Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, let me say this to the membership on both sides. I believe that we've come together in a bipartisan way to pass this legislation today because we have confidence in America. We have confidence in the American people. We believe the American people have a right to have confidence. And I would say whether we're Members or Americans, I would say to all of us, you have every reason to have confidence in this country. You have every reason to have confidence in the workers of this country, their innovative ability and their ability to produce and compete in the world economy. You have every reason to be confident in the American economic system. That's the message that I heard in New York City from many institutions that said they had money to loan. There are companies out there who are making money, that want to hire people, that want to build new plants, that want to expand, that want to buy equipment, that want to invest in new technology, but because of what they read in the paper, not because of their balance sheet, but because of what they're hearing is that things may get worse, there is a lack of confidence out there. I don't believe that it is entirely justified. This country has challenges. This economy has weaknesses, and we've talked about those. But our underlying fundamental economic system and our financial system is sound. And I hope by us today joining together in a bipartisan way to pass this legislation we'll be saying to the American people, your Congress has confidence in you and the economy.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer). (Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the bipartisan economic stimulus package, and let me share with the Members a conversation I had yesterday. I traveled to New York City, and there I met with 20 to 25 of the financial leaders of our country. The executives were from some of the largest banks and other lending institutions, insurance companies, in America. And almost to the person they told me that they had been talking to businesses all over the United States, and the message they continue to get from the majority of those business leaders is our business is good, we're making the money, we are receiving new orders, we want to expand, we want to hire people, we want to invest in new equipment, we want to invest in new technology. But we're holding back because we hear that things are getting worse, we hear that things may get worse, we're reading that in the newspaper, and we're not sure. So I believe that what we have here in America today, and let's not minimize the problems. I'm going to speak about the housing market in a minute, and as Chairman Frank said, I'll not minimize the difficulties that we have in the housing market or subprime, but let me say to the Members, let's not talk ourselves and the American people into a recession. And I'm not saying that any of us are. This is not directed at any Member. I say it this way: I want to encourage the Members and all Americans to have confidence in this country, have confidence in our market, because I will tell you that people in New York that are looking out there in America are saying that a lot of businesses are good, they want to invest, they want to hire people. So part of what I think is so good about this stimulus package is that I believe it will encourage people to have confidence. It will encourage people to invest or spend. The Financial Services Committee, as Chairman Frank said, was responsible for the housing portion of the stimulus package, and I will direct some statements to those portions in a minute. Before I do, I want to add a few words in strong support of the tax cuts contained in this stimulus package, and they are tax cuts. The stimulus package that we're considering today recognizes the basic economic reality that getting money back in the hands of people who earned it is the best way to help our economy. The tax element of this package has been called a rebate, but in essence, it's a tax cut, a tax cut for millions of low- and middle- income Americans, those who need it the most, those with a moderate income. I believe this will be immediate tax relief for hardworking taxpayers, and the improvement into our economy that always results from allowing taxpayers to decide how their hard-earned money will be spent will be beneficial. Some have said not all Americans will spend this money. Some will save it. I think our answer to that ought to be, yes, some will spend it, most economists tell us that the vast majority. Some will save it, but that's their choice, not our choice. That's America. I am confident that whether they save it, whether they spend it, whether they pay down their bills, whether they invest as businesses will in new equipment, that it will all be good for America. Hopefully, it will stimulate not only the economy but it will also prompt my colleagues to enact additional tax cuts in the future and make the Bush tax cuts that have worked so well permanent. It is widely recognized that the troubled housing market is a significant contributor to the current downturn in our economy. It is not contributing to our economy as it has in the past. We all know housing prices are down. This stimulus package includes several provisions designed to address that lack of liquidity, that weak market in certain segments of the mortgage market. The bill increases, but only on a temporary basis, the loan limits that apply to mortgages that can be purchased by the housing GSEs, Fannie and Freddie, and by ensuring that the Federal Housing Administration and those that are insured by the Federal Housing Administration, most people refer to as FHA, it will increase the size of those mortgages and mortgages that they can insure and offer. Greater availability of higher-cost mortgages and FHA-insured loans will help get prospective homebuyers off the sidelines and into the housing market. We're hearing that today from the national Realtors. In those markets, there have been price declines. In some they have been particularly severe. This legislation will assist existing homeowners to refinance loans that they're struggling with. It will also allow those who want to buy and are on the sidelines now to begin making offers and to restore our housing market. The combined changes, I believe, will help restore confidence to our economy, and we need that confidence. The higher GSE and FHA loan limits, like the other provisions of the package, are both targeted and temporary, they expire at the end of this year, thereby addressing the concerns of those who fear that expanding the eligibility for the GSEs and FHA loan products will unduly increase Federal housing subsidies. I share those concerns. While I would have preferred that the increases be implemented as part of a comprehensive GSE and FHA reform, I'm encouraged, very encouraged, by the commitments that Chairman Frank and the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee have made to us that achievement of those broader reforms in the GSEs and FHA are a priority for them, also, and that achievement of those broader reforms will be among the highest priorities of this congressional session. I look forward to that important work. As the GSEs purchase larger mortgages and take on more risk, it is incumbent that this Congress produce legislation that creates a world- class regulator for these enterprises and fully protects U.S. taxpayers. We have heard from both the Treasury Secretary and the President about the need for this reform. This House has passed legislation making that reform law. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to follow our example. Let me close by saying the bottom line, I believe, is we must not only take the measures we do today, which are going to offer real solutions, but also do whatever we can to increase and encourage optimism among Americans. That's what we need. Hope has been mentioned very often in this Presidential campaign. Our message needs to be to the American people that our economy is strong. There are businesses that are ready to hire, ready to invest, ready to buy new technology. There is a legitimate reason for optimism today, and we should promote that optimism. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by commending President Bush, Chairman Frank, Chairman Rangel, Ranking Member McCrery, and all the Republican and Democratic leadership of the House for coming together so quickly for this stimulus package. There is hope for America. There is reason for optimism. This package, I believe, will contribute to that optimism and that hope. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. I thank the chairman for that. Another problem that we have with it is eliminating the demolition- only grants, because on certain occasions we feel like public housing, there may be adequate housing other places, or vouchers or a better system. But I think one of the main causes of concerns we have, and the gentlelady from West Virginia, is the green requirements. While some of the provisions have merit, we believe that they have, number one, the unintended result of reducing the number of affordable housing units that can actually be constructed under HOPE VI. In fact, I have a letter I would like to introduce from the homebuilders, but also a coalition of National Affordable Housing Management Association. And basically what they say here is that the additional cost burdens of these particular green compliances will greatly discourage the development of these projects and drive up the cost substantially. January 14, 2008. Hon. Barney Frank, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Maxine Waters, Chair, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Spencer Bachus, Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Shelley Moore Capito, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Committee Leaders: The undersigned organizations, who work collectively in support of affordable housing and promoting sustainability in our nation's housing stock, are writing to express our opposition to H.R. 3524, The HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act, in its current form. We do appreciate that the forthcoming Manager's amendment will make several important improvements to the bill. For example, we support allowing HUD to grant a waiver to the one-for-one replacement provision under certain circumstances. However, we suggest that HUD also should be able to provide waivers related to funding realities. If one-for-one replacement renders a deal infeasible, there should be enough flexibility to waive that provision. We also believe that extending the period in which all replacement units must be provided after demolition has been completed from 12 to 36 months is very sensible. HOPE VI projects must contend with many variables, from weather conditions, securing local approvals and working extensively with tenant groups. All of these factors can increase construction periods beyond what otherwise might be considered normal. However, while our organizations have long-supported this important housing program, there are several provisions in the bill which we believe are so onerous that private developers may no longer be able to participate, jeopardizing the very existence of the program. Specifically, our main objection is that the legislation will unfairly and unnecessarily drive up development costs by mandating compliance with privately developed green building rating systems. The additional cost burdens for green compliance adds further impediments to an already complicated financing structure for HOPE VI projects and could greatly discourage developers from undertaking future projects. In addition, there are provisions related to the occupancy of HOPE VI projects that are unclear and could be interpreted to prevent owners from instituting sensible eligibility standards. Green Building Mandate Our members are committed to working on increasing the sustainability of affordable housing, as well as keeping housing affordable in all markets. We believe that mandatory green requirements in the HOPE VI program will have unintended consequences that far outweigh any sustainability gains. Dramatic reductions in additional HOPE VI projects is a very real possibility because of increased costs that developers would have to finance based on the proposed provisions in the bill. There is a limited amount of HOPE VI funding, and a developer's ability to leverage a significant amount of additional financing is limited. In addition, total development costs (TDC) are capped. Unless TDCs are allowed to increase (or alternatively, the costs of complying with the green building requirements are excluded from TDC), the developers may be forced to scrimp on other important aspects of these developments to pay for costly green components. Decisions on what aspects of green development can be afforded in these properties should be left to the developers and their partner public housing agencies. HUD has recognized this as a practicable approach, as demonstrated by its implementation of green building incentives in the Mark-to-Market program. Further, the specific reference to only one green rating system will stifle innovation and technology advancement in all aspects of green building. During a time when green building is growing exponentially and programs are competing to be the ``greenest,'' Congress should not be codifying one inflexible benchmark that cannot adapt to future sustainability needs. Congress should not be using the HOPE VI program to pick winners and losers in the green building arena. Keeping green building as flexible and competitive as possible reaps the greatest environmental and economic rewards. Mandating a specific green building requirement for HOPE VI is short-sighted, overly restrictive and costly and is a disservice to community affordable housing needs. Sustainable green design for all housing markets should be protected from government mandates and rigid statutory benchmarks. Green building means something different in every climate zone, just as every market has differing demands for affordable housing. It is important to understand that opposing a green building mandate in no way signals opposition to sustainability or environmental conservation. Green building should not be driven to the lowest common denominator or serve as a deterrent for development of these vital housing projects. Opposing the green building requirements in this bill demonstrates awareness that green building is an important variable that needs to be incorporated into HOPE VI in a manner that is functional, flexible, and encourages more energy and resource-efficient construction in the future. eligibility provisions The Limitation on Exclusion provision (Section 7(m)(2)) could be interpreted to place limits on the public housing agencies' (PHAs) ability to establish reasonable eligibility criteria for occupancy in the new HOPE VI development. The provision says that replacement housing under a HOPE VI plan must be subject to the same policies, practices, standards, and criteria regarding waiting lists, tenant screening (including screening criteria such as credit checks), and occupancy that apply to other housing owned, managed or assisted by the PHA. However, the provision goes on to say that a household cannot be excluded from the HOPE VI development, except to the extent specifically provided by other provisions of Federal law (e.g., relating to safety and security in public and assisted housing; ineligibility of drug criminals, illegal drug users, alcohol abusers and dangerous sex offenders; as well as preferences for the elderly and disabled; and persons convicted of methamphetamine offenses). This seems to preclude PHAs from screening for credit worthiness or other typical screening criteria. We support holding all households to the same standards. We note that HUD's Housing Choice Voucher Handbook encourages PHAs and owners to adopt screening policies that take into consideration tenancy history related to payment of rent and utility bills; caring for a unit and premises; respecting the rights of others to the peaceful enjoyment of their housing; drug-related criminal activity or other criminal activity that is a threat to life, safety or property of others and compliance with other essential conditions of tenancy. The proposed provision in H.R. 3524 could be interpreted to undermine HUD's existing policies and create an unfair disadvantage to other eligible tenants who wish to move into a HOPE VI property. Further, it appears that the bill may provide a de facto preference to applicants that have been released from a prison or other correctional facility. It is the responsibility of the owner/landlord to ensure a safe environment for all residents, and such a preference may preclude their ability to honor that responsibility. The owners of HOPE VI developments must be able to implement good business practices to attract investors and lenders. Otherwise, the developments will be viewed as too risky, and the developer's financing prospects will be in jeopardy. We suggest that these provisions be clarified to ensure that PHAs can continue to set fair and reasonable screening and eligibility standards that are applied to all households. other We believe that the provision eliminating HUD's ability to award demolition grants should be revisited. There may be circumstances under which a demolition only is warranted. HUD and PHAs should be allowed to retain this current authority. summary Our organizations are committed to furthering the sustainability of affordable housing and believe that the success of these efforts lies in the ability of the industry to take advantage of the innovations that are constantly occurring in the market. The provisions in H.R. 3524, The HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act, as currently written, will impede these efforts by mandating the use of one specific system. In addition, owners of HOPE VI properties must be able to establish reasonable and workable occupancy policies that are fair to all prospective tenants in HOPE VI communities. Our organizations stand ready to work with the Committee to craft an effective and appropriate way to address green building and eligibility standards within the HOPE VI program. Thank you for your consideration of our views. Institute of Real Estate Management. National Affordable Housing Management Association. National Apartment Association. National Association of Home Builders. National Multi Housing Council. More important, and let me close by saying this, and this is a serious problem with this bill, I have a letter from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. They say that the standards we're using in this bill, let me quote them: ``If a builder wants to use wood and receive LEED certification,'' that's the program we're using, ``they are largely forced to use wood products grown and manufactured overseas.'' ``This puts American workers and American products at a competitive disadvantage.'' United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Washington, DC, January 11, 2008. Hon. Barney Frank, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Maxine Waters, Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Spencer Bachus, Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Shelley Moore Capito, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairmen Frank and Waters, and Ranking Members Bachus and Capito: On behalf of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, I am writing to express our concerns with provisions of H.R. 3524 that would require non- residential construction in HOPE VI grant projects to meet the United States Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating criteria. For the last four years, the Carpenters have had a great interest in green building legislation as it affects both parts of our union--the part that constructs buildings and the part that harvests and manufactures wood products that are used in them. Therefore, we are strong supporters of green building, but want to ensure that building ``green'' does not result in ``pink'' slips for our members. Over this time, we have found a number of important flaws in the LEED system that we believe makes it unsatisfactory for the marketplace and should not be the only standard referenced in legislation. Our primary concern is LEED's failure to recognize all credible, sustainable forestry certification programs in its certified wood credit. LEED only provides credit to builders using forest products certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). No credits are awarded for wood products produced by other companies independently third party certified to the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) Program standard or the American Tree Farm System, the two largest sustainable forest management systems in the United States. These two systems account for over 90 million acres of forestland, yet do not qualify for points under LEED. Therefore, if a builder wants to use wood and receive LEED certification, they are largely forced to use wood products grown or manufactured overseas. This puts American workers and American products at a competitive disadvantage. LEED also discriminates against wood compared to other imported building products. LEED credits builders for using ``rapidly renewable materials,'' which are defined as products originating from plants harvested in a 10-year cycle. As you might expect, construction lumber cannot earn this credit since it takes more than ten years for a tree to grow to a usable size and diameter. Instead, if a builder uses exotic crops such as imported bamboo, they can earn the credit. As a result of these flaws, we have actively supported other green building systems that are inclusive in regard to the use of wood. One system that we have supported at the national, state and local levels is the Green Building Initiative's Green Globes program. Unlike LEED, it recognizes all the major sustainable forestry programs used in the United States and does not put wood at a disadvantage compared to other building products. Also unlike LEED, Green Globes takes into account the concept of life-cycle analysis, or the cost to operate the building over time. As a result, Green Globes has been increasingly recognized by federal agencies and state governments. At the federal level, it has been recognized by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, 11 states have written Green Globes into their state green building statutes, Therefore, we request that the legislation be modified in order to specifically include other standards, such as Green Globes. Should any amendments be offered to create a process that gives the government the opportunity to review and select a standard, we request that language be included that gives all eligible and viable green building standards equal consideration and ability to participate in the process. We believe that with these changes, we will produce a piece of legislation that meets all of the legislation's goals. Sincerely, Douglas J. McCarron, General President. Number 1, under the standards you've adopted, we won't be using wood, when it's one of our greatest renewable resources. We won't be using wood. So you will be putting a lot of carpenters and laborers and joiners out of work, the framers. But second, if you do use wood, you will have to import that wood. So, as an article in Slate magazine said, and it's the reason the University of Michigan in one of their projects is trying to decide whether they want to use this LEED program, LEED, this article in Slate magazine actually pointed out that you can put up a bicycle rack and you get the same credit as if you used an energy efficient heating system. That's wrong.

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chairman, Members of this body, let me say that there is a difference of opinion on our side and different opinions on our side. But I do believe that one thing ought to be clarified, and I believe I share this opinion with all my colleagues on this side. We believe the purpose of HOPE VI is not simply to replace a failed housing project model with another public housing project or community. We believe the purpose that all of us have, Republicans and Democrats, is to help those families in those communities have a better life and a better future, and hope. As I think the Urban Institute and others have found, the majority of those residents, and I don't dispute what the gentleman from Texas said, there are and there will be residents that will say I want to go back to that community. But, hopefully, and one thing HOPE VI does, that community is replaced by a much better community, a much better mixed-income community where there is more hope, there is less crime, there is less poverty, and there are residents in those communities that can actually help those children get jobs. But most, and every study that has looked at this, and maybe someone on your side will correct me, most, if not every, study has shown that the average resident of that community is going to choose not to come back to that same location, but to relocate to another area because in most cases the area they would relocate to is closer to their job, it's closer to a school, or if not a school, it's closer to a higher performing school, and they choose, through a voucher, to relocate. In fact, a substantial minority of those residents relocate to another community, get a better job, get a better income, and move totally off public assistance. There are a lot of fond memories in those communities, but there are a lot of people trapped in a circle of poverty in those communities and surrounded by criminal elements. And when we do this one-for-one model, I believe we are taking resources where we could give people the choice of relocating elsewhere and reestablishing what we had that we tore down.

Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. BACHUS. Would you continue to work with us to make sure that, in fact, is possible?

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment, and I would like to commend the majority on addressing several of our concerns. I think particularly the developmental timeline is very significant. I think it's a much more practical way of dealing with notifying tenants about changes, eligibility standards are much improved, and the provision on illegal aliens. I do think that the one-on-one replacement provision, and I very much appreciate you, I think, making a good change, and I think it allows more of our Members to support the underlying bill. I do intend to continue to support doing away with the one-on-one replacement for the reasons I said in earlier debate, because I still believe that for most people the best option is for them to move out of this concentrated housing. I also think it has an unintended consequence of restricting the ability to create a mixed-income community that you attract a mix of individuals into. So I will support the Neugebauer amendment. I think the green building requirement, it does do away with some specific references to the LEED rating standard. However, the Green Communities rating system for residential construction remains in the bill, and I believe that we have got to give more flexibility. Let's be environmentally sound, but let's don't adopt one standard, particularly as expressed by the Carpenters Union, the Laborers Union, also the National Home Builders. Let's not discriminate against American wood products. As we continue to move forward, I am sure that the cooperation you all have shown today will manifest itself, and we will continue to work on that. I will support, and I believe very much we need Mrs. Capito's amendments on the green building requirement.

Mr. BACHUS. Since HOPE VI, we've had a lot of success. I think the program is a success. How the program has been a success is not as simple as simply replacing units on-site. In fact, most of the residents of these housing projects have actually moved to other communities through vouchers. The main thing, I think, to remember is that it has eliminated some of the most dangerous and distressed public housing in the country and created livable, mixed-income communities; and that's very good. To date, there have been over 200 HOPE VI grants, and to various housing agencies. Almost all of them have been a success. These grants have been used to fund public/private partnerships that have changed landscapes once populated by failed housing projects and crime-ridden neighborhoods into vibrant mixed-income, mixed-use communities, providing quality, affordable housing for those in need. I think anybody on the Financial Services Committee who's attended these public hearings has heard the testimony of the living conditions that these tenants in public housing were living under. High crime areas, vandalism, dilapidated conditions, paint peeling off, lead, plumbing that didn't work, electricity that didn't work, heating that was inadequate, areas where there was such a concentration of crime that many of the youth growing up in those communities really had no or very few role models. In my home State of Alabama, there are several examples of projects where HOPE VI has made a tremendous difference. For example, Park Place is a 12-block section of downtown Birmingham that a HOPE VI grant has transformed into an attractive, mixed-income housing development. Not only has it decreased the concentration of low-income residents living in a crime-infested area with very few prospects of jobs, but it's also improved the surrounding communities. The surrounding communities, the property values were going down. It was more dangerous. And those areas have been improved. The commercial district downtown has improved. One of the stories that we need to realize is not only the improvement that we see in the community that was replaced or rehabilitated, but the community around it. But most residents, if you track where they've gone, they have chosen, through vouchers, and a lot of them just by simply turning down housing assistance, they've moved to other communities, and they're doing quite well. They've moved to communities where they think there are better schools. The students of those residents who have actually moved and not returned, they're doing better, on the average, than those residents who chose to return. In New Orleans, we actually found a lot of people chose not to go back to the original community because they did not trust the public housing authority. And that's one reason that we've tried to advocate not simply replacing these units on a one-by-one basis, and re- duplicating a bad situation. The Tuxedo Court project in Birmingham is going to replace 488 obsolete units of aging buildings with 331 modern, for-purchase rental homes. All the residents who are not going to relocate there have been given vouchers, or if they qualify, public assistance, and many of them have chosen to move to communities across town. Our vision, and I think the vision of both Democrats and Republicans on this committee, should be for the residents of those communities to better themselves and better their living conditions, their housing. It should be vibrant, mixed-use communities with good housing, safe streets, strong schools. In a previous debate, I mentioned a public housing project in downtown Atlanta called East Lake. East Lake was so dangerous that the police refused to patrol it. And it's not alone. Children slept in bathtubs or closets for fear of being hit by random gunfire. A developer by the name of Tom Cousins proposed replacing this crime- ridden project, where there was very little hope for the residents, very little future for the youth, with a mixed-income community. And that's been done. Today, professionals, accountants, doctors, lawyers, people with good income, are living side by side with families still on subsidized and on public assistance. The end result is a sharp reduction in crime in East Lake. But the more important result is a sharp increase in the level of academic achievement and success among the youth living in that community. Now, for all the good, we are concerned about this bill. First of all, it eliminates the Main Street Revitalization program, which was for the benefit of smaller communities.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and urge its immediate passage. We are voting on language very similar to legislation that passed the House 418-1 at the end of July, which supports the decision of state and local legislators and fund managers to divest from companies doing business in Sudan. However, the bill before us today does not require the government to create or be the source of a ``black list'' of such companies. For that reason, the Senate version is much more acceptable to the Administration. Some have said that today's legislation is too little, too late. This certainly may not be the case for more than a million innocent men, women, and children who have somehow survived the genocide and slaughter. We can't rewrite history or save lives already lost in Darfur. However, we can and must resolve to do better going forward. This legislation has the potential to give hundreds of thousands of peaceful and unarmed men, women, and children in Darfur an increased chance of surviving the genocide. Economic and financial considerations have been used to both block and water down our Sudan capital markets legislation in the past. Economic and financial considerations are important, but in a loving nation can never be used as justification for turning a blind eye to genocide. Closing our financial markets to those who participate directly or indirectly in the slaughter of innocent human beings is well within our ability and ought to be a bedrock principle. America is a loving nation, and allowing our financial markets to be utilized by an evil regime which conducts religious and racial genocide is inconsistent with our values and principles. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will help put strong pressure on a government that has consistently engaged in genocidal actions, both directly and as an enabler of paramilitary factions that are harassing and killing people in the Darfur region and elsewhere in Sudan. It is vital to keep the pressure on the Khartoum government, both because of the ``bait-and-switch'' game it has been playing with the rest of the world for years, pretending to make strides to end the genocide and then going back on its word when the world's outrage is temporarily spent. The latest outrage involves refusing to allow the deployment of non-African United Nations peacekeeping troops, due in two weeks, which it previously had agreed to accept. The objective of this legislation is one that I wholeheartedly embrace, and that I have sought to achieve in legislative proposals of my own in previous Congresses. Passage will be a strong expression of Congress's outrage over the continued genocide in Darfur. I urge its immediate passage. I want to thank the staff that worked on this important effort. From Chairman Frank's staff, Jim Segel, Scott Morris, Daniel McGlinchey and Nancy Alexander; from Representative Barbara Lee's staff, Chrisos Isentas; from Representative Donald Payne's staff, Noelle Lusane; from Representative Ileana Ros--Lehtinen's staff, Gene Gurevida and Yleen Poblette; from Representative Frank Wolf's staff, Molly Miller; from Representative Christopher Smith's staff, Sherry Rickert; and Joe Pinder, Kevin Edgar, and Anthony Cimino from my own staff.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge Congresswoman Lee's kind remarks. I very much appreciate the fact that she and I have cooperated so many times on these issues. Chairman Frank, on this issue, has been wonderful, and I commend him. Also, a member of his staff, Jim Segel, I would like to acknowledge Jim, and represent all the Democratic staff. And Joe Pinder and our staff, I congratulate them on the fine job they've done. At this time, I would like to call on two of our Members, both Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey and also Representative Ros- Lehtinen. Ileana has been very active and personally involved in this issue. At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. BACHUS. I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield all additional time to Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen of the International Relations Committee for her knowledge and her fine work.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Congresswoman Lee has, I think appropriately, mentioned several Members who have worked hard on this legislation. And historically in this Congress the House has come together to work very hard in a bipartisan way, not always successfully. Several years ago, we passed a capital market sanction unanimously out of the House. It went to the Senate, and unfortunately it died there. We're voting on legislation that passed the House this last July with a vote of 418-1. It supports the decisions of State and local legislatures and fund managers to divest from companies doing business in Sudan. However, the bill before us today does not require the government to create or be the source of a ``black list'' for such companies. We all know the SEC had some problems with maintaining such a list, and at times was inaccurate. For this reason, the Senate version is more acceptable to the administration and to many of us in the House. Some have said today's legislation is too little, too late, but that certainly is not the case for more than 1 million innocent men, women and children who have somehow survived the genocide and slaughter in Sudan. We can't rewrite history or save lives already lost in Darfur; however, we can and we must resolve to do better going forward. This legislation has the potential to give hundreds of thousands of peaceful and unarmed men, women and children in Darfur an increased chance of surviving the genocide. Economic and financial considerations in the past have halted some of us in the House from using our efforts against the Sudan Government. They've been used to block and water down our Sudan capital markets legislation in the past. Economic and financial considerations are important, but in a loving Nation, such considerations can never be used as a justification for turning a blind eye to genocide. Closing our financial markets to those who participate directly or indirectly in the slaughter of innocent human beings is well within our ability and ought to be a bedrock principle of our Nation. America is a loving Nation, and allowing our financial markets to be utilized by an evil, and that's a strong word, but in this case it fits, an evil regime which conducts religious and racial genocide is inconsistent with our values and our principles. This legislation will help put strong pressure on the Government of Sudan that has consistently engaged in genocidal actions both directly and as an enabler of paramilitary factions that are harassing and killing people in Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan on a daily basis. It is vital to keep the pressure on Khartoum, both because of the bait-and-switch games it regularly plays with the rest of the world, and has done so for years, pretending to make strides to end the genocide, and then going back on its word when the world's outrage is temporarily spent. The latest outrage involves refusing to allow the deployment of non-African United Nations peacekeeping troops, due in two weeks, which it previously had agreed to accept. The objective of this legislation is one that those of us on our side wholeheartedly embrace. In fact, three of our Members who have been to Sudan and have consistently for years worked in the slaughter there will speak in support of the legislation. Their advice and counsel on the legislative proposal has been invaluable. Passage of this legislation will give a strong expression of Congress' outrage over the continued genocide in Darfur. At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who really has been a passionate crusader against the outrage that we now know as Darfur, and I recognize him for such time as he may consume. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the concerns of many of my House colleagues, the New York delegation, concerning certain aspects of this bill. It is not a perfect bill. It is the bill the Senate sent back over. I believe, despite the circumstances in which we find ourselves, it is a reasonable measure. I believe it will ensure the continued vitality of our commercial insurance markets as they operate under the threat of global terrorism. I believe it is fiscally responsible. Many on my side would have preferred a 3-year bill, as the gentleman from Louisiana talked about. Originally, it was a 3-year bill. I believe the New York delegation can take satisfaction from the fact that it was a 7-year extension and that it does cover domestic acts of terrorism. I applaud them for that. But I think, on the other hand, it does offer limits and improves taxpayer protections and prevents further intrusions by the government into a market-based system. For that, I thank many of my colleagues on my side, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Campbell and others, who voiced their concerns. Mr. Speaker, I again applaud the hard work and the willingness of the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Frank, to work with Members on both sides of the aisle and to bring the bill here today before the House. He faced a hard decision. He has worked hard on this. He made, I think, a very passionate and, I think, in many respects, reasoned defense of his position. We do know going forward that we need to pay particular attention, if the terrorists continue to threaten our largest city and target it, that we are fully supportive of the people of New York City. I thank all of my colleagues in both the House and the Senate who worked on TRIA for a long time. Whatever else has happened, we have come together today. It may have been an emotional journey, but we are going to pass legislation that I believe will be effective, and I urge adoption of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I will surrender any time I have left to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be given another minute.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) who worked very hard on this bill. And as many of us know, when Louisiana was hit by Hurricane Katrina, he worked very diligently on that. I think he also has played a yeoman's part in this process.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2761, the Terrorist Insurance Revision Extension Act of 2007. I think the legislation is critical to our Nation's economic security and the proper functioning of the insurance marketplace. Let me thank Chairman Frank and his staff and Representatives Capuano, Price, Kanjorski and Baker for all their leadership and hard work on TRIA this year. We would not have enacted TRIA this year had the House not acted several months ago before the Senate and set the stage for this current compromise. I would also like to acknowledge the strong contributions of Mr. Ackerman and the New York City delegation, Mr. King and Mr. Fossella. I would also like to acknowledge their concern with regard to this bill. We all remember the attack on New York City more than 6 years ago. We are grateful that we have not suffered another attack on the homeland. I think there is recognition among many Members of this body that New York City is a symbol of our financial strength. It is not only that it is a symbol; it is a gateway to our country for many immigrants and it quite naturally was on September 11, and could be, again, chief among the targets. So I would say to Mr. Ackerman, I appreciate your passion and your participation, and we are dealing with a compromise here. In the absence of further attacks, it would be easy to forget the chaos and the economic disruption that followed in the wake of 9/11 and, more importantly, the loss of life that we all witnessed in a very personal way, but New York City's residents in an even more personal and deadly experience for them. In 2002, it was fresh in our minds, and we created TRIA, which did help to settle the markets and made possible the strong economic recovery that followed, and TRIA was and remains a central element of our commitment to the American people to do all that we can to ensure the stability of our economy in the event the unthinkable happens again. In a moment I am going to call on Mr. King, the gentleman from New York, who worked very hard on this bill. Terrorist acts are aimed at our Nation as a whole. The resulting damage and suffering inevitably fall on a relative few of our communities and citizens. We know that New York City is a primary target of these terrorists. And although I am an ardent supporter of free markets, I believe it is entirely appropriate for our government to minimize economic fallout and disruption sure to arise from any new attack. Terrorism is a relatively new phenomenon in America, and we are dealing with terrorist organizations which have both the intent and the potential to deliver deadly strikes against our homeland. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, a member of our leadership team, Mr. Cantor.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), and I would like to acknowledge to him, publicly, and to the New York delegation that most of us in America probably do not realize the contribution and the special nature of the City of New York and its contributions, both financially and I think socially, to the United States. To many around the world, it does represent our leading city and is truly a target. When they target New York City, they target all of us.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, whom I have great respect for, indicated several times that we are here today because of the Senate's inaction and intransigence. Now, I'm not going to argue that point. The Senate, what they didn't do is they didn't take action on our bill, but what they did do is they came together and they unanimously passed legislation, and that legislation is very close to what House Republicans advocated from day one. They did take action. They passed legislation. The President said he'll sign it. It's legislation that Treasury said is consistent with the original declarations of the TRIA bill. I share the chairman's frustration on the predicament we find ourselves in. I wish the Senate had been willing to engage in a conference to allow Members the opportunity to work out their differences on the extension of this program. However, I will tell the chairman this: The House Republicans, many of us on that conference committee, would have voted to adopt the Senate language. So the Senate bill, in my opinion, had we conferenced, we would have still passed the Senate bill. Now, the chairman has expressed his frustration with the Senate that they are holding a gun to our head. I'm not going to characterize it in that regard. Whether it is or isn't, I wish it wasn't so. But the clock has run out on this Congress and the opportunity to get anything done on TRIA has, as a practical matter, gone by. But if it is so important, and most Members of this body believe it is, it's important to pass legislation today, and that's the Senate legislation. The motion to recommit removes additions in the bill offered by the majority and returns the TRIA language to that passed by the Senate last month by unanimous consent. The Senate bill reflects a bipartisan compromise with the administration. It extends the TRIA program for 7 years, the same amount of time that we advocated in a bipartisan bill in the House. We didn't get a bipartisan bill in the House. It wasn't a bad bill. It wasn't a bad bill. But that bill when it passed and the bill today, the bill that was just offered, is not going to become law. The Senate bill includes coverage for domestic terrorism. Many in this body felt like it ought to include that. It imposes a liability cap for the marketplace. That's good. I think it's a responsible, measured approach to extending a vital program, as many have characterized it. Not all on this side agree. But the majority on this side will come together, the majority of the minority, and pass what you say is a vital program and we'll do it today. The administration has said they will veto the House bill. Both sides of the aisle and the Senate have indicated that the Senate is unwilling to consider it. We have a gripe against the Senate, but let's take that up with the Senate. A large number of Members in the House may continue to oppose the Senate bill. You have an opportunity to vote on it in just a minute. The only TRIA extension that can get enacted is the Senate compromise. Many say I wish it wasn't so. It is. The only responsible course for this House to take is to accept the Senate bill and move on. My motion is the Senate compromise. We have 19 days until TRIA expires. Let me say it again. That's not a practical time left for the industry to comply with legislation. In a reasoned society, a deliberative body would never pass a bill and ask the American people to adopt all that in 5 days. Mr. Speaker, we cannot risk TRIA's expiration. We need to get the job done now. A vote for this motion to recommit is a vote to promote economic vitality in this country.