Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, if there is one common denominator in Congress this year, it is the substitution of government for the individual. With the stimulus, the multiple bailouts, cap-and-tax, and now health care, instead of you making the decision, the government makes it for you.

We have seen time after time, when you substitute a government-run program for individual choice, the cost goes up and the quality goes down. When it comes to health care, there is nothing more important than quality and choice. Given the choice, I will always place my faith in the individual, not in the government, and this time is no different.

The American economy is the world's largest. It is three times larger than the Japanese, our closest competitor. It is larger than the economies of Japan, China, Germany, and Great Britain combined. We got there through innovation, choice, competition, and individual initiative and responsibility, not government control and management. Let's keep it that way.

Madam Speaker, on October 28, 2009, I missed rollcall vote 819 while visiting with World War II veterans from my district at the National World War II Memorial as part of the Birmingham and Gadsden Honor Flight program. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 819.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding funding that I requested as part of the H.R. 2997, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: H.R. 2997--Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: Agricultural Research Service, Salaries and Expenses Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Auburn University

Address of Requesting Entity: 202 Samford Hall, Auburn University, AL 36849

Description of Request: Provide $1,293,000 to develop and assist in adopting cropping systems that reduce production cost primarily by reducing the need for nitrogen fertilizer, pesticides, fuel, and equipment. Federal funding would allow the program to expand reniform nematode research throughout the state, develop more intense mature management research that includes bioenergy crops, and expand research on the development of alternative substrates for nursery crop production. Current and future profitability of agronomic based crop production in Alabama is dependent on these research and outreach efforts. Use of precision technologies associated with these studies have resulted in practices that saves fuel, herbicides, and fertilizers and protects Alabama's vital natural resources. The project's total budget is $1,900,000. Specifically within the budget, $1,298,740 will go toward permanent personnel salaries, $360,760 for research expense, and $240,500 for equipment. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Agricultural Research Service, Salaries and Expense Account. Auburn University will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride and admiration that I rise today to honor the Non-Commissioned Officers from the great state of Alabama who serve our Nation in the United States Army.

NCOs from the my state have served in defense of our freedoms, in support of our democracy, and in service to the citizens of the state of Alabama during times of natural disasters and to our Nation in times of national emergencies at home and abroad.

Since 9/11, Army Reservists from Alabama have deployed over 6,000 times and members of the Alabama Army National Guard have made over 15,000 deployments to the Global War on Terror, many for the second, third, and fourth time.

The U.S. Army has designated 2009 as the ``Year of the NCO'' to pay tribute to the leadership qualities and contributions of the Non- Commissioned Officers charged with executing the military organization's mission and training for personnel and equipment maintenance that make their units function. Those values are embodied in the NCO Creed, which reads:

No one is more professional than I. I am a Non-Commissioned

Officer, a leader of soldiers. As a Non-Commissioned Officer,

I realize that I am a member of a time honored corps, which

is known as `The Backbone of the Army'. I am proud of the

Corps of Non-Commissioned Officers and will at all times

conduct myself so as to bring credit upon the Corps, the

Military Service and my country regardless of the situation

in which I find myself. I will not use my grade or position

to attain pleasure, profit, or personal safety;

Competence is my watchword. My two basic responsibilities

will always be uppermost in my mind--accomplishment of my

mission and the welfare of my soldiers. I will strive to

remain technically and tactically proficient. I am aware of

my role as a Non-Commissioned Officer. I will fulfill my

responsibilities inherent in that role. All soldiers are

entitled to outstanding leadership; I will provide that

leadership. I know my soldiers and I will always place their

needs above my own. I will communicate consistently with my

soldiers and never leave them uninformed. I will be fair and

impartial when recommending both rewards and punishment;

Officers of my unit will have maximum time to accomplish

their duties; they will not have to accomplish mine. I will

earn their respect and confidence as well as that of my

soldiers. I will be loyal to those with whom I serve;

seniors, peers, and subordinates alike. I will exercise

initiative by taking appropriate action in the absence of

orders. I will not compromise my integrity, nor my moral

courage. I will not forget, nor will I allow my comrades to

forget that we are professionals, Non-Commissioned Officers,

leaders!

It is an honor to draw attention to these brave soldiers, and I commend Alabama's Army Non-Commissioned Officers for their service to our State and the Nation.

The story of Helen Keller has inspired generations of Americans. It is especially meaningful for those of us from Alabama because Helen Keller is one of our own. Her statue will vividly remind us of a young girl from the rural south and how she overcame tremendous challenges to become a symbol of hope and determination for people throughout the world.

As my colleague, Mr. Lungren, described, Helen was not even 2 years old when illness left her unable to see or hear. That would be difficult enough for a child and for a father and mother to deal with today with all our advantages. Imagine how devastating it must have been for a family in the Deep South during the 1880s.

Some might have mistakenly assumed that Helen or a child who is blind and deaf may not aspire to do anything more than be cared for with compassion. But such is certainly not the normal mindset of children with physical limitations as many of us know. They have the same aspirations and hopes and dreams as their fellow children.

It certainly was not the case for Helen. Helen's parents also refused to accept limits on their child or on her life, just as Helen. When she grew older, they refused to be limited by her disabilities. They had a deep and strong faith that their daughter could be educated and live a full and rich life. And while Helen could not yet express that she had the same determination, ultimately this would bring them in contact with Anne Sullivan and lead to the scene which is depicted by the new statue: that miraculous moment when Helen Keller, with water running over her hands, finally understood what a word meant and that word was ``water.'' Very few statues can tell such a moving story. This one does.

But, of course, it is only the beginning of the story of Helen Keller and what she chose to use her life for, and that was to help others. As an educator, as an advocate, as a humanitarian, she showed there is no obstacle that cannot be overcome. Her life reminds us to cherish every member of our society because each person has unique gifts and blessings from God.

The statue will be very popular, especially with children. It conveys the important message that whatever life's challenges, nothing should ever hold us back. We live in a country where you can overcome any obstacle and achieve your dreams if you work hard and possess the desire to succeed.

There were many people involved with this project that the Alabama delegation wishes to acknowledge. My colleague, Parker Griffith, has mentioned Governor Bob Riley and his wife Patsy. They were two of the guiding forces behind the statue that is such a great gift from the people of Alabama to the people of our Nation. Governor, I hope you and the First Lady look upon this as one of your proudest legacies.

Dr. Joe Busta from the University of South Alabama, who was co-chair of the Helen Keller Campaign, and his co-chair Elmer Harris, former CEO of Alabama Power.

Dr. Bob Morris and his team at the Helen Keller Foundation. Dr. Morris devotes weeks of each year to restoring sight of children who have lost their sight and is actually a miracle worker today giving the gift of sight.

Dr. Terry Graham, president of the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind, and Lynne Hanner from the Institute.

Among the members who served on the Helen Keller Campaign and the Artist Selection Committee, the Alabama delegation is honored to have three members of the Keller family: great nephew Bill Johnson, great nephew Warren Johnson, and great grand niece Keller Johnson Thompson.

And, of course, finally we recognize the outstanding work of the artist, Edward Hlavka.

We all look forward to the formal unveiling of the Helen Keller statue next Wednesday. It will be a powerful moment for those of us from the State of Alabama at our beautiful Capitol.

Let me thank Senator Sessions and Senator Shelby for their support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the following trade association letters are offered for the record in opposition to H.R. 3269 in order to supplement my remarks during debate:

July 30, 2009.

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives

Re Opposition to H.R. 3269, Corporate and Financial

Institutional Compensation Fairness Act of 2009.

The undersigned organizations strongly oppose H.R. 3269,

the ``Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation

Fairness Act of 2009.'' We believe that the bill would result

in substantial unintended consequences, especially the

mandatory annual vote on pay requirement in section 2 and the

precedent-setting authority granted to the federal government

over executive and employee compensation in section 4. In

sum, we believe the bill would result in a ``one-size-fits-

all'' approach to compensation that would have substantial

negative implications for proper functioning of the corporate

governance process, responsible growth, and effective risk

mitigation that, when coupled with other proposed

legislation, would extend well beyond the financial services

industry.

Each of our organizations fully supports effective measures

to increase awareness and mitigation of excessive risk in

compensation. We believe that the board of directors, acting

through an independent compensation committee, should be

responsible for setting compensation because it is so closely

linked to business strategy and succession planning. While

many have developed and circulated principles to improve

compensation and corporate governance, companies across all

industries are taking steps to reinforce their understanding

of these issues and are taking action to revise practices

that may encourage excessive risk taking. Many of these

changes, such as majority voting for directors, independent

compensation committees, advisory Say on Pay votes,

eliminating staggered boards, have been occurring on a

company by company basis for a long period of time, without

government mandates.

Government Control over Compensation

We oppose Section 4 of the bill because it would give the

bank regulatory agencies authority to set the structure and

thus the amount of executive and employee compensation

provided in the form of incentives. While recognizing the

federal government's role in ensuring the safety and

soundness of our financial institutions, these provisions

would effectively transfer authority for determining how a

substantial part of compensation at these firms should be

structured from the Board (for executives) and the company

(for other employees) to a consortium of regulatory agencies.

Our concerns include:

The adoption of a one-size-fit all approach, which does not

accommodate a company-specific approach to pay. The financial

industry is expansive, and an incentive structure that may be

deemed risky at one organization may be perfectly acceptable

at another, depending on the company's business strategy, the

risk profile of the organization, and mitigating elements of

the total pay program. The legislation instructs the agencies

to take a one-size fits all approach by prohibiting pay

structures that ``could threaten the safety and soundness

of covered financial institutions.''

Even if a company-specific approach were taken, the federal

government has neither the experience nor expertise to set

executive compensation arrangements for a wide variety of

financial institutions. The legislation will replace the

informed judgment of the board of directors and compensation

committee with the cursory knowledge of a federal regulator,

eroding the authority of the board and its ability to closely

tailor compensation to the company.

The Obama Administration did not ask for such expansive

authority, no doubt a result of the interpretive and

enforcement problems created by the poorly crafted executive

compensation restrictions in the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act, which caused several companies to shift

more pay to guaranteed salary, rather than reasonable

performance-based incentives, in order to comply.

In addition, because our associations represent companies

across a variety of industries, we are also extremely

concerned that this model of pay regulation would expand to

other industries or situations, further putting the federal

government in control of pay decisions for private companies.

This legislation would establish a form of compensation

regulation for employees who interact with consumers. Rather

than creating a new bureaucracy, we believe a more effective

approach to regulating risk in incentives would be to

establish a clear set of principles for mitigating risk

against which the regulatory agencies could review pay

arrangements.

A Mandatory Annual Vote on Pay

Beyond section 4 of the bill, we also oppose an annual

mandatory shareholder vote on executive compensation because

it does not achieve the ends sought by proponents, is not

sought by a majority of shareholders, and would not improve

clear communication between shareholders and the board. While

we oppose the requirement embodied in H.R. 3269, there may be

viable alternatives that were unable to be explored with the

limited time frame taken by the House Financial Services

Committee in considering this legislation.

The Board of Directors has a fiduciary duty for managing

the company on behalf of all shareholders. The board's

compensation committee is responsible for linking

compensation incentives to confidential business strategy,

aligning pay with the assessment of individual executive

performance, and using long-term incentives to support the

company's succession planning process. Annual say on pay

votes would push compensation structures away from a company-

specific approach to ``cookie-cutter'' arrangements designed

to ensure a high vote total.

Despite the economic environment, shareholder resolutions

seeking a say on pay have only received a majority support at

roughly 30 percent of the companies at which they were

offered in 2009. A 2008 independent study by a leading

academic found that among large institutional investors, only

25 percent supported a shareholder vote.

An annual mandatory vote requirement in the United Kingdom

has not reduced the overall level of compensation and has

resulted in less of a link between pay and performance.

Congressional attempts to regulate amounts or structures of

compensation have typically backfired--increasing

compensation or changing practices in unforeseen ways

contrary to the intent of the restrictions. One need look no

further then the history of stock options as a case study of

this premise. While we oppose H.R. 3269 in its current form,

because the legislation has been available for only a short

time, we believe that more time is warranted to give Congress

and interested parties an opportunity to fully analyze and

discuss the potential for harmful unintended consequences.

Thank you for your consideration of our views. We look

forward to working with you on this and other legislation.

Sincerely,

Center for Executive Compensation, National Association

of Manufacturers, Retail Industry Leaders Association,

U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support of H.R. 2571, the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2009, and urge my colleagues to vote for its passage under suspension of the rules today.

While there are many complex regulatory programs pending before our committee, today we are seeking to advance a modest but long-overdue measure to streamline the current system for surplus lines insurance and for reinsurance.

Surplus lines insurance, also known as ``nonadmitted'' insurance, is highly specialized property and casualty insurance for exceptional risks, such as hazardous materials or amusement parks.

H.R. 2571 would adopt a ``home state'' approach to address inconsistencies in state regulation of the surplus lines insurance market, and the bill generally follows the model law on nonadmitted insurance adopted by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

This legislation also addresses reinsurance in a similar way by designating the home state of the insurer purchasing reinsurance as the primary regulator of credit for reinsurance and the home state of the reinsurer as the primary regulator for the reinsurer's solvency.

As an original cosponsor of H.R. 2571, I want to commend the bill's primary sponsors, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Moore and Capital Markets Subcommittee Ranking Member Garrett.

They deserve credit for working together to move this bipartisan legislation through the House again this year and eventually we all hope into law.

I also want to commend Congresswoman Brown-Waite, the original champion of this effort in the 109th Congress as well as a lead cosponsor in the 110th Congress and an original cosponsor again in this Congress.

This will be the third time we are sending this important insurance reform proposal to the other body, and I hope our colleagues across the way will be able to see the value of enacting H.R. 2571 soon.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation and yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are rightly disturbed by almost daily reports of so-called ``too big to fail'' corporations that have received billions of dollars in government assistance and have, at the same time, paid their employees billions of dollars in bonuses.

In response to those events, Republicans have introduced legislation which gets the American people out of the bailout business--that, Mr. Speaker, is our response--and prohibits the government from picking winners and losers. We believe that's the solution.

The legislation we have introduced clearly establishes a structure where failure is not rewarded and market discipline is reestablished by placing responsibility for those who engage in risky behavior squarely where it belongs, on the risk-taker, not the taxpayer. That is the Republican response.

The Obama administration takes a different approach. It continues to embrace the ``too big to fail'' doctrine. That's why we're here today. That's why we have to address executive compensation. It appoints a pay czar to oversee compensation at the growing list of companies receiving taxpayer-funded bailouts and guarantees.

Despite growing public outrage over these companies dishing out billions of dollars in government-enabled bonuses, the Obama administration and the Democratic congressional leadership steadfastly refuses to embrace Republican legislation or offer its own proposals prohibiting further taxpayer bailouts. Instead, it says that these same corporations are simply too significant to allow them to fail, which not only enables but encourages these same corporations to continue what the Obama administration concedes is more risky behavior.

One of the behaviors that the administration and Chairman Frank identify as risky in these systematically significant corporations is executive compensation. Today we are presented with a fix, a legislative response to these bailout bonuses and the resulting public outrage. The cure-all solution bears the lofty and noble title Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act. It is in every way up to the challenge laid down by our former colleague, Mr. Emanuel, most recently of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, who said, ``Never let a crisis go to waste.''

It is also in many ways closely akin to the recently departed cap- and-tax legislation and the ever-looming government, or should I say public option, health plan. All three are sweeping power grabs into the private sector under the guise of the government's riding to the rescue. All three rely on the government to fix the problem. All three promise to fix the problem, which to a great extent was caused by guess who? That's right, the government and lack of regulation by the government. All three will create, or more accurately duplicate, large government bureaucracies. All three represent ill-advised and in many cases incompetent government intrusions.

Just 3 weeks or 4 weeks ago, Gene Sperling, legal counsel for our Secretary of Treasury, warned, Go slow. He said this is a very difficult subject. It needs testing. It has potential for unintended consequences. Just yesterday before the Senate, the White House press spokesman Robert Gibbs stated that the Obama administration is concerned that the chairman's legislation may give the government regulators too much say on incentive-based compensation. But as the chairman said to the Rules Committee, My legislation goes beyond what the Obama administration has proposed.

Now, if that doesn't take your breath away, nothing will.

In some ways this legislation borders on the classic ``bait and switch.'' It's being sold as giving the owners of the corporation the right to set pay and compensation standards. That's the shareholders. Chairman Frank just this week on CNBC said, Dollar amounts are for the shareholders to decide. It's up to the shareholders.

I yield myself an additional 2 minutes.

At the markup of this bill, he said say-on-pay empowers the shareholders, and that's where questions about amounts would come in. True, the first 6 pages of the bill give the owners, the shareholders, a non-binding vote on the pay of top executives. But then come the next 8 pages, the switch, which gives the regulators the power to decide appropriate compensation for not only just top executives but for all employees of all financial institutions above $1 billion in assets and all without regard for the shareholders' prior approval. So under the guise of empowering shareholders, it is, in fact, the government that is empowered.

One lesson we have learned from the government's arbitrary interventions over the past 18 months, and that is the converse of ``too big to fail'' is too small to save, which, of course, is the designation which applies to 99.9 percent of businesses, which have been deemed by this administration and the regulators as ``systemically unimportant or insignificant.'' But not so unimportant, not so insignificant to be totally ignored. While not significant enough to receive a bailout, they are apparently worthy of increased regulation in the form of government-mandated pay regulations and new disclosure requirements in the chairman's bill.

And, finally, on page 15, the bill designates those same government entities which are empowered to control compensation plans that would threaten the safety of financial institutions or adversely impact economic conditions or financial stability to oversee this riskiness. Look over the list and see if it inspires confidence.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

These are the same government agencies that regulated AIG, Countrywide, and collectively failed to prevent the worst financial calamity since the Great Depression. If it took them 30 years to catch Bernie Madoff, do you really think the SEC can do a better job of identifying inappropriate risk than the vast majority of financial institution executives whose businesses have remained solvent during these challenging times? Really, now, is there any question who is better qualified or, for that matter, who ought to be responsible for setting compensation within an American corporation?

In closing, Mr. Speaker, this bill continues the Democrat majority's tendency to go to the default solution for every problem: create a government bureaucracy to make decisions better left to private citizens and private corporations. That's what we did in cap-and-trade. That's what we did in the health care proposals. And it's this bill on executive compensation. Government bureaucrats do not know what's best for America.

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, let me tie up a few--what I consider loose ends about this legislation. One is the motivation. Of course we've heard that one of the motivations is that these pay schemes and arrangements could heighten risk; and then if one endorses the Obama administration approach, that would precipitate a bailout because the government would continually have to assure against some outsized risk. As I have said, the Republican approach is, simply don't bail these companies out, and then you don't have to be micromanaging every compensation decision by a company. I think there's another motivation, and I think it is a slippery slope. Chairman Frank was on CNBC this past Tuesday, and he asked this question: is there some character defect with some people where they get hired, they give them a prestige job, but they really won't do it right unless you give them an extra bonus? Most of us don't need that.

So I'm wondering if one motivation for this legislation is so that the government can decide whether people need a bonus or don't need a bonus, whether they're deserving of a bonus. In fact, several pages of the bill does just that. Some people may not need that bonus. Other people may. That decision will be made by the list of government entities on page 15, not by the shareholders even though this bill is trotted out as a shareholder bill, not by the board of directors, not by the management who an important tool of management is to offer incentives and to incentivize performance and achievement. But apparently now it's the government who will decide whether you need a bonus or not. That, Mr. Speaker, is scary in my mind.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) for 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it appears as if this bill is so much more than a shareholders' right to say-on-pay bill. We already have a czar, a pay czar. Are we going to have a consultant czar? You know, we're going to enable these compensation consultants, they have to go to the agencies, they meet certain criteria. Are we going to have a consultant czar? Are we going to need management czars? Are we going to need risk czars? Because these 20 pages--and 15 of it deals with risks. It deals with inappropriate behavior.

Are we going to, on the bonuses, are we going to have every bonus submitted to some government agency to review? How are you going to report those bonuses? How are you going to approve those bonuses? How long is it going to take to approve those bonuses? The administration, itself, has warned that this bill goes too far. Independent witnesses have warned that this bill goes too far.

Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear this mantra that this is all about shareholders and empowering them with rights, but then you sort of give them a crumb, you give them a non-binding right to have a vote on pay and then you follow that up with 12 or 14 pages where you give the government all sorts of powers, powers to regulate pay bonuses. And you do that, you give the shareholders the right to have a non-binding say on the top executives, but then you give the government, in the back door, the last 15 pages of the bill, 14 pages, you give them the right to set the pay for every rank-and-file employee. And you also do it under the guise that these companies are so big and so systemically important that they may fail. And that's right, they may. But then you do all the other 99 percent of the companies that aren't going to fail.

Now, Chairman Frank, last month, invited, I think, one of his favorite witnesses, Nell Minow, who is a leading shareholder rights advocate, to testify on his say-for-pay bill. And she came and she testified favorably. And then he added this government say-on-pay, where the government will make the decisions. Well, just yesterday, we had what we call a ``man bites dog'' moment. She came out and she posted this on her Web site. She now opposes, vehemently opposes, section 4 of the bill, the government say-on-pay.

She states, The standard is unworkable. What does inappropriate mean? Boy, I agree. Deciding whatever bonus or whatever incentive pay or whatever commission is inappropriate. She asked the same question that we asked, Who is in the best position to evaluate and respond to badly designed pay packages? Here's her answer, the entire answer: ``I have the utmost respect for politicians and bureaucrats, but I also recognize their limits. The government should not micromanage pay.''

And that is what this debate is about: Are you going to let the government do it, the board of directors do it, or are you going to let the shareholders do it? Obviously, you go to the default position that you went to on health care, cap-and-trade, and now financial services: Let the government decide.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding funding that I requested as part of H.R. 3326--Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: H.R. 3326--Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Southern Research Institution

Address of Requesting Entity: 757 Tom Martin Drive, Birmingham, AL 35211

Description of Request: Provide $3,000,000 to provide a needed testbed platform for evaluation of advanced sensor technologies in a cost-effective and countermeasure development for threat systems. The Captive Carry Sensor Testbed addresses the unfunded requirement for enhancing weapon system effectiveness through the development and integration of a UAV-based captive carry sensor testbed and characterization of realistic flight conditions. The project's total budget is $4,000,000. Specifically within the budget, $600,000 will go toward system procurement, $200,000 will go toward system integration, $1,500,000 will go to an Alabama subcontractor for software and systems, $900,000 will go toward SRI Program Management, and $800,000 will go toward Army project management and administration. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army Account. The Southern Research Institute will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: H.R. 3326--Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: University of Alabama at Birmingham

Address of Requesting Entity: 1802 6th Avenue South, Birmingham, AL 35249

Description of Request: Provide $1,500,000 for development of a medical training simulation using a supercomputer based, immersive virtual environment to train military personnel in medical skills. The simulation will focus on combat search and rescue, mass casualty, confined space, and other challenging environments and scenarios to enhance training. The training simulation capability would allow military personnel to quickly and cost effectively adapt, train, and develop responses for a variety of emerging threats and emergencies. The project's total budget is $3,837,000. Specifically within the budget, $1,500,000 will go toward personnel, $1,200,000 will go toward IT equipment, $200,000 will go toward software, $75,000 will go toward administrative expenses, $25,000 will go toward travel, and $837,000 will go toward indirect costs. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army Account. The University of Alabama at Birmingham will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: H.R. 3326--Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Auburn University

Address of Requesting Entity: 202 Samford Hall, Auburn University, AL 36849

Description of Request: Provide $1,500,000 to develop and demonstrate logistical fuel processor-fuel cell combinations that operate at significantly higher efficiencies than currently used by the Army. System improvements include: overall efficiency, fuel flexibility, activity maintenance and poison tolerance of the various catalysts, startup/shutdown times-scales, process strength, reliability, safety, thermal/acoustic signature and integration, and reductions in overall weight and volume. This project directly supports the war fighting capabilities of the entire U.S. military. Moreover, it focuses on more efficient power generation from readily available existing fuels, and develops and underpins dual use technologies critical to the energy security of the U.S. The project's total budget is $6,970,000. Specifically within the budget, $2,230,000 will go toward Auburn personnel costs, $1,200,000 will go toward research expense and supplies, $900,000 will go toward supplies, $1,090,000 will go to a subcontractor, $300,000 will go to Anniston Army Depot for tech support for Army vehicle retrofits, and $1,250,000 will go toward Army project management and administration. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army Account. Auburn University will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: H.R. 3326--Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: University of Alabama at Birmingham

Address of Requesting Entity: 1530 3rd Avenue South, AB 720E, Birmingham, AL 35294

Description of Request: Provide $1,500,000 to focus on rapid development and application insertion of emerging design, materials, and manufacturing technologies to provide solution options for many important military needs. Particular research projects will focus on encapsulated-ceramic armor using metallic thermoplastic matrices, metal matrix composites, modeling of casting and deformation processing for non-ferrous and ferrous alloys, and

thermo-mechanical processing of magnesium and other alloys. The project's total budget is $4,000,000. Specifically within the budget, $1,200,000 will go toward engineering, $1,800,000 will go toward equipment, $100,000 will go toward travel, $300,000 will go toward supplies, $500,000 will go toward component fabrication, and $100,000 will go toward services. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army Account. The University of Alabama at Birmingham will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the year there has been a drumbeat, a relentless drumbeat of expensive stimulus packages, takeover of the car companies, financial bailouts, and cap-and-trade. And the drumbeat continues today, more government control, more government spending, higher taxes, fewer choices, especially for small business.

Now the Democratic leadership wants to take over one-sixth of our GDP, our health care. They want government to take over health care. It is a recipe for economic disaster. Even worse, it is a disaster for patients, because a government-run system will always ration care, reduce quality, and raise costs. It will put a Federal bureaucrat between you and your doctor.

Let's put patients, not the government, first. As long as we continue this government-knows-best approach, we are not going to get health care reform or the kind of economic recovery the American people need. We will only get bigger government, rationing, and diminished quality of care.

Stop the drumbeat of more government. Stop the takeover of government health care.

Madam Speaker, today the Republican leadership of the House and the Financial Services Committee joined me in introducing H.R. 3310, the Consumer Protection and Regulatory Enhancement Act, to comprehensively modernize and streamline the regulatory structure of the financial services industry.

The legislation will ensure that (1) the government stops rewarding failure and picking winners and losers; (2) taxpayers are never again asked to pick up the tab for bad bets on Wall Street while some creditors and counterparties of failed firms are made whole; and (3) market discipline is restored so that financial firms will no longer expect the government to rescue them from the consequences of imprudent business decisions. The Republican plan seeks to return our regulatory system to one in which government policies do not promote moral hazard, and insolvent financial firms do not become wards of the state.

The Obama administration and many Democrats in Congress have insisted that the financial crisis was caused by a lack of regulation and a failed free market philosophy, requiring government intervention on the scale of the New Deal to ``re-regulate'' finance. H.R. 3310 is premised upon a belief that it was misguided government policies to allocate credit and government intervention to prop up failed financial institutions that helped precipitate, and later exacerbate, the crisis, which suggests that what is needed is smarter--not more--regulation. The bill fundamentally rejects the command-and-control approach that has characterized the Obama administration's and congressional Democrats' stewardship of the economy.

The Administration's regulatory reform proposals would empower the Federal Reserve as a new ``systemic risk super-regulator.'' Rather than massively expanding the Federal Reserve's mission and further enshrining a failed government policy of rescuing ``too big to fail'' institutions, H.R. 3310 scales back the Fed's authorities so that it can focus on conducting monetary policy and unwinding the trillions of dollars in obligations it has amassed during the financial crisis. When combined with the administration's reckless ``borrow-and-spend'' fiscal policy, the vast expansion of the Fed's balance sheet in recent months arguably represents a far more significant source of ``systemic risk'' to our nation's economy than the failure of any specific financial institution.

The guiding principle of H.R. 3310 can be summed up in one sentence: no more bailouts. By putting an end to ad hoc, improvised and unprincipled bailouts designed to spare big Wall Street firms and their creditors from the consequences of their mistakes, our legislation offers a clear alternative to the limitless and unconstrained ``bailout authority'' that Democrats want to confer upon those very regulators that failed to anticipate the current crisis that almost wrecked our financial system. The Democrats want to hide the consequences of regulatory and private sector mistakes by giving regulators the authority to bail out large financial institutions, their creditors, and their counterparties, without any accountability whatsoever. Even worse, the Democrats have not yet figured out who is going to pay for this limitless bailout authority, administered by bureaucrats for the benefit of a handful of large financial institutions.

Our legislation also rejects the call for a government-run economy that depends upon the omniscience and omnipotence of government regulators who have shown themselves unable to anticipate crises, let alone do anything to prevent them. Republicans believe that the financial system works best when individual participants are free to keep the gains yielded by their efforts, but are forced to bear the costs of their failure. By adhering to the principle that no firm is ``too big to fail,'' Republicans will ensure that responsibility for monitoring the stability of the financial system is placed exactly where it needs to be: with the individual market participants who have the self-interest and the expertise to monitor their exposure to the financial system, and who are in the best position to take the necessary action to protect themselves, their investors, and their creditors from the risks that are endemic to the financial system.

Rather than asking government to spare participants from the consequences of their mistakes by imposing those costs on others, our legislation calls for the resolution of insolvent non-bank institutions--no matter how large or systemically important--through the bankruptcy system.

The key to making bankruptcy work as an alternative is to make credible and clear the government's commitment to restructuring, re- organizing, or liquidating troubled financial institutions at the expense of their creditors and counterparties. This commitment requires a firm rejection of the current status quo, in which the decision whether to rescue a specific firm and insulate its creditors and counterparties from losses is left to the discretion of regulators accountable to no one but themselves. This commitment also requires the rejection of the possibility of any bailout, no matter how that bailout is described. Without this firm commitment to ending bailouts, too-big- to-fail financial institutions and those who do business with them have every incentive to pursue short term gains, knowing that the costs will ultimately be borne by others if things go wrong. By making credible the government's policy that losses will be borne by those responsible, the government makes the financial system stronger by encouraging creditors to be more vigilant in assessing the creditworthiness and business practices of the parties to whom they are extending credit. And

by making clear that the government will not step in to bail out a failing institution or its creditors, the government can remove the uncertainty and confusion that roiled the markets last September when market participants could not anticipate the government's actions.

The relatively smooth bankruptcies of Drexel Burnham Lambert, Enron, and WorldCom demonstrate that the bankruptcy system is more than capable of resolving and liquidating large, complex institutions. The failure of Lehman Brothers last September is often cited by proponents of a new systemic risk resolution authority as an example of why bankruptcy ``won't work.'' In truth, the shock to the markets from Lehman's collapse was the result of dashed expectations of market participants that the government would ride to Lehman's rescue just as it had in the earlier Bear Stearns and GSE episodes, not of any inadequacies in the bankruptcy process. Nevertheless, Republicans believe that bankruptcy can be made more efficient and better tailored to resolving large non-bank financial institutions. The legislation, therefore, proposes a new chapter to the Bankruptcy Code to deal with the unique characteristics of financial institutions that will make ``orderly failure'' a practical solution for resolving troubled firms. Among other things, this new chapter will provide for better coordination between the regulators of these institutions and the bankruptcy system, so that regulators can provide technical assistance and specialized expertise about financial institutions. In addition, this new chapter will give bankruptcy judges the power to stay claims by creditors and counterparties to prevent runs on troubled institutions, thereby helping to alleviate the panic that could strike the financial system if a large institution finds itself facing difficulties.

Rather than establishing the Federal Reserve as the ``systemic risk regulator,'' and identifying in advance those firms that are systemically significant (i.e., ``too big to fail''), the legislation creates a Market Stability and Capital Adequacy Board, chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury and comprised of outside experts as well as representatives from the financial regulatory agencies responsible for supervising large, complex firms. This panel would be charged with monitoring the interactions of various sectors of the financial system, and identifying risks that could endanger the stability and soundness of the system. The panel's mandate would include reviewing financial industry data collected from the appropriate functional regulators; monitoring government policies and initiatives; reviewing risk management practices within financial regulatory agencies; reviewing capital standards set by the appropriate functional regulators and making recommendations to ensure capital and leverage ratios match risks regulated entities are taking on; reviewing transparency and regulatory understanding of risk exposures in the over-the-counter derivatives markets and making recommendations regarding the appropriate clearing of trades in those markets through central counterparties; and making recommendations regarding any government or industry policies and practices that are exacerbating systemic risk. In order to address current regulatory gaps, each functional regulator would be required to assess the effects of their regulated entities' activities on macroeconomic stability and review how entities under their regulatory purview interact with entities outside their purview. This panel would not have independent enforcement or supervisory authority over individual firms, but would instead meet on at least a quarterly basis and periodically report its findings to Congress and the relevant functional regulators (the cops on the beat) so that policymakers and regulators could act upon them to contain risks posed by specific firms, industry practices, activities and interactions of entities under different regulatory regimes, or government policies.

To modernize the financial regulatory structure, the legislation streamlines the current framework of overlapping and redundant Federal financial regulatory agencies by centralizing supervision of deposit- taking entities in one agency while preserving charter choice (e.g., credit unions and State charters) as well as the dual banking system (the regulator would have two divisions--one would oversee federally chartered banks and thrifts, and one would serve as the primary federal regulator of state-chartered, state-supervised banks). The legislation immediately combines the OCC and OTS into one agency and shift the supervisory functions of the Federal Reserve and FDIC to that agency, including responsibility for overseeing bank and financial holding companies. It establishes an Office of Consumer Protection within the new agency to streamline in one place responsibility for rule promulgating and enforcing the Federal consumer protection laws applicable to depository institutions, eliminating the confusion created by the existence of five different Federal regulatory agencies which currently share consumer protection responsibilities. Consumer protection rules will be reviewed and updated regularly with rule promulgation consisting of extensive consumer testing. In addition, Republicans will provide the Office of Consumer Protection with the authority to redesign and improve consumer disclosures so that they are transparent to all interested parties and written in plain language to enhance understanding by all consumers and investors.

The legislation simplifies and streamlines the complaint process for consumers and investors who believe they have been wronged by abusive industry practices, by establishing a single, toll-free number and Web site--to be administered by the Office of Consumer Protection--to field consumer inquiries and direct them to the appropriate regulatory or enforcement agency.

The legislation ensures that institutions engaged in similar activities and serving similar functions will be regulated similarly, limiting the potential for competitive distortions and a ``race to the bottom'' among firms seeking the most lenient regulatory treatment. It promotes simplicity and consistent enforcement. It guarantees accountability and transparency. And it enables the Federal Reserve and the FDIC to concentrate on their most important responsibilities: formulating monetary policy and protecting the deposit insurance fund, respectively.

The extraordinary market interventions conducted by the Federal Reserve since the onset of the financial crisis have added trillions of dollars to the government's balance sheet and taken it far afield from its core mission of conducting the nation's monetary policy. The Republican legislation re-focuses the Fed on its monetary policy mandate by relieving it of current regulatory and supervisory responsibilities, reassigning them to other agencies. Reallocating these duties will eliminate the Fed's current incentive to prop up the economy through an accommodative monetary policy to prevent firms under its regulatory purview from failing. The legislation makes the Federal Reserve more transparent and accountable to taxpayers by enabling the Government Accountability Office to conduct more extensive audits of the central bank. In addition, to send clear signals to markets, the legislation requires the Fed to have an explicit inflation target, and would narrow the Fed's authority under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, which currently provides the Fed with nearly unlimited powers during periods the Board of Governors deems ``unusual and exigent,'' as follows: (1) require the Secretary of the Treasury to officially sign off on all actions taken by the Federal Reserve pursuant to section 13(3); (2) allow Congress to block any Federal Reserve action undertaken pursuant to its section 13(3) authority within 90 days of such action by passing a congressional resolution of disapproval, in which case the Fed would have 90 additional days to unwind the relevant facility; (3) place all expenditures to date pursuant to section 13(3), and those taken in the future, on Treasury's balance sheet; and (4) eliminate the Federal Reserve's ability to use its 13(3) authority to intervene on behalf of a specific institution, allowing the powers to only be used to create liquidity facilities that would be broadly available to a market sector.

H.R. 3310 also brings needed reform to the GSEs. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's government-subsidized model has cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. The legislation phases out taxpayer subsidies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over a number of years and ends the current model of privatized profits and socialized losses. It sunsets the current GSE conservatorship by a date certain, placing Fannie and Freddie in receivership if they are not financially viable at that time. If they are viable, once the housing market has stabilized, the plan would initiate the process of cutting their ties to the government by winding down the federal subsidies granted through their charters and transitioning Fannie and Freddie into non-government backed entities that compete on a level playing field with other private firms. The legislation addresses the need to reduce Fannie and Freddie's portfolios, re-focus Fannie and Freddie on promoting housing affordability, and require SEC registration and the payment of taxes.

To restore market discipline and promote greater investor due diligence, H.R. 3310 discourages blind reliance on ratings supplied by the major credit rating agencies that has had such disastrous consequences for investors and the economy as a whole. For too long, the government has adopted policies that bestowed a ``Good Housekeeping'' seal of approval on the rating agencies and their products, which perpetuated a rating agency duopoly that contributed significantly to a mispricing of risk and a subsequent collapse in market confidence. Designating certain agencies as Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSROs) and hard-wiring references to their ratings into numerous Federal statutes and regulations are the two most egregious examples of this implied government blessing. The legislation addresses these market distortions by changing the NRSRO designation to ``nationally registered

statistical rating organizations'' and removing all references to ratings throughout Federal law and regulation. These changes will promote greater competition among rating agencies and less reliance on their ratings among investors. To further mitigate over-reliance on third-party credit analysis, functional regulators will be required to more thoroughly examine governance, risk management and enterprise management policies and procedures.

To restore investor and consumer confidence and better protect financial markets, H.R. 3310 enhances the ability of the financial regulatory agencies to enforce Federal consumer protection and securities laws. Regulators need more tools in their arsenal to proceed administratively and judicially against alleged violators. The legislation increases civil money penalties in government enforcement actions; maximizes restitution to victims of fraud; improves surveillance of bad actors who exploit gaps in the current regulatory regime to continue preying upon innocent consumers; and reauthorizes the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), authorizing an additional $15 million to combat financial fraud.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3310 will bring smarter, not more, regulation of our financial services industry, and I urge my colleagues to join me as a cosponsor of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding funding that I requested as part of the H.R. 3293-- Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: H.R. 3293--Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: Department of Education, Elementary and Secondary Education

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Literacy Council of West Alabama

Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 20410, Tuscaloosa, AL 35402

Description of Request: Provide $250,000 for funding that will be used to provide initial, one-time seed funding to establish a basic literacy delivery system for West Alabama, including implementation of a research and best practices clearinghouse for literacy programs and services; training programs for literacy trainers, tutors and other educational components; technical support services for existing literacy service providers that do not have the ability or financial support to implement programs on their own; marketing and communication initiatives to sustain a high level of awareness and information related to literacy; and management and administrative support for delivery of literacy programs and services throughout the 8-county region. The project's total budget is $325,000. Specifically within the budget, $20,000 is for program services and events, $45,000 for research and planning, $30,000 for marketing and communications, $25,000 for training and development, $15,000 best practices and clearinghouse services, $12,500 for printing and materials $7,500 for postage and mailing, $5,000 for literacy service providers council, and $165,000 for salaries and administration. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Education, Elementary and Secondary Education account. The Literacy Council of West Alabama will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: H.R. 3293--Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: Department of Health & Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)--Health Facilities and Services

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Springville

Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 919, Springville, AL 35156

Description of Request: Provide $250,000 in funding for the renovation of an existing facility located at Big Springs Park into a Senior Citizens' Center. Springville is one of the fastest growing in the state. The project's total budget is $350,000. Specifically within the budget, $30,000 for site preparation, $285,000 for construction and $35,000 will go toward architectural services. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Health & Human Services, Health Resources and Services account. The city of Springfield will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for match funding where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: H.R. 3293--Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: Department of Health & Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)--Health Facilities and Services

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: DCH Health System

Address of Requesting Entity: 2700 Hospital Drive, Northport, AL 35476

Description of Request: Provide $350,000 to expand the Northport Medical Center (NMC) Emergency Department. NMC supports over 40,000 emergency visits each year, making it one of the busiest emergency departments in the State of Alabama. DCH is working to expand the hospital's emergency department to provide the highest standards of urgent care to Tuscaloosa residents. The project's total budget is $4,648,500. Specifically within the budget, $70,000 will go toward renovation to tie to existing building, $3,525,000 for new construction, $500,000 for civil work, $409,500 for contingencies, and $144,000 for furnishings and telecommunications. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Health & Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)--Health Facilities and Services account. The DCH Health System will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for match funding where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: H.R. 3293--Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA)--Training & Employment Services (TES)

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind

Address of Requesting Entity: 205 E. South Street, P.O. Box 698, Talladega, AL 35161

Description of Request: Provide $200,000 to develop a collaborative program with employers incorporating assistive technology and targeting deaf and blind individuals with developmental disabilities for workforce placement. The funding would be used for employer training in disabilities and assistive technology for the deaf and blind. The project's total budget is $680,000. Specifically within the budget, $200,000 for salaries, $250,000 for assistive technology for the deaf and blind, $20,000 for travel, $30,000 for employer training in disabilities, $30,000 matching administrative personnel cost, and $150,000 for matching assistive technology cost. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA)--Training & Employment Services (TES) Account. The Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for match funding where applicable.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding funding that I requested as part of the H.R. 3288-- Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: H.R. 3288--Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), FL--Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Bibb County Commission

Address of Requesting Entity: 157 S W Davidson Drive, Centreville, AL 35042

Description of Request: Provide $298,000 for the new Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge, where trails are under construction at present to several scenic overlooks on the bluffs over the Cahaba River. The parking at the trailhead currently consists of a small paved lot with space for 6 vehicles total, including handicap parking. The current entrance off Co. Rd. 24 is located in a location with poor sight distance. This project would add turn lanes, move the entrance to a safer location, and enlarge the parking lot to about one acre. The project designs will move the entrance to a new location which will double the sight distance, and add turn lanes for much enhanced safety. The project's total budget is $298,000. Specifically within the budget, $8,000 will go toward clearing and grubbing, $28,000 for unclassified excavation, $25,000 for barrow (fill), $10,000 for roadbed processing, $1,000 for machine grading shoulders, $190,000 for plant mix paving, $7,500 for traffic stripe and markings, $2,000 for signs, $2,000 for erosion control, $1,500 for seeding and mulching and $23,000 for mobilization. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), FL-- Federal lands (Public Lands Highways) Account. The Bibb County Commission will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: H.R. 3288--Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Preservation

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Springville

Address of Requesting Entity: PO Box 919, Springville, AL 35156

Description of Request: Provide $500,000 to provide improvements to Main Street in Springville. The funding will be used for Site Preparation, Street Resurfacing, Construction of turn lanes and Engineering near Springville Elementary School and Springville Middle School. The drainage and traffic improvements in this area are critical to the safety of residents and particularly of children accessing Springville Elementary and Springville Middle School. The project's total budget is $500,000. Specifically in the budget, $50,000 will go towards site preparation, $250,000 for street resurfacing, $150,000 for turn lanes, and $50,000 for engineering. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Preservation Account. The City of Springville will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: H.R. 3288--Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Economic Development Initiatives (EDI)

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Gardendale

Address of Requesting Entity: 970 Main Street, Gardendale, AL 35071

Description of Request: Provide $100,000 to provide for renovations and improvements to the Miracle Field, including parking improvements, lighting, sidewalks and walkways, accessibility, and landscaping. This project offers a unique recreational opportunity for mentally and physically challenged individuals. The project's total budget is $250,000. Specifically within the budget, $80,000 is for parking improvements, $80,000 is for lighting, $50,000 is for sidewalks and walkways, $20,000 is for accessibility, and $20,000 is for landscaping. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Economic Development Initiatives (EDI) Account. The City of Gardendale will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: H.R. 3288--Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Economic Development Initiatives (EDI)

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Irondale

Address of Requesting Entity: PO Box 100188, Irondale, AL 35210

Description of Request: Provide $200,000 to provide renovation of historic downtown Irondale known as the Whistle Stop District. Improvements will concentrate on public infrastructure including sidewalks, lighting, and landscaping. The project will help stimulate economic development in the area, assisting in job creation and development of the downtown area. The project's total budget is $275,000. Specifically within the budget, $80,000 is for sidewalk renovation, $50,000 is for a parking area, $20,000 is for landscaping, $90,000 is for lighting, and $35,000 is for engineering. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Economic Development Initiatives (EDI) Account. The City of Irondale will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: H.R. 3288--Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Economic Development Initiatives (EDI)

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Tarrant

Address of Requesting Entity: 1604 Pinson Valley Parkway, Tarrant, AL 35217

Description of Request: Provide $150,000 to for a streetscaping project for the Five Mile Creek Greenway through the historic downtown. The current funding request will provide for additional streetscaping to enhance the access to the Greenway trail. This project will allow for continued economic development and improve the Tarrant access to the Greenway trail, benefitting the people of Tarrant as well as those who visit. The project's total budget is $150,000. Specifically within the budget, $70,000 is for lighting and electrical work, $20,000 is for landscape items, $10,000 is for benches, garbage depositories, and bike racks, and $50,000 is for concrete work. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Economic Development Initiatives (EDI) Account. The City of Tarrant will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Madam Speaker, I received a letter yesterday from a lady, an officer in a small community bank in Alabama. I wanted to share what she said with my colleagues.

She expresses her concerns that many community bankers are expressing about the legislation under consideration by the House Financial Services Committee to create a new government bureaucracy, otherwise known as the Consumer Finance Protection Agency.

Here's what she says: I strongly support consumer protections. In fact, my bank's competitive edge rests with our customers' implicit trust that we will deal with them fairly and honestly when they visit my bank with their best interests in mind. Don't take that ability away from me to meet their unique needs.

She points out that there are countless examples of local bankers offering nonstandard loan products to consumers and customers in an effort to meet their unique needs--not to victimize them, but to give them a product that fits their purpose.

Under the proposed protection agency, however, community bankers ``would have a much harder time helping their customers. They'd have to go through all sorts of regulatory hurdles.''

I just came from a hearing with Chairman Bernanke. There were some questions he could answer, but others he couldn't answer. We asked him, Where are the jobs? He couldn't answer that question. He said unemployment would remain high through 2011. He said he's not sure that the stimulus created any jobs. It might, but he couldn't answer that.

He did answer one important question, though; and he was very certain. He said, if we continue spending like we're spending today, we're on a rendezvous with financial disaster. He said, and he left no doubt, that we had to reduce our spending, that the deficit was going to threaten the prosperity of our Nation, not only our children and our grandchildren, but today, tomorrow. He said, we have to reduce spending. He said, spending is out of control. He said, the baby boomers in the next year or two would overwhelm the Federal budget. He said, bring down the spending.