Brad Miller

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. And is it also correct that any payment by the lender to the broker, or to use the language of the bill, any incentive compensation paid by any person to any originator, based on a higher interest rate, is still forbidden?

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I am glad that Mr. Frank earlier embraced redundancy as a virtue, but I want to continue even though it may be redundant.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have said before that the remedies under this bill are very modest. They are so modest, in fact, that a great many consumers who have actually been harmed, who have clearly been wronged, who have clearly entered into a mortgage that violated the law are not going to have much they can do about it. The other side calls this bill a trial lawyer bonanza, Mr. Chairman. Not many people are going to even find a lawyer who can bring a claim like this. This takes very modest remedies and improves them only slightly. It's not going to provide for punitive damages or pain and suffering. It's just their out-of-pocket loss if they entered into a mortgage that violated the law. Again, the remedies are very modest. This makes them only slightly less modest.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, one of my concerns about this bill is the weakness, the inadequacy of the remedies available to the consumer. I have said that earlier today in the debate on this bill that I am very concerned that if industry is looking at one consumer in 50, or one in 100, or one in 200 who has actually been the victim of illegal practices, brings a claim for very modest remedies, many industries or some in industry may simply view that as a minor cost of doing business, a minor nuisance, and just keep doing what they are doing. This amendment, while I agree it does need to be tinkered with some, would raise the stakes substantially. It does provide a more substantial penalty, $1 million plus $25,000 for each loan. That actually is not that much. Ameriquest, one of the biggest subprime lenders, paid $425 million in a settlement and just kept doing it. Just kept going. It was the cost of doing business. And their CEO is now the ambassador to one of those small, pleasant countries in Europe that big campaign contributors get appointed to be ambassadors to. It hasn't affected them in the slightest. This amendment would call the attention of the regulatory agencies, the SEC to pay attention to the securitizers, the Goldman Sachses of the world, the big banks; Bank of America would have to answer to the OCC, their regulatory body, and on and on. Mr. Chairman, those industry groups do not want the attention of their regulator that way. They do not want to be under that kind of scrutiny; they do not want to pay those penalties. And this would substantially raise the stakes for them and encourage them to abide by the law.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, title III hardly turns all subprime loans into HOEPA loans. HOEPA loans are very high-cost loans, loans with a very high interest rate. For first loans, it is 8 percent above the Treasury rate, which works out to about 13 percent. Or for subordinate loans, second or third mortgages, it is 10 percent above, which is more like a 15 percent interest rate. In contrast, this legislation before us, the other provisions of the legislation, the other titles, treats the subprime loans as loans with an interest rate of about 8.5. So there is plenty of room between 8.5 or 13 or 15. Mr. Chairman, it is simply not true that this legislation in North Carolina has created a problem with lending in North Carolina. We have heard it again and again in the Financial Services Committee for 4 or 5 years. We have heard repeatedly testimony by the North Carolina Commissioner of Banks, Joe Smith, who has said there is a ready availability of credit in the subprime market in North Carolina, and that it is no more expensive than it is anywhere else that he knows of. We have heard from witnesses from industry who have said repeatedly they have been able to lend in North Carolina on the same terms and at the same rates as everywhere else, and they have been able to do so profitably. There was a business school study at the University of North Carolina that said there has been no difference in the availability or the cost of credit in the subprime market in North Carolina because of the protections of the North Carolina law. A Morgan Stanley survey of 280 subprime branch managers said there had been no reduction in subprime lending in North Carolina as a result of these consumer protections. And it just goes on. In the time between 1998 before the North Carolina law was enacted and went into effect in 2003, there was a 366 percent growth in subprime lending in North Carolina. It is sort of hard to see from that that the North Carolina law killed off subprime lending. What it did do is it protects consumers from equity stripping, from having huge chunks of their equity in their home, their life savings, taken from them at closing by outrageous up-front costs and fees, many of which were poorly disclosed. This lowers the trigger for a HOEPA loan from 8 points at closing to 5 points at closing and closes some of the loopholes so that consumers, when they have to borrow money against their home, are not going to have their equity stripped, are not going to have their life savings, the equity in their home, taken from them. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close, so I think I will wait until Mr. McHenry is done.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Only one of us is right.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the woman from Shelby would be able to borrow under this bill, it just would be a highly regulated loan, only if she is paying more than 13 percent interest or paying more than 5 percent in closing costs, which is a lot in closing costs. Mr. McHenry really got at what is wrong with predatory lending when he said that people need to be able to refinance to pay off the loans they are in now. That is not the kind of mortgage system we want. We don't want people refinancing to pay off the loan they are in now and pay the prepayment penalties on this loan and pay points and fees for the next loan, and then 2 years later doing it all over again. We don't want people in a cycle of borrowing and borrowing again. We want people to get into loans that they can pay off. They can pay month after month, and at some point have a ceremony, a little party, that people in another generation had of burning the mortgage because it is paid off. So for the rest of their lives, they will own their home free and clear. Predatory lending traps people in a cycle of borrowing and borrowing again. That is something that North Carolina law successfully dealt with. If there was some slight dip in overall loans, it is because people weren't caught in a cycle of borrowing to pay off the last mortgage and then having to borrow 2 years from now to pay off the mortgage they are entering today. It ends flipping of loans to generate fees for everybody else in the system who is getting rich off the middle class, off the middle-class homeowners. The North Carolina law is working fine for North Carolina. It will work fine for the rest of us. It has been the model for most of the States that have had their own predatory lending legislation, consumer protection legislation in the last few years. Keep title III in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, October 31, 2007, I missed rollcall vote No. 1026 a motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 3034. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, over the last year and a half, the Science and Technology Committee's Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, which I chair, has been reviewing the work of the Office of the Inspector General of NASA and a related investigation of the NASA IG by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency's Integrity Committee, the procedure actually for investigating IGs themselves. I appreciate Mr. Towns and Mr. Cooper, knowing my interest in this issue, including me very graciously in discussions of this legislation, and I commend them for their work on this legislation. The purpose of this amendment is to smooth the transition between the old law and the new and to make sure that we do not disrupt some of the work of IGs that is now going well in our effort to get in place reforms to improve the work of IGs. I fully support the goal of this legislation to make sure that Inspectors General are independent, that they can act without fear of political reprisal, and to accomplish that by establishing a set term. This amendment accomplishes other purposes perfectly consistent with that overall goal of the legislation. First, it establishes the same qualifications for the selection of Inspectors General of the designated Federal agencies that are not subject to confirmation by the other body. There is no reason that there should be any different qualifications, and this brings the qualifications for those Inspectors General into line with the qualifications of those confirmed by the other body. Second, the amendment expands the goals for removal of the Inspectors General, with criteria that the Inspectors General themselves, the IGs themselves, have agreed to should be the basis for removal, and would not undermine their independence by being a threat to their independence; so, removal for improper grounds. The additional grounds, and these are in the regulations now, the rules now: knowing violation of the law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; and abuse of authority. Those criteria for removal do increase the President's flexibility to get out of office inept or abusive Inspectors General. Third, the amendment incorporates several provisions of two executive orders pertaining to the work of IGs, executive orders 12805 and 12993, which would no longer be in effect under this legislation, to maintain certain policies and procedures that are working well and make sure that there is not a gap when there are no procedures in place and to make sure that we will not have to recreate those procedures under the new legislation. It also directs the new council, the new Inspectors General council, to incorporate as much of the established policies that are working well as possible into the new rules. Again, those rules are developed by the IGs themselves over the years. They work very well. They do not need to be disrupted. Fourth, the transparency of the Integrity Committee's investigations, the work of inspecting the Inspectors General themselves, the investigations into the investigators, has been a problem. This amendment would require the council to submit to Congress a report of their work in inspecting the work, to investigating the work of Inspectors General. Finally, the amendment requires the office of OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, to continue to provide the Inspectors General council with the administrative support that the PCIE now has. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to appoint a committee of Inspectors General to review the integrity, the experience, the reputation, all of the qualifications of anyone the President appoints to serve as an Inspector General and to provide a report of that evaluation to the other body, to the relevant committee of the other body, before any confirmation hearings. It provides a similar procedure for agency heads who appoint Inspectors General without confirmation by the other body. The amendment does not create any new bureaucracy. It uses an existing office or an office that will exist under this legislation. The evaluation of that committee is not binding in any way. It simply is an unbiased, informed evaluation that would be helpful to the other body in their consideration of confirmation of anyone appointed as an Inspector General to serve as an Inspector General, just as the American Bar Association's evaluations on the qualifications of judicial nominees are helpful in confirmation. Mr. Chairman, most Presidential appointments are policy positions for which loyalty to the President is a proper consideration. In fact, it is a necessity. It is a requirement. And the other body has traditionally deferred to the President's judgment in confirmation. If the President wants to appoint a political operative, if he wants to appoint some political poohbah's worthless, otherwise unemployable brother-in-law, the other body usually goes along so the President can have his own people in policy positions. As the debate on this bill has made very clear, Inspectors General are not jobs like that. Inspectors General are not the President's people. They are to be watchdogs who report both to the agency head and to Congress. They are not the President's people. IGs are not the President's people. They are our people, too. Congress needs to rely on the work of IGs in our oversight duties. IGs are Congress's people as much as they are the President's people. The statute says now that IGs should be objective and independent and they are to be appointed without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration or investigation. In other words, Mr. Chairman, IGs can't just be some poohbah's worthless brother-in-law. This amendment provides the other body with an informed evaluation of the integrity and qualifications of any potential IG to assure that IGs are up to the job, they understand what their job is, they are to identify waste, fraud, abuse or general inefficiency, and report to the agency head and to Congress without fear or favor. IGs must report with rigorous honesty even if their reports cause political embarrassment; especially when their reports cause political embarrassment. This amendment will return to an earlier tradition of consulting well-regarded IGs before an appointment of an IG for suggestions of who would be good for that job. Mr. Chairman, we have departed from that tradition, to our detriment. This amendment will return us to that tradition. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I also rise to support this legislation to treat the monstrous Bashir regime in the Sudan like the pariah it deserves to be. I also visited the Sudan in April as a member of a congressional delegation led by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Ms. Lee, the author of this important legislation was a member of that delegation, as was Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, who just spoke a few minutes ago. I returned from the Sudan even more convinced that we must not waiver in our effort to end the genocide in Darfur. The Bashir regime, just last week, again rejected a draft United Nations resolution to deploy a joint peacekeeping force to use all necessary means to end the violence in Darfur, to end the killing, to secure order. The Bashir regime has repeatedly called an international force an affront to their sovereignty. The Bashir regime has forfeited their sovereignty, their claim to sovereignty, by committing genocide, by sponsoring genocide against their own people. In the last 4 years, 400,000 to 450,000 people have been killed in Darfur; 2.5 million people have abandoned their homes to seek refuge from the violence; 4 million rely on food assistance. The Bashir regime's claim of sovereignty is a flimsy legalism in the face of the atrocities in Darfur. This legislation will hold up for public shame the companies that invest in the Sudan or conduct business with the Sudan that will seek profits, even in the face of the genocide in Darfur. Sixty years ago, as the enormity of the Holocaust sank in, humanity promised never again. But the world has let genocide happen again and again, most recently in Rwanda. Kofi Annan, then-Secretary General of the United Nations, admitted that the world failed the people of Rwanda. I refuse to fail the people of the Sudan, of Darfur, as we failed the people of Rwanda. I am determined to keep the promise of 60 years ago. Never again.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on my own behalf and the behalf of Ms. Linda Sanchez of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to implement an Executive Order entered earlier this year. The Executive Order claims powers for the President over agency rulemaking that is consistent neither with statutes passed by Congress nor with the Constitution. There are safeguards on how agencies can use that power, their power of rulemaking. Agencies are supposed to make rules in the public, with public participation, in the open, and citizens can sue an agency if regulations are too tough or too lenient. Executive Order 13422 dramatically changes how rulemaking works and lets political appointees overrule the professionals at each agency in secret with no accountability to anyone. Decisions that are supposed to be made in the open can be made in closed rooms on the basis of improper political considerations, and often no citizen will know to sue to challenge a rule or more often sue to challenge agencies inaction because no citizen will know what really happened. No citizen will know what the professionals at an agency be recommended be done. The issues raised by Executive Order 13422 need Congress' attention, but this amendment stops this President or any Presiding from seizing the power to rewrite almost every law that Congress passes, laws to protect public health, the environment, safety, civil rights, privacy, and on and on, without answering to Congress or the American people. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the students, parents, teachers and administrators of the Wake County Public School System, many of whom are in Washington today to accept the National Energy Development Project's ``School District of the Year'' award. The National Energy Development Project, or ``NEED,'' is a nonprofit education association dedicated to advancing the understanding of the scientific, economic, and environmental impact of energy. This year, after reviewing more than sixty submissions from across the Nation, the NEED National Award's Review Panel chose to recognize Wake County's public schools for their unique and outstanding work. Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the students and faculty of the Wake County Public School System. Energy independence and combating global warming are two of the most important and challenging issues confronting our Nation. In the coming years, the goals we set and the choices we make in this area will have profound, irreversible consequences for our Nation and our planet. More than ever before, America needs informed, innovative and energy- conscious leaders at every level of society. I congratulate the Wake County Public School System for rising to this challenge so impressively, and I commend them, and all the public school systems that participated in this program, for their commitment to this ideal.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today as the sponsor of this resolution to support and celebrate the ideals of National Community College Month. I am very proud to offer this resolution as one of the cochairs of the House Community College Caucus, and I am pleased to be joined with three cosponsors, the other three Chairs of that caucus, Mr. Wu of Oregon, who just spoke, Mr. Castle of Delaware and Mr. Wicker of Mississippi. I would also like to thank Chairman George Miller and Ranking Member McKeon of the Education and Labor Committee, both of whom are also original cosponsors of this resolution, and without whose support this measure would not be before us today. Madam Speaker, there are now 11 million Americans enrolled in more than 1,200 community colleges across the country; and in the past century since the first community college opened its doors, more than 100 million Americans have taken courses at community colleges. Community colleges have developed a tradition and a purpose that is distinct from that of traditional 4-year colleges and universities. Community colleges are distinct from 4-year colleges in many respects. They are regionally accredited, post-secondary schools. The highest credential awarded by a community college is that of an associate degree. In fact, Madam Speaker, many Americans who did not get a high school diploma go back to community colleges to get their GED. The community college system in my State, and in most States, offers a comprehensive curriculum, including transfer, technical and continuing education programs. The community college system in North Carolina has 58 separate community-based institutions that collectively offer more than 2,200 curriculum programs. Beyond that curriculum, Madam Speaker, what most distinguishes community colleges from 4-year colleges is their accessibility or affordability, their location, their diversity and how intensely relevant the training and the education community colleges provide for the ability of working Americans to improve their job skills, particularly in a changing economy as we go through a painful economic transition, certainly in my State but also in the entire country. The distinctions between community colleges and 4-year colleges are fundamental to the core mission and success of America's community colleges; and with the month of April, we have the chance to celebrate those distinctions and recognize Community College Month. Community colleges are frequently referred to as ``the people's colleges'' because they have open-door admission policies; and while that is true, they are accurately described as people's colleges for many reasons. Madam Speaker, students that attend community colleges are more diverse than those enrolled in any other kind of college or university. Of the 11.6 million students enrolled in community colleges across the country today, more than one-third are members of racial or ethnic minority groups, and roughly 60 percent are women. Of the more than 5 million or so students who are enrolled full-time at community colleges, 76 percent, or more than three-quarters, are working; and about one-third are working full-time while carrying a full-time community college course load. There is an equal number or greater number of community college students who are going to community colleges attending community colleges part-time also while working full-time and fulfilling the responsibilities of their family and of their home. Community colleges are affordable. The average annual tuition at a community college is only about half that of a 4-year public. In addition, community colleges are close to home and students can stay at home, live at home. They do live at home so they save money on room, board, transportation, all the other expenses associated with community colleges. Students at community colleges mirror the communities that support them, and that is nowhere more evident than in the age of the students. The average age of a community college student is almost 30. More than 57 percent of those enrolled in community colleges are older than 22, the traditional age that students graduate from college, and more than 16 percent are past the age of 40. In North Carolina, there are 368,000 students between the ages of 25 and 50 enrolled in community colleges. Community college curricula are intensely relevant to the needs of American business and to the needs of American workers in having the skills that they need to support themselves and support their families, whether it is construction trades, the skills needed to do construction trades or computer programs, computer spreadsheet, all the different computer programs that any American officer worker is going to need, and frequently when they need to learn a new one, they can go part-time to a community college nearby and learn the skills they need for their job. In North Carolina, almost every community college has a curriculum that is specifically geared, designed for an industry, a major employer in that area. When I was first elected to Congress, I visited the extrusion campus of Wake Technical College. Extrusion is a process by which plastic is pulled like taffy. In just the 5 years or 4\1/2\ years I have been in Congress, that technology has lost jobs. In just the 4\1/2\ years I have been in Congress, extrusion technologies have taken a hit. We have lost jobs; but at that same community college, they now have a program in computer gaming. Americans will spend more on computer gaming this year than they will spend on movie box offices. Computer gaming is becoming more and more important in providing educational opportunities in a format that most Americans, younger Americans, are very familiar with. That industry is developing around Wiley. The community college curriculum is going to be part of what attracts new gaming companies to that area as well as supporting the ones that are there now. So community colleges through open admission, affordability, community-based training are playing an amazingly important role in the American economy and have to do even more so. I have asked two chairmen of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, about how we can close the income inequality of Americans; and both of them have mentioned specifically community colleges in the role they need to play in providing Americans the skills that they need to demand better wages, to be able to get better wages in the American economy and in the world economy. Despite that importance, in the 4\1/2\ years I have been here, it has been a fight to get support for community colleges; and it has been 25 years since we have even had a resolution like this on the floor of Congress honoring the role of community colleges. It was 1985 during the 99th Congress that this Congress specifically recognized and honored community colleges. So I am pleased to be here, and I urge all to be here in support of this resolution, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join me today.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the best news for the American middle class is our home ownership rates. Wages are stagnant for the middle class. They are not keeping up with inflation. Health care costs just keep going up. Folks do not know what their health insurance is going to pay for until they get sick. They don't know if their pension is really going to be there when it comes time for them to retire, or their employers take a quick dip in bankruptcy so they can short the promises they made to their employees. Almost 70 percent of American families own their own homes. We heard Mr. Cummings speak just a few minutes ago, powerfully, of what it meant to his family when he was 10 years old and they bought a home for the first time. The deed to a home is the membership card in the middle class. For the middle class, the equity they build in their home becomes the bulk of their life savings. What they build by paying a mortgage faithfully month after month becomes the bulk of their life savings. When they need to borrow money, when they have one of life's rainy days, when they want to send the kids to college, or someone in the family gets sick, or they lose their job or they go through a divorce, or they need to repair their homes or they get in over their head in credit card debt, they have to borrow money against their homes. Too often when they borrow money against their homes, they are having their trust betrayed. Several Members tonight have talked about subprime lending as lending that goes to those who have problems with their credit. Some is, but more of it, more of it, has to do with who places it with which borrowers, which homeowners put their trust in the wrong people and have their trust betrayed. According to Freddie Mac, a quarter of mortgages, subprime mortgages, are made to people who qualified for prime loans, who didn't have problems with their credit, but they went to the wrong person and they had their trust betrayed. Subprime loans, or predatory loans, take fees and costs that cannot be justified by the cost of the loan or the risks that are posed that the borrower will not make their payments. Those loans strip equity and steal the life savings of the borrower. Lenders even pay more to brokers who bring them loans where the borrower has agreed to pay more than what they qualified for based upon their own credit history and what they own of their home, their equity in their home. They put borrowers in loans, in mortgages, they cannot possibly pay back. They will have to refinance again so they can flip the loan. They will have to come back again, often having to pay a prepayment penalty to get out of a bad loan so they can refinance again. They are teaser rates. They are only good for a couple, 3 years, and then the rates are adjusted. For many borrowers, they can qualify for the teaser rate, but they can't possibly pay their monthly payment when it goes up by 50 percent or more, as happens too often. They refinance again, and every time they refinance, they lose more of their equity in their home. They lose more of their life savings. People who are in the subprime market for as much as a decade, for as much as 10 years, they have an almost 1 in 3 chance of losing their home to foreclosure. When they lose their home to foreclosure, they lose their membership in the middle class. They fall back into poverty, probably for the rest of their lives. I have introduced in the last two Congresses, with Mr. Watt from North Carolina, my colleague, and Mr. Frank, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, legislation that is based upon successful State laws that protect homeowners from those kinds of abuses, those kinds of predatory loans, and this has not prevented there being good availability of good mortgages, sound mortgages, mortgages that help folks build wealth, not steals their wealth from them. We need to do a great deal more now to help the people who are facing foreclosure right now, who are facing losing their homes, who are facing falling from the middle class for the rest of their lives. Businesses can go into bankruptcy. They can have obligations, promises they made with their eyes wide open, written. But a middle-class homeowner cannot go into bankruptcy and have a mortgage rewritten, adjusted, mortgages that they entered when their trust was betrayed. The American middle class needs someone to be on their side. They are facing an uncertain world. They are facing an insecure world where what they need to know is there for them, that they can own their home, that they can pay off their home and live out the balance of their lives in a home that is theirs outright. They need that certainty. They need to know health care is there. They need to know that their pension is there. They need someone on their side. This Congress needs to be on their side.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I think this amendment makes clear how radical an idea the minority party thinks democracy is, whether it is in corporations or in government, and how wary they are of voting, whether in corporations, by shareholders or in politics. Usually the minority party is very critical, hostile to the idea that regulatory agencies should play a role in our democracy, in our economy. Regulatory agencies play an important role. They work out a lot of details. They address new problems more quickly than Congress can in a way that is consistent with what Congress has done before. But this is not a complicated proposal. This is a straightforward proposal. There are not details to work out. Either we want to do this or we are not going to do this and we are not making it up as we go along. Britain did this in 2001. We have got 6 years' experience under Britain, the way it has worked in Britain, and it has worked just fine in Britain. The minority party has come to the curious position, after more than 200 years of experience in American democracy, of thinking the Congress, the Members of the House of Representatives and the other body, elected by the people should be mere advisers, an advisory body to the President, and that anyone appointed by the President necessarily must be wiser and more knowledgeable than the folks who are actually elected by the people. Mr. Chairman, we were elected by the people. We are speaking for the people. We are acting on their behalf. This amendment will undermine democracy in the boardroom in corporate America, and it will undermine democracy in our government, and I urge we vote against it.