Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the dean of the House and a great expert over time on the auto industry, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 1 minute to another long-time distinguished expert in the field, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to note that I am surprised to hear my friend argue that the bankruptcy courts have more automotive expertise and engineering and finance and industrial policy expertise than is present in the whole Bush administration. I think he is too pessimistic about that and too much supportive of the bankruptcy process. Second, I would also just recall the very thoughtful remark of our colleague from Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee, who noted that those who thought bankruptcy was a disaster for mortgages appear to see it as a panacea for automobiles. Many of us fail to see how that transformation took place. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Detroit (Ms. Kilpatrick). (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1534, I call up the bill (H.R. 7321) to authorize financial assistance to eligible automobile manufacturers, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we consider this bill in a context, a context framed by the report last Friday of a massive loss of jobs in the American economy. This economy is in the worst shape that it has been in since the Great Depression. We are facing a double hit, a credit crisis brought on by a variety of factors, but resulting now in a serious lack of confidence on the part of investors and a deterioration in the physical parts of the economy, which have combined to cause a serious, deep recession. That is relevant because there have been suggestions that we could afford to allow the three domestically owned auto companies to founder, that there are other sources of automobiles, that they could be required to declare bankruptcy, to, therefore, not pay suppliers, to cut back substantially on money owed dealers, to reduce by large amounts the workforce and the compensation of the workforce, to take one of the major factors of the American economy and substantially reduce its economic impact. I think that would have been a mistake in any economic period, but to contemplate the severity of that blow to our economic activity at this time is to invite further deterioration of an economy that has already deteriorated beyond what people expected and beyond what the American people ought to have to tolerate. The bill is a limited bill. It is the product of a compromise, the terms of which were largely dictated by the President of the United States. I am struck, Mr. Speaker, by the lack of confidence that has been expressed on the Republican side of this House, not in the auto industry, but in George Bush and the people he has and will appoint. The amount of money here, $15 billion, is a loan. It is a loan far more likely to be repaid than many of the much larger amounts that the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve, working with them, have advanced to Citigroup and AIG and the number of other entities. It is $15 billion because the President said no new money, not even money from the $700 billion troubled assets fund, the TARP. This Congress voted a month or two ago, 2 months ago, to advance $25 billion to the auto industry to promote innovation, which everyone agrees is necessary. It wasn't just to the Big Three, it was to any applicant who was going to use this money to try to innovate. The President said, to our dismay, he would veto any legislation trying to keep the auto industry out of bankruptcy that used any funds other than that $25 billion that had already been voted for that purpose. The Speaker, to her credit, resisted what I think was a strong temptation to engage in a dispute with the President that would have killed any effort to get legislation and instead, perhaps to his surprise, she agreed with him and said we would live with that constraint. So the amount of money that is here is both in amount and, in short, exactly what George Bush wanted. This is an amount of money that George Bush told us we could make available. We have made it available in a form that makes it overwhelmingly likely that it will be repaid. It is a loan with the American Government in a super senior position in terms of repayment and where there were some potential problems with that because of clauses in other agreements, heavy collateral. So this $15 billion is very likely to be returned if the program fails. That's the worst case. We will have advanced $15 billion, we will get it back in 3 months because disaster cannot be averted, but we are not willing to say that disaster cannot be averted without trying. What this bill then says is the President of the United States, George Bush, shall designate an administration official to preside over a process of hard negotiation with all of those who have a share in this industry, the companies, of course, the bondholders, the workers, the suppliers and the auto dealers, and make it clear to them that if they are not willing and able to come together and reduce costs and put in place a program that makes it possible to envision a future in which more efficient cars are made and sold with a great likelihood of success, then not only will there be no more money than the $15 billion, but the $15 billion will have to be repaid. Well, apparently my Republican colleagues, again, do not think that the Bush administration has within its ranks anyone capable, with all the help that they have been given, of beginning that process. Some have said, no, make them go bankrupt. There is nothing about bankruptcy that cannot be accomplished within the framework we have said except the ability to unilaterally say ``no'' to this or that class of people who are owed money. All of the powers that you could accomplish in reorganization in a bankruptcy are given here, and the enforcement power is that the money will be withdrawn if this is not done and the entities will collapse. We have provisions in here that make it impossible, if the Bush administration and then the Obama administration coming after them, say so to have money that was, in part, provided by the American taxpayer, used to finance activity in other countries. That doesn't mean American investors should never be in other countries. It does mean that taxpayer dollars made available in these circumstances shouldn't go to other countries. Then the question is, then, well, why the haste? We are hastily reacting to very fast-moving events. A month ago it did not appear that the car companies would be in such dire straits. Car companies all over the world have been hurt by the credit crisis. Automobiles are paid for by credit. As credit has tightened up substantially, and as people have lost their jobs, there has been a greater than anticipated fall off in auto sales. Of course, the auto companies have made mistakes in the past, a lot of people in the industry have, including consumers. But we find that the rapid deterioration in the general economy, it hasn't caused the problem for the automakers, but it has exacerbated them and greatly shortened our time horizon. This bill is intended to keep them from going bankrupt between now and March 31. It does it in a way that will allow us to recapture the money if that effort fails. It does express the belief that, done properly, in conjunction with other things, things that could unstick the credit market, funds that we hope will be made available under the troubled assets program to auto dealers, who have a very real claim here, and we will be pushing for a program that will include them and funding be made available. Several Members of this House have spoken out strongly in favor of doing that. We believe it is possible, and likely, that as the economy gets better, and as they continue the movements they have already made towards cars that are likely to sell and be more energy efficient, that we can survive this. There are some Members who have consistently opposed any intervention, but this administration sent over $100 billion to AIG. Citigroup has been the recipient of very large amounts of money. I do not understand how people can have not made any effort to undo the administration's intervention with AIG, well over $100 billion, and then try and stop about one-seventh of that sum as a loan to the auto companies. Yes, credit and finance are important, but the physical work done by working class and middle-class Americans in auto companies, in car dealerships, in the small businesses that are other suppliers, cumulatively, are just as important. To give up now on the auto industry would be to condemn the American economy at one of its most vulnerable periods in our economic history to a degree of further hurt, and the American people deserve better. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, December 10, 2008. Hon. Barney Frank, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Frank: This is to memorialize the provisions in H.R. 7321, the ``Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act,'' that fall within the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. In particular, there are several provisions in section 12(d) and (e) that alter the normal operation of the bankruptcy laws; section 19(c) provides the annual cost-of-living salary adjustment for the federal judiciary: and section 19(d) precludes private antitrust suits regarding certain consultations between a covered automaker and its employees, dealers, suppliers, and creditors. In agreeing to be discharged from further consideration of the bill, in order that it may proceed without delay to the House floor for consideration, the Judiciary Committee does not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter contained in this or similar legislation. We also reserve the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this important legislation, and would ask your support if such a request is made. I would appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to this request, and for the cooperative relationship between our two committees. Sincerely, John Conyers, Jr., Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, at the outset I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this bill and include extraneous remarks and material thereon.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, who has been, as I can personally testify, the most ardent advocate in responding to this automobile crisis, Mr. Levin.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The provision of the bill that gives the authority or the ability to veto any $100 million grade of investment or any $100 million impact decision includes the right to say ``no'' to a closure or to move the plant somewhere else, and it is primarily designed by us to ensure against the possibility that the taxpayer dollars being lent to them would be used to facilitate movement to other parts of the world where even the gentleman from California would agree that they would not be American.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, a bonus would be in addition to compensation, and it could be in Crown Victorias, or it could be in stock, or it could be anything else. And of course we do empower the administrator to be appointed by the President. I did want to comment briefly. The gentleman from Virginia, apparently, once again, no confidence in the President. The President is given the power, under this bill, to appoint someone with great power, and he says things need to be done in a few days and apparently doesn't trust George Bush to do it. But the answer is that the bill does empower those restrictions to be any kind of compensation.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes. I would have to demur from being the author. I do want to give equal billing to my coauthor, George W. Bush. But having said that, I do believe that we agree that the provision has exactly the meaning the gentleman says, to prevent a closure or anything else of that sort.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, we vote on bills. They write them.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We are in a crisis. They were having problems. Like a lot of other entities in America, including the job market in general and banks, the deterioration has been more rapid than anyone had anticipated. And, yes, they now face the potential of financial collapse more quickly than anticipated. If we had known in September what we knew today, we could have begun acting back then. What we are doing is an interim measure. Fifteen billion dollars is a short-term fix, $15 billion that will be repaid. It's not the hundreds of billions that we talk about with Citigroup or the over $100 billion that we talk about with AIG, it's a lot of money, but it's money that will be repaid. It gives us a chance, particularly the new administration and this Congress to figure out what can be done. If by March 31 it is clear that pessimism has prevailed and nothing can be done, we will get the $15 billion back. But, finally, as to the rule, my understanding when I went up to testify before the Rules Committee, I was told there was one amendment that had been offered by the minority, and it has been made in order, and I plan to vote for it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we are about to see the great majority of Republicans deliver both orally and then, by their votes, a stunning vote of no confidence--but not in the automobile industry--in the Bush administration. This is a bill that was brought forward in consultation with President Bush and his chief aides. The funding mechanism here is one that was insisted upon by the President. The amount of money and the source of the money complied entirely with the wishes of the Bush administration. Now, one set of questions raised about this bill has to do with the administration of the TARP Program, once again, by the Bush administration. I believe that is too harsh. I believe we would have been worse off had we not passed that. Yes, I have some criticisms of it, but let's be very clear. This bill takes the Bush administration's proposal about how to fund this, and in turn gives to the Bush administration now, if it becomes law, significant power to begin the process of restructuring the automobile industry. As I said, much of what we heard is a lack of confidence in this administration. Now, we were told that it's going to put a lot of taxpayer money at risk. My friend from California said don't pick winners and losers. Well, may I ask then, Mr. Speaker, how we would characterize the decision to give well over $100 billion to AIG? Were they not a winner in this? If they were a loser, I should be such a loser at $100 billion. Six plus times as much money as being authorized here to be lent to the auto industries was lent to AIG. Is there a certainty that the auto industry is going to pay it back? No, no more than there is with AIG. In fact, I think a little bit more. But AIG, that's not an industry, that's a company. That one company received over $100 billion. I also disagree with those who would say, as apparently a Republican subgroup says, well, the way to deal with that is to take the wages that were bargained collectively over time by the unions in these three companies and drop them to some other level. I don't remember anybody saying, now, we have all agreed that CEO compensation and money for the top people should be restrained. But the average worker at AIG makes more money than an auto worker. The average worker at Citigroup, the recipient, again, of a large amount of money, makes more than an auto worker. Does anybody remember Citigroup being told that as a condition of this money they have to get no more than a community banker would get? That may be a fair standard, but why is it only applied to blue-collar workers? Why is it that this insistence on leveling down the wages of people whose companies receive loan funds only applies to people who do this physical work? I agree with the gentleman from California. There was a great reason to do the financial services bailout, because financial services are important, and I agree with him as well. That helps the auto industry. People buy cars on credit. An occasional buyer will come into an auto sales room to buy a car with cash. He generally wants bulletproof windows and special getaway mechanisms. Most people are buying it on credit, and that's because, as we have said, not that they are too big to fail, but too interconnected. But so is the auto industry. The gentleman himself talked about the suppliers elsewhere. This is an industry that has an enormous nationwide impact. But, finally, what are we doing here? We are lending them $15 billion. We are lending them $15 billion that is to be repaid, if by March 31 they haven't been able to persuade the new administration's appointee that they are making very fundamental changes. The bill says look for changes from the workers, but also from the bondholders and also from the suppliers and also from the dealers. Let's not single out those who work with their hands as the only ones who might be accused of unjust enrichment, because they ain't rich. So that's the proposal, $15 billion if they can show that they are making these reductions. By the way, we regret the fact that the President insists on taking money that we had set aside to help them become more innovative. We will replenish that. I think the Speaker deserves a great deal of credit for yielding in that way, but in a way that would protect this point. But the $15 billion comes with super seniority or very serious collateral. On March 31, either this Congress will have to vote more money, there is no more automatic money, this Congress will vote more money, and we will have a chance to make changes in the bill if we think it's necessary, or we will have to repay the $15 billion with a great deal of seniority in debt preferable to any other debtor and with high collateral. Yes, we are acting quickly.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Bankruptcy has been the primary argument I have heard as the preferred alternative from the Republican Members of the committee I chair.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I will now say, Mr. Speaker, that I am sorry I yielded for that bit of trivia. It was offered to me as the LaTourette amendment. I thought it was a Republican amendment. You know, at a time when we are all trying to get out of here, why we would waste time on that kind of trivia I don't understand. So let me say I believe that given that this is a short-term emergency, we will have time to reconsider. The consequences of defeating this bill would be disaster for an economy that is already in terribly indecent shape.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, on the last weekend of September of this year, I was supposed to be at the Fishermen's Festival in New Bedford, an event I always enjoy and which I look forward to attending. Instead, as you know, I was here in Washington, D.C. as we were working to try and put the $700 billion credit system rescue plan into final form. Among the events I missed at that festival was the awarding of the 2008 Friend of the Fishermen Award to Kevin Stokesbury. Dr. Stokesbury chairs the Department of Fisheries Oceanography at SMAST--the extremely important and valuable part of the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, which studies the fishing industry. He received this award from the people in the fishing industry of New Bedford because of the high quality of the work he has done to provide the kind of first-rate scientific information that is so essential to the continued survival of the fishing industry. One of the great successes--probably the greatest success--we have seen in regulation of the fishing industry in New England is with the scallop fishery, and no one is more responsible for this success than Kevin Stokesbury. Madam Speaker, because Kevin Stokesbury's work shows that it is possible to support a thriving fishery in an environmentally responsible way, it is particularly noteworthy that he received this award from the fishing industry of New Bedford--the most important fishing port in America. I ask that the explanation by the fishing industry of this award to Kevin Stokesbury be printed here. Introduction of 2008's ``Friend of the Fishermen'' This year's recipient of ``The Friend of the Fishing Industry Award'' needs no introduction to most of the NB fishing industry, particularly the scallop fishermen. It took him a while to find his way here to us as he seems to have taken a long way around, but he now lives in Westport with his wife Shawna, & four children; Kasey, Tyrez, Taysia, & Henry. Starting with his B.Sc. & M.Sc. both of which he earned at Arcadia University in Nova Scotia, he then received his PhD in Marine Ecology from Universite Laval, Quebec City, Quebec in 1994. He worked as a Research Assistant 1994-1996 at the Center for Marine Science Research at the U. of NC at Wilmington before moving to the U of Alaska Fairbanks, as a Research Assistant from September 1996-1998. Ten years ago in September 1998 he finally found his way here when he joined SMAST at U MASS, Darmouth as an Associate Fellow. In September 2000 he became an Associate Professor. In September 2005 he became the Chair of the Department of Fisheries Oceanography. Do you sense a trend here? In 1999 Kevin conceived a plan to videotape & map the seafloor; the resulting survey would actually count scallops with the intention of determining the size of the biomass. He got together with a few scallop vessel owners & others from the industry, & as they say, ``the rest is history''. Kevin & his associates from his lab at SMAST have probably logged more sea-time than a lot of fishermen over these past 9 or 10 years. They have completed more than 100 video cruises surveying Georges Bank & the Mid-Atlantic fishing grounds; this is more than 600 DAS. Their video library consisting of footage from more than 200,000 video samples has been used in every scallop fisheries management plan since 1999. Today this work has become much more detailed & expansive & it now must be acclaimed as some of the leading environmental work regarding sea floor habitat, & the marine benthic community. Not surprisingly, Kevin's work has not received the same acclaim from many of his peers that it has from the fishing industry & his associates. This unique cooperative research that has existed between the fishing industry, Kevin & SMAST since its inception, has turned much of the ``Old Science'' on its ear, & some did not take kindly to that. Without this `New Science'', it's possible that we still would not be scalloping in the Closed Areas! As Chair of the Department of Fisheries & Oceanography, Kevin's oversight now includes along with scallops; groundfish, lobster & marine environments. Perhaps even more importantly, he is now fostering a new generation of marine scientists & researchers who, if the fishing industry is lucky, will follow the path that Kevin has so brightly blazed! It gives me great pleasure to present ``The Friend of the Fishermen's Award'' to someone I'm proud to call my friend; Dr. Kevin D.E. Stokesbury.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, in response to the unspeakably terrible acts of murder perpetrated on innocent people by a handful of vicious, hate-filled fanatics in Mumbai. the Asian American Commission of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts convened a candlelight vigil on December 4 at 6 p.m. in Boston and provided an opportunity for people of good will to express their horror at these terrible events and their determination to work together to prevent them from happening again. The Commission composed a moving, eloquent statement in response to these terrible acts and because its message is so necessary at this time, I ask that it be printed here. A Candlelight Vigil--Remembering Friends, Family and All Those Lost and Hurt in the Terrorist Attacks in Mumbai, India November 26-29, 2008 The Asian American Commission of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts invites Americans of all faiths to join in a Candlelight Vigil on December 4, 6 p.m. at City Hall Plaza, Boston, Massachusetts. We are saddened by the loss of so many in Mumbai, India this past week because of the actions of a few terrorists. We offer our deepest condolences to their families and pray for the speedy recovery of those who were hurt. We applaud the heroic actions of the police, firefighters, armed forces and the staff of the hotels, restaurants, train stations and hospitals and all concerned citizens who helped to stop the terrorists and rescue and guide people to safety. In this global village, like the United States, India is a democracy with rights for every man, woman and child, regardless of religious or ethnic origin; a secular country with tolerance for many faiths; and a strong tradition of cooperation among its many ethnic, religious, and linguistic communities. India also serves as a positive influence for many people here and in countries around the world through its strong traditions, contributions to culture, political leadership, trade and world economic development. As the world's largest democracy, India's represents a religious cross-section of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists and people of every faith that have traditionally lived in harmony. Unfortunately, there are a few who seek to sow divisions and cause harm to its people, its economy, to all those who visit or wish to do business with India. We believe that terrorism affects us all and we must all unite and act to defeat this common enemy. As Asians and Americans we are all part of a global village and strongly condemn these heinous acts. No matter where terror raises its ugly head, it impacts all the citizens of the world. We believe that by coming together as a community to show support to the bereaved and by fostering greater bonds between all peoples and faiths here at home and across the globe that we will be able to stop such hate.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, in a thoughtful and well documented article in the Boston Globe for December 3, Joseph Cirincione makes a very persuasive case for putting significant reductions in our nuclear weapons budget at the head of the list of budget savings President-elect Obama intends to make. Mr. Cirincione is the president of Ploughshares, and some of us remember the good work he did as a staff member working on trying to fashion a sensible nuclear weapons policy years ago in the House. He speaks with a great deal of knowledge and I am very pleased that someone as responsible and well informed as Mr. Cirincione has come forward to make this case. As he says in his article, the President ``can cut obsolete programs and transfer tens of billions of dollars per year to pressing conventional military and domestic programs.'' Madam Speaker, no rational solution to the problem of an ever- increasing budget deficit can be imagined that does not include significant reductions in the rate of military spending. Joseph Cirincione demonstrates how this can be done in a way that does no damage whatsoever to our national security and I ask that the article be printed here. [From the Boston Globe, Dec. 3, 2008] Need Cash? Cut Nuclear Weapons Budget (By Joseph Cirincione) President-Elect Barack Obama needs money, ``To make the investments we need,'' he said last week, ``we'll have to scour our federal budget, line by line, and make meaningful cuts and sacrifices, as well.'' There is no better place to start than the nuclear weapons budget. He can cut obsolete programs and transfer tens of billions of dollars per year to pressing conventional military and domestic programs. Transfers to domestic programs will help jumpstart the economy. Military spending provides some economic stimulus but not as much as targeted domestic spending. This is one reason Representative Barney Frank has called for a 25 percent reduction in military budgets that have exploded from. 305 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $716 billion in fiscal year 2009, including the $12 billion spent every month for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must, of course, spend what we need to defend the country. But a good part of the military budget is still devoted to programs designed for the Cold War, which ended almost 20 years ago. This is particularly true of the $31 billion spent each year to maintain and secure a nuclear arsenal of almost 5,400 nuclear weapons, with 1,500 still deployed on missiles ready to launch within 15 minutes. We can safely reduce to 1,000 total weapons, as recommended by Senator John Kerry and other nuclear experts. That reduction would save over $20 billion a year, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The reductions could be done without any sacrifice to US national security, particularly if the Russians did the same (as they indicated they'd be willing to do) either by a negotiated treaty or the kind of unilateral reductions executed by former presidents George H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991. The arsenal of 1,000 warheads could be deployed on 10 safe and secure Trident submarines, each with enough weapons to devastate any nation. In total, the smaller, cheaper arsenal would still be sufficient to destroy the world several times over. Further reductions would generate further savings over time. Additional savings are available in the related anti- missile programs created during the Bush administration. Total spending is now $13 billion a year--up from $4 billion in 2000. Bush and former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld exempted the agency from the normal checks of Pentagon tests and procurement rules in an effort to institutionalize the program, locking in the next president, Obama will inherit half-built facilities in Alaska and California, along with plans to build new sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, but no assurance that the interceptors actually work--and a huge bill to pay. If Obama were to continue the program as is, he would spend an estimated $62 billion through 2012. In a congressional review of these programs, Representative John Tierney of Massachusetts concluded, ``Since the 1980s, taxpayers have already spent $120 to $150 billion--more time and more money than we spent on the Manhattan project or the Apollo program, with no end in sight.'' Tierney recommends refocusing the program to concentrate on defenses against the short-range weapons Iran and other nations currently field, and restoring realistic testing and realistic budgeting. Doing so could save $6 billion or more a year. Further savings can be found by stopping a planned expansion of nuclear weapons production facilities pushed by contractors and some government nuclear laboratories. The facilities would cost tens of billions of dollars and produce hundreds of new nuclear warheads. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates strongly backs the expansion. In a direct challenge to Obama's plans to reduce nuclear weapons and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Gates said in October, ``there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program.'' Obama will have to back him down or pony up billions to pay Gate's nuclear tab. What will the new president do? He comes to office with a comprehensive nuclear policy that could save billions. Obama will now have to show that this new security team will implement the change he promised, not their own parochial agendas.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I have for many years had the benefit of learning from Jack Authelet, a journalist and the town historian of the town of Foxborough--an important town in my district known for a number of things, including being the home of our New England Patriots. Recently, Mr. Authelet wrote to me about a group that he accurately describes as ``very appreciative and dedicated French citizens who have . . . made a solemn vow'' that the Americans who gave their lives in the defense of freedom in France will not be forgotten. The organization of French citizens who have dedicated themselves to this is Les Fleurs de la Memoire, or The Flowers of Memory. Madam Speaker, what they have done and are doing is an inspirational example of international cooperation, and I ask that the very thoughtful and informative letter from Jack Authelet describing the work that they do be printed here, along with the essay entitled ``A Tribute,'' written by Claude Lavielle, who is president of Les Fleurs de la Memoire. This essay was written for Memorial Day 2002. Madam Speaker, Mr. Authelet asked that I do this on Veterans' Day, but since we were not in session on that day, I have chosen the next day in which it is possible to insert this into the Record as an appropriate way of acknowledging their great work. Foxborough Historical Commission, Foxborough, MA. Congressman Barney Frank, Newton, MA. Dear Barney, thank you for your dedication and leadership role in resolving the fiscal crisis that grips this nation. In the midst of all the uncertainty, I would like to call to your attention a living tribute to the fallen of World War II that I pray will move you to call for national recognition of this unique volunteer effort on Veterans Day. In the aftermath of World War II, some 15,000 American military personnel who made the Supreme Sacrifice remain on French soil in the Normandy and Brittany Cemeteries where there families seldom--if ever--have an opportunity to visit their graves. We as a nation have honored the pledge we would never forget their sacrifice in part by properly maintaining the military cemeteries there and around the world. There are some very appreciative and dedicated French citizens who have also made a solemn vow: these brave Americans will never be forgotten because they know that every day they live in freedom, they become even more indebted to those who lie buried in the countries they came to liberate. They belong to the organization Les Fleurs de la Memoire (The Flowers of Memory) and each volunteer is assigned the grave of an American to decorate at every opportunity and especially on the American Memorial Day. Many volunteers adopt more than one grave, and also make every attempt to locate family members of the deceased that they might know someone is there looking over the grave of their loved ones. I became aware of The Flowers of Memory when Vincent Robillard, the French volunteer assigned to the grave of Airman Clinton Davison (Class of 1939, Foxborough High School) was finally able to contact Clinton's brother, 93- year-old Lewis Davison of Walpole, himself a World War II veteran. I have been handling the correspondence for Lewis, for whom contact with the French volunteers has brought the comfort of knowing there are many who appreciate the family's loss. Through Vincent, the family now has had many of its questions answered about the death of Clinton, even to an eye witness account of what happened that fateful day at the height of the war when his plane failed to return following a bombing run over Germany. I have attached a story I published in The Foxboro Reporter about the French volunteers and what this has meant to the Davison family. The commitment by these French volunteers to honor those brave Americans is both heartwarming and extraordinary. However, most Americans don't even know the group exists. I have provided background on The Flowers of Memory in hopes that you would use your considerable influence by taking the initiative to afford this group and its volunteers some national exposure this Veterans' Day that the people of America would know about this magnificent tribute being paid every day to those who gave their lives when their Nation called. The attached information provides background on The Flowers of Memory and their mission and I think it would bring comfort to the American people to know that so many people in France living in freedom today attribute that gift to those whose graves they decorate as an outward symbol of an inner vow that they will never be forgotten. Thank you for your consideration and again, my personal appreciation for your inspired leadership in a time of crisis. Jack Authelet, Town Historian.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, during the recent campaign, motivated I believe by an effort to stave off much-needed legislation establishing appropriate regulation for currently unregulated aspects of the financial industry, a number of people launched a concerted effort to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for our current financial crisis. Their argument--wholly inaccurate--was that the Community Reinvestment Act was the reason that a large number of irresponsible subprime loans were made. I was very pleased--although not surprised--that Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan, an appointee of President Bush, took the time on November 19th to refute these accusations. Comptroller Dugan is as well qualified to discuss this as anyone in the country, because he has a prime responsibility for the regulation of the safety and soundness of banks and the banking system. Given that, I believe it is essential that all Members have the benefit of his analysis. Comptroller Dugan is characteristically forthright in addressing the question of the role that CRA has played: ``There are even some that suggest that CRA is responsible for the binge of irresponsible subprime lending that ignited the crisis we now face. Let me squarely respond to this suggestion: I categorically disagree. While not perfect, CRA has made a positive contribution to community revitalization across the country and has generally encouraged sound community development lending, investment and service initiatives by regulated banking organizations. ``CRA is not the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace. Indeed, the lenders most prominently associated with subprime mortgage lending abuses and high rates of foreclosure are lenders not subject to CRA . . . (B)anks subject to CRA and their affiliates originated or purchased only six percent of the reported high cost loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA assessment areas.'' Madam Speaker, to make it clear that the forceful defense of CRA that I have just quoted is taken fully in context, I ask that those portions of Comptroller Dugan's speech that discuss the CRA be printed here in their entirety. This firm statement by President Bush's appointee with prime responsibility for the safety and soundness of the banking system should help us end the inaccurate, politically-motivated misrepresentation of the role that CRA has played. Remarks by John C. Dugan--Comptroller of the Currency Before the Enterprise Annual Network Conference--November 19, 2008 ``. . . Indeed, all of these efforts are fully in keeping with the OCC's mission and the way that we approach our regulatory and supervisory responsibilities, including those under the Community Reinvestment Act. CRA supports banks doing what they do best and what they should want to do well--making viable lending and investment decisions, with acceptable rates of return, consistent with their business plans, I their own communities. Given recent public discussion, it is appropriate to ask about the role that CRA plays in the credit challenges we face on so many fronts. In my view, it plays a very positive role. Unfortunately, however, current market disruptions have clouded the accomplishments that CRA has generated, many of which we recognized last year during its 30th anniversary. There are even some who suggest that CRA is responsible for the binge of irresponsible subprime lending that ignited the credit crisis we now face. Let me squarely respond to this suggestion: I categorically disagree. While not perfect, CRA has made a positive contribution to community revitalization across the country and has generally encouraged sound community development lending, investment, and service initiatives by regulated banking organizations. CRA is not the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace. Indeed, the lenders most prominently associated with subprime mortgage lending abuses and high rates of foreclosure are lenders not subject to CRA. A recent study of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data showed that banks subject to CRA and their affiliates originated or purchased only six percent of the reported high cost loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA assessment areas. Over the last ten years, CRA has helped spur the doubling of lending by banking institutions to small businesses and farms, to more than $2.6 trillion. During this period, those lenders more than tripled community development lending to $371 billion. Overwhelmingly, this lending has been safe and sound. For example, single family CRA-related mortgages offered in conjunction with NeighborWorks organizations have performed on a par with standard conventional mortgages. Foreclosure rates within the NeighborWorks network were just 0.21 percent in the second quarter of this year, compared to 4.26 percent of subprime loans and 0.61 percent for conventional conforming mortgages. Similar conclusions were reached in a study by the University of North Carolina's Center for Community Capital, which indicates that high-cost subprime mortgage borrowers default at much higher rates than those who take out loans made for CRA purposes. Of course, not all single-family CRA mortgages performed this well, because these loans have experienced the same stresses as most other types of consumer credit. Nevertheless, a number of studies have shown that when these loans are made in conjunction with a structured homebuyer counseling program, mortgage performance is substantially improved. Affordable CRA multi-family projects utilizing low- income housing tax credits have also performed well, with an average foreclosure rate through 2006 of 0.08 percent on the underlying mortgages. During the community tours I have taken over the past three years, I personally witnessed the positive impact that CRA partnerships have had in transforming communities, expanding homeownership, and promoting job creation and economic development. These partner ships between communities and financial institutions have also helped house senior citizens and people with special needs, built community facilities, and assisted small businesses serving low-income areas. In the Anacostia community of D.C., an area of economic resurgence that I have toured on several occasions, Enterprise's Wheeler Creek project was a critical link in stabilizing a neighborhood that had been plagued by a troubled public housing project. Wheeler Creek involved development of for-sale homes in conjunction with a bank community development corporation, as well as a bank's purchase of low-income housing tax credits for rental housing. CRA projects also act as catalysts for other investments, job creation, and housing development. Such infusion of capital into these markets leverages public subsidies, perhaps as much as 10 to 25 times, by attracting additional private capital. Many of these CRA equity investments can be made under national banks' public welfare investment authority. These bank investments have grown significantly over the years--totaling more than $25 billion over the past decade. Indeed, the OCC recently held its Managers Conference at the Grand Masonic Lodge on North Charles Street here in Baltimore, a public welfare investment funded by a national bank. To meet the demand to invest in similar types of projects, OCC successfully sought legislation last year to raise the cap on public welfare investments from 10 to 15 percent of a bank's capital and assets. This rise will enable the amount of such investments to increase by as much as $30 billion. Interpreting national bank public welfare investment authority, OCC recently issued an approval related to energy conservation that may be of interest to Enterprise. This approval clarifies that such authority extends to bank investments in renewable energy tax credits primarily benefiting low-and moderate-income individuals and areas, government revitalization areas, rural underserved and distressed middle-income areas, and designated disaster areas. The investing bank can claim the credits and, in some instances, receive positive CRA consideration under the investment or community development testes. Your Green Communities initiative, and others like it, may be able to take advantage of these tools to obtain additional resources under the public welfare investment authority, CRA, and other available incentives to build many more sustainable homes and communities across the country. The research and examples described on your Web site demonstrate that moving to a green economy can generate a significant number of jobs, stimulate economic growth, and create a healthy environment in communities that Enterprise serves. As the credit market stabilizes, CRA-driven initiatives can also help us tackle challenges such as the preservation of homeownership opportunities and rental housing development. Opportunities also lie ahead for bank partnerships with Enterprise affiliates and other nonprofits to help mitigate the impact of foreclosures in communities across the country. . . Our nation has accomplished much since CRA's passage. Perhaps even Jim Rouse could not imagine how much the flow of CRA-related capital and credit has contributed to affordable homeownership, jobs and business development, and healthy neighborhoods. In today's challenging economy, the need for the positive results that CRA has generated are even greater, and the same is true for organizations like Enterprise. Thank you very much.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) from the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, to close with a burst of redundancy, which is not inappropriate for what we've been through on this bill, I yield to Madam Speaker for 1 minute.