Ander Crenshaw

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the great champions of innocent unborn life.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, it is very clear that our policy is the taxpayers' fund should not be used to fund abortions and, therefore, we have continued this prohibition. Not only has this prohibition been in place since 1981, it was also requested by the administration as part of its 2017 budget request. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, this is the law today that he is trying to remove. The SEC doesn't need to be engaged in politically charged, unmandated rulemakings. The language included in this bill just keeps the SEC on track. It prevents them from developing or proposing or issuing a rule that would require disclosure of political contributions in the SEC filings. Let's call the amendment what it is. It is an end-run around the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. The SEC has got bigger priorities to focus on, and thank goodness they have been focusing on those. They have been going after people that profit from insider trading. They are trying to stop the fraud that goes on. And the bill continues to support the SEC doing its job; protecting investors, encouraging capital formation. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Reclaiming my time, as I pointed out, I understand this is an end run about that lawsuit, but there is disclosure that takes place. And again, the law today that was added last year, part of the omnibus bill, the SEC 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 high on their list of things to do because right now the law prevents them from doing that. I think it is just better to keep the law just like it is today. Reject this amendment, and vote ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out earlier, this is existing law. This is the law today, and they want to strike that law. I would encourage them to look up something called the Federal Election Commission. That is a place where people disclose their political contributions, and it is right there for everybody to see. So they want to take existing law that says that is not the role of the SEC; it is the role of the FEC. They want to change the law that basically, today, says the SEC has got better things to do than require----

Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, this language is merely a legislative stay on the FCC's net neutrality order, and it is the same language that was in last year's bill. This net neutrality rule was very, very controversial. She mentioned there were 4 million, I guess, inputs under the proposed rule. Some were for, some were against. Let me be clear. There is 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 have benefited greatly from the absence of regulatory restrictions on the Internet. At the end of the day, this is an issue for the courts to decide. Even in light of recent circuit court decisions, litigation on this rule is no way finished. I think it is 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. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, we are not here to debate the merits of the net neutrality rule. Everybody knows how controversial it was. It has been pointed out there are 4 million objections or supporters. I don't know how they were split, but there were millions for, millions against. It just tells you how controversial it is. So all this provision says is: let's wait until it is finally resolved. We all know that it is going to end up in the United States Supreme Court. And once it has been determined yes or no, then the FCC ought to enforce it. But until that time, it ought to be stayed through the legislative process. That is what this bill does. That is what the amendment attempts to undo. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. First, just let me say that the provision the gentleman would like to strike is a provision that gives every American the opportunity to pursue what we call the American Dream--that of home ownership. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann) to tell us a little bit more about why we ought to oppose this amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman really wants people to have access to manufactured housing, then I don't think he would be proposing this amendment. If you adopt this amendment and take out the language we have in the bill, then you are going to limit access to quality, affordable housing for an awful lot of people. That is what happens when the CFPB tries to overregulate an industry. What happens is they limit access to financing and you limit options for manufactured housing. You have got to understand that these new regulations don't reflect the unique nature of manufactured homes; the sales process, the lenders. The lenders can't offer small balanced loans anymore because of these regulations, and that is what they used to purchase affordable housing. So 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. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, we just had a discussion earlier about access to affordable housing, manufactured homes. Manufactured homes are a little bit different, and a lot of times folks that can't afford a house try to buy a manufactured home. And if you put some of these provisions that the CFPB has tried to put in, what you do, you end up denying those folks access to that kind of housing, and I think that is wrong. I urge Members to reject this amendment like they rejected the last amendment. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, just finally, let me say once again, we all appreciate the effort that we have to protect consumers. But you can go so far as basically to regulate people out of the opportunity to own a home, and that is what is happening with this overzealous consumer protection agency, and all we are trying to do is bring some common sense back into that. So I would urge folks to reject this amendment. Leave the bill as it is, providing an opportunity for people who maybe can't own a great big house, but they can buy a manufactured home that might be less expensive. It might incur a little more risk since it is a mobile home, to a certain extent. Take all that into consideration, and leave the bill as it is. Reject this amendment. I urge people to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers).

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, nobody wants to reward bad actors. Let me just say that payday lending today is regulated at the State level. My home State of Florida has one of the most progressive and effective small-dollar-lending loan statutes in the country. It has become somewhat of a national example of the successful compromise between strong consumer protection and increased access to capital. So I hope that when the CFPB exercises the pause that we ask for in this bill, that they will 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. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, 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 and Democratic and Republican administrations. So this bill is no radical departure from the past. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the gentlewoman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a very good amendment that the gentleman has brought before us. It basically levels the playing field. It is not a partisan issue that is going to impact Democrats or Republicans. I would join him in urging adoption of this amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.