Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1070) to amend the Securities Act of 1933 to authorize the Securities and Exchange Commission to exempt a certain class of securities from such Act, as amended.

Mr. BACHUS

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. About 2 years ago, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters) and I were in Kabul and Kandahar together on a trip. I remember talking to my Democratic colleague, saying that there must be things that Republicans and Democrats can work together on to solve. We were obviously in a country that was torn apart by differences, but we both had something in common--we were concerned about our constituents; we were concerned about unemployment; and we were concerned about jobs. I think that's true of every Member in this body. We know that the path to prosperity is jobs and that, if Americans are working, if they're earning, they feel better about themselves and that, if they're losing their jobs, then it's going to be not only a problem for them and their families but for their communities and for their country. I am happy to report--and I think it's fitting that the gentleman from Michigan would be across the aisle from me managing the time for the minority--that here we are moving four pieces of legislation today, tomorrow, and on Friday, legislation which will create jobs and will do so without government expense. In fact, they'll do so with some marginal savings to the government but with a great savings to those businesses. This morning--and I don't know that it was a coincidence--the job figures came out. Large corporations lost 1,000 employees last month, but our middle-sized and small businesses created 108,000 jobs. Now, those aren't enough jobs; those aren't enough jobs for the people graduating and going into the workforce, but that's where job creation is coming from in the economy now--from small- and middle-sized businesses, those with under 500 employees particularly, and from that midrange of 50 to 500 employees. This bill that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) has brought forward has won bipartisan support because it actually will create jobs in those small community banks and credit unions because it will make their cost of capital less. In a recent survey, 70 percent of small- and middle-sized businesses, those with 500 or fewer employees, said if we had more capital, if we had more funding, we would hire. This is 70 percent. Only 14 percent said they were going to hire. The difference in that number is that the others weren't sure that they could get capital. There are two ways that you obtain capital to create jobs. One is you go and borrow it from a bank, or from an insurance company in some cases, or from someone else. But there is another way, which is by someone willing to invest in your company. As a small boy, I can remember my father had a business, and before that, he'd invested with another man in a business. I think that one of the American Dreams is not only owning a house--and that's still an American Dream to own your own home even in the circumstances we've been through--but either to have your own business or to be able to invest in somebody else's business. The gentleman from Connecticut's legislation will allow that threshold of people who want to invest in a community-based financial institution, and it will encourage those community banks to allow more shareholders, more people, to participate. Yes, they will be participating in the risk, but they'll also be participating in the profit, which is really the American system. When you invest, you take risks, but if things are successful, you profit. That's where the risks and the profits ought to be taken. They shouldn't be taken by the taxpayers involuntarily, and they shouldn't be taken by the government. The government shouldn't take the taxpayers' money and invest in business. It is those taxpayers--our constituents, our citizens--who ought to make the decisions on what companies they want to invest in. We all know community banks are struggling today. It will allow them to attract investors, people who say, ``I want to invest in your bank.'' They may be people who do business with the banks, and will probably be people who live in the community. This bill will be the first of four bills that we bring forward, and they are going to be successful. They're going to move from the House to the Senate, I'll predict this week, because, as the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland, said, there is agreement that this is the right thing to do and that we do have an obligation not only to oppose some things but to also be for positive legislation. The House this week will be for something. It will be for job creation. It will be for allowing people to invest. It will be enabling companies to attract that capital and hire people. So we can feel very good about ourselves this week, and it can start with this bill. This is not a minor piece of legislation, but it's on suspension because it enjoys widespread support, as does the bill tomorrow. As for the two in the following days, we've worked out the differences. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) had a concern about a bill later this week. He felt like it didn't have enough investor protection. We've addressed that concern and have added his suggestion to the bill. All four of these bills that will move this week are bipartisan bills. They're not Republican bills, they're not Democratic bills. They're bipartisan bills. I commend the minority whip for speaking out for these bills--I think that bodes well--and I hope the Senate was listening. I also appreciate the gentleman from Connecticut for a bill that really is long overdue. It will immediately allow our community banks to invest and not be dependent on the government for help. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the subcommittee chair, Mrs. Capito from West Virginia, to speak in favor of the bill.

Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. At this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), an original cosponsor of the legislation.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 2447, introduced by the gentle lady form Florida, Corrine Brown, to award a collective Congressional Gold Medal to the Montford Point Marines for their patriotic service during World War II and their important role in promoting the cause of equal rights in our country. Like the Tuskegee Airmen from my native Alabama, the Montford Point Marines fought for the principles of our democracy overseas at a time when prejudice and segregation prevented them from enjoying all of our country's freedoms here at home. Recently, our nation has paused to remember two giants in the civil rights movement. Here in Washington, the new memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King was dedicated on the National Mall. Over the past few days in Birmingham, thousands of people from all races have united to pay tribute to the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, who passed away on October 5th at the age of 89. In the face of prejudice, hostility, and physical attack, individuals like Dr. King, Reverend Shuttlesworth, and our own cherished colleague John Lewis always held to the highest ideals and did not allow the hate they experienced to diminish their love for their country. Behind the prominent leaders of the civil rights movement, as they themselves would tell you, have been many courageous foot soldiers with the same ideals. The phrase ``foot soldiers'' is literally true when it comes to the Montford Point Marines. These men, our first African American Marines, willingly stepped forward during World War II to risk their lives to preserve freedoms that they themselves were being denied. All too often, they encountered vicious racial discrimination that was as painful in its own way as any bulletfire. This could have ripped the morale of our service apart and helped the enemy. Instead, the soldiers who endured the harsh conditions at Montford Point and racial indignities in the field of battle--more than 20,000 in all from 1942-1949--served with the highest level of honor and loyalty. They fought fiercely in Okinawa and Iwo Jima. They cleaned up ash after the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. The Montford Point Marines were never properly recognized for their bravery and heroism--not during the war and certainly not at the end, when they were essentially dismissed and officially all but forgotten. But their colorblind service raised a profound contradiction: after fighting for freedom abroad, how could any American be denied full rights here at home? We all know the answer, you could not continue to deny those rights. In the beginning, the Montford Point Marines set out only to serve their country during a time of war. With their valor, they helped to change military history. They wound up changing the social history of America as well. Today, we are belatedly telling these heroes, ``Thank You.'' Marine Commandant James F. Amos should be commended for his determination to make sure that these veterans are properly remembered not just by the Corps but by a grateful nation as well. As the proud father of a son who served in the Marines, it is a personal honor for me to be able to speak in support of a Congressional Gold Medal for the Montford Point Marines, and I urge the immediate passage of this long-overdue legislation.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, never in my life will I forget the Sunday afternoon when this House, under the previous majority, passed a health care law that permitted taxpayer funding of abortions. It remains as inconceivable to me now, as it was then, that the very first act by our government on an innocent and defenseless life could be to end it. We all remember the assurances we heard that the bill would respect the Hyde Amendment, which has enjoyed bipartisan support in this House for decades. Many of us knew better. The ink had barely dried on the legislation before instances came up of taxpayer money potentially being used, in one form or another, for abortion services. This House needs to state without equivocation that the Hyde Amendment fully applies to the new health care law, for however long the act may continue to be in effect. There should be no possible wiggle room for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. The law also put health care providers and hospitals in the unconscionable dilemma of having to perform abortions against their own beliefs and principles. The government should not have the power to do that. This bill protects the exercise of individual conscience. In my view, the health care law--Obamacare, as many of us call it--is so flawed that the best approach is to repeal it altogether, but we will not get that with this President. Until that day, we must stand in support of life and innocent babies and we can do that by passing The Protect Life Act.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, the free trade agreement between the United States and Colombia means jobs. If you are looking for bright spots in the U.S. economy, our trading relationship with Colombia is one of them. Even though we have been operating under a handicap to competitors like Argentina because of higher tariffs and duties, American exports to Colombia have been growing. Our exports last year were worth $12.1 billion, up 26 percent, and the International Trade Commission estimates this agreement will increase exports by at least another $1.1 billion. Each of those exports supports jobs in the United States, not to mention jobs in the State of Alabama. Colombia is one of Alabama's best export markets in this hemisphere, and it is an excellent customer for high-value manufactured products like machinery and transportation equipment. Our former Governor Bob Riley demonstrated the importance of the partnership when he led a trade delegation to Colombia in 2009, and it is my view that this agreement will create even more opportunities for mutually beneficial trade. Colombia is a strategic ally committed to a free market economy. Working together, our governments have made progress in addressing the scourge of narcotics. The Colombian government has also instituted major labor reforms, and the labor provisions in this agreement reflect the government's commitment to protect those rights. For the record, I am submitting information I received from the Colombian Ambassador to the U.S. regarding the Action Plan on labor protections. The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement will open up new avenues of cooperation between our two countries, and provide an immediate boost to our farmers, the textile industry, our energy industry, and our manufacturers to name just a few. It is a win-win agreement and I am pleased to support it. Third Party Validators Colombia Has Achieved All of the Action Plan Milestones September 15 Milestones: ``Colombia continues to meet its milestones for the action plan.''--Deputy USTR Miriam Sapiro, September 23, 2011. June 15 Milestones: ``The Action Plan is designed to significantly increase labor protections in Colombia, and we are pleased that Colombia is meeting its commitments. We are eager to see Congress move the Colombia trade agreement forward as soon as possible (. . .).''--USTR Ron Kirk, June 13, 2011. April 22 Milestones: U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk sent a letter to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees ``indicating that Colombia has taken the necessary steps, consistent with the April 22 milestones outlined in the Action Plan, to move to the next stage in the process.''-- USTR Ron Kirk, May 4, 2011. Colombia is on the Right Track: Promoting and Protecting the Rights of Workers and the Respect to Human Rights ``On September 8, 2011, the Department of State determined and certified to Congress that the Colombian Government is meeting statutory criteria related to human rights.''--U.S. State Department, September 15, 2011. The International Labor Organization (ILO) Committee that has monitored Colombia since 1985, excluded Colombia in June 2010 and again this year from the list of countries that need special monitoring.--ILO, June 2011. For the first time in more than a decade, Colombia has been selected as a titular member of the ILO Governing Body for the 2011-2014 term. Colombia was elected with 96 percent of votes from the tripartite delegations of 182 countries around the world.--ILO, June 2011. Colombian Government and Labor Unions: Working Hand In Hand An effective Three-Party Agreement was signed by the Colombian Government, labor unions and employers to strengthen democracy and advance the social dialogue on labor issues. The Agreement, which was originally signed in June 2006, was updated in May 2011 to reaffirm all three parties' commitment to reestablishing a social dialogue to generate solutions on labor-related issues and address conflicts and differences.--May 2011. The Colombian Government and Colombian Federation of Educators--Fecode, which represents 250,000 educators--signed an historic agreement on May 4, 2011 that will improve working conditions and the quality of life for the nation's educators. ``We achieved very important points and discussed important topics such as the teachers' status. As teachers, we have welcomed this agreement.''--Senen Nino, President of Fecode. June 15, 2011. Trade Unions and NGO Express Support for Action Plan and Progressive Agenda On the Progressive Agenda: ``The General Labor Confederation (CGT) salutes the achievements of the Administration of President Juan Manuel Santos during his first year in office. The Administration has enacted a series of policies of enormous value to workers and all Colombians.''--CGT, August 11, 2011. On the Progressive Agenda: ``The agenda that is being constructed at this moment is the result of a constant battle and the work of the Colombian union movement with the support of international unions. The measures contained in the agreement signed by Presidents Santos and Obama last week, the recommendations of the High Level Mission of the OIT that visited us in February, and President Santos' programs on labor are all measures that the union movement has advocated for years.''--Luciano Sanin, Director of the National Union School (ENS), April 2011. On the Action Plan: ``It is a step in the right direction that the President (Santos) deepened the agreement so that the topics of union liberty, human rights and guarantees for workers are included in the FTA.''--Julio Roberto Gomez, General Secretary of the CGT, April 8, 2011. A View from Outside: ``Colombia's Progress Deserves Support'' ``The best way to encourage Mr. Santos to take further steps to end impunity and protect activists, political candidates and indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities is to approve the FTA.'' (. . .) ``Democrats should join in ratifying the Colombia pact, and they should credit progress on human rights.''--Mark Schneider, Senior Vice President, International Crisis Group and Former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, September 18, 2011. ``We commend President Juan Manuel Santos's commitment to compensate the victims of violence and return confiscated land to poor farmers. And we applaud efforts to reduce homicides of union members, which Colombia reports have declined by nearly 90% since 2002. These are significant steps. The FTA will further Colombia's progress by providing clear protections for fundamental labor rights.''--Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Max Baucus (D-MT), Wall Street Journal Op- ed, April 4, 2011. ``A Gain for Workers.'' In an article on labor cooperatives, Revista Semana highlighted that the new decree that tackles illegal forms of labor intermediation ``is very good news for the working class (. . .) 300,000 jobs will be formalized (. . .) several companies are already adjusting to the new standard. Carrefour added 600 employees to its payroll, representing additional annual costs of about 5,000 million pesos (US$2.5 million). Exito has hired 2,500 packers, as part of a plan that includes the direct hiring of 6,250 employees this year. This will cost Exito about 70,000 million pesos per year (US$35 millon).''--Revista Semana, June 18, 2011. The Colombian news weekly Revista Semana was awarded in 2009 by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) with the Charles A. Perlik, Jr. Award for Excellence in the Field of Print Journalism throughout the hemisphere.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think we can all agree on some things. I think Mr. Waxman would agree and Mr. Moran, number one, that we want to preserve American jobs if we can; but I think, number two, we don't want to compromise our health standards. There has been a lot of talk today about we have to either do one or the other, but I think we can do both. Now, if you'll look at the EU, which passed what they call the ``gold standard'' on emissions from cement plants, they determined that mercury they could bring down to .05. What has the EPA said? They've said they want to bring it down to .01. That's five times more restrictive than in Europe. .5, which is the European standard, is about four times more strict than in Mexico. I think we all agree that even the EPA said we'd close 20 percent of our factories, but we would get that cement, according to the Congressional Budget Office, from Mexico, which is polluting our air and does not have nearly the standards we have. So if mercury is a problem, why would we shift production to something that is four times more dangerous than even that of the European Union? On the other hand, as to the European Union, which is the strictest on environmental standards in the world now, why are their standards so bad? They don't go below this. One reason with mercury is it is naturally occurring. There's a debate whether it's 60 or 40, but let me say this: At .01, it's actually more severe than what is naturally occurring in some of the supply. Yes, I have a vested interest. The second largest employer in my second biggest county is a cement plant. The largest employer in one of my cities of 20,000 people is a cement plant. Those jobs won't exist. They're willing to spend $350,000; but in an industry that only had $2 billion worth of revenue, there is no way they can spend $10 billion. Let's restore a little sanity, and we can do that. Common sense dictates that we can have jobs, and we can have safety, and we can do that not by these onerous standards on hydrochloric acid and other things.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and, in fact, both gentlemen from Pennsylvania. Mr. Doyle, I commend you, and I commend my colleague, Chris Smith, for your excellent work over the years in combating autism and for bringing this bill to reauthorize the Combating Autism Act. As Mr. Doyle said, there is an increasing prevalence of autism, and it is a diagnosis and a condition that these children and their families deal with for their entire life. It's a challenge for those families, a tremendous challenge, one that can't be overstated; but it's also a challenge for society as well because the long-term cost involved in providing care for individuals with development disorders can be great, although it can be lessened. There is hope; there is treatment. The blessing of recent years, in fact, has been that new research and early intervention programs are making an enormous difference in bettering the lives of young boys and girls with autism spectrum disorders. With early intervention, many can lead much better if not almost normal lives, which is a blessing for all of us, and it's a joy to see. It's a joy to see these children respond to early intervention and begin to develop emotionally. As a member of the Congressional Autism Caucus, I personally have seen exciting innovations at facilities using a comprehensive approach to care. Mitchell's Place in Birmingham is helping young children and adolescents in Alabama improve both their academic performance and social behavior by combining the latest in research and services with a structured and caring environment. That center was started by a couple whose young boy had autism, and it is a blessing for our community. You only need to visit that center and see the beautiful children and the new hope that they have, not only they but their proud parents and grandparents as they realize that every day, every week, every month they are improving and becoming more a part of society and more a functioning individual as far as their interaction with others. It is literally a godsend to these people. It's an oasis. It's a spring in the desert. A coordinated and comprehensive approach to the treatment of autism spectrum disorders has been key to this encouraging process. My home State of Alabama, I am proud to say, has recognized the importance of close cooperation when it formed the Alabama Interagency Autism Coordinating Council in 2008. To a certain extent it looked to Pennsylvania and the work that had been done there. Children and parents across my State are being helped by the council's planning and awareness efforts. Finally, the Combating Autism Act has been crucial to promoting a coordinated approach on the national level. The renewal of this legislation will build on the successes that have already been achieved in a responsible and effective way. I close by saying that it's my hope that this legislation will receive overwhelming bipartisan support because it is doing good work while making life-changing investments in the health and well-being of very special children and very precious children. I thank you, Mr. Doyle.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I never voted for a stand-alone consumer protection financial bill and I never voted against it because it was never offered. What was offered was a 2,400-page extravaganza which hires about 10,000 new Federal employees to enforce rules that weren't enforced in the first place. And I have consistently said let's enforce the rules we have and not just hire more regulators and create more rules. As you know, we offered a bill which did have several protections.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, what is this awful thing that Republicans are bringing before the Congress today? This monstrosity, the Democrats have called it, is an attack on consumers. Well, it is a proposal that was first brought to us by our Democratic colleagues, and that was to have a bipartisan commission to protect consumers. That is what we're being attacked for today, a five-member board. Now, all of us in this body are for consumer protection. Our voters, our constituents are all consumers, and we're all for protecting them. We're also for protecting our financial institutions and our economy. And we need a balance. So how do we achieve that? Well, the Democrats, Elizabeth Warren, who is the originator of this consumer protection commission, back in 2007 proposed a Consumer Protection Product Safety Commission. In 2008, the Consumer Federation of America proposed a financial product safety commission. Senator Dick Durbin, acting on their recommendations, introduced, in 2009, a consumer protection commission with a director and a board. Then the then-chairman of the committee, in July of that year, introduced a bill, a five-member board. The Energy and Commerce Commission followed that a few months later with what? A five-member commission. Then Senator Dodd issued his draft discussion. What did he propose? A five-member commission because it needed to be bipartisan, it needed to be balanced. But what was passed out of this body, really, after three nights of amendments and sessions that went all day? Well, what came about was an unaccountable czar--one person. The Dodd-Frank bill put a single Director in charge, and it gave him unmitigated discretion to issue rules, to ban financial products, to determine what products would be offered. Whether you're a borrower, whether you're a lender, whether you're a consumer of financial services, or whether you offer financial services, he will determine or she will determine what those services will be and the terms of those services. So what is wrong with that? Well, let me say this: In America, do we give one person the power to do whatever they want to regulate every product and service that we are offered or that we can accept or that we, as a company, can offer? That sounds to me like a government command and control economy with the government making choices that we make. So for that reason, we've been attacked for proposing a five- member bipartisan commission instead of an unaccountable czar. The pattern from my Democratic colleagues continues to be: We're going to put one person in charge of an agency and we're going to let them make all of the decisions, and that way there will be no real review of those decisions. People can either take it or leave it. It's up to the government. The government controls everything. Well, Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want George Washington, I wouldn't want Abraham Lincoln, I wouldn't want Mother Teresa to have that kind of power. That, to me, is not what a democracy is about. And if you look at the person, who is he appointed by? He's appointed by the President of the United States. There's no input from Congress. Not only can he determine all of these problems, but his funding, he doesn't have to come to the taxpayers or their representatives for funding. He doesn't have to come to the Congress to get funding. He's totally unaccountable. Now, Mr. Chairman, how in the world is proposing for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau the exact same model that the FDIC is set up with, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Securities Exchange Commission--all of these are commissions. All of them are bipartisan. They basically ensure that no one political party, one agenda or one person, will make decisions for every American every day. But that's what has been created. And the monster is not the bill that we bring forward. The monster is the bill that you've created. You took a good idea and you ruined it. You took a good idea that was all about consumer protection and you converted it into a one-man show where one person could control every financial product or every offering in America. It could ban any product. It could say to any American: You cannot enter into that financial agreement. It could say to every American: You can't make that financial decision. And, Mr. Chairman, that is un-American.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. I reclaim my time. What the gentleman said is, yes, that's what Elizabeth Warren proposed. Then he said, yes, that's what I introduced. Then he said, but I decided at some point that we would rather have an unaccountable czar because we want him to do whatever we want him to do. Point of Order

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I've been listening to the debate on the floor, and although this was concerning the rule, there have been a lot of false claims lodged against what this legislation does. It does not gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It is not anti-consumer. It is not an attempt to repeal Dodd-Frank. It does three simple things, and all three of those things, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats were for before they were against. These are all proposals that they have made. We all know who the person who first proposed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is. I think all of the Members of this body would say it was Elizabeth Warren. What did she propose? She proposed a bipartisan commission. She did not propose the end result of Dodd-Frank, which was an unaccountable czar. A five-member board is done for almost every other agency, the exceptions being the EPA and the OCC. With both of those, the OCC is accountable to Congress because it is part of the Treasury Department, and is subject to OMB. The EPA is a Presidential appointee, a Cabinet member. He has to be confirmed. Not only that, he has to come to the Congress for appropriations. There is no accountability on the part of this body.

Mr. BACHUS. I will yield to the gentleman to just answer this question: Was a bipartisan commission proposed by Elizabeth Warren? That's number one. Then you can respond to it or ask me a question. My number one question: Did she propose a bipartisan commission? Number two, is that what you introduced into the House, saying that that was the fairest approach? I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. BACHUS. That doesn't sound like a ``yes'' or a ``no.''

Mr. BACHUS. Yes.

Mr. BACHUS. That's right.

Mr. BACHUS. I will change my remarks. He said a single director, who doesn't have to come to Congress for an appropriation. The second thing we do is we have an appeal process, or a review process. Now, if I could have the second slide, what we have asked for is what you said you gave us; but this legislation--I won't say who--created a sham review process, and we want a realistic review process. We don't think any single person ought to be able to dictate a rule without any accountability. So what do we do? What is set up in Dodd-Frank? Seven out of the 10 regulators have to determine that any one rule will endanger the entire financial system--one rule. In other words, it takes seven of President Obama's 10 appointees to say that it would bring down the entire financial system. How would one rule ever do that? What we say is it endangers the safety and soundness of our financial institutions. That's all we do. That's all we do.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, we just heard that we were cutting Medicare; but, in fact, it was the minority party that cut $500 billion out of Medicare last year to pass ObamaCare. How quickly we forget. Mr. Speaker, at one time, people stored cash under their mattress for safekeeping. Now people all over the world put that same money in treasury bills. That benefits every American in countless ways. Let's not lose that advantage. The imminent threat to the safe haven of treasury bonds and our national security is default and downgrade. However, by far, the overriding danger is too much government spending. The Federal Government must do what every family in America is called on to do at times when things are tight. That's cut spending and live within their means. As long as we ignore our spending problem, the economy will weaken, confidence will not be restored, jobs will not be created. We, and more profoundly, our children and grandchildren, will bear the costs. Earlier, the minority leader said: What will the students say? What will the children say? Let me say this. When we say to them your money's all gone, we spent it, we lacked the courage to address the problems, we didn't confront the problems, what will our children say to us? What will our grandchildren say? The heritage of America has never been ``can't do''; it's always been ``can do.'' We can do it. We can rise to the challenge. We can answer our children and our grandchildren in future years and say we did the right thing for you. We did the right thing for our country. We confronted the problems.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentlewoman. Madam Chairman, this month we're all focused on the debt and the deficit and our negotiations to try to balance the budget. So it's with great pride that I tell the House that all 54 members of the Financial Services Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, have unanimously passed out of the committee a bipartisan piece of legislation which will save the U.S. Government and the American taxpayers $4.2 billion over the next 10 years. It does that without decreasing any of the benefits of the program. It does it in some commonsense ways. One is that premiums will be actuarially sound. They will be based on the risk, and we will be eliminating subsidies to bring the program into balance. We further insulate taxpayers from losses by adding a reinsurance provision whereby part of the premium that people pay, just as if they do on their house or for wind coverage if they have a home on the beach--part of it is in private insurance laid off into reinsurance. The program today, if you eat up the reserves, then the Treasury is responsible for making up the difference. After this legislation goes into effect, there will be reinsurance that will be purchased, and the taxpayer will only be exposed after risk-based premiums are exhausted, reinsurance in addition to that is exhausted. So we reduce taxpayer exposure to a tremendous extent. Also, people have said, why is there not private insurance? Well, we have a provision in here, supported by both parties, that if the private market comes in and offers insurance for the same coverage that people will be free to choose that coverage as opposed to the national flood insurance offered by the government. You've heard the gentlelady from Florida express her concern that 11 times this legislation has been extended. Where it has been extended, it has retarded economic growth along our coastlines, along our rivers; and you can actually imagine that a lot of the economic activity and the job creation in our country comes in these areas. And today I think there would be no one in the House that says we want to put the economies of those areas on hold for 3 months or 6 months. We want the economy to have much fewer problems. We don't want to stop home sales; we don't want to stop commercial developments in those areas. There are other shortcomings with the present program. One is there are disputes over whether or not land should be included within the floodplains, whether coverage should be offered. We make improvements there. We returned to a program several years ago where there's a technical advisory committee that, in addition to FEMA, will make these decisions, and it will be a more professionally based decision. Those areas which are spending money, local areas like Los Angeles, California, Ms. Waters' district; along the Mississippi River, where local governments have come together and made expenditures to protect against floods, there's acknowledgment of their work, and the phase-in period for them is extended to encourage more of that. All in all, I think that I would just go back to where I started and say that the Financial Services Committee is no different from any other committee in this House. There are conservatives, there are liberals, there are moderates that serve on that committee, both Republicans and Democrats. But all 54 members--let me stress that again--all 54 members of the Financial Services Committee voted unanimously for this legislation. And we are prepared in our debate as we go forward to accept amendments offered by several other Members, both Democrats and Republicans, to accept those amendments where it does not do violence to the program, where it doesn't increase costs or exposure to the taxpayer. All in all, I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, who produced this legislation. I think our constituents for months have been saying to the Congress, please set aside your political differences, please try to work together, please try to cooperate when you can do so without violating your principles. And Mrs. Biggert and Ms. Waters, the subcommittee ranking member on her side, they put aside their differences. I worked with Chairman Frank. We had hearings, we had markups, and we produced something that I thought was not possible, and that's a bill that we all think will improve the program tremendously, will reduce the cost and reduce taxpayer exposure and really make the mapping better and the protection for our communities in flood-prone areas work more effectively.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois. I believe this is a noncontroversial amendment. It will encourage local governments to undertake repairs and remedial efforts. And I believe it is a fair, equitable change in the bill to reward local and State governments for their efforts. With that, I would recommend passage of the amendment.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I don't think anyone in this Congress is more sincere on cutting government spending than Mr. Flake. I believe he comes here with pure motivation. I would simply say this to him and my colleagues: this is an issue that we carefully considered. It was first proposed as a result of Katrina and the losses there. As he said correctly, this program is $16 billion in the red. After Katrina, the Federal Government through FEMA, SBA and others, paid out several billion dollars not on the flood insurance program but paid out an estimated $6 billion or $7 billion to businesses because of their losses from business interruption and temporary shelter and living expenses. In 2006, really as a result of that, the subcommittee chairman, Richard Baker, held hearings and determined that business interruption and cost-of-living coverage should be included. It has passed the House, but we have actually since then never passed a flood insurance reform bill. As all of us know, and I think all of us agree, the legislation before us today has already been scored as a $4.2 billion savings. The reason that it saves money, the reason that it takes a program that is costing taxpayers money every day is because it requires a risk-based premium. Now, beyond that, it also requires reinsurance if the risk- based premium proves insufficient. So it has a cushion. It also says that if private insurers will offer this plan, then the government will not. It makes a finding that a competitive private market for such coverage does not exist. That was actually based on 2006 and again last year. It certifies that the National Flood Insurance Program will offer such coverage with the prohibition that it is supplemented by taxpayer money from the Treasury. This was a concern that many of us, including Mr. Flake, you know, had, that the taxpayer would end up subsidizing this. This legislation with this provision actually scores as a $4.2 billion savings over the next 10 years. Actually, I think it could be greater than that because, as Mr. Flake said, we don't know what is going to happen next year or the year after that. We do know this: we know when we have one of these, and in fact this year is a great example, when we have four $1 billion disasters, what did this Congress do? It appropriated disaster assistance. And that included reimbursement for living expenses and business interruption. Not only that, but the SBA, the Agricultural Department and I can't imagine how many others that we don't know about, FEMA, as a realistic matter, they are handing out checks every day when we have these disasters. Local and State governments are doing the same. Why not, instead of this being handed out, why not have the people who own the businesses, who are living there, why not offer them coverage and let them pay the premium and let them share the loss? There are many places in the West where a flood, it would be almost impossible. There are many places in this country where a flood is simply not a problem. Why should those people be required to pay taxpayer money for what has become basically the Federal Government coming in and reimbursing everyone that doesn't have insurance? That is a question that we have asked. We have just had the largest outbreak of tornadoes and death in the United States in Alabama. I have heard people say we have a situation where there is no insurance and the Federal Government comes in and says, if you have insurance, you have got it covered; and if you don't, we'll make it up. I don't like that idea. I think it encourages people not to have coverage. This offers them coverage. The next step is telling them no to these others program; you should have had insurance.