[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 48 (Thursday, March 19, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H3655-H3664]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  TAXING EXECUTIVE BONUSES PAID BY COMPANIES RECEIVING TARP ASSISTANCE

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1586) to impose an additional tax on bonuses received from 
certain TARP recipients.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1586

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. BONUSES RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN TARP RECIPIENTS.

       (a) In General.--In the case of an employee or former 
     employee of a covered TARP recipient, the tax imposed by 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for any 
     taxable year shall not be less than the sum of--
       (1) the tax that would be determined under such chapter if 
     the taxable income of the taxpayer for such taxable year were 
     reduced (but not below zero) by the TARP bonus received by 
     the taxpayer during such taxable year, plus
       (2) 90 percent of the TARP bonus received by the taxpayer 
     during such taxable year.
       (b) TARP Bonus.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) In general.--The term ``TARP bonus'' means, with 
     respect to any individual for any taxable year, the lesser 
     of--
       (A) the aggregate disqualified bonus payments received from 
     covered TARP recipients during such taxable year, or
       (B) the excess of--
       (i) the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer for such 
     taxable year, over
       (ii) $250,000 ($125,000 in the case of a married individual 
     filing a separate return).
       (2) Disqualified bonus payment.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``disqualified bonus payment'' 
     means any retention payment, incentive payment, or other 
     bonus which is in addition to any amount payable to such 
     individual for service performed by such individual at a 
     regular hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, or similar periodic 
     rate.
       (B) Exceptions.--Such term shall not include commissions, 
     welfare or fringe benefits, or expense reimbursements.
       (C) Waiver or return of payments.--Such term shall not 
     include any amount if the employee irrevocably waives the 
     employee's entitlement to such payment, or the employee 
     returns such payment to the employer, before the close of the 
     taxable year in which such payment is due. The preceding 
     sentence shall not apply if the employee receives any benefit 
     from the employer in connection with the waiver or return of 
     such payment.
       (3) Reimbursement of tax treated as tarp bonus.--Any 
     reimbursement by a covered TARP recipient of the tax imposed 
     under subsection (a) shall be treated as a disqualified bonus 
     payment to the taxpayer liable for such tax.

[[Page H3656]]

       (c) Covered TARP Recipient.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) In general.--The term ``covered TARP recipient'' 
     means--
       (A) any person who receives after December 31, 2007, 
     capital infusions under the Emergency Economic Stabilization 
     Act of 2008 which, in the aggregate, exceed $5,000,000,000,
       (B) the Federal National Mortgage Association and the 
     Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,
       (C) any person who is a member of the same affiliated group 
     (as defined in section 1504 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986, determined without regard to paragraphs (2) and (3) of 
     subsection (b)) as a person described in subparagraph (A) or 
     (B), and
       (D) any partnership if more than 50 percent of the capital 
     or profits interests of such partnership are owned directly 
     or indirectly by one or more persons described in 
     subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
       (2) Exception for tarp recipients who repay assistance.--A 
     person shall be treated as described in paragraph (1)(A) for 
     any period only if--
       (A) the excess of the aggregate amount of capital infusions 
     described in paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such person 
     over the amounts repaid by such person to the Federal 
     Government with respect to such capital infusions, exceeds
       (B) $5,000,000,000.
       (d) Other Definitions.--Terms used in this section which 
     are also used in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall have 
     the same meaning when used in this section as when used in 
     such Code.
       (e) Coordination With Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--Any 
     increase in the tax imposed under chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 by reason of subsection (a) shall not be 
     treated as a tax imposed by such chapter for purposes of 
     determining the amount of any credit under such chapter or 
     for purposes of section 55 of such Code.
       (f) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury, or the 
     Secretary's delegate, shall prescribe such regulations or 
     other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry 
     out the purposes of this section.
       (g) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to 
     disqualified bonus payments received after December 31, 2008, 
     in taxable years ending after such date.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman 
Peters, Congressman Israel and Congresswoman Maloney for coming 
together and working with the committee to see how, the best we could, 
right a wrong.
  Most all Americans believe that a bonus is something that is paid as 
a reward for a job well done. And certainly we don't believe in the 
House that when a handful of people receiving taxpayers' money for 
threatening the community in which we live, and indeed our country and 
the financial structure of the world, the whole idea that they should 
be rewarded millions of dollars is repugnant to everything that decent 
people believe in. But notwithstanding that, it is not our job to tell 
the private sector what to do; it is our job to say you don't do it at 
taxpayers' expense.
  All this bill does is just pull out that part that they called bonus. 
And if you received, or the company received, $5 billion of taxpayers' 
money, we say the tax that you will pay on this is 90 percent. The rest 
of your income would be at the regular rate of 35 percent. If, indeed, 
this combination of the so-called bonus reward is combined with the 
regular salary and reaches a cap of $250,000, only the regular 35 
percent would count.
  Maybe somewhere along the line someone might say, ``I don't deserve 
this, we've caused enough damage, people have lost their jobs, their 
savings, they've lost their homes, their health insurance, they've lost 
their dignity, they've lost their pride, and we don't deserve to take 
this money from the taxpayers.'' Then give it back, don't receive it, 
and the law certainly would not apply. But if you're proud of what 
you've done, we are saying the buck is going to stop here, the red 
light is flashing. And anyone thinking about doing this, we say you 
just pay your dues to the IRS because we're going to be watching this.
  Mr. Speaker, we're not trying to punish anybody, we just say do what 
you have to do. Rewards are subjective, but you don't do it with 
taxpayers' money.
  At the end of the day, I do hope that this will be a message that 
will be sent in a bipartisan way. We may have differences in how we 
resolve this problem in the future, but this problem is there, and we 
are saying to the IRS and to the commissioner that we really want to 
make certain that, at the end of the day, they're not the ones that 
caused the problem and then get rewarded for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished minority leader.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I caught a little grief 5 
weeks ago when we had the stimulus bill on the floor. Remember the 
1,100-page bill that no one had time to read and then no one did read? 
Obviously, the President didn't have time to read it either, because in 
that bill was this one sentence, this one sentence that made it clear 
that someone knew that these AIG bonuses were about to be paid, and 
they didn't want them stopped. So somehow in the dark of night, this 
one sentence was added to the bill so that AIG would pay these bonuses 
to their executives. This language wasn't in the House bill. This 
language wasn't in the Senate bill. This language showed up in the dead 
of night, and no one got to see it.
  I'm wondering where did the language come from. Who wrote it? Who 
asked the conferees to put it in the bill? What conferees on the part 
of the House agreed to this? I'm looking for somebody to put their hand 
up. That's the whole issue.
  This political circus that's going on here today with this bill is 
not getting to the bottom of the questions of who knew what and when 
did they know it? Somebody was responsible for drawing up this 
language. Someone brought it to the conferees. Someone brought it to 
the Democrat leadership, who wrote this bill in secret, and put this 
language in there. But we have no idea who it was.
  Secondly, the bill that's before us attempts to recoup 90 percent of 
these bonuses. Why 90 percent? The American people are outraged. I'm 
outraged. And we just voted down an opportunity to bring a bill to the 
floor from our freshmen Members that said, real simple: We ought to get 
100 percent of this money back. We can get 100 percent of it back 
because the Treasury Secretary has the ability to get it all back. The 
administration has the ability to get it all back. Why don't we just 
get it all back? And why are we bringing this bill to the floor today 
to give Members political cover when, in fact, the Treasury Secretary 
has the authority, the administration has the authority, to get all of 
it back? But, no, that got voted down. Our bill would have been a 
better bill.
  Thirdly, our colleagues Mr. LaTourette and Mr. McCotter have 
introduced a resolution of inquiry to get all of the documents 
surrounding communications between the Treasury, the Fed, and AIG to 
understand who was in the middle of this conversation. People have 
known about this for months, and yet we just found out about it over 
the last 48 hours. So we want this resolution of inquiry to be passed 
by the committee. We want to get to the bottom of all of this. But in 
the meantime, do we have to have this political charade of bringing 
this bill out here? I don't think so.
  I think this is a bad bill with bad consequences. We didn't see the 
bill until last night. Nobody in the committee marked it up, nobody 
debated it, and nobody understands the consequences of what we're about 
to do. How can we possibly vote ``yes'' on a bill like this?
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me try to answer a couple of questions.
  Whatever point the minority leader was making as to what happened in 
the Senate bill, he should have an inquiry and do whatever he has to 
do. I can say, as a conferee, that issue never was in conference.
  Having said that, it doesn't mean whatever he comes up with with his 
inquiry that these people deserve to have these bonuses at taxpayer 
expense. And that's the issue before the floor. It has nothing to do 
with what was in conference. It has everything to do with, do these 
people deserve, at taxpayers' expense, to receive these types of 
bonuses?

[[Page H3657]]

  The second thing is that, while it's only 90 percent Federal, there 
is local and State liability, and they're entitled in their 10 percent 
to take a look at that and make the decisions that they have to.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to now yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague 
from New York, Congressman Israel.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the distinguished chairman for giving me the 
honor of cosponsoring this legislation with him.
  Mr. Speaker, we have just seen the difference between rhetoric and 
action. We can finger point. We can lay blame. We can talk about the 
past. We just want to recover the taxpayers' money for them. We want to 
recover the money, and others want a resolution of inquiry.
  Mr. Speaker, this vote is the difference between solving the problem 
or continuing the problem. We're going to cast this vote and go home to 
our districts, and the American people are going to say to each of us, 
did you get my money back or did you continue your posturing? Did you 
get my money back or did you continue in politics? Did you vote to 
recover my money or did you vote to allow them to get away with my 
money? That's what this is about, Mr. Speaker.
  The American people have had it with the posturing and the 
partisanship and the politics. They want their money back. And the only 
way to get their money back, Mr. Speaker, the only way to get it back 
is to tax it back.
  Let me say one other thing, Mr. Speaker. I have heard from some of my 
friends in New York who said this is unfair. It's unfair because I 
thought I'd get my bonus. Mr. Speaker, they're going to have to tighten 
their belts just like the rest of America.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Frankly, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and I agree 
that bypassing the committee is a dangerous way to legislate. That 
invites unnecessary errors, and I think the stimulus bill is proof 
positive, and that's why we are here today. But again we are faced 
today with a bill that has had no public scrutiny and has not come 
before the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Speaker, let us do our jobs.
  When Congress acted to stave off an imminent financial and economic 
collapse, the results of which would have been Depression-era 
unemployment levels, we did so with faith that past and current 
administrations would carefully manage the people's money. That trust 
has been shattered. Lesson learned.
  What has been particularly troubling is the difficulty with which the 
truth has come out recently. After many varying and contradictory 
excuses, we now know that the Obama administration, working behind 
closed doors, secretly eliminated provisions that would have prevented 
the appalling abuse of taxpayer money. Adding insult to injury, they 
explicitly protected bonuses at companies that in many cases are 
operating only due to the generosity of the American people. It's a 
breach of the public trust that should have the Treasury Secretary, who 
repeatedly failed to pay his own taxes, looking for a new job.
  Several of my colleagues on this side of the aisle and even Chairman 
Rangel have noted good reasons to oppose the bill before us. It's an 
extreme use of the Tax Code to correct an extreme and excessive wrong 
done to the American people. I'm sure we'll hear today that two wrongs 
don't make a right. But neither does inaction. It is our duty to 
protect and defend hardworking tax-paying Americans. At the end of the 
day, this insult to taxpayers cannot, should not, and will not stand, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote for the measure.
  Mr. RANGEL. Let me thank my leader, the ranking Republican on the 
committee, for pointing out that this is, and I agree, an extraordinary 
procedure. And I've given a lot of thought to it. And it just seemed 
that this is an extraordinary situation when President Bush and 
Secretary Paulson would come to the Congress and ask for $700 billion 
of taxpayers' money, and if we didn't do it in a week or two, the sky 
would fall not only in the United States but around the world. If, 
indeed, people among that group of people, who without regard to the 
people that we were trying to protect, take this money, then it calls 
for an extraordinary response to it.
  So I feel very, very comfortable in saying we tried to look at the 
arsenal that we had, whether it's the Justice Department, the Finance; 
the American people demand protection, and that's what we're doing 
today with your help.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to call on a senior member of the 
committee, my friend from Michigan, Congressman Levin, for 1 minute.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to hear the debate from the 
other side. I guess some are going to vote ``yes,'' and I hope the vast 
majority will, after trying to make political points. This isn't the 
time for that. We are in the midst of a national economic crisis. 
Almost 4\1/2\ million jobs lost during this recession, homes are being 
lost. I think everybody has to participate in the solution and no one 
should exploit it.
  In one bonus payment, these executives, who worked in the division 
that helped bring about the havoc, are taking home more money than 99 
percent of Americans take home in a year.
  The head of AIG has suggested their returning the bonuses. They 
should. And if they don't, we're taking action. We have the authority 
under the Tax Code not to punish but to protect the taxpayers of the 
United States of America. That's what we are doing today, and we should 
pass this overwhelmingly.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, what we should really do here today is slow 
down.
  What I want to know is who's responsible for including this in the 
stimulus package, authorizing these bonuses? We need to know if it's 
Senator Dodd, if it's Secretary Geithner, or President Obama. Who knew 
and who knew when? So, to me, if we're looking at whom to blame for 
this, we ought to be looking at the folks that voted for the bailout, 
that voted for the stimulus bill. Every Republican opposed the stimulus 
bill.
  I believe this is a gimmick. I don't think this bill will become law. 
I don't even know if it's constitutional. This bill never even went 
through regular order.
  I think what we should do today is calm down, stop this process, and 
go meet in the Ways and Means Committee so that we can go through this 
bill and determine whether or not this is the right course of action. 
So today I ask my colleagues to just slow down. Let's read the 
legislation. Let's not vote on this today. And let's come up with a 
real solution and not just a gimmick.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, 
I've taken a deep breath and am now relaxed. I have reviewed this 
thing, and I am going home saying we have got the taxpayers' money 
back. And our colleagues and friends and those who love America as much 
as I do are saying, hey, slow down, we've got to make an inquiry.
  You make your inquiry; we're going to do what we have to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a young man that is a freshman 
who hasn't been here that long but he came here with a feeling about 
what is moral, what is just, and the committee appreciates his advice 
on this bill, Representative Peters from Michigan, for 1 minute.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 1586, 
legislation that I helped craft that will reclaim outrageous bonuses 
paid with our taxpayer dollars that were given out to AIG and other 
companies that received billions in TARP funds. Million-dollar bonuses 
to the very people who drove our economy to the brink of collapse is 
simply unacceptable.
  When reports of AIG bonuses broke this week, many said there was 
nothing that we could do because AIG was contractually obligated to pay 
the rewards. I rejected that notion. Auto industry workers are 
renegotiating their contracts and making sacrifices as a condition of 
receiving Federal support.

[[Page H3658]]

If financial executives had thought that they should be held to a 
different standard, today they know that we mean business.

                              {time}  1230

  I am grateful to my colleagues who worked with me to quickly develop 
a plan to put a stop to these outrageous bonuses.
  I would like to thank Chairman Rangel, Congressman Israel, and 
Congresswoman Maloney for working with me to help write this bill, 
which turned the outrage of the American people into action for the 
American taxpayer.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. TERRY. The public has an absolute right to be upset, and I share 
that. But let's look at the facts here. This language that specifically 
allows the bonuses was written into the stimulus, with the righteous 
indignation of my colleagues and friends on the Democrat side now 
demagoguing what they voted for and put in.
  Another fact: no Republican was allowed in the room when that 
conference report was actually written. We do know four people that 
were involved in writing that: one was Senator Reid, Senator Dodd, who 
has claimed responsibility for that language and accepted $200,000 in 
donations from AIG; we know Speaker Pelosi was in the room; and we know 
Barney Frank was, too, probably Secretary Geithner.
  Another fact was that the original language, before it got into that 
private little room, said that bonuses would be banned. But yet they 
replaced it with specific language allowing the bonuses.
  So what we see here today, with the people who actually voted for the 
bonuses, is a little CYA, a disingenuous attempt to cover their rears.
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, it seems like my friends on the other side 
got the wrong bill. If you want support for an inquiry, let's talk 
about it.
  We want the taxpayers' money back, no matter who is wrong. So talking 
about the inquiry, we are talking about recouping the taxpayers' money.
  I yield to my friend, Mr. Blumenauer, from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your leadership 
and the ability to work with you on this bill on what has been a sharp 
reversal of past practice.
  In most of my career here, we have watched the Tax Code twisted, 
stretched, bent to lavish rewards on a tiny minority of Americans, a 
few thousand of the richest Americans, and the favored special 
interests.
  Today, in a sharp reversal, under your leadership, we used the Tax 
Code to rebalance the scales. We will use the Tax Code to strip away 
the outrageous benefits of these bonuses to some of the people who 
helped drive the economy into the ditch in the first place.
  We are helping protect taxpayers, get their money back, and I hope, 
Mr. Chairman, sending a message on how the Tax Code will be used under 
the Obama administration and in your work on the Ways and Means 
Committee to be able to help the American public as we move forward to 
protect and rebalance the American economy.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, here, once again, we are going to hastily 
do something wrong, good intentions. There is nobody in this Congress 
that wants that money back more than I do.
  But going back to September, going back to the stimulus, spendulus, 
going back to the omnibus, we hastily went through this stuff. Some of 
us said don't go so fast, and we can make sure we got a better bill, 
and we didn't do that.
  So here we are, going to hastily shred the Constitution, with an ex 
post facto law that says we will take 90 percent as taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, that's not right. We don't take bad law and make worse 
law shredding the Constitution. You want to get it back, I want more 
than 90 percent. I want 100 percent.
  You do that by forcing them into bankruptcy, going back and putting 
these preferences aside so we can get 100 percent, and we can get more 
than just the bonuses in bankruptcy or receivership. That's 
constitutional.
  Don't shred the Constitution after we have already messed up by 
blowing aside the procedure and doing the hastily wrong thing.
  Mr. RANGEL. Well, there is no constitutional challenge here, I can 
assure you. But one thing may be clear, I may be supporting an inquiry 
as to who did the stimulus, schpimulus.
  The people want to know, are these guys going to get away with what 
they have done to our communities, what they have done to our homes, 
what they have done to our pride, what they have done to our country, 
and what they have done for the world?
  So when the score is taken, it is going to be those who voted for the 
bill and those who voted against it. And that's it. You can go on with 
your inquiry, but this bill is abundantly clear, and the question is 
which side are you on?
  I yield 1 minute to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means 
Committee from Florida, Representative Meek.
  (Mr. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much for 
bringing this bill to the floor.
  The bottom line is, at the top of this week, when we all learned what 
happened with the bonuses and all, the American people wanted to know 
what the Congress was going to do as it relates to these taxpayer 
dollars that are being used for the bonuses.
  Are you going to get our money back, are you going to file an 
inquiry? No one called me, no one called my district office and said, 
``Congressman, please go to Congress and file an inquiry about what 
happened with my taxpayer dollars.'' They are saying, ``Get it back, 
get it back now.''
  Now the other side is talking about the Constitution and wrapping 
themselves in the flag right now saying that, ``oh, my goodness, we are 
shredding the Constitution.'' Well, that's the pot calling the kettle 
black, as far as I am concerned. Because the Supreme Court, and courts 
throughout the land, there are unconstitutional measures that have been 
brought to this floor, and that's up for the courts.
  But as far as I am concerned, what we are being told, that this is 
fine. This language is well in order, and we are going to pass this 
legislation. So you have to vote up or down.
  You can't come with excuses. The bottom line is we are getting the 
taxpayer dollars back.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. GOHMERT. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Is it inappropriate and against the rules to ask another 
person to yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Any Member can ask another Member under 
recognition to yield.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Is it inappropriate, when somebody accuses me of being 
the pot calling the kettle black, in other words, of being the very 
thing I am accusing others of doing, of asking the gentleman to yield 
so I can find out where the heck he is coming from?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GOHMERT. So it's inappropriate to ask?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. GOHMERT. The parliamentary inquiry is, if I am allowed to ask 
someone to yield after they have called me a name?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GOHMERT. So you are saying you don't know whether I can ask 
another person to yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A Member under recognition is allowed, by 
House Rules, to determine who they will or will not yield to.
  Mr. GOHMERT. All right. So, would it be inappropriate to ask the 
gentleman who controls the time to specify how I am shredding the 
Constitution when I say someone else is doing so?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That's not a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page H3659]]

  Does the gentleman have another parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. GOHMERT. I think you have pretty well taken care of that.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the 
gallery that they are here as guests of the House, and that any 
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or other 
audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The stimulus bill was 1,100 pages. My good friend, Charlie Rangel, 
signed that. And in that was this language that was stuck in in the 
middle of the night that allowed for all these bonuses to be paid to 
AIG executives.
  Charlie, you signed that, and nobody on our side voted for it, and 
nobody on our side read the bill, and nobody on your side read the 
bill. And that's because they were trying to sneak this through in the 
middle of the night without anybody knowing it.
  In my opinion, this is a way that you cover up a big mistake that was 
made by you and the conferees. This should never have happened. These 
bonuses should never have happened. And now you are trying to do 
something that's of questionable constitutionality to cover up a big 
mistake. I don't know why you just don't own up to it.
  This is something that should not have happened. This is something 
that the Democrats, my good friend, Charlie, and others signed on to, 
it's a bill that nobody read in this Chamber, and we certainly didn't 
vote for it.
  And now you are saying if we don't vote for this cover-up that you 
are coming up with, we are the bad guys. We are not. The American 
people won't be fooled by this.
  Mr. RANGEL. Let me say to my friend that you have to look at me and 
read my lips.
  This issue was not before the conference committee. Now, it may have 
been on the other side.
  And after I say that, I am telling you that this has nothing to do 
with this being the right time to correct anything that you allege is 
wrong. These people are getting away with murder. They are getting paid 
for the destruction that they have caused our communities.
  And before we leave here, we have to decide not what they did on the 
other side, because no one back home was asking about the conference 
report, they are asking, ``Are these people going to take away bonuses 
that taxpayers have paid for?''
  And I think that Danny Davis, the gentleman from Illinois, might be 
in a better position to explain our position in the majority, for 1 
minute.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, where I live on Main Street in America, if you get 
something that you didn't deserve, or if you get something that was 
unwarranted, you either give it back or it's taken back. It's my 
position that these bonuses were unwarranted, not deserved.
  If they are not going to give them back, then we are going to take 
them back, and I know that the people in mainstream America will 
applaud us.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. My good friend, Mr. Rangel, took some time to 
make a statement just a moment ago.
  Did he claim any time when he made that statement?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is always 
charged his allotted time whenever he is speaking.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. But it was charged to him, the time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York and the 
gentleman from Michigan, while they are on their time, are charged for 
that time.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Thank you.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for the recognition.
  Mr. Speaker, the President most recently in his inaugural address 
said, and I am quoting, ``And those of us who manage the public's 
dollars will be held to account--to spend wisely, reform bad habits, 
and do our business in the light of day--because only then can we 
restore the vital trust between a people and their government.''
  Well, I agree wholeheartedly with the President's statement.
  Now, if we expect the American people to trust the decisions we are 
making with their hard-earned money, we, ourselves, must be 
accountable.
  Now, it is a fact that, as Members of Congress, we earn a base pay. 
Members of leadership earn an amount above that, essentially a bonus, a 
performance bonus. If this bill were under a rule, I would have an 
amendment, and the Burgess amendment very simply would tax that extra 
pay, the bonuses that we give leadership, on top of their congressional 
salary. The Democrats' leadership solution is to impose a huge tax on 
bonuses.
  But what about raising the tax on their own performance bonuses? 
Again, Mr. Speaker, how can we expect to be able to restore the vital 
trust between the people and this government, as the President stated, 
if we will not first hold ourselves accountable?

                               Amendment

                    Offered by Mr. Burgess of Texas

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF TAX TO CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP.

       (a) In General.--In the case of a member of Congressional 
     leadership--
       (1) so much of the annual rate of pay of such member as 
     exceeds the annual rate of pay of a Member of Congress who is 
     not a member of Congressional leadership shall be treated as 
     a TARP bonus for purposes of section 1, and
       (2) the Federal Government shall be treated as covered TARP 
     recipient for purposes of such section.
       (b) Member of Congressional Leadership.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term ``member of Congresssional 
     leadership'' means the President pro tempore of the Senate, 
     the majority leader and minority leader of the Senate, the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the majority and 
     minority leader of the House of Representatives.

  Mr. RANGEL. May I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 7\3/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan has 12\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker I would like to yield to a distinguished 
member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Etheridge, 1 minute.
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing this bill forward, we 
are all outraged, as we should be. It affects every American. The fact 
that they are using public money to pay bonuses should enrage everyone.
  Taxpayer funds should not be used to reward the individuals whose 
excessive risk-taking caused the financial crisis that has harmed the 
livelihood of my constituents in North Carolina, people across America 
and people around the world.
  We ought to be outraged. We ought to be together on this. There 
shouldn't be a division on this issue. There is room for that on 
others. We should not reward Wall Street traders who have done this, at 
the expense of people, not just people on Main Street, to people who 
live on rural roads all across this country.
  Mr. Speaker, you know, we voted for this package originally to put 
money in banks, to lend to people, to buy cars, to save for homes, to 
pay for college education, to do the things that make a difference and 
help America grow. And here we are today taking care of the very 
scoundrels that got us into this mess.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  If AIG will not halt these bonuses, and if its employees will not 
voluntarily turn them down, then this bill will ensure that the money 
is returned to the taxpayers. I regret having to use the tax code in 
this manner, but the blatant abuse of taxpayer dollars by AIG leaves us 
with no other choice. This bill will send a message not only to AIG, 
but to other companies receiving taxpayer aid that this behavior is 
unacceptable.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

[[Page H3660]]

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. There's no question everyone wants these bonuses 
returned. That isn't an issue before us today. Taxpayers have a real 
simple question: When did the White House know about these bonuses, and 
why didn't they stop them?
  The government owns AIG, for heaven's sake, so don't tell me they 
couldn't have stopped them if they truly would have wanted to.
  The bill before us today really is a diversion--an attempt to shift 
the blame from Democrats who, at the last moment, got approval for 
these bonuses snuck into the stimulus bill. For our folks back home, 
the President has said honestly, he didn't know this provision is in 
the bill. Yet his own White House made the request and they complied 
with the bill.
  Let's not cover up the truth here. Let's get the real answers. That's 
what taxpayers deserve.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Here we go again. This 
Congress is finally doing the right thing in a timely fashion, 
recovering ill-gotten gains. What do the American people do? They turn 
on the television and they hear this turned, once again, into a 
partisan controversy, an effort to deflect blame onto the other party, 
instead of celebrating the fact that we have a chance to do something 
together as an institution.
  This is the heart of the problem, Mr. Chairman. To the many people 
watching this broadcast now, listening to these proceedings, there are 
two sets of rules--one set of rules for people who are trying to send 
their kids to college, who are trying to make a living, but making 
sacrifices during this incredibly deep recession; and another set for 
rules for these Wall Street geniuses who are so smart, they figured out 
how to wreck a company so completely to almost wreck a national 
economy. That does take a level of skill, I suppose, to figure that 
out, how to be that bad at doing anything.
  We are recouping those ill-gotten gains. And the American people 
ought to be glad to see this prompt, decisive action. Instead, they are 
hearing more partisan back and forth.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time 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. Like a majority of Republicans in Congress last fall, I 
opposed this Wall Street bailout from the beginning because I feared 
both the intended consequences and the unintended consequences that 
would come and bring us to days like today.
  House Republicans share the outrage of millions of Americans that AIG 
would use taxpayer dollars to award executive bonuses. But the plan 
brought to the floor today by the Democratic majority is a 
constitutionally questionable bill. It would enact a 90 percent tax on 
AIG employees and, the truth is, it's a transparent attempt to divert 
attention away from the fact that Democrats in Congress and this 
administration made these bonus payments possible.
  House Republicans believe the American people deserve 100 percent of 
their money back. We have offered legislation that would deny one more 
dime of bailout money to AIG until they collect 100 percent of those 
bonuses back for the American people. But Democrats have blocked the 
Republican plan. And the American people deserve to know this entire 
outrage that has dominated the national debate this week could have 
been avoided.
  Senator Ron Wyden, the Democrat from Oregon, authored thoughtful 
legislation in the so-called stimulus bill that passed the House. It 
was legislation that would have banned bonuses of this type but, to use 
his words, he said ``It was unfortunate that it was stripped from the 
bicameral conference committee.'' He said, ``We had an opportunity to 
send a well-targeted message that would have communicated how strongly 
the administration felt about blocking these excessive bonuses,'' but, 
``I wasn't able to convince them.''
  Senator Dodd, the chairman of the bicameral conference committee, 
said the administration expressed reservations about the language. They 
asked for modifications.
  The truth is that Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate 
were in the room when this language was struck that made these bonuses 
possible.
  The American people deserve to get 100 percent of their money back. 
They deserve it to be done in a way that doesn't give offense to the 
Constitution of the United States of America.
  Let's do what's right for the American people, and let's speak the 
truth.
  Mr. RANGEL. I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  Mr. POLIS. The power to tax is the power to destroy. I will support 
destroying this creeping socialism imposed on us by the Bush 
administration before it takes over our entire economy. Executives and 
boards of private companies must know that to call in the Federal 
cavalry means that you will be run out of town when you misbehave.
  Businesses beware. You do not want the Federal Government or the 
American people owning your business. We will hunt down your executives 
with pitchforks, we will subpoena your boards and haul you before 
Congress, we will use personal rhetoric to decry your greed, we will 
make life miserable.
  And no, our cruelty will not be reserved just for your executives. 
Your workers will be bureaucratized, your competent managers squeezed 
out, your conferences and travel canceled.
  I am proud to support this bill, and hope that it serves as a siren 
call to executives, shareholders, and workers to oppose nationalization 
of your companies.
  In voting for this bill today, Mr. Speaker, we are demonstrating that 
there is a fate worse than death, and this is it. And if your business 
might be ``too large to fail,'' then, by all means, spin off divisions 
and downsize, because too big to fail seals a purgatory stay of abject 
misery.
  Pillage not our public troughs yet ye be pillaged.
  The power to tax is the power to destroy. I will support destroying 
this creeping socialism imposed on us by the Bush administration before 
it takes over our entire economy. Executives and boards of private 
companies must know that to call in the federal cavalry means that you 
will be run out of town when you misbehave.
  I am reminded of Emperor Alexius I of Byzantium, who called forth the 
Christian kings of western Europe to help him hold off the Turks at his 
gates. Help us, he said, prevent the heathens from taking the holy 
land.
  The Christian kings of the west responded in force. At first the 
crusades served Alexius's goals. But with time many crusaders saw a 
richer and easier target in Constantinople itself, and the hordes from 
the west looted the very emperor's domain who had called them forth.
  Businesses beware, you do not want the federal government or the 
American people owning your business. We will hunt down your executives 
with pitchforks, we will subpoena your boards and haul you before 
Congress, we will use personal rhetoric to decry your greed, we will 
make life miserable. And no, our cruelty will not be reserved for your 
executives. Your workers will be bureaucratized, your competent 
managers squeezed out, your conferences cancelled, your work hours 
extended, your incentive structure turned upside down. I dare say that 
with a different party in the white house and congress as is 
unfortunately the case from time to time, your union will be busted and 
your jobs lost.
  I will be supporting this bill, and hope that it serves as a siren 
call to executives, shareholders, and workers to oppose nationalization 
of your companies. In voting for this bill today, Mr. Speaker, we are 
demonstrating that there is a fate worse than death, and this is it.
  And if your business might be ``too large to fail'' then by all means 
please spin-off divisions and downsize; because too big to fail seals a 
purgatory stay of abject misery.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Lance).
  Mr. LANCE. On opening day, January 6, our leader, Mr. Boehner, 
indicated that we would provide better solutions to the issues 
confronting the American people. Obviously, on a bipartisan basis, 
Congress wishes to address this issue, and to address this issue as 
quickly as possible.
  House Republican Members on the Republican side--freshmen--have a 
better solution, we believe. Our solution--and I'm sorry it's not 
debated on the floor--the House Republican freshmen would demand that 
Treasury, notwithstanding any other provision of

[[Page H3661]]

law, implement a plan within the next 2 weeks to recoup 100 percent of 
the payment of AIG bonuses.
  Also, the freshmen plan on our side says that any future bonus 
payments of any kind to TARP recipients must be approved in advance by 
the Department of the Treasury. Third, any future contractual 
obligations entered into by TARP fund recipients to make bonus payments 
of any kind must be approved in advance by the Treasury.
  We commend to our friends in the majority our freshman Republican 
proposal in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation.
  Mr. RANGEL. I certainly wish I'd heard the Republican freshmen 
proposal before, because we really wanted to get a bipartisan solution 
to this problem.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).
  Mr. HARE. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, today we have been told to slow down, take a deep 
breath. Well, I'm not in the mood for slowing down and I'm not taking a 
deep breath.
  I was in a grocery store and had people coming up, saying, What are 
you going to do about it?
  My friends on the other side have spent the largest portion of the 
debate today finger-pointing, wondering who said what; who wrote what, 
when. I do know this. When this vote is called, that board will have 
red lights and green lights next to every Members' name. And the 
chairman is absolutely right--for those Members who feel that they 
cannot and don't want to make sure that these people get their bonuses, 
they will vote for Mr. Rangel's bill. For those of you who want to 
continue to dole it out to the people who deserve it the least, then 
you're going to have a red light next to it.
  I will have a green light next to my name. I am tired of this. These 
people have stolen the very money that is supposed to help keep people 
in their homes.
  Don't ask me to slow down and don't ask me to be patient. My patience 
has run out.
  I thank the chairman for his work on this bill. And if anybody wants 
to worry about the constitutionality, you take it up with the court.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day in Congress when the main 
justification for passing legislation we don't understand is that we 
are correcting legislation we didn't read.
  We keep hearing that we have got to do this because our constituents 
are demanding it; that they want to see these executives tarred and 
feathered.
  George Washington once said, ``If to please the people we do what we 
ourselves disprove, how do we later defend our work?'' That is the 
position we are in today.
  This is a representative democracy. Our constituents may not 
understand that this is a bill of attainder, but we know that. We are 
the representatives of the people--and we know that. And it's our duty 
to uphold the Constitution.
  I don't like the fact that these executives got these bonuses--and we 
should find a way constitutionally to deal with this issue. But rushing 
to pass a bill we don't understand to correct a bill we didn't read, is 
not the solution here today.
  Let's reject this proposal.
  Mr. RANGEL. At this time I'd like to yield 1 minute to a person that 
was one of the prime movers in this concept, the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Chairman Rangel. New York is so proud of 
you. Thank you for your leadership. I stand in strong support of the 
Democratic leadership during this financial crisis.
  On Sunday night, the bonuses were sent. On Thursday we are on the 
floor correcting this and returning the money to the American taxpayer. 
Rarely have I seen so many Members of Congress come forward with 
proposals to correct it.
  Chairman Rangel has molded all of the ideas together in this fine 
proposal before us today. If anyone wants to criticize someone, 
President Obama has said, ``I'm in charge. Criticize me. But then let's 
get back to work, get our eye on the ball of moving this economy 
forward, putting Americans back to work, putting more credit out into 
the communities, stabilizing housing.''
  President Obama said, ``When you're going in the wrong direction, 
you've got to change course.'' And under 55 days of his leadership, we 
have passed the economic recovery bill, we have passed a housing 
stabilization bill, we have passed measures to stabilize our financial 
institutions. We are investing in education and health care.
  Vote positive. Vote for this bill.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. My colleagues, here are some facts. Last month, the 
Senate unanimously approved an amendment that would stop these bonuses. 
It was an amendment by Olympia Snowe of Maine and, of course, Ron Wyden 
from Oregon.
  They had that in the bill. They went to the conference. The 
conference stripped out that amendment, bipartisan amendment, by 
Senator Chris Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut. All of you know that.
  Now Mr. Rangel is here on the floor saying he knew nothing about this 
conference report. Yet the amendment by Senators Snowe and Wyden was 
stripped out by Senator Dodd. And I find it very difficult, Mr. Rangel, 
that you knew nothing about this amendment that was stripped out, 
explicitly exempting bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the 
stimulus bill.
  How in the world can you say you knew nothing about it? I've got the 
exact language from Senator Dodd talking about his amendment which 
stripped out the amendment of Senator Snowe and Senator Wyden.
  The fact is Republicans have a plan to include 100 percent of these 
bonuses. I ask Mr. Rangel: Why didn't you take 100 percent of these 
bonuses?
  The American people have a right to know what the administration 
knew, and when they knew it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage at the AIG taxpayer-
funded executive bonus giveaway and Senator Dodd's and the Obama 
Administration's potential implication in ensuring AIG would be able to 
hand out hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars to executives who 
ran AIG into the ground contributing to a global economic crisis.
  Insurance company AIG--which has been deemed ``too big too fail''--
has received $170 billion in federal bailout money, yet this money has 
done little to stabilize the company. And now, millions of Americans 
awoke to news yesterday that their taxpayer dollars intended to prevent 
AIG from collapse are being funneled to AIG executives in the form of 
``bonuses.''
  The most unfortunate part of this story is that a senior member of 
the Senate Democratic party offered an amendment allowing this to 
happen. The utter abuse of taxpayer dollars that we have seen through 
the TARP program due to lack of transparency and Democrat legislative 
neglect is staggering. But to know that these bonus payments could have 
been easily prevented is beyond disheartening. This atrocious abuse of 
taxpayer dollars must stop now.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the leader of our 
Democratic caucus, indeed, a leader in the Congress, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the chairman for bringing this 
important legislation to the floor in all due speed, because it was 
necessary.
  What is at stake here is really the full faith and credit of our 
system. When those in the private sector and on Wall Street and the 
great barons of capital can laugh up their sleeves at the American 
public that sacrifices on a daily basis, who find themselves 
unemployed, unable to educate their kids, out of work, and we are going 
to sit idle and allow them to receive these bonuses? This is wrong. And 
if we expect to govern as an institution, we have to do the 
extraordinary and set it right.
  These are difficult and unchartered waters and unchartered times and 
it's time for us to act on behalf of the American people.
  Thank you, Mr. Rangel.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
majority

[[Page H3662]]

mendacity bill, or maybe unrighteous indignation bill. You just heard 
it from the other side.
  They want to say to the American people that we are going to make 
everything all right by getting back with a 90 percent tax this $175 
million. But what they don't say, Mr. Speaker, is how they are going to 
get back the $170 billion that was given to AIG in the first place, 
1,000 times these bonuses.
  Yes, we are outraged over the bonuses; but on our side of the aisle, 
we are outraged over these bailouts and these giveaways, and there is 
nothing in this bill about getting the $170 billion back.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the Lenten season, so let me make a little 
analogy for my non-Catholic friends. This is like asking forgiveness 
for a mortal sin by saying one Hail Mary, one Hail Mary, this little 
bill to pass under suspension to get those bonuses back, when the real 
sin is the $170 billion that was thrown away on AIG.
  Mr. RANGEL. Let the church say ``amen.''
  I would like to yield 30 seconds to Congressman Kratovil from 
Maryland on this subject.
  Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Speaker, once again, this body finds itself 
engaging in a classic example of partisan politics and the blame game. 
I am no longer interested in wasting any more time or any more taxpayer 
dollars arguing who is to blame for our failing economy, who is to 
blame for the AIG bonuses being paid, or who is to blame for a 
declining sense of personal responsibility we see not just among our 
AIG executives but across this country.
  What I am interested in doing today is doing what we can do to recoup 
the taxpayer dollars that were used to pay AIG executives bonuses that 
not only did they not deserve but should be ashamed for having 
accepted. That is what this bill does.
  Now, just so there is no confusion. This body voted to increase the 
oversight and accountability of the monies provided under TARP in the 
TARP Reform and Accountability Act. I voted for that legislation to 
address the exact issue that is now presented at AIG. 166 members of 
this House voted against it and many of them now stand up and criticize 
the lack of oversight with regard to these contracts. This country has 
had enough of partisanship and obstruction on one hand, combined with 
no solutions on the other.
  In terms of the stimulus bill, the language in the bill provided 
more, not less restrictions on executive pay.
  How can those who voted against additional restrictions on the TARP 
funds and against additional accountability, now stand up and with a 
straight face argue that we have not done enough.
  The American people are tired of these old political games. What we 
need are solutions, not rhetoric.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Camp for yielding.
  Now we find out that President Obama's stimulus bill, over $1 
trillion stimulus bill, was actually the AIG Bonus Protection Plan. 
This is a scandal of huge proportions that we are only now just 
unraveling. It appears that language was put in the stimulus bill that 
would prevent the United States Government from recouping these 
outrageous bonuses that were paid to executives at AIG.
  The Republicans have a message, and it is this: We want 100 percent 
of these bonuses to come back to the United States taxpayer, and we say 
``time out'' on these bailouts. No more bailouts. We don't want to see 
any more. They haven't been working, and the American people are saying 
enough is enough.
  This is a scandal. We need to know, who knew about these bonuses? 
When did they know about them?
  Yesterday in the Financial Services Committee, the CEO, Mr. Liddy, 
disclosed that the chair of the Federal Reserve knew about the bonuses 
and acquiesced to them. We are now finding out that the Treasury 
Secretary as well, or that Mr. Summers, also knew about these several 
weeks ago. We need an investigation and we need answers.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Chaffetz).
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. A moment ago we heard you stand up and say that there 
is a question about whether or not the freshmen were engaged. You had 
questions about whether or not we would be bipartisan. Are you kidding 
me? Seriously. We have been here in this body.
  Look, I am a freshman; I didn't create this problem, but I am here to 
help clean it up. And the idea and the suggestion that there was no 
idea, no sense that the freshmen had an idea, because it would come 
from the Republican side of the aisle.
  It is not in the spirit of this body to make a question about whether 
or not we are going to be participants in this. Absolutely, the 
Republicans have suggestions. We have been excluded from this process. 
We were promised time and time again that we would have time to see and 
read bills, and that has not happened.
  I would encourage both sides of the aisle, but especially my friends 
on the Democratic side of the aisle, to stay true to their word and 
actually engage and allow us to participate in the dialogue that should 
be in the best interests of the United States of America and in this 
body.
  Again, I didn't create this mess, but I am here to help clean it up. 
And any suggestion that says that you didn't know that there was a bill 
introduced, come on.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  It occurs to me that, once again, Democrats in this House are acting 
in haste and we can repent in leisure. It seems to me fairly clear that 
there are questions that deserve to be answered.
  Secretary Geithner began the week saying that he had only known about 
these bonuses for roughly 1\1/2\ weeks; and yet, yesterday Ed Liddy, 
the chairman of AIG, said that the Federal Reserve was told about these 
bonuses in December. Where was Mr. Geithner? How come he didn't act? If 
he didn't know back then when the bailout occurred, it seems to me he 
should have known.
  Now, flash forward to yesterday again. Not just Mr. Liddy places 
doubt on what Mr. Geithner claims, but no less than Senator Dodd says 
that, in February, he put the money into the bill at the request of the 
Treasury Department. Who was the head of the Treasury Department at 
that point in time? It was Secretary Geithner.
  I would suggest that Secretary Geithner wants us to believe that when 
he was at Fed, he neither knew nor should have known and then, when he 
was the head of Treasury and the language was put in by the Secretary 
of the Treasury he neither knew nor should have known. I think there 
are questions that Mr. Geithner needs to answer before we are asked to 
vote on this bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself the balance of our time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) is 
recognized for the remaining 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, just briefly. We have a chance today to do the 
right thing by those who acted right, those who went to work every day, 
paid their taxes, and did nothing wrong, and that is the American 
taxpayer. This is their money, and we should get it back. I urge 
support for this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. I thank the remarks of the other side, and I appreciate 
and have a great deal of respect for those Members that want to inquire 
about how these contracts came about, who knew what, and when did they 
know it.
  The Ways and Means Committee has no jurisdiction over these 
questions, whether they are valid or not. The real question is, do you 
really believe that people who did this damage to our families, to our 
community, to our country and, indeed, the world, deserve a bonus? If 
you want to know whether it is 90 percent or 100 percent or whether the 
State or local governments get the 10 percent, that is another 
question.
  We are not always right, but what we are saying is that the American 
people do not want their taxpayers' money paying for bonuses for people 
who have caused such destruction, and to that we have unanimity.

[[Page H3663]]

  So at the end of the day, when we put this on the suspension 
calendar, it is because we didn't think it was controversial. We didn't 
think it was a Democratic idea or a Republican idea. We thought you 
felt the frustration of your constituents in saying stop the thievery 
at taxpayers' expense.
  Now, this has been going on. No one can deny this will not happen. I 
urge you to vote for this bill for the American people.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the power to tax is the power to destroy. 
Today I rise in support of H.R. 1586 and destroying the creeping 
socialism imposed on by the Bush Administration before it takes over 
our entire economy. Executives and boards of private companies must 
know that to call in the federal cavalry means that you will be run out 
of town.
  I am reminded of Emperor Alexius I of Byzantium, who called forth the 
Christian kings of Western Europe to help him hold off the Turks at his 
gates. Help us, he said, prevent the heathens from taking the holy 
land.
  The Christian kings of the west responded in force. At first the 
crusades served Alexius' goals, there were some initial ``bonuses'' 
such as the taking of Antioch and Jerusalem. But with time many 
crusaders saw a richer and easier target in Constantinople itself and 
soon the very forces that Alexius called forth looted his own capital 
and hastened the demise of the Byzantine Empire.
  Businesses beware: You do not want the federal government or the 
American people owning your business. We will hunt down your executives 
with pitchforks, we will subpoena your boards and haul you before 
Congress, we will use personal rhetoric to decry your greed, we will 
make life so miserable that you will leave. And no, our cruelty will 
not be reserved for your executives. Your workers will be 
bureaucratized, your competent managers squeezed out, your travel and 
conferences cancelled, your work hours extended, your incentive 
structure turned upside down. I dare say that with a different party in 
the White House and Congress, as unfortunately happens from time to 
time, your union will be busted and your jobs lost.
  I will be supporting this bill and hope that it serves as a siren 
call to executives, shareholders, and workers to oppose nationalization 
of your companies. By voting for this bill today, Mr. Speaker, we are 
demonstrating that there is a fate worse than death, and that this is 
it.
  And if your business might be ``too big to fail'' then by all means, 
please spin-off divisions and downsize because ``too big to fail'' 
means that you will end up in this eternal purgatory of misery, blame 
and scapegoating.
  Let your companies die quietly, silently, and call forth not the 
mighty crusaders from Washington DC lest we loot and pillage your 
company as the Christian crusader innocently called forth by Alexius I 
went on to loot the center of eastern Christendom itself.
  Pillage not our public troughs lest ye be pillaged.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, Wall Street, and possibly some in Congress 
and the Treasury Department, still don't get it.
  When Congress voted to create the TARP program, we were voting to 
unfreeze the credit markets and get capital flowing again. Little did 
we know that much of the capital would be flowing out of the Treasury 
and into the bank accounts of executives at AIG.
  As a former Human Resources Manager, I know the value of performance 
based bonuses in motivating outstanding employee performance. The only 
thing that these bonuses are motivating is more bad behavior. Obviously 
we are dealing with a system that is severely broken, where Wall Street 
executives truly don't know the value of a dollar or even right from 
wrong.
  We need a massive overhaul of our financial services regulations, and 
it can't come a moment too soon. While H.R. 1586 is a measure to fix a 
specific problem, we need to put in place laws to prevent these abuses 
from happening in the first place. The days of the ``anything goes'' 
mentality on Wall Street must come to an end, and it must end now.
  Mr. Speaker, today must be the first of a series of bills that come 
to the House Floor to address our broken regulatory and oversight 
system of the financial services sector. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation as a way not only to express our outrage, but 
also as our commitment to a new system of regulation and oversight.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1586, a 
simple measure to address an appalling practice.
  My constituents are angry. As they scrimp and save and watch the 
value of their homes and college savings plummet, AIG--the recipient of 
more than $180 billion in government funds--has decided to award over 
$165 million in bonuses to the very executives that created the ongoing 
financial mess. I voted against the Wall Street bailout twice, 
precisely because it rewarded bad actors and bailed out companies that 
created a financial house of cards. Make no mistake, these bonuses are 
not necessary to keep the ``best and brightest,'' they are simply a 
leftover bad habit from a company and an industry that was unregulated 
and left to run wild.
  This legislation is straightforward. Any executive of a company 
surviving because of government intervention (including AIG, Fannie Mae 
and Freddie Mac) that has received or chooses to accept a bonus will be 
taxed at a 90% rate. Companies will no longer continue to be able to 
reward bad actors at taxpayer expense.
  Despite the outrageous behavior of AIG and others, most Americans 
understand that the current economic times call for shared sacrifice 
and a renewal of the American dream. My constituents know that we have 
to rebuild our nation and turn the page on the last eight years. Today 
we have the chance to send a message to AIG and others that would put 
private greed above the public good: enough.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, none of us support payments of these 
bonuses to AIG employees or employees of other companies that the 
government has had to bail out. Unfortunately, we are only presented 
with one alternative to correct the situation. Interestingly enough, it 
is a tax bill.
  But the more important point is: How did we get here? We got here 
because the Democratic majority insisted on passing a 1000 page bill 
which nobody read and which was not exposed to the light of day, and in 
the hundreds of provisions in that bill was one that allowed bonuses to 
be paid. That bill passed without a single Republican in the House 
voting for it.
  And now that the provision tucked away in that 1000 page bill has 
come to light and proven embarrassing, how does the majority deal with 
it? They tax it--at a 90% tax rate.
  Now if this sounds familiar, it should. Hidden spending provisions, 
high taxes, spending, taxes, taxes, spending. It's a pattern.
  The majority wants to make sure that the government decides who gets 
what and then is able to take it away. And they want to deflect 
attention away from their missteps.
  The better approach would have been for the Obama Administration not 
to allow these bonuses to begin with. They can put the necessary 
conditions on the money. It would have better to have that 1000 page 
bill open for viewing and for amendment. Instead we are left with a 
crass attempt at political cover. There has to be a better way.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the H.R. 1586, a 
bill to impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP 
recipients. Financial firms such as AIG, who have accepted government 
assistance, need to recognize that the days of lavish travel, million 
dollar bonuses and golden parachutes are over.
  When bridge loans were granted to General Motors and Chrysler, they 
were required to reduce wages and salaries. Auto workers are being 
asked to accept lower wages and stock contributions to their benefits 
account--which funds their healthcare--rather than cash.
  What are executives at banks and financial institutions asked to do? 
Maybe spend fewer afternoons at the spa. Those firms should be subject 
to the same requirements imposed on GM and Chrysler and on their 
employees. My constituents have had enough of the double standard that 
rewards greedy executives and punishes working families.
  After accepting $170 billion from the federal government, AIG is 
responsible to the American taxpayer.
  Before I ran for elected office, I was a high school Latin teacher. 
And I can tell you that in Latin, ``bonus'' translates to ``good.'' A 
bonus is supposed to be a reward for something good--for excellent 
performance, not for running your company into the ground and sending 
the economy into a tailspin.
  AIG's performance warrants a pink slip, not a paycheck.
  Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1586 to 
pose an additional tax on bonuses received from TARP recipients. Like 
my constituents, I am frustrated and angry that the American 
International Group (AIG) paid $165 million in bonuses after we have 
given them billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. Clearly, the `G' 
in AIG stands for greed.
  It is outrageous that taxpayers are subsidizing bonuses as much as 
$6.5 million at a time when working families are struggling to make 
ends meet. I am reminded of the saying: 'Fool me once, shame on you. 
Fool me twice, shame on me.' I wholeheartedly opposed the decision to 
pour an additional $30 billion into AIG earlier this month given the 
company's record. AIG is a company that spent $440,000 on a luxury 
retreat less than a week after receiving its first federal bailout. To 
make matters worse, the company then spent $86,000 on an English 
hunting trip. Enough is enough.
  I support any and all legal efforts to recoup this money, and protect 
working families in this difficult economy.

[[Page H3664]]

  I urge all my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 1586 and tell the 
American people that this Congress is fed up with corporate abuses of 
the Troubled Asset Relief Program and we will do everything in our 
power to be better stewards of taxpayer money.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with pitchfork in 
hand to take back from the executives at AIG, monies that rightfully 
belong to the taxpayers of this country. I urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 1586.
  The understanding that most Members of Congress had when we passed 
the TARP legislation was that these measures were necessary to keep our 
financial system from collapse. I believe the term is systemic risk.
  We then voted last month for another economic recovery package of 
over $700 billion dollars which contained language that limited 
executive compensation for companies that received certain TARP funds.
  It appears that the AIG executives may not have broken the law but 
certainly the spirit of the law. In other words, if AIG has received 
over $190 billion in funds from the federal fiscal coffers in the last 
year, the company is acting in broad contravention of the essence of 
the law to use $165 million of that for bonuses. The country is now $12 
trillion dollars in debt after passage of last month's American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We literally cannot afford 
irresponsible uses of taxpayers' dollars.
  Last September, the House and Senate voted on one of the most 
extraordinary pieces of legislation in the history of our country. 
During the same time, the federal government loaned the American 
Insurance Group (AIG) $85 billion, as the company could no longer 
access credit to fund its day-to-day operations. In addition, an 
economic ``bailout'' package enacted in October (PL 110-343) provided a 
total of $700 billion in federal aid to financial institutions to 
remove ``toxic'' debts and infuse capital into the credit market.
  AIG has now received more than $180 billion in taxpayer money and is 
now nearly 80 percent owned by the government. As part of a 
restructuring plan announced by the Treasury Department earlier this 
month, AIG is set to receive an additional $30 billion in federal 
rescue aid.
  The news that AIG paid $165 million in retention bonuses, including 
bonuses of at least $1 million each to 73 employees who worked in the 
financial products division that contributed to the company's troubles, 
has incited fervor among lawmakers and the public over the past week. 
Eleven of those top bonus recipients--including one who received $4.6 
million--have since left AIG. If these payments were intended to 
motivate them to stay with the company it truly scares me to think what 
they might have needed to stay--$1 million not being enough.
  Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of AIG--selected in consultation 
with the Treasury Department after the first large infusion of 
government assistance--testified before a House Financial Services 
subcommittee that he has called on employees who received in excess of 
$100,000 to give back at least half of their bonuses, but which he also 
said are a legal obligation of the company. The reason that Mr. Liddy 
was selected is because he was expected to have the common sense as 
well as the financial sense which his job now entails.
  Over two million Americans have lost their jobs in the last four 
months. Many of them still owe taxes from last year and will not get a 
stimulus check, TARP payment or waiver to pay those taxes. Neither will 
they have access in many cases to teams of topflight lawyers from 
swanky law firms to defend this excess that reminds me of the biblical 
tale of Sodom and Gomorrah.

  Previously, Merrill Lynch paid $3.6 billion in bonuses days before 
its merger with Bank of America to avoid collapse. Bank of America, 
which acquired Merrill Lynch on January 1, 2009 received $45 billion in 
bailout money, some of which it used to acquire.
  I was pleased to learn that Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
Chairman Towns sent a letter to Bank of America's chief executive last 
week asking for details on the bonuses. It appears they are ready to 
comply with Chairman Towns's request.
  Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner sent a letter about the AIG 
matter to lawmakers this week saying the Treasury Department will 
``deduct from the $30 billion in assistance an amount equal to the 
amount of those payments.''
  This bill taxes bonuses given to individuals at a rate of 90 
percent--if their employer received more than $5 billion in federal 
assistance under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). It applies 
to individuals whose total family adjusted gross income exceeds 
$250,000 per year, and affects bonuses received after December 31, 
2008.
  Employees or former employees of covered TARP recipients would face a 
tax on their income minus the TARP bonus as determined by existing tax 
code, plus a 90 percent tax on the bonus. The term ``TARP bonus'' is 
defined by the bill to include any retention payment, incentive 
payment, or other bonus that is in addition to the amount paid to the 
individual at a regular rate, but it does not include commissions, 
welfare or fringe benefits, or expense reimbursements.
  Employees who waive their entitlement to the bonus payments, or 
return them to their employers before the close of the taxable year, 
would not face a TARP bonus tax.
  This exemption would not apply, however, if the employee receives any 
benefit from the employer in connection with a waiver or return. Any 
reimbursement of the tax by a TARP recipient would be treated as a TARP 
bonus to the taxpayer.
  The TARP recipients that are covered under the bill include any 
entity that received, after December 31, 2007, capital infusions 
exceeding $5 billion under the financial industry ``bailout,'' as well 
as the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the 
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). It would also 
apply to members of affiliated groups or partnerships with more than 50 
percent of the capital or profits owned by TARP recipients. Any tax 
increase as a result of the measure would not be treated as income tax 
for purposes of determining the amount of any credit against the 
alternative minimum tax.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to seek redress from AIG with this 
strong piece of legislation so that we may get on with the business of 
moving our economic recovery forward.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1586, which will impose a significant tax on bonuses received by 
employees of certain TARP-recipient companies. This legislation, of 
which I am an original co-sponsor, sends a clear message that excessive 
compensation practices by TARP-recipients are indefensible and, as 
such, must be heavily penalized. On Tuesday of this week, I introduced 
my own bill, H.R. 1543, on this matter, which would subject bonuses to 
employees of TARP-recipients to a 95 percent tax. I am pleased to see 
that H.R. 1586 incorporates elements of my bill and thank Chairman 
Rangel for his kind consideration in doing so.
  As AIG's recent actions remind us, it is unconscionable that 
companies dependent upon the largesse of the federal government for 
their very existence should in turn pay irresponsibly exorbitant 
bonuses to the rapscallions partially responsible for the current 
recession. From their glass towers, they frittered away the Nation's 
economic well-being. Compare that to the men and women who work on the 
assembly lines now being asked to make wage and healthcare 
concessions--also contractually guaranteed, I might add--to justify the 
rescue of U.S. manufacturers. If we can demand that decent people, who 
wear hard hats and blue jeans, must renegotiate their contracts, I see 
no reason those people wearing neckties and $1,000 suits should not 
also have to sacrifice to help their country in this time of need.
  In closing, I offer my thanks to Chairman Rangel, as well as 
Representatives Peters, Israel, and Maloney, for their work to ensure 
that TARP funds are not wasted on reprehensible and undeserved bonuses. 
I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 1586.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1586, which will recover outsized and unwarranted executive bonuses at 
companies like AIG that have received taxpayers' money under the 
Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), if those bonuses are not 
voluntarily repaid.
  Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot continue with business as usual. These 
are serious times, and the American people expect that their hard-
earned money will be used to repair the financial system--not reward 
the very executives that helped cause the current financial crisis. The 
bonuses at AIG are an egregious waste of taxpayer dollars, and we must 
take quick and decisive action to ensure that taxpayers are repaid.
  I urge my colleagues to join me and pass this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 1586.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. CAMP. 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 and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________