[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 48 (Thursday, March 19, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H3645-H3653]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 257 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 257

       Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of March 19, 2009, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules relating 
     to a measure addressing excessive compensation paid to 
     employees of corporations in which the Federal government has 
     a significant interest.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. For the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maine?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time to myself as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, people across the country are rightly outraged by the 
egregious nature of the AIG bonuses. It is unconscionable for AIG to 
pay out $165 million in bonuses to the same top executives who 
mismanaged the company to the point of failure.
  It is fundamentally wrong to be rewarding the very same people who 
ran AIG while it was losing billions and billions of dollars with risky 
schemes that directly led to the staggering $170 billion bailout last 
year. It is a stunning example of greed and shamelessness, and it is 
gross mismanagement and misuse of taxpayer funds that borders on 
criminal.
  People in Maine, my district, and around the country are angry. I 
have heard from hundreds of my constituents sharing their outrage. One 
resident of Wells, Maine, in the straightforward way that my 
constituents do, wrote to me in this manner. He said, ``Let AIG fail. 
Let those greedy, blood-sucking executives find out what it means to 
lose their life savings. You need to tell those that want our tax 
dollars, these are the conditions, clear and simple. And if you don't 
want to use it for what we want, you will get nothing.'' He went on to 
say, ``It has become a sad day in our history when we have to lose our 
retirements, and then have to give billions to those that have caused 
the problems, and then, in turn, they give it to themselves as 
bonuses.''
  Another Mainer wrote, ``I am writing to you because I am absolutely 
appalled that we, as citizens and taxpayers, have given billions of 
dollars to AIG, only to have that company give us all the proverbial 
finger and pay out $165 million in bonus money to their staff. AIG's 
conduct, given their own monetary losses that are in the billions of 
dollars, is criminal.''
  The small businesses in my State of Maine are doing what businesses 
around the country are doing; they are diversifying, they are freezing 
wages. They are using their own resources, adopting cost-saving 
measures, whatever it takes to stay in business and keep people in 
their jobs.
  Like so many businesses around the country, a businessman in Portland 
recently chose to dig into his own pocket and use his own money so he 
wouldn't have to lay off his employees. And just last week, I met with 
the owners of a small machine shop that had been growing. They came to 
me with questions about how they could better use the money in the 
recovery package to stay in business just to stay afloat. They weren't 
looking to line their own pockets, they were asking for help to keep 
people employed and keep their business afloat. These are the types of 
people who are stung the hardest by the AIG bonuses.
  Families and businesses in Maine and across the country are 
struggling to make ends meet and stay in their homes. And they are 
helping each other out of a shared sense of responsibility. Meanwhile, 
on Wall Street, we see executives who seem to think they live by a 
different set of rules and who refuse to take responsibility for the 
damage they have caused. It is a perfect example of why we have, and 
will continue to have, a commitment to transparency and oversight in 
government.
  When the House passed TARP last year before I was here, this type of 
abuse is exactly what the American people were afraid of. We knew there 
was a chance of waste, fraud or abuse, and now it has come to light. We 
are here today to fix it. We will continue to forge ahead to fix our 
struggling economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, 
Ms. Pingree, for yielding the time and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  What concerns me about this scandalous AIG bonus issue is that the 
Obama administration was asleep at the wheel. Two weeks ago, the 
President's press secretary was asked, is the administration confident 
that it knows what happened to the tens of billions of dollars given to 
AIG? The response from the President's press secretary was, ``It is 
confident.''
  Yesterday, we learned that the Obama administration asked the Senate 
Banking Committee chairman, Mr. Dodd, to insert a provision in last 
month's so-called economic stimulus legislation that had the effect of 
authorizing AIG's bonuses. First, that gentleman who I just referred to 
said that he didn't know how the bonus authorization had made it into 
the legislation, but the next day he said yes, he authorized it after 
being asked to do so by the Obama administration.
  Was the administration complicit? I think this is an issue that 
Congress needs to investigate. Yesterday, I made a motion on this floor 
that would have allowed debate on H.R. 1577, a bill introduced by my 
colleague, Representative Paulsen, and the rest of the Republican 
freshmen, to deal with the

[[Page H3646]]

AIG bonus scandal. My motion was defeated, but it garnered bipartisan 
support. Every Republican voted for it, and so did eight Democrats on 
what is a procedural motion--very interesting. Although the motion 
failed, I am pleased that it attracted the attention of the majority 
leadership and they finally decided to take action on this scandal.
  So, here we are today. Although I support the bills we will consider 
today, I find it quite unfortunate the way in which the majority 
leadership has decided to handle this scandal. The heavy-handed process 
they are using will block all Members of this House from offering 
amendments. It will also block every procedural right the minority has 
to shape legislation, including the motion to recommit. It will even 
limit debate on this important issue to a total of 40 minutes.
  Why is the majority refusing Members to participate in the 
legislative process, Mr. Speaker? This is an issue that Members on both 
sides of the aisle feel outrage about, so why not allow Members to 
participate? Is it because the majority is afraid of the minority's 
thoughtful ideas? Actually, as Congress debated the so-called stimulus 
bill, it was the Republicans--the thoughtful opposition--who advocated 
for transparency and accountability, but again, the majority blocked 
effort after effort by the minority to participate in the legislative 
process. That is unfortunate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentlelady from the great State of Maine 
for yielding, and for her important leadership on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, it has become somewhat rare for the Members of this body 
to find themselves in virtually universal agreement, but outrage over 
the retention bonuses for the very members of the AIG Financial 
Products Division, who brought a corporate giant to its knees and the 
economy of our Nation to a standstill, has produced such an agreement.
  It would be both morally reprehensible and fiscally irresponsible for 
us to quietly hand over millions to those who have cost this country 
billions. And it is a rare cause that compels so many Members, all 
acting independently, to craft bills aimed at righting the same wrong.
  The bill we consider now to tax bonus payments, such as the ones in 
question at AIG, at the effective rate of 90 percent sends a message 
that cannot be mistaken. The game is finished, the casino is closed.
  I applaud Speaker Pelosi, Mr. Miller, and Chairman Rangel of the Ways 
and Means Committee for coming together so swiftly to react and 
incorporating ideas from many bills--from my colleague, Steve Israel, 
from Gary Peters, from myself, from Elijah Cummings, from many, many 
others--and coming forward swiftly with this bill that would tax at 90 
percent. The remaining 10 percent would probably be taxed by States and 
cities.
  If a company receives over $5 billion of taxpayers' money, and anyone 
earning over $250,000, they would be subject to this tax. So it moves 
the money back to the American taxpayer.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
  (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I'm shocked at the shock. I cannot 
believe that we are here and people are shocked. Every person--or, I 
don't want to offend anybody, but almost every person on the other side 
of the aisle--voted for the stimulus bill that had the provision in 
that protected, authorized, and allowed these bonuses. And today, 
they're shocked.
  When Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden, they were 
then pictured with fig leaves. The bill they want to bring today isn't 
a fig leaf, it's a fig tree.
  Now, Ross Perot, when he ran for President in 1992, he talked about 
the giant sucking sound. Well, today there is another giant sucking 
sound going on in Washington, D.C., and that's the tightening of 
sphincters on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue as people are having to 
explain who put into the stimulus bill this provision of law. And 
specifically, it's title VII, section 111, paragraph 3(i), that 
basically said that the bonuses that were paid out that people are 
shocked about today were protected and would not be touched.
  Now, I think people have to man up around here and admit 
responsibility. Mr. Speaker, how much more time do I have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I am happy to yield my 1\1/2\ minutes to anybody on 
the other side of the aisle who can tell us who was in the room, who 
took out the Wyden-Snowe amendment that prohibited this executive 
compensation and inserted section 111, subparagraph 3(i). Anybody?
  Who did it? Was it some staffer? We see a Senator on the other side 
of the Capitol blaming it on the Treasury Secretary. We see the 
Treasury Secretary blaming the Senate. And the last time I checked, the 
Secretary of the Treasury doesn't have legislative authority. He didn't 
write it. Who wrote it?
  What I do know is that we told you, how can you give us 90 minutes to 
read a piece of legislation that's over a thousand pages long? You 
said, well, who needs to read the legislation? Well, apparently, today, 
when the chickens have come home to roost, and we have read the 
legislation and the Democratic majority and the Democratic 
administration authorized AIG employees--73 of them--to get over a 
million dollars, today they're embarrassed.

                              {time}  1030

  And their response? It's a typical Democratic response: Let's tax 
people.
  It's unconstitutional what they want to do; it's wrong what they want 
to do. And if we let the majority of this House that does not believe 
in transparency, that made us vote on a bill after giving us 90 minutes 
to read it, that is now embarrassed by the firestorm that's been 
created and the finger pointing that they're now engaging in, we 
shouldn't be here.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
  Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I too am shocked at the shock. When the stimulus bill came through 
the House, there were warnings from the minority party that we did not 
have time to read it, that we would find in that bill things that would 
be egregious and outrage the sensibilities of the American people.
  But I will give credit where credit is due. It is, in fact, in this 
part a stimulus bill, for it stimulated the greed of the bonus babies 
at AIG because it protected and approved taxpayer-funded bonuses to 
that bailed-out company.
  Facts are hard things to disprove. Every single Democrat in this 
House that voted for that bill voted to approve and protect those AIG 
bonuses. Every single Democrat in the Senate that voted for that 
stimulus bill, along with three Republican Senators, voted to approve 
and protect those AIG bonuses. The President of the United States 
signed into law the protection and approval of those AIG bonuses that 
they now find so repugnant now that the American people know what was 
done.
  In my mind, this was part of a deliberate strategy to keep the 
employees at AIG who had broken the bank there to fix the mess that 
they had made. They knew that this Congress would not go alone with the 
executive bonuses being paid to bail out companies. They had to protect 
them with this amendment. It was dropped in in the dead of night.
  If you are shocked, be shocked at the Members of your own party or 
administration that put it in and be shocked that we will now pass a 
bill of attainder that is unconstitutional to try to cover our, shall 
we say, tracks on this matter.
  Here is the sad reality of where we are today. In a time of crisis, 
they passed the Wall Street bailout. The nightmarish prognostications 
of myself and others have been exceeded. Now what we find is an attempt 
to cover

[[Page H3647]]

one's tracks with another bill in a time of crisis that will leave no 
one, no one, safe from the hand of the taxman when the politicians come 
to cover their tracks at your expense.
  The public deserves better. The public deserves transparency. We 
cannot fail them again.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to 
yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, a recent headline read ``AIG is a P.I.G.'' And that's 
exactly the way that most Americans feel.
  The TARP bill, however ill-thought out, was intended to slow the 
bleeding of our economy. Instead, that money is being used to line the 
pockets of the very crooks that drew the first blood. You know it and I 
know it and the American people know it.
  However, what the American people do not know is who put that 
provision in the economic stimulus bill to ensure AIG's ability to pay 
out these outrageous bonuses. I don't know the answer to that. Was it 
Senator Dodd? Well, just yesterday he said, no, he did it at the behest 
of the Obama White House. We need to remember this. The American people 
deserve to know who knew what, when they knew it.
  We all agree that the fat cats at AIG shouldn't be rewarded for their 
irresponsible actions, and we'll take care of that today. But there are 
bigger questions.
  This Member from Florida voted against the stimulus bill. However, 
most Democrats on the other side voted for the stimulus bill. And it's 
amazing that now they are so concerned and so shocked about a provision 
that was put in the bill that they fostered that never went through the 
Ways and Means Committee, on which I serve. We held a very brief 
briefing on it, but we did not get to vote on it. We did not get to put 
any amendments onto it.
  I would at this point yield to the gentlewoman handling the bill on 
the other side, Ms. Pingree, to ask her, who had the opportunity to 
vote against it, why she didn't.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you very much for yielding.
  I want to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we 
are here at this moment to pass the rule to allow us to fix this 
situation.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I don't believe 
that the gentlewoman responded to the question.
  We're here today to remedy something that you had the opportunity to 
vote against, you and your colleagues had the opportunity to vote 
against. That language was in there.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I wasn't here. Just to remind you, although I'm happy to be here to 
manage this bill, I was not here when many Members of the House voted 
on that particular bill. But I do want to say all of us in this Chamber 
had the opportunity to vote on the conditions on the TARP to make sure 
we dealt with things like executive compensation, and many of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in fact, most of them, 
refused to vote in favor of those conditions. So we have had those 
opportunities to do that over time.
  I do agree it should be further investigated exactly how things 
happened here. We are in one of the most tumultuous times in our 
economy than any of us have ever faced or previous generations have 
faced. But I personally voted in favor of those conditions of the TARP. 
And I do find it a little disingenuous to find many of my new 
colleagues, whom I am just getting to know, so anxious to talk about 
executive compensation, capping executive compensation, looking at 
this, when it was an issue that only probably weeks or months ago they 
wouldn't have gone near with a 10-foot pole. In fact, they wouldn't 
even have discussed this. They would have said leave business to 
itself, we're not going to get involved in this particular issue. This 
is an issue that has concerned me and my constituents back in my home 
State for a long time. I was proud to vote in favor of the conditions 
of the TARP.
  And I want to remind my colleagues again we are here today to allow 
this rule to come to the floor so that we can have full debate on all 
of the opportunities afforded to us in this bill and this will be with 
us in only moments as soon as we vote in favor of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before I yield, let 
me say that what Ms. Brown-Waite was talking about was the $800 billion 
so-called stimulus package. In that legislation was the authorization 
for these bonuses to AIG. And my understanding is that all of the 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted for that stimulus 
package. So that's for the record.
  And I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to urge 
their leadership to take processes seriously. I remember when, that 
week of the stimulus package, the so-called stimulus package with $800 
billion, the House unanimously voted for a 48-hour period for everybody 
to be able to see what was in that package, and yet the majority 
leadership ignored the unanimous view of the House.
  So I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to tell 
their leadership, please, pay attention to the will of the House, 
especially and including on process, because we now see that when 
process is abused, things make it into legislation that later 
embarrasses those who vote for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from Texas 
(Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule as well as the 
bill because of the lack of need for this and the disgrace that this 
has brought upon us.
  Yesterday, for instance, the Federal Reserve met and they came out 
and announced that they would create new money to the tune of $1.25 
trillion. The dollar promptly went down 3 percent, and today it went 
down another 1.5 percent. And today on emergency legislation, we're 
going to deal with $165 million worth of bonuses, which obviously 
should have never been given. But who's responsible for this? It's the 
Congress and the President, who signed this.
  So this is a distraction. This is an outrage so everybody can go home 
that voted for this bill and say, look, I am clamping down on this $165 
million but I don't care about the previous $5 trillion the Fed created 
and the $1.25 trillion they created yesterday.
  Think of the loss in purchasing power in less than 24 hours. And we 
think that we can solve this problem. We first appropriate, 
unconstitutionally, $350 billion. We give it to the Treasury. We have 
no strings attached. And then you have an unintended consequence; so we 
express this outrage. And at the same time, what do we do? We come 
along and we now propose that we pass a bill of attainder. So we do 
things that are unconstitutional. They have an unintended consequence. 
So what is our solution? To further undermine the Constitution.
  A line should be drawn in the sand. Let's quit appropriating funds in 
an unconstitutional manner. Let's quit bankrupting this country. Let's 
quit destroying our dollar.
  If you really want to do something, you ought to consider H.R. 1207, 
which would monitor and make the Fed answer questions. I understand the 
Fed and the Treasury were involved in a lot of these antics, and yet 
the Fed is not even required to answer any questions.
  So it's about time we have an open book about the Federal Reserve and 
solve some of these problems.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, just in a quick answer to my good 
colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart, I was proud to 
vote in favor of this stimulus bill and very happy to vote for things 
that are helping my district at this very moment around health care and 
jobs and road construction and things that are desperately needed in my 
State.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

[[Page H3648]]

  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I want to thank the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Colorado for her leadership, and it's a pleasure to be 
on the floor with her today. Let me as well thank the Speaker for the 
opportunity to educate the American public and to dialogue with my 
colleagues.
  I think it's important to note that about 1.1 or 3 trillion of the 
debt that we are facing is the result of the past administration. We 
are now climbing a very difficult mountain because of the enormous 
amount of irresponsibility that occurred. Today we are trying to fix 
problems that were contractually based, already existing. And certainly 
we recognize that we have a combination of a deficit, we have an 
increasing unemployment rate, and we have an important challenge of 
fixing the collapsed financial markets.
  Everybody has heard of AIG. They finance and insure almost every 
aspect of our lives. And it was this leadership that focused on the 
recovery of providing stimulus dollars to our community. It was this 
leadership that infused into the stimulus package unemployment benefits 
to extend to hardworking Americans. And certainly it is this leadership 
that intends to fix this debacle. We will do it together. We will 
ensure that the moneys that were given to those, either unjustly or 
unfairly, are returned to the American public.
  I don't like the format that we are dealt or the cards that we are 
dealt. I don't like the idea that we were told that these were existing 
contracts, that these were retention bonuses.
  But now as the transparency opens up, good news. The American people, 
all of us, can see the structures of capitalism that we'd like to 
change. But we do believe in Americans being able to recover their 
investments. We want small businesses to survive. We believe in a 
capitalistic system. But it has to be fixed. Today is the day we fix it 
and provide the return of taxpayer dollars.
  I am supporting the underlying rule because it is a sense of urgency 
now. And what we are doing is giving the opportunity to give money 
back.
  I'm a lawyer. I realize that this may be subjected to constitutional 
challenge and/or the courts, but you know? I'm prepared to battle in 
the courts. Why? Because they look at issues of equity. What does 
equity mean? It means who's in here with unclean hands, and if there is 
a situation where they are taking Federal money, such as AIG, and all 
of a sudden they give retention bonuses, our courts will look at this 
legislation and say it is fair to give the money back to the American 
people because the circumstances have changed. So I'd rather take the 
chance of going forward on your behalf. And I am grateful to the 
leadership for allowing us to debate legislation that will help return 
the money.
  We also protect those recipients. If you are making under $250,000, 
we do not take that money back.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, facts are 
inconvenient things and the United States Constitution is an 
inconvenient truth at times, particularly when Congress wants to show 
it's upset about something it already did.
  Here are the facts. In the stimulus package, an amendment was adopted 
that the majority put in, the majority voted for, stating that 
provisions in the TARP and in the stimulus bills that limited 
compensation payments would not apply to ``any bonus payment required 
to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or 
before February 11, 2009.''
  It was written specifically to protect the very bonuses that we are 
talking about here today. So now we are asking, how do we undo what we 
did? And the majority has brought to us a bill that doesn't recognize 
the truth of the Constitution.
  There is something called a bill of attainder. You cannot punish a 
group because you don't like them. You can't have them treated more 
onerously than somebody else without a trial.
  Now, that's an unfortunate truth that we have to deal with. How can 
we deal with this? Yesterday in Judiciary Committee, applying 
bankruptcy principles, we had an alternative. But that's not here on 
the floor today, because that's arguably constitutional. This is to get 
headlines to show that we are outraged.
  But let me tell you, if we overturn the Constitution to show our 
outrage, no single American is safe. Because in the future what we will 
do is say we have a precedent that when we have an unpopular group, 
when we have a group that deserves some punishment, we won't go through 
the real laws, what we will do is we will pass a new tax law with 
confiscatory rates and say we have done it for the American people.
  Well, if you do that, you are tearing up the Constitution. I didn't 
come here to tear up the Constitution to undo something that the 
majority did just a few weeks ago. We are better than that. We need to 
protect our Constitution.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts and my colleague on the Rules Committee, 
Mr. McGovern.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we are not tearing up the Constitution 
here, we are responding to bad behavior. We are telling corporate 
America that we are not going to bail them out, our financial 
institutions. We are not going to bail them out and let them do what 
AIG just did.
  The American people are outraged, and rightly so, at the news that 
insurance giant AIG has given large bonuses to some of its employees. 
It is outrageous that a company that is being bailed out by the 
American people is providing bonuses to the people who dealt in these 
exotic financial instruments. Those employees made bad bets, and now 
the American people are paying the tab.
  Mr. Speaker, not many of my constituents are getting so-called 
retention bonuses these days, and I can tell you that. They are not 
sure if they are going to wake up tomorrow with a job.
  In Fall River, the unemployment rate is 16 percent. The city is being 
forced to lay off police officers and firefighters. Food banks are at 
their capacity, and they are being asked to pony up so-called retention 
bonuses for the people who got us into this mess? It is absolutely 
nuts.
  Now I know that the CEO of AIG said yesterday that he has asked the 
people who have received these bonuses to give them back, and that's 
great. But I am afraid we can't simply rely on their good-hearted 
generosity. I understand, and I support the need to ensure the 
stability of the American banking system.
  We need to get the credit flowing again. We need to make sure that 
people have access to mortgages and car loans and student loans. We 
need to make sure that small businesses have access to credit.
  But we also need to make sure that bad behavior isn't rewarded with 
taxpayer money, and that's what this bill is all about. And as 
President Obama has rightly said, we must also put in place the 
appropriate rules and regulations going forward so that this kind of 
financial collapse never happens again.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to get this right. We inherited a lousy economy 
from the previous administration, and we are in a position now where we 
need to help us support our financial institutions, but we need to make 
sure that we do so in a way that doesn't allow this kind of bad 
behavior to continue.
  I applaud Speaker Pelosi and the leadership for bringing this bill to 
the floor. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, our distinguished former colleague, the 
former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Archer, always 
provided us with a great directive. He said here in this institution we 
should follow the Hippocratic Oath, that being to do no harm.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we know full well that the stimulus package had no 
Republican support, and many Republicans were maligned for having just

[[Page H3649]]

said ``no.'' And we all know very well, Democrats, Republicans alike 
know that we as Republicans came forward with a bold, robust, strong 
stimulus package ourselves, but they said we were just the Party of No.
  Well, the fact of the matter is, again we offered a viable 
alternative. But we know very well that rushing as we did to this 
stimulus package is what has led to the challenge that our friends on 
the other side of the aisle are attempting to clean up today. A great 
deal of harm has been done and this, Mr. Speaker, is just one tiny 
example.
  Over in the visitor's center right now a hearing is being held by our 
Economic Stimulus Working Group, and testimony was just provided by a 
man called Mike Stevens of Action Printing from Lubbock, Texas. He was 
talking about the challenge of trying to get a printing press, and he 
said that only those banks that did not accept TARP monies had the 
flexibility to get the credit that he needed to purchase his printing 
press.
  Mr. Speaker, if that example does not underscore, again, that the 
reach of government into our lives, trying to own companies and engage 
in this kind of activity is jeopardizing the potential for economic 
recovery, I believe that it is an absolute mistake for us to be going 
down this road. And I think those of us who stood up in opposition to 
this stimulus package have, in fact, had the statement made very, very 
clear.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas, a Member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Doggett.
  Mr. DOGGETT. AIG--It has become shorthand for ``Arrogant, 
Irresponsible Greed.'' The big difference between the AIG insurance 
bootleggers and Ponzi felon Bernie Madoff is Madoff hasn't asked for a 
bailout yet, although taxpayers are providing him public housing in 
prison.
  Of course, we wouldn't need to react so swiftly today about these 
outrageous bonuses if more people had been willing to speak out, not in 
January, but last September, when the Bush bailout provided almost $1 
trillion on unconditional terms. So many here accepted it, hook, line 
and sinker. Some of us urged last September the dangers of a bailout 
with no effective limitation on executive compensation, or on 
compelling taxpayers to bail out the rest of the world.
  Well, today's bill is very important in restoring Eisenhower-level 
taxes to those who took these bailouts. We need to ensure that it gets 
to the bonuses paid to foreign AIG employees. We need to question why 
this bailout helped AIG provide 20 European banks almost $60 billion, 
without asking them to sacrifice one red cent.
  The same arrogance and indifference to the struggles of American 
families that necessitate today's bill, means that some of the most 
creative people in the world are already working to find ways around 
the bill. They will use the same creativity they have employed to dodge 
their tax responsibilities by going to offshore tax havens, and 
creating subsidiaries, and other creative means that we need to guard 
against in this legislation.
  Meaningful reform means getting behind thoroughly crafted legislation 
that returns accountability, transparency, responsibility, and the rule 
of law to markets that haven't had the rule of law for the last 8 
years.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Ever since the Bush Administration insisted taxpayers 
fund a near bottomless bailout, the problem has been battling the 
mindset that some folks are special--they are above responsibility for 
their actions, above any public accountability.
  Today's legislation is important. It has been swift. It is an overdue 
step that Congress needs to take, but it must be the first step, not 
the last.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, no more blaming 
Bush. Mr. Dodd said that it's the Obama administration that asked them 
to authorize these bonuses.
  I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North 
Carolina, Dr. Foxx.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by submitting for the 
record the vote record for the stimulus bill, which included the 
provision for the AIG bonuses that the administration pushed for, 
showing that the gentlelady from Maine, who said earlier that she had 
not voted for these bonuses, when she told the gentleman from Florida 
she didn't vote it.

                 House Rollcall Vote 70, Feb. 13, 2009


                               yeas (246)

       Republicans (0).
       Democrats (246): Abercrombie (HI-01), Ackerman (NY-05), 
     Adler (NJ-03), Altmire (PA-04), Andrews (NJ-01), Arcuri (NY-
     24), Baca (CA-43), Baird (WA-03), Baldwin (WI-02), Barrow 
     (GA-12), Bean (IL-08), Becerra (CA-31), Berkley (NV-01), 
     Berman (CA-28), Berry (AR-01), Bishop, S. (GA-02), Bishop, T. 
     (NY-01), Blumenauer (OR-03), Boccieri (OH-16), Boren (OK-02), 
     Boswell (IA-03), Boucher (VA-09), Boyd, A. (FL-02), Brady, R. 
     (PA-01), Braley (IA-01), Brown, C. (FL-03), Butterfield (NC-
     01), Capps (CA-23), Capuano (MA-08), Cardoza (CA-18), 
     Carnahan (MO-03), Carney (PA-10), Carson, A. (IN-07), Castor 
     (FL-11), Chandler (KY-06), Childers (MS-01), Clarke (NY-11), 
     Clay (MO-01), Cleaver (MO-05), Cohen (TN-09), Connolly (VA-
     11), Conyers (MI-14), Cooper (TN-05), Costa (CA-20), Costello 
     (IL-12), Courtney (CT-02), Crowley (NY-07), Cuellar (TX-28), 
     Cummings (MD-07), Dahlkemper (PA-03), Davis, A. (AL-07), 
     Davis, D. (IL-07), Davis, L. (TN-04), Davis, S. (CA-53), 
     DeGette (CO-01), Delahunt (MA-10), DeLauro (CT-03), Dicks 
     (WA-06), Dingell (MI-15), Doggett (TX-25), Donnelly (IN-02), 
     Doyle (PA-14), Driehaus (OH-01), Edwards, C. (TX-17), 
     Edwards, D. (MD-04), Ellison (MN-05), Ellsworth (IN-08), 
     Engel (NY-17), Eshoo (CA-14), Etheridge (NC-02), Farr (CA-
     17), Fattah (PA-02), Filner (CA-51), Foster (IL-14), Frank, B 
     (MA-04), Fudge (OH-11), Giffords (AZ-08), Gonzalez (TX-20), 
     Gordon (TN-06), Grayson (FL-08), Green, A. (TX-09), Green, G. 
     (TX-29), Grijalva (AZ-07), Gutierrez (IL-04), Hall, J. (NY-
     I9), Halvorson (IL-11), Hare (IL-17), Harman (CA-36), 
     Hastings, A. (FL-23), Heinrich (NM-01), Herseth Sandlin (SD-
     AL), Higgins (NY-27), Hill (IN-09), Himes (CT-04), Hinchey 
     (NY-22), Hinojosa (TX-15), Hirono (HI-02), Hodes (NH-02), 
     Holden (PA-17), Holt (NJ-I2), Honda (CA-I5), Hoyer (MD-05), 
     Inslee (WA-01), Israel (NY-02), Jackson, J. (IL-02), Jackson 
     Lee (TX-18), Johnson, E. (TX-30), Johnson, H. (GA-04), Kagen 
     (WI-08), Kanjorski (PA-11), Kaptur (OH-09), Kennedy, P. (RI-
     01), Kildee (MI-05), Kilpatrick (MI-13), Kilroy (OH-I5), Kind 
     (W1-03), Kirkpatrick (AZ-01), Kissell (NC-08), Klein, R. (FL-
     22), Kosmas (FL-24), Kratovil (MD-01), Kucinich (OH-10), 
     Langevin (RI-02), Larsen, R. (WA-02), Larson, J. (CT-01), Lee 
     (CA-09), Levin, S. (MI-12), Lewis, John (GA-05), Loebsack 
     (IA-02), Lofgren (CA-16), Lowey (NY-18), Lujan (NM-03), Lynch 
     (MA-09), Maffei (NY-25), Maloney (NY-14), Markey, B. (CO-04), 
     Markey, E. (MA-07), Marshall (GA-08), Massa (NY-29), Matheson 
     (UT-02), Matsui (CA-05), McCarthy, C. (NY-04), McCollum (MN-
     04), McDermott (WA-07), McGovern (MA-03), McIntyre (NC-07), 
     McMahon (NY-13), McNerney (CA-11), Meek, K. (FL-17), Meeks, 
     G. (NY-06), Melancon (LA-03), Michaud (ME-02), Miller, B. 
     (NC-13), Miller, George (CA-07), Mitchell (AZ-05), Mollohan 
     (WV-01), Moore, D. (KS-03), Moore, G. (WI-04), Moran, James 
     (VA-08), Murphy, C. (CT-05), Murphy, P. (PA-08), Murtha (PA-
     12), Nadler (NY-08), Napolitano (CA-38), Neal (MA-02), Nye 
     (VA-02), Oberstar (MN-08), Obey (WI-07), Olver (MA-01), Ortiz 
     (TX-27), Pallone (NJ-06), Pascrell (NJ-08), Pastor (AZ-04), 
     Payne (NJ-10), Pelosi (CA-08), Perlmutter (CO-07), Perriello 
     (VA-05), Peters (MI-09), Pingree (ME-01), Polis (CO-02), 
     Pomeroy (ND-AL), Price, D. (NC-04), Rahall (WV-03), Rangel 
     (NY-15), Reyes (TX-16), Richardson (CA-37), Rodriguez (TX-
     23), Ross (AR-04), Rothman (NJ-09), Roybal-Allard (CA-34), 
     Ruppersberger (MD-02), Rush (IL-01), Ryan, T. (OH-17), 
     Salazar, J. (CO-03), Sanchez, Linda (CA-39), Sanchez, Loretta 
     (CA-47), Sarbanes (MD-03), Schakowsky (IL-09), Schauer (MI-
     07), Schiff (CA-29), Schrader (OR-05), Schwartz (PA-13), 
     Scott, D. (GA-13), Scott, R. (VA-03), Serrano (NY-16), Sestak 
     (PA-07), Shea-Porter (NH-01), Sherman (CA-27), Sires (NJ-13), 
     Skelton (MO-04), Slaughter (NY-28), Smith, Adam (WA-09), 
     Snyder (AR-02), Solis (CA-32), Space (OH-18), Speier (CA-12), 
     Spratt (SC-05), Stark (CA-13), Stupak (MI-01), Sutton (OH-
     13), Tanner (TN-08), Tauscher (CA-10), Teague (NM-02), 
     Thompson, B. (MS-02), Thompson, M. (CA-01), Tierney (MA-06), 
     Titus (NV-03), Tonko (NY-21), Towns (NY-10), Tsongas (MA-05), 
     Van Hollen (MD-08), Velazquez (NY-12), Visclosky (IN-01), 
     Walz (MN-01), Wasserman Schultz (FL-20), Waters (CA-35), 
     Watson (CA-33), Watt (NC-12), Waxman (CA-30), Weiner (NY-09), 
     Welch (VT-AL), Wexler (FL-19), Wilson, Charlie (OH-06), 
     Woolsey (CA-06), Wu (OR-01), Yarmuth (KY-03).


                               NAYS (183)

       Republicans (176): Aderholt (AL-04), Akin (MO-02), 
     Alexander, R. (LA-05), Austria (OH-07), Bachmann (MN-06), 
     Bachus, S. (AL-06), -Barrett (SC-03), Bartlett (MD-06), 
     Barton (TX-06), Biggert (IL-13), Bilbray (CA-50), Bilirakis 
     (FL-09), Bishop, R. (UT-01), Blackburn (TN-07), Blunt (MO-
     07), Boehner (OH-08), Bonner (AL-01), Bono Mack (CA-45), 
     Boozman (AR-03), Boustany (LA-07), Brady, K. (TX-08), Broun 
     (GA-10), Brown, H. (SC-01), Brown-Waite, G. (FL-05), Buchanan 
     (FL-13), Burgess (TX-26), Burton (IN-05), Buyer (IN-04), 
     Calvert (CA-44), Camp (MI-04), Cantor (VA-07), Cao (LA-02), 
     Capito (WV

[[Page H3650]]

     0902), Carter (TX-31), Cassidy (LA-06), Castle (DE-AL), 
     Chaffetz (UT-03), Coble (NC-06), Coffman (CO-06), Cole (OK-
     04), Conaway (TX-11), Crenshaw (FL-04), Culberson (TX-07), 
     Davis, G. (KY-04), Deal (GA-09), Dent (PA-15), Diaz-Balart, 
     L. (FL-21), Diaz-Balart, M. (FL-25), Dreier (CA-26), Duncan 
     (TN-02), Ehlers (MI-03), Emerson (MO-08), Fallin (OK-05), 
     Flake (AZ-06), Fleming (LA-04), Forbes (VA-04), Fortenberry 
     (NE-01), Foxx (NC-05), Franks, T. (AZ-02), Frelinghuysen (NJ-
     11), Gallegly (CA-24), Garrett (NJ-05), Gerlach (PA-06), 
     Gingrey (GA-11), Gohmert (TX-01), Goodlatte (VA-06), Granger 
     (TX-12), Graves (MO-06), Guthrie (KY-02), Hall, R. (TX-04), 
     Harper (MS-03), Hastings, D. (WA-04), Heller (NV-02), 
     Hensarling (TX-05), Herger (CA-02), Hoekstra (MI-02), Hunter 
     (CA-52), Inglis (SC-04), Issa (CA-49), Jenkins (KS-02), 
     Johnson, S. (TX-03), Johnson, Timothy (IL-15), Jones, W. (NC-
     03), Jordan (OH-04), King, P. (NY-03), King. S. (IA-05), 
     Kingston (GA-01), Kirk (IL-10), Kline. J. (MN-02), Lamborn 
     (CO-05), Lance (NJ-07), Latham (IA-04), LaTourette (OH-14), 
     Latta (OH-05), Lewis, Jerry (CA-41), Linder (GA-07), LoBiondo 
     (NJ-02), Lucas (OK-03), Luetkemeyer (MO-09), Lummis (WY-AL), 
     Lungren (CA-03), Mack (FL-14), Manzullo (IL-16), Marchant 
     (TX-24), McCarthy, K. (CA-22), McCaul (TX-10), McClintock 
     (CA-04), McCotter (M1-11), McHenry (NC-10), McHugh (NY-23), 
     McKeon (CA-25), McMorris Rodgers (WA-05), Mica (FL-07), 
     Miller, C. (MI-10), Miller, Gary (CA-42), Miller, J. (FL-01), 
     Moran, Jerry (KS-01), Murphy, T. (PA-18), Myrick (NC-09), 
     Neugebauer (TX-19), Nunes (CA-21), Olson (TX-22), Paul (TX-
     14), Paulsen (MN-03), Pence (IN-06), Petri (WI-06), Pitts 
     (PA-16), Plaits (PA-19), Poe (TX-02), Posey (FL-15), Price, 
     T. (GA-06), Putnam (FL-12), Radanovich (CA-19), Rehberg (MT-
     AL), Reichert (WA-08), Roe (TN-01), Rogers, H. (KY-05), 
     Rogers, Mike (MI-08), Rogers, Mike D. (AL-03), Rohrabacher 
     (CA-46), Rooney (FL-16), Roskam (IL-06), Ros-Lehtinen (FL-
     18), Royce (CA-40), Ryan, P. (WI-01), Scalise (LA-01), 
     Schmidt (OH-02), Schock (IL-18), Sensenbrenner (WI-05), 
     Sessions, P. (TX-32), Shadegg (AZ-03), Shimkus (IL-19), 
     Shuster (PA-09), Simpson (ID-02), Smith, Adrian (NE-03), 
     Smith, C. (NJ-04), Smith, L. (TX-21), Souder (IN-03), Stearns 
     (FL-06), Sullivan (OK-01), Terry (NE-02), Thompson, G. (PA-
     05), Thornberry (TX-13), Tiahrt (KS-04), Tiberi (OH-12), 
     Turner (OH-03), Upton (MI-06), Walden (OR-02), Wamp (TN-03), 
     Westmoreland (GA-03), Whitfield (KY-01), Wilson, J. (SC-02), 
     Wittman (VA-01), Wolf (VA-10), Young, C.W. (FL-10), Young, D. 
     (AK-AL). -
       Democrats (7): Bright (AL-02), DeFazio (OR-04), Griffith 
     (AL-05), Minnick (ID-01), Peterson (MN-07), Shuler (NC-11), 
     Taylor (MS-04).


                             NOT VOTING (4)

       Republicans (2): Campbell (CA-48), Lee, C. (NY-26).--
       Democrats (2): Clyburn (SC-06), Lipinski (IL-03) P.

  Mr. Speaker, this rushed legislation is coming from the same people 
who threw together the final stimulus bill in the dead of night and 
gave us over 12 hours to read over 1,000 pages, the same people who 
drafted the stimulus bill containing a provision that gave the green 
light to these $1 million bonuses. They have never learned the 
expression ``Act in haste, repent at leisure.''
  It's important to note that the same majority, Democrat majority 
that's expressing outrage over these AIG bonuses--rightly expressing 
outrage, I might add--is the same majority that voted overwhelmingly 
for the so-called stimulus that paved the way for these bonuses.
  Let's take a measured approach. Unlike the approach that President 
Bush took on the bailout-panic last fall, unlike the stimulus frenzy 
last month that put us where we are today, we can recoup this money in 
a constitutional manner. In fact, Republicans have a bill that will 
allow us to do that, but they will not let us vote on that bill.
  Now, let me say, also, that we got a letter, or the leadership of 
this House got a letter, dated January 12, 2009, from Mr. Summers, Dr. 
Summers, saying, that, he ``will ask his Department of Treasury to put 
in place strict and sensible conditions on CEO compensation and 
dividend payments until taxpayers get their money back. We will ensure 
that resources are directed to increasing lending and preventing new 
financial crises and not to enriching shareholders and executives.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. McGovern, another Member of the Rules Committee, said, 
``The statement by the Obama administration, the statement by Larry 
Summers, is all very encouraging. It demonstrates a real appreciation 
of what average people are going through.''
  They really understand average people in this country.
  This bill unconstitutionally gets, back 
1/1000th--that's one one thousandth of the bailout cash that AIG has 
gotten. We need to get all of it back--all $170 billion. We need a 
bailout exit strategy. And passing unconstitutional laws is not an exit 
strategy.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the gentlelady 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for bringing in my voting record and 
remind her that I was very proud to vote for the stimulus or recovery 
package, whichever we choose to call it, and have already stated that 
on the record.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Let me set the record straight, particularly with regard 
to the comments of Mr. Dreier from California. The TARP bill is the one 
that provided the bailouts. It contained highly ineffectual, giant 
loophole-containing limits on executive compensation.
  Not surprisingly, those provisions did not prevent the outrageous AIG 
bonuses, nor do they prevent million-dollar a month salaries. It is the 
TARP bill which should have limited and pretended to limit executive 
compensation to those who got money from the TARP bill. The gentleman 
from California voted for the TARP bill, as I understand it. I voted 
against it, twice.
  Then in January we considered a bill that had little or nothing to do 
with the TARP bailout. It, thankfully, included some effort to control 
bonuses. That was in addition to the restrictions found in the TARP 
bill. It was a step in the right direction, but it was not enough to 
stop AIG bonuses. To attack people for voting to make the TARP Program 
a little better, and to have those attacks come from somebody who voted 
for the TARP bill, seems just a little outrageous.
  But what about the bill we are going to consider today? It's a good 
step, but it ain't going to get us where we need to go. Because the 
bill we will consider today allows for half-million-dollar a month 
salaries, million-dollar a month salaries, without any taxation, 
without any limitation, without any effect from this legislation, just 
as those million-dollar a month salaries were unaffected by the TARP 
bill and by the stimulus bill.

                              {time}  1100

  We need to come to this floor next week and improve the bill that I 
hope we pass today--to deal with all executive compensation, not just 
bonuses. Because if you think people are angry today at the AIG 
bonuses, you see how angry they get when we tell them we've solved the 
problem and then they find out some people at bailed-out firms are 
getting $500,000 a month salaries. Because they couldn't get bonuses, 
they went to the employer and said, Well, better make it $1 million a 
month.
  We have got to deal with the entire compensation package.
  The bill we'll consider today also allows unlimited commissions. Now, 
you could argue that maybe certain commissions shouldn't be limited. 
But if you don't define the word commission, you can be sure everybody 
on Wall Street will rename what would have been a bonus into a 
commission. And it will not be taxed under the bill we are going to 
deal with today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield the gentleman 1 more minute.
  Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentlelady. Finally, the bill we are going 
to deal with today deals only with executives of firms that have 
received capital infusions of over $5 billion. That means that they got 
$5 billion and they sold the Treasury their preferred stock.
  Well, that's the way we did business last year. Now Treasury is about 
to stop buying preferred stock. They're going to start buying toxic 
assets.
  The bill we'll consider today does not deal with those firms who sell 
$5 billion, $10 billion, $50 billion worth of toxic assets to the U.S. 
government. So we have to deal with the bailed-out firms that get over 
$5 billion, whether they get it for toxic assets or whether they get it 
for preferred stock.
  We have to deal with salaries, we have to deal with commissions, we 
have to deal with Employee of the Week bonus payments or prize 
payments. We have to deal with all aspects

[[Page H3651]]

of compensation. Until then, our constituents will be justifiably 
skeptical.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, it seems altogether appropriate that the 
President is appearing on the Jay Leno show tonight. The 
administration's response to the AIG debacle has been nothing short of 
a comedy routine all week long. And we in Congress have played Laurel 
to the administration's Hardy all week long.
  What we are about to do with this legislation, however, is not a 
laughing matter. We are responding to our failure to adequately review 
the stimulus bill by passing a bill that we have spent even less time 
reviewing.
  A cursory review of this legislation seems to reveal that it's 
nothing more than a bill of attainder--a measure that is clearly 
unconstitutional. Does that matter to anyone here?
  Let me offer just one example of why we should subject this 
legislation to a bit more deliberation. We don't have sufficient money 
in the Treasury, nor can we responsibly borrow enough money to purchase 
the toxic assets currently on the balance sheets of our financial 
institutions. We are going to need a great deal of investment from the 
private sector to do that.
  Who in the private sector, Mr. Speaker, seeing what we are doing here 
today, would put their own money at risk for the possibility of 
financial return if they know that Congress, with one day's notice, can 
pass legislation to tax 90 percent of it?
  It's tough enough, Mr. Speaker, for government to control the 
commanding heights of the economy without riding a high horse while 
doing it.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Last fall, like a majority of House Republicans, I opposed 
the Wall Street bailout because I feared we'd arrive at days like 
today, in part. House Republicans share the outrage of the American 
people that AIG would use taxpayer dollars to award executive bonuses 
during an economic crisis. But the Democratic bill brought to the floor 
today is constitutionally questionable. In its obviously transparent 
attempt to divert attention away from the truth, the Democrats in 
Congress and this administration made these bonus payments possible.
  House Republicans believe the American people deserve 100 percent of 
their money back. House Republicans have proposed legislation that will 
deny AIG one more dime of bailout money until they have recovered all 
of the bonus payments from their employees.
  Lastly, the American people deserve to know this whole outrage could 
have been avoided. The truth is that it was a Democrat Senator from 
Oregon, Ron Wyden, who authored thoughtful legislation that would have 
banned executive bonuses included in the stimulus bill, and it was--
late in the night, late in the process--removed.
  Here's what he had to say about it. Senator Wyden told the Associated 
Press, ``The President goes out and says this is not acceptable, then 
some backroom deal gets cut and lets these things get paid out anyway.
  ``He said, `I think it's unfortunate.' He said we could have had a 
well-targeted message `which would have communicated how strongly the 
administration felt about blocking these executive bonuses,' but I 
wasn't able to convince them.''
  ``Even Senator Chris Dodd, the head of the conference committee for 
the stimulus bill said, `I didn't negotiate with myself. I wasn't 
trying to change it on my own. The administration had expressed 
reservations. They asked for modifications.' ''
  The American people deserve to know that, thanks to the work of 
Senator Ron Wyden and Senator Olympia Snowe, we wouldn't be here today, 
because the stimulus bill would have banned these bonuses altogether. 
But that language was removed.
  The American people deserve 100 percent of their money back. They 
deserve to know why House Democrats blocked efforts to ban executive 
bonuses. We deserve the truth.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. The Democrats have actually controlled this Congress for 
over the last 2 years, and it was the Democrats who controlled the 
passage of the TARP legislation in the first place. I voted against 
that legislation.
  But ABC News reported yesterday that ``during late-night, closed-door 
negotiations for the House, Senate, and White House, a measure was 
stripped out of the stimulus bill that could have restricted these AIG 
bonuses. The Senate had approved the amendment to the stimulus bill 
aimed at restricting bonuses over $100,000 that had been authored by 
Olympia Snowe and by Ron Wyden. Then, the provision was stripped out 
during the closed-door conference involving House and Senate leaders 
and the White House. Dodd's measure explicitly exempted bonuses agreed 
to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill.''
  Now, most of the Democratic Members voted for this on the House 
floor, all of the Republicans voted against it. That's the record.
  We should vote ``aye'' on this bill. And the reason we should is 
because it's going to stop executives from coming here to take TARP 
funds from Washington. It's going to stop capitalists from being 
converted into quasi-socialists. That's the reason we should vote 
``aye.''
  I brought an amendment to this floor in 2005 to try to prevent--with 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--to try to regulate them for systemic risk, 
arguing that their over-leveraging as GSEs was going to cause 
bankruptcy and a financial collapse. It was voted down.
  It was voted down, but this year those executives from Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac, it was reported yesterday, they are going to get over $1 
million in bonuses.
  How do we stop every executive coming to this town to get TARP money 
and over-leveraging their firms and then the consequent bailout at cost 
to the taxpayers?
  Well, we passed legislation removing their bonuses so that all of the 
time and effort that these business executives put into coming to D.C. 
is reversed.
  When you take TARP money, when they do that, they have the full 
backing of the U.S. government behind them. So they can borrow money 
without market discipline and without limit, at a lower interest rate 
than their competitors, and drive them out of business, which is what 
AIG is doing right now to other smaller private sector businesses.
  It's 80 percent owned by the government. Without that market 
discipline, what consequently happens, economists tell us--and this is 
exactly what happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as government-
sponsored enterprises--they drive out their competition, they become 
larger and larger, they over-leverage, and then they collapse, 
requiring more in government infusions of capital into these 
institutions.
  You have got to change the incentive structure. You have got to put 
up a firewall between government and the markets. You don't want these 
fellows down here with their lobbyists. You don't want these men and 
women, these executives down here trying to figure out ways to get the 
taxpayers to back them so that they can become quasi-GSEs, because the 
long-term consequence of becoming a government-sponsored enterprise is 
the same as what happened to Fannie and Freddie.
  This is what economists have tried to explain to us. We finally have 
a method to distinguish between those in the private sector, those who 
are free-market businessmen, who are going to take risks, not with 
government money, and are going to make a salary and are going to pay 
bonuses to their executives, and those who decide that they want to be 
quasi-public in nature, that they want to be like Fannie and Freddie.
  Why should they make bonuses of $1 million a year this year for 
Fannie and Freddie? Why should they make twice as much as they made in 
bonuses last year? It is only because, unfortunately, my friends on the 
other side of the aisle did not listen to this argument on TARP 
funding.

[[Page H3652]]

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker I yield 2 minutes to a member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. 
Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the 
people have spoken on the extraordinary issue of AIG lavishing fat 
bonuses on some of its executives. Indeed, some of the very people 
whose reckless actions destroyed this once great company. The people 
have said no. In fact, they've said: Hell no. And give us our money 
back.
  This is not just another case of runaway corporate greed and 
arrogance, ripping off shareholders by excesses lavished around the 
executive suite. These bonuses represent a squandering of the people's 
money because it's the vast sums we have been forced to pour into this 
now pathetic company.
  The bill before us is unlike any tax bill I have ever seen. But it 
reflects the strong feelings of our constituents and the bipartisan 
will of this body. We will not tolerate these actions. We are not going 
to wring our hands, shake our heads, look at our feet and mumble 
``Ain't it a shame.''
  Starting right here, right now, we are saying: No more. We are 
saying: Give us our money back. And we will not stop until we get it 
back.
  The fact that we have to take this step at all is appalling to me. 
Have the recipients of these checks no shame at all? They failed in 
their work. They wrecked a corporate icon. They contributed mightily to 
the economic crash that has cost the Treasury $170 billion so far. And 
they want to cash their bonus checks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield another 30 seconds.
  Mr. POMEROY. Let today's vote say loud and clear to those running to 
cash their ill-gotten checks: You disgust us. By any measure, you are 
disgraced, professional losers. By the way, give us our money back.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to 
the distinguished gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. We want the money back--the money that 
was used for executive bonuses.
  But I rise today in opposition to this rule. Frankly, I find it 
incredibly disappointing how this Congress has handled the AIG 
situation. And now the majority is simply repeating the same mistakes 
that led us here.
  As we all know, the 1,100-page stimulus package was made public in 
the dead of night, just hours before the vote. No one could have read 
it except those that crafted it behind closed doors. No committee 
hearings were held, no alternatives or amendments were permitted. And 
now we find another reason why the majority didn't want it exposed to 
close scrutiny.
  Apparently the majority quietly stripped out language passed in the 
Senate that would have blocked these outrageous bonuses funded with 
taxpayer dollars.
  And who is responsible? First, no one took responsibility or seemed 
to have any idea who did it. Then Senator Dodd admitted that he 
stripped out the language at the behest of the administration.
  Now Congress is making the same bad mistake by passing another piece 
of rushed legislation introduced in one day, and hasn't had the proper 
scrutiny.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota, who 
has legislation filed and who has been working diligently on this 
issue, Mr. Paulsen.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I also agree that taxpayers deserve 100 
percent of their money back. But, Mr. Speaker, I would urge our 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule that is before us today.
  Voting ``no'' on this rule today will allow us to consider the very 
commonsense proposal that we tried to bring up yesterday and now that 
the gentleman from Florida is trying to bring up once again today, a 
bipartisan proposal, actually, that would require not only that the 
bonuses get returned, have the Treasury Department return those 
bonuses, but, more importantly, put accountability in place so it never 
happens again. No more excuses. Requiring the Treasury Department to 
sign off on any future bonuses, requiring the Treasury Department to 
sign off on any future contracts regarding TARP legislation.
  The bill that is being brought to the floor by the majority today was 
hastily written, as were provisions of the stimulus bill. It is 
covering the shoddy work that was done in the oversight of the TARP 
funds, the shoddy work that was put together in the stimulus bill, and 
it is covering up the shoddy work as well of government incompetence.
  Mr. Speaker, let's have a vote for accountability by voting ``no'' on 
this provision so we can insert better bipartisan legislation.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker for this 
side. I will reserve my time until the gentleman has closed for his 
side and yielded back his time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am asking all 
Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. It won't preclude 
consideration of the other suspension bills we expect to consider 
today, but it will give the administration another way to recover the 
taxpayer funds given in those outrageous bonuses to AIG, and it will 
also help prevent another bonus scandal, as Mr. Paulsen, the author of 
the legislation that I wish would be able to be debated, has just 
explained.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, really, to say 
enough is enough with regard not only with the scandalous misuse of 
taxpayer funds, but the abuse of the process by the majority; because 
on an issue like this, where there is outrage on both sides of the 
aisle, there should be no problem with discussion and debate and 
consideration of ideas from other Members, not just the office of the 
leadership here, the majority leadership.
  And with regard to what we have heard about blaming the prior 
administration, it is going to be very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to see 
how long that lasts. I am sure they will try to make it last for 4 
years, but how long will it be effective? Because the authorization for 
the bonuses was in the so-called stimulus package voted for by the 
majority.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I again urge a ``no'' vote on the 
previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I can be very brief in my close, 
and I thank all of the eloquent speakers from our side who have come to 
the floor to talk about this important issue and the importance of 
voting on it today.
  Let me be clear, a ``no'' vote, a ``no'' vote on this, is to allow 
the executives at AIG to keep their bonuses.
  Now, how many people have come before us today to say it is 
unconscionable to think that they would take taxpayers' dollars to fund 
a misguided scheme, and then be given bonuses by the taxpayers? It is 
unthinkable. A ``no'' vote here is unthinkable.
  We have talked about a whole variety of things from each other's 
voting records to the constitutionality, to a whole range of issues 
that do and don't apply to what we are talking about right now, and 
that is to allow a rule to allow us to proceed with doing something 
about the executive bonuses at AIG.
  How many people have come before us? How many constituents have we 
heard from who have said: You have got to do something about these 
bonuses. I am struggling. I am struggling to keep my business going. I 
am struggling to keep my home going. Numerous things we have all heard 
from all of our constituents that have said to us, do something, do it 
right now. That is what people are asking us, in this extreme difficult 
economy where people are struggling every day, where businesses are 
struggling, where in my district we are hearing a layoff notice almost 
every day. People are saying to us, it is time to do something. That is 
why we are here.

[[Page H3653]]

  I urge a ``yes'' vote of my colleagues on the previous question and 
on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

   Amendment to H. Res. 257, as Reported Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
                           Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, 
     without intervention of any motion or recess, the Speaker 
     shall entertain a motion offered by the Minority Leader or 
     his designee, that the House suspend the rules relating to 
     the bill (H.R. 1577) to require the Secretary of the Treasury 
     to pursue every legal means to stay or recoup certain 
     incentive bonus payments and retention payments made by 
     American International Group, Inc. to its executives and 
     employees, and to require the Secretary's approval of such 
     payments by any financial institution who receives funds 
     under title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 
     2008. Clause 8(a) of rule XX shall not apply to such motion. 
     A motion to adjourn shall not be in order during 
     consideration of such motion.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield back the balance of my time and move 
the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________