Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the amendment is a curious one. It points out the challenge that we have when we march down this path of a political economy--where Members of Congress are deciding specific items for private enterprises and where the Secretary of the Treasury is about to be given remarkable authority, whether it is retroactive or prospective. That is why many of us on our side of the aisle oppose this kind of launch into a political economy where the government controls winners and losers from the very beginning. If, in fact, the challenge were to protect taxpayers, as our friends on the other side of the aisle say, if Democrats were so eager to protect taxpayers, then why would they not commit to ending taxpayer- subsidized bailouts? That is the simple solution to all of this, Mr. Chairman. The reason we are here in this circuitous logic of Washington is that the taxpayers are benefiting private industry. The solution to this, Mr. Chairman, is to make it so we are not putting taxpayer liability, hard-earned taxpayer money, on the table for private industry. Why don't they guarantee that they will not provide the Treasury with any more TARP funds for the future? Point of Order

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Why don't they encourage the Treasury to produce----

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. As a matter of fact, had the gentleman been listening to my debate, I pointed out, whether it was prospective or retrospective, that it was a bad idea for this Congress to adopt because it further launches us down the road of a political economy.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. May I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, if our friends on the other side of the aisle were so enamored with wanting to protect the taxpayer, why wouldn't they encourage the Secretary of the Treasury and the Treasury Department to produce an exit strategy to this launch into a political economy that stifles creativity, that stifles entrepreneurship, that stifles vision, that stifles the very vitality of the American system, a system that has created more opportunity and more success for more individuals than any Nation in the history of mankind? Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this amendment and others to this bill, to the underlying bill, are a launch in the wrong direction whether we are talking about prospective or retrospective activity on this amendment. I am pleased to yield to my friend from Alabama for the remainder of our time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I understand I have 30 seconds.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am pleased to yield my 30 seconds to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, through a previous understanding, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend from Florida for his appropriate reading of the bill and appropriate correction through this amendment in clarifying that TARP recipients will not be subject to the requirements as a result of doing business with a TARP recipient. I would suggest, however, Mr. Chairman, that the reason that it feels so peculiar, this whole debate feels so peculiar is because the American people know that the reason we're standing here today is because we went beyond the bounds of what government ought to be doing. And so my friend from Florida recognizes an appropriate flaw in the underlying bill and has appropriately corrected it by his amendment. But, Mr. Chairman, the real flaw is the action that this Congress has taken and this administration, and Mr. Chairman, the previous administration in moving our Nation into an economy that is no longer market-based but is politically based. That is a very dangerous place to be. So I want to commend my friend from Florida for what he has done for his amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, as one amendment after another continues to show, this is a very dangerous road we're on, and I would underscore that for this amendment. This amendment fundamentally undermines the purpose of a board of directors. This says that the shareholders, the owners of the company, will set the compensation for individuals not at the board of directors level but on down in the company. Now, why should we stop there, Mr. Chairman? Why should the shareholders not decide where the corporate headquarters is? Why should the shareholders not decide, in a binding way, what type of business endeavor the company goes into, whether it expands into this area or that area? Why should the shareholders not decide on any employment decision? Well, Mr. Chairman, the answer is very clear, and that is because that's not the way to retain whatever remnant we have left of a vital American economic system. My friend cites the nation of the Netherlands, the European companies. Mr. Chairman, there's a reason that the American economy has been the greatest economy in the world, and that's because of the structure that we have that allows shareholders to participate in appropriate, nonbinding decisions. What are their options as shareholders if they don't like the way a company is running? Well, they have two, and you know what they are, Mr. Chairman. They could vote ``no'' or vote for a different board of directors, which is their direct input into the running of the company, which gives it that vitality and that vibrancy. Mr. Chairman, they can sell their shares. That's the beauty of the system. My friend from Oregon wants to have the shareholders be not just the owners but the managers of the company. You talk about dampening the vitality and the spirit of the American entrepreneur. You talk about inserting into the board of directors' room a situation where you can't begin to expand in a way that you ought to expand. You can't begin to grow your business in the way that you want because the next step from here, Mr. Chairman, is to move it on to further discussions and debates and decisions within the board of directors. Mr. Chairman, this is truly a very poor idea. It's an idea that this Congress should not embrace. It's an idea that, again, further gets us down to the Congress deciding in a very political way who ought to be winners and losers. You can just imagine the logical extension of the waywardness of this kind of amendment. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, what time remains?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The gentleman, the author of the amendment says that it's difficult to vote on board of director elections. Well, it may be a little challenge to fill out a form that comes in the mail. It may be a bit of a challenge to get to headquarters to vote, but in fact, that's the way that shareholders have their input, and it's an appropriate way. And the real response to his dilemma, his concern, is that if 50 percent, plus one, of the shareholders vote a member of the board of directors out, that member of the board of directors is gone, and therefore, there's the accountability. And that's imperative that we retain that. What does this amendment mean? This amendment means, again, that the shareholders become not just the owners of the company but the managers of the company. And that's, again, Mr. Chairman, not the way that you allow and create a vibrant and incisive and wonderful entrepreneurial spirit across this land that has resulted in the remarkable success of the American economy. What this amendment means is that pension plans and retirement plans are put at risk because if we allow shareholders to become not just owners of companies but managers of companies, then the result will be that companies will not be able to institute the kind of wonderful opportunities for their businesses and, hence, their shareholders. So I urge my colleagues not to march further down this road. This is a road upon which we should not be; but, Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves moving headlong in the direction of greater governmental intervention into the private industry in a very dangerous way. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 151, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 152, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for yielding and for his leadership in this area and for organizing this hour this evening. Mr. Speaker, you have heard a lot of conversation tonight about health care and about access and affordability and quality and primary care physicians. I think it's important to talk about the thing that all of those affect, and that is patients. Patients are what this is all about. I'm pleased to join my physician colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle tonight to talk about patients and the effect of health care and national health care policy on patients. If I think about the eight physicians who are here on the floor tonight, we probably have seen a half million patients in our professional life and get a sense about what it means to take care of people and make certain that they get well, depending on the malady that befalls them. We all have our different principles about health care. Mine are five--the usual three: Access and affordability and quality. Then I add innovation and responsiveness. I think it's imperative we have a system that has the greatest amount of access, the greatest amount of affordability, the highest quality, and the most responsive and most innovative system. I would suggest, as I know my friend would agree from Georgia, and my other physician colleagues here, that governmental intervention and increasing involvement doesn't improve any of those things. It doesn't improve access, it doesn't improve affordability, it certainly doesn't improve quality, doesn't improve innovation or responsiveness. So what's the solution? What's the solution for the patients across this Nation who are maybe watching this evening, Mr. Speaker, and saying: What are you going to do? Well, the solution, I believe, as I know my colleagues do, is to make certain that patients have ownership of the system. The only way to get the system to move in the direction that patients want it to move is to have a patient-centered system so that patients own and control their own health insurance policy. Everybody's got to have health insurance. You can get to that system in a way that most of us support, which is through the Tax Code. Making certain that it makes financial sense for all patients to have health insurance. But, once they do, how do you make the system move in the direction it ought to move, and that is the direction that patients want it to move. It's to allow for patients to own and control their health insurance policy, regardless of who's paying the cost. That's important because that changes the relationship between the insurance company and the patient. Right now, when the patient calls the insurance company and says, You're not doing what I need to have done, or my doctor recommends, the insurance company, by and large, says, Call somebody who cares. Because you aren't controlling the system. When patients own and control the system, then the system moves in the direction that patients want it to move. We are working diligently to come up with a product that will allow the American people to look to Washington and say, Hey, those guys are doing what we think ought to be done in our health care system. I'm so pleased to be able to join you tonight and talk about positive solutions for our health care system that puts patients in control. I yield back.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to Specialist Aaron Drake Sandlin, a constituent of the Sixth District of Georgia and one of the many Americans who serve in our Nation's Armed Forces with honor and valor. My Soldier--Only Yesterday (By T. Maxwell Sandlin) Only yesterday--the pregnancy test was positive And your mom's face glowed Then you were born healthy And my pride showed--only yesterday. Only yesterday--late feedings kept us up nights And you ooed and cooed at Christmas lights, As in your car seat you saw the sights--only yesterday. Only yesterday--I snapped your picture As you slept like a log; With a little stuffed toy Called Brownie Dog--only yesterday. Only yesterday--selling popcorn for the Scouts Day after day you went all out. We shed a tear--the both of us, As you got on that yellow bus--only yesterday. Only yesterday--crayon artwork on refrigerator Drawn by the masterpiece that I would later Share with the nation in a cause greater; But, we didn't know it then--only yesterday. Only yesterday--along a river at a family camp As you got to know cousins, uncles and aunts, And those veteran uncles in the firelight glow, Their WWII stories told--only yesterday. Only yesterday--we faced the coming teenage years With their pitfalls, trials and fears. You grew so fast you stripped your gears--only yesterday! Only yesterday--driving in your first used car, The leash got longer And you drove far I saw you son as a rising star: Becoming a man--only yesterday Only yesterday--you were bringing us papers from Sunday School And memorizing the Golden Rule. Hiking these mountains and swimming in pools. You can't be grown. . . . it was only yesterday!! Only yesterday--they called your name and you came down You and your brother in your caps and gowns, All those years we couldn't wait. Your mom and I saw you graduate--only yesterday. Only yesterday--as I rehearse Your mother, well, she knew it first That after thinking about it hard You told her you joined the Army National Guard!! She knew I'd be proud and so I was--only yesterday. Only yesterday--you went to boot camp at the fort, And you did not sell yourself short You joined the army at a time of war, Like your family that went on before--only yesterday. All those yesterdays we enjoyed Only yesterday--we learned you were being deployed, To fight those who attempt to destroy. . . . Those yesterdays . . . Only yesterday--I'll say it over and over: Only yesterday--it was me and my Cub Scout And today it was me and my soldier!!!

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, at a time when the government is going to unprecedented lengths to stabilize the banking system, this legislation is short-sighted, untimely, unfair, and counterproductive. Now, while some might see cramdown as a quick fix, in reality the legislation will have a costly impact on generations to come. Ranking Member Smith of the Judiciary Committee sent a thoughtful letter to the administration raising concerns about the bill, saying that it would lead to, one, significant taxpayer liability for Federal mortgage guarantees by redistributing wealth from responsible taxpayers to irresponsible borrowers and lenders; two, the hoarding by banks of hundreds of billions of dollars in capital, undermining the efforts that have been undertaken by the government since September to stabilize the financial market; and three, additional constriction in the home lending market. This bill punishes those who have lived within their means and acted prudently by forcing them to subsidize those who made irresponsible choices. One of the many problems with this bill is that it doesn't have any safeguards to prevent the very people who profited from risky behavior and irresponsible choices from further benefiting at taxpayer expense. The text of the underlying legislation will allow for a partial payback of the cramdown amount if the house is sold within 4 years of the modification. The manager's amendment barely changes the language already in the bill by extending by 1 year and 10 percent the possible partial recapture. If a mortgagee sells his or her home 6 years after going through a cramdown at a profit, he or she can pocket all of the difference. Mr. Chairman, no one should be able to profit off of a bankruptcy proceeding. Bankruptcy should not be an opportunity to game the system. Hence my amendment. The amendment would prevent this from happening by simply saying that if a homeowner who has had a mortgage modified in a bankruptcy proceeding sells the home at a profit, the lender--the individuals originally at risk for the money--may recapture the amount of principal lost in the modification or cramdown. By putting lenders in a position of hedging against cramdown losses, this legislation will raise interest rates for the very individual whose tax dollars are paying all of these government bailouts. Some suggest that the cramdown may raise interest rates as much as 2 percentage points. The 92 percent of homeowners who are working to pay off their mortgages should not be forced to subsidize the mistakes of irresponsible borrowing or lending. By restoring the lender the money that is owed them, we will mitigate the amount to which the industry will need to raise interest rates on responsible homeowners. This bill is yet another ``Joe the plumber'' moment here in this Congress, providing for the redistribution of wealth from responsible, accountable taxpayers to borrowers and lenders who will not be held accountable. President Obama has spoken repeatedly of the importance of fairness and personal responsibility. This amendment is an important step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment, a responsible and simple amendment, and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank him for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I rise to just point out a couple fallacies on the arguments on the other side. I think it's important that everybody appreciate why this law is in place in the first place, why isn't cramdown allowed in a bankruptcy on a primary residence. And the reason, Mr. Chairman, as you well know, is that it's to encourage primary residence ownership. If lenders don't know what amount of principal they are going to be able to get back on any loan, then they will not be encouraged to loan men and women across this Nation money to purchase a primary reason. That's why. It's very simple. So what this will do is make it so there will be less money available for homeowner purchasers, there will be less money available for individuals to gain their primary residence. Higher interest rates will certainly occur. The gentleman from Vermont, I chuckled when he said that Citigroup was supporting this. Well, as has been said in the past, Mr. Chairman, ``Surprise, surprise, surprise.'' Citigroup is supporting it because it gets billions of dollars from the Federal Government. What can it do? In this political economy, under this leadership and this administration, in this political economy, politicians are directing who the winners and losers are, who gets money; and consequently, Citigroup can do nothing but support what this majority and this administration wants. It's a political economy. It's not a market economy. We need to return to a market economy so that the American people can realize their hopes and dreams and make it so that more individuals are able to purchase their primary residence without the imposition of the Federal Government.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. May I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am pleased to yield to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) 1 minute.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I will continue to reserve.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I don't; do you?