Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, working with then Senator Chris Dodd on financial reform and other matters from 2007 through 2010, was very rewarding. Senator Dodd's leadership in the Senate in getting a tough, complex regulatory bill past the Senate filibuster, was an extraordinarily impressive achievement. While he has moved on from Congress, Chris Dodd continues to defend the important reforms Congress adopted 2 years ago, and in yesterday's Politico, he wrote an important article that refutes the criticism of the bill that comes from a number of sources, primarily those financial industry leaders who behaved irresponsibly and resent the fact that they have diminished opportunities to do so. Because this debate now goes on with people trying to roll back their efforts to provide some stability in our financial system, I ask that Chris Dodd's article be printed here.

[From POLITICO, July 22, 2012]

Why Dodd-Frank is Necessary

(By Former Sen. Chris Dodd)

Wall Street received a long overdue regulatory overhaul two

years ago that fundamentally changed the way the financial

sector operates and can finally provide the American people

with a more secure financial sector.

At the time, I knew that these reforms we devised in

Congress would not be popular with those who either had a

vested interest in seeing them overturned or believed that a

repeal of Dodd-Frank is good politics.

The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act passed

two years ago last Saturday, overcoming many efforts to kill

it. Opponents have since spent millions to stall

implementation of new financial rules--while attempting to

build support for repeal.

Yet 73 percent of Americans support strong oversight of

Wall Street and this law's provisions, according to recent

polling by Lake Research Partners. And for good reason.

Consider the recent revelations that one bank has admitted

and others are being investigated for manipulating Libor, the

interbank loan rate. Another bank suffered a $6 billion

trading loss because of bad actors. These misdeeds and more

are making the strongest case for implementing Dodd-Frank.

Opponents of this law will likely continue their efforts to

weaken our work. But supporters of these financial reforms

must continue to explain why these changes are a vital part

of long-term U.S. economic security.

Critics largely forget that U.S. tax dollars rescued the

economy from the brink of collapse in 2008. Putting basic

rules in place to prevent a crisis of this magnitude from

being repeated was not only responsible--it was essential.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and I worked with both

Democrats and Republicans for two years to craft a bill to do

just that--using a transparent process to update our

financial system for the first time since the 1930s.

This was a fundamental transformation of our regulatory

structure, allowing regulators to keep pace with the 21st

century's global financial marketplace. The pace of

implementation has been slow because the complexities of

these problems required careful consideration.

I've always believed that a thoughtful approach is needed

to ensure these issues are adequately studied and new rules

are implemented correctly. Though it's important that these

new regulations be implemented soon, it's far more important

that these regulations get it right.

The law that Frank and I--and many other members of

Congress--completed two years ago is having a significant

effect, providing critical benefits to U.S. consumers.

For decades, regulators focused exclusively on protecting

the safety and soundness of the financial system--not

consumers. We created a new watchdog--the Consumer Financial

Protection Bureau--whose sole focus is to protect consumers

from abusive and deceptive financial practices.

Its work is under way with the creation of consumer-

friendly mortgage forms and credit card agreements that force

lenders to give borrowers a clear and accurate description of

their loan terms. The bureau also has the power to crack down

on deceptive practices--as revealed last week in the

settlement with Capital One, which must send refunds to

nearly two million customers. Solutions like this,

unimaginable two years ago, are forcing financial

institutions to rethink some products they offer and adopt

new consumer-friendly practices.

We also established requirements for banks to maintain

higher capital levels to better absorb unexpected losses.

Those running financial institutions are required to be far

more knowledgeable about their firm's everyday dealings.

Regulatory agencies must now communicate in real time with

one another and watch for problems ahead. Dodd-Frank also

prohibits the Federal Reserve from bailing out failing firms

and brings more accountability to the $600 trillion

derivatives market.

The bill we passed is by no means perfect. But reversing

course now can only weaken the economy and bring back the

reckless days of lax regulations--or no regulations--and

abusive practices that nearly destroyed the economy.

Our time and energy would be better spent working together

to strengthen this law and improve the work we started--

responsibly implementing an effective regulatory structure

that puts the best interests of the American people above all

else.

Chris Dodd, a Democrat who represented Connecticut in the

Senate for 30 years, is a co-author of the Dodd-Frank Wall

Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. He retired in 2011

and is now chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association

of America.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a bad idea, and I am somewhat confused.

By the way, we will be debating tomorrow a bill which restricts rulemaking, and it exempts the Federal Reserve, as I read it. So we're kind of on again/off again about the Federal Reserve. It seems to me what we're talking about is taking some fake punches at the Federal Reserve but not doing anything serious.

My Republican colleagues brought up a reconciliation bill that was going to subject the Consumer Bureau to appropriations.

So I offered an amendment to subject the Federal Reserve to appropriations. That was voted down. So we're not going to restrict their rulemaking. We're not going to subject them to appropriations, even though that's being done elsewhere. We're going to audit them, which is a way to look tough without really being tough.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

No. I reclaim my time and say we should do none of them. I was saying I have a consistent position. I don't think we should do any of them. What I'm saying is, people who get up there and beat their chest about how tough they are and they're not afraid of the Federal Reserve but exempt it from the great rulemaking bill, and subject the Consumer Bureau--that terrible threat to the well-being of Americans--to the appropriations process, but let the Federal Reserve, which spends about 150 times as much, go free--I am inclined to doubt their seriousness. Not their purity, that would be a violation of the rules, but their seriousness. This is a way to shake your fist at that big, bad Fed. And it's not a good way.

We hear a lot about uncertainty. Remember, the Federal Reserve is now subject to a complete openness about all of its transactions with private companies. We did that last year. The gentleman from Texas had a major role in that. When the Federal Reserve deals with any other institution, we know what it does. We don't know it necessarily the same day. There were these predictions about what terrible things were going to happen when the Federal Reserve did this and that. They haven't come true. Maybe they will some day, but we will know it.

This makes this exception: it says that we will audit the decisions about monetary policy. It says that members who vote on what the interest rate should be will now be audited. They will be subject to being quizzed about why they did that. Now, I will tell my Democratic friends, understand that one part of this problem is the objection on the part of the Republican Party to the fact that our Federal Reserve, unusual among central banks, has a dual mandate. They are charged under our statute to be concerned about inflation and about unemployment.

Now, the Republicans have an agenda they're keeping on low key until next year. They have a bill, but they won't act on it yet. But they would like to strip that part of the mandate. They would like the Federal Reserve to be only involved in inflation. They don't like the notion that the Federal Reserve deals with unemployment, and this is a way that, if it were ever to become law, and no one thinks it will-- this is a, Look how tough we are. We are going to wave our fists at the Fed. But it would be a way to kind of put pressure on members of the Open Market Committee and see, were you worried about unemployment when you did this? That's the audit. This has nothing to do with how they spend their money. It has nothing to do with whom they contract. That is what people usually think about an audit. It doesn't

have anything to do with whether they are efficient or not. It is an ideological agenda by a group of people who didn't like what the Federal Reserve was doing--under, by the way, George Bush, there was reference to the bailouts, which were, of course, under the Bush administration. One of the things that we did, by the way, in our bill 2 years ago--and all my Republican colleagues voted against the bill-- was to take away from the Federal Reserve the power they used--under President Bush--to give/lend $85 billion to AIG. We rescinded that. I don't think Mr. Bernanke, a Bush appointee, was doing the wrong thing necessarily, but we took back that power.

So this is partly a show because on the two serious efforts to curtail the Fed's powers, my Republican colleagues aren't there. But secondly--and as I said, I'm consistent--I don't think that we should do any of these things. I think what we did with regard to openness makes sense. I'm not pretending to be tough when I'm not.

But what it will do is destabilize. We have worries about expectations. There is a fear that we will be too inflationary or that we won't grow enough. People on Wall Street are not as sophisticated as some people think. I don't mean they're not sophisticated about their own business, as we know, but they will read this and take it more seriously than the Members here do who think it might eventually become law, and it will destabilize some of the financial system. They will see it as political interference not with the contracting procedures, not with the budget, not with how many cars they have, but with how they decide on interest rates. And the perception that the Congress is going to politicize the way in which interest rates are set will in itself have a destabilizing effect.

And as I said, nobody here thinks this will ever become law. But there is this fear on the part of others who don't know that that will translate into precisely the kind of uncertainty, precisely the kind of unsettling on investments that my Republican colleagues pretend to fear, and it will also send them the message, stop worrying about unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, to illustrate the misconceptions about this bill, let's refer to what the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) had to say. He said 76 percent of the purchasers of this and that. Well, if they were so nontransparent, I don't know how he would know that. He didn't have a subpoena. But the fact is, yes, he knows that because of the

transparency we've already built in. But all the more important, the details, the specifics of every one of those transactions are already public.

This isn't about those transactions or about with whom they were done and under what time period. It's about the motives of the people setting monetary policy.

And let me address the Constitution. Yes, it is true that the Constitution gives us the power to do this. The Constitution gives us a lot of power. It gives us power to declare war on Canada. It gives us the power to do a lot of things. Wise people pick and choose which powers they use.

But this is not about getting more information about their transactions. All of that is out there. This is an effort to give politicians, a wonderful group of people of which I am one, more direct involvement in the actual decisions on setting of interest rates than is good for the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that the Committee on Government and Oversight isn't the

official House historian. In fact, there was a motion to include language like this offered to the financial reform bill. I voted ``no,'' as did Mr. Watt. It was included in the bill. It's true, I voted for the bill. Of course, the gentleman from Texas voted against the bill. So if your vote on the whole bill is taken as an account of what you feel, he was against it.

But when it went to conference, it was not in the Senate bill--which was the text of the conference--so it did not come up, and no Republican conferee offered it as an amendment. That is, in the conference, that language which I and the gentleman from North Carolina voted against was not offered by any Member of the conference, Democrat or Republican.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I strongly support the effort by my colleague from California.

I would say to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee that it's certainly the case that, once the society through which democratic processes has determined what it wants to do in a military area, then we need the technical advice from the military experts. But there is a prior question with regard to Afghanistan: Should we be staying there?

It wasn't up to the military--and they never claimed that it was--to go in on their own. They went in pursuant to a vote of this House and of the Senate. It is the duty of the Members of this House to decide whether, in taking all of the factors into account, the time has come to wind it down or not. Once a decision is made, then we listen to the military.

Clearly, what is at stake here in this amendment is not simply a technical question of the way in which the logistics of a drawdown are handled but, really, whether or not the House wants to affirm that the time has come to begin a steady withdrawal. I might also add I would like to go more quickly than this amendment would allow, but we probably won't have the votes for that.

I disagree with the notion that this is a matter on which the elected representatives of the American people must defer to military experts. Yes, we will once we have made the democratic decision about what to do. But with all

of the factors taken into account, the time has come, just as this House authorized the military to go in, to reaffirm the decision that the time has come to begin to withdraw. So I very much support the gentleman's amendment in that particular context.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to join my colleague from South Carolina in an effort to make a small reduction in the Appropriations Committee's recommendation. Our colleague from New Jersey is right, the Constitution gives this power to the Congress, not to the Appropriations Committee, to the entire Congress.

The cuts that are being talked about consist, in the numbers--that I have seen in light of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee--are entirely due to the fact that we have had a drawdown of the troops in Iraq. Now I shouldn't stop at the fact that we did reduce the money we're spending in Iraq, because that's the problem with this budget. Yes, we have threats. The problem with this budget is it is dealing with the current threats, and it's dealing with past threats. This budget fully funds a capacity to win a thermonuclear war with the Soviet Union. I do not think that's a significant threat today.

This continues the commitment made courageously by Harry Truman in a bipartisan way to defend Western and Central Europe against Stalin and his hordes because we went into Europe 65 years ago when the Communists were menacing and the European nations were weak, and we said we will protect you. We are still doing that. They're not weak, and they're not threatened; but we are still protecting them.

Look at the budgets as a percentage of gross domestic product from all of those wealthy nations in Western Europe. They are less than half of ours.

On the other hand, the French are now contemplating reducing the retirement age for certain people who worked a certain amount of years, the official retirement age, from 62 to 60, while we're being told we may have to raise ours. How come the French can do that? Very simple: we've picked up their tab.

Yes, there are problems with China, there are problems with Iran, there are problems with North Korea. Tens of thousands of troops in Western Europe have got nothing to do with that. Yes, we should have a nuclear capacity and the submarines and the airplanes are important, but we've got three ways to destroy the Soviet Union, which no longer exists, and it's replaced by a much weaker Russia.

Couldn't we say to the Pentagon--and I know there is a great reluctance here to appear to be anything but totally deferential to them--couldn't we say to them, you've got three ways to win a thermonuclear war with the Soviet Union. Could you pick two and save much less than this $1 billion.

There is also the question of the culture. The general response of this Agency when an agency is inefficient is to crack down. When the Pentagon is inefficient, the money keeps going.

I am told there are cuts. It was my understanding this budget, the base budget, leaving aside the war in Iraq, which has wound down, is larger than it's ever been. No, these are cuts from what the Pentagon was supposed to have.

Let's understand also this has now become a zero-sum game. Unless you are prepared to ignore the deficit problem, every dollar you put into the Pentagon over and above what I believe is needed is coming from somewhere.

I don't know how Members can go to people who are on Medicare and explain to them that there are going to be these cutbacks, or to tell people on Social Security who have been doing physical labor all of their lives not to work another year or two, and then put money in the Defense budget that is not necessary.

We are told that, well, we have to be able to protect ourselves. Against whom do we need it all?

One of the things, we are told we need more ships because we have got to protect the shipping lanes between here and China. These are, of course, shipping lanes on which the Chinese make an enormous amount of money.

The notion that the Chinese plan to shut down the shipping lanes, which are the basis for their enormous surplus of trade with America, seems to me somewhat skeptical; but we still have a greater defense than the Chinese. I noted that the Chinese recently launched an aircraft carrier, their first one. They bought it, I believe, from the Ukraine and outfitted it with model airplanes so they can learn how to do it. Now, I don't deny that there are some threats there.

The question is not whether or not we should be the strongest Nation in the world. Of course we should be, and we are. The question is by how many

multiples do we need to be stronger than any combination of enemies.

My only reluctance on this amendment is I'm embarrassed by the fact that it's only a billion, but I think the gentleman from South Carolina made a correct decision. Members will have their choices. If there is any seriousness about deficit reduction across the board in this House, this amendment will pass.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a June 28 article from The Hill:

But U.S. dominance in every dimension of military power is

clear. In recent years we have been building ``strategic

depth'' into this dominance without regard to its costs--to

our Treasury and to our other priorities. A responsible

rollback of our military budget is achievable with no

sacrifice to our security.

The author is Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Colin Powell when he was Secretary of State, and he was special assistant to Colin Powell when General Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

So, yes, there were times when I think: let's take some advice from some military experts.

[From The Hill, June 28, 2012]

The Executive Viewpoint--Time To Bite the Bullet

(By Lawrence Wilkerson)

Though the U.S. budget process has been going through the

motions in 2012, the real action will take place at the end

of the year, when several budget overhaul strategies will

converge. Around town, the train wreck metaphor is getting

the most use to describe what will happen. But whatever does

happen, it is certain that large cuts are coming.

Those cuts come as three wars--Afghanistan, Iraq and the

global war on terror--are driving national security spending

to levels not seen since World War II. Since these wars have

been paid for by borrowing, they have contributed mightily to

our budget deficit and diverted resources from other

investments in our domestic strength.

It is time for a responsible build-down of the post-9/11

build-up. But an extraordinary feature of the dysfunctional

policies of Washington is the strenuous expenditure of time

and money devoted to ensuring this doesn't happen. Most of

this intensity has focused on exempting the military budget

from the coming sequestration of funds mandated by current

law. This is unwise, because the military--or better said,

the national security account--can and should contribute to

our getting our fiscal house in order. In fact, we could cut

our national security budget by a trillion dollars over the

next decade without jeopardizing our security. Moreover, we

could rebalance that budget as we cut and actually enhance

our security.

The national security budget includes the Intelligence,

Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security agencies, as well as

bureaus dealing with international affairs and nuclear

weapons issues (mostly in the Department of Energy) and, of

course, the Pentagon. Last year the total was about $1.2

trillion. The huge component in that budget is the Pentagon,

at more than 50 percent of the total spending. So that is

where everyone concentrates what he or she wants to cut, keep

or increase. That's where most of the rhetoric is expended,

too.

But this view is myopic.

National security is composed as much of good intelligence

and competent diplomacy as it is of bombs, bullets and

bayonets; indeed, one hopes more so. Thus, looking at the

national security budget as a whole, with all its components,

demonstrates clearly that it is out of balance. Too much

money is going to the iron and steel part of the budget and

too little to the velvet glove.

That's the first problem that needs correcting, the

balance. The second is the Pentagon. As the largest item by

far in the discretionary budget. not to mention in the

security budget, Pentagon spending has the largest influence

over the reducing/rebalancing equation.

The United States began the new millennium with a string of

military budget increases, paid for by borrowing, that

swelled the deficit while bringing us to the highest levels

of Pentagon spending since World War II. Our current military

expenditures account for more than half of the world's total.

We spend as much as the next 17 countries put together, most

of them our allies. And we spend more in real terms now than

we did on average when we did have a formidable adversary--

the Soviet Union--that was spending about as much as we were

and arguably constituted an existential threat to America. No

such threat exists today, nor can we see a comparable one in

the future, China's rise notwithstanding.

Guaranteeing perfect security is impossible. But U.S.

dominance in every dimension of military power is clear. In

recent years we have been building ``strategic depth'' into

this dominance without regard to its costs--to our treasury

and to our other priorities. A responsible rollback of our

military budget is achievable with no sacrifice to our

security.

The specifics of this judicious rollback are contained in

the Unified Security Budget (USB) published by the Institute

for Policy Studies and the Center for American Progress, a

budget I helped compile. Not only does this USB cut a

trillion dollars over 10 years, it rebalances the budget so

that the steel and the glove are in better proportions.

It is time for wise men and women to put partisanship

aside, ignore the siren calls of defense contractors, stop

taking counsel of their fears and get down to business with

the national security budget. No aspect of the federal budget

should be exempt from helping the nation get its fiscal act

together. This soldier of 31 years knows that national

security--including the Pentagon--can join this effort with

no danger to the republic.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the members of my family who have served this country in wartime. My cousin Arthur Cozewith, has remained a vigorous advocate for fair treatment for all of our veterans.

On Memorial Day this year, he was the guest speaker after the parade in his hometown of Pearl River, New York, and he shared with me the remarks he made on that occasion.

I grew up listening to Arthur's stories of what he and the others went through during World War II, including the experience of prisoners of war, and I continue to be inspired by his determination to see that others who serve are treated the way they should be treated by a nation that should be grateful, and through its gratitude helps define our greatness.

Mr. Speaker, as an expression of family pride and in agreement with his message, I ask that the eloquent remarks of my cousin Arthur Cozewith be printed here as a reminder to us as we legislate this year on matters affecting veterans of how important our duty is.

I would like to thank Honorable Judge and Vietnam War flyer

extraordinaire Paul Phinney III for the Honor on this

Memorial Day of presenting some of my memories, thoughts and

thanks related to the sacrifices made by our veterans. At the

age of 18, in November 1942, I enlisted in the U.S. Army and

served during WWII as a rifleman in Co. F, 333rd Infantry

Regiment of the 84th Division, participating in the battle

for Europe. Now, 67 years after the end of WWII, I still

remember the days of blood, mud and hot steel and the impact

of such days on my buddies, my friends and my relatives

serving in the armed forces. I still remember my Army buddy,

19-year-old Bob Koebler, killed in action on Dec. 2, 1944, my

Uncle David Golush who died of wounds received during the

battle for Sicily and my high school friend, Bill Miller, who

died when his bomber crashed. I remember that there were

exactly 34 bunks in a German reinforced concrete

fortification because a wounded American soldier occupied

each one. I remember the mistreatment and slow starvation of

Americans who were POW's. I remember all the things I don't

want to remember.

As I remember, I readily relate to those veterans who

sacrificed body and mind during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia,

Gulf Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan and the wars before and in-

between to preserve this great country we live in--the United

States of America. I am forever grateful for those

sacrifices, which now enable my children, grandchildren and

great grandchildren to live with equality and freedom.

I also remember that during WWII, our country acted like a

sleeping giant who had been rudely awakened. Americans were

united as one, as close together as the fingers in a closed

fist. Our decisions were based on one consideration--what was

best for America. ``What is in it for me'' was not a

permissible thought. We accepted rationing, censorship and

lack of goods in the stores. We grew our own vegetables in

victory gardens, we conserved everything, we had air raid

drills and bought E bonds to save our economy and onward the

list goes--winning was not only our sole objective, but also

our only option in order to preserve our freedom.

As we face the challenges of today and the new challenges

to come, I wonder if we can again work in unity for the best

interests of the country. Will we be able to pass along to

future generations the same opportunities we were provided by

those who sacrificed their lives for all that is great about

America?

To ensure a bright future for our country, I ask all of you

not to forget that these sacrifices led to our resulting good

fortune. Adopt a creed that fits within President John

Kennedy's words, ``Ask not what your country can do for you,

but what you can do for your country.'' Insist that those in

power, both elected and non elected, act in a manner that

puts country first. Keep in mind the truth in the adage

``United we stand . . . divided we fall.'' Become and remain

proactive in promoting and implementing these ideals after

today's remembrances have gone by.

And finally, show your appreciation to the Veteran

Community. If you are an uncommitted eligible Veteran, Pearl

River American Legion Post 329 and VFW post 7370 welcomes you

to join us as we reach out to Veterans and the community at

large.

Remember our war disabled veterans and work to alleviate

their on going pain and suffering by insisting that our

Congress and Veterans Administration eliminate an antiquated

processing system which results in delaying claims in some

cases for more than a year.

Thank you for listening. G-d Bless us all and G-d Bless

America.

--Arthur Cozewith

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, June 9th, I will have the honor of addressing the Congregation and friends of Agudath Achim and Jewish Communnity House in the City of Taunton, which I have been privileged to represent for these past 10 years. It will not be my first appearance at this temple, which is an important institution in the Greater Taunton Area. But this will be a meeting of particular significance, because it is part of a celebration of the Centennial Anniversary of this congregation.

Mr. Speaker, on May 7th, the Taunton Gazette published an article about Agudath Achim, which is a good summary of the work it does and the role it has played in the community. I can attest to the work that Agudath Achim does, both for the Jewish community, and for the broader society--for example, it was the host for the most recent Martin Luther King Day Interfaith Observation in Taunton.

Mr. Speaker, because this is an example of how an institution serves both the needs of its own people and the society at large, and because the Taunton Gazette did a very good job of describing this, I ask that the article from the Taunton Gazette be printed here, and I ask all Members to join me in congratulating this congregation and the work that they do.

(By Marc Larocque--Taunton Gazette Staff Reporter)

Taunton--The Congregation Agudath Achim marked 100 years in

the city with a rededication ceremony held at the synagogue

this weekend, featuring several guest speakers who talked

about their years as part of the Jewish community in Greater

Taunton.

``We had a chance for people of all ages to participate,''

Rabbi Anne Heath said. ``The rededication was a chance for us

to acknowledge all of our ancestors over the past 100 years

and rededicate ourselves, as much as rededicating the

building to continue to be a home for the Jewish community

for the greater Taunton area. There was no champagne bottle

broken or major renovations, but we recognized that this has

been the religious and cultural home for generations of

Jewish people from the area.''

Heath said the rededication was a chance to recognize some

of the goodwill that has come as a product of the

Congregation Agudath Achim throughout the last century.

``The synagogue has been a focal point for Jews to gather,

to study, to pray, and to support each other in good times

and bad,'' Heath said. ``It's a base of operation or a home

so that many of our members are involved in, doing a lot of

good works and good deeds throughout the community. It gives

us a chance to socialize and celebrate holidays. Like many

other organizations, especially religious ones, it helps us

sustain ourselves as a community.''

Taunton resident Mike Thurman said that the rededication

was a chance to realize just how much the synagogue has

enriched his family and many others, bringing everyone

together, creating a great sense of community.

``It kind of brought back memories of when we first

joined,'' Thurman said. ``Some of the people who came have

gotten older and have moved away. It was nice to see them

again.''

Thurman, a Milton native, moved to the Taunton area in

1975. His wife soon discovered the synagogue through word of

mouth, bringing the family into the fold.

``The synagogue is very family oriented,'' Thurman said.

``The congregation is small enough that we know everyone. You

end up knowing how everyone's children are growing up, having

their bar mitzvah parties. My four daughters had their bat

mitzvahs there. It's good to have the synagogue in your life.

Basically, it's like having an extended family. Everybody

knows everybody. It's a generational thing. We're very

fortunate.''

On June 30, there will be a reunion celebration for

Congregation Agudath Achim. It is another event as part of

the congregation's centennial celebrations.

Congressman Barney Frank is also scheduled to be a special

guest speaker at a June 9 event with services starting at 9

a.m.

While the congregation has grown with the times--at one

point it was an Orthodox synagogue in which men were

separated from the women, while now it is a more modern and

independent organization--the mission remains the same, Rabbi

Heath said.

Heath said that she hopes the next century will be one in

which the Congregation Agudath Achim will reach further into

the community, touching the lives of many using the religious

teachings of Judaism.

``I think one of the most important things for our Jewish

community, like all other religious communities, is meet

people where they are, find out what's going on in their

lives, and to find out what we have to offer to support

people where they need it,'' Heath said. ``That's part of the

rededication and recommitment. Judaism has a strong ethical

component. We believe the teachings of Judaism can support

that, whether for a young

person, a parent, an empty nester, dealing with all different

kinds of issues. Our teachings and availability of community

will play a big role. It's part of the path that we really

take into the future.''

Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that illustrates an old saying: Adding insult to injury. The insult is the terms under which we are debating this vast commitment of taxpayer dollars to the most important issue we have--defense.

People will be debating at 11 o'clock tonight, in 5 minutes on a side, very significant issues. We had a few minutes to debate the question of Afghanistan. My colleague, Ms. Lee, and some Republicans will join to try to bring this budget number down to where it should be--$8 billion at least, back to the number of the agreement. And they will have 5 minutes in which to do it. That's outrageous.

Also, it's important to note if this bill goes through, it is a statement that efforts to improve the quality of life at home will be sacrificed to foreign adventures that are ill-fated in many cases.

I read a letter from the chairman of the committee to the Secretary of Defense. He said, Mr. Secretary, if we increase spending here, it won't come out of other national security accounts. Of course not. It will come out of Medicare. It will come out of Medicaid. It will come out of efforts to protect the environment. It will come out of police on our streets.

There is an excess of money here. Afghanistan is a good example. A commitment of 68,000 troops. The gentleman from California complained about what the gentleman from Washington said. It sounded the same to me. They put down 68,000 troops, dictating to the Commander in Chief-- or trying to--what it should be.

There is an effort going on in Afghanistan which has gone far beyond what was justified by our national security. There is a commitment to spend more than is necessary on nuclear weapons when the military hasn't asked for them. There are weapons systems here the Pentagon didn't want. And where does it come from? It comes from everything we try to do to improve the quality of life at home.

This is an attack on our ability to provide the funding that America needs for a decent set of conditions here.

No one is opposing adequate national defense. This continues a pattern of overspending. I remember, again, what Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal said, hailing the Republican budget, which this is carrying out. It protects defense so they can cut Medicare and Medicaid and other domestic programs. It's too bad we don't have a decent amount of time to expose the extent to which that is going on.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican approach does some cutting, but it does even more shifting. I agreed with The Wall Street Journal editorial of a few weeks ago, which praised the gentleman from Wisconsin because he was shielding the military from any significant cuts and, instead, was making it up from Medicare and Medicaid. That's The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Murdoch, thanking the gentleman from Wisconsin for cutting Medicare and Medicaid, not to balance the budget or reduce the deficit, but to pump up military spending.

Similarly, this claim that they are saving $20-some-odd billion in dealing with the liquidation authority is exactly wrong. What the Republican approach says, and we have a roll call vote in our committee which did this, it continues their position that the large financial institutions, financial institutions with more than $50 billion in assets, should pay nothing--nothing--for the costs of cleaning up the mess.

In our original bill in 2010, we met CBO's requirement that there be a $20 billion cost by assessing the large financial institutions. To get cloture in the Senate, three Republicans managed to back off. In our committee this year, the Republicans said, We don't like this, and it's going to cost $20 billion. CBO, by the way, says that it costs $20 billion only within the 10-year window. CBO said the $20 billion will be paid out, and it will be repaid by the large financial institutions. I will submit another article from The Wall Street Journal making that point.

But here's what the Republicans did: they said, Let's not have the financial institutions be vulnerable. We looked at what CBO said, and we said, okay, CBO says the $20 billion from the financial institutions will come at the end of the 10 years rather than the beginning. So we had an amendment to assess the large financial institutions $20 billion--$29 billion, the CBO said it would cost--at the beginning of the period. The Republicans said the banks were being overtaxed and voted it down on a party-line vote.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 18, 2012]

Would Repeal of Key Dodd-Frank Provision Really Save $22 Billion?

A House committee later today will vote on a bill being

pushed by Republicans to repeal a central plank of the 2010

Dodd-Frank financial law, claiming it would save taxpayers

$22 billion over 10 years.

The figure triggered some head-scratching around

Washington. ``It's tough to understand where the $22 billion

comes from--it's a wild assumption since there are currently

no cash flows involved with this part of Dodd-Frank,'' Brian

Gardner, a Washington analyst with investment bank Keefe,

Bruyefte & Woods, in a note to clients. (He's a former GOP

Hill aide). ``Republicans on the committee would only

eliminate the possibility that the government might have to

spend money on liquidating a distress financial firm in the

future,'' he wrote, adding that investors shouldn't waste any

time thinking about the issue since the GOP bill ``has

virtually no shot at passing'' the Senate.

The provision in question is the so-called ``orderly

liquidation authority'' that gives regulators broad new

powers to take control of faltering megafirms and wind them

down in an orderly way so that their failure doesn't wreak

havoc on the broader economy a la 2008. The provision does

allow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to borrow money

from the Treasury to finance the process--but that money, by

law, has to be paid back to Treasury. If the FDIC can't

recoup enough by selling off assets of the failed firm, then

regulators will levy a fee on the big financial firms left

standing over a five-year period.

House Republicans say they got the $22 billion figure from

the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Looking at that

office's 2011 cost estimate for the whole Dodd-Frank bill

shows how the CBO came up with the number--and the budget

quirks behind it that make it far from a tangible boost to

government coffers.

First, the CBO assumes regulators have to step in and use

their new powers to deal with a teetering financial giant

during the next 10 years. That's a pretty big if.

Nonetheless, as CBO puts it, while the likelihood of the feds

having to use this new process in any year ``is small, the

potential costs of liquidating a systemically important firm

could be large.'' And experts do say there will be another

financial crisis sooner or later.

Even so, the CBO's approach of only looking at 10 years at

a time is another quirk at play here. As the agency explained

in its 2011 document, ``[A] snapshot of cash flows in any

given 10-year budget window is unlikely to net to zero

because the spending to liquidate a firm would occur before

the income was received to cover those costs.''

In other words, the CBO is assuming that the FDIC won't be

able to get all the money it needs to pay back Treasury

within the 10-year period--but that doesn't mean that the

FDIC won't ever get that money. If the law works as it is

supposed to, in the end the total cost to taxpayers would be

zero--not $22 billion.

Of course, there are lots of critics who say that this new

resolution authority won't work and either regulators or

Congress will decide to bailout financial firms when the next

crisis strikes, in which case taxpayers would be on the hook.

But the CBO is assuming the law works like it's supposed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Actually, Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would strike many of the words we've heard today.

I first want to acknowledge the leadership of my colleague from California. He has a characteristic that is all too rare in politics, an intellectual consistency. We have people on the one hand that talk about freedom of the individual, liberty, and respect for States' rights, but when it comes up against some pet project of theirs, all that goes out the window.

Let's be very clear. This is not a case of people advocating that other people smoke marijuana. It is for me an advocacy that we allow people some degree of free choice. I listened to the gentleman from Virginia, and I admire his diligence. But I have to say, I disagreed with almost everything he said. There was one thing he said that I thought was appropriate. He said we shouldn't be debating this at 7:30. I agree. We should have been debating it at 4:20. That would have been a much better time. But other than that, he says, What about 15-year- olds, they'll see marijuana centers.

Well, they'll see liquor stores. They'll see many more liquor stores than marijuana centers. The notion that because something is inappropriate for a teenager or a child, adults should not be allowed to use it, is mindlessness. You can't run a society that says we're not going to let a 15-year-old see the things a 15-year-old can't do. Liquor stores would be a great example.

I have been disappointed on this point with the Obama administration. The Clinton administration was quite sensible on this. The Bush administration slipped back, and I had hoped that with the Obama administration it would be more sensible.

The gentleman from Virginia said, Well, this is a great source of money for the Mexicans. Sure, because we won't let people grow it in America. To the extent that people are buying medical marijuana from Mexican drug cartels, I think, is a somewhat overdone thing with regard to this. That's because we have had people refusing to allow them to grow it here in America for that use.

People say--again, I'm surprised by some of my conservative friends-- there is no medical value. The Federal Government now becomes the arbiter and tells the States you may not make that judgment that there is medical value. We know an awful lot of people think it has medical value for them.

As to addiction and the notion that if you get all these drugs together, what marijuana has in common with Oxycontin--which the gentleman from Virginia mentioned--and other drugs is that we treat them the same. They are not the same in any rational way. They're not the same in addictive prospects. They're not the same except we treat them the same. And we're the ones that by this foolish policy--that I regret the administration I supported is engaging in--give people the notion that they're the same thing. It's a very simple point.

People in the States have voted that marijuana should be available for people who want to use it for medicinal purposes, and the States are then in charge of setting up ways to deal with it. We have people out of their ideological opposition announcing that they will not be allowed to do that, that they will tell people it has no medical use despite the testimony of so many who think it does. This again is a form that I thought we learned didn't work, and it's prohibition of the worst sort. And by the way, it is going to lead to very ineffective law enforcement because we are a free country. You cannot impose, in a free society like ours, a regime of law enforcement that the public rejects without a great deal of repression. State by State by State, the people of the States have voted to allow this. So when we send the Federal agents in to disregard what the State did, to disregard State law, of course you're going to engender resistance; of course you're going to engender people going around. And I would just close by saying after listening to this debate, I think tonight C SPAN has merged with Turner Classic Movies because ``Reefer Madness,'' that great movie from the thirties, appears to be being shown on both channels.

This notion that because 15-year-olds are watching us talk about how people who are ill and in pain should be allowed with the vote of the State to get marijuana prescribed by a doctor, and that's going to lead a 15-year-old to go out and do it, makes no logical sense. As I said, if you're worried about what 15-year-olds can see, they can see X-rated movies that are being advertised; they can see cigarettes being sold widely; they can see alcohol. They can see all manner of things that we don't want them to do.

This is a very sensible amendment. No one has shown, let me say finally--and you know the DEA, they want to do this. I have not seen the evidence that says that medical marijuana has led to any problem. I haven't seen it linked to crime. I haven't seen it linked to anything negative. What we have, frankly, are some prejudices being used to interfere with people's rights.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, to begin, I have read this amendment. And if it were to be law in an hour, it does not appear that it would affect anything that's now happening in the Federal Government.

The gentleman said that they were trying to undermine the act and that they should enforce it. In fact, the administration has been very clear: while they disagreed with the act, they would like it repealed, they in fact believe it's unconstitutional, it is now on the books, and nothing is being done in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act. That is, there are no things now going on where the Federal Government recognizes the rights of same-sex marriage.

So I guess my main opposition to this is that the bill is already big enough, but it doesn't add anything in substance. It adds a few words. I would yield if anyone can tell me what the reference is to not enforcing the act.

Now it is true the administration declined to defend the act in court, but not defending an act in court in no way means that you are contravening any enforcement. Going to court is a different story. As a matter of fact, the House Republican leadership has voted to go to court to defend it.

So I, again, would be glad if someone would tell me. The Defense of Marriage Act says the Federal Government will grant no rights to same- sex married couples that come from marriage. It's not doing that. I agree the administration doesn't like that, but the suggestion that they are undermining the law is simply wrong.

Now I understand--and this may be the confusion--that the gentleman

originally planned to offer a different amendment, and that amendment, he was told, was not in order. Maybe he changed the amendment and somebody forgot to change the speech, because the speech he gave may apply to the earlier amendment, but it doesn't apply to this one. So it seems to me kind of a waste. It's late in the evening. But the evening is shot anyway.

It does not say the administration shouldn't go to court. That is not contravening the Defense of Marriage Act. Contravening the Defense of Marriage Act would be extending benefits. And I want to reassure the gentleman, when I get married in July to Jim, I will not be looking for any Federal benefits. He wouldn't be eligible for my pension, even if I got one--I won't get one. But he wouldn't be eligible if I got one. I am very familiar with this.

In fact, nothing being done now by the Federal Government or contemplated by this administration contravenes the Defense of Marriage Act. What the administration says is: We think it's unconstitutional, and we are going to oppose it.

Now I know there are some who say--the gentleman from Kansas, I agree, didn't say that--some have said, How dare you to ask the court to throw out a law passed by Congress. You've heard that rhetoric. After all, Congress passed this. How does the court dare to overthrow it? Well, that's an argument I used to hear from my conservative friends a lot more before the health care bill came up.

So let's be clear, there are now two major pieces of legislation passed by this Congress--not this particular one--that are being contested and people are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to throw them out. One is the Defense of Marriage Act, one is the health care bill. You can be against, in principle, the court's throwing out an act of Congress as unconstitutional. You can be for it in principle and differ as to the application. But there isn't any way that you can say it is perfectly legitimate to cancel the health care bill through judicial intervention but not to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act.

So I assume they're going to want a roll call because they went through all this effort, they'd like to be able to talk about it in campaigns. It literally means nothing because there is no contravention going on now. So I'll be glad to vote against it. If other people vote for it, they can do so.

Again, the Defense of Marriage Act says you don't grant benefits to same-sex couples as if they were married. Nobody is doing that. That isn't happening. It isn't planned. It won't happen until and unless the Supreme Court finds unconstitutionality. And refusing to defend an act in court, in the English language, is not contravention. As a matter of fact, it says none of the funds made available may be used in contravention. Well, not going to court is not using funds. Maybe he meant to say none of the funds under this act may be not used in contravention, because we certainly aren't spending by not spending any money. So maybe he meant to say we should spend the money, I don't know.

But I understand his original intention was ruled out of order. He had a place in the agenda, so he offered an amendment. But it doesn't mean very much.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield to me to help support his amendment? I am in support of the gentleman's amendment. Will the gentleman yield to me?

I thank the gentleman.

I strongly support the amendment. The gentleman from Washington has the regional councils confused with the people who fish. There's a regional split here. If the people on the west coast are happy with this, good luck to them.

Here's what happened.

In the Magnuson-Stevens Act passed in the lame duck of 2006, we said that provisions that would provide for these kinds of limitations were to be voted on by the people in the fishery. There would have to be a vote of the people in the fishery. What happened was, in Washington, they decided that there were areas where they wouldn't get the fishermen to vote for it--maybe on the west coast, they would; on the east coast, they wouldn't. So they invented--Washington did--catch shares, which is a way to have exactly the same impact as what we have in the bill, but without a referendum. We went to court. The judge said, Well, you've got a good argument, but I've got to go with the administrator.

If this amendment passes, if the people in the fishery--the fishermen--want to vote for something that will, in effect, be catch shares, they can put it into effect. And if they vote ``no,'' it will be no.

The regional councils, they are not only fishermen, they are appointees. NMFS has had a major impact.

So let's be very clear: If you think the fishermen ought to be able to decide, that's what the law says. This catch shares is an invention to get around the law. If this amendment

passes, catch shares will not be around, but the law that we passed in 2006 that allows for the fishermen to vote if they want to implement it will still be there. If people on the west coast want it, fine.

No, excuse me. That is what the amendment says. The amendment says you can't have what they call catch shares. If it passes, you will go back to the underlying Magnuson-Stevens Act, which did come out of committee.

Do you know who amended the bill? Not here in the appropriations process, NMFS. If there are no catch shares, that means you can't do this without a vote of the fishermen. You will go back to the underlying statute, Magnuson-Stevens, which will say that if the people in the fishery want to vote for it, they can; otherwise, it doesn't happen.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important examples Israel gives to the world is how an independent judiciary, committed to the rule of law, can act even in a nation in which security considerations are paramount--as they have had to be in Israel since 1948, when it was attacked at the very moment of its birth.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of Israel issued a ruling that Migron, an illegal settlement established in the West Bank, must be dismantled and the occupants removed. While it is clear that some of the areas that are now reserved for Jewish citizens of Israel should remain in place after a two-state peace agreement is signed, these are the areas immediately adjacent to Israel, especially in and around Jerusalem. Those settlements far from that area should never have been allowed to

be established, and they should now be removed. Those of us who believe strongly in Israel's right to a continued existence as a secure, democratic, independent state have a particular responsibility to point out that those who create and defend these settlements may undermine the chances of achieving such a result.

There are strong public policy reasons for objecting to these unauthorized, illegal settlements, as we learned when the Obama administration was so successful in blocking a U.N. vote to recognize Palestinian statehood. The defeat of that effort, led by the Obama administration's aggressive diplomacy, was a far better result for Israel in the U.N. than we have seen in many years. And it is clear that it was because President Obama has expressed his disagreement with the existence of many of these settlements that he had the credibility to achieve that diplomatic victory.

But the Supreme Court of Israel is not motivated by these political considerations. Rather it is committed to the rule of law--a strong distinction between Israel and most of its neighbors. Given the pressures that are brought to bear against the Judiciary in the name of security, a phenomenom we have seen in our own country at various times, the decision by the Israeli Supreme Court to order the dismantlement of an illegal settlement deserves praise and it is important that the Netanyahu administration carry out this court order. It would be a gift to critics of Israel if there were to be any faltering in the Israeli Government's standing behind this decision of its Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, the New York Times, in an editorial on March 28, noted this, and because the example of a Supreme Court, in a nation that is engaged in a serious effort to protect itself against external enemies, is standing up for the rule of law in the face of pressures to the contrary is so important, I ask that the editorial from the New York Times, entitled ``Israel's Top Court vs. Outposts'' be printed here.

[From the New York Times, Mar. 25, 2012]

Israel's Top Court Orders Settlers to Leave Outpost

(By Ethan Bronner)

Jerusalem.--Israel's Supreme Court on Sunday ordered a West

Bank settlers' outpost built on private Palestinian land to

be dismantled by Aug. 1, rejecting a government compromise

with the settlers that would have allowed them to stay put

for another three years.

The decision was much anticipated, because the panel of

three judges who decided the case included the court's

conservative new chief justice, Asher Grunis, and because the

case involved the politically explosive issue of moving

settlers in the face of potentially violent resistance.

Whether the government will remove the 50 families living

in the outpost before the deadline will also be closely

monitored.

In their ruling, the judges chided the government for

having failed to evacuate the outpost in accordance with an

earlier high court decision.

``This is a necessary component of the rule of law to which

all are subject as part of Israel's values as a Jewish and

democratic state,'' the decision said.

The case concerns Migron, a settler outpost near the West

Bank city of Ramallah. Migron is one of the largest of dozens

of small enclaves that have a different status under Israeli

law than the 120 full-blown settlements in the West Bank.

Although the larger settlements, home to about 330,000

Israeli Jews, are considered in violation of international

law by a vast majority of foreign governments, Israel views

them as legitimate; not so for the smaller outposts, which

Israel views as illegal because they went up without its

authorization. Despite that status, most of the outposts have

been provided with basic infrastructure by the government.

Nearly a decade ago, Israel promised the United States that

it would dismantle a number of the outposts in preparation

for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Palestinians want to build a state on land that is now

partly occupied by the settlers. But almost no outposts have

actually come down, and Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are

frozen.

Meanwhile, Migron stands out among the outposts because its

land is not simply part of a theoretical future state of

Palestine but also because it has been shown to belong to

private Palestinian owners. The state did not dispute that

finding, although the settlers say that no proof of ownership

was provided.

Palestinians represented by an Israeli lawyer took the case

to the Supreme Court, along with Peace Now, a left-wing

Israeli group that opposes the settlements. The case dragged

on for years, but last summer the court said the outpost had

to be dismantled by the end of March 2012, a deadline the new

ruling extends to Aug. 1.

The government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which

is a strong defender of the settlers and wanted to avoid a

confrontation, suggested a compromise--let the residents of

Migron remain until a new authorized community could be built

nearby where they could relocate upon its completion in 2015.

The plaintiffs returned to the court last week and told the

court that to accept such a deal would be to flout the rule

of law.

One of the three justices who heard last week's arguments,

Salim Joubran, indicated the court's leanings at the time:

``You say the outpost will move in three years, but I know

this type of behavior. Three years will inevitably turn into

eight.''

Right-wing legislators said Sunday that they would

introduce legislation to legalize Migron and other outposts.

Dani Dayan, a leader of Israel's settler movement, said that

the court's ruling would empower the violent extremists in

his community who have long argued that there was no point in

seeking compromise.

Tzaly Reshef, a founder of Peace Now and a lawyer, said the

decision would not change the fact that ``supporters of the

settlements remain in power.'' But he called it ``very

meaningful in terms of the constitutional system in Israel.''

Mr. Reshef said that had the case been decided the other

way, ``it would have been almost the end of the existence of

the courts as the protectors of the rule of law in this

country, as well as the ultimate victory of the settlers.''

He continued, ``The government, threatened with violence if

it tries to remove settlers, tried to convince the court that

it should pull back from its decision, which is based on the

basic right of ownership of private property.''

The next test, Mr. Reshef said, would be whether the

government is ``able to change facts on the ground.''

Mr. Netanyahu said the government would honor the court's

decision and uphold the rule of law.

I was interested to hear the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the Appropriations Committee, complain about this duplication. Apparently, during the 6 years when the Republican Party controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate, they didn't find any of them. They're late to see them, but better late than never.

The other concern I had was, he talked about duplication at the Defense Department in procurement. But this budget protects the Pentagon and, in fact, increases its spending.

Now, we have been told we should not be talking about cutting Medicare because that's not what's happening. So let me cite The Wall Street Journal, rarely accused of distorting the Republicans' position. In fact, they are defending the chairman of the Budget Committee against the right wing.

And here's what The Wall Street Journal says, because we're talking here not about cutting spending but shifting it. The Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday:

``Mr. Ryan's budget would cancel the additional defense cuts of $55 billion a year''--out of $700 billion--``under the sequester and replace them with savings in the entitlements. His Medicare and Medicaid reforms would generate future savings many times greater than would be gained from gutting the defense budget.''

Now, some of us don't think that pulling out of Afghanistan, with the corruption there, quicker than is now planned would be gutting the defense budget. I know my Republican colleagues like to be critical of welfare in some cases, but they continue to support the greatest welfare program in the history of the world, the American taxpayer subsidy of the defense budgets of the wealthy nations of Western Europe.

But let me again read what The Wall Street Journal says. Here's how they characterize the Ryan budget:

Mr. Ryan's budget would cancel the additional defense cuts

of $55 billion a year and replace them with savings in the

entitlements.

Social Security and Medicare.

So in this respect, at least, we're not talking about cutting spending, but shifting it from the military into the

Defense Department. And that's why the AARP has written so persuasively that his plan would, in fact, destroy Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, whenever a legislative body deals with measures to prohibit or lessen discrimination against any group, opponents who do not wish to affirm that they are prejudiced against that group often assert that there will be negative consequences if the antidiscrimination measure is adopted. Most recently, we heard dire predictions from many supporters of the policy of discriminating against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender members of the military that allowing these patriotic Americans to serve their country openly would be terribly disruptive. Apparently, there were many who believed that young Americans who serve in the military shared their prejudice.

Despite their arguments, the repeal was voted by the Congress in 2010 and very efficiently put into place by Defense Secretary Panetta after full consultation with the Military Chiefs of Staff. It has now been about six months since the ban on honesty among gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender military personnel was dropped. And, as in many other cases--for example our laws protecting people with disabilities, or our laws banning discrimination against women--the predictions of social chaos from opponents of fairness have proven to be baseless.

Stars and Stripes, the widely regarded newspaper that serves our military, and has a long record of independence and integrity, summed it up in an article on March 19th as follows: ``Six months after the military ended the controversial ``don't ask, don't tell'' law barring gays from serving openly, Pentagon officials and gay rights advocates say the policy change has largely been a non-issue, with few complaints and no major headaches resulting from the new rules.''

It is true that there are some of those who were opposed to this end to a discriminatory policy who continue to argue that there would have been problems if the Pentagon had not somehow mysteriously suppressed it. The notion that there is any significant degree of dissatisfaction but there is no way that anyone has been able to voice it--even anonymously--is of course highly suspect. The fact is that is turns out that the young people in the military do not share the prejudices of some of their would-be defenders, and the notion that military effectiveness has in any way been damaged, or that we would see people leaving the military, have been shown to have no basis.

Mr. Speaker, because it is important to have this further example of the inaccuracy of the predictions that are made when we seek to ban discrimination against particular groups, and because this was such an important issue debated in this Congress, I ask that the article from Stars and Stripes be printed here.

[From the Stars and Stripes, Mar. 19, 2012]

(By Leo Shane III)

Six months after repeal, military says DADT died quietly

Washington.--Sgt. Pepe Johnson was surprised by the

reaction he received when his fellow soldiers learned that he

is gay.

``They've pretty much shrugged it off,'' said Johnson, who

rejoined the Army last fall after nearly a decade away.

``Most of them were wondering why I had a nine-year gap in

service. When I told them it was because of `don't ask, don't

tell,' they shrugged it off.

``That was a pleasant surprise.''

Six months after the military dropped the controversial

``don't ask, don't tell'' law barring gays from serving

openly, Pentagon officials and gay rights advocates say the

policy change has largely been a non-issue, with few

complaints and no major headaches resulting from the new

rules.

Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said the repeal is

``proceeding smoothly across the Department of Defense,''

which officials there credit to the ``enforcement of

standards by our military leaders'' and ``servicemembers'

adherence to core values that include discipline and

respect.''

Officials at the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a

pro-repeal group which offers free legal assistance to troops

on discrimination issues, said they've heard only a few minor

complaints from military members about the implementation of

the repeal.

``We had thought this would be largely a non-event, and

that has been the case,'' said Aubrey Sarvis, executive

director of the group. ``I think the new regulations

permitting gays and lesbians to serve are unambiguous, and

the commands have all made it abundantly clear that this is

the direction the force is going.''

Military leaders have seen pushback from conservative

groups on some high-profile post-repeal stories--such as a

picture of a gay Marine kissing his boyfriend which

circulated earlier this month--but haven't faced any lawsuits

or mass resignations predicted by some opponents.

Last month's White House dinner honoring Iraq War veterans

included several same-sex couples among the invitees, but in

their remarks military leaders didn't even note that such a

public display would have resulted in those troops' dismissal

just a few months earlier.

Johnson was booted out of the Army in 2003 under ``don't

ask, don't tell.'' After he shared his secret with some

friends, others in his unit started grilling them about his

sexual orientation. Feeling pressure from both his friends

and others, Johnson eventually came clean to his superiors.

As the political winds changed last year, Johnson said he

was speaking with recruiters about returning even before the

repeal went into effect last September.

``Their biggest issue was asking when I could start, not

worrying about my personal life,'' he said. ``There has been

no backlash, nothing to worry about.''

Repeal opponents remain skeptical. Elaine Donnelly,

president of the conservative Center for Military Readiness,

said plenty of troops remain opposed to serving with openly

gay colleagues, but fear they'll lose their job if they

object to the military's new pro-gay agenda.

``The entire administration . . . has imposed `zero

tolerance' policies against persons who are not enthusiastic

supporters of LGBT law,'' she said. ``This is what we

predicted, but the effects will not be seen quickly,

especially in an election year.''

Much of the repeal fight has already shifted to the next

rights battlefield, whether same-sex couples should receive

the same housing and medical benefits as their straight

peers.

Sarvis said the current benefits rules create two different

classes of servicemembers. Opponents argue that the rights

groups are trying to use the military to force radical social

changes.

Meanwhile, Donnelly said that she has heard from a number

of troops unhappy with the changes, who are simply waiting

for their contracts to expire before leaving the service.

That could cause major problems in coming months and years,

she said.

Petty Officer 1st Class Jeremy Johnson, a member of active-

duty gay-rights group OutServe, said he anticipates more

problems in the future, although nothing to the extent of

Donnelly's predictions. Many of the gay troops he knows have

not yet talked about their personal lives with their work

colleagues, somewhat delaying the cultural impact of the

repeal.

``This was never about having people come flying out of the

closet,'' he said. ``It was about knowing you can't be fired

for being found out. There's going to be a natural transition

as more people become comfortable with the idea.''

Johnson, who was forced from the military in 2007, became

the first openly gay person to reenlist after the repeal was

finalized. He said his commanders have warned him that he

could be singled out for his public role, but so far it

hasn't caused any real conflicts.

``I anticipate that this isn't over, but I don't anticipate

major problems, either,'' he said.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time that would go to someone in opposition if there is anybody in opposition, which there does not appear to be.

Madam Chair, I support this amendment. I am pleased that we have been able to come together in a process that is providing some improvement. As I've said, I think there have been people in both the executive and legislative branches that have exaggerated the impact of these, but they are helpful.

I do want to make one point, though, that it is true that the President has been one of those who has been a proponent of this--it's been a very bipartisan and very cooperative process--and there is a Statement of Administration Policy in support of the bills.

I do want to make it clear because there will be some subsequent amendments that I think will be controversial. This one is not. The next two are actually not, I believe. But then there are one, two, three, four that may be. I want to make it very clear that the President's Statement of Administration Policy, which supports the bills--or the bill, with the package of bills within it--in general is in no way--and I speak for the administration on this, having talked to them--an expression of opposition to the later amendments, none of the later amendments--and Members will debate them one way or the other, although I deeply regret that the Rules Committee only gave us 5 minutes to debate controversial amendments on each side. I think that's a denigration of process.

I would note we're probably going to finish up before noon today, or maybe 12:30. The notion that we couldn't have taken 20 minutes or even a half hour to debate a couple of these significant issues seems to me to be very, very regrettable.

But I did want to make it clear that there are amendments that will be coming up that are not either supported or opposed by the administration; that is, they are not in opposition to the general approach. And since we only have 5 minutes, I will take a little of this time to note that, for example, there is one from Mr. Capuano, who is a very thoughtful student here, to make sure that when we talk about holders of record, that that's not a subterfuge, that the holders of record, we are talking about limiting the number, that you don't get a whole lot of people listed as one holder of record. I think that amendment by Mr. Capuano is wholly in the spirit of this bill.

Mr. Peters' amendment, one of the things that we had talked about, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters), is to talk about the job impact. These have been listed as a ``jobs'' bill. We have one of those foolish acronyms of which I'm not very fond. They call this the ``JOBS''--whatever. Well, Mr. Peters wants to know how many jobs are really going to be created. I think that's very helpful. Similarly, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) wants to know about what the real impact is.

So I will reserve the balance of my time at this point, but I did want to make clear that several of the subsequent amendments are not in any way derogatory to this bill. In fact, I say, look, if this bill does what it says, let's know about it.

I reserve the balance of my time. I believe I have the right to close.

Well, I will take the rest of our time to say this--and this is another relevant issue: this is a bill which does unusual things to reduce what the SEC will have to do in some of these areas, not primarily that save time for the SEC, but in fact to try to make it less burdensome for the companies that are involved.

But with that having been said, the reduction in SEC duties, which are really incidental to this bill, in no way removes the need for adequate funding for the SEC. One of the things that has been troubling to many of us is a tendency on the part of the majority to refuse the adequate funding to the SEC that it needs to carry out its new responsibilities. That's especially troubling because the SEC funds do not come from the taxpayers. The SEC is funded by a fee paid by those who participate in the securities business. In fact, as we are doing here, we are exempting the smaller people.

So when we have the largest financial institutions in this country paying a relatively small fee, in fact, an absolutely small fee, we can fund the SEC adequately. What we have seen is a disturbing refusal on the part of the majority in this House to give the SEC the funds it needs. We gave the SEC increased powers over investor protection with fiduciary responsibilities over shareholder rights. We gave them increased powers, particularly over derivatives, which had gone unregulated for so long. We have had some criticism of the SEC for not moving more promptly. We have had some criticisms of the SEC for not doing a better job of enforcement. None of those are helped by starving them of funds.

So when we have a situation where the majority does the financial community the favor of withholding funds that the administration has asked for for the SEC--and we've asked that it be funded at that adequate level--and by doing so not only damages the enforcement capabilities of the SEC, but gives an unjustified present to the largest financial institutions--investment houses and others--I think that a very grave error has been made.

So I welcome the fact that we are making some minor reductions in the SEC burdens here as an incidence of trying to help the companies, but that does not justify fairly and adequately to fund the SEC out of fees assessed on the companies.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman from Texas selectively quoting me. I do not want to pile on studies, but this one makes a great deal of sense.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support a very good recommit motion, but I want to clarify one point.

Reference was made in the debate to this bill being one that would relieve small businesses of regulations imposed by this administration recently. Let me be very clear. With the exception of Say-on-Pay, which I strongly support, the administrative and regulatory issues addressed here were not imposed by this administration, were not a result of the bill. These are longstanding things that predate this administration. So I'm for the bill, but I wanted to clear up that misconception. This is not any reaction to anything that was done recently; it's making accommodation for these small businesses with regard to things that are of long standing.

Mr. Speaker, this is a perfectly nice bill, but things are sometimes judged in comparison. It is being hailed as a bigger bill than it is, but that's what happens when you grade on a curve as we grade on a curve.

One of the great philosophers of the 20th century was a man named Henny Youngman. One of his philosophical bits of wisdom was expressed in the question and answer:

How's your wife?

Compared to what?

Well, compared to the output of this House so far, this is a very, very, very major bill. Compared to our economy in general, it's a good bill, but of no immediate significance in terms of jobs, and useful for the future. But as I said, I think it's important just getting pumped up a little bit so we can avoid here, as a collective body, the charge that we haven't done anything.

I do have one criticism of the rule, and I had expressed this hope yesterday and I was frustrated. A number of amendments were made in order, and I appreciate that, but every single amendment is to be debated for only 10 minutes. That's unworthy of a deliberative body. There are important questions here that are involved in these issues. And if you think these bills are important, then the amendments to them are important.

Now, that's within the context of support. In most cases, we are talking about people who support the concept but have some differences about what should be there. But to say that every amendment gets debated for only 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side, is to denigrate the deliberative function to a point which is of great concern to me. It is not as if we've been so busy that we couldn't carve out time for 20 minutes or even a half hour of debate. So I regret the dumbing down of the House, which is represented by saying that no issue will be debated for more than 10 minutes.

Then I only have one other question of a procedural sort as the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee. Most of these bills have been through the committee. There were six bills; four have even passed the House. Two bills, I was told, were from the committee. But one of the bills, H.R. 4088, it's got a new sponsor, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), and we've never seen that in our committee. I've checked. That bill was introduced February 24 or something. It's never had a hearing. It's never been through committee. So why are we getting a bill on the floor now that has never been seen in our committee?

I would yield to the gentleman from the Rules Committee.

Well, I have read the bill. But to be told that we're going to, in a party that says they're devoted to regular order, bring out a bill--H.R. 4088 has had no committee consideration whatsoever; the other bills have, the other five. But it's never been brought up in a hearing; it's never been in subcommittee; it's never been in committee. The notion that it's a good bill and therefore should be immune from any committee process is very discouraging.

This is a bill that's only been in existence for a couple of weeks. The gentleman says, well, it's a good bill; read it. Well, then I guess we don't need committees. We don't need to do anything. If it's a good bill, you read it. But the process is supposed to be one where these things go through some vetting. So I am disappointed that we have a rule that brings a bill to the floor that has literally had no committee consideration whatsoever--brand-new bill, apparently, because it's got a brand-new sponsor. We've seen nothing like this. There have been some other bills that we've had, but I've seen no bill from the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle). I've seen no bill like H.R. 4088 that hasn't had a hearing, that hasn't been to committee.

At the same time, the Rules Committee thinks that we can take all these interesting questions--should there or shouldn't there be an examination, say, on pay? Is the billion number right?--and debate them all in only 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side. That hardly serves the deliberative process.

I'd say that some Members think the bills may have more impact than I do. I hope I'm wrong and they have it. But if you really believe the bills are this important, why then is the debate only for 10 minutes on every single amendment, on the size, on the reporting requirements?

We have amendments that have been requested by the North American Securities Administrators, the State regulators; 5 minutes on the side. That is hardly a mark of people who take the deliberative process in the U.S. House of Representatives very seriously.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado.

Will the gentleman yield?