Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Do the records of the House contain the length of time of the speech made by the minority leader on the health care bill under a 1-minute recognition?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Speaker Pelosi and others in the leadership for successfully insisting that this House get a chance to vote on repealing the rule that says that patriotic, able-bodied gay and lesbian Americans cannot serve their country. Mr. Speaker, it strikes me as odd. If there was a situation in which we were at war, as we are now sadly in two situations--sadly because no one likes war--if I had proposed that gay and lesbian Americans be exempted from any drafts and from any requirement to serve and put their lives in danger, I would have been accused of a ``special rights,'' and it would have been a correct accusation. Instead, gay and lesbian people are asking for the right to serve, and we're told that will undo military cohesion. Mr. Speaker, the Israeli Defense Forces have understandably, given the history of the Jewish people and our aversion to bigotry, because we know what it does to us, they have been free of any such prejudice. Gay and lesbian Israelis have not just the right but the obligation to serve their country. And those who tell me that the presence of gay and lesbian members of the military undermine the effectiveness of a fighting force and undermine unit cohesion must have never heard of Israel. They must have never heard of as effective a fighting force as has existed in modern times. So the notion that you must deny American gay and lesbian citizens their rights has no basis in reality.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the prompt action of the committee in processing this bill. Michael Rothberg was one of the talented young Americans who was one of the victims of the mass murder by bloodthirsty terrorists on September 11th. Mr. Rothberg was one of those killed by these vicious thugs in their attack on the World Trade Center. Understandably, his family, who is proud of him and of the high regard he was held in the town in which he had lived, asked that I act to have the town's post office named for him. It was a request that was enthusiastically supported by the government of the town, not surprisingly, because it is a community that takes its civic responsibilities seriously and elects and appoints people to town offices who are thoughtful, compassionate, and effective. Mr. Rothberg was born in Sharon and graduated from Sharon High School. He then went on to earn his Bachelors and Masters degrees in math and computer science from McGill University in Montreal. He went to work for Kanter Fitzgerald whose offices were on the 104th floor of the World Trade Center, and on September 11th, he was tragically killed in his office. Michael Rothberg was both a very successful professional and a man of great generosity, and while he was working in New York, he remembered his Massachusetts roots in his generous support of important medically- related charities, for example the Dana Farber Cancer Institute's Jimmy Fund. He was also a strong supporter of the Multiple Sclerosis Foundation and Mutual Funds against Cancer. His family has established the Michael C. Rothberg Memorial Scholarship, and his fellow Sharonites have generously contributed to it in his memory in a number of ways. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to join Michael Rothberg's family and the town of Sharon in memorializing an able, generous man who is sorely missed, and we all take this occasion of course to reaffirm our resolve to do everything that we can to protect all of us against a repeat of this tragedy.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I recently was informed by a group of citizens who live in my district of a remarkable story about one of their neighbors. I admire their spirit in making sure that the inspiring story of their friend and neighbor, Nicholas H. Burlak, is more widely known. And I ask that my remarks here be printed to call attention to Mr. Burlak's remarkable achievements, so that they may serve as an example to others. Nicholas Burlak was born in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, in 1924, and when the Depression came, his father moved the family to Ukraine in search of work. When World War II broke out in 1941, when the Hitler- Stalin pact fell apart and Germany then attacked its erstwhile ally, the Soviet Union, Nicholas Burlak tried to return to the United States, the home of his birth, to enlist in the Marine Corps. But this was physically impossible. He then did the next-best thing--determined to fight the Nazis, and to defend his country of birth as best he could, Mr. Burlak became an American volunteer in the Soviet Army. Subsequently he was wounded four times in battle, twice suffered shell shock and received several medals for bravery as he participated in the terrible battles between the Soviet and Nazi armies, ultimately fighting his way with other Russians to Berlin. Among the signatures left by Russian soldiers on the walls of the Reichstag in 1945 was one in English--``Bethlehem, PA, USA-Donbass, Ukraine, Aktyubinsk, Kazakhstan, Berlin, Germany May 1945--Nicholas.'' That was the heroic and patriotic American, Nicholas Burlak, who did not allow his separation from our country to prevent his allegiance to it. With the sixty-fifth anniversary of the end of World War II, the Russian government awarded Mr. Burlak a medal. I believe it is appropriate for his fellow countrymen in the United States, now that he has returned to live among us as he always wanted to do, to join in commemorating the extraordinary dedication of this brave young man who has become a very valued member of our country today. Madam Speaker, Nicholas Burlak's commitment to his fellow and sister citizens did not end with his joining in the war against the Nazis. In 2007, for example, he received the Eloise K. Houghton Award in recognition of community spirit and outstanding volunteer service from the Newton Community Development Foundation, a very important organization in my hometown, which provides help to others. Madam Speaker, Nicholas Burlak understood how important his story was and how many people could learn from and be inspired by it, so he wrote a book--under the pseudonym of the time of M.J. Nicholas, entitled ``Love and War: An American Volunteer in the Soviet Red Army.'' It is not just an inspiring book, but a gripping one, and I welcome the chance, Madam Speaker, to mention it here, as part of the tribute that our country should be paying to Mr. Burlak. It is a tribute to him and to his neighbors that they are so inspired by his story that they took the initiative in writing to me and calling this to my attention, and I am very pleased to have the chance to express my admiration of Mr. Burlak and my appreciation to his neighbors for giving me the chance to do this.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, today, I would like to pay tribute to the Wareham High School Basketball team who just captured the first Division III State Championship Title for the town of Wareham, Massachusetts. This was their first state title since 1956. This impressive team is led by Coach Kevin Brogioli and includes Jules Tavares, who scored a game-high 25 points and Pat Murphy, who scored 11 points, including his 1,000th career point. This season, the Vikings have scored 100 points or more in four games, beating Cardinal Spellman 78-71 to clinch the Division III South Sectional Championship, besting Bedford at the TD Bank Boston Garden 63-49 to becomes the Division III Eastern Championship and defeating New Leadership of Springfield 80-57 at the DCU Center in Worcester to capture the Division III State Championship Title. Congratulations to Coach Brogioli, Assistant Coach Steve Faniel, Assistant Coach Mike Ponte and the Vikings team, listed here in alphabetical order: Darien Fernandez, Sheldon Frye, Jowaun Gamble, Marcus Gomes, Darren Gray, Jeff Houde, Harry Irving, Dylan Marcal, Mike Mendes, Pat Murphy, Ryan Pina, Jordan Rezendes, Dwight Senna, Jules Tavares, and Nikko Vasconcellos. We are very proud of their teamwork, dedication, and sportsmanship. I am enclosing a proclamation by the town of Wareham and an article that further describes this important achievement. Town of Wareham--Proclamation by the Board of Selectmen Whereas, the Wareham High School Boys' Varsity Basketball team, known as the Vikings, have demonstrated exemplary sportsmanship and teamwork, and Whereas, their coach, Kevin Brogioli, along with the assistant coaches, parents and supporters, showed great faith and encouragement to the Vikings, and Whereas, the Vikings had scored 100 points or more in four games, averaging 87.8 points per game in the regular season, and had three players to reach 1,000 or more points scoring, and, Whereas, the Vikings beat Cardinal Spellman 78-71 to clinch the Division III South Sectional Championship, and Whereas, the Vikings defeated Bedford at the TD Bank Boston Garden 63-49 to become the Division III Eastern Champions, and Whereas, the Vikings defeated New Leadership of Springfield 80--57 at the DCU Center in Worcester; to capture the first Division III State Championship title for Wareham, Now, therefore, We, the Wareham Board of Selectmen, do hereby proclaim Saturday, March 13, 2010 through Saturday, March 20, 2010 as: ``STATE CHAMPION WAREHAM VIKINGS WEEK'' In Wareham, culminating with a Parade on Saturday March 20, 2010, to honor the young men and the coaches of Wareham Vikings Basketball team that have made this town so proud.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I ask your indulgence and that of my colleagues to celebrate two wonderful events: the 90th birthdays of two extraordinary women, each of whom has been very important in my life. We spoke often here about some of the problems people face as we age, and it's appropriate for public policy to be focused on that. But that can lead to an unfortunate impression of older people as always the objects of other people's help, and of the difficulties that they face. There is of course another side to that story--the satisfaction that comes to people who have led loving, productive lives, in which they have been of great service to others, and who are now able to enjoy their years and look both back and around at the people they have loved and nurtured. One of these two extraordinary women is Dorothy Golush, the widow of my Uncle Abe, who was one of my mother's older brothers. My mother was part of a remarkable family of three brothers and three sisters, children of immigrants, who created a warm, loving extended family. A few years ago, the four surviving siblings died within an eighteen month period, at ages ranging from ninety-two to one hundred and five. The one survivor of that generation, who is an inspiration for myself, my siblings and my cousins, is our Aunt Dot--who recently turned ninety. She is blessed with the vigor and acuity that has marked her life, and for me, it is a pleasure to come home after a long day here and pick up my phone and listen to a wonderful message of encouragement from her, after she's read about some particularly important piece of work that we have done. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to offer a Happy Birthday to Dorothy Golush, on behalf of all of us in the generation after her, who have so benefitted from her life. And while paying tribute to my aunt here, I also want, Madam Speaker, to pay tribute to a woman who is widely known in the Greater Newton area as ``The Godmother.'' Peg Hannigan will turn ninety this month. I regret very much that I am unable to be at the celebration of this event at the Scandinavian Home where she now lives on March 25, so I am sending this along in my absence. Peg Hannigan's political work began in 1947, when she got involved in John Kennedy's campaign for Congress. In the ensuing years she became an increasingly more important figure for those of us interested in political life. For cynics who believe that there is some conflict between political idealism and political practicality, Peg Hannigan is a living, breathing, absolute refutation. No one I have met in my own years in elected office has been more dedicated to the values of fairness that represent America at our best, and no one has been a more effective ally to those of us seeking elected office to promote this. I share with former Governor Michael Dukakis, former Attorney General Frank Bellotti, my predecessor, the late Robert Drinan, and a number of other people in elected office the status of being very much in her debt. Madam Speaker, I indulge myself personally by these comments, but they have a broader point as well: for young people who are skeptical that politics can be both a valuable and honorable way of spending one's time, Peg Hannigan's life is an extraordinarily valuable lesson and I hope that at least some people reading these words will be motivated to learn a little bit more about her, and even want to emulate her. Madam Speaker, through you I wish a very Happy 90th Birthday to two wonderful women.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I hope people will take note that there is not a correlation between the importance of what we do and the attention that what we do gets. This is not controversial because it is a product of genuine cooperation. I am delighted to be on the floor with my friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). A few years ago, along with him and the gentleman from California and our former colleague, the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Leach, we, frankly, beat the leaderships of both parties and the Clinton administration to get debt relief through. They've learned, so we don't have to fight so hard this time for a very important cause. I am very pleased to be joining in this wholly cooperative way in a morally compelled response to the problems of the people of Haiti. And I join in thanking the gentlewoman from California again, the gentleman from New York, and my colleagues on the other side from California and Alabama for letting us bring this forward. Various Members and their staffs have been congratulated, as they should be. It's not as easy to do the right thing as it sometimes seems; you want to make sure you get it done well. I just want to single out Daniel McGlinchey on the staff of the Financial Services Committee, who has been working at this for a long time, in cooperation with the others. This is a day in which the House can be proud, even if, because we're not yelling at each other, the press won't notice.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, mixed emotions describe the way I and the people of New Bedford feel about the retirement of Joseph S. Finnerty, as Executive Director of the New Bedford Housing Authority. Running a housing authority and a city is no easy job, as people well know. But Joe Finnerty has never been one to complain about this task for which he volunteered and which he has performed in an extraordinary fashion for thirty-five years. No one can begrudge him his retirement after all that service in such a demanding position, but Joe can't begrudge us our feelings of regret that he's leaving. As Executive Director of the Housing Authority, Joe Finnerty has served not just the residents of public housing, but all of the people of New Bedford, by the great contributions he has made to the quality of life for those residents and for the city as a whole. Madam Speaker, tomorrow, March 10th, some of Joe's close friends, who know well what an extraordinary asset he has been to the city and people of New Bedford, are gathering with him to provide a well-earned salute. As you know, our business will keep me here in D.C. at that time, so I am taking advantage of this forum to send him my best wishes, not simply personally, but because the example of a man who has dedicated so much of his life to the important job of running a public housing authority, and done it so well, ought to be held up for those who sometimes become unduly pessimistic about the good that can be done in government. And I ask that the article by Jack Spillane, from the New Bedford Standard Times, be printed here for that purpose. [Jan. 26, 2010] Retiring Housing Chief Looks Back on Reign With Pride (By Jack Spillane) Few people in New Bedford have positively affected more people's lives over the last 35 years than Joseph S. Finnerty. Entrusted with the housing care of thousands of low-income city residents since 1975, Joe Finnerty has presided over an era in which the city authority rebuilt much of its aging public housing stock, de-leaded more than 2,000 units, and put into motion rebuilding projects that will eventually make scores of housing units accessible to the disabled. Under the leadership of the 73-year-old Finnerty--who will retire at the end of this month--the New Bedford Authority has, for decades, provided stable and reliable housing for thousands of low-income city residents. But it's something else that Finnerty--a member of a political family long active in city and local Democratic politics--seems most proud of. During Finnerty's long tenure as executive director, the New Bedford Housing Authority did not lose any of its public units to market-rate housing. (Any apartments lost to demolition have been replaced by other units elsewhere in the city.) That's a monumental achievement in an era when housing rental rates far exceed the ability of people who work in minimum-wage jobs to afford any type of housing. Finnerty is a staunch defender of the need for government- sponsored public housing. ``I don't see why you don't want to provide housing that's affordable to people so that they can raise their families,'' he said. Public housing's biggest beneficiaries are the elderly, children and the disabled, he noted. ``It provides affordable rents so that a family is not struggling to maintain a decent environment.'' Finnerty's philosophy notwithstanding, it's not unusual to hear local complaints that New Bedford possesses too much government housing, that people are moving down from Boston because the housing is more affordable in New Bedford and Fall River. Finnerty says he doesn't understand the attitude. It would not be progress, he said, to return to the massive slum and tenement districts that blighted American cities in the 1930s and 1940s. ``We can do a lot better than that now, and we are doing better,'' he said. ``Public housing is no different than public health. It's no different than public transportation. It's a vital part of an urban community,'' he said. ``There are judges, university presidents and community leaders who grew up in public housing, or who for a significant time in their lives lived in public housing,'' he noted. And the cities, Finnerty said, take responsibility for most of the public-housing stock necessary to their surrounding towns and suburbs. (By and large, suburban communities have limited their public housing to elderly units, leaving their own low-income families and disabled to relocate in the cities.) Finnerty seems like a model for what a good, low-end, urban private landlord should have been. He touts the importance of mixing working tenants with non- working ones in public housing. And he was always a no- nonsense manager who made it clear to bad public-housing tenants that he would evict them. (He's even been consulted by private owners of low-income housing about how to keep developments safe and secure.) ``Public housing is not a right, it's a privilege,'' he said. Many public housing tenants are ambitious, working two jobs, and some eventually get themselves out of public housing, Finnerty said. ``People who live in public housing are not different. They are intelligent people. Their character is the same as the people who live in non-public housing.'' The job of a housing authority in a city the size of New Bedford (just short of 100,000 people at the last census) is not a small one. There are some 4,355 government-supported housing units in New Bedford that were either directly or indirectly under Finnerty's management--more than 2,500 federal and state units, and an additional 1.600-plus Section 8 vouchers for private housing. Finnerty, who worked for 13 years as a teacher and coach in the Fairhaven school system, originally thought he would preside over the housing authority for a comparatively short period. A political appointee of popular former Mayor John Markey, he thought he would return to public education, perhaps as a principal or superintendent. (Finnerty, by the way, was one of the founding members of the board that built Greater New Bedford Regional Vocational- Technical High School and is a former trustee at both UMass Dartmouth and Southeastern Massachusetts University.) But at the housing authority, Finnerty said there were always important projects proceeding and he wanted to oversee them to completion. ``I saw it (the public housing stock) as really an investment for the city,'' he said. ``And it was definitely needed.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, at my recent visit to a very important charitable organization known as Gifts to Give, in New Bedford, Massachusetts, I had a conversation with Dr. Steve Russell, who is the Superintendent of Schools in the town of Dartmouth. Gifts to Give, by the way, is an extremely creative organization that collects toys and other items important for children and distributes them to children in need. Stating it the way I have does not do justice to the extraordinarily creative, interactive organization known as Gifts to Give, and I am deeply impressed with the work of Jim Stevens, who has created something that benefits both the donors and the recipients alike, and gives people an extraordinary opportunity to engage in the most rewarding form of community service. During my conversation with Dr. Russell, he handed me a copy of an article that had appeared in Newsweek on February 15th, written by Barbara Pfeffer. In the article, Professor Pfeffer makes a compelling case, drawing on academic research as well as sound argument, that reliance on layoffs, as a way of dealing with short-term economic distress for companies, is not only socially damaging, but economically unwise as well. Madam Speaker, it is too long an article to be printed here entirely, so I did want to give a summary and to recommend that people read the entire article. Dr. Pfeffer notes that ``In the last decade, layoffs have become America's export to the world. At a conference in Stockholm a few years ago, business executives told me,'' she noted, ``that to become as competitive as America, Sweden needed to make it easier to lay people off . . . There are daily calls for European countries to follow the U.S. and make labor markets more `flexible.' But the more you examine this universally accepted tactic of modern management, the more wrongheaded it seems to be.'' Professor Pfeffer goes on to note ``that research paints a fairly consistent picture: layoffs don't work.'' And the article closes in a strong, coherent summary, ``Layoffs are mostly bad for companies, harmful for the economy, and devastating for employees . . . There is substantial research literature in fields from epidemiology to organizational behavior documenting these effects. The damage from overzealous downsizing will linger even as the economy recovers. . . .'' Madam Speaker, I thank Dr. Russell for calling this to my attention, and I commend to my colleagues a reading of this very important article.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, there is wide agreement that we should be taking tough measures to reduce the budget deficit. There appears at present to be a powerful myth that this can be done without attacking the biggest single area of increase in the federal budget in recent years, the military budget. The transition from the Clinton to the Bush administration, which meant a transition from a surplus to a deficit situation, had as its single most important cause a decision by President Bush to fight two wars with five tax cuts. While President Obama has not repeated that same pattern, his announcement that he is going to begin deficit reduction, while exempting the ever-increasing military budget from the same scrutiny that goes to other Federal expenditures, means either that deficit reduction in both the near and long term is either doomed to failure, or that devastating cuts will occur in virtually every Federal program that aims at improving the quality of our lives. I intend to work with many others to make the case that over the next 10 years we can save substantial amounts of money--a trillion or more of currently proposed expenditures--by reexamining some of the fundamental premises of American military policy. Some of those are based on Cold War assumptions--the need for three separate delivery systems for several nuclear weapons, which was designed in an era of confrontation with the Soviet Union. We also must suggest the notion that America can be the world's pacifier, policemen etc. Our security interest must be protected, and there are beleaguered nations threatened with hostile, foreign assaults where our support is justified. But our range of commitments goes far beyond that and must be scaled back. There are also obviously places where the current military budget can be cut, even before we begin to reduce the level of commitments. In the very useful publication Congress Daily for Monday, February 1st a thoughtful and experienced journalist, who is an expert on the military budget, George C. Wilson, cogently rebuts the President's assertion that military requirements mean that we cannot subject the huge and growing Pentagon budget to the kind of scrutiny that goes elsewhere. Note that Mr. Wilson is talking primarily about a budget aimed at the current level commitments. A serious review of those commitments, which should result in a reduction in their scope, would allow us to go much further in reduction, reaching the magnitude of savings that are needed for us to be able to have the military budget make a substantial contribution to deficit reduction. Madam Speaker, no issue before us is more important than the need for people to include a realistic assessment of military spending in any effort to reduce the deficit much less this year, or over the next ten. I ask that George C. Wilson's extremely well-argued article, which makes such an essential contribution in this debate, be printed here. [From the Forward Observer, Feb. 1, 2010] Fattest Lady Singing (By George C. Wilson) In declaring in his State of the Union address that he won't cut the Pentagon budget, President Obama is like a trainer telling the fattest lady in his class that she need not do her exercises. Why didn't Obama order the fat Defense Department to join the government-wide effort to reduce the deficit by killing off weapons that no longer make sense? Two-thirds of our casualties in the Iraq War were inflicted by hidden bombs that the bad guys set off by cell phones or other simple devices available at Radio Shack. Neither our new aircraft carriers costing $12 billion apiece nor our new F-22 fighter aircraft costing $350 million a plane can keep our troops from being killed or wounded by cheap improvised explosive devices. This doesn't mean that deficit cutters should cancel such super weapons willy nilly. More conventional wars than the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan may well be in America's future. But Obama and Congress should at least order Defense Secretary Gates and his deputies to justify every major weapon by explaining what red-hot threat out there justifies spending fresh billions on it. The GAO drew a good road map for conducting such a review last year in its devastating report on Pentagon cost overruns. Entitled ``Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs; the GAO studied 96 major weapons in 2008 and discovered that the contractors' original price tag had nothing to do with reality. The cost overruns on the weapons studied totaled $296.4 billion. Just making the contractors, not the taxpayers, eat their own cost overruns would reduce the deficit by almost $300 billion. Instead of making such a demand, Obama last Wednesday gave defense contractors, their overseers in the Pentagon and Congress a pass: ``Starting in 2011 we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will.'' Where is Congress in this supposed war against the deficit that Obama just declared? The Founding Fathers in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gave Congress the power to ``provide for the common defense,'' not the president. When are the lawmakers going to start cutting Pentagon programs like outrageously expensive warships, planes that soar over the price tags contractors originally put on them and missile defenses that have a lot bigger flaws than Toyota's stuck gas pedals? ``Never,'' is the answer I get from some of the walking wounded who fought in past battles of the Pentagon budget. They say any weapons, whether justified by today's threats or not, get protected by lawmakers as long as they provide jobs back home. Congress, these vets contend, to reassert its constitutional right to provide for the common defense, should deny money to produce any weapon before it is thoroughly tested; forbid congressional add-ons to the Pentagon budget unless CBO and GAO have determined what the pet project would cost and, if deemed worthy, conduct an open competition to build it; forbid any congressional staffer from vaulting to a job in the Pentagon or defense industry. Obama did take one step toward making congressional wheeling and dealing on add-ons more transparent by declaring in his address that ``I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there's a vote so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.'' That might help some but not much. Voters in the lawmaker's district or state might not object to getting earmarked for goodies. As one who has studied the military-industrial-political- intelligence complex for almost 50 years now from the front row seat a defense reporter gets, I think the deficit, unemployment, cost overruns on weapons that don't work and/or have nothing to do with winning the war against terrorists-- along with voter disgust with Washington's spending binge-- will eventually force the president and Congress to rein in their spending on dubious weapons. The overseers will realize that real national security means fixing the national economy, not letting the Defense secretary and Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps continue to drive the taxpayers to the poor house in Cadillacs. As one who spent seven and a half months on an aircraft carrier, let me fuel the eventual battle of the Pentagon budget by asking right here and now whether it makes sense in these economic times to build all three of the new carriers of the class named after the late President Gerald R. Ford. In its latest Selected Acquisition Report, the Pentagon projects that three of these Ford class carriers will cost a total of $35 billion, or almost $12 billion each. A pilot who really knows carriers from taking off and landing on them thousands of times told me that the bad guys could disable the carrier flight deck with comparatively cheap missiles or do what our own Navy frogmen have already done: Sneak aboard a carrier at night undetected by climbing up its steel sides on magnetic shoes. ``They can make it rain longer than we can swim; the pilot said of those bent on dethroning the queen of the Navy fleet.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I recently got some first- hand experience with the way in which the right-wing propaganda machine operates. The pattern appears to be to begin with a lie and then have that lie multiplied through an echo chamber that repeats it and repeats it. In this case, a man named John Fund, who is an editorial writer at the Wall Street Journal, one of the most right-wing of our publications these days, on the editorial page just told a lie about me in November of last year. He gave a speech at Restoration Weekend. I don't know what they were restoring, but it certainly wasn't respect for the truth. And he said, ``Democrats were very rattled by the November 3 election results. What do liberals do when they lose elections? They change the rules. In January, Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank will propose universal voter registration.'' ``There'll be felon reenfranchisement too.'' ``The Feds will tell the States, `Take everyone on every list of welfare recipients you have, take everyone on every list of unemployed you have.' '' It's a lie. He made it up. It's not even a misinterpretation. It's not a quote taken out of context. It is a total myth. There is no such bill. There wasn't in November. Then right-wing echo chamber picks it up. The Washington Times, the voice of the Reverend Moon, says, Schumer and Frank ``have plans to ram through legislation that will produce universal voter registration.'' And they say it will be on the floor of the House in 2 weeks. It's the lie repeated. Glenn Beck joined in. Rush Limbaugh joined in. This begins with a totally fictional accusation by John Fund with no basis whatsoever. It is then repeated by Glenn Beck and repeated by the Washington Times and repeated by Rush Limbaugh. None of them have checked what we were talking about, none of them seeing if it was accurate. I was asked by a constituent why I had done that. My response was, Done what? I didn't do it. So I checked into it, and I found that the source of this was Mr. Fund's totally irresponsible myth in November. So I wrote to Mr. Fund--and I put this letter in there--and said, I was puzzled to hear you say this. I checked. I now write to tell you that you are entirely wrong in your assertion about me, and in the absence of your being able to show any basis on which you made such a statement, to ask you to acknowledge that fact. He is not only a liar; he is a coward. He wouldn't do it. My staff member, Mr. Gural, asked him, called him up and said, Well, what was this based on? He said, Oh, I made a mistake. Well, have you issued a retraction? Mr. Gural asked him. Oh, yeah, he said. Can we see a copy? Mr. Gural reasonably asked. Oh, I told a couple of people. So here we are. Mr. Fund makes it up. It's a lie. It's a myth. There was nothing there. And it's to discredit all Democrats. His right-wing cohorts then echo it and echo it. The next thing you know, it's going to be coming on the floor in the House in 2 weeks. People hear it, and it's all over the blogs. This is the Democrats' disregard for the electoral process. And when we call Mr. Fund's attention to the fact that this was a lie, what does he say? Whoops. But he's not going to tell anybody about it. Mr. Speaker, this is not the only case of this. And I know this has happened before; but because I was directly involved here, I am in a position to document this. It begins with a lie from this editorial writer from the Wall Street Journal. It is then a lie repeated by all of his right-wing colleagues. And then when he is nailed in the lie, he simply blithely refuses to do anything about it. I hope people will take from this the lesson to be very skeptical when these right-wing propagandas--Limbaugh or Beck or the Washington Times or the Wall Street Journal editorial board--propagate these vicious smears. Partial Text of John Fund's Speech at Restoration Weekend November 21, 2009 Democrats were very rattled by the November 3rd election results. What do liberals do when they lose elections? They change the rules. In January, Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank will propose universal voter registration. What is universal voter registration? It means all of the state laws on elections will be overridden by a federal mandate. The feds will tell the states, ``Take everyone on every list of welfare recipients you have, take everyone on every list of unemployed you have, take everyone on every list of property owners, take everyone on every list of driver's license holders, and register them to vote regardless of whether they want to be.'' By the way, there'll be felon re-enfranchisement too. At that point, you have destroyed the integrity of the registration process. Now they will sell this very cleverly. They will say, ``Well, OK, ACORN did have some problems with voter registration. We shouldn't have these third party rogue groups out there. So let's put ACORN out of business. Let's register everybody.'' Now the problem, of course, is there are a lot of duplicates. And there are a lot of people on those rolls who are illegal aliens. It's not a clean list. They don't care. So, this is the issue you haven't heard about. There's a reason you haven't heard about it. They don't want you to hear about it. The path between the day this bill is introduced and the day it hits the House floor will probably be less than two weeks. Get ready for it. You can stop it. Don't get me wrong. But this is their stealth bill that is even more sneaky than the health care bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, on March 25th, when we will be in session I assume, an excellent organization known as Discovering Justice will present the Champion of Justice Award to a great advocate of fairness, Nonnie Burns. Nonnie Burns, I should say at the outset, is an old friend of many years, going back to the days when she was a strong supporter of mine when I first ran for the State Legislature in the Beacon Hill section of Boston in 1972. Since then, she has gone on to an extraordinarily distinguished career, first as an extremely respected judge in the Massachusetts trial courts, and then as the state's Commissioner of Insurance, a position from which she has since retired. Throughout her career as an attorney, judge and commissioner, Nonnie Burns has exemplified the legal profession at its best--namely in a commitment to seeing that justice is done for all. It is entirely appropriate that Discovering Justice, housed I should note in the Federal Courthouse in Boston named for our beloved late colleague Joe Moakley, is honoring her. Discovering Justice educates young people about the justice system and what they can do to make sure that it functions as it should. They run a particularly large program called Children Discovering Justice, which Nonnie Burns inspired and which she has championed. The program for children in grades 1-5 is taught in 25% of the public schools in Boston. Madam Speaker, I am proud to call Nonnie Burns a friend and grateful for the advice I have been able to get from her over the years. In particular, during her tenure as Insurance Commissioner, she was of significant value to those of us on the Financial Services Committee in her thoughtful and prompt responses to questions we had affecting insurance policy. I congratulate Discovering Justice for recognizing her value and presenting her with this award, which, as I noted, I will not be able to note in person because I will be here on the floor when the event goes forward.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, the assertion that the economic recovery bill, the stimulus bill, has created no jobs is, I must say, one of the least intellectually supportable statements I have heard on this House floor, and I've been here a long time. There's an argument about how much and how little, but no competent economist denies that it helped create jobs. Here's where we are: The fact is that the Obama recovery from the Bush recession has been going more slowly than many of us would like, but it is undeniable by every statistic it is going forward. Now, if you listen to my Republican colleagues, you learn that the third worst day in American history was January 21, 2009. The worst day, of course, was Pearl Harbor, and then we had the terrible mass murders of 2001. But to pick a day when there were no mass deaths, what was the worst day? January 21, 2009, because according to this debate, guess what happened on January 21, 2009? The Federal budget, which was apparently in surplus, all of a sudden punched into deficit. Unemployment suddenly appeared. The war in Afghanistan, by the way, was going wonderfully until January 21, 2009. There were no bailouts until January 21, 2009. Some of you may have thought they happened in September of last year, but, no, apparently it all started on January 21, 2009. And not only that--and I have to say I'm quoting my partner, Jim, here--it was one of the worst outbreaks of disease in American history. Mass amnesia seized the Republican Party on January 21, 2009. They forgot that the Bush recession started under President Bush in 2007, after they had controlled both the House and the Senate and the Presidency for the longest time. They forgot that the deficit had mushroomed under them. They forgot that trying to pay for two wars with five tax cuts was kind of a bad idea, and at least you shouldn't be surprised it resulted in a deficit. So what we are now doing is trying to undo that. And adults understand that you cannot go from a terrible decline to rapid increase without passing through a transitional period. We are passing through it by every economic statistic. Now, I agree the situation was worse than we thought, and it is getting better more slowly than we had hoped, but it is clearly getting better. And, again, if you listen to my Republican colleagues, the world began on January 21, 2009. I know some of them thought it started 4,000 years ago, and they didn't believe in evolution. I didn't think they thought it all started when Barack Obama became President. We do try here to help. I was astounded to hear the gentleman from Michigan say it hasn't created one job. Madam Speaker, tell that to the cops and firefighters in my district who were rehired because of this. Tell that to the people now working to clean up a Superfund site in my district which was funded by this bill. This denial of reality to evade responsibility for the dilemma we are in is breathtaking. So I want to congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin, who has been the most consistent advocate of social fairness and economic effectiveness that we've had, for a wonderful bill.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Yes.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I am very appreciative that two of the most constructive members of the committee, the gentleman from North Carolina and the gentleman from California, have been working together on this. We have a mix here of policy difference, but then also some technical questions. Clearly, there was a difference on whether or not auto dealers should get some kind of exemption. The majority of the committee felt that the auto dealer situation was such--I would think particularly because of the stresses they have unfairly been recently subjected to by the chaos of the auto industry--that they did deserve some. Once that question was resolved--I was in the minority on that, but it was resolved that they did--there were then technical issues about how to work it out. I am very pleased that two of our most thoughtful members are continuing a collaboration on this. The manager's amendment had some improvement in this situation that was mutually agreed to, and there is room, I believe, for further conversation and refinement. And so I just want to express, first, my appreciation, and secondly, my willingness, to the extent my role as Chair of the committee would be relevant, to try to effectuate what they work out.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank both of my colleagues. And the ranking member is exactly right in the concerns he has expressed, and that is why at the committee, the chairman of the subcommittee--Mr. Kanjorski and I tentatively agreed to this--we later heard some questions raised, in particular, someone I think for whom we all had an amount of respect, Denise Floyd Crawford, who's the longtime Texas securities administrator who really goes back four or five Texas administrations in a bipartisan way. And on behalf of the North American Securities Administration Association, she raised some concerns. And they were worried that this might, at some point, be too much of a delegation and therefore--and I appreciate the gentleman's comments--we agree with him that we do want to--our goal is to buff up investor protection. Clearly, there's a role for FINRA. I think we may have gone a little too far in what we accepted in committee. But we're not talking about getting rid of it altogether. So I appreciate the reasonableness of what the gentleman from Alabama has said. It will be our role next year, if this bill passes, to monitor the SEC. I look forward to oversight hearings to make sure they're using their authority. And particularly, how best to allow the SEC to draw on the resources of FINRA will be high on our agenda.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, I would say to my friend from New Jersey, I very much agree with what he said about credit rating agencies. For the record, I would like to make an assertion I know he agrees with, that when he talks about our agreement on the CRAs and the role of the CRAs, we are talking about the credit rating agencies, not the Community Reinvestment Act, the other CRA with which we deal. Sometimes people don't pay full attention, so I don't want to get anybody too agitated. Yes, he is exactly right. He and I, in fact, collaborated on the legislation to remove the statutory assertion. And I think he is also correct, we fully agree--I think there is virtually unanimity on it-- with the purpose he articulated, tell the average investor to pay attention on your own, don't rely on the rating agencies, don't subcontract your judgment to them. Frankly, I am frustrated. I would hope that people out in the economy would take advantage of the full legal rights they have to create some buy side rating agencies. I think that would be very helpful. We checked. There are no obstacles to doing it. I had some frustration that we weren't able to do more. I think we have done as much as anybody could think of. I've seen some newspaper articles that said, Why didn't you do more? But they were, not surprisingly, absent of any suggestion. So, yes, I think it would be better if we had buy side rating agencies. In the interim, we have at least told people, use your own judgment. But as the gentleman acknowledged--and I think we can work this out-- going forward, the problem we got was from a number of States and private institutions that have imbedded in their statutes the old language. And I am pleased the gentleman said let's work together. I think it would mean meeting with various State agencies and the pension funds to see if there is some legislative fix we could adopt short of going back to the old name, because I agree with him as to the purpose of changing the name so that we can alleviate this problem there. So with that, I would be willing to say there is no need for the amendment, given that we have an agreement. We will ask our hardworking and very creative staffs that can often work very well together to meet with those who have raised this issue to see if there is something else we could do that would meet their concern so they wouldn't have to all amend their statutes, et cetera. And with that, I think we have come to a conceptual agreement. And as is often the case, we, the Members, will come to a conceptual agreement and the staff will do all the hard work of making it a reality.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. In the 12 years of congressional Republican rule, they didn't do a thing about Fannie and Freddie. We did pass the bill the Bush administration asked us for in 2007. It was too late. But learning from that, we have language here that did not previously exist that bans the use of taxpayer funds, that bans the use of any funds to keep an institution going. So, yes, unlike the Republicans, who did nothing about Fannie and Freddie in that 12 years, never passed a piece of legislation, we passed a piece of legislation and it was too late, but we've learned from it. And there is binding language here that directly contradicts everything the gentleman from Texas says, but he is not easily fazed by that language.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman from Texas really doesn't have anything to say against this amendment, but his instinct overcomes that, so he has to say negative things. Among them, though, the most outlandish is his continued effort to blame unemployment on President Obama. President Obama inherited from President Bush a very serious recession. It turns out now the worst since the Great Depression. And it was begun officially by those who certified, the nonpartisan entities that do that, in December of 2007, after many years of Republican rule both in the House and the Senate and in the White House. Unemployment is decreasing now, and you don't go from very bad to perfect. But this effort to evade responsibility for the Republican policies that caused this recession is, as I said, one of the great examples of blame shifting. I have to say again we suffered a great disease outbreak on January 21, 2009. Mass amnesia hit the Republican Party. The huge deficit, the lack of regulation that had brought about our financial collapse, the millions of jobs lost. The administration with the worst job record recently is the Bush administration. And the Obama recovery is slower than I wish it would be, but it is clearly on the upswing. Secondly, the gentleman, to win his partisan points, will lash out at anything. Social Security, he announces now, is going bankrupt. Social Security, credited with all the money paid in, is sound for another 25 years or more. Frightening older people by the false claim that Social Security is going bankrupt is an example of partisanship run riot. What we also have is this reluctance to accept the fact that we have language that says nothing here can go to perpetuate these institutions. He's right. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the Republican Party----

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute. From 1995 through 2006, when the Republicans controlled this House and the Senate, they did no legislation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was the Republicans who didn't do it. The Republican House in 2005 passed a bill which the Republican Senate and the Republican President opposed. The chairman of the committee, Mr. Oxley, blamed them for doing it. In 2007, we did pass such a bill. And in 2004, it was President Bush unilaterally that pushed up substantially the affordable housing goals, including significantly for people under median income, which I opposed at the time. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to point out that the gentleman conveniently forgets to say that the opposition came from his own Republican leadership. Yes, he offered an amendment in 2005, the only time that the Republicans let a bill come up, and he was defeated with the overwhelming vote of the Republicans as well as the Democrats. I wanted some reform that preserved rental housing. Finally, in 2007, we in the majority passed a bill that was recommended. And in 2004, President Bush--and, yes, the affordable goals came in 1992--President Bush raised them from 42 to 54 percent over my objection. I thought it was imprudent and said so at the time. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).