Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chairman, the end users of derivatives are the ones that utilize these derivatives. And these weren't large, national companies. They were small businesses. They set the collateral requirements. They set the margin requirements, and they did so safely. They didn't cause the financial meltdown. They were the victims of that meltdown. And they established those collateral requirements and the margins. They did so in an appropriate way. In fact, you know, what the chairman said, the SEC and the CFTC ought to do this. You know, actually, they didn't act in a very responsible manner leading up to this meltdown last September. Let me simply say this: Requiring greater margin and capital requirements on companies that never got in trouble leads to fewer jobs. It's going to lead to greater volatility in food and energy prices, and a loss of capital investments. I'm just going to give you two pieces of testimony before our committee. Steve Holmes of Deere and Company said, ``We have a number of contracts that extend well into the future. If these existing contracts are not permitted an exemption from clearing and collateral requirements, we would have to terminate the transactions at a significant cost.'' That would cost John Deere workers their jobs. John Hixson of Cargill, Inc., said, ``For us, we've estimated it (collateral requirements) would cost approximately $1 billion depending on market conditions--an additional amount of money we'd have to borrow. We've built a brand new oil seed facility. Our largest in the U.S. is in Kansas City. So we have to choose: whether you put the money in margin, or do you continue and build that plant? That's the type of thing we'd have to decide,'' marginal requirements or jobs.

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BACHUS. I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to the manager's amendment. I think the manager's amendment illustrates the contradictions between the statements we've heard from the other side and the actual substance of the legislation. I just want to point out three or four conflicts between what it says and what they say it says. The changes in the majority's $150 billion permanent bailout fund actually contradict the will of the majority of the Financial Services Committee by undermining the orderly and expedient resolution of failed firms. The body will recall, members of the Financial Services Committee, that we adopted an amendment in the committee that eliminated the conservatorship authority and limited the receivership to 1 year. Chairman Frank has basically said this is going to be a death panel; we're going to put these companies to death. And in committee, they were going to be given 1 year, but the manager's amendment comes back and extends the term limit for doing this to 3 years, 3 years in which these failed companies or counterparties or creditors won't be put to death, as the chairman said, but they will be subsidized out of this, I guess, $150 billion fund, or what could actually turn into another $50 billion if the Treasury asks the Congress to fund it with taxpayer money and adds an additional $50 billion. This is another example of why we need the Republican substitute. Instead of picking which politically important firms we are going to let survive and which less connected firms we are going to let disappear and fail, in the Republican substitute, we utilize a fair, transparent, rules-based bankruptcy process to resolve and to liquidate these failed financial firms, not to keep them going at the expense of what could be billions of dollars. We think that the Republican alternative is the only real option for eliminating taxpayer bailouts. The chairman of the Financial Services Committee is also fond of saying that this legislation puts an end to the too-big-to-fail policy, which led to the bailout of our GSEs, of AIG and of other financial firms. Despite this claim, the reality is quite different. If you will look at page 45 of the manager's amendment, it specifically excludes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from the dissolution provisions of the underlying bill. In other words, if they fail, they are excluded. We don't wind them down. Why? Well, these two companies were at the center of the subprime lending problems that caused the financial market meltdown. Taxpayers have already pumped more than $100 billion into these failed GSEs, and they are likely to lose $300 billion more. It is unconscionable that we are going to exempt these two firms--our GSEs--from this dissolution authority. Finally, the last aspect I will mention--and this probably is as disturbing as anything--we are raiding this TARP program, rather than ending it, for another $4 billion. The manager's amendment diverts $4 billion from TARP to a number of other programs that the law was never intended to support. TARP was intended to be a temporary plan to restore the health of the credit markets and to protect the economy from systemic risk caused by the collapse of firms that the government, really, allowed to become too big to fail. We heard promises all last fall that the money would go back to the taxpayers. Instead, now we are talking about surpluses. We are talking about money that hasn't been used. It is almost like this is a ``walking around'' fund, and we're just going to take money out of it and use it on this pet project or on that pet project or on this good idea or on that good idea. Here is the first of those things, and it is $4 billion. Again, we are not giving it back to the taxpayers, and those promises made last September are now being broken. The President himself has said that he is extending TARP until October 10 of this year. What he is doing is turning it into a permanent bailout agency, into a kind of petty cash drawer for politically favored interests. Here we see the first one of those things--$4 billion. Part of it is $4 billion to help move this legislation across the finish line. Let me close by saying we need to end TARP. That's the solution. We need to end it now. We need to require all repayments to go directly towards paying down the debt. That's the bottom line. End TARP right now. Require that all payments be used to pay down the debt. There is no surplus. There are only deficits and debts. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this irresponsible breach of trust and this attack on our promises that we made last year. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chair, I recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) for 3 minutes.

Mr. BACHUS. Let me say with AIG, the counterparties and creditors of the largest financial institutions were paid off dollar for dollar. I think we have all read that in the paper. What this legislation does, it allows, in, quote, resolving this, it allows once again the creditors and the counterparties to be paid off. That is a bailout. In AIG, it was a bailout of creditors and counterparties. That's what is provided for here. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling). Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding funding that I requested as part of the H.R. 3288, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus Bill Number: H.R. 3288--the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Juvenile Justice Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Alabama Department of Public Safety Address of Requesting Entity: Post Office Box 1511 Montgomery AL, 36102-1511 Description of Request: Provide $150,000 for efforts to target the investigation, arrest, and prosecution of child sexual predators in the State of Alabama. Funding will be used for additional personnel and equipment. These funds will allow the investigation and prosecution of child sexual exploitation . The FY 1998 Justice Appropriations Act directed DOJ to create a national network of state and local law enforcement cyber units to investigate cases of child sexual exploitation; this funding will help the State of Alabama to fulfill that mission. The project's total budget is $500,000. Specifically within the budget, $225,000 will go toward permanent personnel salaries, $110,600 for fringe benefits, $75,000 for travel and training and $25,000 for equipment. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs--Juvenile Justice Account. The Alabama Department of Public Safety will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable. Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus Bill Number: H.R. 3288--the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Department of Justice, Department of Justice, OJP--Byrne Discretionary Grants Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Alabama Department of Public Safety Address of Requesting Entity: Post Office Box 1511 Montgomery AL, 36102-1511 Description of Request: Provide $1,000,000 for the Alabama Department of Public Safety/Alabama Bureau of Investigation Cyber Crimes Unit, Alabama Fusion Center and the University of Alabama at Birmingham will partner with Alabama District Attorneys Association in a multi-pronged approach to investigate and prosecute financial cyber crimes within Alabama. Staff will be hired to conduct computer research and monitor the phishing sites, train law enforcement agencies in analysis and investigative techniques as related to phishing, and conduct analysis and investigation into leads generated by the UAB Computer Forensics Department. This project will protect citizens from predatory actions such as cyber scams. Not only will more criminals be brought to justice but the victims will have a better chance of recovering losses. This will help protect financial institutions against fraud and lessen potential demands on the FDIC fund. The project's total budget is $3,215,585. Specifically within the budget, for the Alabama District Attorney's Association $225,000 will go toward personnel, $154,334 for fringe benefits, $60,000 for travel, $75,000 for supplies, $237,100 for equipment and $150,000 for other expenses; for the University of Alabama at Birmingham Association $364,639 will go toward personnel, $65,659 for fringe benefits, $50,000 for travel, $51,000 for tuition and health insurance,$210,000 for equipment and $289,997 indirect costs; and for the Alabama Department of Public Safety $238,968 will go toward personnel, $103,981 for fringe benefits, $60,907 for travel, $50,000 for supplies, $200,000 for equipment and $80,000 for other expenses. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs--Ju Byrne Discretionary Grants. The Alabama Department of Public Safety will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable. Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus Bill Number: H.R. 3288--the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Department of Justice, Department of Justice, COPS-Meth Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Alabama District Attorney's Association--Office of Prosecution Services Address of Requesting Entity: 515 South Perry Street Montgomery AL, 36104 Description of Request: Zerometh is Alabama's reaction to the destructive force of today's meth epidemic. Its purpose is to expose meth and its deadly consequences to teens and young adults (12-24). The goal is to stop a potential first-time user from ever trying the drug, while encouraging everyone to look for the warning signs and support treatment. The funding will be used to purchase media and develop presentations. Meth use is a national epidemic that requires attention at all levels, but education will be the critical step to slowing down the rate of addiction to the powerful job. Zerometh has a distinctly federal goal in its mission to educate young people as to the dangers of Meth and the impact it can have on their life. The project's total budget is $1,000,000. Specifically within the budget, $830,000 will go toward advertising and media expenses, $50,000 for meth education presentations, $55,000 for administration and training and $65,000 for equipment, supplies and printing. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Justice, COPS-Meth Account. The Alabama District Attorney's Association--Office of Prosecution Services will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a great country, and I think we are all proud of our country. It is no small tribute to our country that people all over the world dream about coming to America. Our forefathers, they were either born here or they dreamed of coming to America. America is not just a country; it's an idea, and that idea is about the individual. That's the basis of our country. It's not about the government. It's about the individual, it's about the citizen, it's about freedom, it's about choice. Mr. Chairman, the problem with this bill isn't the size of the bill. The problem with this bill is that it goes right to the heart and strikes a wound against the character of our country. It's the character and the culture of this legislation that is so wrong, and not the size. Individuals in this country ought to have the right to choose. They ought to have the right to choose their health care provider, their doctor. They ought to be able to make choices, health care choices, treatment choices between themselves, their doctor, their family, not the government. We see with health care that this idea of the individual, this idea of choice, this idea of freedom to make those choices is under attack. We found that with energy that not the individual, the country, but the government determined that we weren't going to use coal, our most abundant source. We weren't going to use oil, that we were going to tax, that we were going to tax energy, we were going to discourage that. We are taxing health care in the health care bill. In this bill we levy taxes. We have sanctions. People may still be able to make choices, but they will be discouraged or they will be taxed when they make those choices. The decision about seeking the doctor of your choice or the decision about borrowing money or the choice about lending money or the choice about the terms of that loan, those ought to be choices between individuals; those should not be managed by the government. Now, the chairman has brought this legislation before, and it is his legislation. I mean, his image and his imprint is clear on each and every page of this legislation. I have not really seen such an individual drive legislation since perhaps the first lady, Hillary Clinton, brought her government-managed health care to the floor in the early 1990s. This is just simply another way of an attempt on the part of, really--and I think the chairman really has faith in the government and the government's ability to manage and the government's ability to make decisions, that he actually has a sincere faith. In fact, members of this committee, members of this committee on TV this morning, and Democratic members, actually made references to Europe, the way they do things in Europe, the fact that the government is making these decisions in Europe. We are the greatest, as I said, the greatest country on the face of the Earth, and we didn't get there through government management. We didn't get there through government management of health care. We won't get there by government management of creditor or of lending or of other financial services. It won't happen. We are the largest economy in the world. It's not the British economy, it's not the French economy, it's not the Chinese economy, it's not the Japanese economy. It's the American economy. How did we get to be the largest economy in the world, three times larger than the next largest economy, the Japanese economy, bigger than the Chinese economy, the Japanese economy, the British economy and the French economy put together? We got there with faith in the individual, not in the government. That is what's wrong with this bill. You can clearly look, and nowhere is it more evident than in this bill that not only do we not have faith in the individual and in individual responsibility and an individual's right, sometimes, to take risk, but we also give individuals the right in this country to succeed. But when you do that, unlike in other countries, you give them the right to fail. This bill clearly establishes a bailout fund. It says when the largest companies in this country, when the largest companies in this country, when they fail, we are going to establish a $150 billion fund, a permanent fund, a permanent TARP. The Democratic gentleman from California, Mr. Brad Sherman, said TARP on steroids, and where do you get this money from? Well, actually, it's 200 billion, 150 you get, not from the companies that are failing, but from their competitors who are succeeding. You transfer that money to those companies that have taken risk they shouldn't have taken. You take it from those companies that didn't take those risks. That's not competition; that's socialism. Now, you can call it what you want to, but it's socialism. It's government managed. It's not what America is about. This is not about a crisis that occurred last September. This is not about the continuing bailouts that started with the Federal Reserve, an independent body, but continued and have grown in intensity under the Obama administration. But there is enough fault to go around. But can we not agree on one thing, that it is time that we allow people in this country to succeed, and we allow them to fail? Isn't it time in this country that we decide that there is no more ``too big to fail,'' because if you make that determination, you make the determination, as we have over the past year, that there are thousands of small businesses and medium-sized businesses and companies that were too small to save. That's not fair. That's not what America is about. It is not about taking from people who pay their mortgage. No matter what the circumstances of those who failed to pay their mortgage, it's not about transferring money from one to the other. That's not about America. It might be about charity, it might be about neighbor helping neighbor, but that is not what this country was established about. So let's not use the crisis that we have experienced this past year to create the calamity of a government-managed country where the individual, where freedom, where choice is a thing of the past. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Gutierrez came to the floor, and he made a point that we want to avoid what happened in AIG, but, in fact, I think he reminded the body of a very important thing, and that is what did happen in AIG. Large counterparties and creditors were bailed out. And whether you call it a permanent bailout authority--as we do--of $150 billion, or as the gentleman of Illinois says, a funeral fund of $150 billion, and it is used to bail out creditors and counterparties, now, isn't that what happened in AIG? Isn't that what the gentleman from Illinois and the chairman of the committee say they want to avoid? Yet they create a fund to bail out large counterparties and creditors. And in AIG, they bailed out 12 large counterparties, 10 of them foreign banks, 2 of them Wall Street firms. They didn't bail out any cities. They didn't bail out any counties. They didn't bail out any community banks. And over 1,000 were owed money. And they are creating another fund to do exactly that. I see my time has expired. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, when I joined the Army, they sent me to Fort Lewis, Washington; and one of the first things we did there was get in line to get our hair cut. We noticed on the wall there were pictures of four different haircuts, and they told us to choose one of those haircuts, get a number, and give it to the barber. We thought this was going to be pretty good. So we all gave him that number for the longest haircut. We all gave our numbers to the barber, and he cut all our hair off, every one of us. The numbers meant absolutely nothing. When we got back to the barracks, we knew who was in charge. We knew who was making the decisions, and it wasn't us. The Army was making all the decisions. Just like thinking you're going to get the haircut you choose, we're promised the right to choose under this bill. But the reality is, just like the Army, when the government's in charge, you're not. This bill is about a new government bureaucracy making all the choices for us. We're Americans. America is about freedom. Freedom is about making choices. And given the choice, I'll always put my faith in the individual, not the government.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I rise today in opposition to this legislation. Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying that this bill moves up the effective date on the underlying credit card bill, and that credit card bill is not a major bill. Unlike the health care bill, unlike the climate control bill, or the cap-and-tax bill, and unlike the systemic regulation bill, this bill addressed one thing and one thing only, and that was credit cards. We passed it 5 months ago. When we passed it, there were all these prophecies of wonderful things that were going to happen to consumers. We Republicans stood on the floor of this House, and we said there needed to be changes in this bill. We said, if this bill passed in its present form, which it did, that the cost of credit would increase for consumers. We said there would be limits placed on their credit lines. Sure enough--and I take no pleasure in saying this--5 months later, after President Obama signed this legislation, the so-called Credit CARD Act, into law, credit tightened. Consumers every day are facing notices in the mail that their credit rates are going up from 6 and 8 percent to 20-something percent. American Express and others have said they're going to start charging $100 fees. These are so-called unintended consequences. As a result of this legislation, we're seeing many consumers facing the cancellation of their credit cards, millions in fact. Regrettably, those warnings have come true. Small businesses, which rely heavily on consumer credit, are also feeling the credit crunch. They're the main creators of jobs in our country--small businesses. They need credit. According to the National Small Business Association, 79 percent of those small businesses which were surveyed just recently said that credit card lending standards have tightened dramatically in the last few months and that their credit lines are being decreased materially. The new credit card restrictions are exacerbating the economic crisis and the loss of jobs, and they are causing the shutdown of a key source of financing for small businesses and, therefore, job creation. Small businesses are the engine of our economy. They're the number one job creators. Of all businesses, they rely the most on credit cards and on credit lines from those credit cards. We shouldn't have restricted their ability to obtain credit. They need it to expand and to create jobs. This original bill came at just the wrong time. We could have stopped the abusive practices; but at the same time, we went beyond that and restricted the ability of credit card companies to protect themselves from people who didn't pay their credit card bills. That's really the essence of why this bill is not working, because we protected those who didn't pay their credit card payments. They're who are protected. We did some other good things, but we did that; and that was a mistake. Now, don't take my word for it as to the fact that this present legislation--and let me say this: it's very unlikely. This is sort of a charade because, I think, most of us realize that this legislation is not going to be enacted into law. It's December 1 now. I mean, it takes effect December 1. The Senate, I don't think, will even pick it up by December 1. Maybe they will. Maybe they will. If they do, I think the warning of Chairman Bernanke is appropriate. When asked about the feasibility of enacting the provisions of the bill we're now considering, here is what Chairman Bernanke said--and Chairman Bernanke is often quoted by the Members on the other side of the aisle: The board continues to believe that, given the breadth of changes required by the Credit CARD Act and its regulation, card issuers must be afforded sufficient time for implementation to allow for an orderly transition and to avoid unintended consequences, compliance difficulties, and potential liabilities. Well, we've seen those unintended consequences: no credit cards where people had credit cards and a country in which we had the most ability to have credit cards and the choices in credit cards at the lowest interest rates. That is beginning to change before our eyes. All of us share the goal of protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive credit card practices and of ensuring that cardholders receive useful and complete disclosures so that they have sufficient time to pay their cards and so that they aren't subjected to double- cycle billing, but we must be careful. Let this bill be a lesson to us, in trying to protect consumers or the government's intervening into these practices, that we do not impose new costs on them or on the U.S. economy as a whole. Just like the Speaker Pelosi health care plan we may consider later this week, this bill limits choice; it rations credit; it decreases costs; and it strangles innovation. According to recent studies, as many as 114 million Americans will lose their current health insurance coverage under the Democrats' health plan. Now, that's even more serious than the few million who have lost their credit cards under this legislation. Likewise, several million consumers will lose their credit cards or will see their credit lines severely restricted by this legislation. If there is one common denominator in Congress this year, it's the substitution of the government for the individual: with the stimulus, with the multiple bailouts, with the climate change legislation, with this credit card bill, with financial reform, and now, later this week, with health care. Instead of you making the choice, the government is making the choice for you. The United States of America is the world's largest economy. It's three times larger than our closest competitor, Japan; and it's larger than the economies of Japan, China, Germany, and of Great Britain combined. We got there through innovation. We got there through choice. We got there through competition. We got there through individual initiative and responsibility, not through government control and management. As we've seen time after time, when you substitute a government- controlled and -run program for individual choice, the cost goes up and the quality goes down. When it comes to health care, there is nothing more important than quality and choice. Given the choice, I'll always place my faith in the individual, not in the government; and this time is no different. It is no different with the credit card legislation. It is no different with the health care legislation. Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying many of my colleagues in this body, both Republicans and Democrats, are going to come in and they are going to vote for this legislation today. They are going to do so really, many of them, because of the underlying legislation and the animosity and the bad feelings it has created with the American people, who are seeing their credit lines limited and their interest rates raised. The American people are upset, and this bill is an attempt, I think, almost to cloud why those interest rates are going up. We need to help families, we need to help businesses that are struggling in this economic recession, and we need to create jobs. And, as we said 5 months ago, that was exactly the wrong time to saddle them with additional fees, higher interest rates, limit their credit lines and add significant new compliance burdens to our community banks. That was true 5 months ago on credit cards. We have seen the unintended results. We are going to vote on health care. Those results will be even more serious and more drastic. You will see a greater cost of health care. You will see a diminished quality. You will see rationing of care. We warned about unintended consequences 5 months ago. Those warnings weren't heeded. We are warning again, but this time we are dealing with a far more serious issue, and that is the quality of health care in America, the affordability of health care, and the ability to get services in this country that are not offered in other countries.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, if there is one common denominator in Congress this year, it is the substitution of government for the individual. With the stimulus, the multiple bailouts, cap-and-tax, and now health care, instead of you making the decision, the government makes it for you. We have seen time after time, when you substitute a government-run program for individual choice, the cost goes up and the quality goes down. When it comes to health care, there is nothing more important than quality and choice. Given the choice, I will always place my faith in the individual, not in the government, and this time is no different. The American economy is the world's largest. It is three times larger than the Japanese, our closest competitor. It is larger than the economies of Japan, China, Germany, and Great Britain combined. We got there through innovation, choice, competition, and individual initiative and responsibility, not government control and management. Let's keep it that way.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, on October 28, 2009, I missed rollcall vote 819 while visiting with World War II veterans from my district at the National World War II Memorial as part of the Birmingham and Gadsden Honor Flight program. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 819.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding funding that I requested as part of the H.R. 2997, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus Bill Number: H.R. 2997--Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Agricultural Research Service, Salaries and Expenses Account Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Auburn University Address of Requesting Entity: 202 Samford Hall, Auburn University, AL 36849 Description of Request: Provide $1,293,000 to develop and assist in adopting cropping systems that reduce production cost primarily by reducing the need for nitrogen fertilizer, pesticides, fuel, and equipment. Federal funding would allow the program to expand reniform nematode research throughout the state, develop more intense mature management research that includes bioenergy crops, and expand research on the development of alternative substrates for nursery crop production. Current and future profitability of agronomic based crop production in Alabama is dependent on these research and outreach efforts. Use of precision technologies associated with these studies have resulted in practices that saves fuel, herbicides, and fertilizers and protects Alabama's vital natural resources. The project's total budget is $1,900,000. Specifically within the budget, $1,298,740 will go toward permanent personnel salaries, $360,760 for research expense, and $240,500 for equipment. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Agricultural Research Service, Salaries and Expense Account. Auburn University will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride and admiration that I rise today to honor the Non-Commissioned Officers from the great state of Alabama who serve our Nation in the United States Army. NCOs from the my state have served in defense of our freedoms, in support of our democracy, and in service to the citizens of the state of Alabama during times of natural disasters and to our Nation in times of national emergencies at home and abroad. Since 9/11, Army Reservists from Alabama have deployed over 6,000 times and members of the Alabama Army National Guard have made over 15,000 deployments to the Global War on Terror, many for the second, third, and fourth time. The U.S. Army has designated 2009 as the ``Year of the NCO'' to pay tribute to the leadership qualities and contributions of the Non- Commissioned Officers charged with executing the military organization's mission and training for personnel and equipment maintenance that make their units function. Those values are embodied in the NCO Creed, which reads: No one is more professional than I. I am a Non-Commissioned Officer, a leader of soldiers. As a Non-Commissioned Officer, I realize that I am a member of a time honored corps, which is known as `The Backbone of the Army'. I am proud of the Corps of Non-Commissioned Officers and will at all times conduct myself so as to bring credit upon the Corps, the Military Service and my country regardless of the situation in which I find myself. I will not use my grade or position to attain pleasure, profit, or personal safety; Competence is my watchword. My two basic responsibilities will always be uppermost in my mind--accomplishment of my mission and the welfare of my soldiers. I will strive to remain technically and tactically proficient. I am aware of my role as a Non-Commissioned Officer. I will fulfill my responsibilities inherent in that role. All soldiers are entitled to outstanding leadership; I will provide that leadership. I know my soldiers and I will always place their needs above my own. I will communicate consistently with my soldiers and never leave them uninformed. I will be fair and impartial when recommending both rewards and punishment; Officers of my unit will have maximum time to accomplish their duties; they will not have to accomplish mine. I will earn their respect and confidence as well as that of my soldiers. I will be loyal to those with whom I serve; seniors, peers, and subordinates alike. I will exercise initiative by taking appropriate action in the absence of orders. I will not compromise my integrity, nor my moral courage. I will not forget, nor will I allow my comrades to forget that we are professionals, Non-Commissioned Officers, leaders! It is an honor to draw attention to these brave soldiers, and I commend Alabama's Army Non-Commissioned Officers for their service to our State and the Nation.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. The story of Helen Keller has inspired generations of Americans. It is especially meaningful for those of us from Alabama because Helen Keller is one of our own. Her statue will vividly remind us of a young girl from the rural south and how she overcame tremendous challenges to become a symbol of hope and determination for people throughout the world. As my colleague, Mr. Lungren, described, Helen was not even 2 years old when illness left her unable to see or hear. That would be difficult enough for a child and for a father and mother to deal with today with all our advantages. Imagine how devastating it must have been for a family in the Deep South during the 1880s. Some might have mistakenly assumed that Helen or a child who is blind and deaf may not aspire to do anything more than be cared for with compassion. But such is certainly not the normal mindset of children with physical limitations as many of us know. They have the same aspirations and hopes and dreams as their fellow children. It certainly was not the case for Helen. Helen's parents also refused to accept limits on their child or on her life, just as Helen. When she grew older, they refused to be limited by her disabilities. They had a deep and strong faith that their daughter could be educated and live a full and rich life. And while Helen could not yet express that she had the same determination, ultimately this would bring them in contact with Anne Sullivan and lead to the scene which is depicted by the new statue: that miraculous moment when Helen Keller, with water running over her hands, finally understood what a word meant and that word was ``water.'' Very few statues can tell such a moving story. This one does. But, of course, it is only the beginning of the story of Helen Keller and what she chose to use her life for, and that was to help others. As an educator, as an advocate, as a humanitarian, she showed there is no obstacle that cannot be overcome. Her life reminds us to cherish every member of our society because each person has unique gifts and blessings from God. The statue will be very popular, especially with children. It conveys the important message that whatever life's challenges, nothing should ever hold us back. We live in a country where you can overcome any obstacle and achieve your dreams if you work hard and possess the desire to succeed. There were many people involved with this project that the Alabama delegation wishes to acknowledge. My colleague, Parker Griffith, has mentioned Governor Bob Riley and his wife Patsy. They were two of the guiding forces behind the statue that is such a great gift from the people of Alabama to the people of our Nation. Governor, I hope you and the First Lady look upon this as one of your proudest legacies. Dr. Joe Busta from the University of South Alabama, who was co-chair of the Helen Keller Campaign, and his co-chair Elmer Harris, former CEO of Alabama Power. Dr. Bob Morris and his team at the Helen Keller Foundation. Dr. Morris devotes weeks of each year to restoring sight of children who have lost their sight and is actually a miracle worker today giving the gift of sight. Dr. Terry Graham, president of the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind, and Lynne Hanner from the Institute. Among the members who served on the Helen Keller Campaign and the Artist Selection Committee, the Alabama delegation is honored to have three members of the Keller family: great nephew Bill Johnson, great nephew Warren Johnson, and great grand niece Keller Johnson Thompson. And, of course, finally we recognize the outstanding work of the artist, Edward Hlavka. We all look forward to the formal unveiling of the Helen Keller statue next Wednesday. It will be a powerful moment for those of us from the State of Alabama at our beautiful Capitol. Let me thank Senator Sessions and Senator Shelby for their support of this resolution.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support of H.R. 2571, the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2009, and urge my colleagues to vote for its passage under suspension of the rules today. While there are many complex regulatory programs pending before our committee, today we are seeking to advance a modest but long-overdue measure to streamline the current system for surplus lines insurance and for reinsurance. Surplus lines insurance, also known as ``nonadmitted'' insurance, is highly specialized property and casualty insurance for exceptional risks, such as hazardous materials or amusement parks. H.R. 2571 would adopt a ``home state'' approach to address inconsistencies in state regulation of the surplus lines insurance market, and the bill generally follows the model law on nonadmitted insurance adopted by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. This legislation also addresses reinsurance in a similar way by designating the home state of the insurer purchasing reinsurance as the primary regulator of credit for reinsurance and the home state of the reinsurer as the primary regulator for the reinsurer's solvency. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 2571, I want to commend the bill's primary sponsors, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Moore and Capital Markets Subcommittee Ranking Member Garrett. They deserve credit for working together to move this bipartisan legislation through the House again this year and eventually we all hope into law. I also want to commend Congresswoman Brown-Waite, the original champion of this effort in the 109th Congress as well as a lead cosponsor in the 110th Congress and an original cosponsor again in this Congress. This will be the third time we are sending this important insurance reform proposal to the other body, and I hope our colleagues across the way will be able to see the value of enacting H.R. 2571 soon.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the following trade association letters are offered for the record in opposition to H.R. 3269 in order to supplement my remarks during debate: July 30, 2009. To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Re Opposition to H.R. 3269, Corporate and Financial Institutional Compensation Fairness Act of 2009. The undersigned organizations strongly oppose H.R. 3269, the ``Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act of 2009.'' We believe that the bill would result in substantial unintended consequences, especially the mandatory annual vote on pay requirement in section 2 and the precedent-setting authority granted to the federal government over executive and employee compensation in section 4. In sum, we believe the bill would result in a ``one-size-fits- all'' approach to compensation that would have substantial negative implications for proper functioning of the corporate governance process, responsible growth, and effective risk mitigation that, when coupled with other proposed legislation, would extend well beyond the financial services industry. Each of our organizations fully supports effective measures to increase awareness and mitigation of excessive risk in compensation. We believe that the board of directors, acting through an independent compensation committee, should be responsible for setting compensation because it is so closely linked to business strategy and succession planning. While many have developed and circulated principles to improve compensation and corporate governance, companies across all industries are taking steps to reinforce their understanding of these issues and are taking action to revise practices that may encourage excessive risk taking. Many of these changes, such as majority voting for directors, independent compensation committees, advisory Say on Pay votes, eliminating staggered boards, have been occurring on a company by company basis for a long period of time, without government mandates. Government Control over Compensation We oppose Section 4 of the bill because it would give the bank regulatory agencies authority to set the structure and thus the amount of executive and employee compensation provided in the form of incentives. While recognizing the federal government's role in ensuring the safety and soundness of our financial institutions, these provisions would effectively transfer authority for determining how a substantial part of compensation at these firms should be structured from the Board (for executives) and the company (for other employees) to a consortium of regulatory agencies. Our concerns include: The adoption of a one-size-fit all approach, which does not accommodate a company-specific approach to pay. The financial industry is expansive, and an incentive structure that may be deemed risky at one organization may be perfectly acceptable at another, depending on the company's business strategy, the risk profile of the organization, and mitigating elements of the total pay program. The legislation instructs the agencies to take a one-size fits all approach by prohibiting pay structures that ``could threaten the safety and soundness of covered financial institutions.'' Even if a company-specific approach were taken, the federal government has neither the experience nor expertise to set executive compensation arrangements for a wide variety of financial institutions. The legislation will replace the informed judgment of the board of directors and compensation committee with the cursory knowledge of a federal regulator, eroding the authority of the board and its ability to closely tailor compensation to the company. The Obama Administration did not ask for such expansive authority, no doubt a result of the interpretive and enforcement problems created by the poorly crafted executive compensation restrictions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which caused several companies to shift more pay to guaranteed salary, rather than reasonable performance-based incentives, in order to comply. In addition, because our associations represent companies across a variety of industries, we are also extremely concerned that this model of pay regulation would expand to other industries or situations, further putting the federal government in control of pay decisions for private companies. This legislation would establish a form of compensation regulation for employees who interact with consumers. Rather than creating a new bureaucracy, we believe a more effective approach to regulating risk in incentives would be to establish a clear set of principles for mitigating risk against which the regulatory agencies could review pay arrangements. A Mandatory Annual Vote on Pay Beyond section 4 of the bill, we also oppose an annual mandatory shareholder vote on executive compensation because it does not achieve the ends sought by proponents, is not sought by a majority of shareholders, and would not improve clear communication between shareholders and the board. While we oppose the requirement embodied in H.R. 3269, there may be viable alternatives that were unable to be explored with the limited time frame taken by the House Financial Services Committee in considering this legislation. The Board of Directors has a fiduciary duty for managing the company on behalf of all shareholders. The board's compensation committee is responsible for linking compensation incentives to confidential business strategy, aligning pay with the assessment of individual executive performance, and using long-term incentives to support the company's succession planning process. Annual say on pay votes would push compensation structures away from a company- specific approach to ``cookie-cutter'' arrangements designed to ensure a high vote total. Despite the economic environment, shareholder resolutions seeking a say on pay have only received a majority support at roughly 30 percent of the companies at which they were offered in 2009. A 2008 independent study by a leading academic found that among large institutional investors, only 25 percent supported a shareholder vote. An annual mandatory vote requirement in the United Kingdom has not reduced the overall level of compensation and has resulted in less of a link between pay and performance. Congressional attempts to regulate amounts or structures of compensation have typically backfired--increasing compensation or changing practices in unforeseen ways contrary to the intent of the restrictions. One need look no further then the history of stock options as a case study of this premise. While we oppose H.R. 3269 in its current form, because the legislation has been available for only a short time, we believe that more time is warranted to give Congress and interested parties an opportunity to fully analyze and discuss the potential for harmful unintended consequences. Thank you for your consideration of our views. We look forward to working with you on this and other legislation. Sincerely, Center for Executive Compensation, National Association of Manufacturers, Retail Industry Leaders Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).