Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts speaking so clearly about what is happening. I would clarify my words and say to the gentleman, I do believe that it would be appropriate to have anyone who is attempting to influence an outcome of a vote, that they should have a requirement upon them to identify themselves, to state how much money they are spending and the activities that they are engaged in. And I think that that is full disclosure also about the activities that could take place under this new nonbinding resolution that we are attempting to pass. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the inquiry. At this time, we have one additional speaker.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. SESSIONS. In response to the gentleman at this time, I do not have any additional speakers. I would use this time for my close. I thank the gentleman for the inquiry. Mr. Speaker, I think the point that would be taken here would follow those words that David Dreier spoke on, and that is, we simply call things what they are honestly. We don't try to call things what they aren't. We follow the regular order of this House, as has been established, going back at least to the 103rd Congress when Mr. Moakley, the chairman of the Rules Committee, said, this is what we will call things, this is what an open rule is, this is what a modified rule is. That is the point we are trying to make today, that you should call something what it is. At this time, I would like to include a statement of administration policy on this bill. Statement of Administration Policy--H.R. 1257--Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act of 2007 (representative frank (d) massachusetts and 27 cosponsors) The Administration opposes H.R. 1257, which would require public companies to hold a separate advisory shareholder vote to approve the compensation of executives. The Administration does not believe that Congress should mandate the process by which executive compensation is approved. The Administration supports full transparency to shareholders regarding executive compensation decisions. Recent enhancements in corporate governance and disclosure have strengthened the executive compensation decision-making process of boards of directors. Corporate governance changes have made boards more independent, including through the establishment of compensation committees composed solely of independent directors. In addition, as a result of the Securities and Exchange Commission's revised disclosure rules on executive compensation, which recently became effective, shareholders are receiving comprehensive information on executive compensation. Before additional corporate governance requirements are legislated, the Administration believes that recent enhancements should be given time to take effect. The statement of the administration is quite succinct, and that is at the end of this statement it says ``before additional corporate governance requirements are legislated, the administration believes that the recent enhancements should be given time to take effect. That is in reference to the SEC and what the SEC had done. Mr. Speaker, I am asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to make it a true, modified open rule. As the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial Services pointed out yesterday at the Rules Committee, he is expecting that consideration of the bill is likely to continue through the end of the week. But under a normal modified open rule, Members would still be allowed to submit amendments for printing today or tomorrow so that they might be considered tomorrow or Friday. This restrictive rule severely limits the fluidity which traditional and modified open rules allow. This rule is not an open rule as it is currently drafted. It would not even be qualified as a modified open rule. This is a restrictive rule. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous material be printed just before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. SESSIONS. I also urge Members to oppose the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would, very simply, provide sunshine and transparency for shareholders so that there is full disclosure about who is financing efforts to influence their vote on this new congressionally mandated, nonbinding shareholder resolution. Let me give an example of a substantially similar disclosure requirement that every Member of this body understands, because it is already a current practice. As Federal candidates, we are each obligated to disclose to the Federal Election Commission the name, occupation and amount given from each of our donors. These funds can then be used for FEC-approved campaign purposes. We require this, as well as we create caps for the amount that can be donated over a legislation cycle, because public interest is advanced by letting those who cast votes for their Members of Congress know who funds these campaigns. My amendment would not limit the amount that can be spent like the FEC does for political contributions on the amount that people or organizations like labor bosses, environmental groups or consumer advocates spend on influencing this new mandatory nonbinding vote. The purpose of this amendment is not to impede the ability of organizations to influence this vote. If they hold shares in stock, they would be willing to express their desires. The point of this amendment is simply to provide voters, in this case, shareholders, with access to information about who is spending money to influence that vote. My amendment tasks the Securities and Exchange Commission with setting a de minimis level of spending and with collecting important information about anyone or any organization that spends over that amount to influence this vote, including who is spending the money, what they are spending the money on and how much they are spending to influence the votes of other shareholders. If an individual wants to spend more than this de minimis amount and not disclose their identity to shareholders, they are still perfectly able to do so. However, their votes would no longer count in this mandatory vote. My amendment provides an appropriate level of transparency for shareholder elections. And if we believe that voters deserve this information, then we should also be willing to give shareholders this same level of transparency. I firmly disagree with the Democrat majority, with the underlying premise of this legislation that it is the Federal Government's job to place this nonbinding mandate on private entities, especially because public companies are already empowered to take this shareholder vote if they so choose and because there is no obligation for anyone to own shares in the company if they do not like the way that it is being managed. I am also confused by the Democrat majority's recent conversion to the merits of democracy in determining an organization's actions. Less than 2 months ago, the same leadership brought to the floor legislation that strips American workers of the right to use a secret ballot to decide whether or not to unionize, and provides for unprecedented intimidation of employees by union bosses under a fundamentally antidemocratic process known as ``card check.'' But if we are going to pass this interventionist legislation, my amendment would be one small step in the right direction towards giving shareholders all the disclosures that they might need to make an informed decision. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter of support from the American Shareholders Association that was sent to Speaker Pelosi in support of my amendment. American Shareholders Association, Washington, DC, April 18, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi: On behalf of American Shareholders Association (ASA), I wish to express this organization's strong support for an amendment to be offered to H.R. 1257 by Rep. Pete Sessions. In short, this amendment seeks greater disclosure of funding designed to influence shareholder votes. Over the past several years we have witnessed the rise of special interest groups seeking to turn boardroom votes into political campaigns. While activist investors seeking to increase shareholder value is welcome by our standards, we have become increasingly concerned by activist investors seeking to achieve political gain with board votes and little regard to what is in the best interests of shareholders. As such, today's vote on H.R. 1257 should be amended to impose sunlight on the political campaigns being waged in corporate boardrooms, which the Session amendment achieves. This is accomplished by tasking the Securities and Exchange Commission with collecting information regarding the shareholders spending money to influence the vote; the amount spent; and the activities the money was spent on. While corporate governance is a worthwhile objective we have witnessed a substantial increase in the number of shareholders using this term as a guise at the expense of individual shareholders. The Sessions amendment is designed to protect individual investors from these activities and I urge you and the entire Democratic Caucus to support this very worthy amendment. Sincerely, Daniel Clifton, Executive Director.

Mr. SESSIONS. I don't have an objection. I would ask the same.

Mr. SESSIONS. Then that would be fine; the gentleman may continue.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts, who, as the chairman of the committee, has forthrightly come before the Rules Committee, made himself available and is doing so again tonight on the floor. Mr. Chairman, it is quite simple that this is about transparency, and I think that is what this bill is about. It is about bringing transparency and some clarity to a shareholder, to be able to know a little bit more and to express themselves about what they think about executive compensation. I disagree with that. But let's add some more transparency and at least say that if someone else is going to become engaged in the effort, other than the individual shareholder, that they be given an opportunity to have to at least register their activities and what they are doing. The Securities and Exchange Commission, just like the Federal Election Commission, has a lot of knowledge about how business works and how transactions work. I have no reason to assume that, let's say, GE, that they would have a shareholder for GE held to some standard of $500 or $1,000 as the gentleman suggests, that some retiree could not influence as many people as they wanted, that they would have to go through a reporting process. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that this should be about doing the right thing, where we would understand who was on what side, what they were attempting to influence and whether they were trying to influence the corporation in some way. I think shareholders should know about that. I believe that the SEC could forthrightly understand that the size of the company, the size of the mailing and those things that happen would be appropriately determined. Obviously, if you are going to go on TV, that threshold might be less. If you are going to go in the mail, perhaps a different threshold. But what I am suggesting to you is it is not us setting the standard; it is the Securities and Exchange Commission that wants to regulate, in a fair and proper way, the marketplace.

Mr. SESSIONS. I do thank the gentleman in fairness for giving me the additional minute that they were given. So I would ask this body to understand today that we might well be passing this bill, but that this amendment process is to bring forward ideas that bring clarity and understanding of transparency. I believe shareholders would also be entitled to know who is attempting to influence them and what those words might be that they choose, rather than just beating up a company. I don't think it is good for anybody in this country to receive a message that might be aimed at someone without full disclosure, without the proper notification about who they were and what their intentions were. This is about transparency. This is about sunlight. This is about doing the right thing that would enhance the bill that is before us today. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity for Mr. Frank to be able to not only forthrightly offer me the time in fairness, I would also like to thank the Rules Committee, of which I have been a member now for 9 years. I understand what we are doing here, and I will say that I appreciate the way this bill has been handled.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Mr. SESSIONS. I understand that the procedure that the Chair just went through is known as Calendar Wednesday. Is it correct that any bill reported by a committee and placed on the Union or House calendar could have been called up by the chairman as the committee name was read?

Mr. SESSIONS. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Mr. SESSIONS. H.R. 1429, Head Start Reauthorization, was reported out of the Ed and Labor Committee on March 23, 2007. Would it have been in order for the chairman or his designee to call up H.R. 1429 at this time?

Mr. SESSIONS. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Mr. SESSIONS. Similarly, H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, was reported by the Ed and Labor Committee on March 5, 2007. Would it have been possible to call up H.R. 493 at this time?

Mr. SESSIONS. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker

Mr. SESSIONS. Is it in order for Mr. McKeon, the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, to call up the bill under his committee's jurisdiction, Head Start?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to proudly recognize T.C. Marsh Junior High School as the home to the National Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) Middle School Champions. Thirty-five of the school's 217 unit members qualified for the competition which was held on March 31 in Dallas. Under the guidance of teacher David Bates, the students competed against units from all over the country. Bates served for the army as a corporal in the First Calvary. As a former Florida Gator football player, Bates coaches W.T. White varsity softball and football teams and until this year, coached 8th grade football, basketball and baseball at T. C. Marsh. I congratulate David Bates and the students of T.C. Marsh Junior High School for their well- deserved victory and wish them all the best in future endeavors.

Mr. SESSIONS of Texas

Mr. SESSIONS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in memory of Lieutenant Colonel William Benjamin Dixon, Sr. and in honor of his patriotism and a life dedicated to service. After spending his life dedicated to serving this great Nation, Bill passed away on March 23, 2007. He began as an Air Observation Pilot flying an L-4 and served in the War in Rhineland and Central Europe with the 2nd Infantry Division. He received multiple honors including the EAME Campaign Medal with two Bronze Stars, American Campaign Medal, WWII Victory Medal, a Purple Heart, and two Air Force Commendation Medals for meritorious service. He is survived by his wife of 59 years, Purna Lee Dixon; five children, Laura Elizabeth Hansbrough of Kansas City, MO; William B. Dixon, Jr. of Bryan, TX; John Robert Dixon of Hingham, MA; Carol Ann Erwin of Sanger, TX; and Milly Ann Vickery of Frost, TX; and 12 grandchildren. He will be remembered as a devoted family man, a decorated Army Air Corps veteran, and a proud graduate of Texas A&M University. May God bless all those he loved, and may I convey to them my sincerest condolences and the gratitude of the American people.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee does not charge for people to come and attend our meetings, and it seems like a good number of Members probably needed to be there last night. The gentlewoman from Connecticut would have heard that this big increase that she is talking about in SCHIP is in a reserve fund. It is not paid for. As a matter of fact, it is going to have to find an offset somewhere if they are going to get to it. So it is not reserved in the budget as necessarily to be paid for; it is in a reserve fund. Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the budget expert from the Republican Party from the Fifth District of Texas (Mr. Hensarling).