Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I must have misplaced the bill. Should I look for a number that I hadn't seen? If the gentleman wants to do it, why haven't you?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank my colleague who does an excellent job in chairing the subcommittee. While the author of this amendment and myself both serve on the Financial Services Committee, I think I can say that on a bipartisan basis over the years, the Financial Services Committee has shown a lot of support for this program and for improving it. The gentleman cites some unexpended balances, but here's the problem. There's kind of a catch-22 here. If program money is spent too rapidly and it is then spent inefficiently, there is criticism. What has happened with HOPE VI is that in response to some legitimate criticism, some controls were proposed to slow things down. This money ultimately gets spent, but it gets spent in a way that is less likely to be abused. It is also the case that there is a kind of ``you lose either way'' argument made against public housing. Often the criticism is in that public housing warehouses people in large projects that do not have the capacity to provide a decent living environment. HOPE VI is an effort to preserve the units, because we do have a shortfall for family public housing in many parts in the country, not in all, but by redoing the projects to remove the stigma that has attached. And if you get rid of the HOPE VI program, you then abandon the notion that you are going to go to existing public housing to try to make it more livable and less concentrated. Now, that's not an easy thing to do. We've been working, again, in a bipartisan way on ways to improve that, to bring in other services, to coordinate how you do it. But to simply shut the program off is, I think, to say to the people who live in the public housing that was built inappropriately--the residents didn't build it, society built it and put them there. It would say, We are abandoning any effort to improve the liveability of where you are, and also then make them more vulnerable to criticism and build opposition to the whole notion, when the alternative is to make the living conditions better for the people in the surrounding communities.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Would the gentleman yield again?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman offered a resolution to the committee I chair. We passed it out unanimously. The gentleman knows he has always gotten a fair hearing in our committee. But I can't listen to what he doesn't say.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman yield? He wouldn't be in charge of the other one. You and I can work it out. So come to me about Wall Street and we'll make a deal.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, Congress is currently facing the choice of whether to support or hinder the efforts of President Obama and Secretary of Defense Gates to bring some sense of rationality to the military procurement process. In spite of the enormously difficult budget situation we find ourselves in, both short- term and long-term, this House recently approved legislation authorizing the procurement of twelve additional F-22 fighter planes at an initial cost of $369 million, which if completed would carry an expected final price tag of $2 billion. With President Obama threatening a veto should this provision remain in the final version of the Defense Authorization bill, this issue will likely require the further consideration of all Members in the coming months. In this regard, I am submitting into the Record an article written by Lawrence Korb and Krisila Benson, published on July 9, 2009 in The Philadelphia Inquirer. I particularly appreciate the stress that these writers place on two key points. First, that these additional fighter planes are entirely unwanted by Secretary Gates, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley, and Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz. They are not even on the Air Force's list of unfunded requests, described in the article as ``items excluded from the budget for which [the Air Force] would nevertheless like funding--a wish list of sorts.'' The other important point, which explains the Department of Defense's lack of interest in further planes, is that the F-22 was ``designed to fight next-generation Soviet fighters that never materialized,'' and is of no help in addressing the air-to-ground challenges we are facing now and are likely to face in the future. For example, the F-22 is entirely unsuitable for the irregular warfare and counter-insurgency operations we are facing in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is why it has seen no action whatsoever in either of these conflicts. Furthermore, with no other rival to its air-to-air supremacy either existing or in development, there is no serious support for the claim that the 187 F- 22's that have already been approved would be inadequate for any reasonable contingency. I strongly encourage Members to read this informative article. A Jet Even the Military Doesn't Want (By Lawrence Korb and Krisila Benson) Congress decided to end production of the costly F-22 Raptor fighter jet at 187 planes after a debate on the 2009 supplemental war budget last month. But the very next day, the House Armed Services Committee stripped $369 million for environmental cleanup from the fiscal 2010 budget to fund an additional 12 F-22s. The Senate Armed Services Committee went a step further, providing $1.75 billion for seven more F-22s without clearly identifying the source of funds. The F-22 costs nearly $150 million per plane--twice what was projected at the outset of the program. Factoring in development costs, the price tag increases to about $350 million per plane for the current fleet of 187. It may look as if the House Armed Services Committee has added ``only'' $369 million. But given that it would provide funds for 12 additional F-22s, each with a price tag of $150 million (excluding development costs), the real cost to American taxpayers would be about $2 billion. The F-22 is the most capable air-to-air fighter in the Air Force inventory. Yet it has only limited air-to-ground attack capabilities, which makes it unsuitable for today's counter- insurgency operations. In fact, the F-22 has never been used in either Iraq or Afghanistan. It was designed to fight next- generation Soviet fighters that never materialized, and, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates has noted, it is nearly useless for irregular warfare. The F-22 has no known enemy. It is the most advanced fighter plane in the world, and there are no other planes that could threaten its supremacy in air-to-air combat. The United States already has 187 F-22s on hand or on order--a silver-bullet force that is more than adequate to deal with any likely contingency. In fact, Gates said that even if he had $50 billion more to spend, he would not buy any more F- 22s. The Air Force leadership itself no longer supports continued production of the F-22. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz have publicly said they would prefer to move on. The plane is not in the Defense Department's proposed budget for fiscal 2010 (which begins in October). It's not even on the Air Force's list of unfunded requests, which consists of items excluded from the budget for which it would nevertheless like funding--a wish list of sorts. Why are congressional committees willing to override the military and civilian leadership of the Pentagon on the F-22? The latest in a string of arguments offered by proponents in Congress is the need to protect our industrial base--as if our technical capacity to develop and produce fighter planes is in immediate, grave danger. This argument overlooks the fact that the Obama administration's fiscal 2010 budget includes 28 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters--planes better suited for air-to-ground combat. Moreover, as has been noted by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, the era of producing manned aircraft is coming to an end. Mullen correctly points out that there will be a shift toward unmanned aircraft. The F-22 is not an isolated case of unnecessary congressional equipment purchases. Congress has added $2.7 billion to the 2009 supplemental budget to buy more C-17 and C-130 aircraft--planes neither requested nor needed by the Defense Department. It also added $600 million to the 2010 budget for an unneeded alternate engine for the F-35, which will mean buying 50 fewer aircraft. An administration policy statement issued on June 24 said the president's senior advisers would recommend a veto of a bill containing funding for more F-22s. If the entire Congress approves either of the armed services committees' recommendations on the F-22, President Obama should indeed veto the bill. Only then will Congress get the message that in this era of exploding national debt, we cannot waste billions on unnecessary military equipment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would yield.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue my remarks which are that we have a--Mr. Speaker, let me amend what I said. Let me amend what I said and refer to those thin-skinned Members with Senate envy. Mr. Speaker, the point is that the point of order is necessary to disallow filibuster by reading a nongermane amendment that could last for hours. That is why I speak in support of the point of order.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate that. I take back my time to explain to the gentleman, I wasn't questioning his credentials except on his earmark. Everybody is entitled to a little earmark. I'm sorry, I did not yield again. I said the gentleman made cuts elsewhere. I wasn't saying that the gentleman didn't vote for cuts; I was refuting his notion that liberals don't vote for cuts. I have voted for many cuts, including to bring down the overall budget. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman need an instruction on the rules of the House?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The point is that the gentleman used up his time unwisely. He should have reserved a little time; he didn't do it. That is the way it goes. The fact is that alleviating poverty overseas, going to the aid of children who will die of measles, who will die of diarrhea and who will die of these other illnesses, it is a far better use of our money morally and also in terms of national security because I repeat again what Secretary Gates and what Colin Powell have said, what sensible military leaders have said, a much smaller amount of money spent in these ways on sensible efforts to alleviate the miserable conditions that lead to support for terrorism, not the terrorists themselves, is a very good way to preserve the national security much more cheaply in terms of human lives and in terms of money than a purely military solution. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the logic of this point of order being in order now is that in the alternative, those Members who suffer from Senate envy could write a 700-page nongermane amendment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I welcome this amendment from the gentlewoman from Texas and the gentleman from Illinois. The Chair of the subcommittee, who does a great job, said that the administration says this is constitutional and not substantive, and I've been told by Treasury they intend to abide by them. That's not good enough. Let me give my constitutional friends over there another constitutional lesson: They won't have anything to put a signing statement to if we don't pass it. I was asked by the administration and worked hard to get that money for the IMF with some reasonable conditions. There are some things in there that make sure that it ends the previous IMF practice of being unfair to low-income people. The notion that the administration can take the money and pick and choose what it wants to do with the conditions is unacceptable. So let me say, as chairman of the committee that authorizes these and as someone who works closely with the appropriators in doing it, if the administration does not withdraw this claim that they can ignore conditions we put on it, then they will have nothing to ignore because there won't be any conditions and there won't be any money. And that's right there in the Constitution. I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would only make one correction. We do this--I'm sure he agrees with me, it's a wording change--we do this not on behalf of this institution, but literally on behalf of democracy, on behalf of the process by which people get elected and deliberate and do this. And there is a kind of a unilateralism, in an undemocratic, unreachable way, to these signing statements that is the opposite of what we do here. So I thank the gentleman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentlewoman. As I listened to the gentleman from Texas, I recall these ferocious debates we have had, led by a true fiscal conservative, the gentleman from Arizona, as he assailed earmarks. And I heard the gentleman from Texas's voice in the earmarks debate. But then I realized I was a little confused: he was defending his earmark. So the gentleman's ferocity on behalf of fiscal conservatism does not extend, apparently, to every earmark, including his own. Now I understand that. But it did seem to me a little inconsistent with the uncompromising ferocity of his rhetoric. The gentleman does not come here with quite the credentials as, for instance, the gentleman from Arizona. As to the money here being spent, I would say this: the gentleman said, Where will we cut? I would like to cut the F-22 spending which we no longer need. I supported the President's proposals for cuts in agriculture spending. This notion that it is always the liberals who want to spend and the conservatives who don't want to spend is fallacious. When it comes to unnecessary Cold War weapons and when it comes to American troops being stationed overseas in countries where they should be able to defend themselves, you know, we could save a lot more money overseas by telling our wealthy allies that it is time for them to defend themselves. That is a lot better, in my mind, than cutting a much smaller amount of money that goes to feed poor children and that goes to prevent preventable deaths in the health care areas. And it would also save us because there has been the correct perception by a whole range of people, including Secretary Gates, including Colin Powell, a number of distinguished Republicans who have served in national security positions, that it is far better to spend money sensibly to avoid the kind of social conditions that don't cause terrorism, the terrorists are sick people with no justification, but it makes support for them. It recruits for them, and we should be undercutting their recruiting by these kinds of things. The gentleman almost sneeringly said, well, it is global environmental, let's be national. Well, it may pain the gentleman, but it is kind of hard to confine the environment to the borders of the United States. The environment does not respect borders. So if you want to deal with the environment, it has to be done globally. Many of us feel, in fact, that it would be a grave error for us to go ahead with tough climate issues here unless we also did them internationally. I was very proud, along with Spencer Bachus and Jim Leach and Maxine Waters, at the urging of the late Pope John Paul the Second and others to do debt relief for the poorest countries in the world, to take money that would otherwise go to pay off debts and give it to the poor children and to health care, and this would threaten that kind of problem. So the half a billion dollars here, it pales in comparison, not in general because it is a lot of money, but to money spent on unnecessary Cold War weapons, on money that goes for agricultural subsidies to farmers who do not need it, on sending human beings to Mars. I don't know how the gentleman plans to vote on that. I plan to vote, if that comes up, against that.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the floor.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. And I want to say that the gentleman from New York has been a very articulate advocate for the very important functions of the financial community in New York in which many of the people in his district live, and he is very well informed about it. We agree with him, myself and members of the Financial Services Committee and the Agriculture Committee. Chairman Peterson, the gentleman from Minnesota, and I have worked with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). And we have the agreement he alluded to. We are hard at work on a comprehensive, and I believe responsible, proposal for regulation of financial derivatives in their entirety. And it will, under the terms of this bill, become the operative word. So what we have here is a placeholder to tell Members we are aware of it. Earlier today, Chairman Gensler of the CFTC and Chairwoman Shapiro, in case we didn't have enough chair people in this, met with Mr. Peterson and myself. I am optimistic that we will have a proposal that responsibly, appropriately and toughly regulates derivatives without doing them harm. The gentleman is to be congratulated for making sure that that will be what will be in the bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I will take back my time. You now have the answer, listening to the gentleman address myself, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Markey and Mr. Peterson, to that age-old question of how many chairmen does it take to answer a colloquy? I ask the gentleman from Massachusetts for 1 additional minute to finish the response to the colloquy.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will acknowledge that. I was in error, and I apologize. It had been reported to me that there were votes against it, so I apparently got bad information. And I thank the gentleman for that futile gesture on my behalf.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman yields me time, I will. Secondly, we are told that we have to deal with the deficit. The President made a beginning in trying to curtail military spending on weapons he said we do not need. If this bill goes through, as it apparently will, because we could not even debate it, his efforts will be undercut. The floodgates will be open, and any effort to have reasonable constraints on military spending, as we have on police and fire and emergency medical and other things that are important for health and safety, will be undercut. This is a terrible decision and a terrible precedent. Of course, to add injury to injury, they did it by taking money out of environmental cleanup.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember the last time I was as deeply disappointed in the actions of people with whom I generally agree and continue to admire as I am by this rule. President Obama, to his credit, has become the first President to try to put on to military spending the same kind of notion that resources are limited that people apply elsewhere. Military spending, in which old threats are continued to be dealt with while new threats are dealt with, make it impossible for us to talk about curtailing a deficit without doing damage elsewhere. To his credit, President Obama and Secretary Gates said we do not need to build more F-22s. It was conceived to defeat the Soviet Union in a war. It's over. It's a wonderful weapon. It just has a terrible defect for a weapon--no enemy, no military mission. It will never be fired in anger. It is bad enough that the committee, by only a 31-30 vote, undercut this President's effort to begin to apply fiscal discipline everywhere. Sure, military is important, but health care is important and highway safety is important and local police are important. All of those impinge on our life and all must be dealt with in discipline in the fiscal area, except military gets a pass. I was particularly disappointed when the Rules Committee, because of some in the leadership, decided not even to allow us to debate it. A major initiative of the new President to curtail excess military spending is overturned by one vote in committee, and we are not even allowed to debate it. And I have to say to my Republican friends, it is clear to me that their interest in open debate is very selective. They are for openly debating anything they want to debate, but they were opposed to this amendment coming on as well. So there's no consistency or principle of: Let's have open debate. It's: Let's get what we want and let's forget about the rest. It has been said that truth is the first casualty of war. Apparently, intellectual integrity and logical consistency are the first casualties of a military bill. I heard Members say a few months ago, Oh, an economic recovery program. Federal spending can't bring jobs. Federal Government spending adds to the deficit. It doesn't bring jobs. Lo and behold, the F-22 became a jobs bill. It's what I call weaponized Keynesianism. Only if you're building weapons, particularly weapons that will never be used, is there a stimulative effect in the economy.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield back the balance of my time.