starttime 1249045647.45338
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.]
THE SPEAKER: THE HOUSE WILL BE
IN ORDER.
THE PRAYER WILL BE OFFERED BY
THE GUEST CHAPLAIN, REVEREND
DR. RAYLEY, BAPTIST CHURCH,
BIRDSTOWN, TENNESSEE.
THE CHAPLAIN: WE HUMBLY COME
BEFORE YOU IN THIS HALLOWED
PLACE THAT WE MIGHT SEEK YOUR
WISDOM OF THE WORK FOR THOSE
YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO SERVE OUR
NATION.
FOLLOW THE MANY PEOPLE IN THIS
LAND THAT IS HURTING.
THERE ARE PEOPLE THIS MORNING
WHO ARE AFRAID, THEY ARE
CONFUSED AND THEY ARE FEARFUL
OF THE FUTURE AND WHAT IT
HOLDS.
FATHER, THEY NEED THE HELP OF
THIS CONGRESS.
GOD, ACCEPT THE PRAYER AS OUR
CONFESSION OF FAITH IN YOU AND
TOTAL DEPENDENCE ON YOU.
FORGIVE US FOR WE HAVE FAILED
AND FALLEN SHORT.
FATHER, YOU'D KNOW THE SOLUTION OUR NATION NEEDS.
TEACH IT TO THESE WHO'VE BEEN
CHOSEN TO LEAD OUR NATION SO
THAT THEY CAN KNOW YOUR WILL AS
WELL.
FATHER, MAY FUTURE GENERATIONS
CALL THESE WHO ARE NOW
ASSEMBLED THE GREATEST
GENERATION.
LET THEM BE LIKE THOSE WHO CAME
BEFORE THEM WHO ROSE TO THEIR
COUNTRY'S NEED AND WERE THUS
CALLED.
MAY THEY SAY OF THESE THEY DID
THEIR BEST, THEY ARE GREAT -- A
GREAT GENERATION.
FATHER
NAME.
GOD BLESS AMERICA.
THE SPEAKER: THE CHAIR HAS
EXAMINED THE JOURNAL OF THE
LAST DAY'S PROCEEDINGS AND
ANNOUNCES TO THE HOUSE HER APPROVAL THEREOF.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 1 OF RULE 1
THE JOURNAL STANDS APPROVED.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WILL
BE LED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA, CONGRESSMAN
MR. WILSON: EVERYONE, INCLUDING
OUR GUESTS IN THE GALLERY,
PLEASE JOIN IN.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH
IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER
G
AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
THE SPEAKER: WITHOUT OBJECTION,
THE GENTLEMAN FROM TENNESSEE,
CONGRESSMAN DAVIS, IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.
MR. DAVIS: MADAM SPEAKER, IT'S
AN HONOR TO THANK MY FRIEND AND
PASTOR, DR. IVAN RALEY OF FIRST
BAPTIST CHURCH IN BIRDSTOWN FOR
JOING US TODAY.
PASTOR RALEY HAS SERVED WITH
OUR CHUMP SINCE 2002 AND IS
RETIRED AFTER YEARS OF
SERVICE AS REGIONAL VICE
PRESIDENT OF THE REGIONAL HOME.
HE'S TRAVELED ON MISSION TRIPS
TO BELIZE, GUATEMALA.
AND IN 2001 HE WENT TO NEW YORK
TO SERVE AS CHAPLAIN AFTER THE
9/11 ATTACK.
HE ALSO WENT TO RWANDA IN 1994.
I WANT TO THANK IVAN FOR BEING
HERE TODAY AND FOR SERVING OUR
CHURCH FAMILY FOR THE PAST
SEVEN YEARS.
I LOOK TO HIM TO HELP BUILD A
STRONGER AMERICA FOR OUR
CHILDREN AND OUR GRANDCHILDREN.
NOW IN THE MOST DIFFICULT
ECONOMY, I APPRECIATE PASTOR
RALEY BEING THERE TO JOIN ME IN
SEARCH OF FINDANS AND WISDOM.
ON BEHALF OF MY COLLEAGUES, I
WELC
THANK HIM FOR DELIVERING OUR
INVOCATION HERE THIS MORNING.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK E BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN UP TO
FIVE FURTHER REQUESTS OF ONE-MINUTE SPEECHES ON EACH
SIDE OF THE AISLE.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLELADY FROM OHIO RISE?
>> I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
MINUTE.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MS. KILROY: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER. IN MY DISTRICT AS MANY
DISTRICTS AROUND THE COUNTRY,
MEDICAL DEBT HAS BEEN A
CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IN
BANKRUPTCIES AND IN
FORECLOSURES.
IN FACT, 72 MILLION AMERICANS
TODAY ARE AFFECTED BY THE ISSUE
OF MEDICAL DEBT.
ANOTHER MORE INSIDIOUS BUT
OTHER ISSUE FROM MEDICAL DEBT
AND ONE THAT COSTS OUR
CONSTITUENTS A GREAT DEAL OF
MONEY IS THE ISSUE OF MEDICAL
DEBT THAT IS PAID LET OR IS
SETTLED EVENTUALLY BUT PAID,
NEVERTHELESS, BUT HAS GONE TO
COLLECTIONS AND IS REPORTED
NEGATIVELY ON A CREDIT REPORT
OR SCORE.
28 MILLION AMERICANS PAY THEIR
MEDICAL DEBT OFF OVER A PERIOD
OF TIME.
SOME OF THOSE ACCRUE DEBT ONLY
BECAUSE OF A DISPUTE WITH AN
INSURANCE COMPANY.
SOME OF THEM, BECAUSE OF THE
HIGH COST OF MEDICAL CARE AND
HIGH DEDUCTIBLES OR CAPS THAT
VE BEEN EXCEEDED DURING THE
COURSE OF THE YEAR.
SOME BECAUSE OF JOB LOSS.
BUT THAT NEGATIVE CREDIT SCORE
STAYS WITH THEM FOR YEARS TO
COME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLELADY'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
MS. KILROY: THANK YOU.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLELADY FROM OHIO RISE?
>> I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
REVISE AND EXTEND MY REMARKS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MRS. EMERSON: I RISE TO
RECOGNIZE THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY
OF MY CHILDHOOD PARISH, ST.
CATHOLIC ROMAN CHURCH IN
LOVELAND, OHIO.
10 FAMILIES WORKED TOGETHER TO
RAISE MONEY TO PURCHASE AN OLD
ONE-ROOM SCHOOLHOUSE FROM THE
VILLAGE OF LOVELAND.
LIKE MANY, THE ORIGINAL DID NOT
MEET THE NEEDS OF THE LOCAL
CATHOLIC COMMUNITY FORERY
LONG.
AND IN 1893 THEY BUILT THE
SECOND HOUSE OF WORSHIP ON THAT
SITE.
A FEW YEARS LATER, A SCHOOL WAS
BUILT.
THIS CHURCH WILL HOLD A SPECIAL
PLACE ON MY HEART BECAUSE MY
HOME IS BUILT FROM ITS BRICKS.
THE PASCHISH WAS CELEBRATING
THE -- PARISH WAS CELEBRATING
THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY, THEY
WERE FORCED TO GO TO A DIFFERENT SITE.
I WAS IN ATTENDANCE THAT DAY 50
YEARS AGO WHEN THE ARCHBISHOP
DEDICATED THE NEW SCHOOL
BUILDING WHICH HOUSED THE
CHURCH AND THE CAFETERIA.
THEY REQUIRED SEPARATE
ADDITIONS TO HOUSE THE CHURCH.
AND IN 2002, THE CHURCH FINALLY
MOVED OUT OF THE SCHOOL AND
INTO ITS OWN BUILDING.
EACH YEAR I'VE HAD THE
PRIVILEGE TO HOST THE EIGHTH
GRADE STUDENTS TO THE CAPITAL.
I AM HONORED TO BE THEIR
CONGRESSWOMAN AND TOUR GUIDE.
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK YOU TO HELP
CELEBRATE THEIR 150TH
ANNIVERSARY AND WISH THEM
CONTINUED SUCCESS.
GOD BLESS THEM AND GOD BLESS
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEWOMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HER TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOE
GENTLELADY RISE?
>> TO ADDRESS THOUGH THE HOUSE FOR ONE MINUTE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
>> DURING THE UPCOMING AUGUST
WORK PERIOD MY COLLEAGUES AND I
WILL TRAVEL BACK TO OUR
DISTRICTS TO TALK ABOUT
MEANINGFUL HEALTH CARE REFORM
TO FIX WHAT'S BROKEN AND
PROTECTS WHAT WORKS.
ONE THING THAT DOES NOT WORK IS
THE SKYROCKETING COST OF
MEDICAL TREATMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES.
IF CONGRESS IS SERIOUS ABOUT
TACKLING THE ISSUE, WE MUST
ADDRESTHE GROWING CONCERN OF
CHRONIC DISEASE.
PREVENTABLE CONDITION THIS IS A
ACCOUNT FOR 85% OF TOTAL HEALTH
SPENDING OSMBEESITY ALONE COSTS
$-- OBESE -- OF TOTAL HEALTH
SPENDING.
OBESITY ONE COSTS BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS EACH YEAR.
I'M INTRODUCING LEGISLATION TO
OFFER A 20% DISCOUNT FOR THOSE
WHO MAKE POSITIVE HEALTH
CHOICES, SUCH AS STOPPG
SMOKING, MAINTAINING A HEALTHY
BODY WEIGHT.
THIS WILL DRAMATICALLY REDUCE
OVERALL COSTS.
AS WE LOOK AT HEALTH INSURANCE
REFORM, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE
LOOK AT ENCOURAGING WELLNESS.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT
THIS LEGISLATION AND I YIELD
BACK.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM SOUTH CAROLINA RISE?
>> I ASK PERMISSION TO ADD
THE HOUSE FOR ONE MINUTE AND
REVISE AND EXTEND MY REMARKS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. WILSON: I RISE IN FOND FARE
WELL TO A MEMBER OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL STAFF, ALLEN
AMAR.
HE SERVED IN OUR FIELD OFFICE
BEFORE COMING HERE.
HE IS LEAVING WASHINGTON BEHIND
FOR HIS LAW SCHOOL CAREER IN
OHIO.
HE WILL BE JOINED BY HIS WIFE
AMBER WHO PLIVES SERVED ON THE
STAFF OF THE SECOND DISTRICT
WITH DR. PHIL ROE.
HE'S BEEN VITAL IN HELPING
STAFF WITH MILITARY ISSUES,
WHERE HE'S BROUGHT HIS OWN
EXPERIENCE AS A VETERAN OF THE
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD IN IRAQ HE
APPRECIATES THE SERVICE
MEMBERS, FAMILIES, AND
VETERANS.
HE'S THE SON OF ALLEN AND DEBRA
AMAR OF JOHNSON TENNESSEE AND
BROTHER OF ADAM AMAR.
WE ARE ALL TREMENDOUSLY PROUD
OF ALLEN AND AMBER AND WISH
THEM AND THEIR YOUNG SON,
ALEXANDER JACOB, ALL THE BEST
IN THE YEARS TO COME.
GOD SPEED TO THE AMAR FAMILY.
IN CONCLUSION, GOD BLESS OUR
TROOPS, WE'LL NEVER FORGET
SEPTEMBER 11 AND THE GLOBAL WAR
ON TERRORISM.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MASSACHUSETTS RISE?
>> TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
MINUTE AND REVISE AND EXTEND MY
REMARKS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
>> AS WE DEBATE HEALTH CARE
REFORM LEGISLATION, MY
REPUBLICAN FRIENDS SAY, THINGS
ARE FINE JUST THE WAY THEY
ARE.
TAKE TWO TAX BREAKS AND CALL ME
IN THE MORNING THIS DESPITE THE
FACT THAT HEALTH CARE
GROWN FASTER THAN WAGES THIS IN
SPITE OF THE FACT THAT 46
MILLION AMERICANS ARE
UNINSURED.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T
DESERVE HEALTH REFORM, MY
RESPONSE IS, ARE YOU KIDDING?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA RISE?
>> TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
MINUTE AND REVISE AND EXTEND MY
REMARKS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SOED OR
EARD.
MR. CAO: AUGUST 24, 2009, MARKS
THE FOURTH ANNIVERSARY OF
HURRICANE KATRINA.
AS I RETURN TO MY DISTRICT, I'M
REMINDED NOT SO MUCH OF THE
HORROR WREAKED ON THE INNOCENT
BUT IN THE POWER OF EVERY
CITIZEN AS THEY RETURNED TO NEW
ORLEANS.
I LOST EVERYTHING IN THE STORM.
MY WIFE AND I WERE FORCED TO
START OVER AFTER LOSING OUR
HOME AND BUSINESS.
AS KATRINA BECAME THE BYWORD OF
OUR NATION'S SOCIAL ILLS AND
FAILURE MANY QUESTIONETHE LOGIC OF REBUILDING.
BUT ONE ONLY HAS TO LOOK AROUND
W ORLEANS TODAY TO DISPUTE
THAT LINE OF REASONING.
NEW ORLEANS AND JEFFERSON
PARISHES ARE REEME ERGING AS
THE -- RE-EMERGING AS THE
PROSPEROUS AREAS THEY ONCE
WERE.
THEY ARE STARTING TO BOOST
COMMERCE AND HELP THE JOB
MARKET.
THE STAFFORD ACT MUST BE
REDESIGNED TO BRING CENTRAL
NATURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE AND
THERE MUST BE A FUNDAMENTAL
CHANGE IN FEMA'S APPROACH TO
CATASTROPHIC DISASTERS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLELADY FROM MARYLAND RISE?
>> TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
MINUTE AND REVISE AND EXTEND.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
WITHOUT OBJECTION, ORDED.
MS. EDWARDS: MR. SPEAKER, TODAY
IT'S TIME FOR HEALTH CARE
REFORM.
NOW THERE ARE SOME OUT THERE
WHO LIKE TO CLAIM THAT WE DON'T
NEED TO DO REFORM NOW BECAUSE
THE PRIVATE MARKETPLACE WILL
TAKE CARE OF EVERYTHING.
THE PRIVATE MARKETPLACE HASN'T
TAKEN CAROF ANYTHING EXCEPT
TO INCREASEEDUCTIBLES,
INCREASE PREMIUMS, INCREASE
CO-PAYS AND COST THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THAT MEANS
IN MY HOME STATE IN MARYLAND.
IN 2001, IF YOU WERE PAYING THE
AVERAGE OF $600 A MONTH FOR
YOUR HEALTH CARE, TODAY YOU'RE
PAYING AN AVERAGE OF $1,000 A
MONTH FOR YOUR HEALTH CARE.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANYBODY ELSE
BUT IN MY HOUSEHOLD, AN EXTRA
$400 A MONTH IS REAL MONEY,
IT'S GROCERY ARES, AN ELECTRIC
BILL, IT'S DAY CARE.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT COST TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
IT'S TIME FOR US TO ENACT A
UNIQUELY AMERICAN PLAN, DOESN'T
EMBRACE THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY
OR CLOSE DOWN THE INSURANCE
INDUSTRY BUT SAYS YOU HAVE TO
COMPETE WITH A PUBLIC PLAN THAT
RELIES ON MEDICARE RATE THAT
ENSURES WE HAVE REAL
COMPETITION AND THAT THERE'S
REAL CHANGE FOR THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
IT'S TIME FOR US TO GET THIS
DONE, TO EDUCATE THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE, GET THIS DONE FOR THE
PUBLIC SO CAN BE
COMPETIVE.
I YIELD.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FR
MR. POE: REQUEST PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
MINUTE?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
WITHOUT OBJECTION, ORDERED.
MR. POE: GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH
CARE HAS BEEN AROUND IN ENGLAND
FOR YEARS.
IN THOSE YEARS, THE GOVERNMENT STILL HASN'T GOT IT RIGHT.
BRITISH HEALTH CARE COMMISSION,
IRONICALLY RENAMED THE CARE
QUALITY COMMISSION, REPORTED
THAT 1,200 PEOPLE HAVE DIED
NEEDLESSLY AT TWO BRITISH
HOSPITALS OVER T
YEARS.
THE TWO HOSPITALS HAVE FILTHY
CONDITIONS, UNHYGIENIC
PRACTIS AND THE GOVERNMENT
REPORT SAYS GOVERNMENT-RUN
HOSPITALS DON'T HAVE ENOUGH
DOCTORS AND NURSES AND THEY ARE
POORLY TRAINED.
THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE
CARDIAC MONITORS AND THE
HOSPITALS DON'T HAVE ENOUGH OF
THE MONITORS THEY DON'T KNOW
HOW TO OPERATE.
THE BRITISH REPORT SAYS THE TWO
GOVERNMENT-RUN HOSPITALS HAVE
LEFT PATIENTS WITH NO FOOD NO
WATER NO MEDICINE FOR UP TO
FOUR DAYS.
MR. SPEAKER, THIS IS ANOTHER
EXAMPLE OF GOVERNMENT-RUN
HEALTH CARE THAT HASN'T WORKED.
DOCTORS AND NURSES ARE
RATIONED, CARE IS TIONED,
MEDICINE AND FOOD AND WATER ARE
ALSO RATIONED.
THE BRITISH HEALTH CARE PLAN IS
JUST DON'T GET SICK BECAUSE THE
GOVERNMENT-RUN SYSTEM CAN'T
HELP YOU.
THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS. I YIELD BACK.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
>> TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
MINUTE, MR. SPEAKER.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
>> TODAY IS A GREAT DAY.
MY COMMITTEE, THE ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE, WILL REMORT
OUT A HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL
TODAY.
IT MEANS -- WHAT IT MEANS IS
PEOPLE WILL FINALLY BE
GUARANTEED, THEY'LL KNOW THEY
HAVE HEALTH CARE REGARDLESS OF
WHAT JOB THEY HAVE, THEY WON'T
LOSE IT IF THEY GO FROM JOB TO
JOB.
RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A LOT OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE UNINSURED.
THEY WILL BE PROVIDED WITH
HEALTH INSURANCE.
WE HAVE A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE
WHO ARE AFRAID THEY'LL LOSE
THEIR JOB OR WON'T BE ABLE TO
AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE.
WE'LL ADDRESS THE AFFORDABILITY
ISSUE BY BRINGING DOWN DEPORS
PEOPLE WHO HAVE INSURANCE.
WE'LL GUARANTEE WHETHER OR NOT
YOU HAVE A HEALTH CONDITION,
REGARDLESSF YOUR GENDER,
YOU'LL BE ABLE TO GET THE SA
HEALTH CARE, YOU'LL GET THE
SAME INSURANCE POLICY AND YOU
WON'T BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.
THIS IS A REAL OPPORTUNITY FOR
AMERICA TO SEE THAT THIS
CONGRESS CAN ACTUALLY DO THE
JOB, GET THE JOB DONE, COVER
EVERYONE, REDUCE COSTS, AND
FINALLY HAVE THE PEACE OF MIND
THAT YOU'RE GUARANTEED HEALTH
INSURANCE.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM INDIANA RISE?
>> REQUEST UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
MINUTE AND REVISE AND EXTEND MY
REMARKS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
>> THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW WE
HAVE WE NEED HEALTH CARE REFORM
BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE
BEEN GAVEN REPRIEVE ON THE
GOVERNMENT PLAN TO ENACT A
GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTH
CARE PAID FOR WITH $100 BILLION
IN NEW TAXES THAT TAX INCREASE
NUMBER HAS BEEN DISPUTED IN THE
PAST 24 URS SO I THOUGHT I'D
PULL THE STATS.
ACCORDING TO THE CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGET OFFICE AND THE JOINT
COMMITTEE ON TAXATION, THE
HOUSE DEMOCRAT REFORM BILL
INCLUDES $543 BILLION IN THE
SURTAX ON HIGH INCOME FILERS,
$208 BILLION IN INCREASED
ON BUSINESSES, AN ADDITIONAL
SET OF TAX INCREASES,
INTERNATIONAL TAX INEST CREASES
THEY'RE REFERRED TO, $37
BILLION, MORE TAXES ON
BEFITS, $30 BILLION SO THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TAX INCREASES
INCLUDE IN THE DEMOCRAT BILL
ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL ESTIMATES
$820.1 BILLION OVER 10 YEARS.
THE CHANCE FOR ME AMERICAN
PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT'S IN THIS
PLAN AND COME BACK AND PASS
HEALTH CARE REFORM WITHOUT MORE
GOVERNMENT AND MORE TAXES?
PRICELESS.
LET THE DEBATE BEGIN.
THE SPEAKER PRO
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
RISE?
>> BY DIRECTION OF THE
COMMITTEE ON RULE I CALL UP
HOUSE RESOLUTION 697 AND ASK
FOR ITS IMMEDIATE
CONSIDERATION.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
CLERK WILL REPORT THE
RESOLUTION.
THE CLERK: HOUSE CALENDAR
NUMBER 100, HOUSE RESOLUTION 697, RESOLVE
ADOPTION OF
SHALL BE IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
IN THE HOUSE THE BILL H.R. 3269
TO AMEND THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 TO PROVIDE
SHAREHOLDERS WITH AN ADVISORY
VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
AND TO PREVENT PERVERSE
INCENTIVES IN THE COMPENSATION
PRACTICES OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
THE FIRST READING OF THE BILL
SHALL BE DISPENSED WITH.
ALL POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE BILL ARE
WAIVED EXCEPT THOSE ARISING
UNDER CLAUSE 9 OR 10 OF RULE
21.
THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE A
SUBSTITUTE RECOMMENDED BY THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS ADOPTED.
THE BILL AS AMENDED SHALL BE
CONSIDERED AS READ.
ALL POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL AS
AMENDED ARE WAIVED.
THE PREVIOUS QUESTION SHALL BE
CONSIDERED AS ORDERED ON THE
BILL AS AMENDED TO FINAL
PASSAGE WITHOUT INTERVENING
MOTION EXCEPT, ONE, ONE HOUR OF
DEBATE, EQUALLY DIVIDED AND CONTROLLED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND
RANKING MINORITY MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL
SERVICES.
TWO, T AMENDMENT REPORTED IN
THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LES IF OFFERED BY
REPRESENTATIVE FRANK OF
MASSACHUSETTS OR HIS DESIGNEE
WHICH SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS
READ, SHALL BE SEPARATELY
DEBATABLE FOR 10 MINUTES,
EQUALLY DIVIDED AND CONTROLLED
BY THE PROPONENT AND AN
OPPONENT AND SHALL NOT BE
SUBJECT TO A DEMAND FOR
DIVISION OF THE QUESTION.
THREE, THE AMENDMENT IN THE
NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE PRINTED
IN THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE
ON RULES IF OFFERED BY
REPRESENTATIVE GARRETT OF NEW
JERSEY OR HIS DESIGNEE, SHALL
BE SEPARATELY DEBATABLE FOR 30
MINUTES, EQUALLY DIVIDED AND
CONTROLLED BY THE PROPONENT AND AN OPPONENT AND FOUR, ONE
MOTION TO RECOMMIT, WITH OR
WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS.
SECTION TWO, ALL POINTS OF
ORDER AGAINST AMENDMENTS
PRINTED IN THE REPORT OF THE
COMMITTEE ON RULES ACCOMPANYING
THIS RESOLUTION ARE WAIVED,
EXCEPT THOSE ARISING UNDER
CLAUSE 9 OR 10 OF RULE 21. SECTION THREE.
DURING CONSIDERATION OF AN
AMENDMENT, PRINTED IN THE
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON
RULES ACCOMPANYING THIS
RESOLUTION, THE CHAIR MAY
POSTPONE THE QUESTION OF
ADOPTION AS THOUGH UNDER CLAUSE
8 OF RULE 20.
SECTION FOUR, IN THE
ENGROSSMENT OF H.R. 3269, THE
TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING
CHANGES TO AMENDER TO
INSTRUCTIONS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR AN
HOUR.
>> ALL TIME YIELDED IN
CONSIDERATION OF THE RULE IS
FOR DEBATE ONLY.
I YIELD MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I
MAY CONSUME.
I ALSO ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT
THAT ALL MEMBERS BE GIVEN FIVE
LEGISLATIVE DAYS IN WHICH TO
REVISE AND EXTEND THEIR REMARKS
ON HOUSE RESOLUTION 697.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. MCGOVERN: HOUSE RESOLUTION
697 PROVIDES FOR CONSIDERATION
OF H.R. 3269, THE CORPORATE AND
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
COMPENSATION FAIR ACT OF 2009
UNDER A STRUCTURED RULE.
IT PROVIDES ONE HOUR OF GENERAL
DEBATE CONTROLLED BY THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL
SEICES. THE RULE MAKES IN ORDER AN
AMENDMENT BY CHAIRMAN FRANK
DEREK BAITABLE FOR 10 MINUTES,
AND MAKES IN ORDER AN AMENDMENT
IN THE NATURE OF THE SUBSTITUTE
BY REPRESENTATIVE GARRETT,
DEBATABLE FOR 30 MINUTES.
THE RULE PROVIDES ONE MOTION TO
RECOMMIT WITH OR WITHOUT
INSTRUCTIONS.
I RISE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF H.R.
3269, THE CORPORATE AND
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FAIRNESS
ACT.
I WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE MY
GOOD FRIENAND COLLEAGUE FROM
MASSACHUSETTS, CHAMAN BARNEY
FRANK, FOR ALL OF HIS HARD WORK
ON THIS BILL.
MR. SPEAKER, IF THE LAST YEAR
HAS TAUGHT US ANYTHING, IT'S
THAT THE COMPENSATION PRACTICES
OF SOME OF OUR LARGEST
CORPORATIONS HAVE GOTTEN
COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL.
MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS ON MAIN
STREET ARE STRUGGLING TO HOLD
ON TO THEIR JOBS, STRUGGLING TO
PAY FOR HEALTH CARE AND
EDUCATION AND FOOD AND ENERGY.
THEY HAVE SEEN THEIR WAGES
STAGNATE WHILE THEIR COSTS HAVE
SKYROCKETED.
MEANWHILE, OVER ON EASY STREET,
THINGS ARE GREAT.
CORPORATE EXECUTIVES ARE
CONTINUING TO GIVE THEMSELVES
MULTIMILLION DOLLAR PAY
PACKAGES.
THE GOLDEN PARACHUTES ARE STILL
FLYING.
ONE OF THE MOST EGREGIOUS OF
THIS CAME WHEN AMERICAN
TAXPAYERS WATCHED AS A.I.G.
DOLED OUT LAVISH BONUSES AFTER
BEING BAILED OUT OF THE FINANCIAL MESS THEY HELPED
CREATE.
CHAIRMAN FRANK IS THOROUGHLY
COMMITTED TO ENSURING OUR
FINANCIAL SYSTEM REMAINS SOUND.
AND I AM PLEASED TO SEE THIS
BILL AS THE FIRST PIECE OF
LARGER REFORMS BY THE HOUSE
FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE.
MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD ALSO LIKE
TO VOICE MY SUPPORT FOR THE
PROPOSED CONSUMER FINANCIAL
PROTECTION AGENCY.
I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN STRONG
PUSHBACK FROM THE INDUSTRY, BUT
I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND MY
COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR
PERSEVERANCE IN PUTTING THESE
PROTECTIONS IN PLACE.
THE BILL WILL HELP TO GIVE THE
OWNERS OF THESE CORPORATIONS,
THE SHAREHOLDERS A MEANINGL
VOICE IN HOW COMPANIES ARE RUN.
SPECIFICALLY, THIS BILL GRANTS
SHAREHOLDERS A SAY ON PAY FOR
TOP EXECUTIVES BY GUARANTEEING
THEM A NONBINDING ADVISORY VOTE
ON THEIR COMPANY'S PAY
PRACTICES.
AGAIN, THIS VOTE IS NONBINDING.
THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS AND THE
COMPENSATION COMMITTEES ARE
FREE TO IGNORE THEIR
SHAREHOLDERS' WISHES, BUT THOSE
SHAREHOLDERS WILL AT LEAST HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS
THEIR VIEWS.
THE BILL WILL ALSO STRENGTHEN
THE ABILITY OF FEDERAL
REGULATORS, NAMELY, THE FEDERAL
RESERVE AND THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION TO
RESTRICT PAY STRUCTURES THAT
ENCOURAGE INAPPROPRIATE RISK AT
FINANCIAL COMPANIES.
IF REGULATORS SEE A LARGE
COMPANY DRIVING ITSELF OFF THE
CLIFF BY EMPLOYING UNSTABLE PAY
PRACTICES FOR TOP EXECUTIVES,
THEY SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO
ACT.
I'M PLEASED THAT THE FINANCIAL
SERVICES COMMITTEE ADOPTED A
NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS.
TO NOTE ONE IN PARTICULAR, MR.
HENSARLING, MYEPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUE FROM TEXAS,
RECOGNIZED THE NEED TO TAKE THE
SIZE OF THE INSTITUTION INTO
ACCOUNT. HIS AMENDMENT TO EXEMPT
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WITH
ASSETS OF LESS THAN $1 BILLION
FROM THE BILLS' INCENTIVE BASE
COMPENSATION DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS AND RELATED
COMPENSATION OVERSIGHT WAS
ADOPTED IN COMMITTEE.
I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DEBATE ON
THIS BILL AND ON THE REPUBLICAN SUBSTITUTE WHICH IS MADE IN
ORDER UNDER THIS RULE.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SET A
-- SEND A STRONG MESSAGE THAT
THE MISBEHAVIOR IN CORPORATE
AMERICA MUST COME TO AN END BY
SUPPORTING THIS BILL.
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS.
MR. SESSIONS: MR. SPEAKER, I
THANK YOU SO MUCH, AND I
APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS, MY FRIEND, MR.
MCGOVERN, FOR YIELDING ME TIME
THIS MORNING.
I YIELD MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I
MAY CONSUME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. SESSIONS: MR. SPEAKER, I
RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS RULE
AND TO THE UNDERLYING
LEGISLATION.
THE STRUCTURED RULE DOES NOT
CALL FOR THE OPEN AND HONEST
DEBATE THAT WE REALLY HAD BEEN
PROMISED YEARS AGO BY OUR
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES TO HAVE
AN OPEN, HONEST DEBATE ON THE
ISSUES THAT ARE BEFORE THIS
COUNTRY.
BUT ONCE AGAIN, TIME IN AND
TIME OUT HERE WE ARE WITHOUT AN
OPEN RULE.
MR. SPEAKER, IT'S MY INTENTION
TODAY TO DISCUSS THE DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT THAT THIS LEGISLATION
SETS FORTH ON THE FUTURE OF
BUSINESS IN AMERICA AND THE
STRANGLE HOLD THAT GOVERNMENT
WILL HAVE OVER THE FREE
ENTERPRISE SYSTEM.
ADDITIONALLY, I OFFERED TWO
AMENDMENTS IN THE RULES
COMMITTEE LAST NIGHT, AND I
WILL DISCUSS THOSE HERE
ONE WOULD ENSURE THIS
LEGISLATION WOULD NOT CREATE A
BONANZA FOR TRIAL LAWYERS, AND
THE OTHER WOULD PROVIDE FOR THE
NECESSARY TRANSPARENCY AND
DISCLOSURE FOR SHAREHOLDERS.
BOTH WERE REJECT BY THE
DEMOCRATS IN THE RULES
COMMITTEE AND ELIMINATED FROM
DEBATE ON THE HOUSE FLR
TODAY.
MR. SPEAKER, GOVERNMENT
TAKEOVER OF THE FREE ENTERPRISE
SYSTEM SEEMS TO BE A COMMON
THEME WITH THIS DEMOCRAT
CONGRESS AND WITH THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION.
A THEME THAT HAS LED TO RECORD
DEFICITS AND RECORD
UNEMPLOYMENT.
THIS UNDERLYING LEGISLATION HAS
MASKED ITSELF AS A BILL TO
RESTRICT C.E.O. PAY BY GIVING
SHAREHOLDERS A NONBINDING VOTE
ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.
YET, IN A REALITY IT GIVES THE
GOVERNMENT BROAD AUTHORITY TO
REVIEW AND DETERMINE
APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION FOR
EVERY EMPLOYEE OF A FINANCIAL
FIRM.
THIS LEGISLATION EMPOWERS THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO SET
UNPRECEDENTED STANDARDS FOR
ANNUAL SHAREHOLDER VOTES WHILE
PROVIDING BROAD GOVERNMENT
AUTHORITY FOR REGULATORS WHO
WILL HAVE GUIDANCE TO IMPLEMENT
THIS AND GIVE AUTHORITY TO THEM
OVER THE FREE ENTERPRISE
SYSTEM.
WE ALL AGREE THAT WE NEED TO
CURB ABUSES OF THE PAST AND TO
PROMOTE REONSIBLE APPROACHES
TO EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.
BUT THIS BILL PROVIDES
UNPRECEDENTED GOVERNMENT
INTERVENTION IN THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM.
IT IS THE WRONG SOLUTION.
THE GOAL OF REGULATORY REFORM
SHOULD BE TO HELP, NOT HINDER,
OUR ECONOMY'S ABILITY TO
SUSTAIN ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB
CREATION.
THIS LEGISLATION DOES THE
OPPOSITE BY LEGISLATING A
ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL RULE FOR
PUBLIC COMPANIES THAT
DISCOURAGE PRIVATE FIRMS FROM
GOING PUBLIC.
THIS WILL LIMIT U.S. COMPANIES'
ACCESS TO THE CAPITAL MARKETS
AND UNDERMINE U.S. ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS.
THIS LEGISLATION ALLOWS
FINANCIAL REGULATORS THE
AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WAGES
FOR ALL EMPLOYEES, NOT JUST
C.E.O.'S, OFFICERS AND BANKERS,
BUT EVERYONE.
THE RANK AND FILE OF COMMUNITY
BANKS, MINORITY BANKS AND
CREDIT UNIONS COULD ALL HAVE
THEIR COMPENSATION DETERMINED
BY UNELECTED WASHINGTON
BUREAUCRATS.
THIS PERCEPTION UNDERMINES THE
CONFIDENCE IN CORPORATE
AMERICA, AND UNFAIRLY TAINTS
THE VAST MAJORITY OF U.S.
COMPANIES.
IN AN EFFORT TO PROVIDE THE
CLARIFICATION NECESSARY TO
ENSURE THE INTENT OF THIS
LEGISLATION IS NOT TO CREATE A
BONANZA FOR TRIAL LAWYERS.
I OFFERED AN AMENDMENT IN THE
RULES COMMITTEE.
THE AME
CLARIFIED THAT THIS LEGISLATION
SIMPLY CREATES NO NEW PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION IN OUR COURTS,
NOR WOULD ITS PASSAGE MAKE A COMPENSATION COMMITTEE'S
DECISION TO UPHOLD ITS
SHAREHOLDERS SUBJECT TO ANY
EXISTING PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION.
WITHOUT THIS AMENDMENT TRIAL
LAWYERS WILL BE ABLE TO EXPLOIT
A NEW OPPORTUNITY TO SHAKEDOWN
COMPANIES FOR HUGE PAYMENTS BY
-- SHAKE DOWN COMPANIES FOR
HUGE PAYMENTS.
THIS IS A COMMONSENSE AMENDMENT
THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
CONSIDERED ON THE USE FLOOR
TODAY, AND IT SHOULD BE IN THE
BILL AS LAW.
MY SECOND AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE
PROVIDED SUNSHINE AND
TRANSPARENCY FOR SHAREHOLDERS
BY REQUIRING A FULL S.E.C.
DISCLOSURE ABOUT WHO IS
FINANCING EFFORTS TO INFLUENCE
VOTES ON THIS NEW CONNELLY
MANDATED -- THIS NEW
NONBINDING RESOLUTION.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD PUT
SHAREHOLDERS WITH ACCESS TO
INFORMATION ABOUT WHO IS
SPENDING MONEY TO INUENCE
THAT VOTE.
AS FEDERAL CANDIDATES, WE ARE
OBLIGATED TO DISCLOSE TO THE
NAME, OCCUPATION AND AMOUNT
GIVEN FROM EACH OF OUR DONORS.
WE REQUIRE THIS BE
PUBLIC INTEREST IS ADVANCED BY
LETTING VOTERS KNOW WHO FUNDS
EACH CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGN.
MY AMENDMENT ASKS THE SAME
DISCLOSURE SO THAT SHAREHOLDERS
KNOW WHAT PEOPLE, WHAT
ORGANIZATION, WHETHER THEY BE
LABOR UNNS, ENVIRONMENTAL
GROUPS, CONSUMER ADVOCATES OR
SIMPLY A NORMAL CITIZEN OF THIS
COUNTRY.
WE NEED TO KNOW WHO IS SPENDING
MONEY ON INFLUENCING THIS NEW
MACHINE -- MANDATED NONBINDING
VOTE.
AMERICANS PRIDE THEMSELVES ON A
MARKETPLACE THAT WORKS FOR ALL
OF US.
YET, TODAY, CONGRESS WILL PASS
LEGISLATION THAT INCREASES
GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN THE
FINANCIAL MARKETS, RATIONS
RESOURCES, LIMITS CONSUMER
CHOICES AND DICTATES WAGES AND
PRICES.
IN A TIME OF ECONOMIC RECESSION
WITH RECORD UNEMPLOYMENT AND
RECORD DEFICITS, CONGRESS
SHOULD BE ENACTING LEGISLATION
TO ASSIST OUR ECONOMY.
MR. SPEAKER, THE MOTIVES ARE
CLEAR.
THIS ADMINISTRATION AND THIS
CONGRESS ARE USING POLICY AND
REGULATION TO FORCE A
GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER FURTHER OF
THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM.
MR. SPEAKER, THIS CONGRESS
SHOULD BE DOING THINGS TO
ENCOURAGE EMPLOYMENT, TO
ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GO BACK TO
WORK, TO ENCOURAGE
COMPETITIVENESS,
OUR COUNTRY TO BE PREPARED
TOMORROW, NOT TO HAVE RECORD
UNEMPLOYMENT, NOT TO SPEND MORE
MONEY FOR RECORD DEBTS BUT TO
GIVE AMERICA AND THE FREE
ENTERPRISE SYSTEM THE CHANCE
AND OPPORTUNITY IT DESERVES TO
FLOURISH IN AMERICA.
MR. SPEAKER, I ENCOURAGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO VOTE AGAINST THIS
RULE AND THE UNDERLYING
LEGISLATION.
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO MPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
MR. MCGOVERN: MR. SPEAKER, WE
HAVE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS AT
THIS TIME.
I'D RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS.
MR. SESSIONS: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
MR. SPEAKER, IN CLOSING, I'D
LIKE TO STRESS THAT WHILE MY
FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE CLAIM TO BE
PROTECTING CONSUMERS WITH THIS
LEGISLATION, THEY REFUSE TO
PROTECT ALL AMERICANS IN THIS
GISLATION FROM TRIAL LAWYERS
FROM BENEFITING FROM THEIR TAX
DOLLARS, AND THEY ALSO VOTED IN a
THE COMMITTEE AGAINST
TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY.
MR. SPEAKER, AS A NATION, WE
HAVE MANY, MANY, MANY REAL
PROBLEMS TO TEAL WITH THAT
REQUIRE LEADERSHIP AND
DEDICATION TO ENSURE THE FUTURE OF THIS NATION.
WE NEED TO PROVIDE FOR JOBS,
ENCOUR
SPUR INNOVATION AND PROSPERITY
OF THIS NATION, NOT TO HAMPER
THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM.
THIS IS WITHOUT QUESTION
FURTHER GOVERNMENT CONTROL AND
MUZZLING OF THE FREE ENTERPRISE
SYSTEM.
SOME ARGUE THAT THIS
LEGISLATION'S ABOUT EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION, BUT IN REALITY IT
CONTINUES TO BE THE GOVERNMENT
TAKEOVER OF THE FREE ENTERPRISE
SYSTEM.
STRUCTURED RULE AND A NO VOTE
ON THE UNDERLYING LEGISLATION.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN ELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
MR. MCGOVERN: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
I YIELD MYSELF THE REMAINING
TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. MCGOVERN: MR. SPEAKER, AS
WE ARE ABOUT TO ADJOURN FOR THE
AUGUST RECESS, I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTTHAT THIS IS A CONGRESS THAT HAS
ACCOMPLISHED A GREAT DEAL.
WE HAVE PASSED ALL 12 OF OUR
APPROPRIATIONS BILLS.
WE PASSED HISTORIC RECOVERY AND
REINVESTMENT ACT, WHICH IS
KEEPING TEACHERS AND POLICE
OFFICERS EMPLOYED, THAT IS
STIMULATING ECONOMIC GROWTH
THROUGHOUT THIS COUNTRY.
WE HAVE PASSED AN ENERGY BILL
THAT IF SIGNED INTO LAW WILL
CREATE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS
OF NEW GREEN JOBS AS WELL AS
FREE US OF OUR DEPENDENCE ON
FOREIGN OIL.
WE HAVE EXTENDED SCHIP WHICH
MEANS THAT MORE AND MORE
CHILDREN HAVE ACCESS TO HEALTH
CARE.
WE PASSED THE LILLY LEDBETTER
PAY EQUITY ACT BILL.
YESTERDAY WE PASSED A FOOD
SO WE DID ALL OF THIS IN SPITE
OF RESISTANCE AND IN SPITE OF
OBSTRUCTIONISM BY MANY OF MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE.
BUT I THINK IT'S AN INDICATION
THAT THIS IS A CONGRESS THAT
HAS ACCOMPLISHED A GREAT DEAL.
LET ME JUST SAY FINALLY, MR.
SPEAKER, WITH REGARD TO THE
UNDERLYING LEGISLATION, THAT IF
YOU LIKE THE STATUS QUO, IF YOU
WANT TO EMBRACE THE SAME OLD
SAME OLD WHEN IT COMES TO
CORPORATE MISBEHAVIOR, THEN
VOTE AGAINST THE RULE AND VOTE AGAINST THE BILL.
IF YOU WANT THINGS TO CHANGE,
IF YOU WANT TO ENSURE CORPORATE
RESPONSIBILITY, THEN PLEASE
SUPPORT THE UNDERLYING BILL
CHAMPIONED BY CHAIRMAN FRANK.
WITH THAT, MR. SPEAKER, I URGE
A YES VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS
QUESTION AND ON THE RULE, AND I
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME AND I MOVE THE PREVIOUS QUESTION ON THE RULE.
-- ON THE RESOLUTION.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE PREVIOUS QUESTION IS ORDERED.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE ADOPTION
OF THE RESOLUTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE RESOLUTION IS AGREED TO.
AND WITHOUT OBJECTION, A MOTION
TABLE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPOR FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MASSACHUSETTS RISE IN
MR. FRANK: PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 697, I CALL UP H.R.
6239 AND ASK FOR ITS IMMEDIATE
CONSIDERATION.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
CLERK WILL REPORT THE TITLE OF THE BILL.
131, A BILL TO AMEND THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
TO PROVIDE SHAREHOLDERS WITH AN
ADVISORY VOTE ON COMPENSATION
AND PREVENT PERVERSE INCENTIVES
IN COMPENSATION PACKAGES.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A
SUBSTITUTE RECOMMENDED BY THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
IS ADOPTED AND THE BILL IS
AMENDED AND IS CONSIDERED READ.
AFTER ONE HOUR OF DEBATE ON THE
BILL AS AMENDED, THE AMENDMENT
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 111-237
IF OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MASSACHUSETTS, MR. FRANK,
OR HIS DESIGNEE, SHALL BE
CONSIDERED READ AND SHALBE
DEBATABLE FOR 10 MINUTES,
EQUALLY DIVIDED OR CONTROLLED
BY THE PROPONENT AND AN
OPPONENT.
THEREAFTER, THE AMENDMENT IN
THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE
PRINTED IN THE REPORT, OFFERED
BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW
JERSEY, MR. GARRETT, OR HIS
DESIGNEE SHALL BE CONSIDERED
RE AND SHALL BE DEBATABLE FOR
30 MINUTES, EQUALLY DIVIDED AND
CONTROLLED BY THE PROPONENT AND
AN OPPONENT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS, MR. FRANK, AND
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA, MR.
BACHUS, EACH WILL CONTROL 30
MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
MR. FRANK: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT ALL MEMBERS HAVE
FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO REVISE
AND EXTEND THEIR REMARKS AND
INCLUDE THEREIN EXTRANEOUS
MATERIAL.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPOR
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. FRANK: I RECOGNIZE MYSELF
FOR SUCH TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. FRANK: I HAVE ENCOUNTERED
GAPS BETWEEN RHETORIC AND
REALITY IN THIS CHAMBER, NEVER
ONE AS GREAT AS THE WILDLY
DISTORTED THE DE-PRESCRIPTION
OF THIS BILL THAT WE GOT
BEFORE.
LET'S BE CLEAR.
THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
THE PARTY HERE'S ON THE WHOLE.
AT LEAST AS REFLECTED IN THE
COMMITTEE VOTE, I THINK IT WILL
BE DIFFERENT ON THE FLOOR THERE
IS MUCH MESS -- MUCH LESS
DIFFERENCE THAN THERE USED TO
BE ON THE SAY ON PAY.
WHEN THE REPUBLICANS WERE IN
THE MAJORITY PRIOR TO 2007, ON
THIS AND MANY OTHER ISSUES, THE
DEMOCRATS TRIED TO DO REFORM
AND GOT NOWHERE.
WE DID TRY TO BRING UP THIS.
THE REPUBLICANS USED THEIR
MAJORITY NOT TO ALLOW IT.
IN 2007, WHEN WE WERE IN THE
MAJORITY WE DID BRING IT TO THE
FLOOR, IT PASSED OTHER THE
OBJECTION OF MOST REPUBLICANS.
I'LL INTRODUCE TO THE RECORD
THEIR COMMENTS ON SAY ON PAY.
THEY'VE MOVED SOME.
THEY ARE FOR REFORM ON SAY ON
PAY, THOUGH A SOMEWHAT WATERED
DOWN FORM.
ONE THING I WANT TO ADDRESS
HERE IS THE QUESTION OF -- BUT
I SHOULD SAY, THERE'S A STARK
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US REMAING
ON WHETHER OR NOT ANY ACTION
SHALL BE TAKE BIN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO RESTRAIN
COMPENSATION PRACTICE THIS IS A
INFLICT EXCESSIVE RISK ON THE
ECONOMY.
WE SHOULD BE CLEAR THIS
ASSERTION THAT THIS ALLOWS THE
CONTROL OF ALL WAGES AND PRICES
IS NONSENSE.
THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT PRICES
AT ALL IN THE BILL.
AS TO WAGES, WHAT IT SAYS IS
THAT THE S.E.C. MAY -- SHALL
IMPOSE RULES THAT PREVENT
EXCESSIVE RISK TAKING
AND THE REFERENCE TO WAGES IS
ONLY IN THAT CONTEXT.
THE AMOUNT OF WAGES IS
IRRELEVANT.
WHAT THIS BILL EXPLICITLY AIMS
AT IS THIS PRACTICE WHERE
PEOPLE ARE GIVEN BONUSES IF THE
GAMBLE PAYS OFF BUT DON'T LE
ANYTHING IF IT DOESN'T.
THERE'S WIDESPREAD CONSENSUS
THAT THIS INCENTIVIZES RISKS.
IF YOU TAKE ACTIONS THAT ARE
RISKY AND IT LOOKS LIKE THEY
PAID OFF AND YOU GET YOUR
MONEY, SIX MONTHS LATER, IT
TURNS OUT YOU WERE WRONG AND IT BLOWS UP, YOU DON'T LOSE
ANYTHING.
AT THE OUTSET IF YOU TAKE A
RISK AND IT BLOWS UP, IT
DOESN'T COST YOU ANYTHING.
ALL WE ARE SAYING IS THERE HAS
TO BE BALANCE TO THE RISK
TAKING, THE EXCESSIVE RISK
TAKING.
WHAT IS EXCESSIVE RISK?
WHEN THE PEOPLE WHO TAKE RISK
PAY NO PENALTY WHEN THEY ARE
WRONG.
WHEN THE COMPANY LOSES MONEY,
THE ECONOMY MAY SUFFER, DUH THE
DECISION MAKERS DO NOT.
ONE OF THE SILLIER REMARKS WE
HEARD WAS THIS WILL CAUSE US TO
HAVE LESS COMPETITION.
SAY ON PAY, WHEN THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY OPPOSED IT, WAS BORROWED
FROM GREAT BRITAIN.
WE WERE TOLD WE WERE LOSING
BUSINESS TO GREAT BRITAIN AND
WE SHOULD CUT BACK ON
SARBANES-OXLEY BECAUSE PEOPLE
WERE GOING TO ENGLAND.
TODAY I READ FROM AN ARTICLE
FROM A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, THE
PRIME MINISTER OF ENGLAND SAYS
THEY ARE GOING TO ADOPT PLANS
FORCING BANKS TO HOLD BACK HALF
OF ALL BONUSES FOR FIVE YEARS
AND THE CONSERVATIVE OPPOSITION
IS CRITICAL BECAUSE IT'S NOT
MANDATORY.
WE HAVE BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE
UNITED KINGDOM, CANADA AND
OTHERS.
IN FACT, AMERICAN SALA
AMERICAN COMPENSATIONS HAVE
BEEN MUCH HIGHER SYSTEM OF NO,
THERE IS NO PRICE CONTROL.
NO THERE'S NO WAGE CONTROL.
NO IT IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR
INTERNATIONAL COMPETION.
BY THE WAY, AS TO EVERY
INSTITUTION, EVERY CREDIT
UNION, YOU HEARD THAT RHETORIC,
THE BILL EXEMPTS ANY
INSTITUTION WITH LESS THAN $1
BILLION IN ASSETS.
IT GIVES THE S.E.C. THE
AUTHORITY TO RAISE THAT SO
THERE'S EVEN LES.
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS
RELUCTANTLY BEEN DRAGGED BY
EVENTS, REALITY SOMETIMES HAS
AN IMPACT TO SUPPORT A WATERED
DOWN VERSION OF SAY ON PAY.
SAY ON PAY SAYS THE
SHAREHOLDERS CAN VOTE AND
EXPRESS THEIR OPINION.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS WAS
UPSET WE DON'T HAVE A FEDERAL
ELECTION COMMISSION MECHANISM
FOTHESE VOTES.
WHY ONLY THESE VOTES?
SHAREHOLDERS VOTE ON ANYTHING.
APPARENTLY IT'S ONLY WHEN THE
SHAROLDERS TEND TO VOTE ON
PAY
SENSIBILITIES ARE TRAMPLED.
WE DO NOT IN THIS BILL TALK
ABOUT THE AMOUNTS.
WE DO SAY THE SHAREHOLDERS
SHOULD.
WE SAY IN CONSULTATION WITH
ADVOCACY GROUPS THAT REPRESENT
SHAREHOLDERS AND P
THAT THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE
COMPANY, THE SHAREHOLDERS,
SHOULD BE ABLE TO EXPRESS
OPINIONS ON THE COMPENSATION.
WE GO BEYOND THAT TO SAY WE
BELIEVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
HAS INTERESTS NOT IN THE LEVEL
OF COMPENSATION, THAT'S UP TO
THE SHAREHOLDERS, IN THE
STRUCTURE.
WHEN YOU HAVE, AS WE HAVE SEEN,
STRUCTURES WHEREBY COMPANIES
LOSE LOTS OF MONEY AND THEY
LOSE LOTS OF MONEY ON PARTICULAR DEALS, BUT THE
PEOPLE WHO MADE OSE DEALS
MAKE MONEY ON THEM, THAT THAT
HAS A SYSTEMIC NEGATIVE IMPACT
ON THE SOCIETY BECAUSE IT INCENTIVIZES MUCH TOO MUCH
RISK.
WHAT IS THE REPUBLICAN APPROACH
TO THAT?
NOTHING.
THEY SAY -- THEY ADMIT THESE
ARE
HAPPENING.
BUT THEIR REGRETS WON'T STOP
THE DAMAGE.
IN THE REPUBLICAN SUBSTITUTE
THERE IS A WATERING DOWN OF SAY ON PAY BUT THEY AT LEAST
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT RELUCTANTLY.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE PRACKTOIFS
LARGE CORPORATIONS IN THE
FINANCIAL AREA STRUCTURING
BONUSES THAT INCENTIVIZE
EXCESSIVE RISK, MY REPUBLICAN
FRIENDS ADMIT THAT'S THE CASE
WE SHOULD NOTHING ABOUT IT.
THAT'S THE BIG DIFFERENCE.
WE BELIEVE THE S.E.C., AND BY
THE WAY, AS TO THE FORM, IT WAS
A REPUBLICAN FORMER MEMBER OF
THIS BODY, CHRISTOPHER COX, WHO
WAS CHAIR OF THE S.E.C.,
PROPOSED DISCLOS
HE BROACHED IT FIRST.
HE SAID WE HAVE AN IMPORTANT
PUBLIC INTEREST IN KNOWING IT.
WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THE FORM
OF DISCLOSURE OF COMPENSATION
PRESCRIBED BY A REPUBLICAN
MEMBER OF THIS HOUSE, CHAIRMAN
OF THE S.E.C. WORK HIS
COLLEAGUES, AND LET THE
SHAREHOLDERS SAY YES OR NO.
WE ARE GOING TO GO BEYOND THAT
AND SAY THAT THE S.E.C. SHOULD
LOOK AT THIS AND SAY, YOU KNOW,
YOU HAVE A SITUATION HERE WHERE
PEOPLE MAKING THE DECISIONS
WILL HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO TAKE
TOO MUCH RISK.
IF YOU TELL PEOPLE THAT IF THEY
TAKE A RISK AND IT PAYS OFF
THEY ARE ENRICHED AND IF IT
FAILS MISERABLY THEY DON'T LOSE
ANYTHING, THEY WILL TAKE MORE
RISKS THAN SHOULD BE TAKEN.
YOU SHOULD NOT INCENTIVIZE TO
TELL PEOPLE TO TAKE RISKS WHERE
THEY CAN ONLY BENEFIT AND NEVER
SUFFER PENALTY.
THAT'S ALL THIS SAYS.
WE WILL PREVENT THAT KIND OF
THING FROM HAPPENING.
WE WON'T SET AMOUNTS OR DEAL
WITH WAGE CONTROLS AND WE
EXEMPT INSTITUTIONS UNDER $1
BILLION.
I AWAIT THE REPUBLICAN COUNTER.
THEY WANT A WATERED DOWN SAY ON
PAY, BUT THEY RELUCTANTLY
ACCEPT IT.
BUT THEY HAVE ZERO TUFERE WITH
REGARD TO THE SITUATION OF
EXCESSIVE BONUSES.
WE DID GET RELUCTANT AGREEMENT
WE PUT SOME LIMITS ON PEOPLE
WHARE RECIPIENTS OF TARP
FUNDS.
ONE OF THOSE WHO RECEIVED TARP
FUNDS PROSPERED WITH THOSE
FUNDS, PAID THEM O
NOW -- PAID BACK THE FUNDS, AND
ARE EBB GEAP -- ENGAGING IN THE
RISKY PRACTICE
BEFORE.
THE REPUBLICAN POSITION IN THE
COMMITTEE WAS DO NOTHING ABOUT
IT.
OURS IS, HAVE RULE, NOT THAT
SET THE LIMITS OR WAGE CONTROLS
BUT SAY THAT YOU CANNOT
STRUCTURE IT SO THAT WHATEVER
LEVEL OF COMPENSATION YOU HAVE,
YOU PROFIT IF THE BONUS PAYS
OFF AND YOU LOSE NOTHING IF THE
BONUS CAUSES GREAT DAMAGE TO
THE COMPANY AND THE COMMISM I
RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES HIS TIME.
THE HOUGS WILL RECEIVE A
THE MESSENGER: MR. SPEAKER, A
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. THE SECRETARY: MR. SPEAKER.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: MADAM
SECRETARY.
THE SECRETARY: I HAVE BEEN
DIRECTED TO TELL THE HOUSE THAT
THE SENATE HAS PASSED S. 337.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA.
>> I RISE IN --
MR. BACHUS: I RISE IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS LEGISLATION
AND YIELD MYSELF FIVE MINUTES.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
FIVE MINUTES. MR. BACHUS: THANK YOU.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I RISE IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS LEGISLATION.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE RIGHTLY
DISTURBED BY ALMOST DAILY
REPORTS OF SO-CALLED TOO BIG TO
FAIL CORPORATIONS THAT HAVE
RECEIVED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN
GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE AND HAVE
AT THE SAME TIME PAID THEIR
EMPLOYEES BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
IN BONUSES.
IN RESPONSE TO THOSE EVENTS,
REPUBLICANS HAVE INTRODUCE ED
LEGISLATION WHICH GETS THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE -- INTRODUCED
LEGISLATION WHICH GETS THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE OUT OF THE
BAILOUT BUSINESS.
THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN IS OUR
RESPONSE.
IT PROHIBITS THE GOVERNMENT FROM PICKING WINNERS AND
LOSERS.
WE BELIEVE THAT'S THE SOLUTION.
THE LEGISLATION WE HAVE
INTRODUCED CLEARLY ESTABLISHES
A STRUCTURE WHERE FAILURE IS
NOT REWARDED.
AND MARKET DISCIPLINE IS
REESTABLISHED BY PLACING
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THOSE WHO
ENDWAGE IN RISKY BEHAVIOR
SQUARELY WHERE IT BELONGS, ON
THE RISK TAKER, NOT THE
TAXPAYER.
THAT IS THE REPUBLICAN
RESPONSE.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TAKES
A DIFFERENT APPROACH.
IT CONTINUES TO EMBRACE THE TOO
BIG TO FAIL DOCTRINE.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY,
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO ADDRESS EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.
IT APPOINTS A PAY CZAR TO
OVERSEE COMPENSATION AT THE
GROWING LIST OF COMPANIES
RECEIVING TAXPAYER-FUNDED
BAILOUTS AND GUARANTEES,
DESPITE GROWING PUBLIC OUTRAGE
OVER THESE COMPANIES DISHING
OUT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN
GOVERNMENT-ENABLED BONUSES.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND
THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL
LEADERSHIP STEADFASTLY REFUSES TO EMBRACE REPUBLICAN
LEGISLATION OR OFFER ITS OWN
PROPOSALS PROHIBITING FURTHER
TAXPAYER BAILOUTS.
INSTEAD, IT SAYS THAT THESE
SAME CORPORATIONS ARE SIMPLY
TOO SIGNIFICANT TO ALLOW THEM
TO FAIL.
WHICH NOT ONLY ENABLES BUT
ENCOURAGES THESE SAME
CORPORATIONS TO CONTINUE WHAT
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
CONCEDES IS MORE RISKY
BEHAVIOR.
ONE OF THE BEHAVIORS THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION AND CHAIRMAN
FRANK IDENTIFY AS RISKY IN
THESE SIGNIFICANTLY CIG CABOT
-- I MEAN, IN THESE
SYSTEMATICALLY SIGNIFICANT
CORPORATIONS, IS EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION.
TODAY WE ARE PRESENTED WITH A
FIX.
A LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE TO THESE
BAILOUT BONUSES AND THE
RESULTING PUBLIC OUTRAGE.
THE CURE-ALL SOLUTION BEARS THE
LOFTY AND NOBLE TITLE,
CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL
INSTITUTION COMPENSATION
FAIRNESS ACT.
IT IS IN EVERY WAY UP TO THE
CHALLENGE LAID DOWN BY OUR
FORMER COLLEAGUE, MR. EMANUEL.
MOST RECENTLY OF 1600
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE WHO NEVER
-- WHO SAID NEVER LET A CRISIS
GO TO WASTE.
IT IS ALSO IN MANY WAYS CLOSELY
AKIN TO THE RECENTLY DEPARTED
CAP AND TAX LEGISLATION AND THE
EVER-OMING GOVERNMENT, OR
SHOU I SAY PUBLIC OPTION,
HEALTH PLAN.
ALL THREE ARE SWEEPING POWER
GRAB INTO THE PRIVATE SECTOR
UNDER THE GUISE OF THE
GOVERNMENT RIDING TO THE
RESCUE.
ALL THREE RELY ON THE
GOVERNMENT TO FIX THE PROBLEM.
ALL THREE PROMISE TO FIX THE
PROBLEM WHICH TO A GREAT EXTENT
WAS CAUSED BY, GUESS WHO?
THAT'S RIGHT, THE GOVERNME.
AND LACK OF REGULATION BY THE
GOVERNMENT.
ALL THREE WILL CREATE OR MORE
ACCURATELY DUPLICATE LARGE
GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACIES.
ALL THREE REPRESENT ILL-ADVISED
AND MANY CASES INCOMPETENT
GOVERNMENT INTRUSIONS.
JUST THREE WEEKS OR FOUR WEEKS
AGO, THE WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN,
OUR GENE SPERLING, LEGAL
COUNSEL FOR OF SECRETARY OF
TREASURER, WARNED, GO SLOW.
HE SAID, THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT SUBJECT.
IT NEEDS TESTING.
IT HAS POTENTIAL FOR UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES.
JUST YESTERDAYEFORE THE
SENA, THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS
SPOKESMAN, ROBERT GIBBS, STATED
TH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
IS CONCERNED THAT THE
CHAIRMAN'S LEGISLATION MAY GIVE
THE GOVERNMENT REGULATORS TOO
MUCH SAY ON
COMPENSATION.
BUT AS THE CHAIRMAN SAID TO THE
RULES COITTEE, MY LEGISLATION
GOES BEYOND WHAT THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION HAS PROPOSED.
NOW, IF THAT DOESN'T TAKE YOUR
BREATH AWAY, NOTHING WILL.
IN SOME WAYS, THIS LEGISLATION
BORDERS ON THE CLASSIC BAIT AND
SWITCH.
IT'S BEING SOLD AS GIVING THE
OWNERS OF THE CORPORATION THE
RIGHT TO SET PAY AND
COMPENSATION STANDARDS.
THAT'S THE SHAREHOLDERS.
CHAIRMAN FRANK JUST THIS WEEK
ON CNBC SAID DOLLAR AMOUNTS ARE
FOR THE CHAIR HOLEDERS TO
DECIDE.
-- SHAREHOLDERS TO DECIDE.
I WOULD LIKE -- IS MY TIME UP?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: YES,
IT IS.
MR. BACHUS: I'D LIKE TO
RECOGNIZE MYSELF TWO MINUTES.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE
MINUTE.
MR. BACHUS: HE SAID SAY ON PAY
IS TO SHAREHOLDERS.
TRUE, THE FIRST X PAGES OF
THE BILL GIVE THE OWNERS, THE
SHAREHOLDERS A NONBINDING VOTE
ON THE PAY OF TOP EXECUTIVES.
BUT THEN COME THE NEXT EIGHT
PAGES.
THE SWITCH WHICH GIVES THE
REGULATORS THE POWER TO DECIDE
APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION FOR
NOT ONLY JUST TOP EXECUTIVES
BUT FOR ALL EMPLOYEES OF ALL
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
ABOVE $1 BILLION IN ASSETS.
AND ALL WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
SHAREHOLDERS' PRIOR APPROVAL.
SO UNDER THE GUISE OF
EMPOWERING SHAREHOLDERS IT IS
IN FACT THE GOVERNMENT THAT IS
IN POWER.
ONE LESSON WE HAVE LEARNED FROM
THE GOVERNMENT'S ARBITRARY
INTERVENTIONS OVER THE PAST 18
MONTHS, AND THAT IS THE
CONVERSE OF TWO BIG TO FAIL IS
TOO SMALL TO -- TOO BIG TO FAIL
IS TOO SMALL TO SAVE WHICH IS A
DESIGNATION WHICH APPLIES TO
99.9% OF BUSINESSES WHICH HAVE
BEEN DEEMED BY THIS
ADMINISTRATION AND THE
REGULATORS AS SIGNIFICANTLY
UNIMPORTANT OR SIGNIFICANT.
-- INSIGNIFICA
BUT NOT SO UNIMPORTANT, NOT SO
INSIGNIFICANT TO BE TOTALLY IGNORED.
WHILE NOT SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO
RECEIVE A BAILOUT, THEY ARE
APPARENTLY WORTHY OF INCREASED
REGULATION IN THE FORM OF
GOVERNMENT MANDATED PAY
REGULATIONS AND NEW DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS IN THE CHAIRMAN'S
BILL.
AND FINALLY ON PAGE 15, THE
BILL DESIGNATES THOSE SAME
GOVERNMENT ENTITIES WHICH ARE
EMPOWERED TO CONTROL
COMPENSATION PLANS THAT WOULD
THREATEN THE SAFETY OF
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS OR
ADVERSELY IMPACT ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS OR FINANCIAL
STABILITY TO OVERSEE THIS
RISKINESS.
LOOK OVER THE LIST AND SEE IF
IT INSPIRES CONFIDENCE.
THESE ARE THE SAME GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES THAT REGULATED A.I.G.,
COUNTRYWIDE AND COLLECTIVELY
FAILED TO PREVENT THE WORST --
I YIELD MYSELF AN ADDITIONAL
MINUTE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.
MR. BACHUS: THESE ARE THE SAME
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES THAT
REGULATED A.I.G., COUNTRYWIDE
AND COLLECTIVELY FAILED TO
PREVENT THE WORST FINANCIAL
CALAMITY SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION.
IF IT TOOK THEM 30 YEARS TO
CATCH BERNIE MADOFF, DO YOU
REALLY THINK THE S.E.C. CAN DO
BEATER SWROB OF IDENTIFYING --
DO A BETTER JOB OF IDENTIFYING
INAPPROPRIATE RISK OF FINANCIAL
EXECUTIVES WHOSE BUSINESSES
HAVE REMAIN SOLVENT DURING
THESE CHALLENGING TIMES?
REALLY NOW, IS THERE ANY
QUESTION WHO IS BETTER
QUALIFIED OR FOR THAT MATTER
WHO OUGHT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
SETTING COMPENSATION WITHIN THE
AMERICAN CORPORATION?
IN CLOSING, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS
BILL CONTINUES THE DEMOCRAT
MAJORITY'S TENDENCY TO GO TO
THE DEFAULT SOLUTION FOR EVERY
PROBLEM, CREATE A GOVERNMENT
BUREAUCRACY TO MAKE DECIONS
BETTER LEFT TO PRIVATE CITIZENS
AND PRIVATE CORPORATIONS.
THAT'S WHAT WE DID IN CAP AND
TRADE, THAT'S WHAT WE DID IN
THE HEALTH CARE PROPOSALS, AND
IT'S THIS BILL ON STPWHRECK TIF
COMPENSATION -- EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION GOVERNMENT
BUREAUCRATS DON'T KNOW WHAT'S
BEST FOR AMERICA.
FOR THOSE REASONS, MR.
CHAIRMAN, I URGE OPPOSITION TO
THIS LEGISLATION AND RESERVE
THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES THE BALANCE
OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
MR. FRANK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I
YIELD MYSELF THREE ADDITIONAL
MINUTES TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THESE COMMENTS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. FRANK: FIRST OF ALL, I'M
STRUCK BY THE FACT AS THE
GENTLEMAN, AS HE INDICATED IN
OUR MARKUP, IS SUFFICIENTLY
NERVOUS ABOUT THE POLITICAL
IMPLICATIONS OF IMPOSING THIS
BILL AND HAVING THE HOUSE TAKE
NO ACTION WHATSOEVER TO DEAL
WITH THE PROBLEM OF RISK
INCENTIVIZING BONUSES.
BUT HE WANTS TO DEBATE CAP AND
TRADE AND HEALTH CARE.
THEY'RE NOT BEFORE US.
WHAT'S BEFORE US IS THIS BILL,
AND WHEN MEMBERS DEBATE THE
BILLS THAT AREN'T HERE, IT'S AN
INDICATION THAT THEY'RE A
LITTLE SHAKY ON THE BILLS THAT
ARE HERE.
SECONDLY, YES, IT DOES SAY THAT
THEY CAN DEAL WITH ALL WAGES BUT NOT IN GENERAL.
THE GENTLEMAN READS
SELECTIVELY.
THE READING ABOUT TAKING ACTION IS IN THIS CONTEXT.
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
COMPENSATION STRUCTURE IS
ALIGNED WITH SOUND RISK
MANAGEMENT IS STRUCTURED TO
ACCOUNT FOR THE TIME HORIZON OF
RISKS.
AND WILL REDUCE UNREASONABLE
INCENTIVES BY SUCH INSTITUTIONS
FOR EMPLOYEES TO TAKE UNDUE
RISKS.
IT IS LIMITED IN ITS GRANTOR
AUTHORITY ONLY TO STRUCTURES
THAT INCENTIVIZE EXCESSIVE
RISK.
THERE IS NO MANDATE HERE TO SET
WAGES FOR ANYBODY.
THERE IS NO MANDATE TO SAY THIS
PERCENTAGE IS BONUSES AND THAT
RCENTAGE IS PAY.
IT'S A MANDATE ONLY TO ACT
WHERE THE STRUCTURE INVENT
ADVISES RISK.
AS HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS PART
OF THE PROBLEM VERY BROADLY.
I WILL PLEAD GUILTY TO ONE
ISSUE.
TAKING ORDERS FROM THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION.
AND MAYBE HAVING REPRESENTED A
PARTY THAT TOOK ORDERS FROM THE
BUSH ADMINISTRATION, THEY NOW
WISH THEY DIDN'T, BUT THAT'S
NOT AN EXAMPLE I WANT TO
FOLLOW.
I AM NOT HERE AS A MEMBER OF
CONGRESS OR AS CHAIRMAN OF A
COMMITTEE TO DO WHATEVER AN
ADMINISTRATION SAYS.
I AM HERE FOR US TO PUT OUR
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT.
BUT THE GENTLEMAN CLOSED WITH
THE KEY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US.
THE REPUBLICAN POSITION, AS HE
ARTICULATES AND IT IS HAVE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAKE NO
ACTION WHATSOEVER TO STRAIN THE
BONUSES THAT INCENTIVIZE
EXCESSIVE RISK.
IF THEY PAY BACK THAT TARP
MONEY THAT THEY BENEFITED FROM
-- AND THEIR POSITION IS DO
NOTHING TO DEAL WITH THIS.
WE TAKE THE OPPOSITE POSITION. I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO
GENTLEMAN RESERVES THE BALANCE
OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA.
MR. BACHUS: THANK YOU.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD TWO
MINUTES TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA.
THE SP
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR TWO
MINUTES.
MR. BARRETT: MR. SPEAKER, I
RISE IN OPPOSITION OF THE
CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL
INSTUTION COMPENSATION FAIRNESS ACT OF 20.
RESTORING CONFIDENCE IN OUR
FINANCIAL MARKETS IS CRUCIAL,
MR. SPEAKER.
A COMPONENT IN BRINGING ABOUT
ECONOMIC RECOVERY, AND I
SUPPORT EFFORTS TO RESPONSIBLY
ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT LED TO
THE FINANCIAL CRISIS THAT WE'RE
FACING TODAY.
HOWEVER, 3269 DOES
EITHER.
INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING THE NEED
FOR SMARTER REGULATION, THIS
ILL REPRESENTS FURTHER
GOVERNMENT INTRUSION INTO THE
PRIVATE SECTOR THAT CULETLY
HINDER ECONOMIC RECOVERY.
IF THIS LEGISLATION IS PASSED,
IT W
FAR-REACHING AND PERMANENT
GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS ON THE
COMPENSATION PRACTICES OF
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS,
CRIPPLING THEIR ABILITY TO
RECRUIT TOP TALENT AND REMAIN
COMPETITIVE ABROAD AND HERE AT
HOME.
MR. SPEAKER, THIS BILL GOES TOO
FAR BY GIVING FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT THE AUTHORI TO
MAKE COMPENSATION DECISIONS FOR
A WIDE RANGE OF EMPLOYEES AND
THOUSANDS OF FINANCIAL FIRMS
ACROSS THE UNITED STATES, WHICH
WE CAN ALL AGREE IS A FAR CRY
FROM JUST CAPPING EXECUTIVE
PAY.
IN TOUGH ECONOMIC TIMES LIKE
THESE, WE NEED TO IF HE CUSS ON
WAYSO RESTORE CONFIDENCE --
WE NEED TO FIND WAYS TO RESTORE
CONFIDENCE IN AMERICAN
BUSINESSES THROUGH RESPONSIBLE
POLICIES THAT RESTORE MARKET
DISCIPLINE AND DISCOURAGE
EXECUTIVE RISK. -- EXCESSIVE RISK.
I BELIEVE WE CANNOT HAVE A FULL
ECONOMIC RECOVERY WITH A
PERMANENT OVERREACHING
REGULATIONS THAT THIS PUTS IN
PLACE BY THIS LEGISLATION.
I THEREFORE URGE MCOLLEAGUES
TO JOIN ME IN VOTING NO ON THIS
LEGISLATION, AND I YIELD BACK
THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
MR. FRANK: I YIELD FOUR MINUTES
TO A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE,
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA, MR.
SCOTT.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
FOUR MINUTES.
MR. SCOTT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. SPEAKER.
I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.
LET ME JUST START OUT BY SAYING THIS.
WE'RE HEARING COMPLAINTS FROM
THE OTHER SIDE ABOUT WE ARE TAKING OVER THE PRIVATE
ENTERPRI SYSTEM.
WE ARE TAKING OVER THE FREE
ENTERPRISE SYSTEM.
LET ME REMIND THEM THAT IT
WASN'T US THAT WENT TO THE
PRIVATE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM, IT
WASN'T THE GOVERNMENT THAT WENT
TO WALL STREET.
WALL STREET CAME TO THE
GOVERNMENT TO BAIL THEM OUT FROM THEIR BEHAVIORS.
NOW, MR. SPEAKER, THE AMERICAN
LANDSCAPE IS ABSOLUTELY
LITTERED WITH COMPANY AFTER
COMPANY THAT HAS BEEN DRIVEN
INTO THE GROUND BY EXECUTIVES
WHO WERE GREEDY, WHO WERE
SELFISH, CARED ONLY ABOUT
THEMSELVES WITH THESE HUGE
SALARIES AND THESE COMPANIES
ARE LEFT TO WITHER ON THE VINE
AFTER THEY HAVE GOTTEN THEIR
GOLDEN PARACHUTES AND VE
LANDED ELSEWHERE.
SOMEBODY NEEDS TO SAY SOMETHING
ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THIS IS A FREE ENTERPRISE
YSTEM, BUT IT'S NOT JUST FREE
FOR TOP EXECUTIVES
IT'S FREE FOR SHAREHOLDERS.
IT'S FREE FOR THOSE MEN AND
WOMEN WHO'VE GIVEN THEIR LIVES,
THEIR BLOOD, THEIR SWEAT AND
THEIR TEARS.
AND TO SEE THEIR COMPANIES IN
SHAMBLES BECAUSE OF EXCESSIVE
PAY BY EXECUTIVES WHO HAVE
ABANDONED THOSE COMPANIES, WHAT
ABOUT THEIR PENSI
WHAT ABOUT THEIR RETIREMENT
THAT HAVE GONE?
NO, MR. SPEAKER, THIS IS NOT
ABOUT TAKING OVER THE PRIVATE
ENTERPRISE SYSTEM.
MR. SPEAKER, THIS IS ABOUT
SAVING AND PROTECTING
ENTERPRISE SYSTEM SO THAT WE
ALL CAN BFREE TO PARTICIPATE
IN THE SYSTEM.
NOW, MR. SPEAKER, WHAT WE HAVE
BEFORE US HERE IS SOMETHING
BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT
FINANCIAL FIRMS PUT TOGETHER
COMPENSATION PACKAGES AND
BONUSES THAT WERE BASED ON
INCENTIVES, THAT WERE LAYDEN
WITH EXCESSIVE RISK THAT CAUSED
OUR FINANCIAL CRIS
BROUGHT THIS ECONOMY TO THE
EDGE OF COLLAPSE AND CAUSED US
HERE IN CONGRESS TO GO AND GET
OVER $2 TRILLION OF THE
AMERICAN TAXPAYERS' MONEY TO
BAIL THEM OUT.
NOW, THE FIRST ORDER OF
BUSINESS -- AND THIS IS W
THIS BILL THAT CHAIRMAN FRANK
HAS PUSHED AND I'M PROUD TO SAY
THAT WE WORKED ON THIS TOGETHER
OVER THREE YEARS AGO.
HAD WE HAD THAT BILL IN PLACE
THREE YEARS AGO WE MIGHT NOT
HAVE HAD THIS FINANCIAL CRISIS
BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE BEEN ABLE
TO REIN IN THE RISKY CORPORATE
BEHAVIOR THAT BROUGHT ABOUT THE
COLLAPSE.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.
WE'RE PUTTING FORWARD SOME
REASONABLE MEANS HERE.
WHAT IS MORE REASONABLE THAN
GIVING THE SHAREHOLDERS A
SIMPLE SAY, A VOTE?
IT'S NONBINDING.
WE'RE NOT SETTING THE SALARIES.
EVEN THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE NOT.
BUT DON'T THEY HAVE A RIGHT?
ISN'T THEIR COMPANY?
THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE
PUMPING THE MONEY INTO IT.
THE OTHER FEATURE ABOUT THE
BILL, MRSPEAKER, THAT IS VERY
SIMPLE, VERY REASONABLE IS THAT
WE REQUIRE THESE COMPENSATION
COMMITTEES THAT ARE ON THESE
BOARDS TO BE INDEPENDENT.
RIGHT NOW IT'S A COZY
RELATIONSHIP.
THE C.E.O. REFERS TO THEAS
HIS BOARD.
THEY'RE HAND PICKED.
THEY'RE PAID $50,000, $100,000,
$200,000 TO COME AND SIT.
THEY NEED TO BE INDEPENDENT,
AND WE HAVE RULES AND
REGULATIONS IN THE BILL THAT
ALLOW FOR THE REGULATORS TO
DETERMINE WHAT THESE CONDITIONS
WILL BE TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE
INDEPENDENT.
WE MAKE SURE THAT THE
CONSULTANTS WHO COME IN AND
HELP SET UP THESE COMPENSATION
PACKAGES ARE THERE.
THE OTHER POINT WE DO HERE, MR.
SPEAKER, WHICH IS IMPORTANT, WE
ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT AS
WE MOVE FORWARD IN THIS
RISKY BEHAVIOR IS DISCLOSED SO
THAT WE CAN PREVENT IT.
IT'S A VERY GOOD BILL, MR.
SPEAKER.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA.
MR. BACHUS: THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
I YIELD TWO MINUTES TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY, MR.
LANCE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR TWO
MINUTES.
MR. LANCE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. SPEAKER.
I RISE OUT OF CONCERN FOR
SECTION 4 OF THIS BILL.
WE HAD HAD AN AMENDMENT IN THE
RULES COMMITTEE THAT I OFFERED WITH THE DISTINGUISHED
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA, AND IT
WAS RULED OUT OF ORDER BY THE
RULES COMMITTEE.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE AMENDMENT
WAS GERMANE, DRAFTED PROPERLY
AND SUBMITTED ON TIME.
AND THE AMENDMENT DEALT WITH
SECTION 4.
REGARDING SECTION 4, I BELIEVE,
SIR, THAT IT IS OVERLY BROAD
AND IN PARTICULAR I AM
CONCERNED WITH A SECTION THAT
SAYS REGARDING INCENTIVE-BASED
COMPENSATION THAT FEDERAL
REGULATORS CAN REVIEW THAT
BASED UPON OTHER CRITERIA AS
THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL
REGULATORS JOINTLY MAY
DETERMINE TO BE APPROPRIATE TO
REDUCE UNREASONABLE INCENTIVES
FOR OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.
TO TAKE UNDUE RISKS.
THAT GIVES TOO MUCH DISCRETION
TO FEDERAL REGULATORS AND WE
SHOULD BE SPECIFIC AS MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS IN THE STATUTORY
BASIS FOR COMPENSATION ISSUES.
I AM ALSO CONCERNED THAT IF
THIS BECOMES LAW, THAT THERE
WILL BE A TENDENCY FOR CAPITAL
TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE UNITED
STATES, PLACES LIKE LONDON AND
ASIA, THIS IS A MATTER I
DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY IN THE
COMMITTEE AND I CERTAINLY
BELIEVE WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO
BE THE PLACE IN THE WORLD WHERE
THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY OCCURS.
OUR AMENDMENT IN NO WAY TAKES
AWAY THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF
THE BILL REGARDING SAY ON PAY
AND THE INDEPENDENCE OF
COMPENSATION BOARDS.
BUT I AM SORRY OUR AMENDMENT
WAS NOT CONSIDERED FAVORABLY IN
THE RULES COMMITTEE AND
THEREFORE WILL NOT BE
CONSIDERED FAVORABLY HERE.
THIS MORNING A REPORT FROM
BLOOMBERG INDICATES THAT THE
WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY MR.
GIBBS SAID YESTERDAY THE
ADMINISTRATION IS CONCERNED
THAT THE MEASURE MAY GIVE
REGULATORS TOO MUCH SAY ON
INCENTIVE PAY.
I AGREE WITH THAT SENTIMENT.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
MR. FRANK: I YIELD MYSELF 30
SECONDS TO SAY ON BEHALF OF THE
THIS TEMPORARY
DEFERENCE TO THEIR VIEWS.
I URGE THEM TO ENJOY THAT BRIEF
MOMENT OF GRACIOUSNESS.
I YIELD FOUR MINUTES TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. GREEN: MR. CHAIRMAN, JAL
THOUGH THEY ARE NOT MY WORDS,
WE HAVE HEARD THAT IT TAKES AN
ACT OF CONGRESS TO GET MANY
THINGS DONE.
I WOULD ONLY ADD TO THIS WHAT I
HAVE HEARD, IT ALSO TAKES A
CONGRESS WIL
THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO ACT.
THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO DO
WHAT DR. KING CALLED BENDING
THE ARC OF THE MORAL UNIVERSIT
TOWARD JUSTICE THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION IS JUST GIVEN THE
CIRCUMSTANCE THIS IS A WE HAVE
BEEN COPING WITH.
THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT MANY
C.E.O.'S HAVE HAD THEIR PAY
STRUCTURED SUCH THAT NO MATTER
WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR
ACTIONS, THEY WERE GOING TO
RECEIVE ENORMOUS BONUSES.
I THINK THERE ARE TWO GOOD
REASONS TO SUPPORT THIS
LEGISLATN.
ONE, IT DEALS WITH THE SAFETY
AND SOUNDNESS OF THE BANKING INSTITUTIONS
IT PERFORMS PERFECTLY, IF IT
DOES JUST THIS AS FAR AS I'M
CONCERNED, IF IT ALLOWS A
BANKING REGULATOR WHO SEES THAT
THE STRUCTURE OF PAY IS
IMPACTING THE SAFETY AND
SOUNDNESS OF THE INSTITUTION,
FIT ALLOW THIS IS REGULATOR TO
TAKE SOME AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO
PROTECT THE SAFETY AND
SOUNDNESS OF THE INSTITUTION,
THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION IS
WORKING.
THAT'S WHAT IT'S DESIGNED TO DO
NOT TO STRUCTURE THE PAY, BUT
TO PREVENT THE PAY FROM CAUSING
ORDINARY PEOPLE TO HAVE TO BAIL
OUT BIG BANKS.
PEOPLE ARE EXPECTING US TO DO
SOMETHING TO PREVENT THIS FROM
HAPPENING AGAIN.
IF WE ARE GOING TO ACT THIS IS
A MEANS BY WHICH WE CAN ACT.
TALKING ABOUT THAT WHICH WE
CANNOT DAND WILL NOT DO, THAT
IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, THAT WILL
NOT HELP US DO WHAT WE CAN DO TODAY.
I NEVER LET WHAT I CANNOT DO
PREVENT ME FROM DOING WHAT I
CAN DO THE SECOND REASON I
SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION, THIS
LEGISLATION ALLOWS
SHAREHDERS, BY THE WAY, I
TRUST SHAREHOLDERS, I THINK
PEOPLE WHO HAVE A VESTED
INTEREST IN SOMETHING OUGHT TO
HAVE SOME SAY.
I THINK THEY OUGHT TO BE ABLE
TO KNOW WHAT THE SALARY
STRUCTURE IS AND SAY SOMETHING
ABOUT IT.
IN THIS CASE, IT IS NONBINDING.
THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE
OF THE OPINION THAT NONBINDING
IS NOT ENOUGH.
BUT I TRUST THE SHAREHOLDERS TO
HAVE AN OPINION. THEY HAVE BUT AN OPINION.
THEY DON'T DO ANYTHING TO BIND THE CORPORATION.
THESE TWO REASONS, WHEN
COMBINED, WILL HELP US WITH THE
SAFETY AND SOUNDNESS OF THESE
STEWINGS AND GIVE THE
SHAREHOLDERS AN OPPORTUNITY
KNOW HOW THE SALARIES ARE
STRUCTUREDND HAVE SOME SAY.
FINALLY IF WE WANT TO BE A
CONGRESS THAT ACTS, WE'VE GOT TO HAVE COURAGE.
THESE ARE -- THESE ARE TRYING
TIMES.
THESE ARE DIFFICULT TIMES.
IT IS EASY TO STAY WITH THE
STATUS QUO.
THOSE WHO WANT CHANGE HAVE GOT
TO BE WILLING TO TAKE THE RISK
OF DOING THE RIGHT THING.
THE ARC OF THE MORAL UNIVERSITY
BENDS TOWARD JUSTICE BUT IT
DOESN'T DO SO BY ITSELF.
IT DOES SO BECAUSE OF PEOPLE
WHO ARE WILLING TO DO THE RIGHT
THING UNDER UNUSUAL AND
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.
I AM GOING TO STAND WITH THE
CHAIRMAN, I BELIEVE THE
CHAIRMAN IS IMMENTLY CORRECT
HE HAS STRUCTURED A GREAT PIECE
OF LEGISLATION, THOSE WHO
REALLY WANT CHANGE WILL VOTE
FOR THIS LEGISLATION.
THOSE WHO WANT TO SEE A BETTER
SYSTEM SO THAT WE DON'T END UP
WITH MOR
READ, BAILED OUT BANKS GAVE
MILLIONS IN EXECUTIVE
NOT WITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT
THESE BANKS HAVE BEEN -- THEY
HAVE NOT BEEN MANAGED PROPERLY
AND COULD HAVE BEEN MANAGED A
LOT BETTER.
THESE KINDS OF HEADLINES ARE
GOING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR A
LOT OF PEOPLE.
I AM GOING TO VOTE WITH THE
CHAIRMAN.
I'M VOTING FOR THE BILL.
IT IS A GOOD BILL.
IT IS A JUST BILL.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK HIS TIME.
THE GE
MR. BACHUS: I YIELD FOUR
MINUTES TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS, MR. HENSARLING.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
FOUR MINUTES.
MR. HENSARLING: I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING, MR.
SPEAKER. THERE ARE ASCTS OF THIS
LEGISLATION THAT I CERTAINLY
APPRECIATE.
ALL AMERICANS HAVE BEEN
OUTRAGED, IT'S A WORD WE USE
FREQUENTLY AND USE JUSTIFIABLY.
ABOUT SOME OF THE COMPENSATION
PACKAGES WE'VE SEEN FROM FAILED
COMPANY THIS IS A COME WITH TIN
CUP IN HAND TO THE UNITED
STATES TAXPAYER.
LOOKING FOR
THIS BILL HAS SOME PROVISIONS
THAT ADDS INCREASED
TRANSPARENCY, SOME INCREASED
ACCOUNTABILITY, AND THAT'S
GOOD.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THE BAD IN
THE BILL WAY OUTSHADOWS THE
GOOD.
SO WHAT I'VE ALWAYS SAID, MR.
SPEAKER IS WHAT YOU DO WITH
YOUR MONEY IS YOUR BUSINESS.
WHAT YOU DO WITH THE TAXPAYER
MONEY IS OUR BUSINESS.
MR. SPEAKER, UNFORTUNATELY, YOU
CAN'T JUST READ THE BUMPER
STICKER SLOGAN.
YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO READ THE
LEGISLATION.
SO WE HEAR SPEECH AFTER SPEECH
ABOUT THESE FAILED INSTITUTIONS
TAKING IN ALL OF THIS
GOVERNMENT MONEY.
WELL, I WONDER THEN, WHY IN
COMMITTEE ON A PARTY LINE VOTE
DID WE VOTE DOWN AN AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT I BROUGHT THAT WOULD
HAVE ENSURED THAT THE BAILOUT
RECIPIENTS, THAT THIS
LEGISLATION APPLIED TO THEM AND
THEM ONLY.
THEY'RE THE POSTER CHILDREN IN
THIS DEBATE, BUT YET THE
LEGISLATION EXTENDS POTENTIALLY
TO EVERY PUBLIC COMPANY IN
AMERICA THAT SOMEHOW IS DEFINED
AS A QUOTE-UNQUOTE COVERED
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.
BY THE WAY, I WOULD SAY TO MY
FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE, THE BEST WAY TO DEAL
WITH RISKY PAY SCHEMES IS TO
QUIT BAILING THEM OUT IN THE
FIRST PLACE.
MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE ARE ENSHRINING US AS
A BAILOUT NATION SYSTEM OF YOU
COMPLAIN ABOUT THE TAXPAYERS
PICKING UP THE TAB, I'VE
COMPLAINED ABOUT THE TAXPAYERS
PICKING UP THE TAB.
QUIT BAILING THEM OUT IN THE
FIRST PLACE.
NOW, AGAIN, WE HAVE TO READ THE
BILL AND NOT JUST READ THE
SLOGAN.
BECAUSE IF YOU READ THE BILL,
WHAT YOU FIND OUT IS, NUMBER
ONE, THIS ISN'T JUST PAY
RESTRICTIONS THAT GO TO THOSE
IN THE TROUBLED WALL STREET
RMS.
AGAIN IT'S ALMOST EVERY COVERED
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.
GUESS WHAT?
IF YOU READ FURTHER INTO THE
BILL, IT DOESN'T JUST
TOP
EXECUTIVES.
EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE, EVERY
SINGLE EMPLOYEE WHO HAS A
YET-UNQUOTE INCENTIVE-BASED CAN
-- A QUOTE-UNQUOTE
INCENTIVE-BASED COMPENSATION
CAN BE COVERED BY THIS.
WE'VE LEARNED THAT SOMEHOW WORK
A VERY INTRERPTIVE APPROACH TO
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE THAT
GENERAL MOTORS AND CHRYSLER
HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS.
THIS MEANS ANY EMPLOYEE, ANY
EMPLOYEE WHO RECEIVES A TIP A
SALES COMMISSION A CHRISTMAS
BONUS COULD HAVE A FEDERAL
BUREAUCRAT TAKE IT AWAY FROM THEM.
HO, HO, HO.
THAT'S WHAT THIS LEGISLATION IS
ALL ABOUT.
DON'T GET SUCKED IN BY THE
BUMPER STICKER SLOGAN.
REA
THAT WAS THE PROBLEM ON THE
ORIGINAL BAILOUT.
NOBODY READ THE LEGISLATION.
THE GOVERNMENT STIMULUS, NOBODY
READ THE LEGISLATION.
WELL,
1,000-PAGE BILL.
I THINK IT'S 15 OR 20 PAGES.
I ACTUALLY TOOK THE TIME TO
READ IT.
IF THIS IS JUST ABOUT CLASS
WARFARE, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHY
DOESN'T THIS DO ANYTHING ABOUT
HOLLYWOOD STARS WHO MAKE
MILLION FOR A MOVIE, YET THE MOVIE LOSES MONEY?
WHY ISN'T IT ABOUT A THIRD
BASEMAN FOR THE NEW YORK
YANKEES WHO GETS $21 MILLION
AND TIES HIS WORST RECORD FOR
STRIKING OUT IN THE SEASON?
WHY DOESN'T HAVE HAVE -- WHY
DOESN'T THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO
DO WITH THE PERSONAL INJURY
TRIA
AND MILLIONS AND THEICLIENTS
ARE DOING GOOD TO MAKE
THOUSANDS.
MAY I HAVE AN ADDITIONAL MINUTE?
MR. BACHUS: I YIELD THE
GENTLEMAN AN ADDITIONAL MINUTE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. HENSARLING: I HEAR THE
RHETORIC FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE WHICH SEEMS LIKE A
LOT OF RECYCLED CLASS WARFARE
TO ME.
ANOTHER POINT I'D MAKE, WE HEAR
THAT WE NEED THIS TO DEAL WITH
SAFETY AND SOUNDNESS.
WE NEED THIS LEGISLATION TO
DEAL WITH SYSTEMIC RISK.
WELL, NUMBER ONE, I LISTENED
VERY CAREFULLY TO THE TESTIMONY
PRESENTED IN OUR COMMITTEE AND
I'M SURE IT'S THEORETICALLY
POSSIBLE THAT THERE ARE PAY
STRUCTURE THIS IS A MAY LEND
THEMSELVES TO THIS, BUT AGAIN,
WHAT -- SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE.
WHEN I LOOK AT PAY STRUCTURES
AMONG FINANCIAL FIRM THIS IS A
FAIL VERSUS THOSE THAT DIDN'T
FAIL, I DON'T SEE THE CORRELATION.
SECOND OF ALL, AS WE KNOW, MR.
SPEAKER, THE REGULATORS HAVE
THE POWER TO REGULATE THE
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL STANDARDS
OF THESE FINANCIAL FIRMS TO
MAKE IT COMMENSURATE WITH THE
RISK.
THAT'S REMEDY.
THAT'S THE REMEDY.
NOT TO TAKE CHRISTMAS BONUSES
AWAY FROM EMPLOYEES.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
MR. FRANK: I YIELD MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. FRK: THERE'S A
CONTRADICTION HERE, WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT A POWER, NAMELY
TO REDUCE EXCESSIVE RISK
INCENTIVIZING BONUS THIS IS A
REPUBLICANS WANT TO DEFEND THEY
TALK ABOUT THE UNELECTED
BUREAUCRATS.
THE UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS CAN'T
BE TRUSTED, EXCEPT THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS SAID,
DON'T WORRY, THE UNELECTED
BUREAUCRATS ARE OUT THERE TO
PROTECT US.
THE UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS IN
THE REPUBLICAN COST
OPHTHALMOLOGY ARE LIKE THE
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, THEY ARE
EITHER GREAT WHIPPING BOYS OR
SOURCES OF WISDOM, DEPENDING ON
HOW THE REPUBLICANS HAVE THEM.
BUT I AM INTERESTED, I NOTICE A
NUMBER OF MEMBER SAYS THEY
DON'T LIKE THE BONUSES.
IS THERE A REPUBLICAN PROPOSAL
TO DEAL WITH T BONUSES THAT
ARE BEING GIVEN?
OUR PROPOSAL DOES NOT EMPOWER
ANYBODY TO LIMIT THE AMOUNTS.
THE QUESTION IS, IS THERE A
REPUBLICAN PROPOSAL THAT WOULD
DEAL WITH WHAT PAUL VOLCKER AND
BEN BERNANKE AND THE FINANCIAL
REGULATORS IN ENGLAND AND
WARREN BUFFETT AND MANY OTHERS
BELIEVE IS A DESTABILIZING
TENDENCY TO GIVE OUT BONUS THIS
IS A GIVE YOU AN INCENTIVE TO
TAKE RISKS, EXCESSIVE,
EXCESSIVE IN THE SENSE THAT YOU
BENEFIT IF THE RISK PAYS OFF
AND YOU DON'T LOSE.
WE WANT PEOPLE TO TAKE RISK,
BUT WE WANT THEM TO TAKE RISK
THIS IS A BALANCE THE UPSIDE
AND DOWNSIDE, NOT WHICH LOOK ONLY AT THE UPSIDE.
I CONTINUE TO POINT OUT, NOT IN
THE COMMITTEE, NOT IN 12 YEARS
WHENHEY CONTROLLED THE PLACE,
NOT DURING THIS DEBATE TODAY,
NOT IN THE RULES COMMITTEE, WE
HAVE NOT SEEN A SINGLE
REPUBLICAN PROPOSAL TO DEAL WITH BONUSES.
THEIR POSITION APPARENTLY IS,
HOWEVER THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY
WANTS TO STRUCTURE BONUSES, YOU
GET A BONUS IF IT PAYS OFF IN
SHORT TERM AND TUSHES SOUR IN
THE LONG TERM YOU GET A BONUS
IF IT PAYS OFF AND DON'T LOSE
ANYTHING IF IT DOESN'T.
THEY WANT TO LEAVE THAT THE
SAME.
LAST CONSENSUS AMONG FINANCIAL
REGULATORS AND OTHERS THAT THIS
CONTRIBUTED TO RISK TAKING.
WE BELIEVE IN THE FREE MARKET
SYSTEM AND THE INCENTIVES.
HOW CAN IT BE YOU ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT THERE'S A SYSTEM THAT SAYS
TO PEOPLE, TAKE A RISK BECAUSE
THIS IS
THAT'S THE PROBLEM, IT'S
RISK-FREE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL.
IT'S RISKY FOR THE COMPANY.
WHEN YOU ACCUMULATE RISKERS IN
COMPANY, IT'S RISKY FOR THE
ECONOMY.
WE SAY IF IT'S RISKY FOR THE
COMPANY AND THE ECONOMY, WE
WANT IT RISKY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL.
WE DON'T WANT RISKY INDIVIDUALS
TAKING RISKS ON THE --
RISK-FREE INDIVIDUALS TAKING
RISKS ON BEHALF OF PEOPLE WHO
FACE RISKS.
LET US RETURN TO THE THRILLING
DAYS OF YESTERYEAR WHEN
LOREN RANGERS WILL RIDE AGAIN,
UNTRAMMELED BY ANY SET OF RULE,
THEY'LL CONTINUE TO GIVE
THEMSELVES BONUSES TO ALLOW
THEM TO BE FREE OF RISK.
THAT'S DEAL.
THE COMPANY WILL FACE RISK, THE
ECONOMY WILL ACCUMULATE AND
FACE RISK, BUT THE DECISION
MAKERS WILL BE FREE OF THE
RISKS, NEGATIVE SID THEY WILL
GAIN FROM THE RISKS, POSITIV
SIDE, AND LIKE RATIONAL PEOPLE,
THEY'LL TAKE MORE RISKS.
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA.
MR. BACHUS: I YIELD TWO MINUTES
TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR TWO
MINUTES. MR. CAMPBELL: THANK YOU.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR
YIELDING.
I HEAR THE GENTLEMAN'S COMMENTS
AND REMARKS.
AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO
ARGUMENT WITH ANYONE I THINK ON
THIS FLOOR ABOUT THE -- THAT EXECUTIVE PAY HAS BEEN AN
ISSUE, THAT HAS BEEN EXCESSIVE
AND THAT THERE HAS BEEN
PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED
IN COMPANIES IN THE ECONOMY
WITH EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION. I THINK I WOULD ARGUE THAT
RATHER THAN EXCESSIVE RISK
TAKING THAT IT'S MORE ABOUT
SHORT-TERM THINKING INSTEAD OF
LONG-TERM THINKING WHICH BY THE
WAY IS WAY BETTER THAN
EXECUTIVE -- WAY BIGGER THAN EXECUTIVE PAY.
THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE.
BUT THE QUESTION FOR ME IS
WHETHER THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY
TO DEAL WITH IT, AND I WOULD
ARGUE NO, BECAUSE IS THE ONLY
OBLEM OUT THERE IN CORPORATE
THAT HAS CREATED PROBLEMS FOR
COMPANIES RELATED TO EXECUTIVE
PAY.
NO.
LET'S LOOK AT GENERAL MOTORS
AND CHRYSLER AND THEIR RECENT PROBMS.
WERE THEIR PROBLEMS CREATED
BECAUSE OF EXECUTIVE PAY?
I AM NOT SURE I HEARD ANYBODY ARGUE THAT.
BUT WERE THEIR PROBLEMS CREATED
IN PART BECAUSE OF EXCESSIVE UNION CONTRACTS?
YES.
HOW ABOUT OF RETIREMENT
PROGRAMS THAT WERE UNFUNDABLE
OVER TIME?
YES.
WHAT ABOUT OTHER COMPANIES
WHERE PERHAPS THERE HAVE BEEN
LEGAL SETTLEMENTS THAT HAVE
CREATED PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN
FATAL OR RESULTED IN COMPANIES
GOING BANKRUPT? THOS
HOW ABOUT MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS?
SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?
ARE WE GOING TO HAVE
SHAREHOLDERS VOTE ON PAY, ON
MERGERS, ON ACQUISITIONS, ON
UNION CONTRACTS, ON RETIREMENT
PAY, ON LEGAL SETTLEMENTS, ON
FEES TO ATTORNEYS?
WELL, NOW, ANY OF THOSE
ARGUABLY CAN BRING A COMPANY
DOWN.
AND ISN'T THAT -- SHLD THE
SHAREHOLDERS HAVE A SAY ON
THAT?
YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE
SHAREHOLDERS ARE THE ULTIMATE
OWNERS OF THE COMPANY.
IF YOU WANT TO GIVE THEM A SAY
ON PAY, FINE.
THEN YOU BETTER GIVE THEM SAY
ON THE REST OF THAT.
BUT I AM NOT SURE THAT ANYBODY
ON THIS FLOOR THINKS THAT'S THE
RIGHT THING TO DO.
THE BEST WAY FOR SHAREHOLDERS
TO EXPRESS THEIR DISPLEASURE
WITH THE MANAGEMENT OR
OPERATION OF A COMPANY IS
AND THAT'S THE WAY IT HAS BEEN
DONE AND THAT'S THE WAY IT
SHOU
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA.
MR. SCOTT: YES, MR. SPEAKER.
I ELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
NORTH CAROLINA, MR. MILLER,
FOUR MINUTES -- THREE MINUTES.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
THREE MINUTES.
MR. MILLER: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
MR. CAMPBELL ON GIVING
SHAREHOLDERS MUCH MORE -- MUCH MORE POWER OVER THEIR OWN
CORPORATIONS.
THERE IS MUCH MORE WE NEED TO
DO TO REFORM CORPORATE
GOVERNANCE IN THIS COUNTRY.
IT'S ONE OF MANY FAILINGS OF
OUR ECONOMY IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO.
MR. SPEAKER, I DON'T WANT TO
RUN CORPORATIONS, BUT SOMEONE
NEEDS TO SET SOME RULES.
WE NEED THE LAW TO SET SOME
RULES.
WE NEED SOMEONE TO PROVIDE SOME OVERSIGHT.
WE NEED SOMEONE TO BE A
WATCHDOG FOR WHAT THEY ARE
DOING BECAUSE WE HAVE FOUND OUT
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE ARE NO
RULES, WHEN THERE IS NO
OVERSIGHT, WHEN THERE IS NO
WATCHDOG.
WE ARE NOW IN THE WORST
ECONOMIC DOWNTURN SINCE THE
GREAT DEPRESSION, AND WE HAVE
BEEN CLOSE TO A FINANCIAL
COLLAPSE THAT WOULD HAVE LEFT
THE GREAT DEPRESSION IN THE
SHADE.
AND WE KNOW WHAT CAUSED IT.
ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THINGS
THAT WENT WRONG IN THE 1920'S.
CORPORATE EXECUTIVES WERE
LOOTING THE COUNTRY WITH
PREDATORY LENDING PRACTICES TO
MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS THEY
POSSIBLY COULD WITHOUT ANY
REGARD TO THE CONSEQUENCES. AND THEN THE CORPORATE
EXECUTIVES IN TURN WERE LOOTING
THEIR COMPANIES TO MAKE AS MUCH
MONEY FOR THEMSELVES AS COULD.
THEY WEREN'T DOING RIGHT BY
AMERICAN CONSUMERS.
THEY WEREN'T DOING RIGHT BY
THEIR OWN SHAREHOLDERS.
THEY WERE ONLY LOOKING AFTER THEMSELVES.
THE IDEA THAT CORPORATE
EXECUTIVES WERE ACTING IN THE
BEST INTEREST OF THEIR OWN
SHAREHOLDERS IS SIMPLY A
WE SAW VULLINGAR COMPENSATION
FOR EXECUTIVES -- VULGAR
COMPENSATION FOR EXECUTIVES AND
OTHER TOP OFFICIALS WHO WERE
DOING VERY LITTLE OF ANY VALUE
TO SOCIETY.
IN FACT, THEIR PREDATORY
LENDING PRACTICES WERE DOING
MUCH MORE HARM THAN GOOD, AND
IT WASN'T EVEN TO THE BENEFIT
OF THEIR SHAREHOLDERS BECAUSE OF THE RISK THAT THEY WERE
CREATING FOR THEIR CORPORATION,
THAT THE SHORT-TERM PROFITS
WOULD LEAD TO GREAT RISK IN A
VERY SHORT WHILE.
THIS BILL IS PART OF WHAT WE
NEED TO DO.
IT IS ONLY PART OF WHAT WE NEED
TO DO.
THIS JUST SCRATCHES THE SURFACE.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
FINANCIAL COLLAPSE THAT WE HAVE
SEENN THE LAST YEAR NEVER
HAPPEN
THIS BILL IS ONLY PART OF IT.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA.
MR. BACHUS: THANK YOU.
THREE MINUTES TO THE GENTLEMAN
FROM DELAWARE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
THREE MINUTES.
MR. CASTLE: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
AND I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.
AND, MR. SPEAKER, I RISE IN
STRONG OPPOSITION TO H.R. 3269,
THE CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL
INSTITUTION COMPENSATION
IRNESS ACT.
THIS OVERREACHING BILL, WHICH
IS BEING SOLD AS A RESPONSE TO
THE FINANCIAL CRIS, WOULD IN
EFFECT TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF
INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES TO CONDUCT
BUSINESSES AS THEY SEE FIT.
IN PLACES GOVERNMENT
BUREAUCRATS IN CHARGE OF MAKING
KEY DECISIONS ABOUT HOW
BUSINESSES SHOULD BE RUN.
WE CAN AGREE THAT SOME
EXECUTIVES IN THIS COUNTRY ARE
GROSSLY OVERPAID, BUT ALLOWING
GOVERNMENT TO MAKE SUCH
DETERMINATIONS IS COUNTER TO
EVERYTHING THAT'S MADE OUR
COUNTRY GREAT.
AMERICA HA
ECONOMIC POWERHOUSE IN THE
WORLD, BUT THIS BILL RESTRICTS
COMPETITION THROUGH GOVERNMENT
INTERVENTION IN A WAY THAT
INFRINGES ON THE
ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT OF THIS NATION.
SECTION 4 OF H.R. 3269 WOULD
ACTUALLY ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT
TO INVOLVE ITSELF IN THE
RUNNING OF PRIVATE BUSINESSES
BY EMPOWERING FEDERAL
REGULATORS TO PROHIBIT
COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR
ALL EMPLOYEES OF ALL FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING BANKS,
BANK HOLDING COMPANIES, BROKER
DEALERS, CREDIT UNIONS AND
INVESTMENT ADVISORS.
EVEN REGULATORS UNDER THE CURRENTED A MFRLINGS HAVE
TESTIFIED THAT THEY DO NOT --
CURRENT ADMINISTRATION HAVE
TESTIFIED THAT THEY DO NOT WANT
TO CAP PAY FOR HOW COMPANIES
SHOULD SET COMPENSATION WHICH
COULD BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE
HOWEVER, THE MAJORITY HAS
IGNORED THE ADMINISTRATION'S
WISHES BY ADDING SECTION 4 OF H.R. 3269.
THIS BILL IS AN OVERREACTION TO
THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRIS.
LIKE MANY, I AM CONCERNED THAT
EXECUTIVES IN A HANDFUL OF
LARGE COMPANIES LIKE A.I.G.
HAVE BEEN AWARDED EXTRAFFIC GET
PAY PACKAGES AND BONUSES EVEN
AFTER THE COMPANY RECEIVED
ASSISTANCE FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
IN THIS CASE, WHEN FEDERAL
ASSISTANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED, I
DO BELIEVE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SHOULD MANDATE THE
PAY STRUCTURE OF THESE FIRMS,
WHICH IS WHY I VOTED FOR AN
AMENDMENT DURING COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3269 TO
ONLY APPLY THE PROVISIONS TO
TARP RECIPIENTS FOR THE TIME
THE TARP MONEY IS OUTSTANDING.
THIS AMENDMENT WAS REJECTED, LEAVING MANY FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS WHO DID NOT
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CURRENT
CRISIS TO PAY FOR THE MISTAKES
OF OTHERS.
FINALLY, THIS BILL UNDERMINES
THE PRIVACY OF CORPORATE
GOVERNANCE LAWS.
LAWS HAVE BEEN LEFT UP TO THE
STATES LEAVING THEM TO FOSTER
COMPETION.
FOR THIS REASON, I SUPPORT MR.
GARRETT'S AMENDMENT TO ALLOW
STATE LAW TO PREEMPT THE
UNDERLYING BILL.
H.R. 3269 WAS INTRODUCED
WITHOUT A SINGLE LEGISLATIVE
HEARING TO EXAMINE ITS
FAR-REACHING IMPLICATIONS
DESPITE NUMEROUS PEOPLE FROM
THE FINANCIAL SERVICES
COMMITTEE.
I BELIEVE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND I
URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE NO
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
ASK IF I COULD RESERVE FOR ONE
MORE SPEAKER WHILE I WORK MG
OUT.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
--
MR. FRANK: ONE MORE SPEAK WHILE
I WORK SOMETHING OUT.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES THE BALANCE
OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA.
MR. BACHUS: I YIELD
TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORA,
MR. PRICE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR TWO
MINUTES.
MR. PRICE: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO REVISE AND EXTEND MY
REMARKS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: SO
ORDERED. MR. PRICE: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
I THANK MY FRIEND FROM ALABAMA
FOR YIELDING ME TIME AND FOR LEADING ON THIS ISSUE.
WHAT WE HEAR FROM THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE ALE IS THIS
FAMOUS OLD PHRASE, TRUST US. RIGHT?
TRUST US.
NOW, WE KNOW THAT FOLKS ON THE
OTHER SIDE DON'T HAVE ANY RELUCTANCE TO HAVE THE
GOVERNMENT RUN THINGS.
WE'VE SEEN IT OVER AND OVER AND
OVER AGAIN.
IN FACT, WE JUST HEARD IT FROM
ONE OF THE SPEAKERS, WE DON'T
AND THEN HE FOLLOWED THAT UP
AND SAID, BUT THIS IS ONLY PART
OF WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
BUT THE BILL, MR. SPEAKER, THE
BILL HAS LANGUAGE IN IT THAT
WOULD IN EFFECT ALLOW THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DETERMINE
PAY COMPENSATION FOR EMPLOYEES,
AND THAT MIGHT BE ALL RIGHT IF
IT WERE JUST COMPANIES THAT
WERE RECEIVING TAX MONEY.
THAT MIGHT BE OK.
BUT IN FACT IT'S NOT.
IT IS SO MANY OTHER COMPANIES.
COVERED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS,
THE DEFINITION IN THE BILL
WOULD EXPOSE COMPANIES LIKE
C.V.S. CARE MARK, YES, WELL
CARE HEALTH PLAN, VALUE LINE,
TEXTRON, MEDCO HEALTH
SOLUTIONS, LOWE'S CORPORATION.
MR. SPEAKER, THIS IS ANOTHER
FAR REACH BY THE DEMOCRATS IN
CHARGE WHO BELIEVE THAT THE
GOVERNMENT KNOWS BEST, NOT JUST
ABOUT AUTOMOBILE COMPANIES, NOT
JUST ABOUT ENERGY COMPANIES,
NOT JUST ABOUT HOW TO SPEND
YOUR MONEY, NOT JUST ABOUT YOUR HEALTH CARE.
THEY'RE WORKING ON THAT
GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE
PLAN.
BUT ALSO PRIVATE COMPANIES
ACROSS THIS COUNTRY.
THEY BELIEVE THEY OUGHT TO COME
AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT YOU
SHOULD MAKE AND NOT MAKE.
NOBODY SHOULD BE CONCERNED
ABOUT HAVING SHAREHOLDERS GIVE
THEIR OPINION, HAVE A SAY ABOUT
WHAT EXECUTIVES MAKE WHEN
SHAREHOLDERS OWN PART OF THAT
COMPANY.
THAT MAKES A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE.
BUT WHAT WE DO HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT, GRAVE CONCERNS, IS THE
INTERVENTION OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT INTO ONE BUSINESS
AFTER ANOTHER AFTER ANOTHER.
THIS IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF
THAT.
IT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA.
IT STRIKES AT THE VERY CORE OF
THE FREE MARKET PRINCIPLES THAT
HAVE MADE THE GREATEST NATION
IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.
BAD IDEA,R. SPEAKER.
VOTE
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
MR. FRANK: WELL, MR. SPEAKER, I
YIELD MYSELF 15 SECONDS TO SAY
I WELCOME THE GENTLEMAN FROM
GEORGIA TO THE CAUSE OF SAY ON
FAY WHEN WE DEBATED THIS ON
MARCH 22, 2007, WEIGHS -- --
WHEN HE WAS QUITE CRITICAL OF
IT.
I NOW YIELD TO A QUESTION OF
THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLELADY IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. SPEIER: THANK YOU, --
MS. SPEIER: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
IN SECTION 4 OF THE BILL IT
DEFINES THE TERM COVERED
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO
INCLUDE DEPOSITORY
INSTITUTIONS, BROKER DEALERS,
CREDIT UNIONS AND INVESTMENT
ADVISORS.
BUT ALSO AUTHORIZES THE
APPROPRIATE FEDERAL REGULATORS
TO DESIGNATE JOINTLY BY RULE
OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
THAT ARE TO BE COVERED.
BECAUSE THIS AUTHORITY IS
GRANTED TO APPROPRIATE FEDERAL
REGULATORS, CAN WE ASSUME THAT
ENTITIES NOT REGULATED BY THE
FEDERAL FINANCIAL REGULATOR ARE
NOT INTENDED TO BE COVERED BY
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS?
MR. FRANK: YES.
AS TO SECTION 4.
IF THE PUBLIC COMPANIES THEY'RE
COVERED BY SAY ON PAY.
AND THERE MIGHT BE COMPANIES
THAT ARE NOT FEDERALLY
REGULATED.
AS OF NOW IF THEY ARE NOT
FEDERALLY REGULATED THEY ARE NOT COVERED.
BECAUSE A.I.G. WAS FEDERALRY
REGULATED BY THE O.T.S., SO
THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED.
BUT THE GENTLEWOMAN IS CORRECT.
I NOW YIELD THREE MINUTES TO
THE GE
SPEAKER, I HAVE NO FURTHER
REQUEST FOR TIME SO I AM GOING
TO RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES THE BALANCE
OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA.
MR. BACHUS: I THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
MR. CHAIRMAN, LET ME TIE UP A
FEW WHAT I CONSIDER LOOSE ENDS
ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION.
ONE IS THE MOTIVATION.
OF COURSE, WE'VE HEARD THAT ONE
OF THE MOTIVATIONS IS THAT
THESE PAY SCHEMES AND
ARRANGEMENTS COULD HEIGHTEN
RISK.
AND THEN IF ONE ENDORSES THE
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION APPROACH
THAT WOULD PRECIPITATE A
BAILOUT.
BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WOULD
CONTINUALLY HAVE TO ASSURE
AGAINST SOME OUTSIDE RISK.
AND AS I'VE SAID, THE
REPUBLICAN APPROACH IS SIMPLY,
DON'T BAIL THESE COMPANIES OUT
AND THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE
MICROMANAGING EVERY
COMPENSATION DECISION BY A
COMPANY.
I THINK THERE'S ANOTHER
MOTIVATION, AND I THINK IT'S A
VERY -- IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE.
CHAIRMAN FRANK WAS ON CNBC THIS
PAST TUESDAY, AND HE ASKED THIS
QUESTION.
IS THERE SOME CHARACTER DEFECT
WITH SOME PEOPLE WHERE THEY GET
HIRED THAT GIVE THEM A PRESTIGE
JOB BUT THEY REALLY WON'T DO IT
RIGHT UNLESS YOU GIVE THEM AN
EXTRA BONUS?
MOST OF US DON'T NEED THAT.
SO I'M WONDERING IF ONE
MOTIVATION FOR THIS LEGISLATION
IS SO THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN
DECIDE WHETHER PEOPLE NEED A
BONUS OR DON'T NEED A BONUS,
WHETHER THEY'RE DESERVING OF A
BONUS.
AND IN FACT SEVERAL PAGES OF
THE BILL DOES JUST THAT.
SOME PEOPLE MAY NOT NEED THAT
BONUS.
OTHER PEOPLE MAY.
THAT DECISION WILL BE MADE BY
THE LIST OF GOVERNMENT ENTITIES
ON PAGE 15, NOT BY
SHAREHOLDERS, EVEN THOUGH THIS
BI IS TROTTED OUT AS A
SHAREHOLDER BILL.
NOT BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
NOT BY THE MANAGEMENT, WHO AN
IMPORTANT TOOL OF MANAGEMENT IS
TO OFFER INCENTIVES AND
INCENTIVIZE PERFORMANCE AND
ACHIEVEMENT.
BUT APPARENTLY NOW IT'S THE
GOVERNMENT WILL DEC
YOU NEED A BONUS OR NOT.
THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS SCARY IN
MY MIND.
I RERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES THE BALANCE
OF HIS TIME. THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH
CAROLINA. MR. WATT: MR. SPEAKER, I YIELD
1 1/2 MINUTES TO THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MARYLAND, MR. VAN HOLLEN.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR 1 1/2 MINUTES.
SPEAKER.
I THANK MY COLLEAGUE FROM NORTH
CAROLINA FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON
THIS ISSUE.
IN THIS COUNTRY WE BELIEVE THAT
HARD WORK SCHAD BE REWARDED,
AND I -- SHOULD BE REWARDED,
AND I THINK THAT MOST PEOPLE IN
THIS COUNTRY BELIEVES IN THE
CONCEPT OF PAY FOR PERFORMANCE,
BUT WHAT WE'VE SEEN ON WALL
STREET OVER THE LAST MANY YEARS
IS TURNING THAT CONCEPT OF PAY
FOR PERFORMANCE ON ITS HEAD.
WE SAW C.E.O.'S AND THE FOLKS
IN THE WALL STREET BOARD ROOMS
GETTING HUGE BONUSES BASED ON
SHORT-TERM GAINS FOR THEIR
COMPANIES EVEN WHILE THAT
EXCESSIVE RISK TAKING PUT THOSE
INSTITUTIONS AT RISK.
IF IT WAS JUST THOSE
CONSTITUTIONS, -- JUST THOSE
INSTITUTIONS
LET THEM TAKE THE RISK.
IF IT WAS JUST THAT COMPANY AT
RISK, OK BUT THIS KIND OF
EXCESSIVE RISK TAKING WENT ON
AT THE BIGGEST FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS OF IN THIS COUNTRY
AND PUT THE ENTIRE ECONOMY AT
RISK, PUT THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM
AT RISK, AND AT THE END OF THE
DAY, PUT ALL OF THE TAXPAYERS
IN THIS COUNTRY ON THE LINE.
SO WE ALL HAVE A STAKE IN
CHANGING THE SYSTEM.
WE ALL HAVE A STAKE IN MAKING
SURE PEOPLE GET PAID FOR
PERFORMANCE AND NOT PAID BY
PUTTING TAXPAYERS IN THE
FINANCIAL SYSTEM -- AND THE
FINANCIAL SYSTEM AT RISK.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE
ALL HOLDING THE LINE, NOT JUST
THE C.E.O.'S AND SHAREHOLDERS.
MR. SPEAKER, IT'S TIME TO SAY
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
LET'S PASS THIS LEGISLATION TO
PROTECT CONSUMERS,
SHAREHOLDERS, AND THE TAXPAYER.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPOR
GENTLEMAN YIDS BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA.
MR. BACHUS: THANK YOU, MR.
I YIELD TWO MINUTES TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS, MR.
ROSKAM.
THSPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR TWO
MINUTES.
MR. ROSKAM: I WAS MINDING MY
OWN BUSINESS IN MY OFFICE, I'VE
BEEN LISTENING TO THIS DEBATE
AND FELT LIKE I NEEDED TO COME
AND POINT A COUPLE OF THINGS
OUT.
SOME REAL AKNESSES OF THIS
BILL.
I'M HEARING FROM MANUFACTURERS,
MR. SPEAKER, IN MY DISTRICT WHO
ARE PARTICUL
ABOUT STION 4 OF THE BILL,
THEY'RE MAKING THEIR CONCERNS
KNOWN THROUGH THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS.
THEY SAID THEY ARE CONCERNED
THAT THIS BILL WOULD GIVE
AUTHORITY TO GOVERNMENT
REGULATORY AGENCIES TO REVIEW
AND PROHIBIT PAY ARRANGEMENTS
FOR A WADE RANGE OF EMPLOYEES.
AS A RESULT, THEY STRONGLY
OPPOSE THE INTERVENTION OF
GOVERNMENT.
I'M THE FIRST TO SAY IF YOU
TOOK BAILOUT MONEY IF YOU TOOK
TARP MONEY, BE IN THIS
CATEGORY.
THOSE ARE ENTITIES THE
TAXPAYERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO
REGULATE.
BUT WHEN WE START TO USE
AMBIGUOUS TERMS, TERMS THAT ARE
NOT WELL-DEFINED, WE ARE
CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE
THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE
WHY IS IT THAT THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS
SAYS DON'T DO THIS TO US?
THEY'RE WORKING HARD TO CREATE
JOBS IN THIS COUNTRY AND THEY
HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO IT, IN
PART BECAUSE OF BAD POLICIES
THAT THEY'VE SEEN COME OUT OF
WASHINGTON, D.C., MR. SPEAKER.
WE CAN DO MUCH, MUCH MORE.
LOOK, IN A NUTSHELL, THIS BILL
IS AN INVITATION FOR POLITICAL
MEDDLING AT ITS WORST IN THE
PRIVATE CONFINES OF COMPANIES
THAT ARE TRYING TO WORK HARD TO
CREATE JOBS AND TO CREATE
YOU CAN IMAGINE A POLITICIAN
GETTING ON A PHONE WITH A
REGULATOR AND SAYING, YOU KNOW
WHAT, I'M INTERESTED IN YOU
CHECKING INTO THAT COMPANY
BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THEM AND I
DON'T LIKE THE WAY THEY'RE
DOING BUSINESS.
WE CAN DO BETTER.
LET'S SEND THE BILL BACK TO
COMMITTEE AND I YIELD BACK.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA.
>> MR. SPEAKER, WE HAVE ONLY
ONE FINAL SPEAKER SO WE
RESERVE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENT
MR. BACHUS: THIS TIME, I
RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM
NEW JERSEY, MR. GARRETT, FOR
ONE AND A HALF MINUTES.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE
AND A HALF MINUTES.
MR. GARRETT: I THANK THE CHAIR.
IN A FEW MOMENTS, BILL
SUBMITTING AN AMENDMENT TO THIS
BILL BUT FIRST I WANT TO TALK
THIS BILL.
THIS IS NEIL MENO, SOMEONE WHO
NO ONE WOULD CONSIDER ANCON
SERVETIVE.
SHE RECOGNIZES WHY THIS IS
COMING UP, SHE SAID THE IMPULSE
IS UNDERSTANDABLE BUT THE
STANDARD IS UNWORKABLE.
WHAT DOES INAPPROPRIATE MEAN?
WHAT, WHILE WE'RE AT IT, DOES
RISK-TAKING MEAN?
AND THE MOST TERRIFYING
QUESTION, WHO GETS TO DECIDE
WHAT THEY MEAN?
CHAIRMAN BARNEY FRANK WARNED
EARLIER THIS MONTH, AND HE DID
SO AGAIN JUST RECENTLY, THAT
RECENT NEWS OF COMPENSATION
SHOW THIS IS A SOME LEADERS
YEARN FOR THE STIRRING NEED OF
YESTERYEAR BUT IT'S A QUESTION
OF EMPOWERING THE SHARE HOLDER
TO DECIDE THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL
OF PAY, NOT THE REGULATORS.
SHE CONCLUDES BY SAYING WHO IS
IN THE BEST POSITION TO
EVALUATE AND RESPOND TO BADLY
DESIGNED PAY PACKAGES.
AS SOMEONE PROUD OF EIGHT YEARS
SERVING IN GOVERNMENT SHE SAYS
SHE HAS THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR
POLITICIANS AND BUREAUCRATS BUT
ALSO RECOGNIZES THEIR LIMITS.
THE GOVERNMENT, THEREFORE,
SHOULD NOT BE MICROMANAGING
PAY.
INSTEAD, THIS IS WHAT
REPUBLICANS SUGGEST, REMOVE THE
OBSTACLES THAT CURRENTLY
PREVENT OVERSIGHT FROM THOSE
WHO ARE BEST QUALIFIED AND
MOTIVATED TO MANAGE THE RISK,
THE SHAREHOLDERS.
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH
CAROLINA.
>> WE RESERVE THE BALANCE OF
OUR TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
MR. BACHUS: MR. CHAIRMAN, IT
APPEARS AS IF THIS BILL IS SO
MUCH MORE THAN A SHAREHOLDER'S
RIGHT TO SAY ON PAY BILL.
WE ALREADY HAVE A CZAR, A PAY
CZAR.
ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A
CONSULTANT CZAR?
WE'RE GOING
COMPENSATION CONSULTANTS, THEY
GO TO THE AGENCIESING, THEY
MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA, ARE WE
GOING TO HAVE A CONSULTANT
CZAR?
AGAIN, ARE WE GOING TO NEED
MANAGEMENT CZARS?
RISK CZARS?
BECAUSE THESE 20 PAGES AND 15
OF IT DEALS WITH RISK, IT DEALS
WITH INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR,
ARE WE GOING TO, ON THE
BONUSES, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE
EVERY BONUS SUBMITTED TO SOME
GOVERNMENT AGENCY TO REVIEW?
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO REPORT
THOSE BONUSES?
HOW WILL YOU APPROVE THOSE
BONUSES?
HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE TO
APPROVE THOSE BONUSS?
THE ADMINISTRATION ITSELF HAS
WARNED THIS BILL GOES TOO FAR.
INDEPENDENT WITNESSES HAVE
WARNED THIS BILL GOES TOO FAR.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH
CAROLINA.
MR. WATT: I YIELD MYSELF THE
BALANCE OF ME TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MRWATT: THE FACT THAT WE ARE
HERE TODAY DEBATING THIS BILL
WITH SUCH VOCIFEROUS OPPOSITION
, TO ME IS A COMMENTARY ON HOW
OUT OF WHACK OUR WHOLE SYSTEM
HAS BECOME.
FIRST OF ALL, THIS BILL IS A
SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO MAKE
ADVISORY VOTES, TAKE ADVISORY
VOTES ON COMPENSATION.
WHO ARE THESE SHAREHOLDERS?
THEY'RE THE OWNERS OF THE
COMPANY.
THEY ARE THE OWNERS OF THE
COMPANY.
AND SOMEHOW THE OPPONENTS OF
THIS BILL ARE TRYING TO
CONVINCE THE PUBLIC THAT THE
OWNERS OF A COMPANY SHOULDN'T
HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEIR
OPINION TO THE BOARD ABOUT
COMPENSATION OF THE OFFICERS OF
THAT COMPANY.
AND THE BILL SPECIFICALLY SAYS,
AND I'M READING FROM THE BILL,
THE SHAREHOLDER VOTE SHALL NOT
BE BINDING ON THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS.
AND IT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRD
AS OVERRULING A DECISION OF THE
BOARD.
WE'RE JUST GIVING THEM THE
EXPLICIT RIGHT TO ADVISE THE
BOARD ABOUT COMPENSATION.
ONE GENTLEMAN HAS SAID THAT
THIS APPLIES TO MANUFACTURERS.
IT DOESN'T APPLY TO
MANUFACTURERS.
SECTION 4 DOESN'T APPLY TO
MANUFACTURERS.
EVEN IF IT DID, WOULD APPLY
ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY
COULD THREATEN THE SAFETY AND
SOUNDNESS OF A FINANCIAL
INSTITUTION.
MANUFACTURERS ARE NOT FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS.
AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT
THEY COULD BE -- CAUSE SERIOUS
ADVERSE EFFECTS ON ECONOMIC
STABILITY AND THAT, I WOULD
SUBMIT, IS AN APPROPRIATE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ROLE TO PLAY
, TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T GET
BACK INTO THE KIND OF MELTDOWN
THAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING AND
HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING
RESULT OF GREED AND
IRRESPONSIBILITY IN THE PRIVATE
SECTOR.
THIS IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT
TAKING OVE
SECTOR, EITHER IN THE FINANCIAL
SECTOR OR ANY OTHER SECTOR OF
OUR ECONOMY.
IT IS A STATEMENT BY THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT IT'S TIME
FOR US TO STRAIGHTEN UP THE
SHIP.
WE SHOULD PASS THIS BILL TODAY
AND MOVE ON.
THANK YOU.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
ALL TIME FOR DEBATE HAS
FOR WHAT PURPO DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS RISE?
MR. FRANK: TO OFFER AN
AMENDMENT.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
CLERK WILL DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
THE CLERK: AMENDMENT NUMBER
ONE, PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT
111-231, OFFERED BY MR. FRANK
OF MASSACHUSETTS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS,
MR. FRANK, AND A MEMBER
OPPOSED, EACH WILL CONTROL FIVE
MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
MR. FRANK: I YIELD MYSELF ONE MINUTE.
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. FRANK: I OFFER AN AMENDMENT
WHICH I SAID WE WOULD BE
WILLING TO ACCEPT SUBJECT TO
SOME FURTHER CHANGE, WE'VE
TALKED, WE HAVE NOT YET REACHED
AGREEMENT, THIS IS GOING TO BE
ENTIRELY UP TO DEBATE, WHAT THE
AND I THINK LEGITIMATELY, THE
POSSIBILITY OF A CALLBACK, THAT
PEOPLE GIVE BACK BONUSES THEY'D
ALREADY RECEIVED.
WE HOPE THERE WILL BE RULES
ADOPTED THAT WILL SET THOSE
RULES IN PLACE.
BUT -- I AGREE PEOPLE'S PAY
SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO
DECISIONS.
THERE IS AN S.E.CDECISIONS
THAT WHERE SOMEONE RECEIVED
COMPENSATION AND IT TURNED
THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT
PROFITABLE THAT A RETURN OF THE
MONEY GIVEN BECAUSE OF
PROFITABILITY MIGHT WITH BE
APPROPRIATE.
OUR LANGUAGE REFLECTS THAT.
IT DOES GIVE SOME PROTECTION
AGAINST ARBITRARY RETURN AND I
RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM GEORGIA RISE?
>> TO CLAIM THE TIME IN
OPPOSITION.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
FIVE MINUTES
MR. PRICE: THE DEBATE ON THIS
AMENDMENT IS VERY APPROPRIATE
AND JERMAINE TO THE ACTIONS OF
THIS ENTIRE CONGRESS.
THE AMENDMENT OFFERED IN THE
COMMITTEE IN GOOD FAITH TO TRY
TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THERE
WEREN'T ANY CHANGES THAT COULD
COMPENSATION PACKAGES AND
INCENTIVE PAY WAS VERY
SPECIFIC.
IT SAID THAT NO COMPENSATION OF
ANY EXECUTIVE HAVING BEEN
APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE
SHAREHOLDERS MAY BE SUBJECT TO
ANY CALLBACK, WHICH IS THE
RETROACTIVITY, UNLESS IT WAS
PART OF THE CONTRACT OR UNLESS
THERE HAD BEEN FRAUD COMMITTED.
THAT'S WHAT ACCEPTED BY
COMMITTEE, MR. SPEAKER,
ACCEPTED BY COMMITTEE.
THE AMENDMENT WAS PUT
BILL.
WITH THE CAVEAT THAT THE
CHAIRMAN WANTED POTENTIALLY A
FEW CHANGES.
I WOULD VOTE QUOTHE FROM THE
CHAIRMAN WHO SAID, THE IMPULSE
TO RETROACTIVITY IS NOT ONE OF
OUR FINEST AND OUGHT TO BE
RESTRAINED, UNQUOTE HE SAID,
QUOTE, WE COULD WORK TOGETHER
TO MAKE SURE THIS DOESN'T
DEROGATE FROM THE S.E.C. TO
MAKE SURE YOU DON'T DO THIS I'M
HERE TO TELL YOU, THERE WEREN'T
ANY DISCUSSIONS BEFORE THE
RULES COMMITTEE MET, OR ANY
SUBSTITUTIONS -- DISCUSSIONS
BEFORE THE AMENDMENT WE HAVE
BEFORE US WAS OFFERED.
AS THE APPARENTLY GOOD FAITH
EFFORT TO THE AMENDMENT OFFERED
AND ADOPTED IN A BIPARTISAN
MANNER, MAJORITY, IN THE
COMMITTEE.
WHAT IS THE NEW -- WHAT DOES
THE NEW AMENDMENT SAY?
IT SAYS NO REGULATION
PROMULGATED SHALL REQUIRE THE
RECOVERYF INCENTIVE-BASED
COMPENSATION UNDER ARRANGEMENTS
AS OF THE DATE OF E ENACT OFMENT THIS.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
THE S.E.C., THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, WILL BE ABLE TO
DICTATE PAY.
DICTATE PAY BECAUSE OF THE
LANGUAGE IN THIS AMENDMENT TO
PRIVATELY HELD COMPANIES.
THAT MAY BE OK IF THEY TAKE TAX
MONEY -- PUBLICLY HELD
COMPANIES.
THAT MAY BE OK IF THEY TAKE TAX
MONEY, FEDERAL TAX MONEY, BUT
THIS WOULD BE PUBLICLY TRADED
COMPANY THIS IS A DON'T TAKE A
DIME OF TAX MONEY.
MR. SPEAKER, THIS IS A HUG
STEP IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.
SECTION 4 IS THE AREA OF THIS
BILL WE HAVE GREAT CONCERNS
ABOUT.
IT PUTS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
IT PUTS THE S.E.C. INTO, INTO
THE AGREEMENTS FOR COMPENSATION
FOR EXECUTIVES IN PUBLICLY
TRADED COMPANIES, IT CUTS AT
THE VERY CORE OF OUR FREE
MARKET SYSTEM, I WOULD URGE A
NO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT AND
RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA RESERVES
THIS ETHE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
MR. FRANK: HOW MUCH TIME
REMAINS?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
HA
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA HAS 2
1/2 MINUTES REMAING.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA HAS
THE RIGHT TO CLOSE.
MR. FRANK: I YIELD MYSELF 30
SECONDS TO ACT NONG ONE THING
THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DRAFTED
BETTER.
THE WORD REQUIRE IS AMBIGUOUS.
WE DIDN'T MEAN THE REGULATION
WOULD -- WE MEANT -- THE WORD
SHOU
THAN REQUIRE.
WE MEANT TO SAY YOU COULD NOT
REQUIRE THE INDIVIDUAL TO GIVE
IT BACK.
WE DO WANT TO RESTRAIN THE
S.E.C. OR ANYBODY ELSE FROM AN
INAPPROPRIATE ONE.
WE WILL TR
WORD, WON'T MAKE A HUGE
DIFFERENCE TO THE GENTLEMAN
FROM GEORGIA BUT I BELIEVE THAT
PERMIT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MORE
-- A BETTER WORD.
WHEN WE SAY REQUIRE, WE MEANT
YOU COULD NOT REQUIRE THE
GENTLEMAN TO GIVE IT BACK.
THAT WAS IT.
I YIELD TWO MINUTES TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA
IS RECOGNIZED FOR TW
MR. MILLER: IT MAY BE THAT THE
AMENDMENT WAS OFFERED IN GOOD
FAITH BUT THE EXPLANATION FOR
THE AMENDMENT HAD VERY LITTLE
TO DO WITH WHAT THE AMENDMENT
ACTUALLY SAYS.
THIS AMENDMENT, MR. FRANK'S
AMENDMENT, DOES ACCOMPLISH THE
REASON OR THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
OF THE AMENDMENT.
WE DON'T THINK THAT A REGULATOR
OR REGULATION SHOULD REQUIRE
THE RECOVERY OF
INCENTIVE-BASED PAY WHERE THE
EXISTING CONTRACT DOESN'T
REQUIRE IT.
WE SHOULDN'T CHANGE CONTRACTS
RETROACTIVELY, EXISTING
CONTRACTS RETROACTIVELY, BUT WE
ALSO DON'T NEED TO UNDERMINE
THE EXISTING LAW THAT MAY
PROVIDE FOR THAT.
MR. FRANK MENTIONED THE S.E.C.
THE S.E.C. IS NOW TRYING TO
RECOVER MONEY THAT WAS PAID
SUPPOSEDLY BECAUSE TRANSACTIONS
WERE PROFITABLE WHEN IN FACT
THEY WEREN'T BECAUSE OF THE ACCOUNTING.
SO WE DON'T WANT TO REWARD
ACCOUNTING IRREGULAR LARETS.
AND GOING FORWARD THE
REGULATORS MAY WELL DECIDE THAT
AN EFFECTIVE CONSTRAINT ON
IMPRUDENT RISK TAKING IS TO
REQUIRE LONGER HORIZONS FOR
INCENTIVE-BASED PAY.
THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT.
IT'S WHAT THIS AMENDMENT
ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHES.
IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE
REASONS GIVEN IN CMITTEE FOR
THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT.
I YI
TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMA
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA.
MR. PRICE: I CONTINUE TO
RESERVE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA RESERVES
HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS. MR. FRANK: YES.
IS THE GENTLEMAN GOING TO CLOSE
BECAUSE IF HE IS I'LL HAVE MY
SIDE CLOSE?
IS THE GENTLEMAN GOING TO CLOSE
WITH HIS REMAINING TIME?
I'LL TAKE 15 SECONDS.
WE WILL STILL HAVE A DISAGREEMENT.
BUT INSTEAD REQUIRE IT SHOULD
SAY, HE AND I AGREED WITHIN THE
LIMITED VERSION HERE, ALLOW
THEM TO REQUIRE IT.
IN OTHER WORDS, WE DON'T WANT
THE S.E.C. TO BE ABLE TO MAKE
AN UN-- INAPPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENT.
SO THAT WILL BE CLARIFIED.
AND I YIELD OUR REMAINING TIME
TO THE
CAROLINA.
WELL, THEN I WILL TAKE OUR
REMAING TIME TO SAY, YES, WE
DID TENTATIVELY AGREE TO IT.
THERE HAD BE AN S.
DECISION THAT DAY WHICH I WAS
NOT AWARE OF IT.
I DID SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN I THOUGHT WE WOULD WANT TO -- WE
WOULD WANT TO MAKE SOME FURTHER
CHANGES.
MR. PRICE: WILL THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD? MR. FRANK: YES.
MR. PRICE: GIVEN THE AGREEMENT
THAT YOU AND I REACHED ON
ABOUT CHANGING THE LANGUAGE ON
THIS AMENDMENT?
IS THAT A UNANIMOUS CONSENT? MR. FRANK: YES
I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT
IF THAT'S PERMISSIBLE, WE ARE
IN THE WHOLE HOUSE, TO CHANGE
ON LINE 2 INSTEAD OF REQUIRE
SHALL ALLOW TO REQUIRE, SHALL
ALLOW THE S.E.C. TO REQUIRE --
NO, I TAKE IT BACK.
HERE'S HOW I WILL SAY IT.
SHALL BE ALLOWED TO REQUIRE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: WILL
THE GENTLEMAN SUBMIT THAT
LANGUAGE TO THE DESK?
MR. FRANK: YES.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
MR. FRANK: IT'S EASY FOR YOU TO
SAY, MR. SPEAKER.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA.
MR. PRICE: MR. SPEAKER, UNTIL
THAT LANGUAGE HAS BEEN
INTRODUCED, I'LL RESERVE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA.
MR. PRICE: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
THE LANGUAGE -- PARLIAMENTARY
INQUIRY.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS
INQUIRY.
MR. PRICE: HAS THE LANGUAGE
INTRODUCED AT THE DESK BEEN --
MR. FRANK: WILL THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
I'LL ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
AMEND THE BILL ACCORDING TO
THAT LANGUAGE WHICH THE
GENTLEMAN HAS SEEN.
THE SPEAKER PRO T
CLERK WILL REPORT THE
MODIFICATION.
THE CLERK: MODIFICATION TO
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 111-237 OFFERED BY
MR. FRANK OF MASSACHUSETTS.
ON LINE 2, INSERT AFTER SHALL,
BE ALLOWED TO.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: IS
THERE OBJECTION TO THE
MODIFICATION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE
AMENDMENT IS MODIFIED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA.
MR. PRICE: I THANK THE SPEAKER
AND I THANK THE CHAIRMAN FOR
HIS DESIRE AND WILLINGNESS TO
WORK TOGETHER ON THIS.
AND THAT BEING SAID, THE
CHALLENGES WITH SECTION 4 ARE
HUGE.
THE FAR REACH OF THE S.E.C. AND
THE ABILITY OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT NOW TO GET INTO THE
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PACKAGES
FOR BUSINESSES FOR WHICH THERE
IS NO FEDERAL MONEY INVOLVED IS
REMARKABLE IN ITS EXTENT.
AND AS WE KNOW, THE DEMOCRAT
MAJORITY HAS A GREAT DESIRE TO
HA THE GOVERNMENT EVERYWHERE
IN OUR LIVES.
WHETHER IT'S IN FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS, WHETHER IT'S IN
ENERGY COMPANIES, WHETHER IT'S
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE TO
TURN ON AND OFF THEIR LIGHT
SWITCH.
I JUST PICKED UP THE PAPER THIS
MORNING, MR. SPEAKER, AND SAW
THERE WAS AN OP-ED IN "THE WALL
STREET JOURNAL" TALKING ABOUT
HEALTH REFORM AND CANCER AND
SAYING IF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO
CONTROL HEALTH CARE THEN IT MAY
RESULT IN THE INNOVATION IN TH
AREA OF CANCER.
I SUGGEST THAT IF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED IN THIS
ARENA, THAT WHAT WE'LL SEE IS A
HUGE DEPRESSING EFFECT ON THE
ABILITY OF BUSINESSES ALL
ACRO
CREATE THE MOST VIBRANT AND
ENEPRENEURIAL AND ACTIVE
BUSINESSES THAT ARE TO THE
BENEFIT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,
THAT CREATE JOBS, TT ALLOW US
TO BE THE GREATEST NATION IN
THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, AND
IT'S JUST LITTLE BITS THAT CHIP
AWAY AT THE FABRIC OF OUR
NATION THAT MAKE IT SO THAT IT
IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTINUE TO
COMPETE ON AN INTERNATIONAL
BASIS.
AND SO, MR. SPEAKER, I'LL --
I'M PLEASED THAT THE CHAIRMAN
WAS WILLING TO CLARIFY THE
AMENDMENT.
HOWEVER, IT STILL GETS TO THE
HEART OF WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE
GOING TO ALLOW THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT INTO DECISIONS THAT
OUGHT TO BE LEFT IN A FREE
MARKET AND IN A PRIVATE SECTOR
ARRANGEMENT. SO I URGE DEFEAT OF THE
AMENDMENT AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT AS MODIFIED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS,
MR. FRANK.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE AYES HAVE IT.
MR. PRICE: MR. SPEAKER.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA.
MR. PRICE: ON THAT I REQUEST A
RECORDED VOTE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: A
RECORDED VOTE IS REQUESTED.
SPROURT -- THOSE FAVORING A
RECORDED VOTE WILL RISE.
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING
AR
ORDERED.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION
QUESTION WILL BE POSTPONED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY RISE?
MR. GARRETT: I HAVE AN
AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
CLERK WILL DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
THE CLERK: AMENDMENT IN THE
NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE NUMBER 2
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 111-237
OFFERED BY MR. GARRETT OF NEW
JERSEY.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION
697, THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW
JERSEY, MR. GARRETT, AND A
MEMBER OPPOSED, EACH WILL
CONTROL 15 MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY.
MR. GARRETT: I THANK THE CHAIR.
I YIELD MYSELF FOUR MINUTES AT
THIS TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
FOUR MINUTES.
MR. GARRETT: THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC SHOULD BE OUTRAGED WHEN
THEY READ THE FRONT PAGE IN
REGARDS TO BONUSES AND PAY.
HAVE TO READ THE SECOND
HEADLINE TO REALIZE THE $33
BILLION ARE GOING TO THE BANKS
THAT RECEIVE BASICALLY THE TAXPAYER BAILOUTS.
AND AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LINE
ON ALL OF THIS IS NOTHING IN
THIS LEGISLATION THAT WOULD
HAVE ACTUALLY PROHIBITED THIS
FROM GOING FORWARD.
NOW, THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
AISLE ON THE FLOOR TODAY AND
REPEATEDLY SAYS, WELL, THE
REPUBLICAN SIDE SIMPLY HAS NO ALTERNATIVE.
IT'S JUST THE PARTY OF NO.
WELL, WE KNOW THAT'S NOT TRUE.
THAT ON THE LEGISLATION BEFORE
US TODAY WITH REGARD TO
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION, BOTH IN
COMMITTEE AND THROUGH RULES,
REPUBLICANS HAVE PROPOSED A
NUMBER OF SUBSTANTIVE
PROPOSALS, WHICH I'LL GO
THROUGH RIGHT NOW, THAT WOULD
ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING PROBLEMS
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS
RIGHT NOW.
IF YOU PERMIT ME, I'LL NOW
ADDRESS THREE OR FOUR MAJOR
POINTS IN THIS SUBSTITUTE WHICH
WOULD GET AT THESE POINTS TH
I THINK OUTRAGES AMERICA WITH
REGARD TO COMPENSATION BUT DO
SO IN A FAIR AND JUST MANNER.
POINT ONE, IN THE UNDERLYING
BILL IT ALLOWS FOR A NONBINDING
SHAREHOLDER VOTE ON EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION EVERY YEAR.
WE PROPOSE INSTEAD THAT THAT
VOTE SHOULD OCCUR EVERY THREE
YEARS.
WHY IS THAT?
ALL THE EXPERT TESTIMONY WE
HEARD SO FAR SAYS THAT WALL
STREET FOCUSES TOO MUCH ON THE
SHORT TERM, THE YEAR, THE SIX
MONTHS, THE THREE QUARTERS OR
END OF THE QUARTER.
WHY THEN WHEN COMPENSATION
PACKAGES USUALLY GO LONGER THAN
ONE YEAR, USUALLY GO FOR THREE
YEARS, WOULD BE REQUIRING A
VOTE THAT WOULD REFOCUS THE
ATTENTION ON ONE YEAR, SHORT
PERIOD OF TIME, AS OPPOSED TO
BEING IN LINE TO A THREE-YEAR
LONGER TIME FRAME?
SO WE SUGGEST THAT A THREE-YEAR
VOTE WOULD BE MUCH MORE
APPROPRIATE THAN A ONE YEAR.
SECONDLY, THE SHAREHOLDERS AND
WHOME TRUST WITH THESE
DECISIONS.
WE SUGGEST THAT IF WE ARE GOING
TO TRUST THE SHAREHOLDERS TO BE
MAKING THESE DECISIONS, SHOULD
WE NOT ALSO TRUST THEM TO MAKE
THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
HAVE SUCH VOTES ON EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION IN THE FUTURE?
SO OUR AMENDMENT WOULD SUGGEST
THAT A SUBSTITUTE WOULD ALLOW
FOR A 2/3 VOTE OF SHAREHOLDERS
TO OPT OUT OF THE SHAREHOLDER
ADVISO VOTE IF THEY ARE SO INCLINED.
WE KNOW THAT THIS IS A POSITION
TAKEN BY A NUMBER OF
INSTITUTIONS, COMPANIES IN THE
PAST BECAUSE THEY SAID THAT WE
DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SUCH POWER,
DO NOT WANT TO INVOLVE
OURSELVES IN SUCH DECISION
MAKING.
AND WE KNOW IT'S RIGHT NOW AS
WELL BECAUSE WE HAVE A LETTER
FROM THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS WHO POINT OUT THE
VERY REAL REASON WHY THAT IS.
THEY HOLD SOMETHING LIKE 3,603
DIFFERENT COMPANIES IN THEIR
PORTFOLIO AND THEY SAID THEY
WERE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THIS
DECISION ONE YEAR OR EVERY
THREE YEARS, AND CONSIDERING
THEIR DUE DILIGENCE THAT THEY
WOULD HAVE TO ENGAGE IN, THIS
COMMITMENT WILL BE A SEVERELY
CHALLENGE TO THEIR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES.
SO IF HE WANT TO OPT OUT OF
THIS, -- SO IF THEY WANT TO OPT
OUT OF THIS, SHOULDN'T WE GIVE
THEM THE ABILITY OF 2/3
DECIDING TO DO SO?
ANOTHER ONE, STATE LAW.
I KNOW THE OTHER SIDE TALKS
ABOUT THIS.
SHOULD WE PREEMPT STATE LAW OR
SHOULD THEY NOT BE ABLE TO
SPEAK UP AND HAVE THEIR VOICE
HEARD AND BE NOT PREEMPTED BY
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
AND FOURTHLY AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY, SECTION 4.
THIS SECTION GOES WELL BEYOND
WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS
TALKED ABOUT.
THE ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T LIKE
WHAT THIS SECTION SAYS.
OUR SUBSTITUTION SAYS WE SHOULD
DELETE SECTION 4.
THE BOTTOM LINE ON THIS ONE IS
WHO IS IT THAT THE OTHER SIDE
REALLY TRUSTS TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS?
IS IT THE SHAREHOLDERS, AS WE
SAW IN THE FIRST THREE SECTIONS
OF THIS BILL TO MAKE THE
DECISION THAT WE WOULD SUGGEST
THEY SHOULD BE IN POSITION TO
MAKE THE DECISIONS, OR IS IT
THE BUREAUCRATS THAT THEY THINK
SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THESE
DECISIONS?
IS IT THE SAME BUREAUCRATS WHO
OVER AT THE S.E.C. IN THE PAST
TOTALLY MISSED THE WHOLE MADOFF
SITUATIOTHAT THEY SHOULD BE
MAKING DECISIONS AS OPPOSED TO
THE STOCKHOLDERS?
IS IT THE SAME BUREAUCRATS WHO
ARE -- THE REGULATORS FOR
A.I.G. AND TOTALLY MISSED THAT
SITUATION, IS THAT WHO THEY
TRUST INSTEAD?
SO WE SUGGEST ALL FOUR POINTS
ARE SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS TO THIS.
CONSIDERATION.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES THE BALANCE
OF HIS TIME.
MR. GARRETT: I RESERVE THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MASSACHUSETTS RISE?
MR. FRANK: I YIELD TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNI MR.
SHERMAN, FOR FOUR MINUTES.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FOUR MINUTES.
MR. SHERMAN: I THANK THE CHAIR.
I SUPPORT THE BILL.
I WISH IT WENT A BIT FURTHER.
AND I OF COURSE OPPOSE MR. GARRETT'S AMENDMENT.
FIRST, WHAT HIS AMENDMENT DOES
IS IT WEAKENS THE SAY ON PAY
PROVISIONS SIGNIFICANTLY.
THAT'S RIGHT.
IT WEAKENS A PROVISION WHICH
ITSELF SIMPLY PROVIDES FOR
NONBINDING ROLUTIONS.
BUT THE CORE OF THE GARRETT
AMENDMENT IS THAT IT ELIMINATES
THE PROVISION IN THE BILL WHICH
IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE VERY
MODEST RESTRICTIONS ON SOME
VERY PECULIAR AND PERNICIOUS
COMPENSATION FORMULAS THAT HAVE
BEEN USED ON WALL STREET.
NOW, LET US LOOK AT HOW NARROW
THIS PROVISION IS.
IT APPLIES ONLY TO FINANCIAL
INSTITIONS AND THEN ONLY TO
THOSE OVER $1 BILLION.
IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT MILLION
DOLLAR A MONTH SALARIES.
IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT $10 A
MONTH SALARIES.
IT -- $10 MILLION A MONTH
SALARIES.
IT ALLOWS A EXECUTIVE TO GET A
KAGILLION STOCK OPTIONS.
THIS BILL IS NOT AN OVERALL
LIMIT ON COMPENSATION ON WALL
STREET.
WHAT IT DOES IS IT PROHIBITS
THOSE COMPENSATION FORMULAS
THAT PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE FOR
TAKING EXTREME RISKS, RISKS
THAT ARE BAD FOR OUR ECONO,
RISKS THAT ARE BAD FOR THE COMPANY.
NOW, THE GROUP OF 30 LED BY
PAUL VOLKER FOUND AND REPORTED,
THERE ARE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF
MISALIGNED INCENTIVES OF
INCENTIVES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO
INSTABILITY AND CYCLICALITY IN
FINANCIAL MARKETS.
THE CRISIS HAS DRIVEN HOME THE
IMPORTANCE OF ALIGNING
COMPENSATION PRACTICES WITH THE
INCENTIVES AND CONTROLS IN A
FIRM'S RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
ALIGNING PAY WITH LONG-TERM
SHAREHOLDER INTEREST RATHER
THAN SHORT-TERM RETURNS THAT
CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND WHICH
ENTAIL GREATER RISK.
THIS IS A PROVISION NOT
DESIGNED, NOT INTENDED, TO
LIMIT THE OVERALL LEVEL OF
COMPENSATION AT FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS.
NOT DESIGNED TO PREVENT
ENORMOUS BONUSES, BUT THE
BONUSES MUST NOT BY THEMSELVES
BE DESIGNED TO UNDERMINE THE
ECONOMY OR THE COMPANY.
THIS IS A SMALL STEP THAT WE
CAN TAKE TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T
HAVE ANOTHER FINANCIAL
MELTDOWN.
LET ME RESPOND TO MR.
HENSARLING AND OTHERS WHO CAME
TO THIS FLOOR AND SICALLY
SAID, ALL WE HAVE TOO IS MAKE
SURE THERE ARE NO FURTHER
BAILOUTS.
WELL, I OPPOSED THE WALL STREET
BAILOUT.
BUT I'M NOT GOING TO JOIN WITH
THOSE WHO SAY THE ONLY PROBLEM
WE HAD IN SEPTEMBER OF 2008 WAS
THATE VOTED FOR THE BILL.
WE'VE GOT TO ACT TO PREVENT THE
NEXT FINANCIAL MELTDOW
AND IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO COME TO
THIS FLOOR AND SAY, WELL, IT'S
OK TO HAVE ANOTHER SEPTEMBER,
2008, AS LONG AS WE VOTE
AGAINST THAT SOME FUTURE
BAILOUT BILL TWICE INSTEAD OF
ONCE.
THE GOAL IS NOT TO DEFEAT THE
TARP BILL.
THE GOAL IS TO PREVENT THE
CONDITIONS WHICH CAUSED SO MANY
TO THINK IT WAS NECESSARY AND
FOR ALL OF US TO RECOGNIZE THAT
WE FACED A GREAT FINANCIAL CRIS.
THE WAY TO DO THAT IS TO VOTE
DOWN THIS AMENDMENT AND MAKE
SURE THAT SOME VERY PECULIAR,
VERY PERNICIOUS INCENTIVE
FORMULAS ARE NOT USED TO CAUSE
THOSE ON WALL STREET TO FEEL IF
THEY CAN ONLY TAKE THE MOST
ENORMOUS RISK, THEY
MAXIMIZE THEIR COMPENSATION.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY.
MR. GARRETT: I YIELD THREE MINUTES TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
THREE MINUTES.
>> THIS IS A REASONABLE AND
THOUGHTFUL SUBSTITUTE.
REPUBLICANS ARE HERE TO BRING
GOOD IDEAS TO THE TABLE TO TRY
TO WORK WITH THE MAJORITY TO
ENSURE OUR MARKETS OPERATE WITH
TRANSPARENCY.
RATHER THAN VOTE EVERY YEAR OUR
SUBSTITUTE ALIGNS IT WITH
STANDARD COMPENSATION PACKAGES
AND ENSURES THAT INVESTORS WHO
REPRESENT SHAREHOLDERS WILL BE
ABLE TO HAVE PROPER TIME TO DO
DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE
MEANINGFUL VOTES.
IT ALLOWS SHARE HOLDERS WHO
DON'T WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN
THESE VOTES TO OPT OUT.
MAKES SENSE TO ME.
FINALLY THE SUBSTITUTE ENSURE
THIS IS A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
CANNOT DECIDE THE PAY FOR
EMPLOYEES OR FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS.
DETERMINING PAY PRACTICES IS
NOT THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT.
AS WE WORK TOGETHER TO REFORM
THE FINANCIAL REGULATORY STRUCK
CHURK DEBATING COMPENSATION
PRACTICES MAY MAKE SOME FEEL
BETTER, BUT IT DOESN'T FIX THE
CAUSE OF OUR FINANCIAL CRISIS.
WHILE WE IN THE PUBLIC MAY NOT
LIKE TO HEAR ABOUT SOME OF THE
LARGE SALARIES AND BONUSES
OTHERS HAVE EARNED, WE HAVE TO
ASK OURSELVES, HOW MUCH DID
THESE COMPENSATION PRACTICES
REALLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE
PRLEM?
MOST IMPORTANT -- THE MOST
IMPORTANT TOOL FINANCIAL
REGULATORS HAVE IS THE ABILITY
TO SET CAPITAL STANDARDS FOR
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
NOT THE ABILITY TO TELL
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS HOW HOW
MUCH THEY CAN PAY OR HOW MUCH THEY SHOULD PAY THEIR
EMPLOYEES.
WE NEED REGULATORS TO ENSURE
CAPITAL AND REV RAJ RATIOS AT
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS MATCH
THE RISK THOSE EN-- THOSE
ENTIES ARE TAKING ON.
THAT'S WHAT THEYHOULD FOCUS
ON, NOT WHETHER A CERTA
INCENTIVE PRACTICE IS
APPROPRIATE.
A FINANCE PROFESSOR RELEASED A
STUDY COMPARING BANK
PERFORMANCE AND C.E.O.
INCENTIVES LEADING UP TO THE
CRIS.
THE PROFESSOR IS QUOTED IN
TODAY'S
SAYS, IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT
THEY'LL BE REGULATED BY
COMPENSATION PLANS.
PROPER LY DESIGNED CAPITAL
APPROACHES ARE MUCH MORE
EFFECTIVE THAN FIDDLING WITH
COMPENSATION PACKAGES.
CONGRESS SHOULD NOT BE WORKING
TO -- CONGRESS SHOULD BE
WORKING TO ENCOURAGE
WELL-MANAGED, WELL-RUN,
WELL-CAPITALIZED FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS.
THIS BILL DOES THE OPPOSITE.
SUPPORT THE COMMON SENSE
GARRETT SUBSTITUTE.
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
MR. FRANK: I YIELD MYSELF THREE
MINUTES.
FIRST, I HAD BEEN TAKEN --
TAKING AS GIVEN THAT THE
PRESIDENT'S PRESS SECRETARY
SAID HE HAD SOME PROBLEMS WITH
THE BILL.
WE HAVE THE REPUBLICANS IN A
TEMPORARY MODE OF OBEDIENCE TO
THE PRESIDENT.
THEY THOUGHT IT WAS STILL GEORGE BUSH.
THEY WERE USED TO SNAPPING TO
ATTENTION FOR PRESIDENT BUSH.
A LIT -- A LITTLE OF THAT IS
LEFT OTHER FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA.
I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN
INDEPENDENT IN BOTH CASES.
MR. GIBBS SAID NOTHING NEGATIVE
ABOUT THIS HE WAS ASKED IF HE
WOULD SIGN THIS BILL HE S
THERE ARE SOME PIECES MOVING,
AND IT'LL GO THROUGH THE
SENATE.
HE DIDN'T FULLY ANSWER IT AND
GOT A FOLLOWUP ABOUT ARE THEY
TRYING TO AVOID SPILLING BEER
ON THE PRESIDENT'S CHILDREN'S
TABLE.
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SAY ON
PAY.
HERE'S WHAT THE GENTLEMAN FROM
ALABAMA HAD TO SAY AS A
PREDICTION WHEN WE DEBATED THIS
IN MARCH OF 2007.
EVIDENCE THAT FREE MARKET
FORCES ARE ALREADY AT WORK TO
CORRECT ANY EXCESSES IN THE
SYSTEM SHOULD GIVE THIS
COMMITTEE REAL PAUSE BEFORE IT
SEEKS TO IMPOSE LEGISLATIVE
FIX THAT COULD, LIKE PAST
EFFORTS IN THIS AREA, HAVE
UNINTENDED AND NEGATIVE
CONSEQUENCES.
IN MARCH, WELL OVER TWO YEARS
AGO, THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA CONFIDEN
MARKET FORCES ARE ALREADY AT
WORK TO CORRECT PAY EXCESSES
SYSTEM OF APPARENT HE THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA WAS
CORRECT, THERE HAVE BEEN NO PAY
EXCESSES FOR 2 1/2 YEARS, WE'VE
ALL BEEN HALLUCINATING.
HE WAS WRONG THEN, HE'S WRONG
NOW.
NOW THEY'VE HAD TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THE IMPORTANCE OF SAY ON PAY.
I ALSO WOULD REPEAT WHAT I SAY
-- WHEN I SAY THE REPUBLICANS
HAVE NO VERSION.
THEY WANT TO WEAKEN SAY ON PAY.
WITH REGARD TO THE BONUS
STRUCTURE THAT GIVES PEOPLE AN
INCENTIVE TO TAKE RISKS BECAUSE
THE DECISION MAKER IS
RISK-FREE, EVEN THOUGH THE
COMPANY IS AT RISK, THE
THERE HAS NOT BEEN IN ANY OF
OUR DELIBERATIONS ANY
REPUBLICAN APPROACH TO HOW YOU
DEAL WITH THE INCENTIVE TO TAKE
EXCESSIVE RISK NO WAY, NO HOW.
THEY HAVE RELUCTANTLY AGREED TO
SAY ON PAY, THEY WANT TO WATER
IT DOWN.
AS TO THE ARGUMENT THAT AN
ANNUAL VOTFOCUSES YOU
SH
THERE'S AN ANNUAL PROXY VOTE.
IT DOESN'T REQUIRE YOU, IF
YOU'VE GOT A THREE-Y
CONTRACT, THEN EVERY YEAR IT
WOULD STILL BE APPROVED SYSTEM
OF THIS NOTION THAT IT FOCUSES
ON A SHORTER TERM IS OF COURSE
WHOLLY INACCURATE.
IT SAYS YOU PUT IT ON THE PROXY
EVERY YEAR.
SOME HAVE ANNUAL CONTRACTS,
SOME BINALL, SOME TRI-ENALL.
IF THEY ARE TRIENNIAL, THAT'S
WHEN THEY VOTE.
WE CAN -- THE IS IS TWO,
SAY ON PAY AND HAVE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SAY NOTHING ABOUT
THE BONUS STRUCTURE.
THOSE WHO RECEIVED TARP MON
AND PAID IT BACK AND WANT TO DO
BONUSE
RISK WILL BE ENTIRELY FREE TO
DO SO UNDER THIS AMENDMENT.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY.
MR. GARRETT: I'M PLEASED TO
YIELD THREE MINUTES TO A LEAD
FOR THE ADVOCATING FOR THOSE
PRIX MARKET PRINCIPLES AS GREAT
AS IT IS, THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTE
MR. HENSARLING: TO QUOTE THE
DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMAN OF THE
FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE,
HE WAS WRONG THEN, HE IS WRONG
NOW.
TO SAY THAT REPLICANS HAVE NO
PROGRAM.
TO DEAL WITH EXCESSIVE RISK AND
COMPENSATION PRACKAGES.
YES, WE DO HAVE A PROGRAM.
END THE BAILOUTS.
END THE TARP PROGRAM.
IF YOU QUIT BAILING OUT RISKY
BEHAVIOR, MR. SPEAKER, YOU
RECEIVE LESS RISKY BEHAVIOR.
SECOND OF ALL, THE GENTLEMAN'S
ALSO WRONG AS FAR AS THE
REPUBLICAN HAVING NO PROGRAM,
OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE
SUBSTITUTE WE ARE DEBATING AT
THE MOMENT.
I ALSO HEARD THE GENTLEMAN FROM
NORTH CAROLINA EARLIER SAY,
WELL, WE NEED TO HAVE THE
UNDERLYING LEGISLATION BECAUSE
SHARE HOLD VERSE NO RIGHT TO
HAVE A SAY ON PAY.
WRONG AGAIN, MR. SPEAKER.
SHAREHOLDERS HAVE THE RIGHT.
THEY CAN HAVE A SAY ON PAY BY
ELECTING DIRECTORS WHO WILL
FIRE THE MANAGEMENT.
THEY HAVE A SAY TO INVEST ELSEWHERE.
THEIR BILL SAYS WE HAVE TO HAVE
MANDATORY, MANDATORY SAY ON
PAY.
NOW WE CAN DEBATE THE MERITS OF
IT, BUT THE GENTLEMAN FROM
NORTH ROLINA WAS SIMPLY,
CLEARLY, WRONG.
I ALSO WANT TO SAY TO MY
FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE, WHEN I LISTEN TO,
AGAIN, THE LODGE TAKE WE HAVE
TO HAVE A NEW FEDERAL
REGULATION THAT SOMEHOW WILL
REGULATE RISKY INCENTIVE PAY
STRUCTURES, AGAIN, ALL THE
RHETORIC HAS TO DO WITH WALL
STREET.
BUT GUESS WHAT, LEAD READ THE
BILL.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
CHRYSLER AND G.M. HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS.
WE'VE HAD TESTIMONY, WHEN THEY
CAME LOOKING FOR THE TAXPAYER
BAILOUT, THAT THE U.A.W., THE
UNITED AUTO WORKERS, HAD A PAY
STRUCTURE THAT WAS 40% HIGHER
THAN THEIR COMPETITORS.
SO NOW WE HAVE A LAW HERE THAT
WILL ALLOW FEDERAL REGULATORS,
I ASSUME TO COME IN AND SAY,
FOLKS AT THE U.A.W., YOUR
INCENTIVE STRUCTURE IS
CONTRIBUTING TO THE DEMISE OF
CHRYSLER AND G.M.
WE HAVE TO COME DOWN AND TAKE
DOWN YOUR WAGE RATES.
READ THE BILL, MR. SPEAKER.
THIS ISN'T RESTRICTED TO THE TOP EXECUTIVES.
IF ANYBODY BELIEVES THIS IS
RESTRICTED TO WALL STREET, THEN
WHY DID CHRYSLER, WHY DID G.M.
GET COVERAGE UNDER A STATUTE
THAT DESCRIBED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS?
SO, MR. SPEAKER, WHAT WE HAVE
IS A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT IS
NOW TAKING OVER OUR AUTO
COMPANY, TELLING US WHAT KIND
OF AUTOMOBILES WE CAN DRIVE.
TAKING OVER OUR MORTGAGE
COMPANIES, TELLING US WHETHER
OR NOT WE CAN ENJOY A MORTGAGE.
THEY NOW WANT TO CONTROL ACCESS
TO OUR FAMILY DOCTOR.
NOW THEY WANT TO DECIDE FOR
MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF
AMERICANS WHETHER OR NOT THEY
CAN EVER RECEIVE A SALES
COMMISSION OR CHRISTMAS BONUS
THAT THEY MAY VIEW AS TOO
RISKY.
WHAT IS RISKY IS TOO MUCH PO
LITIZATION OF THE ECONOMY
PLITIZATION OF OUR ECONOMY, TOO
MUCH GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE
ECONOMY.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
MR. FRANK: BRIEFLY, THE
GENTLEMAN TALKED ABOUT THE
BAILOUT OF GENERAL MOTORS AND
CHRYSLER, WHICH WAS DONE BY THE
BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
THE FACT THAT THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION DECIDED TO HAVE
A BAILOUT OF G.M. AND
IS NOT BINDING ON THIS.
I YIELD THREE MINUTES TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA, MR.
SCOTT.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
THREE MINUTES. MR. SCOTT: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
LET ME SAY THIS, MY GOOD FRIEND
FROM NEW JERSEY'S MR. GARRETT
IS NOT LIKE HAVING A SAY ON
PAY, BUT MAYBE A LITTLE
WHISPER.
MR. GARRETT'S AMENDMENT GOES AT
THE HEART AND SOUL OF THIS
BILL.
AND THAT IS THIS -- THAT WE
MUST HAVE A VERY STRONG,
DEFINITIVE SAY-SO FROM THE
SHAREHOLDERS.
NOW, MR. HENSARLING, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS, POINTED
OUT ABOUT THE BAILOUTS AND HOW
WE'RE TO PREVENT THIS.
THIS MEASURE THAT WE HAVE IS
DESIGNED TO PREVENT THIS SAME
SITUATION FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.
IN SECTION 4, AS HE POINTED
OUT, THE REASOWE NEED SECTION
4, AND LET US REMBER WHAT
SECTION 4 IS, SECTION 4 AGAIN
IS THE HEART AND SOUL OF THIS.
BECAUSE IT SPELLS OUT HOW WE'RE
GOING TO GO ABOUT PREVENTING
BONUSES TIED TO INCENTIVES THAT
HAVE DRAGGED DOWN THIS ECONOMY
AND BROUGHT US INTO THE
FINANCIAL SITUATION WE HAVE.
WE E-- HE QUESTIONS THE
REGULATORS.
MAYBE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW WHO WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
SOMEBODY OVER HERE
INEXPERIENCED, WE'RE GOING TO
SET UP.
WHO ARE THESE REGULATORS?
THESE REGULATORS ARE THE
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, WHOSE
DUTY IT IS TO REGULATE OUR
ECONOMY.
S THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER
CURRENCY, THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT
INSURANCE CORPORION WHO HAS
TO GO IN AFTERWARDS AND FIX
BANKS AND DECLARE BANKRUPTCY OF
BANKS.
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, THE FEDERAL HOUSING
AGENCY.
WHAT IS THIS AWESOME POWER
WE'RE GIVING TO THEM?
IT'S SPELLED OUT VERY SIMPLY.
WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO IS
SIMPLY -- WE WILL REQUIRE THOSE
REGULATORS TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN
COMPENSATION STRUCTURES AT
LARGE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS,
IF THEY COULD HAVE A SERIOUS
ADVERSE EFFECT ON FINANCIAL
STABILITY.
INSTABILITY.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT THE
SAME THING FROM HAPPENING
AGAIN.
SECONDLY, WE WILL REQUIRE
FEDERAL REGULATIONS TO WRITE
RULES REQUIRING FINANCIAL
STEWINGS TO SIMPLY DISCLOSE
THEIR INCENTIVE BASED PAY
PLANS.
INCENTIVES THAT ARE TIED TO
RISKY BEHAVIOR.
MR. SPEAKER, WHAT HAS HAPPENED
THAT BROUGHT THIS ON, HERE'S
THE SIMPLE CASE.
A.I.G.
THEY WENT AND SET UP A LITTLE
DEPARTMENT WITH 430 EMPLOYEES,
OUT OF CONNECTICUT AND OVER
INTO EUROPE, AND ASSIGNED
RISKY BEHAVIOR AND ASSIGN RED
WARDS TO THAT RISKY BEHAVIOR
FOR THEIR BONUSES.
THE COMPANY CAME DOWN.
WE HAD TO BAIL THEM OUT AND YOU
KNOW WHO HAD TO PAY FOR THOSE
BONUSES?
THE TAXPAYERS.
THIS BILL IS DESIGNED TO
PREVENT THAT.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
MR. SCOTT: THIS AMENDMENT IS
DESIGNED TO GUT IT.
I VOTE WE VOTE DOWN THE
AMENDMENT.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY.
MR. GARRETT: I YIELD TWO AND A
HALF MINUTES TO THE RANKING
MEMBER.
MR. BACHUS: WE CONTINUE TO HEAR
THE MANTRA THAT THIS IS ALL
ABOUT SHAREHOLDERS AND
EMPOWERING THEM WITH RIGHTS,
BUT THEN YOU SORT OF GIVE THEM
A CRUMB.
YOU GIVE THEM A NONBINDING
RIGHT TO HAVE A VOTE ON PAY AND
THEN YOU FOLLOW THAT UP WITH 12
OR 14 PAGES WHERE YOU GIVE THE
GOVERNMENT ALL SORTS OF POWERS.
POWERS TO REGULATE PAY,
BONUSES, AND YOU DO THAT, YOU
GIVE THE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT
TO HAVE A NONBINDING SAY ON THE
TOP EXECUTIVES BUT THEN YOU
GIVE THE GOVERNMENT IN THE BACK
DOOR THE LAST 15 PAGES OF THE
BILL, 14 PAGES.
YOU GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO SET
THE PAY FOR EVERY RANK AND FILE
EMPLOYEE.
AND YOU ALSO DO IT UNDER THE
GUISE THAT THESE COMPANIES MAY
ARE SO BIG AND SO SYSTEMICALLY
IMPORTANT THAT THEY MAY FAIL. AND THAT'S RIGHT.
THEY MAY.
BUT THEN YOU DO ALL THE OTHER
99% OF THE COMPANIES THAT
AREN'T GOING TO FAIL.
NOW, CHAIRMAN FRANK LAST MONTH
INVITED I THINK ONE OF HIS
FAVORITE WITNESSES, MEL NINNO
TO TESTIFY ON HIS SAVE FOR PAY
BILL.
CAME AND TESTIFIED FAVORABLY.
THEN HE ADDED THIS GOVERNMENT
SAY ON PAY, WHERE THE
GOVERNMENT WILL MAKE THE
DECISIONS.
WELL, JUST YESTERDAY WE HAD
WHAT WE CALL A MAN BITES DOG
MOMENT.
SHE CAME OUT AND SHE POSTED
THIS ON HER WEBSITE.
SHE'S NOW OPPOSES -- VEHEMENTLY
OPPOSES SECTION 4 OF THE BILL,
THE GOVERNMENT SAY ON PAY.
SHE STATES THE STANDARD IS
UNWORKABLE.
WHAT DOES INAPPROPRIATE MEAN?
BOY, I AGREE.
DECIDING WHATEVER BONUS O
INCENTIVE PAY OR EVERY
COMMISSION IS INAPPROPRIATE.
SHE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION
THAT WE ASKED, WHO IS IN THE
BEST POSITION TO EVALUATE AND
RESPOND TO BADLY DESIGNED PAY
PACKAGES?
HERE'S HER ANSWER, ENTIRE
ANSWER.
I HAVE THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR
POLITICIANS AND BUREAUCRATS BUT
I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE
LIMITS.
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT
MICROMANAGE PAY.
AND THAT IS WHAT THIS DEBATE IS
ABOUT.
GOING TO LET THE GOVERNMENT DO
IT, ARE YOU GOING TO LET THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS DO IT, ARE
YOU GOING TO LET THE
SHAREHOLDERS DO IT?
OBVIOUSLY YOU GO TO THE DEFAULT
POSITION THAT YOU WENT TO ON
HEALTH CARE, CAP AND TRADE AND
NOW FINANCIAL SERVICES.
LET THE GOVERNMENT DECIDE.
THE SPKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
MR. FRANK: MR. SPEAKER, I'LL
TAKE 30 SECONDS TO SAY
APPARENTLYHE GENTL
ALABAMA ONLY HAS WITNESSES IF
HE'LL SURE HE'LL AGREE WITH
EVERYTHING HE SAID.
HE SAID IT'S MAN BITES DOG
BECAUSE WE HAD A WITNESS THAT
WE DISAGREED ON SOME AND
DISAGREED ON OTHERS.
APPARENTLY HAVING A WITNESS
LIKE THIS IS NEW TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA.
I'LL CONTINUE TO INVITE
WITNESSES WHO I THINK IS USEFUL
AGREE WITH THEM.
AND I SAY THAT THE GENTLEMAN
FROM ALABAMA'S SAY ON THIS IS
AGAINST PAY.
IT WAS ENOUGH FOR HIM TO SAY
THAT IT WAS GOING TO CAUSE REAL
PROBLEMS 2 1/2 YEARS AGO.
I REPEAT HIS VIEW ON PAY IN
MARCH OF 2007.
EVIDENCE THAT FREE MARKET
FORCES ARE ALREADY AT WORK TO
CREATE ANY EXCESSES SHOULD GIVE
THIS COMMITTEE PAUSE BUT SEEKS
TO OPPOSE THE LEGISLATIVE FIX
THAT COULD HAVE UNINTENDED AND
NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES.
HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT
INSIGNIFICANT PAY ON PAY HE'S
NOW TALKING ABOUT.
I YIELD A MINUTE TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM INDIANA.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE
MINUTE.
MR. CARSON: MR. SPEAKER, TODAY
I'VE HEARD A NUMBER OF
INTERESTING ACCUSATIONS ABOUT
WHAT THIS LEGISLATION WOULD DO IF PASSED.
I HAVE HEARD THAT THE
GOVERNMENT WILL SIT IN BOARD
ROOMS AND SET CAPS ON PAY.
ARE ACUSTOMED TO HEARING THESE
KINDS OF FALSE ARGUMENTS FROM
THOSE WHO WISH TO MAINTAIN THE
STATUS QUO.
MY CONSTITUENTS SENT ME TO
CONGRESS TO MOVE BEYOND THE
STATUS QUO OF A BROKEN
FINANCIAL REGULATORY STRUCTURE.
THEY SENT ME TO ENACT
COMMONSENSE REFORMS LIKE THOSE
INCLUDED IN THE LEGISLATION
WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY, MR.
SPEAKER.
THEY KNOW THAT AVERAGE FAMILIES
HAVE CUT BACK, WORKED LONGER
HOURS AND HAVE SAVED THEIR
MONEY DURING THIS CRISIS.
MEANWHILE, WALL STREET EXECS
HAVE ACTED IRRESPONSIBLY AND
HAVE ENJOYED LAVISH
COMPENSATION PACKAGES THAT HAVE
ALLOWED THEIR COMPANIES TO
FAIL.
SO I'M PROUD TO BE AN ORIGINAL
CO-SPONSOR OF THIS BILL, THAT
WE WILL BRING A NEW ERA OF
RESPONSIBILITY ON WALL STREET.
I ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DO
THE SAME.
I YIELD BACK.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY.
MR. GARRETT: CAN YOU TELL US
HOW MUCH TIME IS REMAING AND WHO WILL BE CLOSING?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
WILL BE CLOSING.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY
HAS THREE MINUTES REMAING.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS HAS 3 1/4
MINUTES REMAING.
MR. GARRETT: PARLIAMENTARY
INQUIRY.
AS FAR AS THE PROCEDURE WHO
CLOSES, IS IT NOT THE AUTHOR OF
THE AMENDMENT?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: A
MANAGER IN OPPOSITION HAS THE
RIGHT TO CLOSE.
MR. GARRETT: WAS THAT W WE --
MR. FRANK: PARLIAMENTARY
INQUIRY.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS
MR. FRANK: DID THE GENTLEMAN
NOT NOTICE THAT MR. PRICE HAD
THE RIGHT TO CLOSE BECAUSE HE
WAS DEFENDING WHAT I OFFERED?
MR. GARRETT: I YIELD MYSELF THE
REMAING TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. GARRETT: THE FINAL QUESTION
I GUESS IS, WHO DO WE TRUST?
WHO DO WE TRUST TO DEAL WITH
THE SITUATION OF PAY?
THE GENTLEMAN JUST SPOKE ON THE
FLOOR WITH REGARD TO RESPECTING
HIS CONSTITUENTS.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO YOUR
CONSTITUENTS ARE, IF THEY ARE THE C.E.O. ON THE TOP OF THE
LADDER, SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN,
THE RECEPTIONIST, ANYWHERE IN
BETWN ON THE PAY SCALE, THIS
BILL WILL AFFECT THEM AND
AFFECT THEIR ABILITY AS FAR AS
WHAT THEIR COMPENSATION IS.
IT WILL ALLOW THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO DICTATE WHAT
THEIR PAY WILL BE.
GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS WILL BE
MANG THOSE DECISIONS IN THE
FUTURE AS OPPOSED TO THE PEOPLE
INVOLVED IN THE COMPANY.
LARGE INCOME OR ALL,
BUREAUCRATS WILL BE THE ONES AT
HAND TO MAKE THE FINAL
DECISIONS.
THE ODD THING ABOUT THIS
LEGISLATION AS WE READ THROUGH
IT AND AS WE LOOK AT THE
AMENDMENT WE TRY TO ADDRESS
THIS PROBLEM IS THE UNDERLYING
BILL GIVES WITH ONE HAND AND TAKES WITH ANOTHER.
AS BEEN PREVIOUSLY INDICATED,
IT GIVES WITH ONE HAND IN AN
APPROACH TO SAY THAT THE
SHAREHOLDERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
BUT THEN IT TAKES IT RIG BACK
THEN AND SAYS IF THE GOVERNMENT
DECIDES IF THEY MAKE AN
INCORRECT DECISION SOME PERSON
AT THE S.E.C. OR REGULATOR
SHOULD TAKE THAT POWER AWAY
FROM THEM.
IT SAYS THAT THE STATE -- IN
THE COMMITTEE AT ONE HAND SAYS
THAT THE STATES SHOULD HAVE SAY
SUCH AS WITH THE CFPA, BUT HERE
THEY WANT TO STEP IN AND
PREEMPT THOSE STATES.
STATES THAT MAY HAVE A LONG
HISTORY OF DEALING WITH SUCH
SITUATIONS AS EXECUTIVE PAY
COMPENSATION OR STATES THAT MAY
WANT TO ADDRESS IT IN THE
FUTURE.
BUT THE UNDERLYING BILL SAYS
THEY WILL PREE
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE COME U
AN ALTERNATIVE.
WE HAVE COME UP WITH THE
SOLUTION.
WE ARE NOT THE PARTY OF NO.
WE ARE THE PARTY OF REFORM.
A PARTY THAT SAYS WE SHOULD
ADDRESS THIS IN A LONGER PERIOD
OF TIME, A PARTY THAT SAYS WE
SHOULD ALLOW THE SHAREHOLDERS
TO BE ABLE TO DECIDE THESE
ISSUES, A PARTY THAT SAYS THAT
WHEN IT COMES TO COMPENSATION,
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOUL
NOT TO BE INTERMEDDLING.
NOW, THERE WAS AN ARTICLE IN
"THE NEW YORK TIMES" RECENTLY.
IT QUOTED FROM ALLEN BLENDER, A
FORMER VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE FED
WHO WROTE RECENTLY FOR "THE
WALL STREET JOURNAL" WITH
REGARD TO THIS.
SAYS THE EXECUTIVES, LAWYERS
WHO DESIGN SYSTEMS ARE SKILLED
AND DEFINITELY NOT
DISINTERESTED.
CONGRESS AND GOVERNMENT
BUREAUCRATS WON'T BEAT THEM AT THEIR OWN GAME.
CONGRESS HAS TRIED TO DO THIS
IN THE PAST WHEN THEY SET THE
ISSUE WITH REGARD TO
DEDUCTIBILITY FOR EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION AT $1 MILLION.
IT HAD THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCE OF SETTING $1
MILLION AS THE FLOOR.
AND WALL STREET THEN WENT FROM
COMPENSATION PACKAGES GREATLY
EXCEEDING THIS.
WE MAY WELL SEE THIS WITH THE
UNDERLYING LEGISLATION AS WELL.
IN THE HEADLINES WHEN I STARTED
THE HOUR OUT BANK BONUS OF $33
BILLION, MONEY THAT IS ACTUALLY
COMING FROM -- COMING FROM THE
VERY TAXPAYERS WHO ARE WATCHING
US HERE RIGHT NOW, THIS
UNDERLYING LEGISLATION WILL NOT
CHANGE THAT.
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS TRIED TO
LIMIT THIS LEGISLATION TO TRY
TO ADDRESS THE LEGISLATION TO
SITUATION AS TARP COMPANIES,
THIS LEGISLATION WILL NOT SOLVE THIS.
OUR SUBSTITUTE WILL.
OUR SUBSTITUTE WILL RETURN THE
POWER TO THE INDIVIDUAL, RETURN
THE POWER TO THE CORPORATION
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY RETURN THE
POWER TO THE SHAREHOLDER AND
TAKE IFROM THE GOVERNMENT
BUREAUCRAT.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN'S ME HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
MR. FRANK: I YIELD OUR
REMAING TIME TO A LEADING
GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. PERLMUTTER: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER, AND I APPRECIATE THE
COMMENTS OF MY FRIEND FROM NEW
JERSEY.
BUT I'D SAY THE WORD THAT COMES
TO MIND IS AESIA.
MY FRIENDS ON THE REPUBLICAN
SIDE OF THE AISLE HAVE AMNESIA.
THEY HAVE AMNESIA OVER HOW THE
BRUCKS TRIED TO DEREGULATE
ADMINISTRATION TRIED TO
DEREGULATE EVERYTHING, TRIED TO
MAKE -- BUSH ADMINISTRATION
TRIED TO DEREGULATE EVERYTHING,
TRIED TO MAKE PONZI SCHEMES AS
WHAT HAPPENED WITH MADOFF.
WE HAD THE FAILURE WITH KATRINA
AND WE HAD THE BIGGEST COLLAPSE
IN THE BANKING SECTOR BECAUSE
OF DEREGULATION AND A BELIEF
THAT THE FREE MARKET COULD DO
ANYTHING IT WANTED TO DO.
NOW, THIS BILL IS VERY MILD.
WHAT IT ALLOWS, MR. SPEAKER, IS
IT ALLOWS SHAREHOLDERS TO HAVE
A SAY ON WHAT THE OFFICERS OF
THE COMPANY MAKE IN TERMS OF
SALARY.
THE OWNERS HAVING A SAY ON PAY.
WHAT COULD BE MORE AMERICAN AND
MORE FREE ENTERPRISE THAN THAT?
WHAT IT DOES ALLOW IS THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS TO OVERRULE THE
SHAREHOLDERS IF THEY THINK
THAT'S APPROPRIATE, BUT WE NEED
TO HAVE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE
COMPANY HAVE A SAY ON WHAT
THEIR EXECUTIVES MAKE SO THAT
IT DOESN'T GET OUT OF LINE AND
THAT THERE'S NO BACK SCRATCHING
GOING ON.
THE SECOND PIECE THAT MY
FRIENDS COMPLAIN ABOUT AND THAT
THE SUBSTITUTE IS DESIGNED TO
GUT IS THAT THE FEDERAL BANKING
REGULATORS HAVE A SAY ON THE
COMMISSIONS AND THE BONUSES AND
THE STOCOPTIONS THAT EXIST.
AND WHERE WE SAW THIS MOST
SPECIFICALLY WAS IN MORTGAGES.
LOTS OF MORTGAGES SOLD, LOTS OF
COMMISSIONS MADE, LOTS OF STOCK
OPTIONS WENT STRAIGHT THROH
THE ROOF, BUT THERE WAS A TIME
BOMB IN THOSE MORTGAGES FOUR,
FIVE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD THAT
COST ALL THOSE MORTGAGES TO
FAIL AND COMPANIES AND BANKS TO
COLLAPSE.
WE'RE NOGOING TO ALLOW THAT ANYMORE.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THE
TAXPAYER TO BE HOLDING THE BAG
THE WAY WE'VE HAD TO HOLD THE
BAG IN THE -- IN THIS LAST
FALL.
IT IS A TIME FOR REANABLE
REGULATION TO RESTORE
CONFIDENCE IN OUR FINANCIAL
SYSTEM.
THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL DOES.
THE SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT GUTS
THAT.
I URGE A NO VOTE ON THE
SUBSTITUTE AND A YES VOTE
SAY ON PAY.
AND WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION
697, THE PREVIOUS QUESTION IS
ORDERED ON THE BILL AS AMENDED
>> PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS
INQUIRY.
GARTE CAN THE CHAIR INDICATE
HOW MUCH TIME REMAINS?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: ALL
TIME FOR -- DOES THE GENTLEMAN
SEEK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
EXTEND THE DEBATE?
MR. GARRETT: YES, WE DO.
MR. FRANK: I OBJECT.
LET ME RESERVE THE RIGHT TO
OBJECT.
WHAT'S THIS ABOUT?
I'M RESERVE THE RIGHTO
OBJECT.
MEMBERS WANT TO GET OUT OF
HERE.
I CAN'T BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING MEMBERS HERE.
LET ME ASK IF THE
GENTLEMAN WILL YIELD
I'LL SPEAK ON MY RESERVATION.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. MR. FRANK: APPARENTLY THERE'S
AN EFFORT -- I DON'T THINK WE
OUGHT TO KEEP EVERYBODY IN THE
DARK.
THERE IS A UNANIMOUS CONSENT
AGREEMENT INVOLVING ANOTHER
BILL.
SO THEY'RE ASKING US TO DELAY
THIS.
I'M PERFECTLY WILLING TO
THIS IF PEOPLE KNOW IT'S NOT
OUR FAULT.
WE WERE TRYING TO GET FINISHED.
THERE IS A BIPARTISAN
LEADERSHIP REQUEST THAT WE WAIT
ANOTHER 10 MINUTES.
I'M PERFECTLY PREPARED ONCE
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS.
I DO THINKS THIS WHISPER,
WHISPER, NOBODY KNOWS, IS NOT
THE WAY TO GO.
THERE IS A BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT
ON THE CASH FOR CLUNKERS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
WITHOUT OBJECTION, DEBATE WILL
BE EXTENDED FIVE MINUTES ON
EACH SIDE.
MR. FRANK: I RATHER WE DO A
RECESS INSTEAD OF EXTENDING IT.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION
697, THE PREVIOUS QUESTION IS
ORDERED ON THE BILL.
MR. FRANK: WELL, THEN I WILL
AGREE TO AN EXTENSION OF THE
DEBATE FOR FIVE MINUTES ON EACH
SIDE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
WITHOUT OBJECTION, DEBATE ON
EACH SIDE WILL BE EXTENDED BY
FIVE MINUTES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASS MR. FRANK: I RESERVE MY TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MAS
RESERVES HIS TIME.
MR. FRANK: I HAVE AT MOST ONE
FURTR SPEAKER.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY.
MR. GARRETT: AND I YIELD MYSELF
SUCH TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. GARRETT: AND I APPRECIATE
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS FOR WORKING WITH
THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES IN ORDER
TO DEAL WITH ANY SITUATION
THAT'S GOING ON OUTSIDE THIS
AREA.
AND JUST AS THE GENTLEMAN SAYS,
IT'S NOTHING ON YOUR SIDE OF THE AISLE IN THE CHAMBERS TODAY
AT FAULT.
I GUESS WE WOULD SAY THE SAME
THING FOR THOSE SITTING HERE
RIGHT NOW AS WELL.
I LEFT MY LAST COMMENTS WITH
THE QUESTION OF, WHO DO YOU
TRUST AND WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO
IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THIS
SITUATION?
I'LL STEP THAT FROM A MOMENT TO
LOOK -- TO THE LARGER ISSUE
HERE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
UNCOVER.
I COMMEND THE GENTLEMAN FOR THE
NUMBER OF HEARINGS THAT WE HAVE
HAD OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS
TO TRY TO DELVE INTO THE
VARIOUS MATTERS THAT DEALT WITH
THE FISCAL CRISIS WE ARE
CURRENTLY FACING IN THIS
COUNTRY.
ONE OF THE TAKEAYS, THOUGH,
THAT I HAD FROM THOSE MYRIAD OF
HEARINGS THAT WE HAD IS THAT
THE UNDERLYING CONCERNING ON
THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE ON
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE IS TO
TRTO GET AT THE ROOT CAUSE OF
WHAT WAS IT THAT ACTUALLY
BROUGHT US TO THE CURRENT
FINANCIAL SITUATION THAT WE
FIND IN THIS COUNTRY TODAY.
WE HAVE HEARD A NUMBER OF
EXPERTS, FROM THINK TANKS, FROM
PEOPLE ACROSS THE COUNTRY THEY
EXPOUND ON WHERE THEY BELIEVE
THE UNDERLYING CAUSE WAS.
WE HEARD SOME THAT SAY IT WAS
WITH REGARD TO THE G.S.E.'S,
FANNIE MAE AND FRED GEE MAC,
SUCH EXTENSIVE LEVERAGE ALLOWED
THIS TO -- FREDDIE MAC, SUCH
EXTENSIVE LEVERAGE ALLOWED THIS
TO OCCUR.
SOME SAY IT WAS DEREGULATION,
THOUGH I ASK IF THEY COULD CITE
SPECIFIC ACTIONS OF CONGRESS
WITH REGARD TO DEREAGLATION.
WE'VE HEARD OTHER AREAS,
EXCESSES BY BOTH GOVERNMENT AND
WALL SEET.
THROUGH ALL THOSE DEBATES, I
HAVE YET TO RECALL ANYONE WHO
CAN PROVIDE FACTUAL EVIDENCE,
FACTUAL PROOF OTHER THAN THEIR
OPINION THAT THE UNDERLYING
CAUSE WAS BECAUSE OF EXCESSIVE
PA BY VARIOUS CORPORATIONS IN THIS COUNTRY.
NO ONE CERTAINLY BROUGHT UP THE
IDEA THAT THE PROBLEMS THAT
BROUGHT US HERE WAS DUE TO
EXCESSIVE PAY OUTSIDE OF THE --
OUTSIDE OF THE FINANCIAL SECTOR.
SO THEN WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE
LEGISLATION -- THE UNDERLYING
LEGISLATION, AND ASK, WHAT IS
IT WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO HERE?
IN THE MAJOR PORTN OF THE
LEGISLATION, WHICH GOES TO
ALLOWING SHAREHOLDERS RIGHTS TO
VOTE WITH EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION, OUTSIDE THE
FINANCIAL SECTOR, NO EVIDENCE
WHATSOEVER THAT THAT BROUGHT US
TO THIS SITUATION.
WE ASK, WHY IS THAT IN THE
WE DO TRY TO ATTEMPT TO REFORM
IT, IN AS MUCH AS THAT'S ALL WE
CAN DO, PUTTING ON A THREE-YEAR
EXTENSION WE DO TRY TO REFORM
THEIR IDEA TO SAY THAT STATE
THIS IS A LOOKED INTO THESE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE THE
PREROGATIVE TO CONTINUE WITH
THEIR LEGISLATION, THISER THAT
MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE, HAVE BEEN
MORE ENGAGED THEY MORE FOLLOWED
THE TRENDS IN THEIR STATES, WE
TRY TO REFORM IT AND IMPROVE
LEG IN THAT AREA AS WELL.
WE TRY TO REFORM IT IN A LAST
WAY TO SAY THAT FOR THOSE
CORPORATION THIS IS A SAY THAT
WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE
SITUATION, OUR SHAREHOLDERS
HAVE DIGESTED THE INFORMATION
AND REALIZED IT WOULD NOT BE TO
THE BENEFIT OF THE CORPORATION
OR THE SHAREHOLDERS THEMSELVES
AND 2/3 OF THE SHAREHOLDERS SAY
THEY DO NOT WANT TO ENGAGE IN
SETTING PAY BUT RATHER WOULD
ALLOW IT TO RETURN TO WHERE IT
HAS ALWAYS HISTORICALLY BEEN IN
THIS COUNTRY, BY MANAGEMENT OF
THE DIRECTOR, WE BUT PUT THAT
IN AS WELL.
STILL THE UNDERLYING BILL TAKES
THOSE POWERS AWAY, FROM THE
SHAREHOLDERS, FROM THE
MANAGEMENT FROM THE DIRECTOR,
AND DOES SO WITHOUT ANY
EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE AT ALL THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM.
SECTION FOUR DOES ARGUABLY GO
TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
IT GOES TO THOSE INSTITUTION
THIS IS ARGUABLY COULD BE,
SOME WOULD SAY, THE CAUSE OF
THE CURRENT SITUATION.
WE ALREADY HAD REGULATION IN
PLACE FOR MOST OF THOSE
FINANCIAINSTITUTIONS.
WE ALREADY HAD REGULATORS WHO
WERE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THEIR
JOB.
WE HAD REGULATORS OVER S.E.C.
WITH REGARD TO THE MAY DAUF SITUATION.
UNFORTUNATELY WE KNOW ALL TOO
WELL THEY FAILED IN THAT JOB,
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS
TESTIMONY THAT EVIDENCE WAS
PRESENTED TO THEM, HANDED TO
THEM, DOCUMENTING WHY THAT MAY
DOFF SITUATION WAS OUT THERE
AND WHY THE S.E.C. SHOULD BE
INVOLVED, THE REGULATORS MISSED
IT.
WE SAW REGULATORS MISSING IT AT
A.I.G. AS WELL.
THEY HAD AUTHORITY TO REGULATE
THOSE INSTITUTIONS AS WELL. DID THEY DO SO?
NO.
THEY M
REGARD TO THE A.I.G. SITUATION.
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE
SEEMS TO SAY, THAT WAS THEN,
THIS IS NOW.
THE SAME REGULATORS WHO MISSED
MAY DAUF WHOISSED A. IMPLET
G., WHO MISSED EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION AND OTHER PROBLEMS
IN THE PAST, NOW ALL OF A
SUDDEN WE'RE GOING TO SAY
THEM AND EXPAND IT FURTHER AND
SAY THOSE REGULATORS WILL HAVE
BROADER AUTHORITY BY FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS, HOWEVER THEY MAY
BE DEFINED IN IN THE THE
FUTURE, BECAUSE THIS BILL
RECOGNIZES
CHANGE, BEWE TRUST THEM
NORTHWESTERN BUREAUCRATS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
MR. FRANK: I YIELD MYSELF FIVE
MINUTES.
LET ME EMPHASIZE WHEN THE
GENTLEMAN SAYS, TRUST THE
SHAREHOLDERS.
THAT'S A CO
WE ARE BORN-AGAIN SHAREHOLDER
ADVOCATES.
IN 2006 WHEN THE REPUBLICANS
CONTROLED THIS INSTITUTION,
THEY WOULD NOT EVEN ON THE
FINANCIAL SERVICE COMMITTEES
ALLOW IT TO COME UP.
WE HAD A PETITION UNDER THE
RULES FOR THE HEARING.
THEN WE ASKED FOR A MARKUP AND
THEY REFUSED IT.
THEN IN 2007, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM ALABAMA, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM NEW JERSEY, THEY TOLD US
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA TOLD
NUSS 2007 TH THE FREE
ENTERPRISE SYSTEM WAS TAKING
CARE OF PAY EXCESS.
WE HE SAID THAT IN MARCH OF
2007.
ALL OF THE PROBLEMS WE'VE HAD
WITH PAY IN THE INTERIM,
APPARENTLY WERE FIGMENTS OF OUR
IMAGINATION.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA HAD
SUCH CONFIDENCE IN THE FREE
ENTERPRISE SYSTEM 2.5 YEA
AGO, THEY TOLD IT IT WOULDN'T
HAPPEN.
SAY ON PAY, NOW, IT'S NOT A BIG
DEAL.
IT WAS A BIG DEAL ENOUGH FOR
THEM TO OPPOSE IT.
THEY SAY TO THGENTLEM FROM
NEW JERSEY, HERE'S THE PROBLEM.
NO, IT'S NOT SO MUCH CONSCIOUS
ACTS OF DEREGULATION AS
NONREGULATION.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS NEW THINGS
GREW UP IN THE ECONOMY.
PARTICULARLY IN THE AREA OF
SUBPRIME MORTGAGES AND THE WAY
OF PACKAGING THEM AND SENDING
THEM AROUND.
SOME OF US IN THE MINORITY
WANTED TO CHANGE IT.
THERE WERE PARTY DIFFERENCES.
IN 2004, MY FRIEND FROM NORTH
CAROLINA, MR. MILLER, WHO IS
HERE, HE WAS EARLY HERE.
HE SPOKE WITH PEOPLE, THE
CENTER FOR RESPONSIBLE LENDING
IN NORTH CAROLINA, WHO TOLD US
IN 2004 TROUBLE WAS COMING.
BY THE WAY, TROUBLE WAS COMING
BECAUSE OF AN EXCESSIVE
ENCOURAGEMENT OF LOW-INCOME
PEOPLE TO BUY HOMES, NOT FROM
THE C.R. OR FROM LIBERAL
DEMOCRATS BUT FROM THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION.
AS THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS,
MR. HENSARLING, INSERTED AN
AMENDMENT WHICH WE ADOPTED IN
2002, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
SPED THIS UP.
IN 2004, OVER MY OBJECTION,
AMONG OTHERS, THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION DIRECTED FANNIE
MAE AND FREDDIE MAC
SUBSTANTIALLY TO INCREASE THE
NUMBER OF SUBPRIME MORTGAGES
THEY WERE BUYING AND FOR PEOPLE
BELOW INCOME.
THAT'S IN THE AMENDMENT THAT
MR. HEN AR LING OFFER WED
ADOPTED.
SOME OF US SAW THE PROBLEM AT
THAT POINT.
I HADN'T SEEN A PROBLEM
FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC
BEFORE BUT I DID BECOME
WORRIED.
I JOINED THE GENTLEMAN, MR.
OXLEY, IN TRYING TO PASS A
BILL, THOUGH I HAD A HOUSING
THE FLOOR, OTHER REPUBLICANS
THOUGHT MR. OXLEY WAS TOO SOFT.
WE GOT INTO AN INTRA-REPUBLICAN
DISPUTE ON FANNIE MAE AND
FREDDIE MAC WHERE THE HOUSE
PASSED A BILL, THE HOUSE YOU
SHOULD THE REPUBLICANS,
SUPPORTED BY THE OVERWHELMING
MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS, EVERY
AMENDMENT OFFERED TO TOUGHEN IT
UP REJECTED BY THE MAJORITY OF
REPUBLICANS AND THE REPUBLICAN
SENATE HAD A DIFFERENCE.
IRONICALLY, THE DEMOCRATS IN
THE SENATE AGREED WITH MR.
OXLEY.
THE REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE
AGREED WITH MR. BUSH.
NO BILL.
WE ALSO TRIED, AS I SAID TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT SUBPRIME
LENDING. THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH
CAROLINA PUSD FOR
LEGISLATION.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA TO
HIS CREDIT, WAS SOMEWHAT
INTERESTED IN WORKING WITH US
ON IT.
THE REPUBLICANS WERE OVERRULED
BY MR. DELAY WHO USED THE
RHETORIC YOU'RE HEARING TODAY,
KEEP THE BUREAUCRATS OUT OF IT,
THAT WAS THE PREVAILING
PHILOSOPHY OF THE REPUBLICANS
WHO RULED THIS HOUSE IN 2004
AND 2005.
WHEN SOME OF US, INCLUDING THE
BACHUS, TRIED TO WORK ON
LEGISLATION TO RESTRICT
SUBPRIME LENDING, MR. BACHUS
WAS EVEN CHAIRMAN OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE, HE WAS OVERRULED.
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE,
. OXLEY, WAS TOLD WE DON'T DO
THAT, WE BELIEVE IN FREE
ENTERPRISE.
IT WAS A CONSCIOUS DECISION NOT
TO DO ANYTHING.
I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA.
>> I'M FINDING
UNDERSTAND YOUR RAPID SPEECH.
WOULD YOU SLOW DOWN?
MR. FRANK: NO, I'LL TELL YOU TO
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIF
HE HAS TO SPEED UP.
IF HE WAITS A COUPLE OF DAY,
TRANSCRIBER, HE'LL BE ABLE TO
READ IT, MAYBE WE CAN GET IT
PUT INTO LARGE TYPE SO HE CAN
READ IT.
NOW, SINCE THE GENTLEMAN
INTERRUPTED ME, THAT'S WHAT YOU
TRY TO DO WHEN YOU DON'T LIKE
WHAT'S BEING SAID.
IF WE HAD BEEN ABLE TO GET THE
LEGISLATION DONE IN 2005, WE
WOULD HAVE RETARDED THE CRIS.
THERE WERE CONSCIOUS DIGS NOT TO REGULATE.
THERE WAS A BILL PASSED IN 1994
BY A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS
REPLACED IN 1995 BY A
REPUBLICAN CONGRESS WHICH GAVE
THE FEDERAL RESERVE THE
AUTHORITY TO REGULATE MORTGAGES
OF THE KIND THAT CAUSE TROUBLE.
ALAN GREENSPAN SUPPORTED BY THE
REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS,
REFUSED TO USE THAT AUTHORITY.
IT WAS WHEN HE CONTINUED TO
REFUSE THAT SOME OF US TRIED TO
DO SOMETHING SYSTEM OF YES,
THAT'S WHERE WE T THIS.
A REPUBLICAN COMMITMENT TO
NEVER DOING ANYTHING OF THE
SORT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW
THAT LET SUBPRIME MORTGAGES
FLOURISH.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
PURSUANT TO HOUSRESOLUTION
697, THE PREVIOUS QUESTION IS
ORDERED ON THE BILL AS AMENDED
AND ON THE AMENDMENT A IN THE
NATURE OF THE SUBSTITUTE
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT
111-237, OFFERED BY MR. GARRETT
OF NEW JERSEY.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR.
GARRETT OF NEW JERSEY.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR THE
NOES VISIT.
MR. GARRETT: I ASK FOR A
RECORDED VOTE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: A
RECORDED VOTE IS REQUESTED.
THOSE FAVORING A RECORDED VOTE
WILL RISE.
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING
RISEN, A RECORDED VOTE IS
ORDERED. PURSUANT TO HOUSTION
697, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON
THIS QUESTION WILL BE
POSTPONED.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 1C OF
19, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE
BILL WILL BE POSTPONED.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
MR. FRANK: A POINT OF PERNAL
PRIVILEGE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: DOES
THE GENTLEMAN STATE A
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY?
MR. FRANK: PARLIAMENTARY
INQUIRY.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN WILL STATE THE
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.
MR. FRANK: THIS IS A NO WAY OF
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
AND WE WANT TO GO TO A VOTE AND
WE ARE VERY MUCH THE VICTIM OF
WHATEVER THIS IS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN MAY SEEK TIME TO
ADDRESS THE BODY.
THE GENTLEMAN MAY SEEKIME TO
ADDRESS THE BODY.
MR. FRANK: WELL, I WANT TO PUT
FURTHER EXCESS ON THE BODY.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM COLORADO RISE?
MR. PERLMUTTER: THANKS, MR.
SPEAKER.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT
THE SPEAKER BE AUTHORIZED ON
THIS LEGISLATIVE DAY TO
ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO SUSPEND
THE RULES RELATING TO H.R.
3435.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: IS
THERE OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN RISE?
MR.
THE HOUSE SUSPEND THE RULES AND
PASS H.R. 3435.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
CLERK WILL REPORT THE TITLE OF
THE BILL.
THE CLERK: H.R. 3435, A BILL
MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2009 FOR THE CONSUMER
ASSISTANCE TO RECYCLE AND SAVE
PROGRAM.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
PURSUANT TO THE RULE, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN, MR.
OBEY, AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA, MR. LEWIS, EACH
WILL CONTROL 20 MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
MR. OBEY: MR. SPEAKER, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT ALL
MEMBERS MAY HAVE FIVE
LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO REVISE AND
EXTEND THEIR REMARKS ON H.R. 3435.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. OBEY: MR. SPEAKER, I YIELD
MYSELF THREE MINUTES.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. OBEY: MR. SPEAKER, LATE
YESTERDA IT CAME TO OUR
ATTENTION THAT THE CASH FOR
CLUNKERS PROGRAM WHICH ENACTED
A FEW DAYS AGO HAS PROVEN MORE
WILDLY POPULAR THAN ITS
STRONGEST SUPPORTERS HAD
PREDICTED.
JUST LAST MONTH, CONGRESS
PASSED THE PROGRAM WHICH
PROVIDED UP TO $4,500 IF YOU
TRADE IN YOUR OLD GAS GUZZLER
FOR A NEW CAR THAT GETS BETTER
MILEAGE.
THAT WAS DONE IN THE HOPES OF
SPURRING SOME NEW CAR SALES AND ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO BE A
LITTLE MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY
FRIENDLY.
WE PROVIDED $1 BILLION IN THE
SUPPLEMEAL TO GET IT GOING,
ENOUGH FOR ABOUT 250,000 SALES.
THE PROGRAM KICKED OFF MONDAY,
AND IT'S ALREADY OFFICIALLY
RECEIVED 40,000 REQUESTS FOR
REIMBURSEMENT WORTH ABOUT $160
MILLION IN REBATES.
IN IS SURVEY DONE BY THE
NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALER
ASSOCIATION THIS WEEK SUGGEST
THAT AT LEAST 200,000 DEALS
HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BUT NOT YET
OFFICIALLY SUBMITTED.
IF THAT'S TRUE AND WE'RE BEING
TOLD THAT IT PROBABLY IS, THEN
THE ENTIRE $1 BILLION IS JUST
ABOUT EXHAUSTED, SO WE HAVE
BEFORE US A BILL TO PROVIDE
STOPGAP FUNDING FOR CASH FOR
CLUNKERS BY ALLOWING THE
ADMINISTRATION TO TRANSFER UP
TO $2 BILLION FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM WHICH DOESN'T EXPECT TO
AWARD FUNDING UNTIL LATE NEXT
YEAR.
SOME WOULD CALL THIS LETTING
THE MARKETS WORK.
CONSUMERS HAVE SPOKEN WITH
THEIR WALLETS AND THEY ARE
SAYING THEY LIKE THIS PROGRAM
AND CLEARLY IT WAS INTENDED TO
DO WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO,
SPUR CAR SALES IN THIS SLUGGISH
THIS WILL KEEP IT GOING, HOPEFULLY.
I'D URGE SUPPORT FOR THE BILL
AND I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN
RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MR. LEWIS: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I RISE TO POINT
OUT THE ABSURDITY OF THE SITUATION WEIND OURSELVES IN
TODAY.
IN THE MAJORITY'S HASTE TO SLAM
LEGISLATION THROUGH THE FLOOR
WITH ALMOST NO CONSIDERATION AT
THE COMMITTEE LEVEL, WITH NO
TIME FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE
HOUSE MEMBERSHIP IN GENERAL,
AND WITH ABSOLUTELY NO ABILITY
FOR THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY TO
AMEND BILLS ON THE FLOOR, WE
ARE NOW SEEING THE EFFECTS OF
SUCH SHORT-SIDED MARTIAL LAW
TACTICS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THE CASH FOR
CLUNKERS PROGRAM WAS PASSED ON
THE SUSPENSION CALENDAR, SO NO
MEMBERS WERE ABLE TO OFFER
AMENDMENTS.
THE SENATE HAD A EXARBLE WHICH
WILL WITH SOME SIGNIFICANT
DIFFERENCES.
THE HOUSE AND SENATE BILLS
SHOULD HAVE GONE TO FULL AND
OPEN CONFERENCE SO THOSE
DIFFERENCES COULD HAVE BEEN
NEGOTIATED AND A CONFERENCE
REPORT THEN BROUGHT FOR A VOTE.
INSTEAD THE LEADERSHIP OF THIS
BODY, WITHOUT CONSULTATION OR
NEGOTIATION, STRUCK THE HOUSE
VERSION OF CASH FOR CLUNKERS,
THEY STUCK IT ON WHAT WAS
SUPPOSED TO BE A, QUOTE, CLEAN
WAR SUPPLEMENTAL, A BILL ONLY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING AND
SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS AND OUR
EFFORTS OVERSEAS AND THE WAR ON
TERROR.
THEY HAD TO DO THAT BECAUSE OF
THE MESS THE MAJORITY CREATED OF
THE CONFERENCED BILL AND I USE
THAT TERM LOOSELY AS MOSTF THE
FUNDING LEVELS AND PROGRAMS WERE
DETERMINED NOT IN A CONFERENCE
BUT BY THE HOUSE LEADERSHIP AND
BY MY CHAIRMAN.
BUT WHEN IT CAME TO COUNTING
VOTES, THE LEADERSHIP AND THE
CHAIRMAN HAD TO DO SOME DANCING
AND STARTED LOADING UP THE WAR
SUPPLEMENTAL WITH EXTRANEOUSND
UNRELATED ITEMS ON -- ALL OF
WHICH NEED TO GET MORE VOTES.
CASH FOR CLUNKERS WAS ONE OF
THOSE ITEMS.
MY COLLEAGUES IN THE SENATE,
SENATOR FEINSTEIN IN PARTICULAR
AND SENATOR COINS, HAD SOME
SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE HOUSE
BILL.
SENATOR FEINSTEIN TRIED TO
NEGOTIATE SOME CHANGES TO
IMPROVE THE PROGRAM, BUT WAS
REBUFFED, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, BY
MY CHAIRMAN.
BASICALLY THEY WERE TOLD IT WAS
HIS WAY OR THE HIGHWAY.
HERE WE ARE TODAY, NOT ONE
HEARING ON THE CASH FOR CLUNKERS
PROGRAM IN THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE, NOT ONE HEARING ON
THE NEEDS OF THE PROGRAM PRIOR
TO RECEIVING FUNDS, NO ONE
HEARING ON HOW THE FIRST $1
BILLION HAS BEEN SPENT, NOT ONE
HEARING ON HOW MUCH MONEY THE
PROGRAM WILL NEED TO GET THROUGH
THE FISCALEAR.
INSTEAD WE FIND OURSELVES ON THE
SUSPENSION CALENDAR FOR THE
SECOND TIME IN THREE DAYS.
BAILING OUT ANOTHER PROGRAM,
SHOVELING ANOTHER $2 BILLION OUT
THE DOOR THIS FISCAL YEAR AFTER
WE SHOVELED $14 BILLION O
DOOR TO BAIL OUT THE HIGHWAY
PROGRAMS AND OTHER RELATED
ITEMS.
MY COLLEAGUES ARE GOING TO PAT
THEMSELVES ON THE BACK FOR
FINDING AN OFFSET FOR THIS
TRANSFER AND FOR THAT I SAY TWO
THINGS.
FIRST, YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN
FINDING WAYS TO OFFSET SPENDING
ALL YEAR.
SECOND, IF THERE WAS AN EXTRA $2
BILLION IN A STIMULUS PROGRAM
THAT W SUITABLE FOR A
DIFFERENT PURPOSE, WHY DID WE
SPEND THE $2 BILLION IN THE
FIRST PLACE?
HOW MANY OTHER BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS ARE IN THE STIMULUS NOT
BEING SPENT THAT WE CAN RETURN
TO OUR TAXPAYERS?
NOW, MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES WILL
SAY, THIS IS A GREAT PROGRAM, A
NECESSARY -- AND NECESSARY FOR
THE REVITALLYIZATION FOR THE
ECONOMY AND THE CAR DID INDUSTRY
AND I'M NOT REALLY GOING TO
ARGUE WITH THOSE GOALS.
THOSE ARE GOOD GOALS AND WE ARE
LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS.
HOWEVER WE ARE SURE THIS PROGRAM
IS WORKING LIKE IT'S SUPPOSED
TO.
I DON'T THINK SO.
HOW IS IT THAT WE DIDN'T HEAR OF
THIS FUNDING PROBLEM UNTIL LAST
NIGHT AND EVEN THEN WE WERE TOLD
THERE'S ROUGHLY 24 HOURS BEFORE
THEY WERE GOING TO SHUT DOWN THE
PROGRAM?
THIS PROGRAM HAS ONLY BEEN UP
AND RUNNING ONE WEEK.
IF THAT IS HOW THE GOVERNMENT IS
GOING TO HANDLE $1 BILLION
PROGRAMS AFFECTING ALL
AMERICANS, I ASK, WHATEVER WILL
WE DO IF THE ADMINISTRATION
TAKES CONTROL OF OUR HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM? I QUOTE ONE CAR DEALER FROM NEW
YORK, IF THEY CAN'T ADNISTER A
PROGRAM LIKE THIS, I'D BE A
LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT MY HEALTH
INSURANCE. I WOULD SAY, AMEN.
AND I RESERVE
TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA
RESERVES HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
MR. OBEY: MR. SPEAKER, I YIELD
MYSELF 30 SECONDS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. MR. OBEY: MR. SPEAKER, I'M NOT
GOING TO GIVE ANY POLITICAL
SPEECHES.
WE'RE SIMPLY TRYING TO REACT TO
ONE PROGRAM THE PUBLIC HAS
APPARENTLY LATCHED ONTO.
THE DEMAND FOR THIS WAS SO GREAT
THAT WITHIN THREE DAYS OF ITS
INCEPTION THE FUNDS WERE
APPARENTLY TOTALLY USED UP.
THAT INDICATES THAT WE NEED TO
DO SOMETHING IF WE DON'T WANT
THE PROGRAM TO SHUT DOWN THREE
DAYS AFTER IT BEGINS.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO
TODA
MINUTES TO THE DISTINGUISHED
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK IS
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
>> I THANK THE CHAIRMAN FOR THE
TIME.
MR. SPEAKER, I WAS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL CO-SPONSORS OR SPONSORS
OF THE CASH FOR CLUNKERS BILL.
MANY OF US KNEW THAT IT WOULD
WORK WELL.
FEW OF US REALIZED HOW WELL IT
WOULD WORK.
THIS PROGRAM HAS BEEN TRULY
STIIVE.
NY PEOPLE ARE QUESTIONING
WHETHER THE CONGRESS --
STIMULATIVE.
MANY PEOPLE ARE QUG WHETHER THE
CONGRESS IS PASSING ANYTHING
THAT WILL STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.
THIS PROGRAM HAS STIMULATED THE
ECONOMY.
WE HAVE DOUBLED CAR SALES OVER
THE PAST FIVE YEARS.
THIS IS TRULY STIMULATIVE.
IT IS CREATING JOBS, IT IS A
CREATING A SURGE FOR -- IT IS
CREATING A SURGE FOR CAR
DEALERS.
THE AMERICAN CONSUMERS ARE
SATISFIED WITH IT.
THE AMERICAN CONSUMER HAS TAKEN
CASH FOR CLUNKERS ON A TEST
DRIVE AND THEY WANT TO CONTINUE
DRIVING CASH FOR CLUNKERS.
THEY WANT TO CONTINUE THIS
PROGRAM.
IN FACT, NOT ONLY SHOULD WE
CONTINUE IT OVER THE NEXT SIX
WEEKS BY PROVIDING EMERGENCY
FUNDING, BUT WE OUGHT TO IMPROVE
IT WHEN WE RETURN IN SEPTEMBER.
WE SHOULD IMPROVE IT BY
INCREASING THE EFFICIENCY
STANDARDS, WE SHOULD IMPROVE IT
BY MAKING USED CARS ELIGIBLE FOR
THE PROGRAM, WE SHOULD IMPROVE
IT THROUGH A LONG-TERM PROGRAM
BECAUSE WE HAVE LEARNED THAT THE
SHORT-TERM PROGRAM WAS SO
SUCCESSFUL THAT WE HAVE
EXHAUSTED THE FUNDS IN ONLY FIVE
DAYS.
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A
BIPARTISAN PROGRAM THAT MAKES
SENSE.
WE NEED TO CREATE A BRIDGE OF
FUNDING FOR THE NEXT SIX WEEKS,
COME BACK AND EXTEND IT AND
IMPROVE IT INTO THE FUTURE.
I WANT TO THANK THE
DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMAN FOR YIELDING ME THE TIME AND I YIELD
BACK.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MRLEWIS: MR. SPEAKER, I YIELD
TO THE GENTLELADY FROM MICHIGAN
THREE MINUTES.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM MICHIGAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.
MRS. MILLER: MR. SPEAKER, I WAS
PROUD TO BE THE CO-SPONSOR OF
THE ORIGINAL LEGISLATION WE
PASSED MONTHS AGO.
CASH FOR CLUNKERS. .
WHAT A FANTASTIC SUCCESS.
THIS PROGRAM HAS SUCCEED
EVERYBODY'S EXPECTATIONS AND
MOST OF THE NAYSAYERS ARE
ADMITTING IT'S THE BES$1
BILLION THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS EVER SPENT AND
HERE'S A COUPLE OF TODAY'S
QUOTES FROM THOSE WHO ARE
DIRECTLY IMPACTED.
FIRST OF ALL, THE C.E.O. OF ONE
OF OUR NATION'S LAEST AUTO
GROUPS SAID, THE MOST
BRILLIANTLY CONCEIVED AND MOST
EFFECTIVE ECONOMIC STIMULUS
PROGRAM EVER PUT FORWARD BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY SAYS, IT'S A
HUGE SUCCESS.
THIS CONGRESS APPROPRIATED $1
BILLION ON NOVEMBER 1, WHATEVER
CAME FIRST, AND ONLY SEVERAL
DAYS INTO THE PROGRAM AND NOW WE
NEED MORE CASH FOR THE CASH FOR
CLUNKERS.
IF WE CAN JUST THINK ABOUT THE
TREMENDOUS MULTIPLIER, ECONOMIC MULTIPLIER, EFFECT THIS IS
HAVING.
IT IS GOOD FOR THE AUTO DIALERS,
IT IS GOOD FOR THE AUTO
MANUFACTURERS, IT IS GOOD FOR
THE SUPPLIERS, IT IS GOOD FOR
WORKERS, IT IS GOOD FOR THE
STATES, MR. SPEAKER.
THINK ABOUT ALL OF THE REVENUE
THAT IS BEING GENERATED BY SALES TAX AND LICENSING FEES AS WELL
FOR THIS PROGRAM.
GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, IT'S
GETTING ALL THESE OLD VEHICLES
OFF THE ROAD AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY
GREAT FOR CONSUMERS.
LET ME JUST READ QUICKLY, HERE'S
ONE LETTER I GOT FROM A LADY IN
MICHIGAN. THANK YOU FOR PUSHING THROUGH
AND HELPING DEVELOP THE CASH FOR
CLUNKERS LEGISLATION.
I AM NOW THE HAPPY OWNER OF AN
AMERICAN-MADE 2010 FORD FUSION
THAT I AM GOING TO BE PICKING UP
ON JULY 30.
IT HAS BEEN 12 YEARS SINCE I'VE
BEEN ABLE TO PURCHASE A NEW
VEHICLE.
DUE TO THE CASH FOR CLUNKERS
PLAN I WAS ABLE TO SAVE OVER
$7,000 BEFORE TAXES ON MY FORD
FUSION.
MY OLD VEHICLE WAS A 1995 FORD
WINDSTAR WITH 150,000 MILES.
SHE SAYS, I'M SO EXCITED FOR ME.
WELL, 'RE EXCITED, TOO.
MR. SPEAKER, THROUGHOUT OUR
NATION'S
HAD THE AUTOMOBILE, ACTUALLY, IT
IT HAS BEEN AUTOMOBILE SALES
THAT HAVE LITERALLY PULLED OUR
NATION OUT OF RECESSION.
AND THIS TIME IS GOING TO BE THE
SAME.
I THINK WE ARE SEEING OURSELVES
BEING PLACED ON THE ROAD TO
ECONOMIC RECOVERY HERE AND THIS
ROAD IS PAVED BY THE CASH FOR
CLUNKERS PROGRAM.
I ACTUALLY WROTE A LETTER AT THE
BEGINNING OF THIS WEEK TO THE
SPEAKER ANTO THE HOUSE
LEADERSHIP SAYING THAT WE WERE
GOING TO RUN OUT OF MONEY AND
THAT WE WERE GOING TO NEED SOME
MORE MONEY FOR THIS PROGRAM.
HERE WE ARE ON FRIDAY OF THE
FIRST WEEK.
WE ABSOLUTELY NEED TO DO THIS,
MR. SPEAKER, WE CANNOT LEAVE FOR
OUR AUGUST RECESS UNTIL WE FUND
-- UNTIL WE VOTE FOR THIS
REPROGRAMMING OF UNSPENT
ECONOMIC STIMULUS FUNDS FOR THIS
PROGRAM.
WE NEED TO DO IT.
AND ONE OTHER THING, FOR THOSE
WHO KEEP SAYING THAT WE NEED TO
GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE
AUTOMOBILE BUSINESS, IF YOU
REALLY WANT TO GET THE
GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE POCKET OF
GENERAL MOTORS OR WHATEVER, THIS
IS THE WAY TOO IT, MR.
SPEAKER.
I WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL.
IT IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.
NOT JUST FOR THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN, THIIS A NATIONAL
ECONOMIC PROGRAM, BEST THING
WE'VE EVER DONE.
MORE CASH FOR CASH FOR CLUNKERS.
I YIELBACK.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEWOMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HER TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
MR. OBEY: I YIELD A MINUTE AND
45 SECONDS
MICHIGAN, MR. LEVIN. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE M
SECONDS. MR. LEVIN: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO REVISE. THE SPEA
OBJECTION.
MR. LEVIN: THE PUBLIC HAS SPOKEN
.
CONSUMERS HAVE BEEN GOING TO
DEALERSHIPS.
THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NOW ACTED
AND THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THIS
HOUSE WILL RESPOND.
AS I SEE IT AND I THINK THE
PUBLIC WILL SEE IT THIS IS A
TEST WHETHER CONGRESS CAN SHED
ITS DISAGREEMENTS ON OTHER
ISSUES AND RESPOND TO WHAT THE
PUBLIC INDEED WANTS.
THE RUSH TO USE THIS PROGRAM
SHOWS ITS NEED.
I SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA AND ANYBODY ELSE,
WHAT ELSE DO WE NEED TO SEE?
THIS PROGRAM IS WORKING.
THE WHITE HOUSE HAS MADE CLEAR
THAT THE DEALERS CAN GO FORWARD.
THIS PROGRAM IS OPEN UNTIL
FURTHER NOTICE AND DEALERS ARE
URGED NOT TO RUSH TOO MUCH BUT
TO DO IT RIGHT IN THE FIRST
PLACE AND GET IN LINE.
SO, IT'S OPEN UNTIL FURTHER
NOTICE.
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THIS
INSTITUTION WILL SHUT IT DOWN OR
WHETHER IT WILL CONTINUE TO OPEN
UP THE VALVES?
IT WILL BE GOOD FOR EVERYBODY,
IT WILL BE GOOD FOR THE NATIONAL
ECONOMY.
THIS IS AN ISSUE -- MICHIGAN,
OHIO, WISCONSIN, INDIANA,
ILLINOIS, BUT FOR WHOLE THE --
FOR THE WHOLE NATION.
THIS IS AN ISSUE OF OUR NATIONAL
ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND ANYONE WHO
VOTES NO ON THIS IS SAYING NO TO
AN IMPORTANT BOOST TO OUR
ECONOMY AT A CRITICAL TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MR. LEWIS: MR. CHAIRMAN, I AM
PROUD TO YIELD TWO MINUTES TO
T
BIPARTISAN AUTO CAUCUS, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GELEMAN FROM MICHIGAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
>> I THANK MY FRIEND FROM
CALIFORNIA.
I'M FROM THIS GREAT STATE OF
MICHIGAN WHERE OUR UNEMPLOYMENT
IS SADLY AT 15.2%.
ALMOST TWICE THE NATIONAL
AVERAGE.
LAST NIGHT WE LEARNED FROM THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AUTO
DEALERS THAT IN FACT THIS
PROGRAM IN THREE DAYS HAS
BROUGHT ABOUT ALMOST A QUARTER
OF A MILLION NEW CAR SALES IN
JUST THOSE THREE DAYS YET THE
CASH IS GOING TO RUN OUT
LITERALLY IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF
DAYS WITHOUT AN INFUSION.
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE NOT
TAKING NEW MONEY, THIS IS
EXISTING MONEY.
THIS BILL MOVES EXISTING MONEY
INTO OTHER ACCOUNTS SO IT WILL
NOT ADD TO THIS YEAR DEFICIT.
BUT IT IS GOING TO RUN OUT
WITHOUT THIS LEGISLATION.
HERE IS TODAY'S "USA TODAY,"
FULL PAGE AD BY CHRYSLER, DODGE,
JEEP, $4,500 IF YOU BRING IN
DOLLARS BACK, IF YOU PURCHASE A
NEW VEHICLE, BRING IN YOUR OLD
ONE.
A LOT OF OUR AUTO DEALERS CAN DO IT.
WHETH IT'S THE BIG THREE OR
THE TRANSPLANTS, TOO.
NATIONWIDE ONE IN 10 JOBS ARE
AUTO RELATED.
IN MICHIGAN IT'S ABOUT ONE IN
FOUR, ONE IN FIVE JOBS.
AUTO SALES, THE LAST THREE YEARS
-- AUTO SALES THE LAST THREE
YEARS HAVE DECLINED BY NEARLY
50%.
16 OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE DONE
THIS.
WHETHER IT BE GERMANY, SOUTH
KOREA, EVEN SLOVAKIA HAS DONE
THIS.
AND IN ALL OF THOSE 16
COUNTRIES, CAR SALES HAVE COME
BACK.
THIS COUNTRY HAS LOST ONE IN
FIVE MANUFACTURINGOBS IN THE
LAST 16 MONTHS.
IF WE WANT TO KEEP JOBS HERE IN
THIS COUNTRY, BRING BACK SOME OF
THOSE THAT WE HAVE LOST,
OBVIOUSLY IT'S GOT TO BE IN THE
AUTO SECTOR WHERE ONE IN 10 JOBS
ARE AUTO RELATED.
THIS BILL SENDS THOSE DOMINOES
THE OTHER WAY.
IT BRINGS PEOPLE BACK IN THE
SHOWROOM, WE'VE DEMONSTRATED
THAT JUST THIS WEEK.
IT BRINGS BACK THE CALL ORDERS,
WE'VE HEARD IN A NUMBER OF
DEALERS ACROSS MICHIGAN THAT
THEY'RE RUNNING OUT OF CARS.
GUESS WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO?
THEY'RE GOING TO ORDER THEM BACK
AND THAT'S GOING TO BRING PEOPLE
BACK TO WORK.
WOULDN'T YOU RATHER HAVE -- LET
ME JUST END ON THIS, WOULDN'T
YOU RATHER HAVE PEOPLE WORKING
AND PAYING TAXES THAN BEING
UNEMPLOYED AND RECEIVING
BENEFITS WHICH IN MICHIGAN ARE
BECOMING EXHAUSTED?
I ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE FO
THIS BILL.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
MINUTE AND A HALF TO THE DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN FROM
MICHIGAN, MR. DINGELL.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR A MINUTE AND A
HALF.
MR. DINGELL: I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO REVISE AND EXTEND MY
REMARKS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. DINGELL: MR. SPEAKER, I
RISE TO COMMEND THE LEADERIP
AND COMMEND MY DEAR FRIEND, THE
CHAIRMANF THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE, FOR HIS
EXTRAORDINARY LEADERSHIP ON
THIS MATTER.
THE SUCCESS OF THE CARS PROGRAM
IN JUST A FEW SHORT DAYS HAS
BEEN EXTRAORDINARY.
E PROGRAM HAS BEEN DOING SO
WELL, IN FACT, THE INITIAL $1
BILLION ALLOCATED FOR THE
PROGRAM IS ALREADY RUNNING LOW.
THIS IS A GREAT PROBLEM TO HAVE
IN THE MIDST OF ALL THE
DIFFICULTIES THAT WE CONFRONT.
IT'S A SIGN THAT THE PROGRAM IS
NOT ONLY WORKING WELL AND THE
CONSUMERS ARE VERY INTERESTED,
BUT IT'S ALSO PROVING THAT CARS
IS PROVIDING A JOLT, A
MEANINGFUL UPWARD JOLT TO OUR
ECONOMIC RECOVERY EFFORTS.
THIS IS A SIMPLE EXTENSION.
IT'S AN INFUSION OF MONEY IN AN
AREA WHERE IT'S NEED AND
WHERE IT'S WORKING.
THE LEGISLATION SHOULD NOT GET
BOGGED DOWN BY CALLS FOR
CHANGING THE PROGRAM.
THAT WOULD ONLY SERVE TO STALL
THE EXTEION AND CONFUSE
CONSUMERS.
WE CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT MAKE
CHANGES IN AN EXTRAORDINARILY
SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM THAT HAS
ONLY BEEN OPERATING FOR A WEEK.
THAT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE.
I WOULD ADD THAT THE ADDITIONAL
$2 BILLION FOR THE PROGRAM HAS
ALREADY BEEN APPROPRIATED UNDER
TAXPAYERS AN ADDITIONAL TIME.
I ASK FOR PASSAGE OF THE BILL.
I COMMEND THE LEADERSHIP AND I
THANK MY DEAR FRIEND, THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE, AND
THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE WHO HAS MADE IT
POSSIBLE FOR US TO CONSIDER
THIS LEGISLATION SO FAST. I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MR. LEWIS: MR. SPEAKER, I YIELD
TWO MINUTES TO THE GENTLEMAN
FROM TEXAS, MR. HENSARLING.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS IS
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
MR. HENSARLING: I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.
CASH FOR CLUNKERS, MR. SPEAKER.
OBVIOUSLY IT'S A POPULAR
PROGRAM.
IT'S A CLEVER TITLE. IT PAYS PEOPLE SEVERAL THOUSAND
DOLLARS TO TRADE IN THEIR OLD
CARS IF THEY BUY NEW CARS.
AND, YES, YESMR. SPEAKER,
PEOPLE ARE HURTING IN THE AUTO
INDUSTRY.
THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
BUT I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE
TAXPAYERS ARE HURTING.
$80 BILLION TO CHRYSLER AND
G.M., AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY,
THE AUTO INDUSTRY DOES NOT HAVE
A MONOPOLY ON HARD TIMES IN
THIS ECONOMY.
RECENTLY ONE OF THE LARGEST
POULTRY PRODUCERS IN AMERICA,
PILGRIM'S PRIDE, JUST A FEW
MILES OUTSIDE OF MY
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, THEY
HAD TO DECLARE CHAPTER 11.
MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE A CASH FOR
CLUCKERS PROGRAM AND PAY PEOPLE
TO EAT CHICKEN.
THEN AFTER THAT WE CAN HAVE A
PROGRAM TO PAY PEOPLE TO BUY
TV'S AND THEN A PROGRAM TO PAY
PEOPLE TO BUY LUMBER.
IT WOULD PASS THE TEST.
IT HAS A CLEVER TITLE.
IT WOULD HELP A LARGE INDUSTRY.
IT WOULD PUT FREE MONEY IN THE
HANDS OF CONSUMERS, BUT THIS IS
NOT, THIS IS NOT A HUMOROUS
AFFAIR, MR. SPEAKER.
AND IT'S NOT HUMOROUS BECAUSE
THIS IS AN EXTENSION OF A
PROGRAM THAT HAS THE GOVERNMENT
PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS.
WHY IS THE AUTO INDUSTRY THE
WINNER, WHY IS THE POULTRY
INDUSTRY THE LOSER?
THIS IS ONE MORE STEP IN
ENSHRINING US AS A BAILOUT
NATION.
NOW, PEOPLE SAY, WELL, IT'S $2
BILLION THAT'S COMING OUT OF
THE STIMULUS PROGRAM.
WELL, I WOULD TELL MY
DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES THAT
THAT IS STILL $2 BILLION THAT
HAS TO BE BORROWED FROM THE
CHINESE WITH THE BILL SENT TO
OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN
AT A TIME WHEN THE NATIONAL
DEFICIT HAS HIT $1 TRILLION FOR
THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY.
YOU CANNOT BAIL OUT, BORROW AND
SPEND YOUR WAY INTO ECONOMIC
PROSPERITY.
INSTEAD, LET'S UNLEASH THE
SPIRIT OF ENTREPRENEURIAL
CAPITALISM, LET'S HELP SMALL
BUSINESSES WITH TAX RELIEF, LET'S GROW OUR WAY OUT OF THIS
ECONOMIC RECESON.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
MR. OBEY: I YIELD A MINUTE AND
A HALF
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN, MR.
KILDEE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR A MINUTE AND A
HALF.
MR. KILDEE: I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.
MR. SPEAKER, WHEN WE PASSED THE
CASH FOR CLUNKERS LEGISLATION
LAST MONTH, I SAID IT WOULD
PROVIDE A MUCH-NEEDED BOOST TO
OUR AUTO INDUSTRY AND OUR
MANUFACTURING COMMUNITIES.
AFTER JUST ONE WEEK WE SEE THE
GREAT SUCCESS OF THIS PROGRAM.
I'VE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH
THE WHITE HOUSE, THE AUTO TASK
FORCE AND MY CONGRESSIONAL
CLEEDS TO ADD ADDITION --
COLLEAGUES TO ADD ADDITIONAL
FUNDS TO KEEP IT UP AND
RUNNING.
THIS PROGRAM HAS BEEN AN
UNPRECEDENTED SUCCESS AND THERE
ARE NO PLANS TO SUSPEND IT.
THIS PROGRAM IS A SUCCESSFUL
EXAMPLE OF ECONOMIC STIMULUS AT
WORK.
TO CONTINUE THIS POSITIVE
PROGRAM, I HAVE JOINED MY
COLLEAGUES TODAY TO INTRODUCE
LEGISLATION TO REDIRECT $2
BILLION FROM THE ECONOMIC
STIMULUS B
CLUNKERS PROGRAM.
WE ARE POISED TO PASS THIS
LEGISLATION THROUGH THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES TODAY AND
URGE MY SENATE COLLEAGUES TO DO
THE SAME AS QUICKLY AS
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MR. LEWIS: I YIELD, MR.
SPEAKER, TWO MINUTES TO THE
GENTLEN FROM MICHIGAN, MR.
HOEKSTRA.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
MR. HOEKSTRA: I THANK MY
COLLEAGUE FOR YIELDING.
I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY THANKING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE
AND THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE FOR
MOVING SO EXPEDITIOUSLY IN
GETTING THIS BILL TO THE FLOOR
OF THE HOUSE THIS AFTERNOON.
YOU KNOW, THE RESPONSE FROM
CONSUMERS TO THIS PROGRAM HAS
BEEN, AS ONE OF MY DEALERS
DESCRIBED IT THIS WEEK, HE HAD
CHAOS IN HIS SHOWROOM.
IT ACCOMPLISHED WHAT WE WANTED IT TO ACCOMPLISH.
I WAS SKEPTICAL WHEN THIS
PROGRAM PASSED A WHILE BACK,
BUT IT HAS DELIVERED CUSTOMERS
INTO THE SHOWROOM, AND THEY ARE
BUYING CARS.
AND BEING FROM MICHIGAN,
EXPERIENCING A 15.2%
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE,HIS IS NOT
GOING TO ONLY PROVIDE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT IN
THE PEOPLE THAT ASSEMBLE CARS
BUT ALSO FOR THE SUPPLIERS AND
THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
AND HOPEFULLY THIS CAN BE A
CATALYST FOR A STRONGER
ECONOMIC RECOVERY.
IT APPEARS TO BE ONE OF THE
PROGRAMS IN THE STIMULUS
PACKAGE THAT HAVE PASSED THIS
HOUSE THAT ACTUALLY APPEARS TO
BE WORKING. AT THE SAME TIME, WHILE WE ARE,
YOU KNOW, MAYBE EUPHORIC ABOUT
THE PARTS OF THE PROGRAM THAT
ARE WORKING, I THINK WE ALSO
HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE BACK
END OF THIS PROGRAM, THE PARTS
THAT ARE BEING HANDLED BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE BEEN A
DISASTER FOR OUR DEALERS.
I HAVE YET TO HAVE ONE DEALER
WHO HAS SOLD A CAR THAT HAS
GOTTEN IT APPROVED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
WE CAN'T -- THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT CAN'T PROCESS A
SIMPLE REBATE.
I'VE GOT DEALERS THAT HAVE
SUBMITTED THE PAPERWORK THREE
TIMES AND HAVE GOTTEN THREE
REJECTIONS.
THE LAST ONE CAME BACK AND IT
SAID NO REASON FOR REJECTION.
WHAT IS A DEALER SUPPOSED TO
DO? THEY'VE ALREADY DESTROYED THE
CARS THAT HAVE BEEN TRADED IN,
THEY HAVE SOLD THE CAR, THEY'RE NOW ON THE HOOK AND EXPECTING A
CHECK FOR $3,500 TO $4,500 FROM
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND
THEY'RE NOT GETTING IT.
WE NEED TO GET THESE BACK ROOM
PROBLEMS FIXED TO BE ABLE TO
CALL THIS PROBLEM TRULY SUCCESSFUL.
IT CAN'T JUST BE THE FRONT END.
IT HAS TO BE THE ENTIRE
PROCESS, FROM SELLING IT TO THE
CUSTOMER TO THE DEALER GETTING
E MONEY FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
THAT ALL HAS TO WORK SEAMLESSLY
FOR THIS PROGRAM TO BE AN
UNQUALIFIED SUCCESS.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF
MY TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
MR. OBEY: MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD A MINUTE AND 45 SECOS TO THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM OHIO, MS.
SUTTON.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM OHIO IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE AND
45 SECONDS.
MS. SUTTON: I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR THE TIME.
MR. SPEAKER, I RISE IN SUPPORT
OF THIS LEGISLATION THAT'S
GOING TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL
$2 BILLION FOR THE CARS ACT.
A BILL THAT I SPONSORED,
SOMETIMES REFERRED TO CASH FOR
CLUNKERS, BUT BY ANY NAME, THIS
BILL HAS BEEN THUS FAR A
TREMENDOUS SUCCESS.
IT HAS HELPED CONSUMERS
PURCHASE CARS THAT THEY
ECONOMIC DOWNTURN, PERHAPS, BUT
WHICH THEY NEEDED.
IT'S GOING TO GIVE THEM CARS
AND FUEL SAVINGS FOR A LONG
TIME TO COME.
IT'S HELPING OUR AUTO
COMPANIES, OUR AUTO DEALERS,
ALL OF THE JOBS ASSOCIATED WITH
THAT VERY VITAL AND IMPORTANT
INDUSTRY IN THIS COUNTRY TO
MAINTAIN ITSELF, TO CONTINUE
AND GIVE IT THE CHANCE TO GROW
AND RESTORE.
THE PROGRAM ALSO, OF COURSE, IS
GOOD FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT
BECAUSE IT'S TAKING OUT -- LESS
FUEL EFFICIENT CARS AND GETTING
THEM OFF THE ROAD AND REPLACING
THEM WITH MORE FUEL EFFICIENT
CARS.
THIS IS AN UNPRECEDENTED SUCCESS.
AND MY COLLEAGUE IS RIGHT, WE
MUST MAKE SURE THAT IT WORKS
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS.
BUT WE ARE WELL ON OUR WAY, AND
I APPRECIATE THE LEADERSHIP OF
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE,
SECRETARY LAHOOD, THE
ADMINISTRATION WHO I'VE BEEN
WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH TO
MAKE SURE
SUCCESS, WHICH IS STIMULATING
OUR ECONOMY, KEEPING PEOPLE
WORKING, HELPING OUR ENVIRONMENT AND HELPING OUR
CONSUMERS WHEN THEY REALLY,
REALLY NEED IT.
AND I YIELD BACK.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEWOMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HER TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MR. LEWIS: MR. SPEAKER, I'D
LIKE TO SAY TO THE GENTLELADY
WHO HAS OFFERED THIS FLOOR, SHE
HAS MORE -- I'M PROUD TO YIELD
TWO MINUTES TO THE GENTLEMAN
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA IS
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
MR. CAMPBELL: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
AND I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR
YIELDING.
YOU KNOW, MR. SPEAKER, CASH FOR
CLUNKERS PROGRAM WAS INARTFULLY
DRAFTED, IT IS MORE COMPLEX
THAN COME BERSOME THAN IT NEEDS
TO BE -- COME BERSOME THAN IT
NEEDS -- CUMBERSOME THAN IT
NEEDS TO BE. THE ADMINISTRATION OF IT HAS
NOT GONE ON WELL BUT IT HAS
WORKED.
AND, MR. SPEAKER, WE HAVE
PASSED A NUMBER OF THINGS IN
THIS CONGRESS THIS YEAR
INTENDED TO STIMULATE THE
ECONOMY.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM HAVE
NOT HAD THAT EFFECT.
BUT THIS ONE HAS.
AND IT HAS CLEARLY WORKED.
FOR THE INITIAL BILLION DOLLARS
TO BE EXHAUSTED, THAT MEANS
THAT ROUGHLY 250,000 NEW
VEHICLES MUST HAVE BEEN SOLD IN
JUST THE LAST WEEK OR TWO IN
ORDER TO EXHAUST ALL OF THAT
MONEY.
THAT IS CLEARING INVENTORIES IN
CAR DEALERSHIPS WHICH MEANS CAR
DEALERS WILL BE ORDERING MORE
CARS.
WHEN THEY ORDER MORE CARS,
PLANTS WILL BEGIN TO RUN AGAIN.
PLANTS WILL OPEN UP.
THEY WILL BE PRODUCING MORE
CARS, AND PEOPLE WILL GO BACK
TO WORK.
THERE WILL BE SUPPLIERS THAT
WILL PRODUCE SUPPLIES, VARIOUS
PARTS FOR THOSE CARS, STEEL
MILLS WILL BE PRODUCED FOR
THOSE CARS, AND THOSE PEOPLE
WILL GO BACK TO WORK.
THERE WILL BE TRUCKS AND TRAINS
THAT DELIVER THOSE CARS AND
WORK.
AND, MR. SPEAKER, THE $2
BILLION FOR THIS IS COMING OUT
OF THE EXISTING FUNDING, SO IT
IS NOT INCREASING THE DEBT OR
THE DEFICIT ANY MORE THAN WHAT
HAS ALREADY BEEN THERE.
MR. SPEAKER, I SUPPORT THIS
BILL.
I SUPPORT THIS EFFORT.
THERE IS -- IT IS THE ONE THING
WE HAVE DONE IN THIS CONGRESS
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY WORKING.
IT IS STIMULATING THE ECONOMY.
IT IS CREATING JOBS AND WE WANT
IT TO CREATE MORE.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
MR. OBEY: I YIELD A MINUTE AND
A HALF TO THE DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS,
MR. MARKEY.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS IS
RECOGNIZED FOR A MINUTE AND A
HALF.
MR. MARKEY: I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN VERY MUCH AND I
APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK IN
EXTENDING THIS PROGRAM.
THIS PROGRAM IS A WIN FOR CONSUMERS WHO ARE TRADING IN
OLD GAS GUZZLERS FOR HYBRIDS, A
WIN FOR OUR ECONOMY AND A WIN FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND THE
ENVIRONMENT AS THE NEW VEHICLES
ARE AVERAGING 60% MORE FUEL
EFFICIENCY THAN THE JUNKERS
BEING TAKEN OFF THE ROAD.
HOWEVER, I AM CONCERNED THAT WE
ARE TAKING FUNNG FROM THE
RENEWABLE ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE
PROGRAM AND WOULD EXPRESS MY
STRONG BELIEF THAT WE MUST FIND
A WAY OF REPLENISHING THOSE
FUNDS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, COULD YOU WORK
WITH ME AND OTHER MEMBRS TO
ENSURE THAT THE FUNDS FOR THIS
PROGRAM WILL BE REPLENISHED?
MR. OBEY: IF WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?
I SHARE THE GENTLEMAN'S VIEW
THAT THE RENEWABLE ENERGY LOAN
GUARANTEE PROGRAM IS OF VITAL
IMPORTANCE TO CREATING A NEW GREEN ECONOMY.
WE HAVE TALKED WITH THE WHITE
HOUSE.
WE'VE TALKED WITH THE SPEAKER.
AND I WANT TO ASSURE YOU THAT
ALL OF US CERTAINLY HAVE EVERY
INTENTION OF RESTORING THESE
FUNDS. MR. MARKEY: I THANK THE
CHAIRMAN VERY MUCH.
I KNOW THAT THIS HAS ALWAYS
BEEN THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR
YOURSELF, FOR SPEAKER PELOSI
AND FOR THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION.
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH YOU IN THE FUTURE IN ORDER
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A
WIN-WIN HERE FOR RENEWABLE
E
VEHICLES.
THANK YOU.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MR. LEWIS: MR. SPEAKER, I YIELD
TWO MINUTES TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA, MR. FLAKE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA IS RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
MR. FLAKE: I WON'T TAKE TWO
MINUTES.
I HAVE TO SAY I THOUGHT I HAD
HEARD IT ALL UNTIL I CAME TO
THE FLOOR TODAY.
SOMEBODY SAID EARLIER, THIS
BILL IS A SUCCESS.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY LOVES IT.
I THINK THAT THAT'S
SELF-EVIDENT.
BUT I THINK THAT THERE ARE
TAXPAYERS AROUND THE COUNTRY
WHO ARE WONDERING WHY WE'RE
TAKING $2 BILLION MORE FROM
THEM TO DECIDE WHICH INDUSTRY
HERE IS GOING TO GET A BREAK.
WE DECIDED TO GIVE OUT FREE
MONEY AND NOW WE'RE SURPRISED
WH PEOPLE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
IT AND LOVE THE PROGRAM.
I MEAN, THAT'S THE NATURE OF
HUMAN NATURE.
IF YOU'RE GIVEN FREE MONEY, YOU
LIKE IT AND YOU WANT MORE.
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS PROGRAM
IS.
WHY ARE WE DECIDING TO AID THIS
SECTOR AND NOT ANOTHER?
IF YOU'RE MR. OR MRS.
BUSINESSMAN ACROSS THE COUNTRY, YOU'VE GOT TO BE WONDERING IF
WE HAVE LOST OUR MINDS HERE BY
SAYING WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE
TO GIVE OUT MORE MONEY JUST FOR
THIS INDUSTRY BUT NOT HELP THE
OTHERS.
I JUST -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND
THIS PROCESS AND HOW WE CAN
BRING THIS UP THIS QUICKLY BUT
AN APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
THAT CAN BRING A DEFENSE BILL
TO THE FLOOR IN 18 MINUTES FOR
A MARKUP THAT HAS MORE THAN
1,100 EARMARKS, I GUESS, HAS NO
PROBLEM DOING THIS.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
MR. OBEY: MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD
MYSELF 20 SECONDS. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. OBEY: I JUST WANT TO SAY, MR. CHAIRMAN -- MR. SPEAKER,
THAT WE'VE HEARD SEVERAL TIMES
HERE TODAY ABOUT THIS ACTION
ARE COMPLAINTS FROM THE PEOPLE
WHO HELPED WRECK AMERICA'S
ECONOMY AND ARE NOW COMPLAING
BECAUSOF THE WAY THIS
PRESIDENT AND THIS CONGRESS IS
TRYING TO PULL THE COUNTRY OUT
OF THE DITCH AND RESTORE
ECONOMIC GROWTH.
WE'VE COME TO EXPECT THAT, BUT
THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY MORE
PLEASANT.
WITH THAT I YIELD A MINUTE TO
THE DISTINGUISHED SPEAKER OF
THE HOUSE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
RECOGNIZED.
THE SPEAKER: THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MRSPEAKER.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR
YIELDING AND I THA HIM FOR HIS
VERY IMPORTANT AND SWIFT ACTION
TO ADDRESS THE OPPORTUNITY THAT
WAS GIVEN TO US THIS WEEK.
AS YOU KNOW, MY COLLEAGUES, AS
PART OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL EARLIER
THIS YEAR THE CASH FOR CLUNKERS
PROVISION WAS PROVIDED IN IT.
MANY PEOPLE HAD WORKED VERY,
VERY HARD ON THAT FOR A LONG
TIME AND WE WERE ABLE TO HAVE IT
PASSED ON A BILL THAT WAS GOING
TO BE SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT.
I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
CONGRESSWOMAN SUTTON FOR HER
ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT AND
LEADERSHIP, CONGRESSMAN INSLEE,
CONGRESSMAN ISRAEL, STEVE ISRA
OF NEW YORK, ALL WORKED VERY
HARD ON THIS.
CERTAINLY THE CHAIRMAN EMERITUS,
MR. DINGELL, THE CURRENT
CHAIRMAN OF THE -- THE CURRENT
CHAIRMAN, MR. WAXMAN, MR.
MARKEY, FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON
THIS ISSUE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF
TIME.
I MENTION ALL OF THEM BECAUSE
THIS BRINGS TOGETHER SO MANY
ELEMENTS OF WHAT WE WANT TO DO
TO GROW OUR ECONOMY, TO HELP OUR
WORKERS, TO OTECT OUR
ENVIRONMENT AND TO DO SO IN A
VERY FOCUSED WAY THAT WORKS.
AND THAT'S WHAT IS INTERESTING
ABOUT THIS WEEK AND ABOUT --
WEEK.
IN ABOUT SIX DAYS IT'S ESTIMATED
THAT 250,000 CARS WERE SOLD.
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE
PEOPLE ACKNOWLEDGE THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS
INITIATIVE.
AND THAT IS WHY YESTERDAY, AS WE
WERE SEEING WHAT WAS HAPPENING
THIS WEEK, THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION ASKED US TO HELP CONSUMERS WHO HAVE YET TO HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF TRADING IN THEIR
OLD CARS FOR NEW ENERGY
EFFICIENT MODELS.
WHEN THEY DO THAT, AGAIN, THEY
STRENGTHEN THE AUTO INDUSTR
STRENGTHEN OUR ECONOMY AT LARGE
AND HELP PRESERVE OUR
ENVIRONMENT.
WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT IT AND
THE POINT THAT IS MADE BY MANY
SPEAKERS ALREADY IS JUST -- THAT
WAS MADE BY MANY SPEAKERS
ALREADY IS JUST THAT EVERYTHING
HAS PERFORMEBEYOND THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE BILL.
THE CARS THAT HAVE BEEN
PURCHASED ARE MUCH MORE FUEL
EFFICIENT AND THE EMISSION
STANDARD MUCH BETTER THAN THE
BILL EVEN REQUIRED AND THAT'S
GOOD NEWS.
I DO SHARE THE CONCERN THAT HAS
BEEN PUT FORTH BY MR. MARKEY
AND, I DON'T KNOW IF MR. INSLEE
HAS YET BUT HE WILL, ABOUT THE
SOURCE OF THE REVENUE AND THAT
IS THE INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY'S
LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.
THE RECOVERY PACKAGE IN JANUARY,
WE VOTED FOR A $6 BILLION
INITIATIVE. IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE IT
AT THAT LEVEL AND IT'S VERY
IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF OUR
RENEWABLES PROGRAM.
$6 BILLION.
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS JUST
RELEASED A SOLICITATION FOR
ABOUT HALF OF THAT MONEY, $3
BILLION, IN LOANS FOR RENEWABLE
ENERGY.
THE REST OF THE MONEY WOULD NOT
BE RELEASED UNTIL NEXT YEAR,
TIL AFTER JANUARY.
SO THAT GAVE US AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR THE TIME BEING TO USE $2
BILLION OF THAT FOR THIS CASH
FOR CLUNKERS EXPANSION.
AND I, AGAIN, AM CONCERNED ABOUT
THE FACT THAT THAT MONEY IS
TAKEN FROM THAT ACCOUNT BUT THE
NOT TAKEN -- IT HAS NOT MADE ANY
OPPORTUNITY COSTS FOR THE PROGRAM BECAUSE THE TIMING IS
THAT THAT MONEY WOULD BE SPENT
NEXT YEAR.
I DO HOPE THAT WHEER
THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION OR
SOME OTHER STEP ALONG THE WAY,
THAT THOSE FUNDS WILL BE
RESTORED BECAUSE IT'S NOT
APPROPRIATE FOR US TO TAKE MONEY
TO DO ONE THING FOR FUEL
EFFICIENCY OUT OF AN ACCOUNT
THAT IS DESIGNED TO DO JUST THAT
LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE WITH
FURTHER INOVATION.
SO I SHARE THE CONCERNS
EXPRESSED BY MR. MARKEY AND
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS MADE BY
MR. OBEY IN THE COLLOQUY THAT
THEY HAD ABOUT RESTORING THOSE
FUNDS.
BUT AGAIN I THINK THIS IS PRETTY EXCITING -- THIS IS A PRETTY
EXCITING DAY.
AS I SAID, WE GOT THE WORD JUST
AS THIS NEWS WAS UNFOLDING THIS
WEEK, YESTERDAY IT WAS
DETERMINED THAT WE COULD GO
FORWARD.
THE RULES COMMITTEE UNDER
CONGRESSWOMAN SLAUGHTER
RESPONDED VERY POSITIVELY, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE, MR. OBEY, JUST TRYING
TO FIND SOLUTIONS FOR US AND THE
LEADERSHIP OF THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY VERY COOPERATIVE IN HOW WE
COULD BRING THE BILLED TO FLOOR.
SO THIS IS A VERY POSITIVE,
BIPARTISAN INITIATIVE TO HELP
OUR AUTO INDUSTRY, TO HELP
CONSUMERS, TO GROW OUR ECONOMY,
TO DO IT IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY
SOUND WAY.
I THINK IT'S THE PERFECT MESSAGE
FOR US TO TAKE HOME FOR AUGUST. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP IN MAKING THIS
POSSIBLE.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEWOMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HER TIME. THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MR. LEWIS: MR. SPEAKER, THE TIME
REMAING ON EACH SI
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA HAS
FOUR MINUTES REMAINING AND THE
GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN HAS 7
3/4 MINUTES REMAINING.
M
SPEAKER.
I YIELD ONE MINUTE TO DR. BROUN.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE
MINUTE. MR. BROUN: I THANK MY FRIEND
FROM CALIFORNIA FOR YIELDING.
CASH FOR CLUNKERS HAS SERIOUS
PROBLEMS THAT ARE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROBLEMS.
I HAVE DEALERS IN MY DISTRICT IN
NORTHEAST GEORGIA THAT PROBABLY
ARE GOING TO GO BANKRUPT BECAUSE
OF THESE PROBLEMS AND I HOPE AS
WE GO FORWARD THAT WE'LL FIX
THESE ADMINISTRATIVE SNAFUS THAT
ARE IN THIS PROBLEM.
WE'RE THROWING MONEY INTO
ANOTHER GOVERNMENT PROGRAM THAT
HAS SERIOUS, VERY SERIOUS
PROBLEMS WHERE DEALERS CAN'T GET
THEIR MONEY.
I HAVE ONE DEALER THAT HAS PAID
OUT OF HIS POCKET FOR 50 CARS
AND HAS ONLY GOTTEN MONEY BACK
FOR ONE.
NOW THAT DEALER, IF HE DOESN'T
GET PAID BACK, IS GOING TO HAVE
VERY SEVERE FINANCIAL PROBLEMS
AND HIS EMPLOYEES ARE GOING TO
BE PUT OUT OF WORK IF WE DON'T
FIX THESE.
CERTAINLY WE'VE SOLD A LOT OF CARS BECAUSE THIS PROGRAM BUT
JUST THROWING MONEY INTO A
PROGRAM THAT HAS TREMENDOUS
ADMINISTRATIVE RED TAPE PROBLEMS
AND OTHER PROBLEMS IS NOT GOING
TO BE THE LONG-TERM ANSWER.
I HOPE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION
WILL STRAIGHTEN OUT THESE
ADMINISTRATION SNAFUS AND WILL
GET THIS PROGRAM THE MONEY TO
DEALERS THAT THEY DESPERATELY
NEED.
I YIELD BACK.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
MR. OBEY: I YIELD ONE MINUTE TO
THE DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN FROM
NEW YORK, MR. MAFFEI.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. MAFFEI: MR. SPEAKER, TODAY
WE ARE FACED WITH A RARE
PROB
WE HAVE A PROGRAM THAT IS PROVEN
TO BE WORKING AND ALL WITH WE
NEED TO DO IS KEEP IT WORKING.
GETTING GAS GUZZLING VEHICLES
OFF THE ROAD REPLACED BY NEW
FUEL EFFICIENT VEHICLES IS
HELPING OUR ENVIRONMENT, IT IS
PUTTING MONEY DIRECTLY INTO THE
POCKETS OF MIDDLE INCOME
FAMILIES, IT IS A RAY OF HOPE
FOR AUTO DEALERS IN THIS
COUNTRY, A RAY OF HOPE FOR THE
U.S. AUTO INDUSTRY AND A RAY OF
HOPE FOR OUR ECONOMY.
FINALLY WE HAVE A BAILOUT NOT
FOR THE BIG BUSINESSES, NOT FOR WALL STREET, BUT A BAILOUT FOR
MAIN STREET.
AS THE LEAD SPONSOR OF A BILL TO
HELP PROTECT THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF
AUTO DEALERS, I CAN TELL YOU,
THIS IS A GOD SEND FOR THE AUTO
DEALERS IN
DON'T STALL WHAT'S WORKING.
GIVE IT A FILLUP AND LET'S GET
CASH FOR CLUNKERS BACK ON THE
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MR. LEWIS: MR. SPEAKER, I'LL BE
THE LAST SPEAKER ON OUR SIDE, SO
I RESERVE FOR NOW.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: T GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA
RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
MR. OBEY: MR. SPEAKER, I YIELD
ONE MINUTE TO MR. SCHAUER, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN. E SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.
MR. SCHAUER: THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUICK
LEADERSHIP ON SUCH AN IMPORTANT
ISSUE.
WHEN I RAN FOR CONGRESS, AND I'M
FROM MICHIGAN, I PLENGED --
PLEDGED THAT I WOULD FIGHT EVERY DAY FOR PEOPLE IN BUSINESSES IN
MY COMMUNITY THAT ARE BEING HURT BY A BRUTAL ECONOMY.
THE CASH FOR CLUNKERS PROGRAM
HAS BREATHED LIFE INTO A VERY
DIFFICULT ECONOMY IN COMMUNITIES
ALL AROUND MY DISTRICT. HERE'S WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT.
AS I'VE TALKED TO CAR DEALERS IN
MY DISTRICT, THEY CAN'T KEEP
CARS ON THE LOTS.
THEY WILL BE ORDERING NEW CARS
FROM MANUFACTURERS IN MY STATE
AND AROUND THE COUNTRY,
SUPPLIERS WHO SUPPLY PARTS FOR
THOSE CARS WILL BE MANUFACTURING
MORE OF TH.
THIS IS VERY, VERY CRITICAL AND
HAS BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE IN
TURNING AROUND OUR ECONOMY IN
JUST A MATTER OF DAYS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU FOR
GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO
CONTINUE THIS PROGRAM AND
CONTINUE TO TURN OUR ECONOMY
AROUND.
I YIELD BACK.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME. DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA CONTINUE TO RESERVE
HIS TIME?
MR. LEWIS: RESERVE. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
MR. OBEY: I YIELD ONE MINUTE TO
THE GENTLEMAN FROM OREGON, MR.
-- O
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. INSLEE: REVISE AND EXND.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. INSLEE: MR. SPEAKER, I WANT
TO JUST MAKE A POINT THAT THIS
PROGRAM HAS BEEN SPECTACULARLY
SUCCESSFUL FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL
PERSPECTIVE.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY CRITICIZED
THAT WE DID NOT CALL FOR A
HIGHERNOUGH EFFICIENCY
IMPROVEMENT OF THESE CARS.
THE PEOPLE HAVE FIXED THIS
PROBLEM FOR US. WE ARE SEEING AVERAGE INCREASES
ABOVE WHAT WAS REQUIRED BY
CONGRESS. AND ONE CAR COMPANY, 78% OF THE
CARS THAT THEY'RE BUYING ARE
OVER 30 MILES A GALLON, 39%
ABOVE 30 MILES PER GALLON. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE HAD
SPECTACULAR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE
EFFICIENCY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PERFORMANCE. AND I WANTED TO THANK THE
SPEAKER AND MR. OBEY FOR
ESSENTIALLY ASSURING US, I'LL
TAKE IT AS THAT, ALMOSTTHAT WE
IN FACT ARE GOING TO REPLACE
THIS MONEY.
I HOPE IT IS IN THE C.R., IT IS
NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE OUR
EFFICIENCY GOALS.
THANK YOU. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
MR. OBEY: I YIELD 30 SECONDS TO
THE GENTLEMAN FROM INDIANA, MR.
DONNELLY.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
DONALD DONALD I WANT TO THANK
THE CHAIR IN --
MR. DONNELLY: I WANT TO THANK
THE CHAIRMAN FOR BRINGING THIS
TO THE FLOOR.
THIS IS BETTER FOR OUR
ENVIRONMENT, IT'S GOOD FOR OUR
FARMS WHO GET TO -- FAMILIES WHO
GET TO SAVE SOME MONEY HAD THEY
MAKE THIS BIG PURCHASE ANDS ALSO
VERY, VERY GOOD FOR THE WORKERS OF INDIANA WHO ARE BARK TO --
BACK TO WORK BUILDING THESE
CARS.
THIS IS A WIN-WIN-WIN FOR OUR
COUNTRY.
IT'S ONE OF THE GREAT PROGRAMS
TO CREATE JOBS, TO HELP OUR
ENVIRONMENT AND TO HELP OUR
FAMILIES.
WE'RE VERY SUPPORTIVE AND WE
WANT TO THANK THE CHAIRMAN FOR BRINGING THIS PROGRAM FORWARD.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
MR. OBEY: MR. SPEAKER, I THOUGHT
I HAD TWO SPEAKERS REMAINING BUT
I DON'T SEE THE SECOND.
SO I GUESS I WILL BE THE LAST
SPEAKER ON OUR SIDE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MR. LEWIS: MR. SPEAKER, IT
SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE
SPEAKER, WHEN SHE WAS PRESENTING
HER VIEWS TO THE MEMBERSHIP,
INDICATED THAT ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER SHE'D FIND A WAY TO GET
THIS MONEY BACK INTO THE BILL
SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE.
BETWEEN NOW AND THEN IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS THAT THIS BILL COULD NOT
BE ON THE FLOOR TODAY IF IT HAD
NOT BEEN FOR AN EMERGENCY
DESIGNATION, THAT WOULD ALLOW TO
US EXERCISE OURSELVES IN THIS
FASHION -- US TO EXERCISE
OURSELVES IN THIS FASHION.
I WOULD REMIND OURSELVES ONE
MORE TIME OF THE QUOTE RECEIVED
FROM A CAR DEALER IN NEW YORK.
SPEAKING OF US, ABOUT HOW THIS
BILL WAS HANDLED, HE SAID, IF
THEY CAN'T ADMINISTER A PROGRAM
LIKE THIS, I'LL A LITTLE
CONCERNED ABOUT MY HEALTH
INSURANCE.
ONE MORE TIME IN SAYING, AMEN
AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF
MY TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA YIELDS BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
MR. OBEY: MR. SPEAKER, I YIELD MYSELF THE REMAINDER OF THE
TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. MR. OBEY: MR. SPEAKER, THE
COMMERCE DEPARTMENT TOD JUST
ISSUED FIGURES WHICH HAVE
INDICATED THAT THE DEPTH OF THE
RECESS
LAST YEAR WAS MUCH MORE SEVERE
THAN ANYONE HAD ESTIMATED.
THEY ALSO ESTIMATE THAT, AND
THIS ISED GOOD NEWS PART OF THE
DAY, THEY ALSO TELL US THAT IN
THE LAST QUARTER OF THE YEAR --
IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THIS
YEAR THAT THE ECONOMY, THE
SHRINKAGE OF THE ECONOMY HAS NOW
SLOWED CONSIDERABLY, WHICH IS
VERY HOPEFUL SIGN BECAUSE THE
ECONOMY EVIDENTLY PERFORMED
SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER THAN MOST
OF THE ECONOMIC EXPERTS HAD
THOUGHT IT WOULD PERFORM.
WE ALL WELCOME THAT NEWS BUT AS
YOU KNOW, THAT IS NOT GOOD
ENOUGH.
WE NEED TO SEE MORE PROGRESS. OUR DILEMMA IS THIS, ORDINARILY
IN A RECESSION, WH
IS LOSING JOBS, THE FEDERAL
RESERVE OTHERS WILL INTEREST
RATES AND THAT HELPS -- LOWERS THE INTEREST RATES AND TT
HELPS THE HOUSING INDUSTRY AND
THE AUTO INDUSTRY AND OUR
ECONOMY IS NORMALLY LED OUT OF
THE RECESSION BY THE HOUSING
INDUSTRY AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY.
THIS TIME AROUND THE SITUATION
IS VERY DIFFERENT BECAUSE THOSE
TWO SECTORS HAVE BEEN A BASKET
CASE FOR THE PAST YEAR AND A
HALF.
THE FIRST GLIMMER OF HOPE WE'VE
SEEN IN THE AUTO INDUSTRY IS THE
NEWS THAT WE RECEIVED YESTERDAY
FROM THE SECRETARY OF
TRANSPORTATION, MR. LAHOOD, WHO
INFORMS US THAT IN JUST THREE
DAY'S TIME, WHEN THIS PROGRAM
WAS STARTED, AS FAR AS THEY CAN
TELL IT'S ALREADY
OVERSUBSCRIBED.
THAT MEANS THE CONSUMERS LIKE
THIS PROGRAM, IT MEANS THEY ARE
REACTING TO IT AND IT MEANS THAT
IT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE OF US
NOT TO TRY TO PREVENT THE
SHUTDOWN OF THIS PROGRAM JUST
THREE DAYS AFTER IT BEGAN.
SO WE'RE HERE TRYING TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF ONE OF THE FEW BRIGHT SPOTS IN THE ECONOMY TO
HELP MOVE THE ECONOMY FORWARD.
WE STILL HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO
BEFORE THE GOOD NEWS SHOWS UP ON
THE UNEMPLOYMENT SIDE OF THE
LEDGER.
TODAY I THINK THIS IS ONE PIECE
OF GOOD NEWS AND I THINK WE NEED
TO RESPOND TO IT.
I'D BE HAPPY TO YIELD TO MY
FRIEND.
MR. LEWIS: I JUST WANTED TO SAY,
MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT FOR SOME
REASON OR OTHER THE GENTLEMAN
WHO IS OUR SPEAKER HAS DRAWN THE
SHORT END OF THE STICK THIS
WE.
HE'S BEEN DOING WONDERFUL WORK,
MOVING THE PROCESS ALONG, AND I
THINK THE BODY SHOULD RECOGNIZE
HIS WORK.
MR. OBEY: I THANK THE GENTLEMAN
AND WITH THAT, MR. SPEAKER, I
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
AND I ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK T
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE QUESTION IS, WILL THE HSE
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS H.R.
3435.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, 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 --
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MR. LEWIS: I ASK FOR THE YEAS
AND NAYS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
YEAS AND NAYS ARE REQUESTED. THOSE FAVORING A VOTE BY THE
YEAS A NAYS WILL RISE.
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING
ARISEN, THE YEAS AND NAYS ARE
ORDERED.
MEMBERS WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES
BY ELECTRONIC DEVICE.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RES.LUSION 697
THIS 15-MIIS 15-MINUTE VOTE ON THE
MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES WILL
BE FOLLOWED BY FIVE-MINUTE VOTES
ON ADOPTION OF THE FRANK
AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3267 AS
MODIFIED, ADOPTION OF THE
GARRETT AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3269.