Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the Iraq supplemental bill being brought to the floor today is a bad idea wrapped in the wrong intentions. This is a time when Congress ought to be working together to provide our troops with the tools and the resources necessary to do their job.

Instead, the Democrat leadership is committed to a strategy that spells nothing but failure in Iraq. They are telling the commanders in the field that 535 politicians know better how to do their job. It is irresponsible for Members of Congress to play Commander in Chief. There is too much at stake in Iraq for political grandstanding.

This bill sends the wrong message to our soldiers, our allies and our enemies. It tells our troops that we have got no faith in them. It tells our allies that we lack the resolve of our stated commitment, and it tells our enemies all they have to do is wait.

This is shameful partisan politics that puts our troops at greater risk. It is wrong, and the American people are watching.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object.

Madam Speaker, this is a sobering and sad day for America and for the House of Representatives. The Iraq supplemental war bill came to the floor this evening. It is a bill where the President had requested the resources of the American

people to support American men and women in harm's way nearly 11 weeks ago. The bill that came to the floor tonight had that amount of resources, and then some. It had over $20 billion in extra money, Madam Speaker, money that nobody could honestly say with a straight face was appropriate in an emergency supplemental bill.

In addition to that, it also had all sorts of timelines and arbitrary benchmarks that make it so that the Speaker of the House and every single Member of this House is in fact a commander-in-chief.

There was celebration on the other side of the aisle when this bill passed, muted. I would suggest, Madam Speaker, it was a little embarrassed, because they understand in their heart what they have done. What they have done is a shameful action, Madam Speaker.

General Petraeus came to visit the Congress today. General Petraeus is the Commander of Coalition Forces in Iraq. General Petraeus and his men and women are putting their lives on the line, day in and day out.

He came to the House today. He came to Congress today to ask for clarification of what Congress had intended. He asked for the opportunity to inform the House of Representatives, the Members of the House. And from what I heard this evening, Madam Speaker, the majority party didn't listen and they didn't learn. All they have done, apparently, is to work on legislation that will ensure defeat.

Madam Speaker, this majority party is vested in failure. Vested in failure. Their actions do a disservice to our troops. They say to our troops, we have got no faith in you. We don't believe in your mission. We don't believe in you. That is what this majority party says.

They send the wrong message to our allies. What they say to our allies is that you can't trust America. America's word is not good, given this majority party.

And they send the wrong message to our enemies. What they say to our enemies is, all you have to do is wait.

Madam Speaker, this is a sad and a shameful day. The majority leader in the United States Senate has said that this war is lost. ``This war is lost.''

I stood with parents of a constituent of mine this weekend, Madam Speaker, this past weekend, who was on his way to Iraq that very day. They asked me, what am I supposed to say to my son? It is a heart- wrenching question, Madam Speaker, when you have the majority leader in the United States Senate saying that the war is lost. It is in headlines across this Nation that the majority leader says this war is lost.

Madam Speaker, I think it is incumbent, given that kind of statement by the majority leader in the United States Senate, for the House Democrat leaders to come down to this floor and say what they believe. Do they believe the war is lost? Do they agree with Senator Reid?

Madam Speaker, their silence is deafening. Do you hear them? What do they say? Are they here tonight? Are they here to say what they believe about our troops? Are they here to say that they believe in the men and women who are protecting our freedom and working as hard as they can to protect themselves?

Madam Speaker, this Democrat silence is deafening. What a shame. What a terrible shame.

Madam Speaker, it pains me and it saddens me to say what appears to be leading these new Democrats is the same as the old, and that that it is all politics all the time. What a shame.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 2: At the end of the bill, add the following

new section:

Madam Speaker, this week is ``Cover the Uninsured Week,'' highlighting the fact that the health and well-being of our Nation's future is at stake.

Over 45 million Americans will be without health insurance at some point during this year. It's past time that Washington helps find real solutions to this very real problem. With colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and in the House and Senate, we have introduced legislation that will begin to take a meaningful approach to bringing down the cost of health care and help cover all Americans.

The Health Partnership through Creative Federalism Act, H.R. 506, empowers individual States and regions to develop unique solutions to fit the needs of their citizens. We are fighting to put the needs of patients first.

Unlike many other proposals, our reform rejects a one-size-fits-all model. The inflexibility of such an antiquated approach has continually proven ineffective in addressing individual health care needs. Working together, we can find a way to provide health care coverage for all Americans, so that American families will have a brighter and healthier future.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, isn't it true that under the rules of the House adopted in this 110th Congress, the five Delegate Members are allowed to vote in the Committee of the Whole, but not in the whole House?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Isn't it true that the number of eligible Members to vote in the whole House is 435 when all seats are filled?

Isn't it further true, Mr. Speaker, that the number of eligible votes in the Committee of the Whole is 440?

Four hundred forty if all seats were filled.

Isn't it further true, Mr. Speaker, that the vote in the Committee of the Whole on the Gillibrand amendment was adopted by a vote of 254-165?

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I want to thank the chairman of the committee for his kindness in allowing appropriate amendments within committee.

Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that this would be an absolutely open rule on the floor of the House, but it seems that this is as open as we get in this Congress, and I appreciate the opportunity to present an amendment or two on this important bill. This is an important debate that we are having.

If you look at the backdrop for it, it is important to appreciate the history of what is happening in many of our business sectors in this Nation. Seventy-five percent of the IPOs in the world are not in the United States. There is a reason for that. The number of public companies converting to private increases daily, and there is a reason for that. The number of U.S. companies looking to move offshore is increasing, and there is a reason for that.

As it relates to this issue in 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted sweeping changes to the rules regarding disclosure of compensation paid to executive officers and directors of public companies. This amendment, my amendment, amendment No. 9, simply states that the disclosures of executive compensation adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2006 provide a complete and adequate mechanism for shareholder approval.

SEC rules approved last summer direct companies to publish a table showing executives' total compensation, designed to bring better disclosure to shareholders. Companies must also detail stock option grants. The centerpiece of it was a single pay number, a single pay number meant to replace a jumble of charts and tables that appear now in proxy statements sent annually to investors. The single number will combine salary and bonuses and perks and other compensation awarded in a given year, with details for each component provided in a summary composition table.

Publicly traded corporations compete for the trust of investors, and these votes that have been proposed in the underlying bill can already be arranged for today if the corporations feel they are warranted as illustrated by AFLAC's recent nonbinding shareholder vote on executive compensation.

Now, if investors become displeased with a board of directors, then they have several choices available to them. They can seek to elect different board members. They can sell their stock and shift their investments to other companies whose corporate governance and decisions are more to their liking, or they can ask the government to expand regulation.

Regrettably, it is this last option that we are faced with today. Further, regulation from Congress is rarely the answer, and it certainly is not now.

I would ask my colleagues to seriously consider this amendment. My amendment is a vote for transparency. It is a vote for disclosure over increased government expansion and regulation. A vote against this amendment will increase the incentives for companies to go from public to private and to move from onshore to offshore.

I will close by saying this. Most Americans have a general sense that some CEOs have levels of pension that are greater than warranted by merit. They know that there must be a correction. They also know well that Washington should not be the author of that correction.

I urge adoption of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding; I appreciate that. And I appreciate my good friend from Oregon being so transparent in his truth as he made a very interesting argument for more regulation and the fixing of CEO salaries. Which is remarkable, Mr. Speaker. The mischaracterization of this amendment is extremely curious.

The chairman of the committee says this amendment is superfluous, it is not necessary. Well, it is absolutely vital. And the reason it is vital is because it is important for us to say that we believe it is appropriate, the action that has been taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission as it relates to CEO compensation and the disclosure requirements. That is important, because it is important for us as a Congress to say we condone and appreciate the work that the administration, the executive branch is doing in this area. It is also important because it draws attention to the issue and says to the American people, educates them to what is now available to them as shareholders.

My good friend from Oregon says that this isn't mandatory. Well, it is mandatory. The bill states it is mandatory. There isn't any way out of it. It is Congress inserting itself into the functioning in very specific ways of corporations. And, Mr. Chairman, I don't know about your constituents, but my constituents know that that is the last place they want Congress, I promise you that.

My good friend from Oregon states that the vote is fixed, it is not really a vote. Well, if he truly believes that, then why on Earth would he support the underlying bill? If the vote is already fixed, why support the underlying bill? It doesn't make any sense.

So I would also just highlight for Congress and for anyone who is a shareholder that the opportunity for these kinds of votes already exists within the structure of corporate governance right now, within the structure of shareholder rights, as was demonstrated by a good company from Georgia, AFLAC, who went ahead and already has these nonbinding shareholder votes. But there is a difference between having individuals in the private sector, shareholders and individuals outside of the mandating of government to have it occur and have government come in with its heavy hand and say, this is exactly what you need to do because we know best.

Mr. Chairman, in my district I believe that my constituents know better how to act and how to relate to corporations than Washington. And I appreciate the gentleman's time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I want to commend the gentleman from Florida for his amendment. I do think that it focuses the attention of this issue where it ought to be.

But I want to address a couple of remarkable misstatements from my friends on the other side. They have said, the gentleman from Oregon said that, I don't want to allow a shareholder vote.

Well, I mean, that is absolutely ridiculous. I am all in favor of a shareholder vote if it is done without the mandate from Washington. That is the distinction that we have here, Mr. Chairman. We have a party that is desirous of increasing regulation and increasing the mandate from government. And we have defenders of a system that allows individuals to act in concert in the way that they best deem appropriate. That is the difference. It is a fundamental philosophical difference.

They believe that mandates from Washington are the solution to this and virtually every other problem. Well, I simply don't believe that. I simply don't believe that, and I know that my constituents don't believe that.

It is also clear from the comments made by my good friend from Oregon that class warfare is alive and well. And that is also something that I think does a disservice to this body, and does a disservice to our Nation, does a disservice to the discussion.

To my good friend, the chairman, he was somewhat astounded by the fact that the gentleman from Illinois and I could think differently, and I appreciate that because the lock-step group on the other side is in full swing. And I understand that. That is all right. But we have an opportunity to think on this side of the aisle. And we have an opportunity to reach conclusions. They may be the same conclusions, they may be different conclusions, but we have an opportunity to think on this side of the aisle. And for that I am appreciative.

What I am only asking for in this bill and in the amendment that I am supporting is to provide the opportunity for the American people to think and to act for themselves without the mandate, without the dictates from the Federal Government.

So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment gets to what the consequences of this underlying bill are. Now, we have heard some contradictory information from the proponents of this bill. Some say it doesn't mean anything. Some say it is very important and that the consequences are remarkable.

I would suggest that, frankly, we don't know what mandating to companies and to publicly traded companies in this Nation, what this bill will do. I don't think that we, as Congress, know. I think the consequences may be remarkable and significant.

I do know that it would be helpful and appropriate for all of us to have that information, to have the information about what the unintended consequences of this might be. So this amendment is an amendment to address that. It would ensure that this legislation will not compromise fair competition and a level playing field for publicly traded companies. The amendment would require the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, to conduct a study to determine whether a separate nonbinding vote, what the bill mandates, whether or not that would hinder a publicly traded company's ability to compete for the best available candidates for its officers and directors.

It would make sense that it would be helpful for us and for the Nation to know whether or not that would be a consequence. If, in fact, the SEC finds that the rules would hamper the company's ability to compete for the best candidates, then the nonbinding shareholder vote will not be required.

For every publicly traded company, there are thousands of privately held firms. Large privately held corporations compete with publicly traded corporations for the same talent pool of CEOs and, presumably, pay the same compensation levels. Responsibility, our responsibility dictates that we don't add yet another reason for companies to list on foreign exchanges or otherwise be discouraged from becoming publicly traded.

So this is a very simple amendment, provides for a study that would determine the consequences in terms of whether or not publicly traded companies would be able to attract the best talent. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Given that it has that implementation date, which I think is appropriate, and given that my amendment asks for a study for a period of 90 days, is there any reason why the gentleman would oppose the amendment?

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, article I, section 2 of the Constitution states that ``the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.'' It goes on to say: ``No person shall be a representative who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.''

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the Constitution and what it says today, this new majority will pass a bill to provide a vote, by law, not constitutional amendment, a vote in this House for the delegate from the District of Columbia.

Now, I support, strongly, voting rights for residents of D.C. The proper way to do that, the constitutional way, is to return residential area in the District of Columbia to Maryland. It respects the supreme law of the land of the Constitution. Even the Democrat chairman, Peter Rodino of the Judiciary Committee in the 95th Congress, said: ``If the citizens of the District are to have voting representation in Congress, a constitutional amendment is essential. Statutory action alone will not suffice.''

So why would this new majority pass a law so clearly violative of the Constitution? Because they can. It's an arrogance and hypocrisy that the American people recognize, and they are watching.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I am opposed to this rule for specific reasons about the process and about the unique and unheard of change that would state that if a recommital motion passes, that that is laid upon the table. That strips completely the authority of the minority to have input into the process. And I would think, Mr. Speaker, that Members of the majority party would be ashamed. I would think that that would be the appropriate course of action, and that they ought to rethink what they are doing.

But I came down to the floor to talk about the substance of the bill, because I believe passionately in representation. I believe passionately in the importance of members, of citizens, residents of the District of Columbia to have representation, voting representation in this House. I believe passionately in the Constitution. And I believe that those two beliefs are not mutually exclusive.

There is a particularly appropriate way to proceed, and that is through the issue of retrocession, which as you know, Mr. Speaker, provides that that portion of the District of Columbia that has residents in it, citizens in it, could be moved back into the State of Maryland and thereby obtain appropriate representation.

Mr. Speaker, I know that facts are troubling things, and the supreme law of our land, the Constitution, requires us to do certain things and one of them is to follow the Constitution.

Article I, section 2 of the Constitution states: ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.'' It doesn't say, and the District of Columbia. It says: the people of the several States.''

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that that, along with the next paragraph which states: ``No person shall be a representative who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.'' It is clear that this action will be unconstitutional if it moves forward.

Even Peter Rodino, former Democratic Chair of the Judiciary Committee in the 95th Congress, when confronted with this issue said: ``If the citizens of a district are to have a voting representation in Congress, a constitutional amendment is essential. Statutory action alone will not suffice.''

So, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this action that is being proposed by the majority party is indeed unconstitutional, and I would agree with the delegate from the District of Columbia that there is a body in our system of government that will determine that. That is the judiciary branch. I am hopeful that it will occur rapidly.

And I would be happy to yield to the delegate from the District of Columbia to see whether or not she would support, along with this, a demand for an expedited review of this legislation and would it move forward.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady for supporting it because I think that is important. I think it is important that if this in fact moves forward, I am not certain that it will move through the other body, but if it does move forward, that it gets the expedited review that is so imperative for our Constitution to be followed appropriately.

I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, my oath tells me that I am not to support anything that I believe to support anything to be unconstitutional. I believe this bill to be unconstitutional. I also believe that others may have a different perspective, and I appreciate that, and that the place to decide that is in the court. And I would hope that we would have an expedited review.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia for his leadership on this and for yielding.

I want to stipulate at the beginning of this statement that I support enfranchisement, strongly support enfranchisement for the citizens of the District of Columbia. However, the oath that I take on the first day of our session stipulates that I uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I believe firmly that the Constitution will not allow this. There is a process that we will go through for that, and I appreciate it.

This has been a good debate. It has been an interesting debate. I want to point out a section of the Constitution that isn't cited as often as the ones that we have heard, and that is article I, section 2, the second paragraph, which states, ``No person shall be a Representative who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.''

If there was ever a more clear statement in the Constitution, I don't know what that is.

But I also want to talk about this sense of one person-one vote. I am very troubled by what we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that this upholds one person-one vote, because I would suggest to you, reading the bill and understanding what it does in both the Utah situation and in the District of Columbia, that it provides for more than one person and one vote.

In the Utah instance, for example, it provides that the State of Utah gets one extra Representative, which means that the individuals in Utah vote for two people, which means they have more authority than citizens in my district and other districts who aren't in Utah. And in the District of Columbia, this bill would provide for a Representative in the House of Representatives, but also a Delegate. Also a Delegate. So citizens in the District of Columbia would have representation from two different individuals in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.

So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Rodino, the Democrat Chair of the Judiciary Committee stated in the 95th Congress, ``If the citizens of the District are to have voting representation in the Congress, a constitutional amendment is necessary, is essential. Statutory action alone will not suffice.''

So I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, what changed? What changed? Was Mr. Rodino wrong? I think not. I think not. I think there is a statutory way to do it, and that is through retrocession. I think there is a constitutional way to do it, by amending the Constitution.

I would suggest to my friends on both sides that H.R. 1905 does neither of those and violates sincerely the principle of one-person, one-vote.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate my colleague's question, but I think that is not the appropriate way to go.

However, I strongly support retrocession to the State of Maryland, because I believe strongly in the enfranchisement of the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, isn't it true that the result of waiving a rule of the House for a specific bill means that rule does not apply for that bill?

Mr. Speaker, isn't it true that waiving a particular rule of the House for a specific bill means that rule does not apply for that bill?

Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Isn't it true, Mr. Speaker, that H. Res. 317, the rule for H.R. 1905, the bill we just considered, waived clause 10 of rule XXI?

Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Isn't it further true, Mr. Speaker, that clause 10 of rule XXI requires the PAYGO provision to be in effect?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Isn't it true then, Mr. Speaker, that the PAYGO rule adopted by this House was waived for the bill that we just considered, H.R. 1905?

Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

So the rule of this House that relates to PAYGO was waived for H.R. 1905.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the majority leader

say that if either 1905 or 1906 fails, then they shall both be tabled.

Mr. Speaker, can you tell me, this House having passed H.R. 1905, how is it possible to have a bill that has already passed the House, is no longer on the floor, no longer the business of the House, tabled with subsequent action on another bill?

Mr. Speaker, I have a further inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, can you tell me where in the House rules it provides anything that allows for the tabling of a House bill, once passed, when there has been intervening business in the meantime?

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Chair and state that the rule under which we are operating right now is in violation of House rules because there is no provision in the House rules that states that you may table a bill after it has already been dispensed with by the House.

I am asking for a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that we are now operating in violation of the rules of the House because the rule that we have adopted has no rule of the House that allows for tabling of a bill once it has passed the House and intervening business has occurred.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I, too, want to add my congratulations and my commendation to the Delegate from the District of Columbia. As I mentioned early during the day, I think this has been a good debate and an interesting and a productive debate, and I commend her for the work that she has done on behalf of her constituents.

I also want to state for the record once again that I strongly support the enfranchisement of the citizens of the District of Columbia. However, I believe that it ought to be done in a legal and a constitutional way. I think there is a way to do that, and we have talked about that. I do not believe that the bill that has just passed the House, 1905, in fact is a constitutional bill, and I think that that will play out over a period of time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment about where we are right now in terms of the activity and the rules of the House of Representatives. We are further delving into Orwellian democracy. I say that because the majority party has been champions of saying one thing and then doing completely the opposite. We have been told that this would be the most open, honest and fair Congress. In fact, we weren't told it, the leadership of the other party has promised the American people that this would be the most open and honest Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that this has, in many ways, been the most oppressive Congress because of the majority party's actions, most oppressive Congress ever. You say, well, how can I arrive at that conclusion? Well, the way that the rules have been used and the ways that the rules have been changed draw one, I think objectively, to that conclusion because the rules that have been changed especially on this bill, on this issue, have disenfranchised completely anybody in the minority. And you say, well, how is that? Well, the rule that was adopted and the rule under which we are acting and the rule upon which I asked the Speaker multiple parliamentary inquiries states that if either H.R. 1905 or H.R. 1906 fails, then the other bill is tabled, failed based upon recommital vote.

Now, what that means is this House has passed H.R. 1905. And normally what would occur is that that bill would be on its way to the Senate. But what we are doing now is waiting to see whether 1906 passes, and if it fails, then 1905 is tabled.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that it is impossible to construct a rule that passes the smell test or passes the principles of democracy in this House that allows this House to table a bill after it has already passed. It is unconscionable.

Many of us have served in State legislatures. We understand the process of parliamentary procedure. We understand how minorities are able to affect policy. But when a majority wants to, by the very rule, squelch the input of the minority completely, it certainly can, based upon the ruling from the chair. But it is circular logic at best. When I asked the Speaker how on Earth could that occur, the Speaker replied, Because of the rule. When I

asked, how can the rule be consistent with the rules of the House, the response from the speaker was, Because of the rule.

Mr. Speaker, this is a remarkably oppressive action on the part of this majority. I urge my colleagues on the majority side to rethink the processes that they are using to make it such that the minority party in this Chamber is no longer able to affect policy, which means that 48 to 49 percent of the citizens of this Nation are no longer allowed to have Representatives that are able to affect policy because of the rules adopted by this majority party.

It makes me very sad to draw that conclusion based upon the rule that this House has adopted today. I urge my colleagues to reconsider.

Will the gentleman yield?

Isn't it true that the rule which we are adopting is unprecedented and has never been adopted in this House?

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my good friend for yielding.

I don't want to belabor this, but I think it is important for the American people to understand and appreciate, and I think it is important for my good friend from Georgia to appreciate, that this rule that has been adopted is unprecedented. There has never in the history of the House of Representatives been a rule that has allowed for the tabling of a bill after it has passed the House. Ever, ever.

I urge my colleagues to look at the rules that they are adopting in order to squelch minority input.

Mr. Speaker, Orwellian democracy is alive and well here in Washington. Our friends on the other side seem to think that if they just say something, it is true.

Talk about the budget. We have heard this morning that they are going to balance the budget without raising taxes. Funny thing is, the budget that they passed will do this: Between 2010 and 2011 their budget will raise taxes on ordinary income from 35 to 39.6, capital gains from 15 percent to 20 percent, dividends from 15 percent to 39.6 percent, estate tax, 0 percent to 55 percent. Child tax credit goes from $1,000 to $500, and the lowest tax bracket goes from 10 percent to 15 percent. $400 billion in new taxes.

Mr. Speaker, they may be saying one thing, but they are doing completely the opposite. They may be able to fool themselves, but they won't fool the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas for yielding and for his leadership on this issue.

I would like to just comment about both the rule and the bill; and, Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to just tell you that Orwellian democracy continues to be alive and well here in the House Chamber.

Our good friends on the other side of the aisle seem to think that, if they just say something, that it is, that their action does not make any difference. This is the open rule that is not. That is what this is.

Because what we have, as my good friend from California described, is in fact a modified open rule. What has occurred with this rule is that there is a requirement for pre-filing amendments to this bill, and in fact, the pre-filing had to occur about 72 hours before the final portion of the bill will be voted upon. That is not an open rule, Mr. Speaker.

An open rule is when the bill comes to the floor and anybody who has an idea and wants to offer an amendment is allowed to offer an amendment. Why is that important? Well, that is important because each of us represents a certain number of constituents around this Nation, and at some point, each of us may have a better idea about how the bill ought to progress through the process.

But right now, what has happened is, unless we had that idea 2 days ago, yesterday, then it is not able to be entertained. So this is not an open rule.

I would ask my friends in the majority party: What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? What amendment is it that you are afraid of that might be brought to the floor that is so dangerous to the American people that you do not want to even talk about it? That is what I would ask.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Massachusetts says that he thinks it is important for people to be able to read amendments and read bills. Well, we do, too, but that is provided for in the rules. That is provided for in the rules. This rule does not address that. The fact that somebody might bring an amendment to the floor under a truly open rule would not affect that at all.

So he also asked whether he should apologize to the gentleman from California for having what he described as on open rule. No, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that he apologize to the American people for not carrying out the responsibility of democracy in this Chamber.

So this is not an open rule. This is the open rule that was not, and it is important for the American people to appreciate that.

I do want to mention a couple of items about the merits of the bill itself. We all had an opportunity to be home for the past 2 weeks. This was

one issue that constituents in my district wanted to talk about. They wanted to talk about whether or not it was appropriate for Washington to insert itself into the compensation for CEOs in this Nation.

Many people, I being one of them, are confused and concerned about some of the compensation that major CEOs are getting in this Nation, but everybody in my district appreciates and understands that the place to solve that problem is not Washington, DC. In fact, that is the last place that you want this problem to be solved because Washington, DC, cannot respond in a nimble enough fashion to be able to do so. In fact, there will be significant, unintended consequences, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker.

As you know, the challenges that all businesses have across this Nation are encumbered by the taxation that they are required to pay by the exposure to litigation and, yes, Mr. Speaker, by the regulations that come down from on high, and this will be another regulation. So what the majority party is doing is saying to our businesses across this Nation, our public companies across this Nation is, you have got another reason to go offshore; you have got another reason to take American jobs and remove them because we are going to make it too difficult for you to engage in your business here in America.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, what they are going to do is to make it so difficult for many businesses with their onerous regulations that not only will individuals take their businesses offshore, many of them will say it is just too much of a challenge to comply with all of your ridiculous regulations, so we will go private so that Americans all across this Nation will be precluded from participating in a greater way in the American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, this rule is a bad idea. The bill is a bad idea. Washington cannot solve this problem. You know that, and I urge my colleagues to oppose both.

Mr. Speaker, today, Americans will reach deep into their pockets and pay Uncle Sam. Today, they will finish slogging through the maze of Tax Code jargon, crunching numbers and filling out forms. Today, they will once again trust Washington with their money, because today, Mr. Speaker, is just like every other tax day before it.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are fed up with the status quo of today, and they deserve a different tomorrow. They deserve a tomorrow where they won't be taxed from the day they are born until the day they die and at every single point in between.

Americans deserve a tomorrow where saving and investing are virtues, not vices. Americans deserve a tomorrow where taxation brings efficient and responsible government. Americans deserve a tomorrow where doing their part and paying their fair share is enough. And they deserve a tomorrow where government respects their hard work and appreciates their sacrifice.

Only then will tomorrow be any different from today. May we all work positively for that new day.