Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unclear in my own mind which was worse, the terrible procedural abuse of this resolution or the serious substantive flaw, but I then realize they come together because it is procedurally outrageous so as to protect a substantive grave error.

First of all, it is a major piece of legislation, and it's not amendable, just like the health care bill. You may remember, Mr. Speaker, what people on the Republican side said about open rules. It will be a fond memory but apparently not a reality.

We have a very important piece of legislation subject to no amendment. I chaired a committee for 4 years and never would I have brought a bill to the floor with such an impact and had no amendments in order whatsoever. But I understand why they don't want an amendment, because it would reveal the grave flaw. This says reduce non-security spending to the level of 2008. In other words, exempt about half of discretionary spending. All security, I assume they mean military spending.

Now we have a war and we have to defend the people who we put out there. I have to say those who talk about shutting the government down--I don't know what they are going to tell the people in Afghanistan who are out there being shot at--but we have got tens of billions that we are spending subsidizing our wealthy allies in Europe and Asia.

The argument that you exempt military spending from budgetary discipline is one of the reasons we are in the terrible hole we are in. Now it is clearly indefensible to argue that you would exempt military spending from budget discipline. So how do you defend it? You defend it by not allowing an amendment that would bring it forward.

Why, Mr. Speaker, are we not able to say, well, not just non-security and maybe non-security shouldn't go down to the level of 2008, but it ought to go down somewhat or ought to be limited somewhat. This is part of a philosophy that puts pressure on all of the domestic spending, everything that affects the quality of life in America.

Now by ``security,'' by the way, I mean police officers in the streets of the cities I represent and firefighters and bridges that won't collapse. But that's not security as it's defined by the Republicans. That's the kind of spending that will be severely cut.

Instead, we have a total exemption for the Pentagon. We have Mr. Gates, a Bush appointee, kept on wisely by Mr. Obama, saying it's time to start to reduce the military. The Republicans have attacked him for that.

So let's be very clear. There cannot be a sensible, comprehensive, balanced approach to deficit reduction when you follow this philosophy, not only totally exempt the military, but don't even allow an amendment that would make it something that you could talk about.

The notion that you give all this power to one person is also very interesting. I guess what we are learning is, then, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has been somewhat more courageous than some others in what he has talked about. I disagree with him.

So apparently what we are learning today is that the Republican Party has the courage of Paul Ryan's convictions. I wish they had the courage to let us debate whether or not military spending should be included.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I'm a little puzzled. You said no amendments were submitted, but Mr. McGovern did ask for one on behalf of Mr. Van Hollen. Why did that not qualify?

Will the gentleman yield to me?

First of all, I think the Record will show the gentleman has just amended his statement about amendments because he said no amendments were offered, then he later said--and I would ask people to look at the Record tomorrow. He then said, Oh, an amendment was offered. His first statement was no amendments were offered----

Will the gentleman yield to me?

First, I want to address this notion that police officers in our local streets pale in significance to the military. We have troops in Western Europe where our Western European allies are cutting their military budgets. And yes, I do think that funding police officers and firefighters in our cities is more important than allowing Germany and England and our European allies to reduce their military budgets because we subsidize them.

Secondly, I will say to the gentleman from California that I am somewhat disappointed. He did say there were no amendments offered. We have now just heard three were offered. If he meant that there were none on paper previously submitted, maybe he should have said that, because it would have been of real great relevance. The fact is amendments were offered, and they were rejected.

No. The gentleman wouldn't yield to me at the end when he----

Regular order.

The gentleman from California wasn't happy with what he said. He didn't want to continue the debate; so I won't continue it either.

I would just urge people to read the Record tomorrow. Read his statement that no amendments were offered and read what the gentleman from Massachusetts said and see where the truth lies.

Mr. Speaker, after 39 years of dedicated service in the important cause of providing housing for people in need in our society, Jonathan Hacker is retiring next month as Director of the Newton Housing Authority.

Throughout the period when many in this country mistakenly put excessive focus on pushing homeownership for lower-income people in cases where it was not appropriate, Jonathan Hacker worked tirelessly on behalf of providing decent rental housing for people in that category. As he noted recently, ``When I first assumed my position at NHA, our housing portfolio consisted of 226 units of federal public housing located in 4 developments along with 223 units of subsidized housing. Today, the NHA portfolio consists of 1,034 units of affordable housing operated under federal, state, and management portfolios.'' This feat--more than doubling the number of rental units available--is a rare example, unfortunately, of work by someone who understands the best way in which to respond to housing needs.

Public housing has not been a fashionable cause for many years, and our society has suffered from that. Jonathan Hacker was never deterred by these attitudes from working hard on behalf of people in need, and not just people in that sector but the entire City of Newton benefitted greatly from his work. As NHA Chair Tom Turner said in the announcement of Mr. Hacker's retirement, ``Jonathan will be greatly missed. He has an amazing background and work ethic as well as 39 years of housing authority experience.''

Mr. Speaker, in the hopes that Jonathan Hacker's example will inspire others to work as he has on the best solution to our housing needs, I ask that the statement from the Newton Housing Authority on his retirement be printed here.

Jonathan Hacker, Newton Housing Authority Executive Director to Retire

Jonathan L. Hacker, Executive Director of the Newton

Housing Authority has announced his intention to retire in

February after 39 years with the Authority.

Mr. Hacker began his career with the NHA in 1972 as

Administrative Assistant. He was elevated to Assistant

Executive Director in 1983 and to Executive Director in 1999.

When asked to reflect upon his career he stated, ``When I

first assumed my position at NHA, our housing portfolio

consisted of 226 units of federal public housing located in 4

developments along with 223 units of subsidized housing.

Today, the NHA portfolio consists of 1,034 units of

affordable housing operated under federal, state, and

management portfolios. New housing opportunities have always

been difficult to obtain in Newton due to factors that we are

all familiar with. Our accomplishments have been

extraordinary.

``We have received over 7.5 million dollars since 1992 for

capital improvement funding from HUD to renovate and support

our federally funded portfolio. Some of the work items

include Section 504 handicap modifications at our

developments, replacement heating plants, replacement

windows, roofs, kitchen and bath modernizations, new fire

alarm systems, balcony and canopy repairs, an emergency fire

stopping project, and other improvements that make the lives

of our residents easier and safer. During the initial years

of the federal capital improvement program, these grants were

competitive in nature. Our competitive proposals generated

HUD grants in excess of 4 million dollars.

``On the State side, funds have been more difficult to come

by. However, we managed to accomplish a one million dollar

building envelope project, an emergency generator project

which provides emergency electricity to our disabled

residents at the New Hyde apartments, a replacement window

program, building re-siding project, electric baseboard

replacement project, drainage and surface improvements to the

New Hyde site and have additional projects currently in the

planning and design stage. State funded projects that are

presently in the process of being federalized (Echo Ridge and

Nonantum Village) are receiving significant infusions of

funds, which will improve the infrastructure of these

properties and enhance the lives of our residents.

``Our real property acquisition program has been amazingly

successful, recently yielding 48 units of affordable housing

with local inclusionary zoning funding, Community

Preservation Act participation, and conventional bank

financing. The Newton Housing Authority with the

Commissioner's support elected to receive 6 million dollars

in cash payments from developers of two luxury developments

which would have otherwise provided 9 units of family housing

for a finite period of time. Our election to receive cash has

created appropriate sized housing conveniently located close

to public amenities, which will remain affordable in

perpetuity. NHA has demonstrated that it is the low cost

producer of affordable housing acquisition in our city. This

program creates the quickest path to creating permanently

affordable housing.

``On other fronts, great accomplishment and personal

satisfaction has come from our actions on behalf of victims

of Hurricane Katrina, bringing Habitat for Humanity to

Newton, devising an emergency management and evacuation plan

for our residents, implementing and upgrading our Information

Technology systems, dedicating units in our Wyman Street

property for temporary emergency housing, federalizing two

state funded developments, being named by HUD as a High

Performing Housing Authority on multiple occasions, and being

honored in November 1999 when HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo

named us as `. . . the nation's finest . . .' in a

Washington, D.C. awards ceremony. We were instrumental in

gaining the necessary support from the Nonantum community to

allow Nonantum Village Place, a HUD 202 development to become

a reality. We have had numerous financial audits including

the recently completed FY 2009 A-133 audit which have all

been without finding or recommendations.

``We provided much comfort to Mr. Bill Britt, the `Hermit

from Chestnut Hill'. He along with a number of truly homeless

individuals residing outdoors received our care

and personal resources. Although for the most part we were

unsuccessful in encouraging these folks to obtain our public

housing units, we provided clothing, bedding, meals and

financial assistance where we could during the coldest times

of the year.

``During the blizzard of 1978, we provided food, water, and

medical supplies including prescription medications to our

residents. Since motor vehicles were not permitted to be on

the streets during this emergency we received special

authorization to carry out our mission. We made the necessary

arrangements with local family owned businesses to open their

doors to us, extend credit, and provide emergency supplies so

that we could bring sustenance to our residents.

``There have been so many important accomplishments over

the years, each that impact our residents. It would not be

possible to highlight them at this time.''

Mr. Hacker acknowledged the current members of the NHA

Board of Commissioners for their commitment, dedication, and

professional manner in which they have approached their

positions. ``Howard Haywood, Rick Kronish, Mary Panaggio,

Jeff Sacks, and Tom Turner have each made a difference in the

lives of those under our umbrella. It is, after all, about

those under our care. I am pleased with the recent

appointment of Rick Kronish to our Board as the

representative of organized labor. Rick's background in

finance and his affiliation with the New England Council of

Carpenters will be an asset as the Newton Housing Authority

moves forward.

``As I move into retirement, I am comfortable knowing that

I have done the best job possible in my capacity of Executive

Director. I leave the Newton Housing Authority with solid

financial reserves, a caring and dedicated staff, and

innovative and progressive programs in place. The overall

excellent health of the Newton Housing Authority will afford

my successor the ability to move forward with the strength to

address the challenges that lie ahead.''

When asked to comment on Mr. Hacker's retirement, NHA Chair

Tom Turner stated, ``Jonathan will be greatly missed. Re has

an amazing background and work ethic as well as 39 years of

housing authority experience. I am hopeful that his

relationship with the NHA can continue on some level going

forward.''

Mr. Hacker plans to spend more time with his family,

including two wonderful grandchildren, improving his golf

game, enjoying the outdoors and developing new interests.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to honor the career of Jonathan Sanford, an international trade and finance specialist in the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service. Mr. Sanford is retiring after 39 years of federal service, including the last 38 years as a CRS expert where he became a serious student of the Congress and demonstrated a capacity for integrating substantive knowledge on a wide range of issues with a practical understanding about how to move things forward.

Mr. Sanford's combination of personal skills, high professional capacity, mastery of a very complex set of international financial issues, and his sophisticated understanding of the political process made him ideally suited for his work teaching, informing, and advising policy makers and their staffs--and he did this throughout his career with unflagging enthusiasm and without any trace or pitch, of course, of partisanship.

Over a span of almost four decades, Mr. Sanford has helped keep Members of Congress and their staff well informed through his prolific written work--which was consistently thoughtful, responsible, and balanced in its analysis--and by his readiness to engage in active policy discussions that were so evidently shaped by a creative mind and a vast institutional memory.

His expertise on international financial issues include exchange rate systems, bilateral and multilateral debt relief efforts, reconstruction of the Iraqi economy, a thorough understanding of the international financial and multilateral development institutions, as well as the central role of Congress in the formulation of U.S. policy at these institutions, and countless others.

To many of his colleagues and the people with whom he's worked most closely over the years, Mr. Sanford is nearly an institution himself within this venerable institution of Congress, and that seems appropriate to me because of the passion with which he was dedicated to the role and responsibilities of this legislative branch, and to its people, and its purpose, and to everyone we all work here together to serve.

I want to take this moment to congratulate and to thank Mr. Sanford not only for his many contributions to the Congress for so many years but also for his legacy of service to public policy and to the public good. His many decades of close support to the Congress, his work ethic, his standards and his character all come together to me in a way that I think best exemplifies the meaning of public service.

Mr. Speaker, I have been encouraged to see some signs that the mind set that would not only exclude the military budget from deficit reduction efforts but would in fact inflate an already excessive allocation has been weakening. Secretary Gates' statement on Thursday, January 6, of a recognition of many to take the deficit into account in budgeting for the Pentagon is encouraging, although he does not go far enough. I think that there is no issue more important than to recognize that reducing the extent to which America engages in an extremely expensive worldwide subsidy for many of our wealthy allies in the area of defense has contributed significantly to our deficit, and it is clear that we can substantially reduce military spending without in any way reducing the security of the United States.

In November of last year, a wide-ranging group of people very knowledgeable about national security needs met. I am encouraged that the Commission recognized the importance of including military spending restraints, although I did not agree with their proposal to increase healthcare costs for retirees. And I believe that the thoughtful letter that they received from this wide-ranging coalition of experts on national security and military spending should be shared with our colleagues so I ask that it be printed here.

Experts Letter on Defense Spending to the National Commission on Fiscal

Responsibility and Reform, November 18, 2010

Dear Co-chairman Bowles and Co-chairman Simpson: We are

writing to you as experts in national security and defense

economics to convey our views on the national security

implications of the Commission's work and especially the need

for achieving responsible reductions in military spending. In

this regard, we appreciate the initiative you have taken in

your 10 November 2010 draft proposal to the Commission. It

begins a necessary process of serious reflection, debate, and

action.

The vitality of our economy is the cornerstone of our

nation's strength. We share the Commission's desire to bring

our financial house into order. Doing so is not merely a

question of economics. Reducing the national debt is also a

national security imperative.

To date, the Obama administration has exempted the Defense

Department from any budget reductions. This is short-sighted:

It makes it more difficult to accomplish the task of

restoring our economic strength, which is the underpinning of

our military power.

As the rest of the nation labors to reduce its debt burden,

the current plan is to boost the base DOD budget by 10

percent in real terms over the next decade. This would come

on top of the nearly 52 percent real increase in base

military spending since 1998. (When war costs are included

the increase has been much greater: 95 percent.)

We appreciate Secretary Gates' efforts to reform the

Pentagon's business and acquisition practices. However, even

if his reforms fulfill their promise, the current plan does

not translate them into budgetary savings that contribute to

solving our deficit problem. Their explicit aim is to free

funds for other uses inside the Pentagon. This is not good

enough.

Granting defense a special dispensation puts at risk the

entire deficit reduction effort. Defense spending today

constitutes over 55 percent of discretionary spending and 23

percent of the federal budget. An exemption for defense not

only undermines the broader call for fiscal responsibility,

but also makes overall budget restraint much harder as a

practical economic and political matter.

We need not put our economic power at risk in this way.

Today the United States possesses a wide margin of global

military superiority. The defense budget can bear significant

reduction without compromising our essential security.

We recognize that larger military adversaries may rise to

face us in the future. But the best hedge against this

possibility is vigilance and a vibrant economy supporting a

military able to adapt to new challenges as they emerge.

We can achieve greater defense economy today in several

ways, all of which we urge you to consider seriously. We need

to be more realistic in the goals we set for our armed forces

and more selective in our choices regarding their use abroad.

We should focus our military on core security goals and on

those current and emerging threats that most directly affect

us.

We also need to be more judicious in our choice of security

instruments when dealing

with international challenges. Our armed forces are a

uniquely expensive asset and for some tasks no other

instrument will do. For many challenges, however, the

military is not the most cost-effective choice. We can

achieve greater efficiency today without diminishing our

security by better discriminating between vital, desirable,

and unnecessary military missions and capabilities.

There is a variety of specific options that would produce

savings, some of which we describe below. The important

point, however, is a firm commitment to seek savings through

a reassessment of our defense strategy, our global posture,

and our means of producing and managing military power.

Since the end of the Cold War, we have required our

military to prepare for and conduct more types of missions in

more places around the world. The Pentagon's task list now

includes not only preventive war, regime change, and nation

building, but also vague efforts to ``shape the strategic

environment'' and stem the emergence of threats. It is time

to prune some of these missions and restore an emphasis on

defense and deterrence.

U.S. combat power dramatically exceeds that of any

plausible combination of conventional adversaries. To cite

just one example, Secretary Gates has observed that the U.S.

Navy is today as capable as the next 13 navies combined, most

of which are operated by our allies. We can safely save by

trimming our current margin of superiority.

America's permanent peacetime military presence abroad is

largely a legacy of the Cold War. It can be reduced without

undermining the essential security of the United States or

its allies.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have revealed the limits

of military power. Avoiding these types of operation globally

would allow us to roll back the recent increase in the size

of our Army and Marine Corps.

The Pentagon's acquisition process has repeatedly failed,

routinely delivering weapons and equipment late, over cost,

and less capable than promised. Some of the most expensive

systems correspond to threats that are least prominent today

and unlikely to regain prominence soon. In these cases,

savings can be safely realized by cancelling, delaying, or

reducing procurement or by seeking less costly alternatives.

Recent efforts to reform Defense Department financial

management and acquisition practices must be strengthened.

And we must impose budget discipline to trim service

redundancies and streamline command, support systems, and

infrastructure.

Change along these lines is bound to be controversial.

Budget reductions are never easy--no less for defense than in

any area of government. However, fiscal realities call on us

to strike a new balance between investing in military power

and attending to the fundamentals of national strength on

which our true power rests. We can achieve safe savings in

defense if we are willing to rethink how we produce military

power and how, why, and where we put it to use.

Sincerely,

Gordon Adams, American University; Robert Art, Brandeis

University; Deborah Avant, University of California, Irvine;

Andrew Bacevich, Boston University; Richard Betts, Columbia

University; Linda Bilmes, Kennedy School, Harvard University;

Steven Clemons, New America Foundation; Joshua Cohen,

Stanford University and Boston Review; Carl Conetta, Project

on Defense Alternatives; Owen R. Cote Jr., Security Studies

Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Michael

Desch, University of Notre Dame; Matthew Evangelista, Cornell

University; Benjamin H. Friedman, Cato Institute; Lt. Gen.

(USA, Ret.) Robert G. Gard, Jr., Center for Arms Control

and Non-Proliferation; David Gold, Graduate Program in

International Affairs, The New School; William Hartung,

Arms and Security Initiative, New America Foundation.

David Hendrickson, Colorado College; Michael Intriligator,

UCLA and Milken Institute; Robert Jervis, Columbia

University; Sean Kay, Ohio Wesleyan University; Elizabeth

Kier, University of Washington; Charles Knight, Project on

Defense Alternatives; Lawrence Korb, Center for American

Progress; Peter Krogh, Georgetown University; Richard Ned

Lebow, Dartmouth College; Walter LaFeber, Cornell University;

Col. (USA, Ret.) Douglas Macgregor; Scott McConnell, The

American Conservative; John Mearsheimer, University of

Chicago; Steven Metz, national security analyst and writer;

Steven Miller, Kennedy School, Harvard University and

International Security; Janne Nolan, American Security

Project.

Robert Paarlberg, Wellesley College and Harvard University;

Paul Pillar, Georgetown University; Barry Posen, Security

Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology;

Christopher Preble, Cato Institute; Daryl Press, Dartmouth

College; Jeffrey Record, defense policy analyst and author;

David Rieff, author; Thomas Schelling, University of

Maryland; Jack Snyder, Columbia University; J. Ann Tickner,

University of Southern California; Robert Tucker, Johns

Hopkins University; Stephen Van Evera, Security Studies

Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Stephen Walt,

Harvard University; Kenneth Waltz, Columbia University; Cindy

Williams, Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute

of Technology; Daniel Wirls, University of California, Santa

Cruz.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important things this Congress should be doing in 2011 is to continue the assistance we have provided to local communities, hard hit by a recession that they had no part in bringing about, so that they can maintain the essential public services necessary for the safety of their citizens.

Earlier this week, I received a letter from the Fire Chief of the City of Fall River, Paul Ford, which explains exactly how important this is. I ask that Chief Ford's eloquent, persuasive letter, noting the lifesaving role played by the SAFER grant, be inserted here, and I hope that our colleagues will be instructed by it.

Fire Department Headquarters,

Office of the Fire Chief,

Fall River, MA, December 23, 2010.

Congressman Barney Frank,

558 Pleasant Street #309, New Bedford, MA

Dear Congressman Frank: As you are aware, the Fall River

Fire Department has received a SAFER award which has allowed

us to rehire laid-off firefighters and hire 46 new

firefighters, bringing our compliment up to 2008 levels. This

return of staffing levels has allowed us to reopen Engine 6,

Engine 9, and Heavy Rescue 1.

The previously laid-off firefighters were assigned to fire

companies on September 26, 2010, the start of the SAFER grant

performance period. The new firefighters graduated from our

training academy on December 17, 2010 and were assigned to

individual fire companies on December 19, 2010.

Let me take this opportunity to share with you the

following story to illustrate how the SAFER grant has had an

immediate impact on protecting property and saving lives as a

result of adequate fire staffing:

On the morning of December 21, 2010, a fire was reported in

one of the city's congested south-end residential

neighborhoods. Upon arrival, Acting District Chief David

Levesque was confronted with a six family, brick and wood

structure, with fire showing in one first floor apartment.

The fire had exited out into the interior stairway and was

traveling upwards toward the second floor. Initial reports

indicated that a person was trapped on the third floor.

Taking command of the fire scene, A/DC Levesque initiated a

coordinated, combined fire attack and rescue operation.

Engine companies were ordered to attack the fire on the first

floor and check for extension and protect the second floor.

Heavy Rescue 1 was immediately sent to the third floor for

rescue operations.

Rescue 1, which had previously been out of service due to

reduced staffing, had a crew of three firefighters. This

included Acting Lieutenant Matt Camara and Firefighter Mark

Medeiros, both of whom were laid-off and returned through the

SAFER grant. The third Medeiros, both of whom were laid-off

and returned through the SAFER grant. The third member was

Probationary Firefighter Glen Edington, also a SAFER awardee,

serving his first tour of duty with the Fall River Fire

Department.

Upon entering the structure and making their way to the

third floor, all three members began a primary search of that

floor. PFF Edington, utilizing a thermal imagining camera,

located the victim lying on the floor. He and FE Medeiros

followed their training, quickly removed the victim from the

apartment, and descended down two flights of stairs to

awaiting medical rescue crews. At the time of this writing,

while in critical condition, the victim is alive.

If this fire had taken place prior to the funding of the

SAFER grant, neither they nor any Heavy Rescue crew would

have been on scene that morning. The outcome for that victim

and her family could have been much different.

Furthermore, the additional staffing afforded to this

department allowed us to continue to protect the rest of the

city's citizens without calling in emergency overtime

firefighters or utilizing the increased mutual aid responses

we had come to rely on. This mutual aid, while appreciated,

was further reducing the firefighting forces in those

communities due to our decreased staffing levels.

This situation is a clear example of why adequate staffing

is so vital to the mission of the fire service in general,

and specifically to this city and department.

I thank you, on behalf of the citizens of this city and the

members of this fire department, for your support with this

much needed grant opportunity.

Sincerely,

Paul D. Ford,

Fire Chief.

Mr. Speaker, the New Bedford Standard Times, an excellent newspaper, regularly recognizes leaders of the community that it serves by designating a SouthCoast Woman of the Year and a SouthCoast Man of the Year. This year's SouthCoast Woman of the Year is an extraordinary person, who is a leader in so many fields of endeavor that I think the Standard Times must have been tempted to call her ``Women of the Year.''

MarDee Xifaras is an able attorney, who has been a leader politically, economically, educationally, and in civic affairs in general. Most recently she has been a spearhead in getting the State of Massachusetts to take over the Southern New England Law School, creating for the first time in Massachusetts a state university law school, to the great benefit of the population of that area, and I believe to the practice of law in Massachusetts, by providing a source of socially-conscious graduates for years to come.

MarDee Xifaras is an extraordinary force for a wide range of good causes, and I am delighted that she has been recognized by the New Bedford Standard Times, but not surprised. I've had the benefit of her advice, counsel and friendship, as did my late and much-missed predecessor, Gary Studds, whose work in this body benefitted enormously from her input, as has mine.

Mr. Speaker, as an example of what citizenship is at its best, at a time when we very much need that, I ask that the New Bedford Standard Times article about Woman of the Year MarDee Xifaras be printed here.

[From SouthCoastToday.com, Jan. 2, 2011]

MarDee Xifaras: SouthCoast Woman of the Year

(By Jack Spillane)

A bogus study pretending to be an independent report. Last-

minute telephone calls from an incumbent governor twisting

arms.

The smearing of a small law school's reputation by people

on the boards of competing larger schools.

And ultimately, the slurring of an entire region of the

state as not having enough of a talent pool to merit a public

law school.

Margaret ``MarDee'' Xifaras dealt with every conceivable

insult and underhanded political tactic when it came to the

unsuccessful 2004-2005 fight to merge the Southern New

England School of Law with the University of Massachusetts

Dartmouth. But she did not get down into the gutter with her

opponents.

Instead, Xifaras, the then-chairman of the SNESL board of

trustees, went hack to work running the small, private

Dartmouth law school in the same determined way that it had

operated for more than two decades.

She also went to work leading the effort to meticulously

document the legal and financial case that would make a 2009-

2010 effort to absorb the school into UMass Dartmouth

unassailable.

MarDee Xifaras' leadership achieved what very few

SouthCoast political or public officials of any kind have

done over the last half century. She went up against the

state's Boston-centric power establishment and won.

And she won hands down.

For her efforts coordinating the campaign to establish a

state law school in Massachusetts, a school that has now been

located in Southeastern Massachusetts, Margaret D. Xifaras is

the 2010 Standard-Times SouthCoast Woman of the Year.

Nominations for the award came from the community and

members of the newspaper staff. Recipients were selected by a

newsroom committee.

Madam Speaker, I support this legislation substantively. I'm also glad we're bringing it up because it helps dispel a couple of unduly negative views about us. We've just seen a great example of bipartisan cooperation. Yes, things have gotten very partisan. Some things should be partisan. More have become that way than should be.

But the public has an excessive view of the extent to which partisanship dominates, because when we have cooperation between the parties and agreement it's not news. And while we have some differences, the gentlewoman from West Virginia as the ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) as the chair did a lot of constructive work together, brought forward a number of pieces of legislation. Not all of them survived the last minute rush. I am hopeful under the leadership of the gentlewoman from Illinois those areas where we had some agreement, there were some that remain, that we will be able to move them. So it does show that people believe that there is more partisanship than there is, or that there are no examples of cooperation between the parties, as there are in this case.

There is a view that politics is a hard and nasty business and that people are vindictive, and this is proof that that's not true.

Now, the gentleman from Connecticut abandoned our committee, left for greener committee pastures. But that did not prevent us from enthusiastically helping him to pass this bill, and he deserves a great deal of credit for it. It is an idea, I believe, that came to him from constituents, and that's another good thing to know; that there were people in his district who were interested in this. And he brought it forward and worked very hard and made the necessary adjustments, as you always do in the process.

So this speaks very well of the gentleman from Connecticut and of the process, that people in the country who have some good ideas can bring them to us and they can be shaped, and this is done.

Finally, I am very pleased that this will lead to, I hope, more construction of rental units. A common problem that we've had for many years in our housing area was to overstress home ownership for people who needed government assistance, and under-performed with regard to building rental units. No one thing solved it all, but this is a step forward towards the construction of rental units in a way that will increase the stock of housing.

And we ought to remember when we talk about providing homes for people who need assistance, ownership and having a home are not the same word. Home ownership is a part of home, in general. Rental housing is also an important part.

I thank the gentleman from Connecticut and the gentlewoman from West Virginia and others for letting us take that step forward together.

Madam Speaker, in recent years Paul Krugman has been, in my view, the single-most incisive and accurate commentator on our economy. In the New York Times today, December 17, he rebuts very effectively the partisan effort to shift blame for our recent economic crisis away from the failures of deregulation and of financial irresponsibility in the private sector issued by the four Republican Members of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. It is of course

the case that government policy failures played some role in the crisis, but the most egregious of these is ignored by these partisans-- the refusal of the Republicans in the Bush administration, the Federal Reserve and in Congress to support Democratic efforts to restrict the kind of irresponsible predatory mortgages that should not have been issued and which were a major cause of the crisis. As Mr. Krugman notes, ``the G.O.P. commissioners are just doing their job, which is to sustain a conservative narrative. And a narrative that absolves the banks of any wrongdoing, that places all the blame on meddling politicians, is especially important now that Republicans are about to take over the House.'' Referring to the incoming Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Krugman sadly, but with good reason, predicts ``that he and his colleagues will do everything they can to block effective regulation of the people and institutions responsible for the economic nightmare of recent years.''

Madam Speaker, I ask that Paul Krugman's very important correction to an egregiously erroneous report be printed here.

[From The New York Times, Dec. 16, 2010]

Wall Street Whitewash

(By Paul Krugman)

When the financial crisis struck, many people--myself

included--considered it a teachable moment. Above all, we

expected the crisis to remind everyone why banks need to be

effectively regulated.

How naive we were. We should have realized that the modern

Republican Party is utterly dedicated to the Reaganite slogan

that government is always the problem, never the solution.

And, therefore, we should have realized that party loyalists,

confronted with facts that don't fit the slogan, would adjust

the facts.

Which brings me to the case of the collapsing crisis

commission.

The bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission was

established by law to ``examine the causes, domestic and

global, of the current financial and economic crisis in the

United States.'' The hope was that it would be a modern

version of the Pecora investigation of the 1930s, which

documented Wall Street abuses and helped pave the way for

financial reform.

Instead, however, the commission has broken down along

partisan lines, unable to agree on even the most basic

points.

It's not as if the story of the crisis is particularly

obscure. First, there was a widely spread housing bubble, not

just in the United States, but in Ireland, Spain, and other

countries as well. This bubble was inflated by irresponsible

lending, made possible both by bank deregulation and the

failure to extend regulation to ``shadow banks,'' which

weren't covered by traditional regulation but nonetheless

engaged in banking activities and created bank- type risks.

Then the bubble burst, with hugely disruptive consequences.

It turned out that Wall Street had created a web of

interconnection nobody understood, so that the failure of

Lehman Brothers, a medium-size investment bank, could

threaten to take down the whole world financial system.

It's a straightforward story, but a story that the

Republican members of the commission don't want told.

Literally.

Last week, reports Shahien Nasiripour of The Huffington

Post, all four Republicans on the commission voted to exclude

the following terms from the report: ``deregulation,''

``shadow banking,'' ``interconnection,'' and, yes, ``Wall

Street.''

When Democratic members refused to go along with this

insistence that the story of Hamlet be told without the

prince, the Republicans went ahead and issued their own

report, which did, indeed, avoid using any of the banned

terms.

That report is all of nine pages long, with few facts and

hardly any numbers. Beyond that, it tells a story that has

been widely and repeatedly debunked--without responding at

all to the debunkers.

In the world according to the G.O.P. commissioners, it's

all the fault of government do-gooders, who used various

levers--especially Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the

government-sponsored loan-guarantee agencies--to promote

loans to low-income borrowers. Wall Street--I mean, the

private sector--erred only to the extent that it got suckered

into going along with this government-created bubble.

It's hard to overstate how wrongheaded all of this is. For

one thing, as I've already noted, the housing bubble was

international--and Fannie and Freddie weren't guaranteeing

mortgages in Latvia. Nor were they guaranteeing loans in

commercial real estate, which also experienced a huge bubble.

Beyond that, the timing shows that private players weren't

suckered into a government-created bubble. It was the other

way around. During the peak years of housing inflation,

Fannie and Freddie were pushed to the sidelines; they only

got into dubious lending late in the game, as they tried to

regain market share.

But the G.O.P. commissioners are just doing their job,

which is to sustain the conservative narrative. And a

narrative that absolves the banks of any wrongdoing, that

places all the blame on meddling politicians, is especially

important now that Republicans are about to take over the

House.

Last week, Spencer Bachus, the incoming G.O.P. chairman of

the House Financial Services Committee, told The Birmingham

News that ``in Washington, the view is that the banks are to

be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the

regulators are there to serve the banks.''

He later tried to walk the remark back, but there's no

question that he and his colleagues will do everything they

can to block effective regulation of the people and

institutions responsible for the economic nightmare of recent

years. So they need a cover story saying that it was all the

government's fault.

In the end, those of us who expected the crisis to provide

a teachable moment were right, but not in the way we

expected. Never mind relearning the case for bank regulation;

what we learned, instead, is what happens when an ideology

backed by vast wealth and immense power confronts

inconvenient facts. And the answer is, the facts lose.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I salute the ``good soldier'' attitude of my friend from Nebraska. In the absence of any member on the Financial Services Committee, he agreed to stand up and read what was written. He has no way of knowing how silly it is. Nobody explained to him how inaccurate it was.

For example, he says this has not gone through regular order. It is, in fact, exactly the same legislative language that was debated, amended and adopted in the House Financial Services Committee and then in conference during financial reform. It is exactly that.

There is language in here that the gentlewoman from Ohio sensibly agreed to that makes it clear that organizations that have been convicted of criminal abuses can't be here, that only genuine legal services organizations can get this money and that there can be no class actions. It was carefully done. It's not the gentleman's fault. He wasn't there. I wish the people who had been there had told him that.

This is the legislative language taken from a bill that went through the full legislative procedure and passed the House. In fact, there was a change because we told the gentlewoman from Ohio, who has been very diligent in this regard, that we thought it was best precisely to avoid that kind of argument and to take the language that had already been adopted in the committee, in the conference and on the floor of the House.

Secondly, we are told it's going to cost extra money. No, it will not. In fact, it could save money. In the language that the House passed and the conference committee passed, we authorized $35 million for exactly this purpose.

What the gentlewoman from Ohio is proposing is that we take money that has already been voted under the TARP and use it for that. The gentleman has been asked to characterize it as a ``slush fund.'' Hardheartedness has rarely come so close to the Christmas season. This slush fund is to go to working Americans who bought homes and who are facing foreclosure. Frankly, we were reasonably certain of this when we passed this earlier this year, but we now know there have been serious legal problems with the foreclosures. Some of them are merely paperwork. Others we have seen are documented abuses.

You are a homeowner in trouble. You have the legal teams coming at you from the lenders, from the servicers and others. You cannot yourself afford a lawyer. You're having trouble meeting your mortgage payment.

What we say is, We will give you access to a lawyer--not in the offensive way. There is no class action here. There is no legal suit that can be brought against the lenders. There maybe should be.

This says, I'm being foreclosed. I don't think I should be foreclosed. They made a mistake. I paid that mortgage; or I got a modification. Somebody forgot it.

All we're asking is, Can we take some money that has already been voted and let that person have a lawyer to go to court--a legal services lawyer, vetted by the local bar association--to defend him?

To the Republican Party, that's a slush fund. I am appalled. I am appalled at the insensitivity and at the cruelty.

By the way, I voted for the TARP money, along with Mr. Boehner, the incoming Speaker. They did it at the

request of President Bush. As for the bailouts they keep flailing about, every single bailout that exists in America today was initiated by President George Bush, every single one--AIG, the TARP, the automobiles. It was George Bush who did it, and George Bush, after the election conveniently, said that it was the TARP that saved the economy from the consequences, I think, of mistakes that had been made during his Presidency. So that's the bailout they are talking about.

What we are saying is this:

We put an end to any new money. Given existing money, given the clear documentation that there have been abuses and errors and even, in some cases, fraud in the foreclosure process--although, in some cases, they were just paperwork errors--this is for beleaguered homeowners who are trying to save their homes, who are trying to keep themselves and their families from being kicked out the of their homes in case there was a mistake at legal assistance. If everything is in order, the lawyers can't save them.

What we are saying is, given what has been documented, let's take some of the money that has already been voted in the TARP--that's right. It has no CBO score--and put it there.

Secretary Geithner told me personally that he supports this. I'm sorry the letter isn't here yet, but I think Members will accept the fact that I'm telling the truth when I tell you that I spoke to the Secretary and showed him what we were doing, and he supports it. The language has gone through the full legislative process. It is language taken from the bill.

I hope we will pass this and also have the $35 million. This is for the hardest-hit States, the States that have had the worst impact. The $35 million could then be used for the other States. But again, a slush fund? It's a slush fund that can't go to ACORN. I know ACORN is a real focus for them.

It, of course, validates the old saying: Great obsessions from tiny acorns grow.

So every time we try to help any poor people with legal assistance so they are not faced with the unfair situation of being outgunned by an array of lawyers and they don't have any lawyers themselves to defend them, ACORN gets it. ACORN can't get this money on a number of grounds. There can't be class action suits.

If there is a homeowner who is convinced that he or she is being unfairly foreclosed upon and could document errors, should that person be denied legal assistance from money already voted at the request of George Bush and with the support of Mitch McConnell and with the support of the incoming Speaker and with the support of the incoming majority leader? Should they not be able to use it?

I wish this weren't partisan. People tell me, Why are things partisan?

I wish things weren't partisan. I wish I could eat more and not gain weight. I wish a lot of things.

We are here on a partisan situation because what ought to be obvious is that money already appropriated, knowing as we do that there have been abuses in the foreclosure process, ought to be available to appoint genuine lawyers to defend people. By the way, do you know legal services lawyers? They're among the most dedicated people you'll find. These people could be making far more money in private practice, but they're there to help out.

They're restricted. There can't be class action suits. They can't go to a general organization that does legal work. They have to go to a genuine legal services organization, which are often, in my case, always supervised by the State bar association--and it is a slush fund.

You know, I can understand some differences of opinion, but to demean it this way--to call it a ``slush fund''--to deny ownership of the bailout, which was, of course, a Republican administration policy and to characterize it that way, all we are saying is money already voted could be made available for genuine legal assistance to help people who are facing unfair foreclosures so they can go to court.

The point is that we get this demeaning characterization. You know, we are supposed to be proud of our system of justice. We are not talking about giving anybody a free pass. What we are saying is working people who are facing foreclosure ought to be able to get to court on, not equal terms with the lenders and the large organizations opposing them, but with some bare minimum of representation--and that's a slush fund. That's a political trick.

I am very disappointed. We had real hopes that we could get some agreement on this. Everybody acknowledges that there have been abuses in the foreclosure process. We know there are people who can't afford lawyers. It will not cost the taxpayers any money. This is money that will be used elsewhere. It's a diversion from money that was otherwise going to be used in the TARP. It doesn't reopen the TARP. I hope it will add to the $35 million we hope we can get. It has been vetted through the legislative process. The gentlewoman from Ohio, who has been a great crusader on behalf of people in this situation, accepted our suggestion that she take the language that has already been voted on in the House.

So I am disappointed, but I hope that party discipline will not prevail on the Republican side. People--particularly from those States, Ohio, California, Indiana, and Florida, where they are particularly hard hit, but everybody, because everybody will benefit if we can increase this pool--will say something that's apparently terribly radical to my Republican friends. Let's let members of legal assistance operations, supervised by their bar associations, subject to their supreme courts and the State's supervision, go to court to defend someone facing an array of high-priced legal talent when they know that they are being foreclosed upon illegally and inappropriately.

And that is apparently a terrible thing to the Republican Party. I am, as I say, appalled. I hope that a sense of fairness will somehow prevail and we can pass this bill.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Yes, the letter is on the way. I state, as a matter of fact, that I personally spoke to Secretary Geithner and he told me, as I explained it, that he supports it.

Does the gentleman doubt my word?

Will the gentleman yield?

The letter you are talking about is one in which he says he doesn't have the legal authority to do it. This bill gives him the legal authority. There is no conflict. This bill now is a response to that letter. And I repeat that he has said that he is in favor of getting the legal authority to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Well, apparently the gentleman from Nebraska, having denounced those bailouts, now tells us he voted for it. So it's confession time before the House. He apparently voted for the measure that he characterizes as a ``bailout'' that was such an imposition.

Secondly, I have never heard anything more confusing than this discussion of the letters. Yes, the Secretary wrote and said, I don't now have the authority. And we then said, Okay. We will give you the authority.

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

I know you haven't seen the letter. I told her that the Secretary told me the letter is coming. The letter is now being cleared by OMB. So we don't have the letter yet--the letter has been written--but I can tell you the Secretary says he wants it.

The gentleman's discussion of the letter is totally confused--and confusing, as a consequence.

Yes, there was a letter saying we don't now have the authority. This gives them the authority, which they welcome. Secondly, this does not extend the TARP at all. This does not extend the TARP in any way. And as to getting repaid, there is legislation that we added to the TARP that requires that at the end of the TARP program, 5 years from the date of it, 2013, the President must submit to us legislation that gives us a way to get it back from the financial services industry.

So, yes, this will be repaid to the taxpayer by the financial services industry. By the way, the TARP is now down to a total of 25. This does not add $1 or 1 day to the TARP, either in its lifetime or in its funding.

The gentleman said, well, there is money in legal services. Yes. The legal services appropriation last year was passed before we understood the extent of the mistake, the fraud, and the abuse in the foreclosure process. That is exactly right. The $400 million in legal services did not anticipate what we have since learned about abuses in the foreclosure process.

Finally, the gentleman said do it through the appropriation. We have done that as well. We have asked for $35 million additional. By the way, this is not extra money. The appropriations would be additional money. But I will look forward to their support when that happens.

Mr. Speaker, I would now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kilroy).

How much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to one of the single most effective fighters against unfair foreclosures on our committee and among the leaders in the Nation, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following letter from

the Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner to Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur:

Department of the Treasury

Washington, DC, December 17, 2010.

Hon. Marcy Kaptur,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Kaptur: I am writing in support of your

proposed legislation, the ``Aiding Those Facing Foreclosure

Act of 2010'', H.R. 5510, as amended for consideration under

suspension of the Rules.

This legislation would permit the funding of legal aid and

other services to struggling homeowners through the Housing

Finance Agency Innovation Fund for the Hardest-Hit Housing

Markets program (``Hardest-Hit Fund''). Under current law,

funds available under the Emergency Economic Stabilization

Act of 2008, which are being used to finance the Hardest-Hit

Fund, cannot be used for legal aid services. If the

legislation is enacted, I believe Treasury would have the

authority to approve proposals for Hardest-Hit Fund monies

that were Previously allocated to states to be used for legal

aid services to homeowners.

I appreciate your ongoing commitment to this critical

issue.

Mr. Speaker, I join the ranking member in paying tribute to the extraordinary

public service of our colleague from Missouri who really exemplifies what it means to be a legislator of integrity and commitment and effectiveness.

I do, however, want to differ with his rather distorted picture of the history here when he says we went outside of regular order. This House passed the Defense bill under regular order with committee hearings and debate on the floor. We sent it to the Senate. Because some Senators objected to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which was included in the Defense bill to start with 17 years ago, it was twice filibustered. The reason we are here now is that twice Republican minorities filibustered the bill. That was the breakdown of regular order.

But here we are today. Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer took a very important stance and said, when the Senate asked us, we will break Don't Ask, Don't Tell off from the regular bill, but we want to be sure both passes, and that is what we are in the process of doing. To the credit of the Senate leader and Senator Lieberman, they will be voting on cloture for Don't Ask, Don't Tell tomorrow.

In light of that, while there is much in this bill with which I disagree, I strongly urge those who share many of my views to vote for it. Let me be very clear, I think it is very important to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I honor the work that was done under the leadership of the gentleman from Missouri, although I have some disagreements with it. But the point is that the success of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is tied to the success of this bill in a perfectly reasonable way. In legislatures, people need to compromise. So I am going to vote for this bill. I vote for it knowing that tomorrow the Senate will begin cloture. There will be things in this total bill that many of us will like and dislike, but I think it speaks well of the Nation and the process we are going through. And I urge those who share some of my objections to some pieces of this bill to vote for it so we can go ahead and get the whole thing done. I would also point out that even if we were to defeat this bill, much of what I don't like would happen in the appropriations bill.

So I urge those who join me in having concerns about Don't Ask, Don't Tell to help us pass this bill and get this thing going.

Mr. Chairman, two pieces of legislation tell us a lot about the values of our Republican colleagues.

This bill will take $114 billion in revenues out of Social Security, helping them make the case ultimately, in a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, that we can't pay everything we want.

Earlier this session, they voted overwhelmingly and killed a proposal to give each Social Security recipient $250--not $250,000 or $250 million, numbers with which they are more familiar--but $250. These are people who are going to be facing an increase in Medicare because we learned only in October that there would not be a cost-of-living increase.

We couldn't afford the $14 billion to give $250 to older people who are having trouble paying their heating bills, but they can afford $114 billion that will go to everybody, including to people who make $100,000 a year, who will get eight times $250. The values of the Republican Party are revealed by this.

By the way, we are in this situation because of dishonesty. When George Bush and the Republicans passed the tax cuts in 2001, they didn't want to admit the full account of how much it cost.

Not simply are they showing their values, but they said, Oh, you're going to give $250 to Warren Buffett on Social Security.

They want to give $250,000 to Warren Buffett, which, to his credit, he doesn't want.

In fact, the reason we are in this bind is, in 2001 and 2003, George Bush and the Republican majorities wanted to pass very large tax cuts despite their professed concern about the deficit--and we now see from this bill that their slogan is ``deficit-schmeficit''--but they didn't want to admit how much it would cost, so the CBO couldn't give us the full value of the cost. They made very bad tax policy.

They did it. I voted against it.

They made major changes in the Tax Code to end after 10 years, and they did that Humpty Dumpty roller coaster with the estate tax. That wackiness was their effort to hide the true amount of the hole they were burning in the deficit, so they have only themselves to blame.

But let me return.

They couldn't afford $14 billion to give $250 payments to Social Security recipients--and overwhelmingly, they killed it when we tried to pass it--but they can take $114 billion out of Social Security.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. FRANK: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 3817. A

bill to provide the Securities and Exchange Commission with

additional authorities to protect investors from violations

of the securities laws, and for other purposes; with an

amendment, (Rept. 111-687, Pt. 1); referred to the Committee

on Judiciary for a period ending not later than December 17,

2010, for consideration of such provisions of the bill and

amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee

pursuant to clause 1(k) of rule X.

Mr. FRANK: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 3818. A

bill to amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to require

advisers of certain unregistered investment companies to

register with and provide information to the Securities and

Exchange Commission, and for other purposes, with an

amendment; (Rept. 111-686, Pt. 1); referred to the Committee

on Agriculture for a period ending not later than December

17, 2010, for consideration of such provisions of the bill

and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that

committee pursuant to clause 1(a) of rule X.

Mr. FRANK: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 3890. A

bill to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to enhance

oversight of nationally recognized statistical rating

organizations, and for other purposes; with an amendment;

(Rept. 111-685, Pt. 1); referred to the Committee on

Judiciary for a period ending not later than December 17,

2010, for consideration of such provisions of the bill and

amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee

pursuant to clause 1(k) of rule X.

I thank the gentlewoman.

When we get to this bill, I will address the substance of the argument that the presence of someone like me will so destabilize our brave young men and women that they will be unable to do their duty. I regard that as bigoted nonsense, but I will address that more fully then. Now I want to talk about this bizarre procedural argument that we are somehow not following regular order.

Madam Speaker, this amendment came up in regular order after the committee considered the bill and on the floor of the House, and it was adopted in a full vote on the floor of the House after a lot of debate. The Senate in committee adopted this amendment. The notion that the committees of jurisdiction have been deprived here is delusional.

What is the procedural situation?

In effect, the House, in a full debate on the floor, adopted this amendment. It went to the Senate. In the Senate, the Senate committee, by a majority, voted for this amendment and then voted the bill out, and it has been stopped twice narrowly by filibusters. It has gotten 57 and 58 votes. It has been openly debated. The notion that somehow we are the ones who are ignoring procedure when this bill gets a majority in the House after open debate on the floor, a majority in the Senate committee and is then filibustered makes no sense.

Beyond that, we are told, Well, don't hold up the big bill. Well, that's the point of this. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was originally adopted as part of the military authorization of 1993. That is the regular order we followed. Some have now said, Well, the Senate would like to be able to vote on this differently from the main bill. I will say that many of us do not think that we should adopt anything until we do the whole package, but if they want to do these two bills, that's fine. Sending this over will facilitate the Senate's procedures.

Now, there are at least five Republican Senators who previously, most of them, voted against cloture--one, Senator Collins, voted for it--who said they couldn't vote for it for various procedural reasons dealing with the tax agreement and the funding of the government. Those are on their way to being resolved.

What we do when we pass this bill today is to say to the Senate, Okay, you can do it one way or the other as long as you do both, and we give them the chance--they already had the tax issue--to have resolved the CR, and we will get a vote on the merits. What this does is to strip away any excuse that any member of the Senate--Democrat or Republican--will have for not voting on the merits. We will strip away any justification for a filibuster.

The gentleman says, Well, we didn't go through regular order. We've gone through triple regular order. A vote on the House floor is part of the consideration of the bill, as is a vote in the Senate committee and two efforts to break the filibuster.

So the question is: Do you allow a filibuster and some procedural excuses from Senators who say they're for this repeal but didn't get to vote for it? We are giving them a chance to do that. This is something many House Members have long wanted to do in addition to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell--getting the Senate to stand up and take a straight up-or-down vote. That is what we are enabling.

So I hope that the rule passes and that the bill separately passes as well.

Mr. Speaker, first let's strip away the smoke screen: the argument that we are holding up the defense bill. It passed this House over the objection of almost every Republican, and it has twice been filibustered in the Senate when the Senate leadership tried to bring it up. It is the Republican Party that has been holding it up because of their opposition to a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

So let's talk about the merits. First of all, we are told it would be a distraction to repeal it. It is a grave distraction to maintain it. People have said, the gentleman from Texas: Well, we know there are gay and lesbian people now serving. That's right. What they are telling us, Mr. Speaker, is let's have people serving who are in fear of being thrown out. How much of a distraction is that? What sense does it make to say, okay, you come in here but we are going to watch you, and you may get kicked out? And what about the money that is spent? What about the good people that are lost, translators and others?

The maintenance of this policy is the distraction. The repeal of it would not be. Why are we told repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell would be a problem?

People keep quoting Colin Powell. Let me quote him from 20 years ago when I asked him about this. I asked him if the problem was that gay and lesbian and bisexual members of the military weren't good at their jobs. He said: No, that is absolutely not the case. So let's not have any libel of the honorable gay and lesbian and bisexual people who want to serve their country and are being rebuffed by people on the other side.

No one is arguing it is their fault. What we are told is that there are other people who are so offended by their very presence. The code of military justice will stay in place. Anybody who misbehaves sexually is subject to being kicked out quite summarily. We are told that their very presence will annoy people and will distract them.

What does that say about our young military? The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) said, well, anytime a military has allowed gay people in, that has been the end of civilization. Tell that to the Israeli Defense Forces. I guess he may be technically correct; they didn't change it, they have always had that. They need every human being they can get who is willing to serve, whether willing or not. And the Israeli Defense Forces have suffered no deterioration.

I must say, it is not that the young members of the military who face death, who face the destruction of their comrades, they are not the ones who are upset by this. It is our colleagues on the other side who are reputing their unease at the presence of gay and lesbian people to the young people in the military who I think are better than that.

Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor to do a Special Order, which I will do subsequently, but I then saw that this was on the agenda and I was moved to speak.

I had the great honor of being the chairman of the Subcommittee on Administrative Law when the Japanese reparations and apology bill was passed. Norm Mineta and the late Bob Matsui approached me when I became chairman, this was several years after the report had come out, and we talked about it.

I had, in college, read the case, which appalled me, when the U.S. Supreme Court denied any relief to the Japanese Americans who had been so brutally mistreated with no justification, so I was well aware of it when I came here, and I was very pleased to have the opportunity to work with two great men, Norm Mineta and Bob Matsui, to undo this.

I had the enormous honor, Mr. Speaker, inspired by them, of being

able to read on the floor of this House the words from that bill, ``On behalf of the Nation, Congress apologizes.'' I cannot think of a greater example of the true strength of this Nation than for us to have voted, Yes, we apologize. We did wrong. So I was very pleased to work with Norm.

But here is the point I wanted to add. I had been the chairman. It was my job to do this, and we got the bill through. Several years after that, at the Japanese American Citizens League, a group of younger people offered an amendment to support the right of gay men and lesbians, people like myself, to express their love for each other by marrying. That was early in the movement for this, and there was kind of a generational divide, I believe, about what should happen.

Norm Mineta, by then a senior Member of Congress, was involved. Now, he got involved voluntarily. Members here will understand. We have enough controversy here on the floor. We don't generally seek out controversies that don't involve our formal duties. Indeed, we tend to duck them.

Norm Mineta intervened in that debate, not inappropriately, but in the formal sense of an intervention, and said, in words that move me to this day, that a gay man, myself, had been the chairman of the committee that brought forward this bill, and after that, how could he and how could an organization in which he played a major role deny our basic rights?

Now, obviously that meant a great deal to me, but it meant something of universal appeal. Here was Norm Mineta, having worked hard and led us to deal with the grave injustice to which he had been subjected, making a point that I hope Members will understand: Injustice cannot be divided and fought by some and not by others. It cannot be that people will object only when they are treated unfairly but turn their backs when others are treated the same.

Norm Mineta, in a very uncharacteristic act, not for Norm, who was a great, generous man, Norm Mineta, in an act uncharacteristic for a Member of Congress, involved himself in that debate to make the point--not simply about me; I was incidental to the broader point he was making--that human rights ought to be treated as indivisible, that it is not for this group and that group, and that people should, yes, fight for themselves, but having fought for themselves, they should not stint from fighting for others.

That was a lesson that Norm taught a whole lot of people in, as has been said, not an obnoxious way, a loud way, but with a genuine warmth and sincerity.

As I look back at some point on my congressional career, having had the opportunity to work with Norm Mineta on that bill and having watched the way in which he dealt with it, the way in which he turned what could have been a source of anger into a lesson for all of us about the indivisibility of the fight for justice, will be one of the highlights.

I thank all of those involved for bringing this forward.