Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, Americans overwhelmingly agree that online privacy is a fundamental right. According to the Pew Research Center, a large majority of Americans wants the government to do more to protect their privacy. Consumers want a voice in how their data is shared and sold. 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 reread the amendment:

``None of the funds made available by this Act can be used to implement, administer, or enforce any of the rules proposed pursuant to section 222 of the Communications Act.''

These are privacy protection rules. These are rules that are meant to protect consumers' privacy. If this amendment becomes law, consumers will have little or no choice as to 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. American consumers need to choose for themselves whether their locations, their search histories, 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 FCC's proposed rules for privacy protection will confuse consumers, but let's be clear. The data shows that consumers are already confused when it comes to privacy. Just a few weeks ago, Georgetown law professor Paul Ohm testified before the Communications and Technology 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 requests by opposing this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I warned my colleagues that the other side would say that this is going to be confusing to consumers, but consumers are already pretty confused about their privacy protection. In fact, I will bet that everyone in this room is confused about his privacy protection.

We need a body that can put privacy protection up front and create rules that make sense and that can be enforced uniformly across the country. That is going to make customers more confident that their data is being protected. That is what we need.

Mr. Chair, prohibiting the FCC from using funds to enforce any proposed privacy rules would have the effect of leaving the FCC with very little room to protect consumer privacy. I don't think that is what Americans want. Americans want their privacy protected. If we remove all funds for enforcement capabilities from the FCC we are going to be left with no privacy protection.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source