Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this is a dangerous amendment. It's kind of a test of whether or not Members of this body believe what they say. Fortunately, I think for all concerned, the oath we take at the beginning of the session does not carry over to specific statements. So the fact that I believe this will probably, unfortunately, show a great gap between what people say and what they vote will have no consequences other than the public knowing it.

We are at a time of austerity. We are at a time when the important programs, valid programs, are being cut back. And we were told by some, everything is on the table, there are no sacred cows, all those metaphors that are supposed to suggest that we will deal with everything. And then we get this appropriation from the Appropriations Committee for the military budget. At a time when we are cutting police officers on the streets of our cities, we are cutting back firefighters, we're cutting back maintenance of highways, of the construction of bridges to replace old bridges, when we are cutting in almost every capacity, the military budget gets a $17 billion increase for this fiscal year to the next.

A $17 billion increase for the military budget simply does not fit with this argument that we are putting everything on the table. Yes, they say they're putting everything on the table, but there is a little bit of a problem with the preposition here--not the proposition, the preposition.

The military budget is not on the table. The military is at the table, and it is eating everybody else's lunch. We are cutting area after area. For example, we have been told by some on the Republican side that we cannot afford to go to the aid of those of our fellow citizens who have been the victims of natural disasters who have suffered enormous physical and, therefore, also psychological damage from tornadoes and floods unless we find the cuts elsewhere. But if we were not increasing the military budget by $17 billion over this year, then there would be no need to do that and you would not have to worry about that aid.

Now, my colleagues, this is co-authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore). We are being very moderate here. We are not saying don't give the Pentagon any more money. This amendment reduces by 50 percent the increase for the Pentagon. We are accepting $8.5 billion more.

By the way, this, of course, does not affect the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It just occurred to me, maybe this was said earlier, the budget for Afghanistan, which we refuse to cut, reluctantly, regrettably, was voted out by the committee before the President announced a 10,000 troop reduction. So we are overfunding Afghanistan unless you think the President was kidding when he said we are going to bring down 10,000 troops. We funded 10,000 troops for next year that won't be there in Afghanistan. And that is the problem.

We are saying to the Pentagon, You find it. Don't cut military personnel. Don't cut health, but perhaps some of the bases we maintain overseas, some of the subsidies we give to NATO. Lip service is paid here to an alliance in which they participate.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I have to say it is true of the Obama administration and the members of the Appropriations Committee and the Armed Services Committee, they are the enablers of one of the great welfare dependencies in the history of the world: the ability of wealthy European nations, 61 years after the foundation of NATO, to get subsidized by America so their military budgets can be a small percentage of ours as percentage of the GDP so they can provide more services, better rail, better health care, and earlier retirement for their own people.

This says to the Pentagon not that we are going to cut you. This gives them a greater than 1 percent increase at a time when everybody else is being cut. And it leaves it up to the Pentagon. Let's look at the bases that we have all over the world. Let's look at efficient procedures. Yes, there is inefficiency.

You cannot mandate efficiency from the outside when you simultaneously give the entity in question the ability to spend without limit. You will never get efficiency, Mr. Chairman, at the Pentagon if we don't begin to subject them to the same kind of fiscal discipline that everybody else gets. And it is undeniable that the Pentagon is a great exception here.

We are going to be telling American cities to continue to lay off cops, to continue to ignore important reconstruction projects that help with transportation. We are going to continue to cut back on firefighters. We are going to continue to quibble over financial disaster relief, but we will give the Pentagon, unless this amendment passes, an additional $17 billion that we cannot afford.

I yield back the balance of my time.

First of all, what we are saying is they get an increase. So, if you vote against this amendment, apparently you believe that they are 101\1/2\ percent efficient at the current level, because you're giving them, we would say, a 101\1/2\ percent increase. You must believe it's a 103 percent increase, those who vote against this. People pay lip service where there are some inefficiencies, but you will not get at them unless there is some limit to the spending.

I particularly want to address the very odd notion that we should decide what we need to spend on the military today by using as a standard what the situation was 51 years ago. That's the problem. Fifty-one years ago, Germany was divided. The Communists controlled Czechoslovakia and Poland and Hungary and East Germany. Our Western allies were poor, and they were still recovering from 1945. The Soviet Union was very strong. That's precisely the problem. This budget out of the Appropriations Committee and from the administration, which is also incorrect on this, acts as if it were still 1960. The fact is that it is no longer appropriate for the rest of the world to expect us to put out so much of the burden. That's what the issue is.

The gentleman from Oklahoma said, oh, well, we'll have to cut this here and that there.

Why? Why don't we cut some of the money we spend in Europe, in Japan and in other wealthy and secure nations?

This amendment tells the Pentagon, You're only going to get half of the $17 billion increase on top of the $500 billion-plus you already get. You decide where to stop spending.

Well, are they able to stop spending overseas?

Foreign aid is very unpopular, I think unduly unpopular. I like to help poor children and to fight disease, but the biggest foreign aid program in the history of the world is the American military budget and its foreign aid for the un-needy, its foreign aid for the wealthy. You want to talk about percentages of the GDP that are in the budget. What about Germany? What about England? What about France? What about Italy? What about Denmark? What about the Netherlands? All are our great allies, and none spend as much as half a percentage as we do.

So what we now have here, apparently, the House is going to decide. When Members have said that the Pentagon should be subjected to fiscal discipline and that other needs will be taken into account and that the deficit is the greatest threat to national security--people have quoted Mike Mullen as saying that and Robert Gates as saying that--do the Members understand what it means? It means that you don't even cut the Pentagon, that you don't even level fund them, but you don't give them $17 billion additional. You give them $8.5 billion at a time when you are requiring cuts in very important programs.

I will reemphasize that this is a House which says we can't afford to go to the aid of our fellow citizens who have been devastated by disasters in

the southeastern part of the country and elsewhere unless we make offsetting cuts. Well, to the extent that you give the Pentagon an additional $17 billion, you exacerbate that dilemma, and you make it harder to find the funds necessary to go to the aid of the people in this area.

Yes, we want to keep the American people safe. I want to keep them safe from unsound bridges, from fires that can't be effectively combated, from food that isn't adequately tested, and from diseases. People are unsafe because we are cutting back on health research.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The notion that the only danger to the American people is a Soviet Union which collapsed 20 years ago or whatever it is we are protecting people from in Germany and other bases such as that ignores the need for better public safety here, better public health here, research on disease, protection against disaster. It's one thing to go to the aid of people after a disaster, but let's do a better job of building those structures that can help diminish it.

This is a central question: Are the Members of the House going to say, ``No, we didn't really mean it? No, the Pentagon is not subject to fiscal discipline''?

My friend from Oklahoma said, oh, no, there were cuts; there's $78 billion in cuts coming over the next 5 years. This is a $17 billion increase. How can that be a cut? It may be a cut from a $30 billion increase, and that $30 billion increase is a cut from a $200 billion increase, but it ain't a cut. It's a $17 billion increase, and we say let it only be an $8.5 billion increase.

So the question is not are we going to treat the Pentagon more generously with less discipline than any other entity. We've conceded that. We're only asking that you cut in half the extent to which you are going to tell American cities to lay off cops, that you're going to say that we don't have enough to provide disaster relief without making cuts elsewhere, that you're going to cut health research, that you're going to cut food inspection, that you're going to cut fire service, that you're going to cut the reconstruction of bridges in America.

Tens and tens of billions will be spent in Western Europe and on our allies that needed our help 61 years ago and 51 years ago but who don't need it today--in Japan and in other parts of the world where we're subsidizing their military budgets so they can spend more elsewhere.

By the way, let me close with this: We talk about competition and things that count--our ability to spend money on community colleges, to provide aid so that people can become scientists and engineers, our ability to develop technology. All of those things are hampered by the drain on resources we get from spending military dollars in precisely those countries with which we are competing. England and Germany and France and the Netherlands and Denmark and Japan can all spend more on their education and on their technology--on those areas where we are competitive in a friendly way because we allow them to keep their military budgets to a much lower percentage of GDP than ours, and that is the relevant measure.

So we again have a test: Are Members so caught up in the history--and again, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for helping make the point; 1960 is his reference point. Well, stay with the concerns of 1960 and use that as a reference point and things are not going to look very good in 2011.

I thank my colleague from Indiana for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

Amendment No. 97: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I want to send a message to our allies. And I don't think we are pulling the rug out from under them. Look at these wealthy, populous nations of Western Europe. I believe it is a good thing to get rid of Qadhafi, but does America have to do everything? People say we're the indispensable nation. That's a terrible burden to impose on ourselves; we can't afford it, and it cannot be done effectively. Let's get people who can dispense with us.

My friend, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, says, look, we have to do this because NATO can bomb but they can't suppress. What a great bunch of allies--they can bomb unarmed people, but if they shoot back, they got to come running to us.

Yes, I want to send a message to NATO. Qadhafi is a bad guy. If England and France and Italy and Germany and Spain and the Netherlands and Scandinavia can't together muster the military force for this weakened, poor nation, then let's re-examine the value of these allies.

In ``The King and I,'' he says, If the allies are weak, am I not best alone? Yes, I want to tell our allies that it's time for once for them to step up. This is not to protect Qadhafi; it's to say that America can no longer be asked to be the one that does everything, everywhere, every time. Our allies have to step up.

Mr. Speaker, a leading conservative policy analyst, Bruce Bartlett, on June 14th published a compelling analysis of the great disparity that exists in military spending in the world as a percentage of gross domestic product. Building on the speech Secretary of Defense Gates gave last week, which Mr. Bartlett correctly describes as a speech ``in which he berated our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for not carrying their weight in terms of providing resources for the common defense,'' Mr. Bartlett offers a very important chart. As he notes, it shows ``that in 2010, the United States spent 5.4 percent of its gross domestic product on its military--twice as much as spent by Britain and three to four times as much as most of our NATO allies . . .'' Mr. Bartlett notes that simply talking about percentages understates the disparity between our military spending and that of the rest of the world--``because the United States has the world's largest economy, its share of world military spending is outsized, accounting for 43 percent of all the military spending on Earth--six times as much as China . . .''

Mr. Bartlett correctly closes by noting that ``With polls showing declining support for the war in Afghanistan and increasing talk in Congress, even among Republicans, about cutting the military budget,'' it is time for us to rethink our worldwide military commitments, and find ways in which we can reduce military spending so that we fully protect the legitimate interests of the United States, but end a situation in which military spending makes impossible demands on any effort to reduce the deficit.

Can We Afford the Military Budget?

(By Bruce Bartlett)

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and

George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of

Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates gave a speech in Brussels

on Friday in which he berated our allies in the North

Atlantic Treaty Organization for not carrying their weight in

terms of providing resources for the common defense. ``For

all but a handful of allies, defense budgets--in absolute

terms, as a share of economic output--have been chronically

starved for adequate funding for a long time, with the

shortfalls compounding on themselves each year,'' Mr. Gates

said.

An examination of the latest NATO data shows that in 2010,

the United States spent 5.4 percent of its gross domestic

product on its military--twice as much as spent by Britain

and three to four times as much as most of our NATO allies,

as shown in the following table.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, having heard the subcommittee chairman's discussion of this amendment, I now understand why he didn't want to have a discussion of this amendment. He wanted simply to accept it so he would not have had to say nothing. Since it was not accepted, he did say nothing, he just took 5 minutes to say it.

I take it back, he did say one very important thing, and it defines this issue. He apparently believes that speculation in oil is no part of the reason that oil prices go high, and he quoted a Democrat. He found a Democrat, one of the three Democratic members of the commission. The other two, of course, vehemently disagree.

By the way, we did not say that this is something Goldman Sachs doesn't like. Goldman Sachs is on the gentleman's side. Goldman Sachs opposes regulation of derivatives. Goldman Sachs merely mentioned in an analyst report that they believe that $20 a barrel of the cost of oil comes from the speculation that they engage in. Maybe they were bragging. They certainly weren't objecting.

Here is what speculation means. By the way, in our legislation that the Republicans are trying to undo and in what the CFTC is trying to do, people who use oil are not regulated. An airline trying to hedge against volatility in prices, they are left alone.

Here is what we want to say. If you do not use oil, if you never go near a barrel of oil, in fact, if you are one of those people whole never goes near the gas pump because you have got somebody to pump it for you, if you never touch a barrel of oil and never use it, please do not buy it up, through derivatives, so that you put up only a little bit, large amounts so that you can keep it off the market and the price goes up. That is what we want to do.

The CFTC, we think, should be able to say to people who don't use the commodity, Please don't buy it up and hold it off the market so you can then sell it when the price goes up and make a profit. The gentleman from Georgia says speculation is not an issue. He says it's drilling. Mr. Chairman, I do not know a thoughtful person who thinks that complex issues like the price of a commodity have a single explanation, except the gentleman from Georgia. I wouldn't want to violate the rules by suggesting that I would exclude him from the ranks of the rational, but every other rational person says that things like the price are set by a number of factors.

No, I do not think speculation is the major cause. Neither does Goldman Sachs. Neither does Wilbur Ross, the great investor. They say it's perhaps 20 percent. So we're not saying we're going to cut the price in half. We are saying you can reduce it by 20 percent. And, by the way, it's not just oil. We just had a debate about food. Well, frankly, the WIC program that they are cutting wouldn't cost so much if we would also limit speculation in food prices.

And here's what we are talking about. Well, maybe the gentleman from Georgia speaks for his party. I've heard no dissent. The apparently official Republican position is: Speculation is fine. Let's not interfere with speculation. It's people who do not use the commodity, who don't use oil, who don't use the foodstuffs, if they want to buy it up and keep it off the market so they can then sell it when the price goes up--why else would they buy it? They're not collectors. This is not stamps. This is not a hobby. It's a way to make money. And how do they make money? By driving up the price of the commodity by buying it and withholding it and then selling it when

they can make a profit. What we want is for the CFTC to tell people who don't use it, No, there are limits on what you can buy. And we believe that contributes to the price of oil, unlike the gentleman from Georgia, who said, No, price only has to do with exploration and drilling. No one I think really thinks that--maybe not even the gentleman from Georgia. What they do is to say, No, the CFTC won't have that money. They in fact in their budget will give the CFTC less money in the next fiscal year than they have this year.

We have given the CFTC new powers under the financial reform legislation, which they don't like, to cover swaps. By the way, it's not simply speculation that's at risk here. AIG helped plunge this country into an economic disaster by an absolutely irresponsible use of derivatives. And that's something, again, we would like the CFTC to be able to regulate. They were allowed to get in way over their heads.

So what we have here is part of a one-two punch from the Republicans. They want to do it legislatively--and that will come up later--but here they're telling the CFTC, You should get less money as we give you this complicated issue of derivatives than you had before. And by the way, they also have added a Catch-22. If you read the current Republican arguments, they are very critical of the CFTC for not moving quickly enough. They aren't using the authority they've got.

So, first, you complain that they aren't doing enough. Then you reduce the money that they need. And by the way, these are complicated things. They need to be able to hire very smart people. They need to be able to hire important information technology. You cannot have dumb people regulating. And I will give credit to those people out there manipulating derivatives and speculating--they're very smart. They have state-of-the-art equipment. And you want to put the CFTC in shackles. It is an effort to make speculation free of any regulation, with a consequent increase in food prices and energy prices. And I hope the bill is defeated.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I think the President erred in not following the War Powers Act in the spirit of the Constitution. He should have asked us. If he had, I would have said ``no'' then, and I say ``no'' now.

Let me disagree with those of my colleagues who have talked about what a terrible man Qadhafi is as a reason for the United States to be spending our money there. Yes, he's a thug who ought to be removed, but it cannot be that America has to be the 911 for the world and that we are the ones who have to respond everywhere every time.

I heard one of my colleagues on the other side say, Well, the Europeans are there. Let's not poke them in the eye. Poke them in the eye? We have for years, since the beginning of NATO, been subsidizing them so that they have military budgets less than half of

ours as a percentage of their GDP, so that they can do better than us in health care and better in competitiveness and every other way.

Yes, he should be opposed. There are European nations, developed, wealthy nations just across the Mediterranean. Why do they have to have America come nearly 4,000 miles to do it?

And it's not just Libya. This is defining. Are we going to go forward with a situation in which America undertakes to defend everybody in the world everywhere, even when they are not greatly threatened, as is the case with NATO or with missile defenses against nonexistent missile threats from Iran, or do we say that we will bear our fair share but not more? We have got to stop subsidizing the rest of the world, particularly now.

And when members from the Appropriations Committee come up and tell us, You've got to go do this, but let's cut police in Massachusetts, let's cut housing in Ohio, let's cut transportation in California, we cannot reduce our deficit in a way that allows us to maintain any concern for the quality of life here if we continue to spend money promiscuously all over the world.

By the way, let's go beyond that. We're not just talking about Libya. What about the paradox of Afghanistan, where we will spend $100 billion a year to be told by the President of Afghanistan that he doesn't like what we're doing. Fine, let him have it. Stop forcing him to take our $100 billion a year.

Mr. Speaker, I have for some time been pointing out the inconsistency between those who would restrict our ability to catch fish in a responsible way, and the argument that we should be encouraging the American people to eat in a healthier manner. In the New York Times for April 14, 2011, Ray Hilborn makes this case very well. As he notes, we have made great progress in reducing overfishing, but the law has not yet been written with enough flexibility to recognize that fact. As Mr. Hilborn notes, ``the Magnuson Act . . . has been successful, but it needs to be revised. The last time it was reauthorized, in 2006, it required the rebuilding of overfished stocks within ten years. That rule is too inflexible and hurts fishing communities from NewEngland to California.''

Mr. Speaker, that is the major reason that I voted against the Magnuson Act, although I agree that there were some useful things in it. And I welcome this very thoughtful explanation by Mr. Hilborn of why the time has come to provide that flexibility.

Mr. Speaker, as he says, ``we are caught between the desire for oceans as pristine ecosystems and the desire for sustainable seafood.'' People who argue for greater and greater restrictions of fish claim to have the moral high ground, but they can only make their argument if they ignore the negative impact this has not just on the livelihoods of a lot of working people in the communities in which they live, but on our ability to make a very healthy part of a diet--good seafood-- available at prices that people of moderate income can afford.

[From The New York Times, Apr. 4, 2011]

Let Us Eat Fish

(By Ray Hilborn)

Seattle, WA.--This Lent, many ecologically conscious

Americans might feel a twinge of guilt as they dig into the

fish on their Friday dinner plates. They shouldn't.

Over the last decade the public has been bombarded by

apocalyptic predictions about the future of fish stocks--in

2006, for instance, an article in the journal Science

projected that all fish stocks could be gone by 2048.

Subsequent research, including a paper I co-wrote in

Science in 2009 with Boris Worm, the lead author of the 2006

paper, has shown that such warnings were exaggerated. Much of

the earlier research pointed to declines in catches and

concluded that therefore fish stocks must be in trouble. But

there is little correlation between how many fish are caught

and how many actually exist; over the past decade, for

example, fish catches in the United States have dropped

because regulators have lowered the allowable catch. On

average, fish stocks worldwide appear to be stable, and in

the United States they are rebuilding, in many cases at a

rapid rate.

The overall record of American fisheries management since

the mid-1990s is one of improvement, not of decline. Perhaps

the most spectacular recovery is that of bottom fish in New

England, especially haddock and redfish; their abundance has

grown sixfold from 1994 to 2007. Few if any fish species in

the United States are now being harvested at too high a rate,

and only 24 percent remain below their desired abundance.

Much of the success is a result of the Magnuson Fishery

Conservation and Management Act, which was signed into law 35

years ago this week. It banned foreign fishing within 200

miles of the United States shoreline and established a system

of management councils to regulate federal fisheries. In the

past 15 years, those councils, along with federal and state

agencies, nonprofit organizations and commercial and sport

fishing groups, have helped assure the sustainability of the

nation's fishing stocks.

Some experts, like Daniel Pauly of the University of

British Columbia Fisheries Center, who warns of ``the end of

fish,'' fault the systems used to regulate fisheries

worldwide. But that condemnation is too sweeping, and his

prescription--closing much of the world's oceans to fishing--

would leave people hungry unnecessarily.

Many of the species that are fished too much worldwide fall

into two categories: highly migratory species that are

subject to international fishing pressures, and bottom fish--

like cod, haddock, flounder and sole--that are caught in

``mixed fisheries,'' where it is impossible to catch one

species but not another. We also know little about the

sustainability of fish caught in much of Asia and Africa.

The Atlantic bluefin tuna is emblematic of the endangered

migratory species; its numbers are well below the target set

by the International Commission for the Conservation of

Atlantic Tunas, and the catches in the Eastern Atlantic are

too high. Many species of sharks also fall into this

category. Because these stocks are fished by international

fleets, reducing the catch requires global cooperation and

American leadership. But not all highly migratory fish are in

danger; the albacore, skipjack and yellowfin tuna and

swordfish on American menus are not threatened.

Managing the mixed fisheries in American waters requires

different tactics. On the West Coast, fish stocks have been

strongly revived over the past decade through conservative

management: fleet size reductions, highly restrictive catch

limits and the closing of large areas to certain kinds of

nets, hooks and traps. Rebuilding, however, has come at a

cost: to prevent overharvesting and protect weak species,

about 30 percent of the potential sustainable harvest from

productive species (those that can be harvested at higher

rates) goes untapped.

A similar tradeoff is going on in New England, where the

management council, made up of federal and state

representatives, restricts the harvesting of bottom fish like

cod and yellowtail flounder in both the Gulf of Maine and

Georges Bank, off Cape Cod. In trying to rebuild the cod,

regulators have had to limit the catch of the much more

abundant haddock, which are caught in the same nets.

The Magnuson Act regulating federal fisheries has been

successful, but it needs to be revised. The last time it was

reauthorized, in 2006, it required the rebuilding of

overfished stocks within 10 years. That rule is too

inflexible and hurts fishing communities from New England to

California. A better option is to give the management

councils greater discretion in setting targets and deadlines

for rebuilding fish stocks.

We are caught between the desire for oceans as pristine

ecosystems and the desire for sustainable seafood. Are we

willing to accept some depleted species to increase long-term

sustainable food production in return? After all, if fish are

off the menu, we will likely eat more beef, chicken and pork.

And the environmental costs of producing more livestock are

much higher than accepting fewer fish in the ocean: lost

habitat, the need for ever more water, pesticides, fertilizer

and antibiotics, chemical runoff and ``dead zones'' in the

world's seas.

Suddenly, that tasty, healthful and environmentally

friendly fish on the plate looks a lot more appetizing.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most troubling inconsistencies in our political dialogue is the one in which many conservatives argue on some issues that the Federal Government must be respectful of states' rights and not intrude on the prerogatives of the States, but, on the other hand,

when any significant group of businesses is offended by regulatory actions at the State level, that one national federal standard is necessary.

This has been particularly the case in the area of financial regulation. In 2004, under President Bush, the Comptroller of the Currency--a holdover from the Clinton administration to make this somewhat bipartisan--preempted all state laws regulating the activities of national banks. This cancellation of a variety of State consumer protection laws contributed to our national crisis, because many of the States would have prohibited the kind of irresponsible loans to people who could not afford them, which contributed to our financial crisis. In the Financial Reform bill last year, we restored the status quo that existed before 2004, in which the Federal Government had the power to prevent inconsistent and excessively intrusive regulation, but did not seek to prevent the States from taking steps to protect their citizens from abuses.

In fact, sensible public policy recognizes a role for both the Federal Government and the States in this area, and I am very pleased-- but not surprised--that Elizabeth Warren, on behalf of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created a financial format, and the Presidential Initiative Working Group of that National Association of Attorneys General recently announced an agreement on principles to govern their joint activities in this area.

Mr. Speaker, as this agreement shows, consumer protection is an area where Federal and State policies can and should be coordinated to the benefit of our citizens, and the conflict that some have tried to foment between Federal and State activities in this area is based not on any commitment to federalism, but rather on a desire to hinder effective financial regulation in the service of those businesses that would prefer to work unhindered by any such rules.

Elizabeth Warren, Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the CFPB, and North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, who is President of the NAAG, in announcing this important agreement, make this point clear.

Mr. Speaker, the need for there to be Federal/State cooperation in consumer protection--and the fact that this can be done in the context of a healthy and vigorous financial system, and in the true spirit of American federalism--is not only important in itself; it provides a model for how we can work together in appropriate regulation in other areas and I ask that the statement announcing this agreement from the U.S. Treasury Department Office of Public Affairs be printed here.

U.S. Treasury Department, Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 11, 2011

CONTACT: CFPB Public Affairs, (202) 435-7454

Madam Speaker, earlier this year, an irresponsible bigot burned a Koran in Florida. That was a despicable act. But unfortunately, a number of far worse acts eventuated; that is, the murder, calculated and deliberate murder, of a number of innocent people in Afghanistan by people purporting to be defending their religion against the burning of a book in Florida by massacring innocent civilians in Afghanistan.

And I am pleased that people, including General Petraeus and others, condemned the irresponsibility of the Koran burning, but there needs to be even greater condemnation of the notion that that in any way justifies murder. That includes a kind of condemnation, in my judgment, of the President of Afghanistan, our increasingly unimpressive ally Mr. Karzai, who, I believe, added to the furor there by insisting that the man who burned the Koran should have been prosecuted. Well, under American law, he was not prosecuted. He should not have been. The right to do obnoxious things is a very important part of the First Amendment.

But what is most appalling is that people purported, in the name of religion, then not even to do anything against that individual, and that would have been unjustified. I am not suggesting that there is any justification for any violence against him. But violence against people in Afghanistan, employees of the United Nations there for humanitarian reasons, other citizens of Western countries, for them to have been assaulted and murdered by people purporting to be acting in the name of religion, that is the true outrage.

And I hope people will resist any temptation even to equate the two. An act of stupid and offensive bigotry against a book should be criticized. Murder of innocent people in the name of a religion--and it's particularly ironic that people who committed these murders claim to be vindicating their religion. Indeed, no denigration of a religion could be greater than to murder innocent people in its name. If I were to be asked what did I think more detracted from the image of Islam, this irresponsible publicity seeker in Florida burning a Koran or people in the name of the religion murdering innocent people including those who went to Afghanistan only to help, it is clearly the latter.

So, Madam Speaker, let's be very clear that nothing in what happened with the burning of a Koran comes close to justifying the outrageous, murderous behavior of people in Afghanistan. And I am pleased that there is attention given to this, but the condemnation should be of this kind of attack on innocent citizens, and we ought to keep this in some perspective.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, April 8th, the Town of Sharon and many others will be honoring Dennis Mann on the occasion of his retirement as the Fire Chief of Sharon, Massachusetts. Sharon is a town very well represented in this body--it has been, since 1982, in the district I am privileged to represent, and it is the hometown of my colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Keating, who served Sharon as a State Representative and State Senator before moving on to become the District Attorney for the county in which it is located and, most recently, our colleague here in the House.

Mr. Speaker, Dennis Mann exemplifies public service at its best, and at a time when too many people are prone to denigrate public servants, I am very proud to hold him up as an example of the kind of dedication, integrity, and commitment from which the public benefits. Dennis Mann has been a member of the Sharon Fire Department for over 30 years, and he was Chief for 13. In addition to the difficult job of running a fire department, with all that that entails, Dennis Mann's commitment to others has led him to teach CPR and also serve as an instructor in karate.

Mr. Speaker, we are as a society very lucky to have people who are prepared to risk their lives in the fire service, one of the most dangerous occupations in the world, and we too often take for granted the safety that they provide for us. I very much regret that there are those who would deny them the resources we need--and I say we and not they--for them to do their job on our behalf.

Mr. Speaker, to Dennis Mann, his wife Kathy, and their children Jamie and Carissa, I send my very best wishes; my congratulations on a job well done; and gratitude for the example Mr. Mann has set for public service at its best.

Mr. Speaker, two things are very clear. One, we should over the next years adopt a plan for substantially reducing our national debt. Two, we cannot do that in a reasonable way without making substantial reductions in America's worldwide military footprint. For too long we have allowed the rest of the world to become dependent on us. As our wealthy allies cut their own military budgets, we are expected to increase ours. The recent Libyan situation illustrates the problem we have created for ourselves by encouraging this sense of dependence on the part of so many wealthy nations. America is thousands of miles away from Libya while many of our strongest and closest--and prosperous--allies are within hundreds of miles. But it fell to America to take the lead in the coalition effort against Libya and the reason for that, we were told, is that only America had the capability to do it. To the extent that it is true, it is a shortcoming that we must remedy. We must insist that our wealthy allies no longer expect us to shoulder so much of the burden. It is important that we recalibrate our military spending to more closely approximate our own genuine needs, and if we do not do that, there is no way to bring the budget deficit down in a responsible way.

Mr. Speaker, Winslow Wheeler is a thoughtful student of military spending and understands how America's genuine defense would be enhanced and not in any way threatened by a substantial scaling back of military expenditures. He wrote a very thoughtful article explaining this in the Wednesday, March 9 issue of the Hill, and because no issue is more important than getting the budget deficit down in a responsible way, I ask that that article be reprinted here.

The Defense Budget: Ignorance Is Not Bliss

(By Winslow T. Wheeler)

Polling from Pew and Gallup reveals major public

misconceptions about the defense budget. Fifty-eight percent

of Americans know that Pentagon spending is larger than any

other nation, but almost none know it is up to seven times

that of China. Most had no idea the defense budget is larger

than federal spending for education, Medicare or interest on

the debt.

The scurrilous in Washington promote the misimpression of

an under-funded Pentagon. They imply it is smaller than

during the Cold War by saying it was at 8 percent of gross

domestic product in the late 1960s, but only 4 percent of GDP

now. Therefore, it's gone down and is now low, right?

Some use hyperventilated rhetoric to pressure for more

defense dollars. Sadly, this category now must include

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who termed

``catastrophic'' the recommendations of the

Obama deficit commission to merely maintain defense spending

at its post-WWII high, and who deemed a ``crisis'' the idea

of a 1 percent--$5 billion--reduction in the 2011 defense

budget compared to 2010.

Some on Capitol Hill, such as the chairman of the House

Armed Services Committee, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), blanch

at the idea of restraining defense spending, claiming it

would be ``dangerous'' to do anything but grow the defense

budget while the nation is ``at war.''

They don't just ignore the facts, they torture them--but

that's nothing new in politics. What is different, however,

is that the aggressive ignorance about the defense budget is

beginning to shrivel, revealing a new paradigm: the defense

budget is outrageously bloated.

The new conventional wisdom is that we now spend more on

the Pentagon than at any time since WWII, and that President

Obama will exceed George W. Bush's defense spending. Some

even appreciate that he will also exceed Ronald Reagan's.

Others understand defense spending does not just exceed a few

other functions in presidents' budgets, it exceeds them all,

except one--Social Security. In most cases, DOD doesn't just

exceed the others; it is multiples of them.

During the Cold War, we averaged $450 billion annual

Pentagon budgets. Today, with no massive conventional threat

and a much-diminished nuclear one, we operate at spending

levels more than $200 billion higher, if you include funding

for the wars--almost $100 billion higher if you do not.

The distortion of a lesser threat compelling more spending

is propelling the paradigm shift.

Moreover, the wars we have been fighting are against poorly

trained and equipped irregulars. It is not to diminish the

sacrifice the national leadership extracts from the men and

women who serve in Afghanistan and, previously, Iraq, but

today's conflicts are--materially--minor events compared to

the wars in Korea and Vietnam, when we deployed hundreds of

thousands more and faced more than 200 Soviet and Warsaw Pact

divisions in Europe.

While we have spent more than $1.3 trillion for Iraq and

Afghanistan since 2001 (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars),

we also added another trillion dollars to the parts of the

defense budget that the Pentagon tells us is not for the

wars--the so-called ``base'' budget.

Just before 9/11 we were operating at an annual level of

spending for the Pentagon at $400 billion. Today, in the same

inflation-adjusted dollars, we are operating at a ``base''

budget level well above $500 billion. It is in that context

that we are told by Gates and McKeon that a 1 percent

reduction in a single year constitutes a ``crisis'' or

something ``dangerous.''

The real crisis is what has been happening to our forces.

With a $300 billion increase in funding, the Navy's

``battleforce'' shrank from 318 ships in 2000 to 287 in 2010.

With more than $300 billion added to its budget, the Air

Force shrank from 146 combat squadrons to 72. The Army burned

another $300 billion to increase brigade combat team

equivalents from 44 to just 46. According to data from the

Congressional Budget Office, this includes not a smaller,

newer equipment inventory, but an older one.

Worse, the Pentagon can't track its own inventory,

financial transactions, or even what it has paid out to

contractors and received in return. Despite the

accountability clause of the Constitution, the General

Accounting Act of 1921, and the Chief Financial Officers Act

of 1990, the Pentagon has maintained itself in a state where

it cannot be audited.

But then, if I were presiding over this mess, I would want

not you to know the facts either.

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased earlier this month to receive a notice from Operation Homefront that Melissa Howland of Millis, Massachusetts, was named one of five recipients of the 2011 Military Child of the Year Award. Ms. Howland

and the other four winners will be presented with their awards next week, April 7, at a ceremony in Pentagon City. I regret very much that a previously scheduled engagement will have me on a plane to Massachusetts at the time of the award, but this is something of which Ms. Howland and her parents are entitled to be very proud, and I want to take the opportunity to note this here in the Record, both as a tribute to Ms. Howland, and as a tribute to Operation Homefront and the great work they do in reminding all of us of the continuing obligations we have in so many ways to the men and women of the U.S. Military.

Melissa Howland's father was sent to Iraq by our country in 2009, and he was in California without his family in 2007 and 2008. Ms. Howland has a blood disorder that leads to her immune system attacking the platelets in her blood, and this has required hospitalization to protect her from excessive bleeding. The dedication of the Howland family to our country and to each other is extraordinary, and I salute them and I salute Operation Homefront for this recognition of Melissa Howland and other students.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the statement from Operation Homefront, describing the work that Melissa Howland has done and is doing, be printed here as an inspiration to others and as a chance for us to express our admiration and gratitude to the Howland family.

Millis Student Receives 2011 Military Child of the Year'

Award

San Antonio, Texas--Operation Homefront today announced the

five recipients of the 2011 Military Child of the

Year' Award. The Navy recipient for this award is

Melissa Howland, a 17-year-old 12th grader from Millis,

Massachusetts.

The winners were chosen by a committee including active

duty military personnel, Family Readiness Support Assistants,

teachers, military mothers, and community members. Melissa

will receive $5,000 and will be flown with a parent or

guardian to Washington, D.C. for a special recognition

ceremony on April 7, 2011.

``The sons and daughters of America's service members learn

what patriotism is at a very young age,'' said Jim Knotts,

President & CEO of Operation Homefront. ``Children in

military families demonstrate leadership within their

families and within their communities. This is what the

Military Child of the Year' Award honors.''

Every Sunday, Melissa volunteers in the local hospital's

maternity ward. It's the least she could do after doctors

saved her life. Melissa suffers from a blood disorder that

allows her immune system to attack the platelets in her

blood. Without platelets her blood cannot clot and she could

quickly bleed to death. As she was treated, Melissa was

hospitalized several times when experimental treatments

failed to work. Her father was deployed to Iraq in 2009 and

stationed, unaccompanied, in California in 2007 and 2008.

Still, Melissa managed to keep up her spirit and her grades.

The diagnosis meant Melissa could no longer participate in

the sports she loved, basketball and running. Instead, she

turned her sights to community service. In 2010, Melissa

donated 498 volunteer hours to 12 causes. Today, she still

has to visit the doctor, often, and monitor her disease. But

she is thriving and growing every day.

Mr. Speaker, very few financial instruments in American history have had the extremely high degree of reliability as full faith and credit, general obligation bonds issued by states or local governments. The rating agencies themselves have acknowledged that there are virtually no defaults of such bonds, and even for those bonds that are funded by particular dedicated revenue sources, and are somewhat less solid, as Iris Lav notes in the New York Times last week, ``The leading rating agencies estimate the default rate on rated municipal bonds of any kind at less than one-third of 1 percent; in contrast, the default rate on corporate bonds reached nearly 14 percent during the recession and hovers around 3 percent in good times.'' I note here, Mr. Speaker, that while I am skeptical of the predictive abilities of the rating agencies, I do not doubt their ability to count what has happened and that is what we are referring to here.

Despite this extraordinary solid record of repayment, there are some in the investing community who are promoting uncertainty by predicting that there will be, in an unprecedented way and quite contrary to the fiscal facts--an outbreak of defaults. This is not only without any factual basis; it is one more assault on the ability of state and local governments to provide for the needs of the people who live in these jurisdictions. Transportation facilities; sewer and water projects; public safety and health and education facilities--all of these are funded by bonds, and the record, as Ms. Lav makes clear, is that those who invest to help build these are always paid back as promised.

In her op-ed article in the New York Times, Iris Lav, of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, decisively refutes this effort to drive up the interest rates that state and local governments have to pay, requiring them either to raise taxes at the state and local level, or to diminish important projects that both support employment and provide necessary public facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that Iris Lav's thoughtful and irrefutable argument be printed here.

Unbreakable Bonds

(By Iris J. Lav)

Washington.--Late last year a well-known financial analyst,

Meredith Whitney, predicted that ``50 to 100 sizable

defaults'' by state and local governments, amounting to

hundreds of billions of dollars, were just around the corner.

Since then that fear has produced a near-panic, with

municipal bond markets down significantly and some even

calling for a law to let states declare bankruptcy.

But this fear of an imminent bond crisis reflects a

profound misunderstanding of the differences between the

short- and long-term challenges facing state and local

governments, and what these governments can do to address

them. Indeed, such talk hurts those governments in the long

run by undermining investor confidence and raising their

borrowing costs.

Municipal bond default is actually quite rare: no state has

defaulted on a bond since the Depression, and only four

cities or counties have defaulted on a guaranteed bond in the

last 40 years. A few minor bond defaults do occur each year,

usually on debt issued by quasi-governmental entities for

projects that didn't pan out, like sewers for housing

developments that never were occupied.

Indeed, last year's total defaults amounted to just $2.8

billion--a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $3

trillion in outstanding municipal bonds. The leading rating

agencies estimate the default rate on rated municipal bonds

of any kind at less than one-third of 1 percent; in contrast,

the default rate on corporate bonds reached nearly 14 percent

during the recession and hovers around 3 percent in good

times.

So why are so many people afraid of a looming wave of bond

defaults? The confusion is rooted in a failure to distinguish

between cyclical budget problems and the longer-term

soundness of state and local borrowing.

State and local budget deficits need to be understood in

context. These governments always have trouble balancing

their budgets during economic downturns, and this downturn

has been worse than most. The 2007-2009 recession and the

slow recovery, along with housing foreclosures, caused a big

drop in state and local revenues; state revenues remain an

estimated 11 percent below what they were before the

recession.

Meanwhile, state spending on public services has risen,

driven in part by increases in the numbers of unemployed and

newly poor residents. The result has been huge and

continuing, but understandable, deficits.

Such deficits make for frightening headlines because these

days, most governments are legally required to balance their

budgets each year, and they have been closing those gaps by

cutting programs and raising taxes, neither of which sits

well with voters.

But these operating deficits are cyclical: as the economy

picks up, demand for social services will decline and tax

revenues will increase, just as they have after previous

recessions.

To be sure, states also suffer from longer-term

``structural deficits'' because their revenues are not

growing as quickly as their costs of providing services even

during good economic times. These structural deficits, which

states must address, make it harder for them to meet their

responsibilities each year.

However, that doesn't mean their bonds are in trouble.

Bonds are a long-term obligation. They finance projects like

bridges,

highways and school buildings--not, with very few exceptions,

annual operating costs. And by law most state and local

governments must pay bond interest before financing any

public services.

True, state and local governments do have to make annual

interest payments on their bonds, but these payments

represent a modest 4 percent to 5 percent on the whole of

current spending--no more than in the late 1970s. And while

total state and local bond debt has risen slightly over the

last decade as a share of the economy, it is no higher today

than it was at times in the 1980s and 1990s.

On the rare occasion when a local government faces the risk

of default, the state typically steps in and creates a

control board or other mechanism to straighten out its

finances and assure that bondholders get paid; New York did

so when Nassau County's finances deteriorated in 2000 and

again this year. Pennsylvania gave the same assistance last

year to Harrisburg, which had issued bonds for an overly

ambitious trash-to-energy project.

Some doomsayers liken today's municipal bond market to the

mortgage bond market before it burst. But that's a false

comparison: state and local governments haven't changed the

frequency or quality of bonds issued, as occurred with

subprime mortgage bonds.

Nevertheless, the fear of imminent defaults has led some

politicians to call for a federal law allowing states to

declare bankruptcy. That's a solution in search of a problem

that doesn't exist--and a dangerous solution at that, since

it likely would undermine investor confidence and thereby

increase state borrowing costs for necessary capital

improvements.

None of this is to say that the country's finances, whether

at the federal, state or local level, aren't without serious

problems. But it's one thing to talk reasonably about long-

term difficulties, and another to spread fear about a bond-

default apocalypse. Doing so might win political points, but

it makes finding real solutions much harder.

Mr. Speaker, our colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin, recently wrote a cogent, heartfelt article published in the Providence Journal calling on his former colleagues in the Rhode Island Legislature to allow people of the same sex to marry. That is, Representative Langevin urges that his State join those that allow individuals who love someone of the same sex to have that love treated with the respect--and legal equality--that it deserves.

As our colleague notes, he has for some time felt that civil unions were the appropriate forum in which people of the same sex could express their love for each other in a legally

recognized way, but as he ``realized that their union would not be treated the same way under the law'' as opposite-sex couples, he ``began to see that civil unions fell short of the equality I believe that same-sex couples deserved.''

Jim Langevin has long been an articulate advocate for equality under the law for all citizens, and his urging ``all Rhode Islanders to honor our State's founding principles of tolerance and freedom'' is an example of his courageous commitment to that principle for all people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that Jim Langevin's compelling argument on behalf of the legalization of same-sex marriage be printed here.

[From the Providence Journal, Mar. 5, 2011]

Jim Langevin: Now Is the Time To Redefine Marriage in R.I.

(By Jim Langevin)

Throughout my career in public service, I have strongly

opposed discrimination based on sexual orientation at both

the state and federal level, co-sponsoring the Employment

Non-Discrimination Act and hate crimes legislation, and

supporting efforts to repeal the military's ``don't ask,

don't tell'' policy.

While those topics have been controversial, they never

elicited the intensely passionate and emotional debate that

occurred as our nation began struggling with the question of

same-sex marriage. For many years, I supported civil unions

as a reasonable way to achieve consensus on a divisive issue,

providing rights and protections to same-sex couples while

respecting the deeply held beliefs of those not comfortable

with the idea of marriage rights.

Then, three years ago, I attended the commitment ceremony

of a longtime staff member and his partner of nine years.

Before their friends and family, they professed their love,

commitment and respect for each other. Their sentiments were

just as moving, heartfelt and sincere as any of the vows I

had heard at other weddings, yet I realized that their union

would not be treated the same under the law. That difference

struck me as fundamentally unjust, and I began to challenge

the wisdom of creating separate categories of rights for

certain groups of citizens. I began to see that civil unions

fell short of the equality I believed that same-sex couples

deserved.

As the debate about same-sex marriage continues in Rhode

Island and in Washington, I have taken time to reflect

carefully on my own position. Based on my own experiences and

my firm belief that all Americans should be treated equally

under the law, I am now convinced that affording full

marriage equality rights to same-sex couples is the only fair

and responsible approach for both Rhode Island and the

nation. If our nation expects to provide equal protection to

all, then our civic institutions must reflect that noble

goal.

As a U.S. representative, I take seriously my

constitutional responsibility to protect the rights and

liberties of our citizens. Marriage equality is consistent

with that view because it safeguards basic civil rights and

provides appropriate legal protections so that all loving and

committed couples may care for each other. At the same time,

our nation's fundamental freedom of religion dictates that

religious institutions should be allowed to define marriage

as they deem appropriate. The marriage-equality legislation

before the General Assembly respects the important separation

of church and state by not requiring religious institutions

to change any of their practices or standards relating to

marriage.

The members of the General Assembly now have a historic

opportunity. As a former member of that body, I understand

the challenges they face, but this is a time for leadership.

During my time as a state representative, I remember

talking with my father about pending legislation to prevent

discrimination based on sexual orientation, which was highly

controversial at the time. While I greatly valued his

thoughtful and balanced perspective, my father was certainly

no social activist. He was just an ordinary man who had grown

up through the civil-rights movement and always believed it

was fundamentally unjust to treat people differently because

of their race. When I told him I had decided to support the

non-discrimination legislation, he expressed his pride in my

decision because it showed that I viewed issues of fairness

and justice as he did. And he was convinced that, in the same

way racial discrimination became a shameful part of our

history, one day our nation would look back in disbelief at a

time when we denied our fellow citizens basic civil rights

based on their sexual orientation. I now believe that day is

within our reach.

As the General Assembly considers this important topic, I

ask lawmakers and all Rhode Islanders to honor our state's

founding principles of tolerance and freedom and to support

marriage equality in our state. It's time to do the right

thing.

I yield 3 minutes to a member of the committee, the former mayor of Somerville, Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a member of the committee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney).

I yield myself 90 seconds to say that that is an extraordinary bit of illogic we have just heard. The private sector, nothing in the existence of HAMP in any way retards people from going to the private sector.

If you listen to the gentlewoman, you would get this fantasy picture that people were being restrained by the Federal Government not to go to the private sector, go to HAMP.

In fact, HAMP is also the private sector. That's part of the problem. It is also a private sector decision with no coercion by the government. Some people wish there was more.

But, yes, it is true the private sector has done the easy ones on its own. And anybody who wants to go to the private sector and get it does not have to go to HAMP. But there is no requirement that people go to

I yield 3 minutes to another member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson).

Will the gentleman yield?

Yes, we are introducing legislation to make sure that the taxpayers are off the hook.

We have introduced a bill to restore a provision that was knocked out by Republicans.

It has been filed.

No, last week. Last week.

The gentleman doesn't want an answer, apparently.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

I regret the chairman's refusal to allow me to answer the question he asked.

Yes, we just filed the bill because we are restoring a provision that was in the financial reform bill. The gentleman, who has shown very little regard for the taxpayer in his own vote sending money to Brazilian cotton farmers--and, by the way, I wish he had listened to Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen and not voted to force on them money for weapons systems they didn't want. They said those things when they tried to get the Congress not to give them weapons they didn't want, but many of my Republican friends, the majority, disregarded that.

But in the TARP legislation we said that in 2013, when this program ends, any penny that was spent and not returned to the taxpayers will come from the banks, will come from the hedge

funds. And we can anticipate Republican opposition to that, because in the financial reform bill last summer, already passed, not recently introduced, we say that for many of these programs to recover the costs of the foreclosure mitigation and dealing with the results of foreclosure, we would get it from large financial institutions. The Republicans objected to that, and the Republicans insisted in the Senate that it be knocked out. So every time we have tried to get money from the large financial institutions to pay for the costs of the damage their irresponsibility inflicted, the Republicans have opposed it.

Again, when it came to Brazilian cotton farmers or weapons the Pentagon didn't want or infrastructure in Afghanistan or Iraq Security Forces, all of the things the gentleman from Alabama voted for that comes out of the taxpayers' hide, and then he votes against and opposes our legislation already passed and just reintroduced to have the large financial institutions pay for this. So his concern for taxpayers comes into play when we are trying to help people who are in need, but it is not in play when we are talking about heavy defense contractors, Brazilian and American cotton farmers, or the large financial institutions, because he and his fellow partisans have consistently fought every effort we have made to get the large financial institutions to bear this cost. But we do have still, as people will hear later, provisions to do that.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).

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

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Well, let me begin with my friend from North Carolina. $150 million a year to Brazilian cotton farmers, which the gentleman voted for. Now, what we could have done was, instead of giving them $150 million--

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

No, the question was not the farm bill. It was the amendment from the gentleman from Wisconsin to cut out $150 million that is being voted subsequent to the farm bill to the cotton farmers of Brazil.

We had an amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) not to pay $150 million a year to Brazilian cotton farmers. We were told that we had to do that because otherwise we would be in trouble. But we had an alternative. We could have knocked $150 million out of the subsidy to American cotton farmers. That's $300 million a year that we are losing.

We have the second engine on the F-35. My friend on the other side, the gentleman from Alabama, quoted the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying national security is at risk, but then they vote against him and force on him money he doesn't want. The gentleman from Alabama voted for a second engine. The administration, at the request of Secretary Gates, said he'd veto the bill if that happened. So it does seem to me a little odd to quote the Secretary of Defense and the Admiral, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the problems of debt and then vote for money over their objection.

So those are things I would do. Brazilian cotton farmers, I would have limited the amount that we pay others.

There's a couple of other major flaws here. We've heard several times from people on the majority side that more people are hurt than helped by HAMP. That appears nowhere in anybody's testimony. Neil Barofsky didn't say it. La Raza didn't say it. They said some people are hurt.

I will yield if the gentleman wants to point to any document that says more people were hurt than helped.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman quoted Barofsky, quoted La Raza. Those figures are nowhere in there. And their credit is not worse off because they're in the program. That's the fundamental flaw. What they are saying is--and people have said, the gentlewoman from Illinois--go to the private sector.

The problem, by the way, that La Raza has is this is too much private sector. La Raza's problem here is that the problem is that it leaves too much to the private sector. The private sector does the easy stuff. The notion that

more people are hurt than helped is simply nonexistent.

By the way, we've always heard from my Republican friends that we shouldn't be the nanny state, to let people make choices. No one is forced to go into this program. If they can go into another program, they can make it better.

The final point I want to make is this. Yes, there is a question about who pays for it. Under the TARP bill that we passed, it is mandated that in 2013 we get money from the financial institutions for this. In the financial reform bill that passed the House, we had a provision that required that that assessment be made right away. In the conference report on financial reform, we had an assessment on the financial institutions, those above $50 billion in assets, except hedge funds above $10 billion. We have had three legislative efforts to assess these costs on the financial institutions. The Republicans have opposed every one, unfortunately, with some success; although, we still have one left.

The final point I would make is this. Yes, the HAMP program has a lot of problems. Solutions cannot be more elegant than the problems they seek to resolve. The absence of any program leaves people worse off. The Republicans successfully defeated efforts to give bankruptcy powers. They have successfully opposed efforts to make the banks pay for this. So they set up a program which, thanks to them, at least for now, looks like it comes from the taxpayers--although we'll be able to recover that money--which has no leverage over the private sector, and then they object to it.

So I would say again, Mr. Chairman, look at the votes on subsidizing Brazilian cotton farmers or a second engine or money for infrastructure in Afghanistan or security in Iraq. Billions of dollars collectively in all those programs, which my Republican friends, including the advocates on the other side of killing this program, voted for. We have a program here that will be paid for by assessments on the large financial institutions if the Republicans aren't successful and once again go to their rescue. It is a program that people go to voluntarily. They have a right to go purely to a private sector program. If that doesn't work, they can go in here.

It has not helped everybody. The fact that some people didn't get a modification here I regret, and I wish we'd give them more power, but it doesn't mean they are worse off. A few are worse off. Nobody quoted and said a majority were worse off. I hope the program is continued.

Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close, and I am my only speaker.

Yes, I claim the time in opposition, and I'm the only speaker, so I will reserve my time.

Has the gentleman used up all the time?

I apologize. I heard him say reserve, and I misunderstood that.

I will say about this amendment that it is harmless and perfectly okay for people to claim credit for what's already been done, kind of like going to a taxidermist and shooting the bear.

If this amendment didn't happen, the same result would be there. But here's the result: temporarily this comes out of tax funds. But because it's TARP money, it's subject to a--and by the way, we passed an amendment that says it goes back to the Treasury temporarily.

I say ``temporarily'' because over Republican objections, and I hope they're going to relent in these, we put into the TARP legislation language that says that in 2013 whatever hasn't been paid back from the TARP to the general Treasury will be assessed to financial institutions.

What that means is that if this does have a net cost to the Treasury, in 2013 the President in power at that time will be directed to send us legislation to require that this come out of the large financial institutions, that is, nothing from the Treasury.

Now, I say I'm worried about it because we've had two further instances of this which the Republicans have opposed. We've just had a package of four bills. Two of them came out of the financial reform bill, their financing did: help for the unemployed homeowners and the neighborhood stabilization program.

In the version of the bill that we put first in the conference, that money was to be recovered by an assessment on banks with $50 billion or more and hedge funds with $10 billion or more; and Republican opposition to it killed it.

So, yes, it is true that temporarily, now, the unemployed homeowners and the neighborhood stabilization come out of the Treasury. We have filed legislation, and I just refiled it last week, but it goes back to where we were in July that would take it from the large financial institutions.

Similarly, by the way, in the financial reform bill we had a provision that said, over Republican objections, that the FDIC would immediately assess the amount that we thought we would need for the TARP on the large financial institutions.

So let's be very clear. If we carry out our promises and commitments, this money will not come out of the taxpayer; it will come out of the TARP. It will come out of the large financial institutions.

I can't say the same for certain other wasteful spending. Members on the other side insisted, for example, in overriding the objection of Secretary Gates to the second engine. Now, the gentleman from Texas voted with Secretary Gates and me, and I appreciate that.

But a majority of Republicans voted to give him the second engine, even though he said he'd tell the President to veto the bill. People disregarded, a majority in the House, on both sides, the request that the Osprey be killed.

In other words, people cite Secretary Gates and cite Admiral Mullen, but we still hear on the Republican side criticism of them for trying to live up to their own words when they say, well, we're going to limit military spending.

I don't think it is a reasonable policy to cite their worries about the deficit and then override them in specific cases. And we also have, of course--and here the Pentagon wanted it, I think they were wrong-- $1.2 billion my colleagues voted for--I voted against it--to spend money to build up the security forces of Iraq. You talk about money not being well spent. At its worst, I cannot imagine anyone thinking that any foreclosure program here would be spent worse than it is being spent in Iraq.

By the way, the Inspector General did say he was critical of the program. When asked by the gentleman's Texas colleague, Mr. Green of Houston, he said, no, he would not abolish it. He specifically said he wouldn't abolish it. He was asked that in the hearing and said no.

And we have consistently heard from the other side a statistic they have never yet validated, that more people were harmed than helped. None of the people they quote say that.

Yes, it's a program that's difficult because we wouldn't do bankruptcy and we have left the voluntary decision in the hands of the private sector. That's why this argument that the private sector can do it better is so nonsensical. It is the refusal of the private sector to fully participate in this program in its full spirit that's been the problem.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I am indifferent. Well, I'm against the amendment. I take it back. I am against the amendment because I had to be against the amendment to get the time to speak. So I am against the amendment.

But I'm not against the amendment on substantive grounds. I'm against it on aesthetic grounds. I hate to clutter things up with an amendment that doesn't do anything.

Well, let me go back to the substance. The substance is that we have a false claim that this is because of the taxpayers, when the TARP will make sure that it doesn't come out of the taxpayers, the TARP legislation.

And Members who vote to send money, $1.2 billion, to build up the security forces of Iraq, please don't have them tell me, Mr. Chairman, that they're for efficient spending. The security forces in Iraq.

How about Afghan infrastructure? The majority voted to send money to Afghanistan for infrastructure. There is a great mark of efficiency.