Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3269, Corporate And Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act Of 2009

Floor Speech

Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3269, Corporate And Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act Of 2009

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts, my friend Mr. McGovern, for yielding me the time this morning. And I would yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation. The structured rule does not call for the open and honest debate that we really had been promised years ago by our Democrat colleagues to have an open, honest debate on the issues that are before this country. But once again, time in and time out, here we are without an open rule.

Mr. Speaker, it's my intention today to discuss the dangerous precedent that this legislation sets forth on the future of business in America and the stranglehold that government will have over the free enterprise system.

Additionally, I offered two amendments in the Rules Committee last night, and I will discuss those here today. One would ensure this legislation would not create a bonanza for trial lawyers, and the other would provide for the necessary transparency and disclosure for shareholders. Both were rejected by the Democrats of the Rules Committee and eliminated from debate on the House floor today.

Mr. Speaker, government takeover of the free enterprise system seems to be a common theme with this Democrat Congress and with the Obama administration, a theme that has led to record deficits and record unemployment. This underlying legislation has masked itself as a bill to restrict CEO pay by giving shareholders a nonbinding vote on executive compensation. Yet in reality, it gives the government broad authority to review and determine appropriate compensation for every employee of a financial firm.

This legislation empowers the Federal Government to set unprecedented standards for annual shareholder votes while providing broad government authority for regulators who will have guidance to implement this and give authority to them over the free enterprise system.

We all agree that we need to curb abuses of the past and to promote responsible approaches to executive compensation. But this bill provides unprecedented government intervention in the free enterprise system. It is the wrong solution. The goal of regulatory reform should be to help, not hinder, our economy's ability to sustain economic growth and job creation.

This legislation does the opposite by legislating a one-size-fits-all rule for public companies that discourage private firms from going public. This will limit U.S. companies' access to the capital markets and undermine U.S. economic competitiveness. This legislation allows financial regulators the authority to determine wages for all employees, not just CEOs, officers, and bankers, but everyone.

The rank and file of community banks, minority banks, and credit unions could all have their compensation determined by unelected Washington bureaucrats. This perception undermines the confidence in corporate America and unfairly taints the vast majority of U.S. companies.

In an effort to provide the clarification necessary to ensure the intent of this legislation is not to create a bonanza for trial lawyers, I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee. The amendment would have clarified that this legislation simply creates no new private right of action in our courts, nor would its passage make a compensation committee's decisions to uphold its fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders subject to any existing private right of action.

Without this amendment, trial lawyers will be able to exploit a new opportunity to shake down companies for huge payments by challenging any action deemed

non-compliant from this non-binding vote. This is a commonsense amendment that should have been considered on the House floor today, and it should be in the bill as law.

My second amendment would have provided sunshine and transparency for shareholders by requiring a full SEC disclosure about who is financing efforts to influence votes on this new congressionally mandated non-binding shareholder resolution. Put simply, this amendment would provide shareholders with access to information about who is spending money to influence that vote.

As Federal candidates, we're obligated to disclose to the Federal Election Commission the name, occupation, and amount given from each of our donors. We require this because the public interest is advanced by letting voters know who funds each candidate's campaign. My amendment asks the same disclosure so the shareholders know what people, what organization--whether they be labor unions, environmental groups, consumer advocates or simply a normal citizen of this country. We need to know who is spending money on influencing this new mandatory, non-binding vote.

Americans pride themselves on free enterprise choice and a marketplace that works for all of us; yet today Congress will pass legislation that increases government intervention in the financial markets, rations resources, limits consumer choices, and dictates wages and prices. In a time of economic recession with record unemployment and record deficits, Congress should be enacting legislation to assist our economy.

Mr. Speaker, the motives are clear. This administration and this Congress are using policy and regulation to force a government takeover of the free enterprise system.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress should be doing things to encourage employment, to encourage people to go back to work, to encourage competitiveness, to encourage our country to be prepared tomorrow; not to have record unemployment, not to spend more money for record debts, but to give America and the free enterprise system the chance and opportunity it deserves to flourish in America.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to stress that while my friends on the other side of the aisle claim to be protecting consumers with this legislation, they refuse to protect all Americans in this legislation from trial lawyers benefiting from their tax dollars, and they also voted in the committee against transparency and accountability.

Mr. Speaker, as a Nation, we have many, many, many real problems to deal with that require leadership and dedication to ensure the future of this Nation. We need to provide for jobs, encourage economic growth and spur innovation and prosperity of this Nation, not to hamper the free enterprise system. This is, without question, further government control and muzzling of the free enterprise system. Some argue that this legislation is about executive compensation; but in reality, it continues to be the government takeover of the free enterprise system.

I encourage a ``no'' vote on this structured rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source