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.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT NO. 7 OFFERED BY MRS.
DAHLKEMPER The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 111-71.