Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 2 minutes. I am really appalled at the gentleman saying it's un-American. We ought to be able to disagree more civilly than that. And the gentleman made a misstatement when he said we took a good idea and ruined it. If it was such a good idea, Mr. Chairman, I have to ask the gentleman why was he opposed to that good idea? He's making a big deal of the fact that we switched our view after listening to people. After having hearings, we made a change. That's why we had hearings. And we decided after a lot of debate that the model of the control of the currency, a single individual appointed by the President, without being subject to appropriation, was a better model for the consumer agency. So does Elizabeth Warren. So does everybody else who supported it. The gentleman from Alabama said, That was a good idea and you ruined it. But the gentleman from Alabama was opposed to it when it was a good idea. The gentleman from Alabama was, all of the last 2 years, opposed to the notion of an independent consumer agency. So he makes a point of stressing, yes, we decided after hearings that a single individual would be better than a commission. He said: How can you make such a change? Well, he made a change that dwarfed the trajectory of ours. He went from being opposed to it to now telling us retroactively that it was a good idea. But even then, today, on television, he said: We have concerns about an agency whose sole mission is to protect consumers unless they worry about the banks as well. There's one other point I would make: There are three parts of the bill. He took the only one he thought he could defend to talk about because this bill would also put the bank regulators back in charge, and it would say that the part of the bill that would give us powers over the nonbanks, over the payday lenders and the mortgage lenders, which their bill retards, he didn't talk about that. So I will admire his discretion. Of the three parts of his bill, he only talked about one. He didn't talk about putting the bank regulators, who he said are there to serve the banks, back in charge and allowing them to veto the consumer agency; and he didn't talk about their proposal to postpone until we get a Senate confirmation, which the Senate minority said they wouldn't allow to happen. They will filibuster, so it will postpone the new powers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 30 seconds to correct the latest misstatement. The gentleman from Alabama did, in fact, vote against this. This wasn't just voted on in the final. He appears to have forgotten, we had a markup in committee just on this bill, and the gentleman from Alabama voted against a free-standing consumer agency, whether it had five members or not. So he said it was a good idea which we ruined, but he voted against it. He did vote against the individual one. And the Republicans offered a substitute, which took 14 officials, made them a council, gave them the power to run a hotline, and said, if anything came in over the hotline, they'd send it back to those bank regulators, who he says are there to serve the banks, and they would be the ones to deal with it. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 15 seconds to say the gentleman from Texas talked about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but he doesn't do anything about it. The majority has been the majority since January. The gentleman from Texas filed a big, tough bill about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a year ago. He has sat sweetly and quietly by while his majority has ignored it and taken no action on it. The Republicans always talk tough about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when they're in the minority, and then they get in the majority and they choke. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), a leader in fighting, in particular, against speculation and the abuse of derivatives.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be joined by so many leaders on the Financial Services Committee. I now yield 3 minutes to one of them, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 30 seconds to say, first of all, the gentleman made one more flat misstatement when he talked about car loans. Car loans are exempted from this. This is an example of the failure to understand what we're really talking about. Secondly, he does have Wall Street support for this bill. I think he mentioned the American Bankers Association. And this notion that the community banks aren't involved is just nonsense. As a matter of fact, the community banks are favored here because the Consumer Bureau is given the right to examine banks of $10 billion in assets or more, but it cannot examine the credit unions and the community banks. So that was a recognition that he ignores. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), who has been a leader in trying to fight for decent mortgages.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds first to say that I am sorry the gentlewoman from West Virginia wouldn't yield to me, but there was a lot of talk about switching positions. The gentlewoman from West Virginia, along with every other Republican then on the committee, voted against this. She now says she wants it to go forward. So I will take ``yes'' for an answer. I am glad that my Republican colleagues, having opposed an independent consumer agency, I think maybe for tactical purposes, but for whatever, are now all for it. So as we go forward, I will accept their conversion. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the former chair and now ranking member of the Small Business Committee, and she is the best protector of small businesses in the Congress.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, I yield myself 30 seconds to say I understand many of the Republicans objected to the financial reform bill because it was too long; but apparently even a much shorter bill was too long for the gentleman from New York. He got up to talk about this bill and then mentioned one-third of it. That is only one-third of the bill which he talks about as if it is the whole bill. It goes forward to give the bank regulators the power to overturn the Consumer Bureau. It delays the takeover of some of the powers. So when a Member can't get through a 4- or 5-page bill, I understand why they are confused by something that is more complex. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, the gentleman from New Jersey more consistently misstates things that I said. I suppose it's kind of flattering that he hangs on my every word. I just wish he didn't hang askew on my every word. He said I should be supporting this legislation. In fact, the gentleman from Alabama said it. Once again, listen to what they say on the other side. This has three pieces. It has a single member versus a commission. More importantly, it increases the ability of the other bank regulators who have an historic terrible record of consumer protection and who the chairman of the committee, Mr. Bachus, says are there to serve the banks. It would put them in a better position to cancel the work of the CFPB. The gentleman from New Jersey said I've supported this. I've never supported anything remotely like that. The gentleman from New Jersey knows that. I have no idea why he would do that, except for this. And yes, I will impute some motive. Of the three parts of the bill, the only one that they think won't be very unpopular is the one about a single director versus a commission. But, again, the gentleman said, oh, I misstated that or that I was in favor of something last year. No, I was never in favor of those parts of the bill. By the way, as to the risk retention, I did say you could get the 4 percent if you also had a very good debt-to-income ratio and loan-to- value ratio. So the pattern of misstatements of what I said, it's flattering that the gentleman is so interested in what I say. I did not ever support putting the bank regulators back in charge. In fact, I will say this about the gentleman from New Jersey. He's more clear about what he really believes. Again, I hope the gentlewoman from West Virginia, when she closes, will tell us. She voted against this last year. She now says, oh, we're not trying to undo it. Well, has she switched her position? The gentleman from New Jersey was very clear. He doesn't really like this, and he voted against it and he would abolish the whole thing. That's what we are saying, that people who voted against it last year. He says we made it partisan. No. When the vote came up on this, they all voted against it. I wish that wasn't the case, but they had voted against it because they didn't want an independent consumer agency. The chairman of the committee said it again today on television: We don't worry about the FDIC or the Federal Reserve. We worry about an agency whose sole mission is to protect the consumer without worrying about how the banks work. And then we had the performance by the gentleman from Wisconsin, again, talking only about one part of it and claiming, oddly it seemed to me, that this somehow hurts the small banks versus the bigger banks. In fact, the small banks are given preference with regard to who gets examined. And in terms of the ability to overturn rules, no, it's not simply-- and this is one of the things some people may misunderstand. Things that threaten the system might be the action of one particular entity like AIG, but they could also be a pattern like subprime loans, particularly subprime loans issued by nonbanks. This bill regulates, for the first time, those nonbanks. So let's go back over this. Ms. Warren came up with this. And I do want to address the single member versus commissioners. The one issue they have found, it was originally proposed by Ms. Warren, and I introduced the administration's bill to make it a commission. We had hearings. We had conversations. Every single consumer group that we dealt with--and the gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned all his supporters. There wasn't a single consumer group there. The AARP just came out against their bill, as have all of the consumer groups--the Consumer Federation, et cetera. They persuaded me that a single member would be better than a commission. I acknowledge we had hearings. I listened to people who were for it. So here's the debate. We have everybody who voted against establishing this in the first place, who are against it in principle, who think we should leave it to the bank regulators, they want a commission. We have everybody who supports the entity as an independent consumer protector, therefore, a single member. I listened. I was persuaded. So, yes, I will acknowledge having changed my position based on the evidence. I will repudiate, once again, the gentleman's inaccurate suggestion that I was for the other parts of this. No, I was not. I think putting the majority of the bank regulators able to overrule virtually anything doesn't work. And the proof of that? The Republicans offered their own version last year, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert). It created a 14- member council, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, a bunch of others, and they were empowered to set up a hotline. If they got things from the hotline or the Web site that were complaints about the banks, what did they do with them? They sent them to the very financial regulators who have failed to do things in the past. That's where we are. That's what they preferred. They opposed then, and I believe continue to oppose, an independent regulator whose primary role is the consumer. As the gentleman from North Carolina pointed out, they want to give the FDIC and the other bank regulators the ability to cancel what the consumer regulator does, but it's not reciprocal. If the consumer regulator thinks that the bank regulators have been too lax in not protecting consumers in what they still have, that's not reciprocal. It is very clear. They have never liked consumer protection. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that they do the banks a disservice. I stress again that the banks were not the problems here, particularly the community banks and the credit unions. They apparently think that if banks have to protect consumers, they will fail. That's unfair to the banks. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First of all, let's resolve one contradiction in the Republican amendment. Some have said, why are you now opposing what you originally supported? Well, this is a clear example. We never supported anything like this. We always thought it had to be two-thirds. And here's what happened. There is no comparable banking agency which can be overruled by the other agencies. But the Republicans got very nervous about this and their banker friends were in a bit of a twitter. And they said, Save us from this horrible notion of consumer protection. I say it doesn't speak well for banks if they think consumer protection undermines safety and soundness. So we said, okay, here's what we'll do. To lower these fears, we will say if it does threaten the whole system, two-thirds can overturn it. We didn't think that was very likely. It was to try to calm people down. They transform it with this amendment into saying that five regulators, because the consumer bureau couldn't vote, five regulators who have overlapping terms who may have been appointed by previous Presidents, regulators who represent the very regulatory agencies that have not been good about consumers can overturn the consumer bureau. This amendment canceled the fundamental reason for having a consumer bureau.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, the gentleman is correct. I would just note my disagreement with his statement on Secretary Paulson. But more important, I was struck by the fact that the gentlewoman from West Virginia stood up and opposed the amendment. The gentleman from Oregon then pointed out that her basis for opposing the amendment was incorrect; whereupon the gentlewoman from West Virginia said, Never mind, but I still oppose it, with a less than eloquent explanation. So I think that's unfortunate. And part of my problem is, I didn't get a chance to talk fully about this rule. This is a terribly unfair rule. I asked the chairman of the Rules Committee yesterday if we could have more time to debate. Not all the amendments were of equal importance. We had the very important amendment by the gentlewoman from Texas to talk about two-thirds versus a majority. This is an important amendment about conflict of interest. We had a very important amendment coming up from the gentlewoman from New York about the powers. It is outrageous that the Rules Committee said, You only get 5 minutes on each side on each amendment. And the chairman of the Rules Committee--he's a magnanimous fellow--he said to me when I asked, he said, Well, you know what, you can go get a unanimous consent agreement to extend it, which meant he was not suspending the rules of the House. I approached the other side, and I was told--not by the chairman, who has been very gracious in all of this--that the Republican leadership wanted to hurry this bill up. So we have very fundamental issues not being adequately debated, and this is one of them. I have some differences with the gentleman from Oregon about what I think happened during the TARP. But to have only 10 minutes on this? And then, frankly, for the chairman of the subcommittee to be so dismissive of a valid amendment, to say, Here's why I am against it, because her staff probably didn't read it before they wrote it, and they gave her the wrong reason, and then she just said, Well, I'm against it because I'm against it. That's an inappropriate way to deal with this serious issue. And it reinforces my view that what we have here is this: Last year, every single Republican opposed an independent consumer agency, in principle. They now come forward with efforts that would substantially weaken it, that everybody who does support it opposes. And they say, Oh, no, we're not opposed to it. We're just trying to change it. The gentleman from Oregon has a perfectly reasonable point. I cannot understand, other than simple partisan rigidity, why it would not be accepted. So I thank the gentleman, and I'm sorry we do not have a more civil atmosphere in which to discuss this.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would say to my friend, and I thank him, if somebody had put Countrywide out of business, we'd have been in good shape. But the bias of the Republicans here against consumers and for the banks is very clear. A later amendment will require the consumer bureau to submit very much this kind of information to the Financial Stability Council. So it's not reciprocal. If the consumer bureau, under their amendment, has a rule or regulation that it has to give all this information to the council but nobody else does, it is one more example of how the consumer bureau is not at all that favored.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Once again, we see this pattern. The gentleman from New Jersey objected before and said I am imputing motives to them. Yes, I was imputing to them the notion that they knew what they were doing last year when they overwhelmingly, unanimously opposed an independent agency. I don't know who's kidding whom. They don't like the idea of an independent agency. They do know that politically it's kind of popular, so the tactic is to chip at it here and chip at it there and to do a series of nonreciprocal requirements. It is clearly the stepchild, the Cinderella of the financial regulators. It's the only financial regulator that can be overruled by the other financial regulator. They say, How can you have an individual entity? But Members have been here 20 years, and comparable times they have never moved to make the Comptroller of the Currency a commission. They've never moved to subject the Comptroller of the Currency to the appropriation. The consumer chief is just like the Comptroller of the Currency, but that's a banking agency. That's one of those agencies that the chairman of the committee says is there to serve the banks. And as he said in his statement today, they don't worry about the Federal Reserve and the FDIC--with the terrible record the Federal Reserve has had on consumer protection. He said, the chairman of the committee from Alabama, we are worried about an agency whose sole goal is to protect consumers. So this is one more thing. When it comes to other agencies, my colleagues on the Republican side want to impose deadlines, want to require speed, don't have it hanging over. But, no, the consumer agency is treated differently.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate the gentlelady from West Virginia making a very important point, seriously, talking about the multilingual aspects, because an important bipartisan part of our committee's work over the years, and we've had some differences, but the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) and a number of others have stressed an important part of this Agency's mission is financial literacy. We all agree that if people were better educated, they could defend themselves better. This is an ongoing, joint effort on our committee. And obviously, if you're trying to do financial literacy, it has to be in a language that the people understand. So I appreciate the gentlelady highlighting that, and it does help us do it. I would note, and I think the gentlewoman from California is quite correct in wanting to do this, but you don't need a commission to do it. If there wasn't a commission, we could do it with various agency heads. For example, there has been some concern about making sure that veterans are taken care of and people in the military. One of the things that Elizabeth Warren did, and she did a number of extraordinary things, and I don't know if people are aware of the head of the military Bureau that protects members in the services, a very experienced woman from the military named Holly Petraeus, the wife of General Petraeus. That's an example of how you can do these things. So the principle that the gentlewoman from California advocates is a very good one, and I'm sure we'll find a way to accommodate it. I thank her.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Being lectured by a member of the Republican Party on the importance of confirmation at the CFPB is like being lectured about birth control by the Octomom. Forty-four Republican Senators have outrageously announced they will not do their constitutional duty and they will confirm nobody, no matter how good, until we agree to weaken the agency. So what we have is a perfect double play here between House and Senate Republicans. Senate Republicans say we will confirm nobody, House Republicans say the agency won't function until you get a confirmation, which the Senate Republicans have refused to do. I wish the President had appointed someone earlier. I'm critical of him for not doing that. But I don't want to punish the American people, the beneficiaries of this, by that failure to appoint earlier. By the way, with the Secretary of the Treasury having the authority until now, a lot has been done. Holly Petraeus was put there. A lot of other people were there. They've done some good stuff. Let's not give in to the Republican blackmail in the Senate.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in tentative opposition.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, an organization with which I am proud to work closely on behalf of economic development in the Greater Fall River Area, and for sensible national policies, the Fall River Area Chamber of Commerce, recently published in the Fall River Herald News a very thoughtful article which ``respectfully urges Congress to place the nation ahead of party politics by raising the federal debt limit without delay.'' The Chamber notes that ``failure to increase the statutory debt limit in a timely fashion can have a significant and long lasting negative impact on any potential recovery in the towns and cities of the South Coast.'' Mr. Speaker, the Chamber understandably and correctly notes that they are ``extremely concerned about the level of the federal debt and the unchecked annual budget deficits that have become the new normal in Washington, DC''. I also agree with them that ``the U.S. government must learn to spend more wisely.'' And I believe that they have the sequencing of these issues in the correct form when they close by urging those of us in Congress to ``raise the federal debt ceiling and set in motion a dialogue to curb unchecked federal spending.'' I believe it is essential that we raise the debt ceiling and avoid negative economic consequences, and at the same time commit ourselves to adopting a set of policies that will substantially reduce the deficit over time. For example, Mr. Speaker, I personally renew my call to our colleagues to put an end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which no longer can be justified in terms of national security, and which together costs us well over $100 billion dollars a year, as part of a package of steps that will bring down our annual deficits. [From the Herald News, July 13, 2011] Chamber Urges Congress To Raise Debt Limit (By Jason Rua and Robert A. Mellion) The Fall River Area Chamber of Commerce and Industry represents a broad range of businesses in the South Coast region of Massachusetts. Our membership employs tens of thousands of people comprising all sectors of the economy including education and high tech to healthcare, tourism and hospitality, manufacturing, service and small businesses. They are also the individuals who are making the local investments, taking risks, creating jobs and through their taxes and payrolls, providing the means for the community to afford the public amenities we all enjoy. That is why the chamber, on behalf of its diverse and vested membership, respectfully urges Congress to place the nation ahead of party politics by raising the federal debt limit without delay. Failure to increase the statutory debt limit in a timely fashion can have a significant and long- lasting negative impact on any potential recovery in the towns and cities of the South Coast. For that reason we urge the Massachusetts congressional delegation to act prudently by representing the best interests of your constituency. Raising the statutory debt limit is critical to ensuring global confidence in the creditworthiness of the United States. Not acting decisively on this issue will raise national interest rates and inevitably the ability of businesses to secure financing. With economic growth in the commonwealth of Massachusetts slowly picking up for the first time in three years, we cannot afford to jeopardize a few steps forward with the threat of a massive spike in borrowing costs that would result if our country defaulted on its international obligations. To the contrary, it is practical economic theory that the United States stands fully behind its legal obligations. In making such recommendations, business leaders in the SouthCoast also remain extremely concerned about the level of the federal debt and the unchecked annual budget deficits that have become the new normal in Washington D.C. Balance to our fiscal position is critical for national economic sustainability and tough decisions on federal spending must be made as part of a long term debate about the future of this nation. Quite simply, the U.S. government must learn to spend more wisely. The chamber trusts that under the continued leadership offered by the bipartisan Massachusetts congressional delegation, Congress will again take the necessary steps to preserve our nation's financial standing in the world. Such stewardship is required in this 11th hour. Please ensure that the national and Massachusetts economies continue on a path toward restored prosperity. Raise the federal debt ceiling and set in motion a dialogue to curb unchecked federal spending.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, an extraordinary woman died earlier this month and she is mourned by a vast number of her closest relatives--the poor, the people down on their luck, and the homeless. Kip Tiernan had a passion for helping those most in need of help that was coupled with an extraordinary understanding of how to get things done, even in the bleakest situations. She was inspired both by her own passion for battling the pain of her fellow human beings, and by Dorothy Day, another extraordinary woman who, like Kip Tiernan, translated her Catholic faith into a daily routine of charity to the best sense. Among those who worked closely with Kip on behalf of the homeless was my mother, Elsie, and I take great pride that these two women, both now passed away, admired each other strongly, and each often told of their great respect for each other. Mr. Speaker, on the Fourth of July the Boston Globe ran an article by Bryan Marquard that did a first-rate job of telling those who did not know Kip Tiernan about her, and giving those of us who did know her and benefitted from the warmth that she radiated for humanity, a chance to remember the best of times. Mr. Speaker, in the hopes that Kip Tiernan's life will inspire others the way she herself was inspired by Dorothy Day, I ask that Mr. Marquard's eloquent obituary of this great woman be printed here. [From the Boston Globe, July 4, 2011] (By Bryan Marquard) Kip Tiernan, who founded Rosie's Place, the nation's first shelter for homeless women, and whose persistent, raspy voice echoed from the streets to the State House as she advocated for the poor, died of cancer Saturday in her South End apartment. She was 85. Usually clad in a canvas hat and work pants, a cross and a skate key dangling from a leather strap around her neck, Ms. Tiernan helped create an A-to-Z of agencies that assist the disadvantaged in Massachusetts. By example, she also inspired so many people to try to ease suffering that, directly or indirectly, she may have touched more lives of the poor in the Commonwealth than anyone else in the past four decades. ``Every day of her life she lived for social justice, and the lives she saved were untold,'' Mayor Thomas M. Menino said. ``She always said that someday we will stamp out homelessness, but until that day we have to make sure everyone understands that a homeless person could be one of us. She was a very special person, and there's a big hole in our lives today because Kip's not here. This nation is going to miss Kip Tiernan because of her fight for social justice.'' Along with Fran Froehlich, her partner in advocacy for more than 35 years, Ms. Tiernan founded, helped found, or was a founding member of a number of agencies and panels, including Boston Health Care for the Homeless, Boston Food Bank, Community Works, Aid to Incarcerated Mothers, Finex House, Food for Free, John Leary House, My Sister's Place, Transition House, the Greater Boston Union of the Homeless, and Boston's Emergency Shelter Commission. The range of suffering was such that ``sometimes you think there aren't any tears left,'' Ms. Tiernan told the Globe in 1988, ``and you find yourself sobbing.'' Strong words were her response more often than tears, however. Drawn by faith to her calling, she brought unconditional love to each encounter with the homeless, and she didn't hesitate to criticize the powerful if they backed what she believed were unfair policies or tried to slide by with words of pity. The cross she wore was more than a symbol. ``A rooted woman, Kip always wears that cross,'' Globe op- ed columnist James Carroll wrote in 1996, ``which marks her not for piety or for a religion of easy answers, but for being, in her words, 'an angry daughter of Christ. . . . I find that the cross of Jesus is the radical condemnation of an unjust world. You have to stay with the one crucified or stand with the crucifiers.' '' Sue Marsh, executive director of Rosie's Place, said in a statement the she was ``so sorry to be saying goodbye to a good friend of mine. . . . She has been the fiery, feisty, and beloved touchstone for the mission and vision of Rosie's Place, a compassionate friend to every woman in need.'' On behalf of housing, health care, and an array of social justice issues, Ms. Tiernan lobbied, fasted, marched in protest, and was arrested during sit-ins at government offices. In November 1990, she began a fast in Arlington Street Church and explained why in an op-ed essay for the Globe. ``We should atone for what we have allowed to happen to all poor people in this state, in the name of fiscal austerity or plain mean-spiritedness. . . . We have, as citizens, much to repent for, for what we have and have not done, to ease the suffering of our sisters and brothers who have no lobby to protect them.'' Before founding Rosie's Place in 1974, Ms. Tiernan traveled to meet with legendary Catholic activist Dorothy Day, from whose life she drew inspiration and spiritual sustenance for the decades that lay ahead. Beth Healy, a Globe reporter who is writing a biography of Ms. Tiernan, said: ``She had this soft spot in her heart for broken people, whether they were sick or mentally ill or struggling with addiction. Kip would hug a person dying of AIDS back in the 1980s when everyone else was running away. She would talk to someone living on the streets that no one else would talk to.'' Ms. Tiernan, Froehlich said, combined compassion with ``a pragmatic approach to solving issues, like: Hungry? Food. Homeless? Housing. And she challenged people with that clarity.'' Though Ms. Tiernan asked ``hard questions, at the same time, I was always impressed that she embraced people of all persuasions because she wanted them to see what she saw,'' Froehlich said. ``And I mean really embraced them. She would hold somebody's hand while they were disagreeing with her. She really wanted you to join her in this pursuit of justice for people who have nothing.'' Born in West Haven, Conn., Ms. Tiernan was 6 months old when her father died and 11 when her mother died. Raised by her maternal grandmother, she learned during the Great Depression to help others. ``Her grandmother always had soup or stew on the stove,'' Froehlich said, ``and when people came to the house who were down on their luck, she always had bowls of soup or stew ready for them.'' By her teens, she was learning to fly a plane and play jazz piano. She also was expelled from a Catholic boarding school, telling the Globe she had failed math and asked too many difficult moral questions. She worked as a newspaper reporter and moved to Boston in 1947 to attend the Boston Conservatory on a scholarship, only to be expelled for drinking. ``I was raped once,'' she told the Globe in 1988. ``I was 19. Drunk.'' Speaking of the women she served at Rosie's Place, she added: ``I'll tell you one thing. It helps me identify with what some of these women have been through.'' Ms. Tiernan joined Alcoholics Anonymous, learned from recovering street drunks how to stay sober, and became a successful advertising copywriter with her own agency. In 1968, she did some free work for priests who had invited activist Daniel Berrigan to speak at a church. Listening to him, she later recalled, it was as if a voice inside her head said, ``I have just passed through a door, and there is no going back.'' Leaving the affluence of her advertising life, she moved into Warwick House, an urban ministry center in Roxbury. Using her copywriter's facility. with language, she became one of Boston's most quotable advocates for the poor, coining phrases such as ``from the Great Society to the Grate Society.'' A service will be announced for Ms. Tiernan, whose longtime companion of decades, Edith Nicholson, died in the 1990s. Ms. Tiernan helped raise Nicholson's three children and leaves one of those children, Peg Wright of Saugerties, N.Y.; seven grandchildren; and three great-grandchildren. For the past 15 years, Ms. Tiernan and Donna Pomponio have been a couple. They married in 2004. ``The tragedies in the world continued to propel her to fix things and make them better,'' Pomponio said of Ms. Tiernan. ``She knew that as human beings, we could do better for each other. There was a support and strength that came from that woman, and having her by your side and in your life, you knew that you could do it, too.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this is a dangerous amendment. It's kind of a test of whether or not Members of this body believe what they say. Fortunately, I think for all concerned, the oath we take at the beginning of the session does not carry over to specific statements. So the fact that I believe this will probably, unfortunately, show a great gap between what people say and what they vote will have no consequences other than the public knowing it. We are at a time of austerity. We are at a time when the important programs, valid programs, are being cut back. And we were told by some, everything is on the table, there are no sacred cows, all those metaphors that are supposed to suggest that we will deal with everything. And then we get this appropriation from the Appropriations Committee for the military budget. At a time when we are cutting police officers on the streets of our cities, we are cutting back firefighters, we're cutting back maintenance of highways, of the construction of bridges to replace old bridges, when we are cutting in almost every capacity, the military budget gets a $17 billion increase for this fiscal year to the next. A $17 billion increase for the military budget simply does not fit with this argument that we are putting everything on the table. Yes, they say they're putting everything on the table, but there is a little bit of a problem with the preposition here--not the proposition, the preposition. The military budget is not on the table. The military is at the table, and it is eating everybody else's lunch. We are cutting area after area. For example, we have been told by some on the Republican side that we cannot afford to go to the aid of those of our fellow citizens who have been the victims of natural disasters who have suffered enormous physical and, therefore, also psychological damage from tornadoes and floods unless we find the cuts elsewhere. But if we were not increasing the military budget by $17 billion over this year, then there would be no need to do that and you would not have to worry about that aid. Now, my colleagues, this is co-authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore). We are being very moderate here. We are not saying don't give the Pentagon any more money. This amendment reduces by 50 percent the increase for the Pentagon. We are accepting $8.5 billion more. By the way, this, of course, does not affect the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It just occurred to me, maybe this was said earlier, the budget for Afghanistan, which we refuse to cut, reluctantly, regrettably, was voted out by the committee before the President announced a 10,000 troop reduction. So we are overfunding Afghanistan unless you think the President was kidding when he said we are going to bring down 10,000 troops. We funded 10,000 troops for next year that won't be there in Afghanistan. And that is the problem. We are saying to the Pentagon, You find it. Don't cut military personnel. Don't cut health, but perhaps some of the bases we maintain overseas, some of the subsidies we give to NATO. Lip service is paid here to an alliance in which they participate. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I have to say it is true of the Obama administration and the members of the Appropriations Committee and the Armed Services Committee, they are the enablers of one of the great welfare dependencies in the history of the world: the ability of wealthy European nations, 61 years after the foundation of NATO, to get subsidized by America so their military budgets can be a small percentage of ours as percentage of the GDP so they can provide more services, better rail, better health care, and earlier retirement for their own people. This says to the Pentagon not that we are going to cut you. This gives them a greater than 1 percent increase at a time when everybody else is being cut. And it leaves it up to the Pentagon. Let's look at the bases that we have all over the world. Let's look at efficient procedures. Yes, there is inefficiency. You cannot mandate efficiency from the outside when you simultaneously give the entity in question the ability to spend without limit. You will never get efficiency, Mr. Chairman, at the Pentagon if we don't begin to subject them to the same kind of fiscal discipline that everybody else gets. And it is undeniable that the Pentagon is a great exception here. We are going to be telling American cities to continue to lay off cops, to continue to ignore important reconstruction projects that help with transportation. We are going to continue to cut back on firefighters. We are going to continue to quibble over financial disaster relief, but we will give the Pentagon, unless this amendment passes, an additional $17 billion that we cannot afford. I yield back the balance of my time.