORE BANKRUPTCIES
FILED, JUST $1,000 CAN PUSH A
PERSON OVER THE EDGE IN TERMS
IS CONCERNED.
PEOPLE ARE NOW JUST LIVING
PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK, HAND TO
MOUTH, TRYING TO DETERMINE
PAY THE LIGHT BILL OR WHETHER
WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO
OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO GET THE
MEDICATION THAT WE NEED IN
ORDER TO BE HEALTHY.
PEOPLE ARE DECIDING WHETHER OR
NOT TO PAY THE GAS BILL OR
WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO
BE ABLE TO EAT MORE THAN RAMEN
NOODLES EVERY NIGHT FOR THE
MONTH.
AND SO $1,000 MEANS A LOT.
IT MAY NOT MEAN A LOT TO A
MILLIONAIRE, ONE OF THOSE TOP
1% THAT MY TEA PARTY REPUBLICAN
FRIENDS SO HEARTILY SUPPORT,
BUT IT WILL HURT THE LITTLE MAN
AND WOMAN.
THEIR FAMILIES.
ESPECIALLY AT CHRISTMAS TIME.
SO, AT A TIME WHEN THE
CORPORATE CHIEF TANS ARE
GETTING THEIR BONUSES,
MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR BONUSES
BASED ON INCREASED PROFITS,
WE'RE STILL LEFT ON DECEMBER 6,
PEOPLE ARE WORRIED ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO
SUFFER A TAX INCREASE ON
JANUARY 1.
AND SO LET'S NOT IMPOSE A
AVERAGE $1,000 -- ACTUALLY
$1,500, LET'S NOT IMPOSE THE
THREAT OF A $1,500 TAX INCREASE
ON THE MIDDLE -- MIDDLE CLASS
AND WORKING PEOPLE BY FAILING
TO DO WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE
MUCH EARLIER, NO REASON WHY WE
HAVE NOT DONE THIS, WHY WE HAVE
NOT EXPANDED THE PAYROLL TAX
CUT THAT WAS ENACTED LAST YEAR.
LET'S KEEP THAT $1,500 IN THE
POCKETS OF THE AVERAGE MIDDLE
CLASS FAMILY, LET'S TRY TO KEEP
DOWN THE NEED FOR PEOPLE TO GO
INTO BANKRUPTCY COURT.
LET'S AT SOME POINT LET IT
EXPIRE, THE NUMBER OF
BANKRUPTCY COURT JUDGES
TEMPORARILY SERVING.
AND I WILL YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN.
I YIELD BACK.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
ALL TIME HAVING EXPIRED THE
QUESTION IS WILL THE HOUSE
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS H.R.
1021 AS AMENDED.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE AYES HAVE IT.
2/3 OF THOSE VOTING HAVING
RESPONDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE,
THE RULES ARE SUSPENDED, THE
BILL IS PASSED AND WITHOUT
OBJECTION THE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER IS LAID UPON THE
TABLE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 8 OF RULE
20, PROCEEDINGS WILL RESUME ON
QUESTIONS PREVIOUSLY POSTPONED.
VOTES WILL BE TAKEN IN THE
FOLLOWING ORDER.
ORDERING THE PREVIOUS QUESTION
ON HOUSE RESOLUTION 479,
ADOPTING HOUSE RESOLUTION 479
IF ORDERED AND SUSPENDING THE
RULES AND PASSING H.R. 2471.
THE FIRST ELECTRONIC VOTE WILL
BE CUBBLINGTED AS A 15-MINUTE
VOTE.
BE CONDUCTED AS FIVE-MINUTE
REMAINING ELECTRONIC VOTES WILL
VOTES.
THE VOTE VOTE ON HOUSE
RESOLUTION 479 ON WHICH THE
YEAS AND NAYS ARE ORDERED.
OF THE RESOLUTION.
THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE TITLE
HOUSE CALENDAR
NUMBER 95, HOUSE RESOLUTION
479, RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL H.R.
10, TO AMEND CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE
5, UNITED STATES CODE, TO
PROVIDE THAT MAJOR RULES OF THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH SHALL HAVE NO
FORCE OR EFFECT ALSO IN JOINT
RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS
ENACTED INTO LAW AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
THE
QUESTION IS ON ORDERING THE
PREVIOUS QUESTION.
MEMBERS WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES
BY ELECTRONIC DEVICE.
THIS WILL BE A 15-MINUTE VOTE.
[CAPTIONING MADE POSSIBLE BY
THE NATIONAL CAPTIONING
INSTITUTE, INC., IN COOPERATION
REPRESENTATIVES.
WITH THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
ANY USE OF THE CLOSED-CAPTIONED
COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE
PROCEEDINGS FOR POLITICAL OR
COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IS
EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED BY THE
REPRESENTATIVES.]
ON
THIS VOTE THE YEAS ARE 236, THE
NAYS ARE 184.
THE PREVIOUS QUESTION IS
ORDERED.
THE QUESTION IS ON ADOPTION OF
THE RESOLUTION.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
I REQUEST THE
YEAS AND NAYS.
THE
AND NAYS.
GENTLELADY REQUESTS THE YEAS
THOSE FAVORING A VOTE BY THE
YEAS AND NAYS WILL RISE.