Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 830 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chair, there seems to be some confusion on what the underlying bill does and what the amendments are trying to accomplish. In fact, in certain cases, it's quite evident that some of my colleagues don't understand the bill. This bill authorizes $8 billion to go towards the FHA refinance plan. It has already disbursed $50 million. Now we're hearing these claims of 10 million and 11 million homeowners. There are probably closer to 12 million homeowners that are underwater than 11. I think the numbers are understated. So let's assume 12 million. This Federal program that we've disbursed $50 million to, how many American families have had their mortgages refinanced? Forty-two. Now, who refinanced those? Who paid for that? Was it the lenders who loaned the money? No. Was it the borrowers who borrowed the money? No. It was these children, because it was taxpayer money. Now you say they're not taxpayers. No, but they're going to have to pay this back because we're spending $8 billion more every day than we're taking in in revenue. It was announced earlier this week--I think the American people, and I don't blame them, don't want to really put their arms around this-- but we just announced a deficit for the month of February, 28 days, that was more than the deficit 4 years ago for the entire year. We're hemorrhaging red ink. Are we better off than our parents? Most of us are. Are these children going to be better off than we are? Not if we don't start cutting spending. And the American people, those who are parents and grandparents, are crying out for this Congress to address this. And that's what we're on this floor today to do. Now, if I were one of the 12 million homeowners who was underwater, I might say, Why those 42? But if I were the taxpayers, I would say, Why are you taking money from me that we have to borrow from other countries--42 cents out of every dollar that we're putting into this program--why are you paying this mortgage down? Isn't that the lender-- if a loan gets in trouble, is it up to the taxpayers to bail that lender out? Someone mentioned Bank of America. Somebody mentioned Citibank. If I were Citibank or Bank of America and someone who was making their payments who was underwater who may walk off, yeah, I'd say if the taxpayers will come in and take that obligation off my hands, I would love that. My district, the average home is worth $212,000. And it's the highest--one of the highest in the State. And actually when I say that, let me say the community I live in, which is one of the more--it's above average in income. But the average loan here that people borrowed was $313,000--the loan itself. That's quite a loan. And to say that the taxpayers need to pay that mortgage down makes no sense when these are the children, this is the generation that's going to have to pay it back. We need to get serious. We need to get out pictures of our children and our grandchildren and we need to say, Do we really need to come to the rescue of these banks when they've overextended loans? How about all of those Americans who are making their payments and didn't buy a house and are not underwater? Should you ask those Americans to pay to banks money that they didn't obligate themselves to? The answer is ``no.'' ``No'' to more government spending.

Mr. BACHUS. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. BACHUS. Would the gentlelady tell the Members, when you write that check to help them with their underwater home, that check goes to Bank of America. That check goes to Citibank. That check goes to just fill in the bank, fill in the mortgage company. It goes to whoever loaned the money. It doesn't go to the homeowner. Are they benefited? Yes. And tell the Members of this body who pays for that check. We do. The American people.

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BACHUS. Let me say this: I would prefer that this amendment notify all Americans, particularly taxpayers, that we are stopping a program that authorizes $8 billion worth of spending. Having said that, I think this is a good amendment. I know there may be Members who say they don't want to be contacted, but I will tell you this: People do call us from time to time, and they say, I'm having trouble with paying my mortgage. I'm facing foreclosure, and I can't get in touch with my lender or my servicer, and I'm not sure who I should talk to. We put them in communication many times with the servicer or the lender. We go further and actually help some of them with their applications. On 18 occasions this last year, we helped citizens with applications to lenders for modifications. I think it's a good service, particularly with the recession we have now. I think it's a far, far better approach than a government program that uses taxpayer dollars, because we are contacting the lender or the servicer, and that is who ought to talk to the borrower. That's who could have an obligation or who has an interest in working it out. On almost every occasion with the mortgages, it is in the interest of the borrower and the lender to work it out.

Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. If I continue to have time, let me say this in closing: I do want to caution Members that it is not an obligation of Congress or of Members of Congress--and I think Ms. Waters would agree--to intervene and to suggest to the lenders that they do anything other than give due consideration. We simply put them in communication. Now, we will help them with the applications, but I think it is important, in all our dealings, that we do not try to intervene in legal obligations or in any way appear to coerce or influence that outcome. I think this is a very good amendment, and I would encourage Members to support it. There are also VA programs and FHA programs that we can put borrowers in touch with. This, I believe, is an amendment I will support. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, this is simply a procedural measure to stop this legislation which cuts yet again another wasteful government program. This program has already allocated $50 million and it has only helped 42 American families. Do that math. It authorizes $8 billion. That's at a time when this country has a record deficit for this year. And yet they don't get the message, my Democratic colleagues. They simply do not realize this money goes to the lender, this goes to the banks, that's who the checks are made out to. And who pays for it? The taxpayers. And, ultimately, this is who pays for it: our children and our grandchildren. We can't pay it back because we borrow 42 cents out of every dollar. And let me tell you, a lot of them have grandparents. When you talk about seniors, let's talk about our children and our grandchildren. Let's talk about that we're endangering their future. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm).

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and Speaker Boehner, Leader Cantor and the House leadership for bringing this important resolution forward. This resolution represents the opening battle in the fight against the continued expansion and overreach of the regulatory state, that state being the Federal Government. We have just gone through 4 years of a very liberal Congress and 2 years of a very liberal administration, and working hand in hand, they have passed massive new laws that expanded government and weakened personal freedom. The 10th Amendment says that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are left to the States and the people. But from health care to financial services to other sectors of the economy, Congress has ceded its constitutional responsibility to unelected and unaccountable Federal bureaucrats. Two years ago, President Obama reminded us that elections matter when he said, ``I won.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, in November, the American people won. In doing so, they made it clear to anyone listening that they strenuously objected to the direction that our country has taken. They object to the limitations imposed on our freedom, on our choices, and on our ability to create jobs. This is not new. In the past as well as in the current administration, liberal Presidents who could not achieve their goals by the consent of the people have resorted to regulatory fiat to give their most extreme supporters what they want. Under these regulatory regimes, the power of Congress and the people has been reduced to notice and comment, a notice and comment period in which they can only state their objections. However, as is becoming increasingly apparent to the American people, these comments are regularly ignored by the regulators. The expansion of the regulatory state continues to concentrate power in the executive branch and to marginalize representative government with congressionally enacted legislation being replaced by decrees from regulators who are insulated from the popular vote. Fortunately, this Congress is committed to doing something about unnecessary and unreasonable regulatory burdens, and the resolution we are debating today is a great start. Under this resolution, 10 House committees--including the Financial Services Committee--will review pending and existing regulations to determine their impact on our Nation's economy, on its ability to create jobs and, most importantly, our own personal freedoms. This review comes not a moment too soon. Our job creators struggle under a seemingly endless and constant flurry of mandates pushed out by the administration and initiated under the former majority in Congress. Nothing better illustrates the rule of the unelected in the regulatory state than the Dodd-Frank Act. As a result of this one massive piece of legislation passed in the last Congress, there will be a tsunami of 300 new Washington rules and regulations. The burden of these regulations will almost certainly limit access to credit for small businesses and consumers. They will divert private sector resources that should go to expanding businesses and creating jobs. And they will also limit the owners and the consumers of those firms from making their own choices and decisions. The Financial Services Committee has heard testimony from many witnesses about the harmful impact of the act. One of them, the Cargill Corporation alone, told us that the act's requirements on derivatives would cost the company $1 billion, funds that otherwise would be deployed for the construction of a new plant in Kansas City, a plant that would create thousands of jobs and put Americans back to work. That is only one example of the uncertainty our economy faces due to these new Washington regulations. It shows how the expanding regulatory state too often forces U.S. companies to divert resources and time away from job creation and investment and instead toward obeying the ever- growing demands of a bigger and more intrusive government. In a hearing in my committee only this morning, there was bipartisan agreement and no opposition to a provision in our oversight plan offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) requiring a review of the mixed messages in which we hear Washington regulators calling for increased lending by banks but examiners in the field micromanaging bank activities and stifling lending. These conflicting signals are creating uncertainty that prevents banks from lending to small businesses, and in extreme cases they have caused the failures of those very banks. This uncertainty, in turn, impedes economic growth and costs jobs. Let me conclude by saying this Congress was elected to limit the scope of the Federal Government, not to expand it. Our forefathers who fashioned the 10th Amendment would be pleased with our debate and our efforts today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is the size of the Federal Government and the size of our regulations. In the last 4 years of our Democratic Congress, which took power in January of 2007--and I will remind everyone that that was prior to the financial crisis--our national debt doubled in that period of time. In other words, we have incurred more debt in the past 4 years under a Democrat Senate and a Democrat House and in the last 2 years under a Democrat President than we had in the 220 years before. We are talking about a record national debt of $14 trillion. We are talking about a growth in the size of the Federal Government which in 10 years will absorb every dollar and every dime and every penny generated by our economy. Now think of such a thing--every dollar being spent by the Federal Government. You have to ask yourself: With record deficits and record debt, don't we have too much Federal Government? Don't we have more government than we can afford? Don't we have more government than we need? So I think it is entirely fitting for us to look at each government program and ask ourselves: Is there a benefit from this program? Is there a cost to this program? Does it eliminate jobs? If you will go through a list of comments that people have made to these regulations, you will see comment after comment after comment: this regulation will cost my business this much money. This regulation will cost this much money. I won't be able to create a job. So the government is spending record amounts of money. Yet it's adding to the cost, not only to the taxpayers, but to the cost for them to earn a living themselves. Our Secretary of Defense, a member of the administration, has warned--he said that this country's dire fiscal situation and the threat it poses to American influence and credibility around the world will only get worse unless the U.S. Government gets its finances in order. He actually says that our financial situation is affecting our credibility, and that's absolutely true. Didn't we see Japan's sovereign debt downgraded recently? Standard & Poor's has said, if we don't act, our debt will be downgraded. We talk about foreclosures. If our credit rating goes down, can you imagine the wave of foreclosures, the wave of job losses? We talk about foreclosures. What causes foreclosures? Most of it is job loss. We have testified here today--and we will tomorrow--that this regulation will cost jobs. You talk about foreclosures. Regulations that cost jobs cause foreclosures. It's that simple. We talk about the State and local governments not having tax revenue. When people lose their jobs, they don't pay the State; they don't pay the city; they don't pay the Federal Government. They can't. Yet we continue to add cost and job- killing regulations. Admiral Mullen, our own chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said this: Our national debt is our biggest national security threat. What does it take for us to finally realize that we are putting our country in jeopardy? We for 224 years have lived and enjoyed an independent democracy, a Republic, but we are threatening that by our inability to say ``no,'' by our inability to say ``no'' to more Federal Government. Ladies and gentlemen, the answer is not growing government. It's turning the private sector loose.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, on February 9, 2011, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 27 and 28 due to the funeral of a very close friend in Athens, Georgia. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on No. 27 and ``yea'' on No. 28.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the first rule of the physician is ``do no harm.'' The government takeover of health care does a lot of harm, and the damage will get worse. Just on pure economics, it's a bitter pill. Small businesses are bracing for tax increases and higher costs. They are dropping coverage; they are holding off on new hires. The Federal Government is taking on a new open-ended entitlement it can't afford, and that at a time of historically high deficits, annual deficits and a national debt. Washington yet again is building a new bureaucracy to tell people what to do. The Federal Government has no business making private medical decisions that ought to be between you and the doctor. It violates the principles on which this country was established, American exceptionalism. America is not Europe. Our system is based on the individual, on choice, on freedom, on individual initiative and competition. The mandate that asks individuals to buy health insurance is an intrusion on our personal liberty and a violation of our constitutional principles. Allowing taxpayer money to pay for abortions is reprehensible and cannot be allowed to stand. We can address the issues in our health care system without the government running everything and spending uncontrollably. We heard what the American people said last November and in our town halls. To get health care right, we have to start by repealing a misguided law that is bad policy and bad medicine.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, I am happy to congratulate Larry Lavender and his wife Kathryn on the birth of their new son, Mr. Harrison Clay Lavender. Harrison was born on December 16, 2010, at 11:14 in the morning. I am excited for this new blessing to the Lavender family and wish them all the best.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding to me, and I thank he and Mr. Lewis for bringing this resolution. On the way over to the floor, I was on the elevator with two of my colleagues, John Culberson and Jo Ann Emerson, the gentleman from Texas and the gentlelady from Missouri, and they both had the same comment when I told them I was coming to speak about Cam Newton. They said: He is a phenomenal athlete, but he gave glory to God and he persevered. I think that Cam Newton is a reflection of each and every one of us. Hardship and difficulty is a part of life; either we have experienced it or we will experience it. We have seen Cam Newton and his family go through a challenging time; and, in doing so, he was not distracted. He persevered. He maintained a positive attitude. I think we have all seen his winning smile, a wonderful smile, and that smile sustained him and I think encouraged a lot of us through some pretty difficult times. In fact, I think he used some of the criticism and some of the difficulty and some of the challenges as a motivation. He appeared to even play better on the field. He is a phenomenal athlete. In many respects, he is almost superhuman in what he does; but in another respect, he is very human. And the one thing that I think is a story for each and every one of us, and I think Cam Newton is a great example, is that throughout it all, he expressed his faith--his faith in God and his faith that God would see him through. You know, our God is a God of second chances, a God of redemption; and I think it is important for us, when we think about Cam Newton, to think about a young man that improved himself, that did better, that resolved to learn from the experiences he had. To me, Cam is an inspiration, and he ought to be an inspiration to each and every one of us, any of us that, for whatever reason, find ourselves in a difficult or challenging situation, not to strike back at our critics, but simply to use it as a motivation. In such times that we do face difficulty, it is important to surround ourselves with good people, people that can be mentors and encouragers. He found that in the Auburn team. He expressed that in his Heisman speech, that his teammates were a big part of his success and had encouraged him. They had not lost faith in him. I believe the coaching staff and the atmosphere at Auburn University provided a loving environment, an encouraging environment. I commend coach Gene Chizik for believing in Cam, for giving Cam an opportunity to better himself and to prove himself. As a graduate of that school, I am proud of Auburn University for providing support and encouragement to Cam. Last year, I introduced a resolution congratulating Mark Ingram, another fine young man who preceded Cam Newton in winning the Heisman Trophy. Mark Ingram and the University of Alabama played for and won the national championship. Auburn University will try to attain that same goal. Mark Ingram from Alabama and Cam Newton from Auburn highlight a very special relationship in our State of Alabama between our two finest universities. They compete on the field. They compete intensely. The fans come together, both wanting to win, but they take pride in the fact that our State and our universities do have a competitive spirit, but also a spirit of friendship. I can tell you that the people of Alabama take great pride in our State in the fact that two of our finest universities have won consecutive Heisman Trophies and are competing for consecutive national championships. It once again highlights what is a wonderful, intense, and enjoyable competition that our two schools in Alabama have. It is another reason why I am proud to call Alabama my home. In closing, again I thank the gentleman from Anniston, Alabama (Mr. Rogers) who represents Auburn University well, and I say that to you as an alumnus of Auburn University. You are a credit to our university.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, on December 31, 2010, Michael L. Kerley, Esq. will retire from the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors after 41 years of dedicated service. It is a rarity in our Nation's Capital to find someone who has worked in one place for more than 10 years. For Mike to have been with NAIFA for over four decades is a tremendous achievement and a testament to his devotion and his character. Many of us in Washington know Mike as a passionate advocate for the life insurance industry and those individual agents who work tirelessly to help Americans take the steps necessary to protect their loves ones and their employees from financial disaster in the wake of life's inevitable risks. Members on both sides of the aisle have had the pleasure of working with Mike and know him to be a man of high integrity and sincerity. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mike on an incredibly successful career and wishing him well.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, as we honor our veterans on Veterans Day 2010, it is an appropriate time to commend the service of Colonel Bill Voigt for his dedicated work as the President of National Veterans Day in Birmingham. Birmingham, Alabama is the proud birthplace of Veterans Day. National Veterans Day in Birmingham is recognized by the U.S. Veterans Administration as the oldest largest observance of its kind in the nation. As the organizing director for more than 20 years, Colonel Voigt has honored and built on this legacy which has become the model for paying tribute to our troops in uniform and esteemed veterans for their service and sacrifice for the cause of freedom. The annual parade in downtown Birmingham attracts more than 5,000 participants and 20,000 spectators, and the associated luncheons and dinners have provided a forum for recognizing our nation's most prominent patriots. The success of National Veterans Day in Birmingham every year can be traced to the leadership of Colonel Bill Voigt. Colonel Voigt has spent his career serving his nation in the military as well as the State of Alabama. His family's roots are in Walker County and, while born in California, he was raised here at home. He attained his undergraduate degree at Auburn University and his Masters of Business Administration at University of Alabama at Birmingham. Colonel Voigt was a member of the Alabama Air National Guard for over 30 years and served in the United States Air Force Reserve as well. His many community awards and accolades include his selection as a permanent Member of the Alabama Senior Citizens Hall of Fame and his service on the Board of Directors of Birmingham Honor Flight. Colonel Bill Voigt has devoted his life to his family, his country, and our brave men and women in uniform. As he retires as the President of National Veterans Day in Birmingham, we properly take pause to salute him for his selfless dedication to the United States of America, his concern for the well-being of our troops and veterans, and the enduring qualities of duty, honor, and service that he has exemplified with such distinction in our Birmingham community.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to recognize the contributions of Johnnie Aycock, the President and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce of West Alabama, for his dedicated and tireless work to bring greater opportunity to the people of our region and State. Johnnie has announced plans to retire from the Chamber effective March 21, 2011 after 28 years of exemplary service. During Johnnie's tenure, the West Alabama Chamber of Commerce has earned statewide recognition and respect for economic and workforce development, education initiatives and innovation in community development programming. West Alabama has enjoyed significant economic achievements, from the recruitment of large manufacturing plants to the development of many new small businesses. Johnnie's ability to build partnerships among the private sector, educational institutions, and government has been an integral part of this success. Johnnie has stressed the importance of business leaders being active in public affairs and in their communities. He founded Leadership Tuscaloosa, which has trained more than 900 citizens in leadership. He has served on the Alabama Governor's Commission on Existing Industries and as Co-Chair of the Committee on Tax, Incentives & Fiscal Policy and has freely given of his time and talents to numerous civic organizations including the Alabama Jaycees, the Literacy Council of West Alabama, Junior Achievement, and the Rotary Club of Tuscaloosa. Johnnie has been recognized for his outstanding work with honors that include the Phi Delta Kappa's Outstanding Citizen For Education in Tuscaloosa County, the Tuscaloosa Advertising Federation's Bronze Oak Wreath Award for Community Service, the Outstanding Commitment to Public Service Award from the University of Alabama, and induction into the Tuscaloosa County Civic Hall of Fame. A skilled communicator, Johnnie is the author of ``Tuscaloosa: The Tradition, The Spirit, The Vision'' and a contributor to the book, ``Tuscaloosa: Centennial Progress, Millennial Hopes.'' He has been a columnist for the Tuscaloosa Business Ink Magazine, Planet Weekly, and Tuscaloosa Christian Family Magazine and for 7 years wrote a weekly column for the Tuscaloosa News. Johnnie Aycock is a graduate of Auburn University and the Institute of Organization Management at the University of Notre Dame. He is also a graduate of the Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, North Carolina. Johnnie is a former member of the faculty of the Kettering Foundation's Public Policy Institute and has served as an adjunct professor at Stillman College's Management Institute. The sound economic base and high quality of life that distinguishes West Alabama can be traced in no small part to the energy and enthusiasm of Johnnie Aycock. It is has been my pleasure to work with Johnnie on many economic development, education, and service initiatives during my time in Congress. Though Johnnie is retiring from his leadership position at the West Alabama Chamber of Commerce, I have no doubt that he will continue to be a devoted servant to the community that he so dearly loves.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address this legislation, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 5458 requires private education loan lenders to provide disclosures to students about the benefits of creating a durable power of attorney. For most traditional students, a student loan is the first large financial decision he or she will be making. As such, a student and the cosigner of the loan--often a parent, as with the Bryskis-- should be aware of their repayment responsibilities, including those responsibilities if the student should become unable to make payments. And so disclosures, I think, are always helpful. In addition to existing disclosures for loans, this bill requires private education loan lenders to provide additional information to students and cosigners about the benefits of durable powers of attorney for financial decision-making. A college's financial aid administrator would also be required to provide information to students and their cosigners about creating a durable power of attorney. I do have some concerns not addressed to this bill itself but that the Federal Government is nearing the point of requiring so many disclosures that they may overwhelm the consumer. I also fear that the requirement that the Federal Reserve Board create 50 different forms based on various State laws surrounding durable powers of attorney will be especially burdensome to the Board. But that's a minor concern. While a better solution long term would be to provide two simple disclosures that ensure that the cosigners and the students understand the responsibilities of loan repayment and are provided a place to do their own research about durable powers of attorney, this may be the first time that an individual may have a need for this sort of legal document, and these additional disclosures could help better inform the borrowers and cosigners. So for that reason I do not rise in opposition to this legislation. I want to extend my prayers and thoughts to the Bryski family and other families who experience such a tragedy as this. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his kind words. I yield back the balance of my time.