Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want us to be clear about something. We hear from the majority this is a historic moment, and I will say to the majority I believe that it is. I believe that it is very significant. I don't believe that what we're debating here is insignificant at all. In fact, I want to yield the chairman 15 seconds to respond, but I believe the chairman himself has said, my recollection, that this trust fund would be the largest expansion of a Federal housing program in decades, and I yield to the chairman because when I said that before, he shook his head and I don't know if he was shaking his head at that. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as we start this discussion or debate about this new program, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund program, I think it is important to distinguish between what we disagree on and what we agree on. The first thing that we agree on is that Chairman Frank and the members of the majority have a sincere commitment to meeting the housing needs of low-income Americans, to make housing more affordable for low-income Americans, and we share that need. What we debated in committee, what we have debated on the floor of this House on two previous occasions and now, is how we meet those needs. What this legislation does is it creates a new National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. This is a new Federal program. In fact, Chairman Frank has said this is the largest expansion of a housing program I think in the last 30 years. Mr. Chairman, this is a multi-billion dollar program. We say that this is not the way to do it. If we are to address the unmet needs of low-income Americans for affordable housing, this is not the way to go. Why do we say that? Because presently there are over 30 Federal programs addressing affordable housing for low-income Americans. In addition to those 30-something programs at HUD, we have FHA and we have the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. What this legislation proposes to do is not reform any of those programs. What it proposes to do is take money from FHA and from the GSEs, Fannie and Freddie, and transfer that money into a new program. So we end up with all the programs we presently have, which it ought to be obvious to everyone apparently are not working. You are talking about the majority of the $35 billion. And when I say ``not working,'' let me say this to the chairman: They are not meeting the needs, or we wouldn't need to create a new program. But what we are saying is if there is something wrong with the existing program, if there is something wrong with the $35 billion we are presently committing under the HUD programs, if FHA or the GSEs are not doing their job, why come along and create another program? And then if FHA and the GSEs are doing their job, why take money from FHA and the GSEs, particularly because at the same time we are saying to those programs, we want you to play a larger role in the mortgage crisis, the subprime mortgage crisis in America, but at the same time we are taking money from those programs. So that is what we are debating. We are debating whether or not with all these programs, with the large Federal role in creating low-income affordable housing, why it is necessary to create another large program. As Chairman Frank actually says, this is one of the most significant expansions of Federal programs for low-income Americans. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. BACHUS. Let me say this to the chairman.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself because I would like to make one statement. Mr. Chairman, as I said at the start of this debate, the trust fund will be the largest expansion in Federal housing programs in decades. That is what we are debating. Also at this time I would like to introduce, and I asked back in July for HUD to produce the list of programs which today promote affordable housing. They sent me a list, and it has actually 34 programs which in some way assist low-income Americans with their housing needs. That is not my list; that is their list. But let's again focus on, we have all of these programs. Do we rehabilitate these programs or do we shift money from one program to another? And if we are shifting money from one program to another, I don't see how this is the largest expansion of Federal housing programs in decades, or as the gentlewoman from California said, the most significant new program in over 11 years. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about here today is creating what the chairman of the committee said back in June was the largest expansion of a Federal housing program in decades. How the chairman proposes, and I don't question his motivation, because I know that his motivation is helping low-income Americans. There is a need for low-income affordable housing. He has disputed my representation that there are 30 some-odd programs that address low-income affordable housing. Mr. Chairman, I would like to include the response to my inquiry to HUD, which is a list of 34 programs. HUD Programs--Promoting Affordable Housing Opportunities Program Area: Community Planning & Development 1. Home Investment Partnerships Program. 2. Supportive Housing Program. 3. Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy. 4. Rural Housing and Economic Development Program. 5. Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program. 6. Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS. Program Area: Housing 7. One- to Four-Family Home Mortgage Insurance. 8. Mortgage Insurance for Disaster Victims. 9. Rehabilitation Loan Insurance. 10. Loss Mitigation. 11. Mortgage Insurance for Condominium Units. 12. Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Insurance. 13. Good Neighbor Next Door Program. 14. Section 202--Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program. 15. Assisted-Living Conversion Program. 16. Cooperative Housing. 17. Multifamily Rental Housing for Moderate-Income Families Mortgage Insurance. 18. Existing Multifamily Rental Housing (Section 207/223 (f)). 19. Mortgage Insurance for Housing for the Elderly (Section 231). 20. New Construction or Substantial Rehabilitation of Nursing Homes, Intermediate Care Facilities, Board and Care Homes, and Assisted Living Facilities; Purchase or Refinancing of Existing Facilities.. 21. Supplemental Loans for Multifamily Projects. 22. Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Section 811). 23. Multifamily Mortgage Risk-Sharing Program. 24. Mark-to-Market Program. 25. Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance. Program Area: Public & Indian Housing 26. Housing Choice Voucher Program. 27. Homeownership Voucher Assistance. 28. Project-Based Voucher Program. 29. Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing (HOPE VI). Program Area: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity 30. Section 3 Program. Program Area: Policy Development & Research 31. Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing (PATH) Initiative. Program Area: Government National Mortgage Association 32. Ginnie Mae I Mortgage-Backed Securities. 33. Ginnie Mae II Mortgage-Backed Securities. 34. Ginnie Mae Multiclass Securities Program. You look over those programs and you find HOPE VI, which, I think all Members would agree, supplies low-income housing for America. We have got section 8. We have got programs to rehabilitate nursing homes, to build intermediate care facilities, to establish boarding and care homes, on and on, support for persons with disabilities, persons with AIDS, disaster assistance or homes for those caught in disasters. As the gentleman from Illinois said, $35 billion is going into those programs. But out of all those programs, this program, if you look at where the money is going to be distributed, it actually says that if HUD does not write regulations that will basically take the HOME investment program, it will be distributed to the same agencies for purposes of low-income housing, which is the exact purpose of the HOME program. If the HOME program isn't working, why wouldn't we appropriate money for the HOME program? If these programs are not working, why would we do that? Why? Several people have said, the gentleman from Texas on the other side said over 50 percent of Americans today are struggling to meet their housing needs. Most of those, most of those low- and middle- income Americans are homeowners, and they are struggling with making their mortgage payments. You open the newspapers, you find that foreclosures are at a historic high; yet what is proposed to us today? What is proposed is that we take money from FHA and from Fannie and Freddie, which are both used. One is, FHA, as we all know, is affordable mortgage for low-income, middle-income Americans. The GSEs promote mortgage liquidities. I don't see how you can take money from FHA, take money from the GSEs, fund this program without it affecting FHA and the GSEs. Diverting GSE funds to an affordable housing fund is essentially a tax on the GSEs. Who has to pay that tax? That's a tax on their mortgage business. That ultimately is going to be paid by low-income borrowers. The proposal to take FHA receipts, it's going to mean fewer low-income Americans will have access to affordable FHA mortgages in the long run. You can't create something from nothing. You can't create a program funded from an established program which supplies Americans with low- income mortgages or supplies liquidity to the mortgage market. You can't take money from those programs without affecting those programs. There are always costs. You can't, as the chairman said, have the largest expansion of Federal housing programs in decades, take it from FHA and the GSEs, which supply mortgage liquidity. You can't take that kind of money without affecting those programs. With all these programs, including the HOME program, which, as I said, mirrors the proposal before us today, we need, in conclusion, let's ask ourselves two questions: If all the efforts today, all these programs, 80 programs in all, 30-something programs addressing this, plus FHA and the GSEs, which also have a mission to loan money for mortgages for multifamily units, if those aren't working, why wouldn't we fix those existing programs? And even if we conclude that we need a new program, a national housing trust fund, why in the world would we go to FHA and the GSEs and ask them to fund those programs at the very time when we're having a subprime mortgage crisis in this country? And we have all asked, we have directed FHA and the GSEs to address this problem, and now we're taking money away from them and ultimately from low- and middle-income Americans. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I have been in this House for 15 years. I have never asked that a Member's words be taken down, but I will tell you that I came as close to doing that as I have any time in my 15-year career. For a gentleman to get up and say that we Republicans today have said we don't care about low-income Americans and we think too much money is being spent on these programs, no one has said that. I don't know where he is getting that. I wish he would talk about the merits of the program as opposed to slamming Republicans, going into Medicaid, Medicare, and those. But I didn't do that, but I will tell you that those last remarks did not represent what anyone on this side has said. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. BACHUS. Back in June, when you released your press statement, you said this trust fund would be the largest expansion of Federal housing in decades and that was June 28.

Mr. BACHUS. What we're doing here is we're taking money to fund this large expansion of Federal housing, we're not taking it from the 30 existing programs that specifically address low-income housing, elderly, disabled, AIDS, senior citizens. We're taking it from FHA and from the GSEs which actually that money presently today promotes an affordable mortgage for all Americans. So we're taking from low-income, middle-income Americans, we're taking from programs which promote affordable housing for them, and we're transferring it to other Americans. In doing it, we're not reforming. There are 80-something programs. The gentleman had said how many programs, are there 80 or 30. There's 80 housing programs, 34 of which specifically address low-income Americans. At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to another of our Members. Let me say this about Members. Two Members on our side have spoken in favor of this program. It is very difficult for Members to oppose a program that actually creates or has at its purpose creating affordable housing. You will see that by the two Members who are speaking. Again, I will say that the majority of our Members believe that if you have 80-something programs and they are not working, you have a program, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program which, actually, this program actually says that if HUD doesn't adopt regulations, just simply adopt the regulations and the distribution of that program. So they almost mirror each other. If those programs aren't working, why take money from FHA, which is one of the most successful affordable housing programs in America? Why take money away from middle- and low-income Americans to create yet another program? In fact, if you think about that, you are creating two bureaucracies, two programs with all the Federal employees that go into those programs, and you are putting money in one program, and then you are taking it out of that program and you are putting it in another program. That, in itself, involves a cost to the taxpayers. In fact, when you take from one Federal program and put it in another, as opposed to appropriate money, to me that's the worst of all worlds from an efficiency standpoint. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for 3 minutes.

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

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me commend the chairman and the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It's been a pleasure working with Congressman Adam Smith on this legislation, and I commend you, Adam. This is a bipartisan bill with a goal that should bring all of us together. And that goal is the reduction of extreme poverty and to make that reduction of extreme poverty a foreign policy priority for the United States. Today, in dozens of poor countries all over the world, little boys and girls are born into poverty, disease, and hunger. Hopelessness and despair are their daily companions. Their burdens are day-to-day; they're painful and they're heavy. In debating debt relief, I quoted Sister Rebecca Trujillo. She was asked, How do they make it? How do they get through the day? Her answer was: ``How do they survive? Since being in Nicaragua I have taken to answer in a matter of fact way. Often they do not. Often they do not survive the day.'' Each day, even on our bad days, and we're fond of saying we've had a really bad day, but we ought to be reminded that for billions of people throughout the world, that even on our worst days, we have more food, more shelter, more clothes, more security, more health care, more of everything than our poor brothers and sisters have on their best days. And, finally, a lot of people said, well, the reality is overwhelming. Half the world lives on $2 a day. But we can make a difference and we can do so at a very small cost. We've had successes. We have made a difference. Debt relief has been a success. It has improved the lives of millions of people for almost no monetary cost to this country. Since the Millennium Development Goals were set 7 years ago, the poverty rate in sub-Saharan Africa is down 6 percent. There are more children receiving health care, in fact, over a million more children in that area alone, and medical treatment. Vaccinations are up throughout Africa. The percentage of students enrolled in primary schools has gone up considerably. So, in closing, let me simply say this: cost should never be the overriding consideration. But when we consider cost, and doing the right thing is the imperative, but when we consider the cost, let us realize that the cost of not acting is not only hopelessness and unrest throughout the world, but is also terrorism and confrontation and wars that can be avoided if these programs work. Global poverty is in our economic interest. It is in our national security interest as well. This bill will focus our battle against global poverty, and it is a powerful statement that Americans are committed to making this world a better place for all.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, TRIA is working well as a temporary matter. The insurance market is beginning to fill out and, sadly, this is a step in the wrong direction. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim 30 seconds of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the full committee for reading that list of those that endorsed it. You will notice that some of the absences were the Consumer Federation of America, which said that this bill was not good for consumers, i.e. taxpayers. The National Taxpayers Association obviously wasn't on that list, because it is a great deal for the insurance companies, and we all acknowledge that. It merely subsidizes them at the expense of taxpayers. The one name missing is taxpayers. They will pay for this legislation.

Mr. BACHUS. Could we see it now?

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I would yield the gentleman from New York 30 seconds to answer an inquiry if he would allow me. I would ask the gentleman, this letter that we heard of earlier from Mr. Hoyer to yourself, could you share a copy of that letter with the minority?

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. BACHUS. So this is a private sort of agreement between the two of you?

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to the remaining time on our side.

Mr. BACHUS. Could we make a copy of it?