Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 96: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 97: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, today I draw attention to a vision for a new era of American health care, a clear path to provide access to affordable, quality care for all Americans.

There's no doubt that our health care system is failing some of America's patients. Now, some in this body believe that the solution is giving greater control over health care decisions to Washington, a government takeover of personal health insurance.

Now, as a physician, I know that government interference only harms patient access to health care. Real positive reform will only be achieved by empowering patients, not government and not bureaucrats. Positive reform starts with giving ownership of health coverage back to the patient, not the government. Allowing individuals full control over their coverage will make insurers truly accountable to patients, leading to greater choice, innovation, and responsiveness.

Secondly, we must provide the proper financial incentives so that there's no reason to be uninsured. With tax reform, not government mandates, we can achieve universal access to care for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have a positive, patient-centered prescription for America that doesn't result in a government takeover.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Georgia for bringing forth and for handling this commonsense bill on the floor of the House. I want to thank my colleague from California for yielding me time.

This is an important issue. There are many issues that are remarkably important to the American people, and I want to talk about one of them. It is the national energy tax.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is a proposal that is moving through the House committees right now that will have a remarkable effect on the American people. If history holds true, there will be very little time on the floor of this House to debate this issue. As the Speaker has said, she wants to get it done by July 4.

So I would suggest that it is important for all of our colleagues to be paying attention to the national energy tax and to the consequences of it. I would suggest that the American people ought to be paying attention as well. Let me point out a couple of the issues on this national energy tax.

By an outside group, by an objective group, the estimates are that it will destroy millions of jobs--1.1 million jobs on average each year. It will raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation. It will increase gasoline prices by 74 percent. It will increase residential natural gas prices by 55 percent. It will raise the average family's

annual energy bill by $1,500. That's right, Mr. Speaker, by $1,500. It will increase inflation-adjusted Federal debt by 26 percent. So let's review.

This national energy tax, supported by the Speaker, is going to decrease jobs, and she is trying to get it through this House by the end of this month. It will decrease jobs; it will increase electricity rates; it will increase gas prices; it will increase natural gas prices; it will increase the family energy bill; and it will increase the Federal debt.

Now, the American people think this is a terrible idea, and they are very frustrated with the fact that the commonsense solutions that have been put on the table are not being given an opportunity to come to the floor.

What are those commonsense solutions?

Well, Mr. Speaker, as you know and as the American people know, there are good bills out there. One of them is one that I have cosponsored, H.R. 2300, coming out of the Republican Study Committee and the Western Caucus. It is called the American Energy Innovation Act.

What it does is provide for increasing production, responsible production of American resources. It provides for increasing conservation so that we decrease the demand side of the energy curve; and it provides for expansion of innovation, incentives for innovation so that we unleash the genius of the American people to solve the challenges that we have in the area of energy. It doesn't tax the American people. It doesn't decrease jobs. It doesn't increase electricity prices, as the Democrat plan would do. It doesn't increase gas prices, as the Democrats would do. It doesn't increase natural gas prices, as the Democrat plan would do. It doesn't increase the family energy bill, and it doesn't increase the Federal debt. No, Mr. Speaker, it solves the problems in the way that the American people want them solved.

The American Energy Innovation Act would increase production in a responsible and environmentally sensitive and sound way. It would increase innovation so that we develop a new energy for this 21st century, and it would increase conservation, decrease that demand side so that we don't continue to support countries overseas that, frankly, aren't necessarily our friend.

I appreciate the opportunity to commend my friend from Georgia for his bill. I appreciate my friend from California for offering this opportunity to speak to my colleagues and to ask the Speaker if she wouldn't allow for full and open debate of appropriate energy bills that American people can support, not ones that increase their taxes and decrease jobs all across this land.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Rick Barrentine, a talented constituent from my district, the Sixth Congressional District of Georgia. Rick Barrentine and his family will be in Washington this week as he joins a unique group of Americans, an elite circle whose artistic work is displayed upon a United States postage stamp.

On June 5, the U.S. Postal Service will unveil a new stamp; and on the face of this stamp is a photograph taken by Mr. Barrentine, showing a close-up view of an American flag draped upon itself. This same flag was displayed outside of his home until it was retired recently with the respect that it deserves. Though Mr. Barrentine didn't seek this honor, this recognition is a testament to his talents. Looking at this now timeless image, one can easily grasp Mr. Barrentine's appreciation for the sacrifice and dedication of all those individuals, including in his own family, who carried the Star-Spangled Banner in the service of our Nation.

This Congress commends him for his patriotism and for his artistic achievement. Freedom is inspiring.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 286 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Texas for his leadership on this and so many issues, and he talks about economic responsibility, which is what this is all about.

The context of this legislation that we're considering, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act--and I'm oftentimes struck in Washington that the title of the bill doesn't bear any resemblance to what is in the substance of the bill, and this is again true with this ``Bill of Rights Act.''

But the context in which we're talking about this legislation is an economic backdrop that this country has

never experienced before. I hear from constituents every single day from my district who are unable to get loans or new lines of credit. I hear from banks in my district who are suffering under mark-to-market accounting rules and getting mixed messages from the regulators and still wanting to lend.

In that light, this legislation is simply the wrong thing at the wrong time. This bill, this ``credit cardholders' bill of rights act,'' will decrease the availability of credit and increase the cost of credit.

Consumers should receive key information about credit card products in a more concise and simple manner. Yes, we agree with that. Information will empower consumers to determine which credit card product is right for them. But this bill will decrease the availability of credit and increase its cost. It will impose significant restrictions and price controls on creditors, and individuals will have fewer options, not more, Mr. Speaker, fewer options from which to choose.

This bill will, by law, prevent issuers from being able to price for risk. That means they can't look at an individual's credit history to determine what price that issuance of credit will cost. It will dictate how they must treat the payment of multiple balances. It will implement price controls. We'll only see restricted access to credit for those with less than perfect credit histories and, again, increase the cost of credit for everyone.

So I ask my colleagues to join me in protecting the American consumer by voting against this rule and by voting against this legislation. Let's foster competition in the marketplace by providing consumers with timely, clear, and conspicuous information about credit cards. Let's ensure that the key terms of a credit card account are disclosed on a clear and timely basis when shopping for credit and throughout the account relationship.

Let's preserve the ability of card issuers to provide the benefits and the flexibility cardholders have come to expect from their credit card accounts. A recognition that cardholders have different needs and preferences and, therefore, a one-size-fits-all approach to card practices is not the preference of the American people. This bill will increase the cost of credit and decrease its availability.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 247 I was unavoidably detained for constituent matters. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

I have an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mr. Chairman, we all agree that we want to increase credit and get the housing market moving again. My amendment is a simple amendment and addresses that specific issue. It simply says that the Federal Reserve ought to be able to provide written certification to the appropriate committees in the House and the Senate that this bill will not reduce the availability or increase the price of credit for qualified mortgages.

As we are considering ways to free up credit in the market, this legislation may just be the wrong thing at the wrong time. When the Federal Reserve testified before our committee on the impact of this legislation, the witnesses had reservations regarding the impact of this bill on access to credit. In fact, they felt that there was a significant possibility that the adoption of this bill would actually decrease the availability of credit.

My amendment would ensure that prime borrowers will not be punished with increased rates. It simply requires that the Federal Reserve certify that the provisions of this bill will not reduce the availability or increase the price of credit for qualified mortgages. This certification will protect responsible borrowers that played no role whatsoever in the meltdown of the mortgage market.

It is clear to me and others from the language in this bill that a routine, vanilla, 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is being put forward as the mortgage of choice. If that is going to be the case moving forward, and originators are not going to be comfortable offering other types of mortgage products because of the narrowness of the safe harbor provisions and the risk-retention provisions, then we need to ensure that qualified borrowers will have access to those types of mortgages.

Many of us are concerned because of the other provisions in this bill that it is going to become more difficult for qualified borrowers to have access to affordable credit. So if the proponents of this bill don't believe it will restrict credit or raise the cost on borrowers, then they shouldn't have any trouble voting for this amendment. The amendment simply stipulates that the Federal Reserve will certify that that would be the case.

But if they don't think that the bill will pass this review from the Federal Reserve with flying colors, then I think it would be time for them to reconsider whether or not this legislation is what we need at this time.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee for requesting from the Rules Committee that amendments be made in order. I appreciate that because I think these are getting to important issues.

The gentleman talks about the expansion of the safe harbor provisions, and they are. But that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the Federal Reserve, or some entity, ought to stipulate that the cost of credit won't be greater, or the availability of credit won't be less, if this bill is adopted. That is the heart of the amendment.

My friend from Massachusetts talks about being surprised by various protestations about the role of the Federal Reserve. Well, I would be the first to stand with him if in fact he wants to support maintaining, or returning the Federal Reserve to stipulating only about monetary policy. But the fact of the matter is that the Federal Reserve has jurisdiction over this area. In fact, the Federal Reserve has put forward particular rules regarding mortgages. And, in fact, many of them address the very issues that are being addressed in this bill today.

So again, the heart of my amendment says if in fact this bill will not decrease the availability of credit or will not increase the cost of credit, then it's fine. Just move it on forward. But if it will decrease the availability of credit, or increase the cost of credit to folks out there across this land, then we ought not move forward with it. We ought not punish those individuals who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a challenging situation finding credit. I once again urge adoption of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the time available on each side?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the comments of my friend, the chairman of the committee. But I would point out that the heart of this amendment gets to whether or not through this bill we are going to increase the availability of credit and decrease the cost of credit. If we are not going to do those things, then it seems to me that the American people ought to be very suspect about the nature of the bill.

The amendment simply says that the Federal Reserve, the entity in the Federal Government that has jurisdiction over this area, would simply have to say that we will not decrease the availability of credit and we will not increase the cost of credit, especially at this time, at this time when so many of our fellow citizens across this land are having extreme difficulty finding credit, realizing their dream and being able to either stay in their home or find a home in which they will be able to gain credit to purchase.

It is a simple amendment, Mr. Chairman. It gets to the heart of the matter. Are we as a Congress going to increase the availability of credit and decrease the cost? Or are we going to simply decrease the availability of credit and, therefore, decrease the ability of the American people to realize their dream? I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

My amendment addresses qualified borrowers.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, it's with great pride that I rise to recognize Mr. Jeffrey Walter Jackson of the Sixth District of Georgia upon his retirement as Head of School for the Mount Vernon Presbyterian School in Sandy Springs, Georgia.

Jeff Jackson has been a dedicated and visionary leader. He challenges himself and all around him to dream big dreams, work diligently on positive goals, and inspires a servant's heart.

During his tenure, since 2002, at Mt. Vernon, Mr. Jackson introduced honors and advanced placement courses, expanded the sports program to 31 teams, and fostered varied activities including a debate team and the Fellowship for Christian Athletes. He oversaw the establishment of a new Upper School to serve 9th through 12th grade students and a 30- acre expansion of the campus.

In his faithful commitment to the values of Christian education, Mr. Jackson has been a role model for teachers, administrators, community leaders, but especially students. And now he will further his positive influence as the executive director of the Georgia Independent School Association.

Mr. Speaker, our community and this Congress commend Jeff Jackson for his continuing and exemplary service and extend to him our very best wishes in his new role.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to an article written by Donald Conkey, a constituent of the Sixth Congressional District of Georgia, regarding the National Day of Prayer. Mr. Conkey's article reads:

National Day of Prayer

Donald S. Conkey

This column on next week's Metro Atlanta Prayer Breakfast

on Tuesday and the National Day of Prayer on Thursday was

inspired by an e-mail, from Sally Field, that reminded me of

just how much America's Founding Father's depended upon

prayer to their ``Creator, the Supreme Judge of the world''

to support their efforts in creating a nation where liberty

could be restored after nearly three thousand years of

despotic and tyrannical rule that had enslaved mankind

worldwide--and become a beacon of liberty to the world.

The Founders belief in, and their use of prayer, as clearly

expressed in the Declaration of Independence, plus all their

writings, should be a powerful example for those Americans

who fear the nation's current economic challenges and the

massive directional changes being made by our nations new

administration.

America's National Day of Prayer has a long history. A

resolution by the first Continental Congress in 1775

indicated it was ``a time for prayer in forming a new

nation.'' President John Adams declared May 9, 1798 ``a day

of solemn humiliation, fasting and prayer,'' asking citizens

of all faiths to pray ``that our country may be protected

from all the dangers which threaten it.'' In 1952 President

Truman signed a national day of prayer proclamation and in

1988 President Reagan established the first Thursday of May

as America's annual National Day of Prayer.

It is gratifying to know that I am not alone in believing

in the power of prayer, or that God listens to and answers

prayer (personal revelation), or that He answered the

Founders prayers (collective revelation), not once but many

times when they pleaded with Him, their Supreme Judge of the

World, to establish and restore freedom to a world then

enslaved by despots and tyrants. And to be able to join with

other believers, of many faiths and cultures, in pleading

with the Lord in prayer for ``the protection of divine

Providence'' in a National Day of Prayer next week reinforces

my beliefs and hopes that we whom He has entrusted to protect

those everlasting principles of liberty given us by the

Founders is reassuring. -

The timing of next weeks prayer days may be providential:

they are coming during the first 100 days of the new

administrations efforts to bring about massive change of

direction to the country, both internally and externally, and

they follow last week's inspiring ``call to arms'' for

Americans of every faith, culture, race and nationality to

rally to the defense of their liberties in the form of ``Tea

Party'' protestors. Their ``Tea Bag'' could well become

America's new symbolic ``Liberty Bell.'' These ``Tea Party''

protestors represent that third of the nation who still

believe America is great and that God inspired and raised up

the Founders to restore liberty to mankind with a new nation,

a nation ``choice above all other nations.'' This third also

understands America will not continue to be a powerful and

free nation if it continues to allow that secular third,

those who reject God and want to remove Him from all aspects

of American culture and dominate American politics, as they

are doing today.

This third also understands that it is they who must work

to educate (our schools have failed to teach these

principles) that middle third who know not what America

stands for or that their future liberties and freedoms are

directly connected to the restoration of those principles

upon which America was founded, with God's help. And they

also understand they are involved in an ideological war, a

war of ideas and thoughts that if lost could cost them that

way of life they cherish so greatly.

And they, as did the Founders 230 years ago, inspired by

Paul's admonition to the Ephesians of old, must put on ``the

whole armour of God, that they may stand against the wiles of

the devil,'' including their ``breastplate of

righteousness,'' and their ``shield of faith wherewith they

may be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked'' as

they battle the enemies of liberty and freedom that want to

destroy this nation, and what it stands for, and make it a

nation like unto all other nations, as in United Nations.

And lastly they fully understand they must unite with

others of differing faiths with a unity of purpose, in

defense of their liberties, as did the Founders who restored

those freedoms, and put on their ``helmet of salvation, and

the sword of the spirit . . . praying always with all prayer

and supplication in the Spirit, watching thereunto with all

perseverance and supplication for all saints (freedom lovers)

like them.''

Next week, as we pray individually, as families, and in

larger gatherings as with Fields Metro Atlanta Prayer

Breakfast, we should, remembering the counsel of ages past,

and ``offer a prayer to preserve our nation's liberties'' and

``that our country may be protected from all the dangers that

threaten it.''

Be assured, all righteous prayers offered ``with a firm

reliance on the protection of divine Providence'' will be

heard, especially from those willing to ``mutually pledge''

to stand with others and take a stand, and work to defend

their liberties as did the Founding Fathers stand to create

them--230 years ago.

Madam Chair, we all know that we cannot continue to burn through the future of our kids and grandkids with oversized Federal spending. Our Republican Study Committee budget takes a bold but responsible approach to getting our fiscal house in order, achieving balance by the year 2019. Yes, Madam Chair, achieving balance, as you see from this chart right here.

Our budget preserves the tax relief adopted earlier in this decade, it encourages small businesses to create jobs, and it protects families from any tax increase.

Now, how do we get to balance? Our budget ends, ends the misguided spending bills and bailouts of recent years. Our budget includes a 1 percent annual reduction to all nondefense discretionary spending. Defense is fully funded. We simply require each Department to find and eliminate 1 percent of wasteful spending under their jurisdiction each year, one penny out of every dollar. Is that too much, Madam Chair?

The key to fiscal sustainability lies in reforming entitlements, particularly Medicare, and our Republican Study Committee budget says we must address our entitlement of crisis boldly and today.

Our RSC budget responsibly slows the growth of Medicare to the rate used during the Contract with America. A successful result was a balanced budget. Our budget responsibly says that we cannot just kick this can down the road any further.

In fact, in an op-ed this morning in the Wall Street Journal, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer writes, ``The single most important thing we can do to get our budget under control is to deal with the costs of our entitlement programs. We simply must act in a bipartisan way to choose and implement such reforms.'' Absolutely, Mr. Leader. But, unfortunately, their budget and the Democrat's budget ignores a $34 trillion unfunded liability.

Our RSC budget says we will get our entitlements under control, and we will do it today. We recognize the responsibility we have to come together in a bipartisan way to find solutions that preserve Medicare without bankrupting our Nation.

Budgets are priorities, Madam Chair. And the priority of our budget is a responsible, stable, and commonsense approach to spending that saves our children's and our grandchildren's future. It is not an easy task, but governing is about making tough choices, and we need to do it today.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for taxpayers, to stand up for market principles, to stand up for the solvency of our Nation and support this responsible, stable, commonsense budget.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the deputy ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) such time as he may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers on this side, so until the chairman is ready to close, I will reserve.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's been an interesting discussion, there's no doubt about it. We've talked about executive compensation, we've talked about a problem that arose--a specific problem that arose when Senator Dodd put that language in the bill in the middle of the night--in the spending bill.

The interesting thing about it, Mr. Chairman, is that the bill to remove that language is 11 lines long. It's just 11 lines long. It's not 6 pages long.

So if we were to do what some in this body on the other side say--the only thing we're here to do, which is to remove that language--it would be H.R. 1673 from Mr. Lungren. That's the bill that would remove the 11 lines that make it so that that backroom deal for AIG executives would be stricken.

So I think it's important that we appreciate what's going on. I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from California, who did indeed, I think appropriately, describe what was in the bill. It's important that our colleagues look at this bill. It's not too long. Six pages. We can indeed read it. I hope some of my colleagues will read it.

The title of the bill: To amend executive compensation and to prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards.

When you read the bill and get to who's going to define all that, which is really the question, Mr. Chairman--who's going to define that. Usually, we think that in a market economy, in the United States economy, in the economy that has allowed more success and more opportunity for more individuals than any nation in the history of mankind, that the way that we define compensation and performance in the market is in the private market, not in the government.

So on page 3 it says that no payment would be able to provide for compensation that is unreasonable or excessive as defined in standards established by the Secretary. The Secretary of the Treasury is going to tell us what is unreasonable and what is quality performance.

Well, the Secretary of the Treasury, let's look at his biography, Mr. Chairman. Oh, my goodness. He's the ninth president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which began when he began his service there in 2003. It's a wonderful job. But what experience does he have in setting compensation? In fact, what experience does the government have in setting compensation?

He first joined the Department of the Treasury in 1988. Let me think a moment, Mr. Chairman. That means 21 years of service for the Department of the Treasury or in the Federal Government. Well, that's wonderful, and he's to be commended for it, but what experience does he have and why would the Nation want him to be deciding what compensation and performance standards are for this Nation?

Maybe it was in his education. He went to Dartmouth College, bachelor's degree in government and Asian studies in 1983. Wonderful institution. Great study. Master's in international economics and East Asian studies in 1985.

Mr. Chairman, not to slight the Secretary of the Treasury, but the American people do not believe that the Secretary of the Treasury ought to be setting compensation limits for anybody.

Why? Why does all this feel so strange? It's because we're in a political economy. We're no longer in the market economy that the American people know and love and embrace.

What does a political economy look like? Well, the gentleman from California described it. He said, Because of the disclosure provisions, the American people, who are putting up the money, have a right to know. Well, sure they have a right to know. But that's not what a market economy is.

He says that the people have a right to know and set the limits because this is capitalism. No. Capitalism was bastardized a year or more ago when we started down this road that, Mr. Chairman, I opposed every step of the way. Because we pointed out then this is where we'd get. We would get to be debating on the floor of this House what kind of compensation members in the private sector ought to have.

Well, Mr. Chairman, that's a dangerous place to be. It's a dangerous place to be because it leads Presidents to thinking that they can remove CEOs from private companies. That's where it leads to. It leads Members of Congress to believe that they can call on the Treasury Department to get money out of previous bills that have been passed in Congress even though the institution in their district doesn't qualify under the rules that have been provided.

Mr. Chairman, it's a dangerous place to be. And it violates the Constitution. I know it's a quaint document, Mr. Chairman. We don't think about it much anymore. But article I, section 9 says, ``No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.'' Mr. Chairman, this bill is each. It is each.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad step. It's a bad and a dangerous step for this Congress. It adds to the dangerous and reckless--and reckless-- policies of this administration that the American people recognize as not being consistent with American fundamental principles--the market principles that have made this Nation the greatest Nation in the history of mankind.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to recognize this bill for what it is, and that is a bill that this Congress ought not adopt.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just received this.

My understanding is that this is removing the words ``executive or'' among those individuals who would come under the jurisdiction of determining what compensation ought to be or performance ought to be, so that it would read that ``any employee.'' Is my understanding correct?

And I appreciate that. Continuing to reserve the right to object, my sense is that what this is, is actually a clarifying amendment to a greater intent by the Members on the majority side who----

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

And I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) for 5 minutes.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I have no speakers remaining, and I will consume the rest of our time when the gentleman is ready to close.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to appreciate that this bill is very far-reaching. It is not just a simple little exclusion of an amendment that was inserted in the middle of the night on the previous $1 trillion spending bill that the majority passed.

It includes compensation arrangements and includes compensation limitation potential by the Secretary of the Treasury. It also includes performance-based standards that are also defined by the Secretary of the Treasury. Now what does that mean? The performance in the bill or the performance of an individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates? The adherence by executives or employees to appropriate risk management requirements? And ``other standards which provide greater accountability to shareholders and taxpayers.''

What is all that?

Well, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we don't know what all that is. And that is why the American people are so concerned about these issues. Because they know that the faith that they have in the American system of government and the American marketplace does not rest in the Secretary of the Treasury. It does not rest in the government. It rests in the ingenuity and the vitality of the American people. And that is where they want it to remain.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend from California for introducing this amendment. I think that it's a good idea, but in my view, doesn't go far enough. I would also point out that it is purely arbitrary, and that gets to the heart of the challenge that we have here, the arbitrary nature of what we're deciding.

Small financial institutions should be automatically exempt from this legislation. The best approach to protecting the taxpayers' investment in private business is through stronger oversight and accountability, not by further entrenching government in the operations and management of hundreds of businesses across America, many of which are community and regional banks that did nothing, as my friends have commented, to create the current financial challenge.

Indeed, given the government's track record in piling up huge deficits and mismanaging a wide range of Federal programs, there is little reason to believe that it will have any more success in running private enterprises.

The amendment leaves the discretion to the Secretary of the Treasury to exempt community financial institutions from the legislation's compensation prohibitions.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that rather than leaving this responsibility to the Treasury Secretary who, I might add, failed to block the AIG bonuses and who, by his own admission, has a very full plate these days. Why not simply exempt smaller TARP recipients entirely from the government micromanagement of compensation levels for all employees that this bill imposes?

I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to Mr. Bachus from Alabama.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

If I claim the time in opposition, does the minority have the right to claim that time?

Parliamentary inquiry.

Does the chairman of the committee not have time available to him on general leave?

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the amendment is a curious one. It points out the challenge that we have when we march down this path of a political economy--where Members of Congress are deciding specific items for private enterprises and where the Secretary of the Treasury is about to be given remarkable authority, whether it is retroactive or prospective. That is why many of us on our side of the aisle oppose this kind of launch into a political economy where the government controls winners and losers from the very beginning.

If, in fact, the challenge were to protect taxpayers, as our friends on the other side of the aisle say, if Democrats were so eager to protect taxpayers, then why would they not commit to ending taxpayer- subsidized bailouts? That is the simple solution to all of this, Mr. Chairman.

The reason we are here in this circuitous logic of Washington is that the taxpayers are benefiting private industry. The solution to this, Mr. Chairman, is to make it so we are not putting taxpayer liability, hard-earned taxpayer money, on the table for private industry.

Why don't they guarantee that they will not provide the Treasury with any more TARP funds for the future?

Point of Order

Why don't they encourage the Treasury to produce----

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

As a matter of fact, had the gentleman been listening to my debate, I pointed out, whether it was prospective or retrospective, that it was a bad idea for this Congress to adopt because it further launches us down the road of a political economy.

May I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, if our friends on the other side of the aisle were so enamored with wanting to protect the taxpayer, why wouldn't they encourage the Secretary of the Treasury and the Treasury Department to produce an exit strategy to this launch into a political economy that stifles creativity,

that stifles entrepreneurship, that stifles vision, that stifles the very vitality of the American system, a system that has created more opportunity and more success for more individuals than any Nation in the history of mankind?

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this amendment and others to this bill, to the underlying bill, are a launch in the wrong direction whether we are talking about prospective or retrospective activity on this amendment.

I am pleased to yield to my friend from Alabama for the remainder of our time.

Mr. Chairman, I understand I have 30 seconds.

I am pleased to yield my 30 seconds to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, through a previous understanding, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend from Florida for his appropriate reading of the bill and appropriate correction through this amendment in clarifying that TARP recipients will not be subject to the requirements as a result of doing business with a TARP recipient.

I would suggest, however, Mr. Chairman, that the reason that it feels so peculiar, this whole debate feels so peculiar is because the American people know that the reason we're standing here today is because we went beyond the bounds of what government ought to be doing. And so my friend from Florida recognizes an appropriate flaw in the underlying bill and has appropriately corrected it by his amendment.

But, Mr. Chairman, the real flaw is the action that this Congress has taken and this administration, and Mr. Chairman, the previous administration in moving our Nation into an economy that is no longer market-based but is politically based. That is a very dangerous place to be.

So I want to commend my friend from Florida for what he has done for his amendment.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, as one amendment after another continues to show, this is a very dangerous road we're on, and I would underscore that for this amendment.

This amendment fundamentally undermines the purpose of a board of directors. This says that the shareholders, the owners of the company, will set the compensation for individuals not at the board of directors level but on down in the company.

Now, why should we stop there, Mr. Chairman? Why should the shareholders not decide where the corporate headquarters is? Why should the shareholders not decide, in a binding way, what type of business endeavor the company goes into, whether it expands into this area or that area? Why should the shareholders not decide on any employment decision?

Well, Mr. Chairman, the answer is very clear, and that is because that's not the way to retain whatever remnant we have left of a vital American economic system.

My friend cites the nation of the Netherlands, the European companies. Mr. Chairman, there's a reason that the American economy has been the greatest economy in the world, and that's because of the structure that we have that allows shareholders to participate in appropriate, nonbinding decisions.

What are their options as shareholders if they don't like the way a company is running? Well, they have two, and you know what they are, Mr. Chairman. They could vote ``no'' or vote for a different board of directors, which is their direct input into the running of the company, which gives it that vitality and that vibrancy. Mr. Chairman, they can sell their shares. That's the beauty of the system.

My friend from Oregon wants to have the shareholders be not just the owners but the managers of the company. You talk about dampening the vitality and the spirit of the American entrepreneur. You talk about inserting into the board of directors' room a situation where you can't begin to expand in a way that you ought to expand. You can't begin to grow your business in the way that you want because the next step from here, Mr. Chairman, is to move it on to further discussions and debates and decisions within the board of directors.

Mr. Chairman, this is truly a very poor idea. It's an idea that this Congress should not embrace. It's an idea that, again, further gets us down to the Congress deciding in a very political way who ought to be winners and losers. You can just imagine the logical extension of the waywardness of this kind of amendment.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, what time remains?

The gentleman, the author of the amendment says that it's difficult to vote on board of director elections. Well, it may be a little challenge to fill out a form that comes in the mail. It may be a bit of a challenge to get to headquarters to vote, but in fact, that's the way that shareholders have their input, and it's an appropriate way.

And the real response to his dilemma, his concern, is that if 50 percent, plus one, of the shareholders vote a member of the board of directors out, that member of the board of directors is gone, and therefore, there's the accountability. And that's imperative that we retain that.

What does this amendment mean? This amendment means, again, that the shareholders become not just the owners of the company but the managers of the company. And that's, again, Mr. Chairman, not the way that you allow and create a vibrant and incisive and wonderful entrepreneurial spirit across this land that has resulted in the remarkable success of the American economy.

What this amendment means is that pension plans and retirement plans are put at risk because if we allow shareholders to become not just owners of companies but managers of companies, then the result will be that companies will not be able to institute the kind of wonderful opportunities for their businesses and, hence, their shareholders.

So I urge my colleagues not to march further down this road. This is a road upon which we should not be; but, Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves moving headlong in the direction of greater governmental intervention into the private industry in a very dangerous way.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 151, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''