Tom Price on Corporations
Republican Representative (GA-6)
Voted YES on workforce training by state block grants & industry partners.
Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act or SKILLS Act:
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
- Reauthorizes appropriations workforce investment systems for job training and employment services.
- Requires a plan describe:
- strategies and services to more fully engage employers and meet their needs, as well as those to assist at-risk youth and out-of-school youth in acquiring education, skills, credentials, and employment experience;
- how the state board will convene industry or sector partnerships that lead to collaborative planning;
- how the state will use technology to facilitate access to services in remote areas;
- state actions to foster partnerships with non-profit organizations that provide employment-related services; and
- the methodology for determining one-stop partner program contributions for the cost of the infrastructure of one-stop centers.
- Repeals title VI (Employment Opportunities for Individuals with Disabilities)
National League of Cities op-ed, "H.R. 803 fails because it would:"
Reference: SKILLS Act;
Bill H.R. 803
; vote number 13-HV075
on Mar 15, 2013
- Undermine the local delivery system that has been the cornerstone of job training programs
- Establish a program that is based on political boundaries (states) rather than on economic regions and local labor markets, or the naturally evolving areas in which workers find paying work
- Eliminate a strong role for local elected officials but require that they continue to be fiscally liable for funds spent in their local areas
- Change what was once a program targeted to those most in need--economically disadvantaged adults and youth and special population groups like veterans, migrant farm workers, and low income seniors--into a block grant to governors
- Contribute to the emerging division between those American's who have the requisite skills to find employment and those who do not.
Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation.
Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act: Amends the Securities Exchange Act to require that any proxy for an annual shareholders meeting provide for a separate shareholder vote to approve executive compensation for named executive officers. The shareholder vote shall not be:
- binding on the corporation
- construed as overruling a board decision, or as creating or implying any additional fiduciary duty by the board; or
- construed as restricting or limiting shareholder ability to place executive compensation proposals within proxy materials.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. BARNEY FRANK (D, MA-4): The amount of wages is irrelevant to the SEC. What this bill explicitly aims at is the practice whereby people are given bonuses that pay off if the gamble pays off, but don't lose you anything if it doesn't. That is, there is a wide consensus that this incentivizes excessive risk.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. SPENCER BACHUS (R, AL-6): True, the first 6 pages of the bill give the owners, the shareholders, a non-binding vote on the pay of top executives. But then come the next 8 pages, the switch, which gives the regulators the power to decide appropriate compensation for not only just top executives but for all employees of all financial institutions above $1 billion in assets and all without regard for the shareholders' prior approval. So under the guise of empowering shareholders, it is, in fact, the government that is empowered. And, finally, on page 15, the bill designates those same government entities which regulated AIG, Countrywide, and collectively failed to prevent the worst financial calamity since the Great Depression. This bill continues the Democrat majority's tendency to go to the default solution for every problem: create a government bureaucracy to make decisions better left to private citizens and private corporations.
Reference: Say-On-Pay Bill;
; vote number 2009-H686
on Jul 31, 2009
Voted YES on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization.
Congressional Summary:Extends funding for research and development topics, nanotechnology, project commercialization, prioritization of applications, and federal administration and oversight.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. NYDIA VELÁZQUEZ (D, NY-12): We need jobs that cannot be shipped overseas and will not evaporate in the next cycle of boom and bust. But those jobs aren't going to appear out of thin air. They need to be created. By expanding existing industries and unlocking new ones, H.R. 2965 will generate the jobs we need. Job creation is the primary goal of R&D. But in order to generate new positions, we have to first develop new industries. Commercialization is critical to that process.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. ED MARKEY (D, MA-7): I must oppose this bill because I have serious concerns about allowing SBIR awards to go to an unlimited number of businesses owned or controlled by venture capital (VC) firms.
The SBIR program, responsible for over 60,000 patents, has always focused on innovation from truly small businesses for whom commercial capital market funding is typically not an option. However, with the change made in this bill, the SBIR program would be wide open to applicants that already are well-capitalized due to VC participation, crowding out the small businesses that have been the focus of the highly successful SBIR program.
While I support VC participation in the SBIR program, enabling an unlimited amount of large VC majority-owned firms to qualify for SBIR funding calls into question whether this program, intended for genuinely small businesses, is, in fact, still focused on these firms.
We should do everything in our power to strengthen small businesses that generate 70% of new jobs in our country. H.R 2965 does not do enough to ensure that small businesses are the focus of the SBIR program, and therefore I cannot support the bill.
Reference: Enhancing Small Business Research and Innovation Act;
; vote number 2009-H486
on Jul 8, 2009
Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation.
To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide shareholders with an advisory vote on executive compensation [and as part of that process, fully disclosing executive compensation].
Proponents support voting YES because:
We should not deprive the public, the stockholders, from being able to do anything meaningful once they find out about scandalous levels of executive compensation or board compensation. Everyone talks about the corporate board as the remedy. But the board is often a part of the problem, being paid huge amounts of money for showing up once or twice a year at meetings.
Give the stockholders a meaningful remedy. Once you get the mandatory disclosure put in place by previous legislation, we are saying the stockholders should be allowed to have a referendum on that and not have a runaround by the board.
Opponents support voting NO because:
This vote is based on mischaracterization--it is an unnecessary amendment. The opportunity for these kinds of votes already exists within the structure of corporate governance right now. A good company from Georgia, AFLAC, went ahead and already has these nonbinding shareholder votes. But there is a difference between having individuals in the private sector, shareholders and individuals outside of the mandating of government to have it occur and have government come in with its heavy hand and say, this is exactly what you need to do because we know best. Our constituents know better how to act and how to relate to corporations than Washington.
Reference: Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act;
Bill H R 1257
; vote number 2007-244
on Apr 20, 2007
Repeal ObamaCare reporting requirements for small business.
Price co-sponsored Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act
A BILL To repeal the expansion of information reporting requirements for payments of $600 or more to corporations. Section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the amendments made thereby, are hereby repealed; and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such section, and amendments, had never been enacted. [This is the first attempt at dismantling ObamaCare by pieces, as opposed to H.R. 2 which dismantles ObamaCare in whole. The proposed section of the ObamaCare law to be repealed appears below. --OnTheIssues editor].
SEC. 9006. EXPANSION OF INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
Source: HR144&HR4 11-HR004 on Jan 12, 2011
- The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsections:
APPLICATION TO CORPORATIONS. The term 'person' includes any corporation that is not an organization tax-exempt.
- REGULATIONS. The Secretary may prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this section, including rules to prevent duplicative reporting of transactions.
- EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this section shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2011.
Rated 0% by UFCW, indicating a pro-management voting record.
Price scores 0% by UFCW on labor-management issues
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) is North America's Neighborhood Union--1.3 million members with UFCW locals in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and Canada. Our members work in supermarkets, drug stores, retail stores, meatpacking and meat processing plants, food processing plants, and manufacturing workers who make everything from fertilizer to shoes. We number over 60,000 strong with 25,000 workers in chemical production and 20,000 who work in garment and textile industries.
The UFCW House scorecard is based on these key votes:
Source: UFCW website 12-UFCW-H on May 2, 2012
- (+) Extension of Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
- (+) H. Am. 877 Bishop Am. to HR 3094, penalties for lawsuits against unionization
- (+) H. Am. 880 Jackson-Lee Am. to HR 3094, preventing delays in union votes
- (-) Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, freezing public salaries
- (-) Regulation from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, for less corporate regulation
- (-) Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act
- (-) Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, letting CEOs fire union organizers
Let businesses help define regulatory rules.
Price signed letting businesses help define regulatory rules
Our plan includes ideas to:
- Back startups and small businesses by giving them a real say in the rules that affect their work, and cutting down on roadblocks to capital formation and growth.
- Consider putting regulators on a budget by allocating to each agency a limit on the amount of regulatory costs that it can impose for each fiscal year.
- Publish the cost--and cut the cost--of regulations by requiring agencies to adopt the least costly method of implementing new rules, provide a full accounting of the costs--including the costs of jobs lost--of new rules, and detail the cumulative impact of new rules instead of looking at each one in isolation.
- Stop blank checks by implementing sunset dates for regulatory programs, and empowering federal judges to carefully scrutinize agencies' decisions.
- Put the feds on the clock by establishing a shot-clock approach, meaning failure to act within a reasonable period of time would lead to automatic approval.
The way things work now, regulators can hold up jobs and projects indefinitely, with little to no explanation.
- Open up government data so that all evidence used in support of regulation is based on sound science and available for proper scrutiny.
- Subject regulations to spring cleaning by establishing an independent commission that goes back and looks at past regulations to see what has become outdated, and identifies rules that can be weeded out responsibly.
- Pare back the paperwork police by easing penalties for first-time paperwork violations by small businesses.
- Regulate only when needed by preventing the federal government from regulating in areas where states are already fulfilling that duty successfully. This will end regulators' habit of creating regulations in search of problems.
- Stop bad regulations in their tracks by requiring Congress to approve all rules that would cost the economy more than $100 million a year.
Page last updated: Mar 12, 2019