Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment. As many of us on the Financial Services Committee know, the flood insurance program is a public-private partnership where private insurance companies write the coverage and service the policies, with the government setting the coverage and the requirements. Recently, State Farm Insurance decided that they no longer wanted to participate in the program, and they transferred--I guess that's a nice word. An unflattering term which is more accurate would be they dumped 800,000 policies back on the Federal Government. This was after they collected premiums and their agents sold the coverage. This amendment would make changes to that, where if an insurance company wants to participate in the plan, they can; if they want to profit from the plan, they can. But they don't have the unilateral right to dump those policies back on the government agencies. Prior to that, there were about 150 policies that the government was administering directly. What this amendment would do is called a depopulation amendment. It directs FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program to take those policies and distribute them among insurance companies who are willing to service those contracts. And I'm happy to report to the Congress and the Members that many mainline insurance companies have agreed to take up these policies. Out of respect for State Farm agents, many of whom I think were displeased and surprised by their parent company abandoning these policies, it would give them the right to also service those policies. However, there may be some legal problems with that, but we at least don't rule that out. The depopulation of these policies--and by that, the return to what the program was set up to function like, and that was with private servicers and agents. Handling the policies would be done over a 1-year time frame. I actually believe that we should have actually depopulated more than we did, but we did this as an accommodation to FEMA and to some of the State Farm agents. I think this is a noncontroversial amendment.

Mr. BACHUS. I would like to commend Mr. Loebsack for his amendment. I also would like to say that because it does require or ask that TV and radio be utilized to get the word out, the next amendment by the lady from Michigan actually would--and I have taken no position on her amendment--but it actually asks that national flood insurance not incur advertising expenses. And I think there is some good points to that, some bad points. But as this amendment proves, the local stations themselves and the local media can get these things out. So that might be a point in favor of her first amendment. I am very opposed to her second amendment. I don't want the Members to confuse support, or at least non-opposition to her first amendment, as support for her second. But I commend the gentleman, and I think it's a good sense amendment and would urge strong support to the Loebsack amendment.

Mr. BACHUS. I think the gentleman from Illinois was arguing on the last amendment, not this amendment. If the Members will take everything he said, transfer it to the amendment before, it would be appropriate. But I disagree with his argument.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I'm joined on the floor today by my colleagues from the southern States. We have Members from Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia together. Families in our States have lost over 300 of their loved ones, and I ask that the House at this time join my colleagues and me in a moment of silence for these families and victims. Our thoughts and prayers go with them.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. I just returned from my home State of Alabama, where we have lost over 250 of our citizens. The loss of life would have been much greater had NOAA and Dr. Jane Lubchenco and her wonderful staff not given us an early warning. But some of our storms hit at night, and people were unaware of it. I am joining several of my colleagues today to reintroduce legislation that Brad Ellsworth and I have introduced in the last two Congresses, to have weather radios installed in manufactured housing. This would save many lives. One of the advocates of this lost her 2- year-old child. The Senate has not passed this legislation, but we are going to try again this year, and if we are successful, we will save lives. The cost of these radios is less than $10, but the cost of not having them, as we found out this weekend in Alabama, is the loss of many lives.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. I thank the chairman. Imagine that you are on the bank of a river. It's deep in winter. It's a peaceful scene. You look out on the river, and it's frozen. There's a deep current of cold water under the ice. But then you see a small child, and he is walking out onto the ice. He doesn't fall, and he walks further out. You begin to warn the child, but he walks further out. As we know, the ice gets thinner the further out we go. And we are on that ice today as a country, and every day we take one step further out. And tragically, the young child falls through the ice and is swept away. That's what we're here to talk about. We're here to talk about the repeated warnings that we've received. Chairman Bernanke told us just last week that unless we act immediately in a long-term way, we will not have economic growth nor will we have financial stability. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, told us that the greatest threat to our economy and to our national security is our debt. The IMF yesterday--this is unthinkable. They said of all the advanced countries in the world, our debt was growing the fastest, it was unsustainable, and it would lead to instability both here and across the world. Now, imagine those pictures of countries where the children are in economic distress where there's no stability. Those could be our children. Those could be our grandchildren. So with the warning today is a vote for our children and our grandchildren. We've heard the warning. We're not children. Let's save our children and grandchildren from that fall through the ice.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of Extension Home Economics in the State of Alabama and the important educational role played by home demonstration and county agents throughout our state. Generations of families in Alabama have led better and more self-sufficient lives as a result of home economics programs, which are based on a foundation of teaching consumer and decision making skills that last a lifetime. The roots of Extension home economics education in Alabama can be traced to the founding of the first Girls' Tomato Clubs in Pike and Walker counties in 1911. The spread of similar clubs demonstrated the great need for homemaker education. Those modest beginnings provided fertile soil for the creation of a statewide Alabama Cooperative Extension Service, which was established as part of the land grant college system. The original staff included a state home demonstration agent. The Alabama Cooperative Extension Service is known for a number of impressive firsts, including the development of a model program to teach low-income young homemakers and the appointment of the first Negro demonstration agent in Alabama in 1915. Extension workers and citizens in Alabama participated in the ``food for defense'' program during World War II and their memorable mattress campaign resulted in the completion of more than 500,000 mattresses and 200,000 comforters to support the campaign for liberty. A hallmark of home economics education in Alabama has been its responsiveness to changing economic and cultural needs. During the challenging years of the Great Depression, instruction in conservation and wise management of scarce resources helped to tide over many families during difficult times. The post-war years brought a new emphasis on consumer education and sound decision making as women entered the workforce in greater numbers. More recently, lifestyle, health, and technology education has assumed heightened importance. In our complex society, home economics now encompasses everything from health, nutrition, and family life to financial, consumer, and employment matters. The end goal remains the same: creating a wise consumer, a strong family unit, and productive citizens in our communities. The State of Alabama is fortunate to have an extensive network of cooperative extension agents, university professionals, and elementary and secondary educators dedicated to the well-being of our families. Working seamlessly together, they provide an unparalleled service to the State of Alabama that enhances the quality of family life daily. On the occasion of the special celebratory luncheon being held in Montgomery on April 19 to salute the mission of home economics, it is a pleasure to recognize 100 years of achievement and look forward to a second century of service.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. I reclaim my time. One thousand million dollars and $29 billion of authorization, 2 years of a failed program, and the week before we come to the floor, you file a bill. You file a bill. I'm sorry to say to the ranking member, you can file the bill, we will take a look at it, but we are ending this failure.

Mr. BACHUS. Last week. Two years----

Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentlewoman. As Republicans and Democrats, let's talk about what this bill does. This bill shuts down a Federal program which spends money. Every dime of that money, of the over 1,000 million dollars, has already been spent, and they have authorized $29 billion more to be spent. Now, that's taxpayer money; and that is money that, in 2008, we promised the American people, when the banks paid it back, that it would go into the Treasury. That was a promise that we made. So this bill keeps that promise, and that's that the money will be returned to the Treasury. Now, why do we make that promise and why do we defend that promise today on the floor of the House? Because, ladies and gentlemen, we are spending our children and grandchildren into financial oblivion. We are threatening the national security of this country. Now, where do I get such a fact as that? Why do I say that it is a threat to national security, which I said last week and I was criticized? Well, let me quote Defense Secretary Robert Gates when he said 2 months ago, ``this country's dire fiscal situation and the threat it poses to American influence and credibility around the world will only get worse unless the U.S. Government gets its finances in order.'' And I was told, well, that didn't say that it was a threat to our national security. But following that statement, Admiral Mike Mullen made this statement, the Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, ``The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.'' In case you weren't listening, let me say that again. ``The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.'' Now, that wasn't a Republican on the floor of the House. That was the Joint Chiefs of Staff's Mike Mullen. We are spending $1.42 for every $1 we get. We are borrowing 42 cents of that. Twelve percent of our debt is owed to the Chinese. Every day we write the Chinese a check for $120 million. They could buy the most advanced strike jet fighter in the world and still have $20 million to put in their pocket each day. In 1970, only 19 percent of our national debt was owed to other countries; today, it approaches 50 percent. Now, let's not talk about whether we can afford this program; let's talk about whether our children and our grandchildren can, because-- let's not kid ourselves--we can't pay it back. Now, do we want to spend $30 billion of our children's and our grandchildren's money? First of all, should we do that morally? But let's just assume that you say yes, we should do this with our children and grandchildren's money. Well, who should we pay that money to? You talked about the banks. Where does this money go? It goes to the banks. Every dime of it is paid to a bank. You have a borrower, you have a lender. As many of you have correctly said, and I agree with you, people loaned homeowners money they couldn't afford to pay back. And is that the taxpayers' fault? Should they pick up the bill? No. It is the bank's, or it may be the homeowner's. But the people that ought to pay it back are not the taxpayers, and if it can't be paid back, the banks ought to take the loss. You talk about the homeowners, but it is the banks that will be paid. And you talk about 500,000 Americans that have been helped. You didn't mention almost 1 million that have been made worse off. Now, again, is that some mean Republican saying they are worse off? No. Today, March 29, a letter from the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States. Do you know who that is? It is La Raza. What did they say? Let me quote what the largest, and I think we would all agree, a very liberal organization, what did they say? I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this legislation, they said. ``Structural flaws, especially the voluntary nature of HAMP, have resulted in an abysmal performance by mortgage servicers and hundreds of thousands of families losing their homes to foreclosure unnecessarily.'' They say this program has resulted in hundreds of thousands of American homeowners losing their homes. Now, are they the only people who have said this? No. Our own Inspector General, our own Neil Barofsky, SIGTARP, who was put in charge of monitoring this program, what did he say? Let me quote what he said. ``HAMP benefits only a small portion of distressed homeowners, offers others little more than false hope, and in certain cases causes more harm than good.'' When did he say that? He said it this month before our committee. This month. How about the Congressional oversight panel, a majority of which are Democrats. What did they say? They said billions of taxpayer dollars-- billions, billions--will have been spent to delay rather than prevent foreclosures. Now, that is not Republicans who are getting some crazy idea that this program isn't working. No. It is Democrats. And who has President Obama appointed to temporarily run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Well, it is Elizabeth Warren, we all know the answer to that. What does Elizabeth Warren say about this program? Let me quote what she said. Just the facts. Not Spencer Bachus, not Patrick McHenry, not Judy Biggert. No. Elizabeth Warren, who works out of the White House and who is in charge of consumer protection. Here is what she said, December 14th: ``Because Treasury's authority to restructure HAMP ended on October 3, 2010, the program's prospects are unlikely to improve substantially in the future.'' In other words, they are not going to improve this program. So let's end by saying this. We say shut it down. You say mend it. Let's mend this program. Why? Let's not pretend. We are not talking about mending. We are talking about pretending. The Treasury, according to Elizabeth Warren, doesn't even have the ability to do that. The administration itself, not someone here, but your administration, Laurie Maggiano, a Treasury official, said at the Mortgage Banking Conference February 24, just a month ago, ``You won't see any major new programs coming out. We may tweak around the edges, but our primary objective in 2011 is excellence in the program we have.'' Well, there has been no excellence in the program. It has failed. The largest Hispanic group in America has said, end this program. But I tell you what, our grandchildren and children would say this, and you continue to say, and I agree with you, we have got 13 million American families underwater with their mortgages, and you want to pick and choose 500,000 of those to help. What about the others? Should the Federal Government pay everybody's mortgage that is behind? Why, one out of four American families are underwater on their home. You have got, it just came out yesterday: 13 million vacant houses in America, and almost immediately you come up with a cash-for-keys program where you are going to buy these abandoned properties from the banks, from the speculators. I don't think you have listened to the American people. I don't think you heard what they said in November. This program has been criticized ever since its inception. You haven't mended it. You are talking about mending it today. Where is your bill to mend it? Is there a bill to amend it? Have you introduced it? Is there a bill?

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

Mr. BACHUS. You will be?

Mr. BACHUS. Is the gentleman saying you will be?

Mr. BACHUS. What, today? Was it filed today, or Monday?

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 1148 be re-referred primarily to the Committee on Financial Services and additionally to the Committees on Agriculture, House Administration, Judiciary, Ethics, and Rules.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of H.R. 839, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill, to include striking ``paragraph (1)'' on page 5, line 16, and inserting in lieu thereof ``subparagraph (A)''.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Well, let me ask you this: The IG said they couldn't trace some of this money, and I think we've all figured that out. If we don't know whom we're paying----

Mr. BACHUS. Let's tear it down. I agree with you. And let's make the person who owns it tear it down. And this idea that this person can't be found, that this person---- I would ask for order. Announcement by the Chair

Mr. BACHUS. It was the person that you wrote the check to. You have to buy it, and you wrote the check out. So you know who the owner is.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address two things that the minority has raised. One is they've talked about fairness. And I will tell you that there's nothing fair about this program. In fact, it's an unfair program. It's unfair for most Americans. The second thing they've talked about is foreclosures. This program causes foreclosures. This program encourages foreclosures. This program promotes foreclosures. Now let's talk about the foreclosures first and then we'll talk about fair. What does this program do? Does it prevent foreclosures? No. It encourages foreclosures. It allows nonprofits, community organizations, and cities and counties to buy foreclosed properties. In other words, to create a market for foreclosed properties. The minority supplied us with pictures of two of these properties. This is the one in Baltimore, Maryland. This was one of two. I think the other one was in Los Angeles, as I recall. This is the property. Now, just like all these properties, it's not owned by a homeowner. There's no homeowner there. It's owned by a bank or a real estate speculator. It might have been somebody that put someone in this house with what we call an exploding loan. Put someone in that house that couldn't afford it. So, what do we do? We construct a program that says to this bank that owns this property, that's paying taxes to the government on this property--we don't say to tear this down, or we don't say we're going to condemn it and convert it, and we're going to get it with no charge. No. We buy it. Now, is that right? You said the banks caused this, the lenders. We ought to penalize those that are at fault. Well, how does penalizing a lender who made a loan on this property, how is writing them a check fair? No, it's not. This is a bailout for lenders and speculators. Now, is it fair? Well, is it fair to our grandchildren and our children, $4 billion every day that goes out of our Treasury, more than we bring in. Four billion dollars a day. In fact, the deficit for February was 230-something billion dollars. Now, every day they talk about fairness, and I have quoted this with every one of these failed programs. I have quoted Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who says our debt is the biggest threat to our national security, the existence of our country. Well, let's just talk about one thing we do every day. We owe China 9\1/2\ percent of our debt; 9 to 9\1/2\ percent is owed to China. Every day we write a check to China because we won't face up to this exploding spending of $120 million a day. They could buy a Joint Strike Force Fighter every day and still put $20 million in their pocket. Every day. They could build an Air Force bigger than our Air Force in 5 years on money they earn from us and that our taxpayers pay because we won't confront programs like this. Because ``fair'' to us is saying yes to everyone except the taxpayers. And, oh, there are 4 million foreclosures in this country this year. That's a terrible figure. But I tell you, this program will do nothing but increase that number. And to think that it's fair to our children and grandchildren to devise a program but not have the money to pay it and stick it on our children and grandchildren, it ought to infuriate any of us who are grandparents. It does me. It's time now to end this foolishness which threatens the very existence of our country.

Mr. BACHUS. Well, there you go again. Instead of talking about this program, you want to talk about the Brazil cotton deal, or you want to talk about Afghanistan. And I'll talk about those. But before I do, I have a question for you, for my colleagues on the Democratic side who talk about investing in this property. I want you to get a good look at this. Are you willing to put your money up to buy that?

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

Mr. BACHUS. And I would say to the Chair--and I appreciate that--that if any of my colleagues want to buy this property and think it's a good investment, they can hire painters and Realtors and put all these people to work, but the taxpayers, they're having trouble paying their own mortgages. They're having trouble financing their own children's education. And whose side are we on? Listen, this program has benefited less than 2,000 pieces of property--banks--but we've got 12 million American families who are underwater on their mortgage. And do you think it's even fair to pay off, as y'all proposed, a half a million of those mortgages? How about the other 21 out of 22? You know, you can't pay off all 12 million. You will break the country. So you say, well, we're going to do the best we can. You're going to pick winners and losers. Let me tell you something. The taxpayers that are paying their mortgages or own their own homes or didn't get into this problem--don't you get the message from November? The American people don't want us paying--they don't want to pay for someone else's obligations.

Mr. BACHUS. Now, let's talk about this Brazilian cotton, and let me tell you, if I were you--I'd say to the Chair, if I were the ranking member, I would talk about anything but buying this property and fixing it up. I'd do anything to avoid that conversation. I'd avoid anything to talk about that we're paying the banks with taxpayer money. But you mentioned Brazil and you said it was a stupid deal. You said it took a Flip Wilson to do this. Well, it was Ron Kirk, trade ambassador, that entered into the agreement. And who hired him? President Obama. So you ought to take it up with the Democratic administration who saddled us with this $150 million obligation. I close with Afghanistan. I have a son who's in the U.S. Marines. He was in there for 10 years and he's out now, but let me tell you something. I will spend money to build up an Afghan force so we can bring our young men and women home. [From the Office of the United States Trade Representative, Executive Office of the President] U.S., Brazil Agree on Framework Regarding WTO Cotton Dispute Washington, DC.--Today Brazil's Ministers reached a decision in support of a Framework regarding the Cotton dispute, which would avert the imposition of countermeasures of more than $800 million this year. This includes more than $560 million in countermeasures against U.S. exports which were scheduled to go into effect on Monday, June 21, 2010, as well as possible countermeasures on intellectual property rights that could have taken effect later. We are pleased with this decision, and look forward to signing the Framework soon. The findings in the Cotton dispute concern U.S. cotton support under the marketing loan and countercyclical payment programs, and the GSM-102 Export Credit Guarantee Program. In line with these findings, the Framework has two major elements. First, it would provide, as a basis for a discussion toward reaching a mutually agreed solution to the dispute, a limit on trade-distorting cotton subsidies. Second, the Framework would provide benchmarks for changes to certain elements of the current GSM-102 program. In the Framework, the United States and Brazil would agree to meet quarterly to discuss the successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill as it relates to trade-distorting cotton subsidies and the operation of GSM-102. The Framework would not serve as a permanent solution to the Cotton dispute. However, it would provide specific interim steps and a process for continued discussions on the programs at issue with a view to reaching a solution to the dispute. ``I am pleased that we have been able to negotiate a Framework regarding the WTO Cotton dispute that would avoid the imposition of countermeasures against U.S. trade, including goods and intellectual property,'' said Ambassador Kirk. ``While respecting the role of the United States Congress in developing the next Farm Bill, this Framework would now allow us to continue to work toward a final resolution of the Cotton dispute. I believe this Framework will go a long way in alleviating the uncertainty in our business communities and enhance the ability of the United States and Brazil to build upon our dynamic trading relationship.'' ``This framework agreement provides a way forward as we work with Congress toward a new farm bill in 2012,'' said Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. ``Although it is not a permanent solution, I am pleased that it allows us to maintain our programs while considering adjustments and avoiding the immediate imposition of countermeasures against U.S. exports as a result of the WTO cotton decision.'' Background The Cotton dispute is a long-running dispute brought by Brazil against the United States. In 2005 and again in 2008, the World Trade Organization (WTO) found that certain U.S. agricultural support payments and guarantees are inconsistent with WTO commitments: (1) payments to cotton producers under the marketing loan and countercyclical programs; and (2) export credit guarantees under the GSM-102 program, a USDA program used to provide guarantees for credit extended by U.S. banks or exporters to approved foreign banks for purchases of U.S. agricultural exports. On August 31, 2009, WTO arbitrators issued arbitration awards in this dispute. These awards provided the level of countermeasures that Brazil could impose against U.S. trade. The annual amount of countermeasures has two parts: 1) a fixed amount of $147.3 million for the cotton payments and 2) an amount for the GSM-102 program that varies based upon program usage. Using the data that we have given Brazil (in accordance with the arbitrators' award), the current total of authorized countermeasures is more than $800 million. The arbitrators also provided that Brazil could impose cross-sectoral countermeasures (i.e. countermeasures in sectors outside of trade in goods, specifically intellectual property and services). It may impose cross-sectoral countermeasures to the extent that it applies total countermeasures in excess of a threshold. The threshold varies annually, but is currently approximately $560 million. Therefore, of the approximately $820 million in countermeasures Brazil could impose now, about $260 million of that could be cross-sectoral. On March 8, 2010 Brazil announced a final list of products that would face higher tariffs beginning on April 7, 2010. Goods on the list include autos, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, electronics, textiles, wheat, fruit and nuts, and cotton. Brazil had not made a final decision on which U.S. intellectual property rights might be affected by cross- sectoral countermeasures, but it had begun the process to make this determination. On April 1, Deputy USTR Miriam Sapiro and USDA Undersecretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services Jim Miller met with Ambassador Antonio Patriota, Secretary General of Brazil's Ministry of External Relations to discuss possible resolution of the dispute. As a result of that dialogue, the Government of Brazil agreed not to impose any countermeasures on U.S. trade at that time. In exchange, the. United States agreed to work with Brazil to establish a fund of approximately $147.3 million per year on a pro rata basis to provide technical assistance and capacity building to the cotton sector in Brazil, and for international cooperation related to the same sector in certain other countries. Under the Memorandum of Understanding that the United States and Brazil signed on April 20, 2010, the fund would continue until passage of the next Farm Bill or a mutually agreed solution to the Cotton dispute is reached, whichever is sooner. The fund is subject to transparency and auditing requirements. The United States also agreed to make certain near term modifications to the operation of the GSM-102 Export Credit Guarantee Program, and to engage with the Government of Brazil in technical discussions regarding further operation of the program. In addition, the United States published a proposed rule on April 16, 2010, to recognize the State of Santa Catarina as free of foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest, classical swine fever, African swine fever, and swine vesicular disease, based on World Organization for Animal Health Guidelines, and to complete a risk evaluation and identify appropriate risk mitigation measures to determine whether fresh beef can be imported from Brazil while preventing the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States. The parties further agreed on April 1 that they would work to develop a Framework regarding the Cotton dispute by June 21, which would provide a path forward for a negotiated solution to the Cotton dispute and allow both countries to avoid the impact of countermeasures. Negotiators from Brazil and the United States have been engaged intensively over the past several months, and successfully concluded this Framework. Brazil is the United States' 10th largest trading partner with a total two-way goods trade of approximately $60 billion in 2009.