Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 134, which recognizes the 50th Anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s visit to India. It will be my honor to co-chair a delegation led by Congressman John Lewis, a colleague of Dr. King and true hero of the civil rights movement, that is going to New Delhi to commemorate his historic trip. The lessons that Dr. King drew from Mahatma Gandhi's teachings of nonviolence came at a pivotal time in American history. A century earlier, the issue of race and equality tore the United States apart. President Abraham Lincoln, whose 200th birthday we celebrate this year, prophetically said, ``I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free.'' Unable to resolve this fundamental issue of human rights either politically or peacefully, the United States descended into an awful Civil War. After four bitter and bloody years, slavery was abolished and America's soul saved, but the undressed wounds of injustice and intolerance were deep and raw. Several lifetimes later, amid a crescendo for full civil rights from millions still denied, leaders like Dr. King faced a choice. Was the way again through armed conflict, with all of its suffering, or through nonviolent resistance relying on the power of morality over mortar? The principles of Gandhi helped show the way. We know that Dr. King's gracious welcome and textured experiences in India served to guide him more surely down the path he had chosen for his people and country. He said, ``Since being in India, I am more convinced than ever before that the method of nonviolent resistance is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for justice and human dignity.'' Those beliefs would be put to the test during the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, including in my home state in Alabama. Sometimes, the challenges were visible and shocking, as they were with the church bombings in Birmingham and beatings at the Pettus Bridge in Selma. More often, there were the subtle slights born of fear and prejudice. But whatever the indignity or assault suffered, the response was never hate. In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Dr. King set the direction: ``I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek.'' It is now 2009, 50 years since Dr. King's visit to India. I believe the U.S. has come farther in these last 50 years than in the preceding 100 years. Providing all of our citizens with true equal protection under the law has made us a better, stronger nation. We will recognize the lasting legacy of the movement for nonviolent change next month when the Faith and Politics Institute holds its biennial Civil Rights Pilgrimage to Alabama. It has been my privilege to be associated with the Institute and this event, which brings citizens of all ages and races together to reflect on the lessons of the civil rights movement and retrace the steps of its courageous pioneers. One mark of how far we've come is the creation of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute, which overlooks the same park where fire hoses and police dogs were unleashed against peaceful citizens in 1963. But what will be remembered in American history for all time is the inauguration of President Barack Obama. There is a small vignette from that day that perfectly illustrates the healing that has transpired in America and gives hope for the future. About 30 constituents from Congressman Danny Davis's Chicago District was in the hallway where my office is located, unable to squeeze into a hearing room to view the President's speech on television. My staff invited them in and they all watched the speech together, a group of African-American constituents in the office of a Southern conservative. That is a mighty transformation since the racial turmoil in Birmingham. We were united in celebration of the hope and promise that is America. Hope and faith is what inspired Dr. King during his mission and it is what brings us together today.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chair, I and Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Manzullo, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Gary Miller of California, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Posey, Ms. Jenkins and Mr. Paulsen submit the following for the Record: Committee on Financial Services Republican Views on H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, January 28, 2009 $15 billion of the $1.16 trillion in costs (debt plus servicing) associated with H.R. 1, the ``American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009'' (ARRA), falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services. The stated goal of this legislation is to provide immediate stimulus to our ailing economy. It is, therefore, imperative that this legislation target funds to programs and organizations which offer the maximum immediate economic stimulus, and ensures that bad actors are not rewarded. Yet, several provisions included in the bill do not meet this standard. First, this legislation does not have important safeguards to prevent funds from being distributed to organizations--such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)--implicated in illegal activities. Second, the $15 billion earmarked for existing housing programs in Title XII of ARRA cannot be spent in a timely and efficient manner that will provide the economic stimulus that is so sorely needed. The majority of the housing programs funded under the stimulus bill have large unexpended balances sitting in their accounts. While the funds have been obligated, the programs have very slow spend-out rates. According to the Appropriations Committee staff: Public Housing Capital Fund has $7 billion in unexpended balances ($2 B in 2008; $1.5 B 2007; $1 B 2006 and $500 million in 2005). Given the backlog in the pipeline, there is a legitimate question whether this new $5 billion can be spent in a timely enough manner to have a stimulative effect on the economy. The Section 202 (elderly housing) program has an unexpended balance of $4.4 billion and the Section 811 (disabled housing) program has a $1 billion unexpended balance. This program allows for $2.5 billion in ``energy retrofit investments.'' While this may be a laudable long term goal, its relationship to economic stimulus seems tenuous. Native American Block Grants Program currently has $1 billion in unexpended balances in its account; yet $500 million, which is essentially another year's worth of funding for this program, is included in H.R. 1. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which was enacted seven months ago, has yet to disburse any of the $4 billion authorized under the program to states or localities eligible for funding. However, H.R. 1 includes another $4.19 billion for this program. We are concerned that H.R. 1 includes billions of dollars in new spending on existing programs that are clearly in need of reform. In addition, H.R. 1 rewrites the Neighborhood Stabilization Program that Congress enacted last year, which was designed as a one-time appropriation. There is considerable disagreement on the merits of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, and no evidence that it works, given that no funds have been disbursed to date. In an editorial dated January 25, 2009, the Washington Post stated: For sheer irrationality, it would be hard to top the $4.19 billion the bill would give to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, on top of $4 billion authorized last year. This program gives local governments money to buy and rehabilitate homes that have been foreclosed on--thus giving lenders an incentive to foreclose on more houses. In addition to questioning the economic stimulus nature of the housing funds included in H.R. 1, we are concerned that the bill gives groups, such as ACORN, access to billions of taxpayer dollars. ACORN already qualifies for and receives millions of dollars in Federal funding as a HUD-certified housing counselor through HUD's HOME and Community Development Block Grant programs. According to a 2008 analysis conducted by House Republicans, ACORN has received at least $53 million in direct Federal funding since 1994. The group receives millions more from the government through indirect funding from states and cities. At a time of financial distress, Congress should not reward bad actors that illegally manipulate our electoral process. Last Congress, language was included in the ``Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008'' (HERA) (Public Law 110-289) barring any group indicted for Federal election fraud or that hired an individual indicted for Federal election fraud from accessing funds made available through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. This provision had the effect of rendering ACORN ineligible for assistance. Due to the changes to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program included in the economic stimulus bill, it is unclear whether those same safeguards and restrictions continue to apply. It is important that Congress take steps to revive our economy. However, H.R. 1--specifically the spending on housing programs in this legislation and the lack of safeguards--will not translate into the necessary stimulus to get our economy moving again. Instead, we believe that allowing hard working American families to keep more of their earnings in the form of tax cuts will have a far more positive economic effect than any amount of government spending and borrowing. When individuals are able to take home more of their earnings, they will save, spend and invest more--all of which help stimulate the economy.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for clarifying.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, in September Congress rushed to approve $350 billion to prevent what we were told was a doomsday scenario, that Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke warned could bring down our financial system. They said, if we failed to act to stabilize our financial markets our banking system could cease to function. Very serious words. And we did act. Now, just last week, we approved $350 billion with an option, if necessary, to commit another $350 billion. Just last week, in a letter to Congress, to Members on both sides of the aisle, we were told by Secretary Paulson, and let me quote, ``We have, in fact, met our original, stated objectives, which were to immediately stabilize the financial system by strengthening financial institutions, arresting the wave of financial organization failures, and establishing a basis for recovery.'' You'll recall back then that six of our largest institutions collapsed within a month or two. Now, what began back in September as an emergency response to stabilize our financial markets has morphed before our very eyes into a string of taxpayer-funded bailouts. I don't think you've failed to notice that. I know the American people have not. Trillions of dollars in taxpayer-backed guarantees and loans have been extended over the past 5 months. A week after Secretary Paulson announced that the September legislation had met its original goals, they came back again. The government and his agents and his agencies are ready and are anxious to dole out another $350 billion in, what I call, a grab bag of free taxpayer money. But before the government and the new Obama administration can spend this additional $350 billion, they are required by law to submit a detailed plan, telling the Congress just how they intend to spend the taxpayers' money. They are required to tell us not only how they intend to spend it and what they're going to do with it, but they are to go into detail. I would think that means the purpose of each program, the amount of money, the recipients, the amounts, and perhaps whether AIG is included. How much is going to them? At a time when Americans--our families, our constituents--are struggling to make ends meet and to make their mortgage payments, that's only fair. We need to be informed. It's a duty we ought to take seriously. We need the facts. We need all of the facts, not just some talking points, not just some broad suggestions. Not only do we need to know and to look at it as we require them to do, but the American people deserve no less. We do know some things. We do know that special interest groups and their lobbyists are lined up to grab their piece of a very expensive, taxpayer-funded pie. They're calling on most of us, and have this week. They're ready. They're anxious. There is a sense of urgency there. They want a piece of the taxpayer. We know for sure that Chairman Barney Frank's bill before us today isn't going anywhere with or without amendments. It's not going anywhere. The Senate has repeatedly indicated that they have no intention of taking it up, much less of passing it. Is that my interpretation? No. Let me quote the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. ``Congress doesn't have time to take up Chairman Frank's plan to spend the money.'' We've had the Paulson plan. Now we've got the Frank plan. I guess we've got the Obama plan, but the Frank plan is never going to see the light of day. The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee came back. He was asked to clarify, and he again reiterated. He said, ``Trying to flesh out a bill form is really impossible.'' We just don't have the time to do it. We're not going to do it. It's not going to happen. What about the detailed plan requiring the administration to tell us how they intend to spend these additional hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, which was a requirement that was essential in convincing Members to vote for the bill in September? We're not going to vote for it; we're not going to pass it unless we get attached to the request a detailed plan telling us where it's going, telling us who is getting it, telling us how much, giving us detailed terms. Well, Mr. Chairman, we don't have that plan. Here is what we have. Here is what is attached to this request for $350 billion. All we have are these 322 words. Mr. Chairman, that's more than $1 billion per word. What did we get? We got a document that basically consists of six talking points, some of which sound good, but they are nothing that inform us or the American people as to how the money will be spent. For example, here is what the plan says that was submitted on the request of the Obama administration. It will ``focus resources on measures that achieve goals in the most effective and efficient manner.'' That sounds pretty good. Let me repeat that. ``Focus resources on measures that achieve goals in the most effective and efficient manner based on current and forecasted financial market conditions.'' Do you know who that's going to? Do you know how much? Here is another one. There aren't many words here, but here are another 10 of them: ``TARP programs should encourage broad participation.'' That's not even close to a detailed plan. Perhaps we're supposed to rely on the incoming administration to provide us with these details of how they will spend the money. After all, as I said, they've requested the current administration to send this request up. Here is the plan. No. No. The new team was going to change things, but apparently not. It's the same old, same old. They haven't attached a detailed plan required by Congress for the American people or for this Congress. Although not here, instead, they've sent us a three-page letter with five more talking points. So I guess, maybe, you could take these, which are part of the thing we'll vote on and part of the five talking points they've sent. It was just one of their economic advisers who sent it. What was the response to that little five-page letter from one of President-elect Obama's advisers? Well, the congressional Democrats said this: ``It fails to meet our standards.'' They said that they needed more details than the letter provided. They've not gotten it. A letter is not a law, and that's why the chairman brought this before the Congress. A letter is not a law, so he brought this bill, but then the Senate said forget it. So, 3 months after the House has passed legislation, here we are without any clue as to where the money is going, with embarrassing consequences, and we are going to do it again. We are at it again. We have not learned a thing. Chairman Frank and the Democratic leadership, you're again on the floor, claiming there is no time for careful consideration under regular order, with a 75-page bill that was introduced less than a week ago. No committee markup will ever be held on this bill. Why not? I don't know. I wrote the chairman. I said, ``Why can't we have a markup?'' I've not received a response, perhaps because a markup isn't necessary. Amendments aren't necessary. This debate is not necessary. Its only purpose is to grease the skids for congressional approval of yet another bailout. Oh, we got some conditions; we got some terms; we passed a bill to nowhere; we gave it our best shot. It didn't come from a committee, and it's going absolutely nowhere. Someone talked about this wonderful opportunity we were going to have today to define how this money was going to be used. Well, folks, a bill that is going nowhere isn't much of an opportunity. It has no legal effect. Where should the request for this $350 billion go? I say back to the current administration and to the new administration until such time as the American people and this Congress get the facts. Why do they suddenly need another $350 billion? Is it another $350 billion sedative for the stock market to calm it for a week or two? Who exactly gets the money--what industries? under what conditions? Mr. Frank has talked about foreclosures and mitigation. It's a worthy thing. Well, I looked to the Obama administration official and what he said about that, and he said, ``Hope for homeowners. Hope for homeowners.'' Now, Mr. Frank, the chairman, wrote, ``Hope for homeowners,'' and 13 lucky homeowners have received a mortgage or a mortgage workout, 13. I suppose and I believe that the chairman is going to work out a new mortgage program, but we don't know what it is. We don't know how much money is going to it. The President-elect says he is going to change the bankruptcy laws. I wonder how. I wonder if we shouldn't get some detail from him. He says he is going to make some bold changes in how this money is spent. He has said that he is going to see that distressed homeowners and people who can't pay their car notes receive relief out of this money. I would invite you to read those three pages. Above all, he says he is going to change; he is going to change; he is going to change. Do you know the one thing he didn't change? No details, no terms, no identification of recipients. He has certainly not been more transparent and accountable. He could have waited 5 days, and he could have filed a detailed plan, and he could have told the American people and this Congress before we voted exactly what he wanted to do, but instead, we get a bill that's not going anywhere, and we get to put some amendments in it. That doesn't sound like much of a change. In fact, it almost sounds like we're going backwards, because we're not going to pass any conditions this time, none whatsoever. Who gets the money? Under what conditions? We and the American people are going to have to wait. Then I say we vote. We need to do what's right, not what's popular. We need to do what's right. We need to be informed. Yes, there is a sense of urgency, but there also should be a thorough debate, and we ought to know the details of the plan. To be informed, we need to know the facts, and we don't have them. That's the bottom line, and a bill to nowhere doesn't change that. Mr. Chairman, there was a time not too long ago when it was the banks that loaned money to the people. Today, unfortunately, it's the other way around. Banks are asking the people to loan them money. They're asking our constituents, our voters--many of them struggling to pay the very banks that are asking again for help. The President-elect says that he is going to see that more bold steps are made to inject capital into those banks. He is going to spread it out. He is going to give some of the banks money that didn't get the money before. He is going to change some of the terms. Now, I have not a clue--and neither do you--as to how, but let me tell you something, one thing, and I will close with this: It is time that the banks started lending money to people, not the other way around. We, on behalf of the taxpayers and our constituents, can put a stop to this, and we can do it now. We can tell the current administration and the next administration ``no'' to yet another $350 billion blank check bailout. Enough is enough. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BACHUS. May I inquire as to how much time is left on each side?

Mr. BACHUS. I temporarily reserve my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I don't think that we need that kind of speaker.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I have no other speakers and would like to reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman from Massachusetts has no further speakers and is ready to close.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire into the time left on both sides.

Mr. BACHUS. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. BACHUS. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).