Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the State of Alabama will never forget the devastating tornadoes of April 27, 2011. But the story that has been told since that destructive day is an inspiring one of personal resilience and a resolve to rebuild neighborhoods and communities. A critical factor has been the commitment that employers have made to their communities. After a natural disaster of this scale, there is always a choice to confront: rebuild or relocate? An important part of the economic recovery efforts in Jefferson County was the decision made by Cliffs Natural Resources to rebuild its Oak Grove Mine and Concord Preparation Plant and remain as a strong presence in Alabama. The tornadoes caused significant damage to the mine preparation plant and overland conveyor system at the coal facility, an employer of more than 500 workers in the western portion of Jefferson County. It also disrupted the transportation system that Cliffs and other companies rely on to receive and move materials. Most critically, and thankfully, all employees were accounted for after the storms and no one was reported as injured. Even before the full magnitude of the recovery challenge facing Alabama became clear, company officials were already thinking about how quickly they could begin to resume operations. It soon became evident that this would entail the plant providing its own power and even building a new road. The company's management and workers were undeterred. In spite of many daunting challenges, underground mining was restarted within two weeks. Within eight months, coal was again being processed to meet our nation's energy demands. While planning for the long-term work needed for full capacity, the company responded to the emergency needs of the ravaged communities around it. Cliff's donated $100,000 to the American Red Cross and another $60,000 to organizations serving storm victims in the immediate area. The Oak Grove operations marked a significant milestone on May 16, 2012 with a ceremony that highlighted the rebuilding of the Concord Prep Plant. This engineering and construction achievement represented a $52 million investment and was accompanied by an additional $30 million investment in a new, LEED-certified mine portal facility. In all, Cliffs invested $120 million towards its Alabama operations and preserved more than 500 jobs during a year when our state needed it the most. It is a tale of resilience, determination, and a strong work ethic that stands out as my state continues its recovery from the historic storms.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing the U.S. House to honor Army Private First Class Julian Colvin of Birmingham, who lost his life in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan on July 22, 2012, in the defense of his country. Pfc. Colvin was a dedicated paratrooper and combat engineer assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Although just 21 years of age and on his first deployment, Pfc. Colvin was highly decorated for his service, with awards including the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart, the Army Commendation Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Ribbon, the Combat Action Badge, and the Basic Parachutist Badge. But perhaps the highest honors have come from the innumerable testimonials to his high character. Pfc. Colvin was, according to Lt. Col. Peter Levola, commander of the 508th Brigade Special Troops Battalion, ``a shining example of the inspiration and promise of our young, remarkable Paratroopers--a selfless hero who willingly took on one of the most difficult jobs in the Brigade by leading patrols with a mine detector.'' Services for Pfc. Colvin will be held at the 6th Avenue Baptist Church in Birmingham on Saturday, August 4. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and loved ones during this difficult time. We will always remember Pfc. Colvin as a young patriot and hero to us all and it is appropriate for our nation to remember his service today. As the senior member of the Alabama delegation, we join with Congresswoman Terri Sewell in her tribute to our Alabama hero, Army Private First Class Julian Colvin.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in qualified support of H.R. 459, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2012. Before addressing the merits of the legislation, I want to pay tribute to its author, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul, who serves as the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee's Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee. His tireless advocacy on monetary policy issues and his crusade for a more open and transparent Federal Reserve have been hallmarks of his congressional career. With that career coming to a close at the end of this Congress, it is appropriate that the House consider this bill. H.R. 459 is bipartisan legislation which will help promote greater public understanding of the Federal Reserve's operations and the impact of its decisions on average Americans. A more transparent central bank will be more accountable for its decisions, which have broad consequences for the American economy, including consumers, savers and small businesses. By de-mystifying the Federal Reserve, we can enhance public confidence in the institution and help address some of the legitimate questions the American people have in the wake of the extraordinary measures that the Fed took at the height of the financial crisis, which have resulted in a tripling of the size of the Fed's balance sheet since 2008. To his credit, Chairman Bernanke recognized the need for the Fed to improve the transparency of its operations early on in his tenure, and under his leadership, the Fed has made significant strides in this area. Among other initiatives, the Chairman now holds quarterly press conferences, giving the American public an insight into his thinking on the state of the economy and the basis for monetary policy judgments that would have been unheard of under past Fed Chairmen. The Fed has also achieved a greater level of clarity in policy statements issued by the Federal Open Market Committee, and has become much more explicit in its targeting of inflation. While these are welcome developments for which Chairman Bernanke should be commended, in a representative democracy, maximum transparency is essential to maintaining the trust of the governed. If we err, it must be on the side of the public's right to know. By removing certain statutory limitations on the current authority of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit the Fed's operations, H.R. 459 builds on the reforms that Chairman Bernanke has instituted and will make for a more open and accountable central bank, which is a goal we all share. Having said that, no legislation is perfect, and there is one aspect of this bill that, if not carefully implemented, runs the risk of undermining the Fed's political independence. Specifically, the bill would authorize the GAO to audit the Federal Reserve Board's ``deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters,'' thereby removing a limitation that was imposed on the GAO when it was first given statutory authority to audit the Fed in 1978. Proponents of expanding the scope of the GAO's audit authority cite the unconventional policy interventions carried out by the Fed in recent years in its attempt to stabilize the financial system and stimulate the economy as justification for a more robust congressional role in overseeing the central bank's operations. It should be noted, however, that the inclusion in the Dodd-Frank Act of reforms first proposed by Financial Services Committee Republicans that significantly curtail the Fed's emergency lending authorities under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act go a long way toward addressing concerns about the Fed's ability to conduct rescues of individual financial institutions without the review and approval of Congress. As a general matter, I worry that the level of congressional scrutiny authorized by H.R. 459 may, if not exercised cautiously and responsibly, be incompatible with the need to insulate the Fed from political pressures and ensure that its decisions are based on sound economic principles rather than on jaw-boning from Capitol Hill. I am therefore sympathetic to Chairman Bernanke's argument--which he made in recent testimony before the Financial Services Committee--that a central bank that operates free of such political influence is likely to produce better economic outcomes and a more stable interest rate environment. Indeed, the danger of allowing political considerations to guide monetary policy judgments was on full display at a recent hearing in the other body, where one of the Senators, citing Congress' inability to reach consensus on how to jump-start our anemic economic recovery, loudly urged Chairman Bernanke to ``get to work'' and implement a more aggressive monetary easing. This kind of rhetoric underscores the need for the GAO to exercise its expanded audit authority under H.R. 459 prudently, and to resist any efforts by Members of Congress to use this new tool to influence decisions on monetary policy. Failure to protect the central bank's independence from such political pressure will have dire consequences for our economy and for the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve as an institution. Concerns about the scope of GAO's audits of monetary policy deliberations were never aired in the Financial Services Committee because of a decision by the House Parliamentarian to refer H.R. 459 exclusively to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This referral, which Dr. Paul and I challenged at the time in extensive written correspondence and in meetings with the Parliamentarians, ignored decades of past precedents recognizing the Financial Services Committee's jurisdiction over legislative proposals affecting the Federal Reserve's conduct of monetary policy. While the Parliamentarian ultimately granted the Financial Services Committee a sequential referral of H.R. 459 after it had been reported to the House and scheduled for floor consideration, the initial referral to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform short-circuited the legislative process and denied Members of the Financial Services Committee, including Dr. Paul, an opportunity to fully debate the important issues of Federal Reserve transparency and independence raised by this legislation. Again, I commend Dr. Paul and Chairman Bernanke for their efforts to bring greater transparency to the Fed's operations.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 525, I inadvertantly voted ``no'' when I intended to vote ``aye.'' Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Nadler

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I came here to compliment the two gentlemen who have spoken on this bill, who are the cosponsors of a bipartisan bill. When I first heard about this legislation, I thought, like most legislation this year, it won't go anywhere. I thought it may pass the House, but it may not pass the Senate. I understand that with this particular legislation, that our Senate colleagues are waiting for it and they're ready to act upon it. Mr. Scott brought up, I think, a salient point when he said that we're having many banks and credit unions who are struggling, because when people don't have jobs, they can't pay back their loans. Our banks and credit unions are trying to cope with the added expense of more regulation. Particularly at a time like that, but at any time, for people to take advantage of a statute that is intended to protect the American people is really audacity and greed in its purest sense. I'm an attorney, and I can tell you that 999 out of 1,000 attorneys or former attorneys would absolutely be enraged to find that very few of their colleagues are taking advantage of Regulation E and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to sue these institutions on lawsuits that are totally against the public interest, and particularly are against the interests of those living in low-income areas and high-crime areas. The people in those areas are coping with so much that to add to that, having an ATM machine removed from that location or from a low-income area, just adds another expense for people who have very little means of financing their life today. That's what's happening. Either the vandals themselves are going and vandalizing the sticker that we've all seen--we've all used an ATM. We've all seen the sticker there. We probably didn't notice the sticker there because what really caught our attention is when we get on the screen and we see that same notice, but that notice actually on the screen requires us to affirmatively say ``yes,'' we will agree to it. So people today probably don't even notice that sticker. The few people who noticed that sticker and took advantage of it were people that were up to no good, people that were willing to bring what some of us would call a ``frivolous lawsuit.'' These lawsuits can ask for a half million dollars worth of damages. And because it is actually a statutory failure to have it, these lawsuits sometimes result in a $100,000 or $200,000 judgment. They're also resulting in these ATMs not being located in areas that are subject to vandalism. Of course, almost any area could be subject to it, but we've penalized those Americans who are least able to afford to travel a greater distance for the convenience of an AMT machine. As Mr. Luetkemeyer and Mr. Scott said, people come up; they scrape it off. Some of these appear to be well-organized efforts by the very people that bring the lawsuit to go out and do these in an organized manner among hundreds of machines. They then come in and file a class action. Mr. Luetkemeyer, at one time, was a banker in a small Missouri community. And in most cases, particularly a small credit union or a community bank or a local bank, they can't afford to battle these for $50,000 or $100,000--it actually may be a big law firm bringing these lawsuits--so they settle them for $50,000. This will put an end to that. Let me tell you, no one on the Financial Services Committee expressed any doubt about this legislation. I don't think anyone would, other than those people who are complicit in vandalizing these machines and making money on what we sometimes called ``unintended consequences.'' I tell you, it certainly was unintended. If we had, in our imagination, sat down for days and said what is the worst thing that could happen by requiring us to put a sticker on as well as electronic notice, we would have never come up with this. We would have never come up with the ingenuity of some people to take advantage of the law. But that's what's happened here. Today, I think, unanimously, hopefully, we're going to shut the door on this practice and send this bill over to the Senate, particularly for areas where there is high vandalism in our rural communities. We're going to set a wrong right. Let me say that this is a model for how this Congress ought to operate, of coming together, having a consensus, coming up with good, commonsense legislation that benefits the public and reduces unnecessary costs and puts what I consider and I think is criminal behavior out of business. We're going to put some criminals out of business with this legislation. Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Scott, and all Members who are cosponsoring this bill, I commend each and every one of you.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, first let me commend Chairman Mica on behalf of this Congress and the American people for the fine work that you and your committee have done on this bill. We'll build more roads with less money and cut through red tape and expedite projects. I also want to associate myself with the words of Don Young, our former chairman, and of Mr. Miller from California. You cannot have-- the leading country in the world cannot have a Third World infrastructure. And unless we find new funding sources, we will continue to fall behind, and we will continue to have those potholes and bottlenecks. Now, I want to move to the National Flood Insurance program which is a part of this bill. It also is a win for the American people. This House over a year ago approved comprehensive flood insurance, risk based, that would reduce the cost and bring many benefits to the program. Last week, the Senate sent us a bill which is essentially the bill we sent them over a year ago. It's a bipartisan bill. It was a lot of hard work and input from Members. We passed it overwhelmingly in the Financial Services Committee and overwhelmingly on the floor of this House. I would like to commend Chairwoman Biggert for her fine work. Her name is on this bill, and there's a reason for that. She worked harder than anyone in this Congress to deliver a good bill. It's a 5- year bill, and it will begin to make up for the deficit of $17.5 billion that this program has as a result of those hurricanes back in 2005. I would like to commend the Illinois delegation and the California delegation under Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Costa who, sadly, is retiring this year. This bill takes care to balance costs and communities that use their own funds. I urge Members to pass this bill. It's a good bill. It includes many good provisions, and I'm proud to say that the Financial Services Committee and its members have been a part of this effort. As the legislation to reauthorize and reform the National Flood Insurance Program heads to the President's desk, I would like to acknowledge the time, effort, and wisdom that four members of the Financial Services Committee staff provided to create this positive outcome. These staff members were able to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate bills--working through a host of complex, highly technical issues--in less than one week. The efforts of Clinton Jones, Tallman Johnson, Ed Skala, and Nicole Austin helped all of us to achieve this very beneficial outcome for the American taxpayer, and I thank them for their service to the U.S. House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, first I want to commend Transportation Committee Chairman Mica, Subcommittee Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Rahall and others for their hard work on the needed transportation and infrastructure improvements in this bill. I also want to take the time to comment on provisions in this bill regarding reauthorization and reform of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Today we're doing something we haven't done since 2004: provide a long-term reauthorization with meaningful reforms for the National Flood Insurance Program. Since September 2008, the NFIP has been extended 17 times and the program has lapsed four times during that same time period, creating needless uncertainty in the residential and commercial real estate sectors in communities across the country. Over a year ago the Financial Services Committee and then the House, in a bipartisan display of cooperation, overwhelmingly passed a five- year flood insurance bill with comprehensive reforms and savings for the taxpayers. This week the Senate approved our legislation. This bipartisan bill represents the hard work and input of many members, and I especially want to thank Housing Subcommittee Chairwoman Biggert for her leadership in getting us to this point. This bill takes great care to balance the need to make the NFIP more actuarially sound with the need to recognize the hard work and difficult decisions many communities are making to build or rehabilitate their dams and levees. I particularly want to thank Mr. Shimkus for working with us to address those concerns in a responsible way. Many of us have been calling for fundamental reforms of the NFIP for several years. The hurricanes of 2005 led to massive flooding and overwhelmed the program, which now carries a debt to the Treasury of $17.5 billion as a result. The NFIP is facing serious financial challenges and cannot afford to continue on its current trajectory, which is why today's bill is vital. The reforms in this bill end the decades-old subsidies for about 355,000 policyholders and reduce the program's need to borrow additional funds from the Treasury, which will help reduce the program's shortfall and protect American taxpayers. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the taxpayers are not left holding the bag. This bill puts us on the path to reforming the program with risk-based premiums, and provisions to better protect both taxpayers and homeowners while encouraging greater private sector participation. Since January of 2011, I have held as a goal of this Congress to achieve fundamental reform of the NFIP. The bill we have before us today accomplishes that in a fair and responsible manner. I urge all Members to support it.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Let me acknowledge the point of order is due to be granted. I am, however, here to ask for the cooperation of the appropriating committee as we move forward on addressing a problem that we found as a result of the many tornadoes that devastated our country last year. And I will use an example from the city of Tuscaloosa. In the aftermath of the tornado that struck Tuscaloosa on April 27, HUD came in and calculated the loss of residences and rental units. Part of their charge was to replace the critical needs. However--and I will just use one census tract as an example--they came into a census tract that includes University Boulevard, which is a census tract made up almost entirely of rental units. However, according to HUD's calculation, they came in and they simply surveyed the owner-occupied units. Now, there were 23 owner-occupied units that were destroyed in the census tract, but there were 440 rental units that were destroyed in this same tract. So almost all the loss of property was rental units. It left the city of Tuscaloosa, a university town, woefully inadequate in its number of rental units. In their calculation, they only take the owner-occupied units, and they extrapolate from that what they consider the number of rental units to be in that same census tract. Well, you can't really base a calculation of how many rental units there are based on how many owner- occupied dwellings there are. And to tell you how much they missed it, they calculated that there were no rental units destroyed, which is obviously a tremendous miscalculation. So we've offered an amendment today which essentially will say that you have to consider--and your survey must include--both owner-occupied units and rental units and that you must calculate both of them, not simply the owner-occupied units. HUD's model, in short, needs to be changed. We believe that our authorizing committee will correct this in future cases, but there's an urgent need to replace the rental housing that was lost in last year's tornadoes throughout the Nation. And my amendment simply creates a mechanism to do so and directs HUD to develop a formula for distributing assistance to communities that have already suffered damage. This will restore what we think is fairness and a more correct calculation. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you for allowing me to explain the purpose of the amendment that my colleague Congresswoman Terri Sewell and I are proposing. Communities in the State of Alabama and other states are still recovering from the devastating tornadoes of April 27, 2011. A critical issue is replacing rental housing that was destroyed by the tornadoes. Rental housing is an important and affordable option for individuals and families, especially in larger cities. Unfortunately, the methodology used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to award recovery assistance may be weighted--in some cases--against rebuilding rental housing. To provide an example, according to a study by the office of Mayor Walt Maddox, one census tract in Tuscaloosa sustained tornado damage to 463 housing units: 23 owner-occupied units and 440 rental units. Rather than document the actual damage and distribute recovery aid accordingly, HUD used a mathematical model to calculate the damage. The result is that only 2.2% of the units in this devastated neighborhood were deemed to have been severely damaged. None of the rental properties were included in the formula, regardless of their damage. This bureaucratic discrepancy has put Tuscaloosa and other communities at an unfair disadvantage when it comes to receiving funding for the restoration of their rental housing stock. HUD's model needs to be changed. We are working to correct it for future cases, but there is an urgent need to replace the rental housing that was lost during last year's tornadoes. Our amendment creates a mechanism to do that. It directs HUD to develop a formula for distributing assistance to communities that have already suffered damage. This will help restore fairness and promote the continued recovery of our communities from some of the most devastating tornadoes in the history of the State of Alabama and our nation. Point of Order

Mr. BACHUS. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the devastating tornadoes that struck my home state of Alabama on April 27, 2011 taught all of us important lessons about emergency preparedness. Countless lives were saved because of the early warnings provided to citizens and the availability of community storm shelters. Our broadcasters performed a great public service by providing early and accurate forecasts about the coming storms. We have been working together to further expand this warning system through the greater use of weather radios and the development of technology to deliver mobile alerts by cell phone. In addition, we are working cooperatively to try to ensure that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) can deploy the next generation of enhanced weather satellite technology in a timely manner. In Alabama, as in many other states, there will be tornadoes and severe storms. But with good preparation and emergency planning, lives can be saved and damage minimized when a natural disaster strikes. We cannot afford to be complacent and should never be afraid to ask the question, ``What can we do better?''

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chair, the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act contains badly needed reforms that are vital to our national security and our defense industrial base. America's small business industrial base has supported our military for generations, and their participation enhances competition, helps control costs, and spurs American innovation. H.R. 4310 recognizes that our defense maintenance needs are best met when we have capabilities both internally in the Department of Defense and in a private sector where work is competitively awarded. Sections 1631 and 1632 will help maintain a strong small business presence in our defense industrial base which is essential to reducing maintenance and procurement costs as well as maintaining a strong national defense. It is my strong belief this important legislation will help ensure that the highest level of support services are provided to the men and women who protect our freedom.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentlelady. We're here on the floor discussing this bill for one reason and for one reason only, and that's that the Senate has not done their job. Ten months ago, Madam Speaker, this House passed a bipartisan, long- term reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program. Our bill passed unanimously out of committee and then passed the House, overwhelmingly, with over 400 votes, Democrats and Republicans joining together. Our bill not only included a 5-year reauthorization of the program, a long-term reauthorization, which is what's needed, but included many needed reforms that reduce the burden on taxpayers, increase private market participation, and help bring certainty to the housing market. We did our job, Madam Speaker, but the Senate's failed to do their job. Seventeen temporary extensions. Perhaps none of us should be surprised. After all, it's been 3 years since the Senate even bothered to pass a budget. Not to mention, at a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the Senate has failed to vote on 27 job-creating bills we passed out of the House, overwhelmingly. Now Majority Leader Harry Reid has failed to find time to schedule floor time, even though the Senate, under the leadership of Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Shelby, unanimously passed a bill almost identical to the bill we passed 10 months ago. But because of a dysfunctional Senate that's not working, we're once again faced with the risk of having the flood insurance shut down, as the gentleman from Georgia said, right before hurricane season starts. I can't think of a worse time. A shutdown of flood insurance, even a temporary one, would do tremendous damage to our struggling economy and our Nation's fragile housing market. Specifically, what does it mean? I'd like to introduce a letter from the National Association of Realtors. It is already delaying close to 1,300 house closings every day. If it expires, it will stop all development dead in its tracks in 21,000 communities across America. Let me close by saying I want to commend our colleague, Mrs. Biggert. Congresswoman Biggert has done an exceptional job on this important issue. I'd like to commend Congresswoman and Ranking Member Maxine Waters. They've worked, over the last year, for a long-term reauthorization. We've come together and done our job. I would like to commend the Senate, but, unfortunately, the Senate is not working. It's time for the Senate to pass a 5-year bill, and it's time for them to pass it immediately. That's why, although we have passed a 5-year reauthorization, we're here. But we're only passing a 1-month extension because the best they can do is another extension-- number 17--which would put it into December, when we all know that's a lame duck Congress and we're going to be confronted with tremendous other issues at that time. To the Senate I say: Let's get going. National Association of Realtors,' Washington, DC, May 16, 2012. Hon. Spencer Bachus, Chairman, House Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Rayburn Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Bachus: The 1 million members of the National Association of REALTORS' supports a temporary extension of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) authority to enable the Senate to finish work on its long- term reauthorization and reform measure (S. 1940). The House is scheduled to vote on H.R. 5740 to extend authority by 30 days to June 30, 2012. We urge a yes vote. NFIP authority is set to expire on May 31, 2012. Consequently, property buyers in more than 21,000 communities across the United States will no longer be able to obtain the flood insurance required by law for the purchase of a home or building. Each day that program authority lapses, more than 1,300 home sales will be delayed or cancelled. Allowing another lapse only exacerbates the many serious economic challenges facing a nation that relies on a vibrant real estate market for its economy. Homebuyers, small business owners and local communities urge the House to vote yes on H.R. 5740 to keep the NFIP from lapsing. Your vote to extend authority will avoid further market disruption while Congress works toward long-term reauthorization and reform. Sincerely, Maurice ``Moe'' Veissi, 2012 President, National Association of REALTORS'.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the Financial Committee's work on this reconciliation package saves more than $35 billion. But more importantly, it does what 2,300 pages of Dodd-Frank, 400 new regulations, over 2,000 newly hired Federal regulators, many them living in my Maryland colleague's district, and more than $24 million worth of compliance work required of America's companies, at the cost of $100 billion, don't: it ends the bailouts. A bailout fund doesn't end the bailout; it guarantees them. We're telling the big banks what my Democratic colleagues didn't want to tell them: if they make risky bets and make bad decisions, they're on the hook, not the taxpayers. No more privatizing the profits, no more socializing the losses. In short, no more bailouts, period.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to join my colleagues Robert Aderholdt, Martha Roby, and Dennis Ross in congratulating Cumberland School of Law on the celebration of their fiftieth anniversary as an entity on the campus of Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. The school's legacy and impress extends across the globe and indeed into this very chamber, my three colleagues having walked its historic halls as law students. What began as a humble and at times struggling law school in the hills of Lebanon, Tennessee, through tenacity and divine providence blossomed into a first rate and nationally-recognized center of legal education. Today, Cumberland boasts the fourth ranked trial advocacy program in the nation and has served as the educational backdrop for countless state and federal judges, legislators, and other elected officials. Judge John Carroll, whose service as the Dean and chief advocate for the law school, deserves our utmost commendation for thrusting Cumberland onto the national stage. His dedication and leadership have ensured the continued growth and prosperity of this respected law school. Mr. Speaker, as a body that daily ponders the law and the effects of law, it is only fitting and proper that we honor an institution dedicated to excellent legal education and commend Cumberland and Judge John Carroll on a job very well done. The city of Birmingham, our great state of Alabama, indeed the entire nation owes a debt of gratitude to Cumberland School of Law for its educational prowess, its historic legacy, and its integral part in preparing the next generation of our nation's leaders.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, this recession is different, and the difference is there's no recovery. And that is a historic difference. Now, what is different about this recession and all our other recessions when we had a recovery is government policy. Government policy has stifled job creation. Normally, at this time in a recovery, 65 percent of the jobs are being created by small businesses. But 2 million jobs aren't there because of Obama's health care policies alone, regulatory policies, tax policies. Small business is struggling. Now, let me tell you, Congress cannot create jobs. We're not going to create jobs with this bill. We're going to allow small businesses to create jobs. You'll either choose government or you'll choose the people. You'll choose government to continue to create jobs like with Solyndra, and we saw the disaster there, or you'll allow the people to create those jobs. I'm putting my trust in the people.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress are only as effective as the loyal staff members who serve them. Our staff professionals are public servants every bit as much as those of us who have been elected. Motivated to work for the common good, they perform their jobs without fanfare and frequently stay on the job late nights and weekends to help develop solutions to the challenges facing our people and country. This House could not function without these highly talented and dedicated individuals, and it has been my privilege to have had one of the best at my side in Larry Lavender. As he departs from my office after many years of loyal service, I want to publicly recognize and thank Larry for his wise counsel, frank advice, and friendship. When Larry agreed to be my Chief of Staff when I was first elected to the House, he brought experience as a businessman and top administrator in the city government of my native Birmingham, Alabama. He shared my ethic that the purpose of our office was to provide the people of Alabama with the highest level of representation. From the start, Larry demonstrated a unique talent to assemble the best staff team to achieve goals. When I was selected to serve as Ranking Member and then Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, there would be no one better suited to serve as my staff director. Larry's policy, management, and leadership skills helped us to navigate the challenges of the deepest financial crisis to occur in the United States since the Great Depression. During those historic times, his sole intent was to work to find the right answers to solve the unprecedented issues facing our financial sector and nation. Under highly uncertain and stressful conditions, he consistently supplied wise and reasoned counsel. Everyone who has met Larry has been impressed by management ability, policy and political acumen, strong belief in principle, and above all his modesty and integrity. Just as important to Larry, he is a devoted husband, father, and Marine. His children Rachel and Jacob are rightfully proud of him, and we know that his lovely wife Kathryn and young son Harrison Clay have brought a special new joy to his life at home. For being a trusted and valued adviser to both experienced and new House Members, a mentor to countless staffers, and a loyal friend to me, it is with appreciation and gratitude that I take this opportunity to permanently commemorate Larry Lavender's service to the people of Alabama and America.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, in any successful office, there is always one person you need to be able to trust to make sure that things are done in the right way and on time. From the beginning of my service in Congress, that person in my office was my executive assistant, Geraldine ``Gerry'' Cashin. On the occasion of her retirement, I want to offer my personal thanks to Gerry for the dedicated and loyal service that she has given to me, the people of Alabama, and the citizens of our nation. Gerry was first with me in my law practice in Alabama and when I was elected to the House, I knew that I wanted her to come to Washington to help me with the challenge of setting up a new congressional office. Her organizational skills and personal concern for constituents helped our office to quickly establish a reputation for service and responsiveness. Gerry set a high standard with her dedication to her work and her attention to detail, and many of my staffers who have gone on to success in future endeavors have given credit to the lessons they learned from Gerry. Almost every day, the seemingly ``impossible'' was asked of Gerry and she unfailingly delivered, perfecting along the way such wry and legendary office phrases as ``I'm sorry that happened'' and ``Never give a man something you haven't made a copy of.'' During the great challenges in Congress during recent years--from 9/11 to the financial crisis--Gerry stood as a rock of stability and a voice of calm and continuity. She has friends all over Capitol Hill and in Birmingham, and my wife Linda and I consider her to be part of our family for her many years of loyal service and heartfelt friendship. While the institutional knowledge that Gerry acquired cannot be replaced, my office's loss is the gain of her daughters Amanda and Diane and her grandsons John and Tom, with whom she will happily be spending much more time, and perhaps a gain for her tennis game as well. It is a pleasure for me to extend this public and well-deserved tribute to a servant of the people and a very dear friend, Gerry Cashin.

Mr. BACHUS

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

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say this: during this debate, we focused on crowdfunding, but I think we're all in agreement that this bill is a great improvement, and we will revisit that. That shouldn't distract from the fact that this is a major piece of legislation that will cause, I think, a great deal of new competition, innovation of new products and services. In my revised remarks, which I intend to submit in the next week, I will highlight biomedical research, which we think has the potential to address some diseases that are rare diseases or degenerative conditions which would really receive a boost from this. So I commend all of our Members. We've come together here, and we've accomplished great things, along with the Senate, the House, and the administration. I yield to the gentlelady from Illinois.

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, we have the right to close. So I would ask the gentleman from Connecticut to proceed. Could I inquire as to time.

Mr. BACHUS. At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry). Again, this is a bill that several Members worked very hard on, and he is very knowledgeable on these bills.

Mr. BACHUS. Let me say this. The gentleman from Connecticut mentioned crowdfunding, and I think that was what gave us more concern than anything else, some of the things he said about the Internet people making an investment being subject to fraud. That is a concern, and the Senate addressed those concerns. I'd like to stress what they amended was a very small part of this bill that dealt with crowdfunding. It is also important to know that all the antifraud protection, we didn't take any of that away. But I think we're getting there. The Senate and the House deliberated with the White House, and we will continue to look at crowdfunding. We'll see how this goes. With any investment, particularly a new company, a new venture, there is a certain amount of risk. You can't take the risk out. If you take the risk out, you take the reward. But what the gentleman says I fully appreciate, and I think that's where our committee has come together, and we tried to get it right for the good of the Americans in creating these new jobs. So I appreciate the opportunity and thank you for yielding.

Mr. BACHUS. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. BACHUS. I yield 3 minutes to an outstanding freshman on our committee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher). Everyone speaking on our side has worked very hard on these bills or spent a lot of time, as have many of our Democratic colleagues.

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, I would like to again inquire as to the amount of time remaining on our side.