[laughter] but, you know, that's just the story of the internet. as we find out the painfully, there's a lot said about us when sometimes just the opposite is true and people don't get their facts right, and reputations are ruined. are there any other discussion on the green amendment? >> mr. chairman? >> the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your constructive spirit of this and i thank you for it. let's be clear, i share some of the concerns of my very responsible colleague from north carolina and i would just say, maybe i'm putting thoughts in your head, i don't think so, i do know that this is part of a package of bills that passed the subcommittee on april 5. and i would kill people in for

what you will, but the chairman had a subcommittee seven have for months ago and he didn't act in the interim. to me, that suggests that the unwisdom of the fhfa is doing what they did announcing it and they tried to explain it differently, but i think it is fairly, it is at least my inference that we wouldn't have this bill up for his today if it weren't for that. i hope the people there will take that into account. i would note by the way, mr. chairman, this is part of a package of bills that passed on april 5. i cannot forbear when every procedural argument about that, some of us walked out, went into a quorum for a while, the chairman of the subcommittee criticized us for holding the bill. we held it up for a day. it's now seven and half months later and the bill, first what has, for us. several of the other bills that were passed that they are still in subcommittee. i don't mean to be critical.

i just don't want to be blamed. i take one days playing. somebody else gets seven months and 90 together point i want to make -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> with regard to this bill that is before us, it was appropriate then to wait from april till now to get the opportunity for the agency to take the correct -- >> yes. giving the chairman of the full committee credit for that. taking back my time. the chairman of the subcommittee was critical of us because we delayed for a day. i infer from that the delay was the chairman's decision, not his. but i will yield again. >> so the delay for a day, i would make an issue that time, was done for policy reasons then at that time? >> no. the delay for a day was -- >> i thought maybe that was the policy reason why the chip in

here delayed for months. >> no. taking my time back. he asked a question, i was giving him an answer but it was delayed because we felt the matter in which was being debated, seven or eight bills monday, did not leave adequate time for discussion. we were going late into the evening at a time when members had other things to do. we didn't see any reason why we couldn't put off for another day. it was procedural to give more time. the gentleman objected. i would say we now have i guess 14 bills passed the subcommittee, one that is now service. i don't know whether they'll come out, it does seem to me, -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> so there can be reasons with regard to particular bills why a delay may be appropriate. and in this case a delay was -- >> i'm sorry, the gentleman is wasting time. >> the april period was when the

secretary under the obama administration said that they wanted time to work with us on these things. without also be -- >> i will respond. first of all the excuse for inaction on the gst the tim geithner wouldn't let you do is the least possible and i have ever heard. it is the unicorn ate my homework, not even the dog. when mr. garrett and others new, you raise the gse issue. my republican talk looks up to what to do with the gses when they were minority. when their majority they don't do. but i do want to point, make another point here, that is about the bonuses. this committee last year passed a bill that was actually 2009 we passed a bill to restrict bonuses, to prohibit bonuses for recipients of federal funds. i take the chairman's point, you distinct between the private and public sector. we had private sector restrictive language but the

bill, h.r. 1664 passed on april 1, 2009, said as follows, no financial institution has received direct capital investment, t.a.r.p. are with respect to federal national mortgage, federal home loan mortgage or federal home loan bank while the investor made compensation payment other than a longevity bonus or payment of restricted stock commentator. so this house passed over the object judgment and objection from the germans in california, chairman and others, a bill that restricted them having yield, mr. chairman, one additional minute? >> so recognized. >> this committee in 2009 passed a bill that restricted bonuses that would've prevented the bonuses that which is given by fannie mae and freddie mac under mr. demarco, at that passed the house, and the senate blocked it and i regret that. but the fact is this majority, when with a majority, voted to

prevent these bonuses. the taliban from new jersey objected to the bill. i stress again this is not a bill that impacted truly private sector entity. it restricted bonuses only for those entities that had outstanding at the time federal funds, either under t.a.r.p., or out of those restrictions, or fannie mae and freddie mac. so when we knew the history, let's be clear. some of us tried to pass legislation that would have prevented these bonuses. it was opposed and blocked in the senate. i yield back. >> ms. biggert? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for doing this bill. and i just have a question for the sponsor who would -- who is talking? >> green. >> first i want to say that the ceo of fannie and freddie were paid 15 times that of the president of the united states.

and 30 times more than any member of this cabinet. and the top executive of ginnie mae received an annual salary of less than $200,000, and ginnie mae didn't seem to factor into the problems that fannie and freddie have had. so my question, my question is, and i to support the bill, just what is, what are we talking about with section 1206 of the financial institutions reform act? how is the salary of fannie and freddie ceos and executives figured? >> the standards that will be your lives will be of comparability as there are other entities that will be currently paid under this schedule, the schedule being the federal institutions reconstruction reform enforcement act. and they compare salaries in setting their salaries. >> you have an example of what some of these other entities

then are paid? >> i can tell you that the maximum that is being paid is $255,000. currently the fdic is that about 162000, nine. the ncaa chairperson makes about 162, nine. the general counsel for the ncua makes about 265 council. so it puts them all in the 200,000 plus range. >> thank you. i yield back. >> ms. slaughter? >> thank you very much. i just want to be clear about how we are perceived in your. i support mr. green's amendment. however, it appears that we take a look at page seven of the bill, line 15, relationship of executive compensation to profitability, and make a determination of the compensation of an executive

officer of an enterprise under this section, the director shall take into account the profitability of such enterprise. does that conflict with the proposed -- i yield. >> thank you. ms. waters, it appears to me that it does not address that section and that might be something that we want to address. >> let me, if i could, if the gentlelady would recognize me. i think what she's asking is, should this apply only to the senior executives or should this apply to all employers, is that -- >> no, i'm speaking to the fact that green's amendment proposes a schedule of compensation that is known under the banner of comparability. that is, compared with other like jobs or positions. and he took out profitability as

consideration. so i don't think you can have both, and that's what i'm wondering, is this section is in conflict with what is attempting to do and whether or not i should be eliminated. >> with a gentlelady yield? >> yes. >> your talk that the original amendment, my enemy, does appear to me that it does conflict year and if we are going to move to a salaried schedule, executive schedule, i would be willing to allow a second a amendment to remove amendment. >> with the lady yield again, ms. waters? >> yes. >> what we've attempted to do, and i believe we have done it in the amendment, is to limit the compensation to a level that would not exceed that of fhfa. the radical portion that you called our attention calls that

in setting the salary you can consider the profitability of the institution itself. now, i don't see them in conflict with each other but i can see that it could be a concern for persons who would not want salary profitability to be based upon or connected to salary. will. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes, sir spent i think what you're talking about is bonuses at the end of the year, is that what we are talking, bonuses at the end of the year and what they can be based on. they can still be based on profitability. there's nothing in his memo which restricts that. >> well, i'm not sure. and from the way i read this -- >> variation pay is allowed. >> however, if you are suggesting that there's a difference between the

compensation for the bonuses, and executives employers, maybe there's another question, but i'm not sure. >> well, you know, i wouldn't, if somebody wants -- i don't know if you can offer, are you offering an amendment? >> no. it was suggested that the second amendment was in order. >> i don't think you have offered an amendment. >> no. >> you could offer it spent no, i could not. this would have to be offered by someone else. mr. frank, someone else. >> i actually think you can offer -- >> trade to let me -- >> it's not amending your own amendment. i'm sorry, ranking member. >> as i understand, what mr. stivers was the original off pashtun original author of page seven, is that correct? that he would agree, if that's

the case i would ask unanimous consent to propose an amendment to delete on page seven, line 15-19. i ask that passion is that not inviting? >> it is probably superfluous that a post can be based on profitability without that provision in there, but i'm not sure it changes substantively the law. >> well, mr. chairman, i would prefer expedition in the legislation, literary excellence. >> that's right. so we will come mr. stivers or ms. waters has -- >> and i ask unanimous consent to strike on page seven, line 15 through 19, i ask unanimous consent. >> okay. on behalf of mr. stivers and ms. waters all in favor say aye. all of those, nay. the ayes have it in the name is agreed to. are there other -- mr. watt? i'm sorry.

>> wait a minute now. we didn't vote on the amendment, they would. i just thought we voted him on his judgment what were we voting on? i'm sorry. >> mr. franks -- >> on his unanimous consent. why are we going on unanimous consent request? >> i only offered as you incentive to offer it orally. it was an amendment that had to be voted on it was just to be able to do it orally speak he amended mr. green's -- >> mr. grayson is still on the floor. okay. that's what i thought. spink does anyone else wish to speak? >> gap. >> the gentleman from north carolina is recognize on mr. green's amendment. >> as amended by the unanimous consent request. and my question to mr. green is with regard to the second part of your amendment.

by adding a subsection which says an executive officer of an enterprise this compensation package is suspended under subsection a shall not be compensated more than a high school but it employee of the federal housing finance agency him. does not supersede subsection d on page seven which says there can still be -- >> subsection d was just removed, mr. watts spent okay, i thought you took -- i got you. i'm with you. i thought you were taking out something on "page six" under unanimous consent. spend what you a deal for one additional comment? >> yeah, i would yield, but i'm

not sure that i wouldn't agree to the unanimous consent request had they known what we're voting on on. i think that's terrible. that's a terrible idea to be honest with you. but go ahead. maybe you can help me. spent only as to your initial statement, he unanimous consent request as i understood it did not an end the green bachus amendment. it amended the language in the management of -- manager's amendment. so as to strike section d that you just reference, which i understand you to believe not one of our better thoughts. >> well, the effective or you are then is these people who can save taxpayers gazillions of dollars, and everybody acknowledges that they have done a tremendous outstanding job.

and because he moved the ability of them to be compensated or have any compensation or bonuses or anything based on profitability, they would never be recognized for that. is that, am i misunderstanding of where we are? >> i don't think so because variation in taken so be based on performance. so up to 255,000 they can still be compensated. you're correct in that above that they couldn't be compensated. because they are government employees, normally, you know. they are not rewarded up to the, but their salary, just like your talk about your employees if they do a good job of -- >> so we have taken what i come

in my earlier comment said was a dubious idea and made it substantially more dubious? >> no. what's amendment, what mr. green does is raise the maximum salary from one to 65, to 255. and we think that's sufficient to a day of -- >> which i thought what you were substituting was -- >> if they do a good job -- >> but -- >> no, that's what they substituted. it wasn't me. >> all right. >> this does not preclude profitability being considered. it simply doesn't have it codified in the language currently when we evaluate him for salary purposes, profitability can be considered. how well without being codified into language.

>> and if the gentleman will yield, we fully expect that with good underwriting standards, these gses should return to profitability. that's an expectation we have of an employee making $150,000, much less 5 million spent will the gentleman yield? >> i will yield to the ranking member. >> if we accept mr. demarco's opinion on this, which i do, we differ on the bonuses, mr. demarco said very clearly that, in fact, that they are making a profit now on current operation. they -- since 2008 when mr. paulson use the authority to put them in receivership and the appointed mr. demarco's predecessor, that they have, in fact, been profitable. >> which are exactly the employees that we are punishing now, the ones who are now making a profit on the new portfolio. we are punishing them because they are not making a profit, or

all of the losses on the prior port for the, which is what is, what is overdue just about what we are doing. i just, let me just, i'll invite you cink's. i hope the senate saves us from this dubious political maneuver that we're undertaking your. it's wonderful politics we are doing. i conceded that in my comments. but the substance of what we are doing i think is irresponsible, and we just come in this amendment, we are making it even more irresponsible. so, i'm happy to yield to the gentlelady. >> i'd like to ask mr. green, i understand mr. watts worry and i understand your concern about being responsible while we are dealing with this problem.

but if it was a decision to compensate for other responsible actions that make good sense, is that preclude in what you're doing at all the? >> i'd like to make a decision between the green box amendment and the amendment that mr. watt is referencing with reference to page seven because that's a minute offered by the ranking member of the full committee. >> yes. >> no, in making that distinction, the green-bachus amendment does not preclude other, in fact it leaves open what can be considered, whereas on page seven there's codification of at least one thing to be considered. so the green-bachus amendment would not be precluded. >> thank you. all time is expired on the amendment. so we are now voting on the green a minute, as amended.

all those in favor say aye go. all opposed, nay. the ayes have it. and without, are there any further amendments if there's no further amendments, previous question is order. the question now occurs on approving h.r. 1221 as amended in favor of reporting to the house. all those in favor shall signify by saying i go. all those opposed, nay. independent of the chair the ayes have it. the chairman asked for a recorded vote. a number of members requesting a recorded vote, please raise your hand. let's see some of those right hands, guys. all right. thank you. the clerk will call the roll.

okay, the committee -- i'm sorry, the committee will vote at 1145 am and immediately there after the capital market subcommittee will convene immediately following the vote for their hearing. so we stand in recess until 11:45. mr. bachus lex hundred and -- [inaudible] the clerk will call the roll and we will leave, we believe the role open until 11:45. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> the role will be kept open

until 11:45. ms. biggert? >> aye. >> thank you. spent a house financial services committee later voted 52-4 to block $12 million in bonuses for executives at the government backed mortgage companies, fannie mae and freddie mac. the full house and senate would still have to take up the measure. >> in a few moments white house budget director jack lew says he's optimistic the joint deficit reduction committee will be successful.

>> jack lew says he's optimistic that the joint deficit reduction committee will succeed. he spoke for a half-hour yesterday at an event hosted by "the wall street journal." >> thanks. hose ofor making over.

llliteraally just walked in the door. so you miss the erskine allen show, but you in the middle of mi, trust me. and that showing that you're a brave man who have agreed tove respond to it. if you did not agree, that is what you are going to have to do. let me start with what the crew just heard from those guys, and you have probably heard a variation of their presentation before. they say things about the federal deficit like unsustainable path, broken process, and ability to get to the heart of the problem, and erskine at one point said we will have a crisis before those guys figure it out. by those guys, i think the man everybody in this town. you, cant by asking you offer a more optimistic scenario than that? >> if is not hard to be more optimistic than that.

i think they did an enormously public service this year in bringing their commission along to a set of bipartisan recommendations. while it did not get the job done, it helped shape the debate and in a lot of ways, we've all been working in a world shaped by the work that they did. i have to be more optimistic than that. i've said this a lot of the last 10 days. it is a parlor sport in washington, calling process is dead before they had their final chance. i've never seen something that complicated done before the last minute in washington. so the next few days are critical. i will not sit here and say that it is not% likely that a big deal comes out of the super committee. but i think it has been written off prematurely. let me take a step back and then i stepped forward to frame it. if you look at the negotiations if you look at the negotiations that went