Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, then reclaiming my time, and I ask unanimous consent that special debate time be allotted so the gentleman from Texas can debate the gentlewoman from Missouri because they seem to be undecided between them about it. So the question I have is, this amendment, as it was presented, says you can't pay the person whose job it is to stop excessive compensation at TARP recipients. Now, the gentlewoman from Missouri says it's not in there, that I've got a bad copy. Okay, so it is in here. So this amendment would say to AIG and General Motors and Chrysler and Ally, the financial company, no one will now be supervising what you do. And even though you haven't yet paid back the Federal Government, there will be no enforcement of restrictions on your bonuses, no enforcement of restrictions on your compensation. I should note, by the way, in the condemnation of these czar positions, one of the ones that's now vacant that they'd bravely get rid of is the senior advisor on the auto industry. That's one of the great successes of the Bush-Obama administration and transition. I would tell the gentlewoman that she should work it out with the gentleman from Texas and then come up with a joint answer. But I want to make my other point. One of the czars they are complaining about presided over a Bush- Obama transition policy that kept General Motors and Chrysler alive. We have auto industries flourishing in America and suppliers today. That was partly because of this position that's now vacant that they want to get rid of retroactively. Please explain to me what it means when you say you were going to deny the funds for the special master for TARP. I will yield to whoever wants me to yield. The gentleman from Kentucky. The gentlewoman from Missouri.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Excuse me. Does this have anything to do with cement? If you mention cement, I'm not yielding.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry. Hasn't the gentleman already spoken?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, being of an optimistic nature, I look for silver linings. So I welcome the fact that my colleagues on the other side have decided to adopt gender-neutral language, because a lot of the czars would have been called czarinas in the old days. So I appreciate the fact that we've gotten beyond sex stereotyping of people. Also, I guess they were in a little bit of a hurry. The gentlewoman from Missouri has spoken, the gentleman from Louisiana, and they listed the czars they didn't like. They overlooked one. Maybe it was hard to read. Here's one of the ones they want to eliminate. By the way, you notice that many of the ones they want to eliminate have already been eliminated. They're not there. So they are denying funding for nonexistent positions--climate change, healthcare.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I guess I am a dissenter in this orgy of self-congratulation, and I want to explain why. And I may not object if I have a chance to explain why, but if I can't explain, I have to object. So that is the choice. I either explain or object. I object not to the UC at this point, but to the self-congratulation that the majority is engaging in because they said they had such an ``open process.'' In fact, the refutation of that was best stated by the gentleman from Kentucky. He just said we have debated the whole government. Yes, we have--and very inappropriately. To debate the whole government and to debate fundamental policy issues under the guise of a budget, under the constraints of a budget debate and not three, not a whole week, 2\1/2\ days so far. Maybe we will get a third day. We have dealt with the most fundamental questions. In the jurisdiction of the committee on which I serve, issues came up under great constraint. The reform bill of last year has been damaged by what was done here. Fortunately, it will never become law. And we were constrained because we had to choose between the SEC and the IRS. That is not the way to legislate. This was not an open process. Yes, you could offer amendments. You could offer amendments in a very narrow compass. You could offer amendments according to the jurisdiction of subcommittees. The jurisdiction of subcommittees is somewhat accidental. It doesn't determine public policy. And, yes, we are talking about it now. We are boasting about debating the whole government. Did my colleagues listen to the UC? You will get to debate whole aspects of the government tomorrow for 10 minutes. We are the model of democracy. The next thing you know, they will be rioting in parts of the world so they can have 10 minutes per issue to debate fundamental issues. This is a travesty. I very much objected to this procedure. My leadership, for which I have great respect, had asked me if they could go forward. I am prepared to allow that because of some conditions. One is that I am confident that this awful, distorted, ill-thought-out process has produced a bill that will never see the light of day. And by the way, no one should be surprised. We are now going to recess after we finish with all of these other parts of the government in 10 minutes per issue, or up to an hour for a couple of important ones, 20 minutes for some only moderately important ones. The Senate will then get this with 4 days left before it expires. No one realistically thinks this is going to happen. So perhaps some of the constituencies were mollified by this show; but I want to stress again, this has been awful procedure. The gentleman from Kentucky is right: we have debated the whole government, fundamental issues that go far beyond budgetary issues in 3\1/2\ days. We will have debated fundamental issues in 10 minutes. This is openness? This is a travesty of the democratic process. So, Mr. Speaker, because I have been given a chance to explain why I think this is a terrible process, why I am going to say now I don't expect the Senate to accept this. We will have to come back and do it again. There will have to be, I assume, a short-term extension. I want to give notice now to all parties, I will object strenuously at every procedural opportunity to any effort to repeat this travesty. So with respect to the ranking member and to the minority whip and the minority leader and to others and to people who have worked so hard and to the poor long-suffering staff, yes, I will remove my reservation, and I will not object. Having made it clear, once the Senate gives this awful product an appropriate burial, I will not be a party to its resuscitation. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for giving me the chance to go early. I particularly want to speak now because when we voted the second time on the Patriot Act, the first time I did vote against the extension, but the second time I missed the vote--my fault--but I want to make clear my opposition not to an extension of the basis of self-defense that we have here but of passing it unchanged and of failure of the legislative process. We knew this date was coming. To extend this now--and the gentleman from Texas laments the fact that we were unable to do it indefinitely without a chance to amend it. When the bill came up twice before, there was in neither case a chance to offer amendments. There isn't today; twice on suspension, once in a closed rule. To be presented with either/or on this is a bad idea. There are things that could be improved. There are areas where there are excesses. We have gone through a lot of symbolic activity in the legislative process this year--the vote to repeal the health care bill, a vote reaffirming that we would do oversight, which we have been doing and which is our duty--time that could have been spent in committee, working on a process, offering people a chance to amend so we could-- would not, for the third time, be confronted by the majority with up- or-down, an unchanged Patriot Act. Of course we are supportive of continuing our ability to defend ourselves but not without some refinement, not without some look and say, yes, there are ways we could do this that are more respectful of the liberties of the average American but would not endanger in any way our national security. For the third time, we are being denied a chance to do this; and I, therefore, will join my colleagues in opposing this, not because we don't want to see any extension at all but because we want a chance to work on it so we can do an extension of much of this act but with some improvements.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I welcome this amendment. I am struck when I hear some of my colleagues on the more conservative side, although this is not uniformly them, some on the conservative side are offering this amendment. We have this interesting dichotomy about whether or not the Federal Government can ever create jobs. In general, the conservative view is the Federal Government never creates jobs. In the military area, somehow there's an exception. We are told here that there is a constructive relationship that can exist between small businesses and the military that we are told doesn't exist elsewhere; but the major reason for cutting this is we are, at this point, overextended militarily. Of course, there is unanimity here that we want Americans to be the strongest Nation in the world. We are of course the strongest Nation in the world, and no one is second. We are overcommitted in a number of areas. The military has become not the instrument of self-defense by the United States, but the instrument to protecting political influence, and protecting influence militarily is often inefficient so that reducing this spending, as reducing other forms of military spending, is essential if we are to begin to hold down the deficit. Now, I am going to be talking tomorrow, and we're only talking in military terms of half a billion dollars. In terms of the defense budget, that appears to be relatively small, but it is more than enough than would be needed to fund the Security and Exchange Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission at the full level they need to regulate derivatives and hedge funds. We have a massive disproportion in which we overspend militarily far beyond what is needed to protect ourselves. Our military budget is the largest foreign aid program in the history of the world. It exists to provide subsidies to our wealthier allies who face no threat. And to the extent that we can reduce that, particularly in an area where the Defense Department itself did not even ask for the funds, we curb unnecessary spending. As I said, tomorrow I will be offering an amendment to try to give the Securities and Exchange Commission the ability to regulate hedge funds, or at least to keep track of them. We will be trying to offer funding to protect consumers from credit card abuse and trying to provide funding to regulate derivatives. Taken together, those three agencies are being cut by an amount smaller than one-half billion, and we will be told that we can't afford that. So I welcome the gentleman pointing out the inconsistency between those who say that the private sector should be left to its own and the public sector does not become the job creator here in this way, and I welcome also the chance to begin, as I will be supporting the amendment of the gentleman of Arizona, this massive disproportion in which we overspend militarily. And I say ``overspend,'' because it is far beyond what is needed for the legitimate defense of the United States. It has become a form of staking our political interests, and it comes at very great cost to virtually everything else we want to do, as well as constraining the deficit reduction. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be the Representative in this House of the Myrtle Baptist Church, an extraordinarily important congregation which has served predominately, but not exclusively, the African-American community in the City of Newton, Massachusetts since the 19th century. Myrtle Baptist has played an important role in the racial progress we have made from those post- slavery days to the present, and while that fight has not yet been won permanently, the leadership that Myrtle Baptist has provided in the City of Newton and the Greater Boston area has contributed significantly to the progress that has occurred. Ninety years ago, under the pastorate of the Reverend Wade Ryan, the Church saw the establishment of the Daughters of Myrtle, which was formed with the mandate ``to serve the Church and community spiritually and financially.'' Mr. Speaker, they have done that extraordinarily well. From a group of committed churchwomen who were picked by the Reverend Ryan to help with the preparation of the service for Northern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting, DOM rapidly evolved into a vital part of a vital church. Today, ninety years after its founding, DOM in their words continues ``to sponsor events at the Church and have broadened our service to include helping those in need throughout our community via outreach efforts such as supporting local women's shelters, conducting annual pamper drives, and contributing to book drives for children's wards in various metropolitan Boston hospitals.'' Mr. Speaker, I recently had the great honor of being invited to attend an inspirational worship service at which the torch was passed from Pastor Howard M. Haywood, who has for years been a pillar of the Newton community, to a new, vigorous pastor, whose presence has been greatly welcomed, Pastor Brandon T. Crowley. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the work of the Daughters of Myrtle is an inspiration from which many in our country can learn, and I ask that the 90th Anniversary of this important organization be noted here.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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----

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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.