Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, is the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] opposed to the bill?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I claim 20 minutes in opposition.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I believe the conference committee did, given what it had to work with, a very good job. I was particularly pleased that they have adopted language which will enable the President to refuse to go ahead with any new B-2 bombers. I assume, given the President's strong position on this and the Pentagon's opposition to new B-2 bombers, that he will in fact use this authority and we will not be further committing to the construction of new B-2 bombers. But there is still a fundamental problem with the bill. I want to talk about two of them. First, it continues to spend too much money. Roughly 50 percent of the discretionary spending allowed to the Federal Government under the recently signed budget deal will be consumed by the military and related intelligence functions. Every other function of the Government, environment, public safety here at home, transportation, they are all going to suffer increasingly from inadequate funding. I am a supporter of the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], who chairs the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to get more funding for highway and transit funds. I believe we have a very serious problem here which could be alleviated in part by increased funding. I think we would better serve the true security needs of the American people by diverting some of the funds that now go for national security in the strictly military sense to improving our security here through improving our infrastructure. There are a number of things in the bill that I would object to. But I want to talk about one particular area where we are spending tens of billions, wholly unnecessarily, and not because of any national security need of the United States, properly understood. This bill, not through the fault necessarily of the Members here, but because this administration, as every one before it, has acquiesced in a policy of allowing our Western European allies and some of our Asian allies to take a free ride on the U.S. Government. Let me give an example. We are about, once again, to get into a debate about pulling out of Bosnia. I voted to have the American troops withdraw from Bosnia. I voted to have American troops withdrawn in December. I think we should be proud of the intervention that we made that stopped a serious loss of life, and I think they have made some progress towards improvement, although I am not hopeful that we will ultimately get where we should be. But there are two separate questions that are being treated as one. First, should there be a continued presentation of military forces in Bosnia to try to enforce basic human rights? And second, must the United States be a part of it? The United States, without any help from our European allies, stands in South Korea along with the South Koreans, as we have to these days, to deter and, hopefully it will not happen, but if necessary, to repel an attack from North Korea. The United States takes the leading military role with very little help from our European allies in trying to enforce peace in the Middle East, confronting the Iraqi and Iranian regimes. The United States, of course, takes the leading role in our own hemisphere, in Haiti and elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, is it never Europe's turn? Is there never a time when we can ask our Western European allies to carry on without us? And I know what they are now saying. They are saying that there will not be a European military presence in Bosnia unless the United States is a part of it. I think we should do our part, and I think it is important to be there. But I do not understand why our wealthy European allies cannot take on their share of the burden. And I say this for this reason: If we look at military expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product, as a percentage of Government expenditures, the U.S. percentage dwarfs our European allies. I believe, by the way, that the problem is not that they spend too little but that we spend too much. I am not asking them to get up to our level. I am saying that a situation in which they pressure us to spend excessively is a mistake. I do believe with regard to the Bosnian situation that it is fair for us to ask Germany, Italy, France, England, and the Scandinavian countries and the Benelux countries and others to do this. I do not understand why they are not capable without us of dealing with Western Europe. We have the obligation in the Middle East. We have the obligation in Haiti. We have the obligation in South Korea. I support our involvement in all those areas. But I do not understand why we allow it to be so one-sided. And it is not simply Bosnia that is the problem. The Bosnian situation, if that were the only one, it would not cause such a great problem. The problem is this: We continue to spend tens of billions of dollars for the military defense of Western Europe. We cannot know exactly how much because they will not tell us. That is wasted money. It is spent for very brave people. It is spent for very good equipment. The problem is not the people and equipment. The problem is there is no necessity. The only reason we are militarily committed to the defense of Western Europe is cultural lack. There was a serious threat 50 years ago to European countries from a totalitarian aggressive regime, and they were poor and not able to defend themselves. That threat has disappeared. They are now wealthy. And we continue to spend. I cite the Bosnian thing only because it is an example of the mindset that Europe cannot defend itself. As I said, I am not asking for a considerable expenditure increase in Europe. I am saying that the Europeans should understand, and we ought to take the lead in cutting back substantially on the American military presence in Western Europe which serves no purpose from the standpoint of defense. If we are talking about the need for bases which can go forward into other areas, then let us do it on that score. But that is not what has happened. What has happened is that we continue to plan for a defense of Western Europe militarily, and what we really ought to have is an essay contest, Madam Speaker. Let us have an essay contest and give a prize to anybody who can identify that threat to Western Europe that we are spending tens of billions of dollars to deter, because that is what is happening, and we are doing it at the cost here of important programs. If you live in Western Europe and you lose your job, you do not have to worry about losing your health care. In fact, some people believe that Western Europe is not doing enough to allow for some instability in jobs. But one thing we know is if people lose their jobs in Western Europe, they will not lose their health care. If you lose your job in America, you probably lose your health care, particularly if you are in the manufacturing area. Why can the Europeans afford to do so much more with health care than we can? Because we are defending them militarily against a nonexistent threat. So I want to be clear. I am not insisting that they do more, I am insisting that they take responsibility for their own defense. Indeed, I think nothing we could do would more graphically improve the sense of security in Western Europe than to tell them that they were in charge of their own defense, because I guarantee you that if we told the Western Europeans they were in charge of their own military defense, they would suddenly feel a lot safer than they do today. As long as the American taxpayer is going to pay for their defense, they are very insecure, and they tell us we need to be there. If they were told that they were in charge of their own defense, I think they would acknowledge the fact that they are not threatened, and they could maintain a reasonable level. Let me make a connection, Madam Speaker. We are debating here the question of fast track. We are debating the question of international trade. One of the reasons you have so much resistance on the part of American workers, which I share, to further international trade is that we now leave them unprotected if they happen to be the losers when international trade goes forward. And there will be winners and losers. I believe there will probably be more winners than losers, but there will be losers. We have a social and economic system now that leaves the losers unprotected. Increase the social safety net for those who will be the losers in the transitional impact in international trade, and you cut back their resistance. When John Kennedy launched the Alliance for Progress, he looked back to Franklin Roosevelt's good neighbor policy in Latin America, and he said, talking about how Roosevelt had pioneered internationalism economically, Franklin Roosevelt could be a good neighbor abroad because he was a good neighbor at home. Those who want America to be more forthcoming internationally in the economic area have to understand that part of that resistance comes from American workers who feel they will not be fairly treated in the transition. One way to do that is to stop committing tens of billions of dollars, as this bill continues to do, for the military defense of our wealthy allies in Western Europe against a nonexistent threat. I would hope that we would change this policy, we would tell our Western European allies that yes, we think the Bosnian thing is important, and we have taken a major role, and American air and sea power would remain available if it had to be called in, but the ground presence in Bosnia ought to be the Western European ground presence. There is no rational argument why those countries, together having hundreds of millions of people, having the economy they have, could not do that work. That would be a first step in our making substantial reductions in our military expenditures, leaving no vital interest unprotected, putting ourselves at no military disadvantage, but simply adapting to the current reality that our wealthy Western European allies face no threat that they cannot handle themselves, and certainly nothing that justifies the tens of billions of dollars of continued expenditures of American money that comes out of other important programs, or out of deficit reduction, or out of tax reduction. Members would have the choice how to deal with it. For that reason, Madam Speaker, I will oppose this conference report. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for the amendment offered by the ranking member of the subcommittee. The effort to get a Supreme Court decision on the census before we take the census simply will not work. The American Constitution is very clear. For once I wish some of my colleagues paid more attention to the very clear writing of Justice Scalia. You cannot by statute constitute the U.S. Supreme Court as an advisory body to tell us in advance of what happens. There is an amendment that says you cannot go forward with the census sampling until the Supreme Court has decided it, but the Supreme Court will disregard this. Have we not learned from what happened with the line-item veto? The requirement that there be an actual case or controversy and an aggrieved party is something that is strictly enforced by the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Speaker, if Members want to ban sampling, they ought to offer that as a vote. I would not be for it. But no one should console themselves that we can vote to have the Supreme Court by our instruction take a case which constitutionally they will not take and then have solved the problem.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I understand that, but let me say I think we have reached an agreement in this sense: Everyone is here, just about everybody here now understands that there is agreement in the resolution on the contest, if it ever comes to that, because I hope it does not, ever comes to the floor. If one does, and the Speaker is asked to rule on the presence of Mr. Dornan, I would think the ruling would be that during the actual consideration on the floor there would be no obstacle, and we would all uphold that ruling, and that has clearly been established now. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I think there is a point that pendency may be broader than was intended, but I think there was agreement that what we are talking about, and let me say I was thinking of those words, ``during the consideration of the committee's report,'' that during consideration of the committee's report on the floor of the House, if that could be redone by unanimous consent, that that would solve it; that there would be a bar except during consideration of the committee report on the floor, while the report is itself the pending matter of business on the floor of the House, and I would think that would be sufficient.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman for doing this. I would urge the next time, to the gentleman, work this out before the gentleman ruins my afternoon.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, during the congressional recess I visited a work site in the town of Foxboro MA where the town human services program was employing young people through the JTPA program. The material I have included here describes the program. This was a chance for young people from the town to get a variety of work experiences in both profit and nonprofit entities. I visited an elderly center where I was delighted to see the young people and the older citizens who were using the center interacting in a very positive way. This is an excellent example of a creative use of Federal programs in a way that benefits both the direct participants, and other citizens who gain from their work. I believe that examples such as this of a good use of Federal programs are very instructive and I therefore ask that this material be printed here so that others may benefit from the experience of this first rate program in Foxboro. [From the Foxboro Reporter, July 24, 1997] Work it out: Youth program is now offering job experience (By James Loewenstein) Several town departments and local agencies are getting some helping hands from Foxboro teenagers this summer. The youngsters are waxing fire engines for the fire department, answering phones for Foxboro Human Services, and serving as aides at a day care center at St. Mark's Church. Others are doing gardening at the Doolittle Home or helping clean out storage rooms at the Council on Aging. The 20 teenagers who are helping out are learning job skills and collecting a government-funded paycheck under the Foxboro Human Services' newly revamped summer youth program. While the program has existed in Foxboro for 11 years, this is the first year that participants have had to work at a job site, according to Valerie McKenney, executive director of both the program and Foxboro Human Services. ``The program is radically different from before,'' said Bill Breen, one of the staff members who run the program. Students spend 2\1/2\ hours in the morning at their job site, and another 2\1/2\ hours in the afternoon at the Ahern Middle School where they learn math and reading and are coached on ways to improve their job performance, said Breen, who teaches the students job and career skills. The students are ``at-risk kids,'' said Breen, who works during the school year as a Spanish teacher in Taunton. ``We want them to stay in high school and give them good work habits,'' he said. In the past, the students spent more time in class. However, the federal government, which funds the program, required that it be changed, said Breen's wife, Rosanne, who directs the program in Foxboro. ``They wanted the kids to do work and see what it's like,'' said Bill Breen. Students are still paid for their efforts, earning $131 a week, said Rosanne Breen. Those funds ultimately come from the federal government, said McKenney. Now that the program includes a work component, the students ``feel like they are earning their money,'' said Donna Breen. The students are in the 8th, 9th, or 10th grades, said Bill Breen, adding that this is typically their first job experience. As part of their afternoon session, the students are given coaching on good job habits and social skills on the job, Rosanne Breen said. Some students in the program say it keeps them occupied and out of trouble. ``If I have nothing to do [during the summer], I always get yelled at,'' said Kevin Thomas, an eighth-grader. Students say the program has also taught them good work habits. Mike Robitaille, a ninth-grader, said he has learned ``to be respectful to people you're working for.'' And Lisa Kinney, an eighth-grader, said she has learned the importance of getting to work on time. The five-week program is funded by a $10,600 grant under the Job Training Partnership Act, said Bill Breen. While the revamped program has been in effect in Foxboro only since July 14, ``It seems to be working out really well,'' said Bill Breen. ``Their employers have been very happy with what's going on,'' he said. ``A lot of the jobs are things the staff can't get to during the course of the year,'' he said. And some jobs, such as answering phones, ``frees up staff [in the host departments or agencies] to do other things,'' he said. McKenney said she is disappointed that due to the on-the job component there is not enough time to offer as many classes for the students as in the past. ``It was an important part of the program,'' she said.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, last year in a combination of procedural outrage and substantive outrage, we enacted into law, over the objection of myself and many others, provisions which made deportation automatic in a number of cases where deportation is inhumane, disruptive not just to individuals, but to other countries, and wholly unjustified. No society has an obligation to tolerate within its midst people who are a danger to others, people who disrupt the lives of others. We have had deportation laws on the books to protect us in those situations, although they have not always been enforced with the vigor which should have obtained. Last year, reacting to the terrorism and other things that happened, we passed legislation to try to improve our internal security. Much of that was sensible and I voted for it. Some of it was simply abusive, demagogic, and cruel. One example was what we did in deportation. What we said was, in effect, if one has ever been convicted of a felony, one will be automatically deported, despite the virulence of the offense, and in particular, regardless of whether or not in the interim one had become a good citizen. Let me give an example of what this outrageous law now requires. I recently received a letter, in July, just before we broke, from Michael Carter from the Center of Health and Human Services, a drug treatment center in my district. He told me about a client of his. He says, this man has been in recovery for 6 years and he is receiving treatment. Due to recent changes in immigration laws, he is being deported due to a charge of possession of heroin in 1989. Since that time, he has had no further incidents, but he is being deported. Let me read this essay from this dangerous criminal that this Congress is insisting be deported, and let me make it very clear, this is not the fault of the Immigration Service. They have to deport this man because we made it mandatory, foolishly, cruelly, and without justification. Dear Congressman, I am a 31-year-old man that came to this country when I was 3 months. I was brought up an American and that is all I know how to be. In 1986, I lost three of my fingers in an industrial accident in work. I went through 3 years of surgery and physical therapy. Unfortunately, I found relief from my pain through the use of drugs. I know it was the wrong thing to do, but I got a false sense of comfort from it. In 1989, I was arrested in Providence, Rhode Island, for heroin and I got 2 year's probation. I made it through those years without incident. I got help for my problem in therapy. I have never been in jail and I am still in therapy. Let me just note here, as his counselor has said, he has since that time been free of drugs, free of any incident. He had a drug problem. He should not have had it; he acknowledges it. He was found guilty of possession, no violence, no theft; he hurt himself, no one else. He was sentenced only to probation. Now he is going to be automatically deported. Let me read a little bit more. Two years ago I applied for citizenship while I was going to trade school. Instead of citizenship, I was arrested. This month I was deported. I go back to court on the 4th of August. I graduated from the New England Tractor Trailer School of Rhode Island, and I have my class A driver's license. I have a corporation interested in giving me a job, but it is on hold. Sir, I made some mistakes when I was a young man, a kid. But my convictions are 9 to 12 years old and I am showing you my record, and you will see I have had most of the charges dismissed. I have 3 young children, babies, age 3, 5 and 6 years of age. My oldest daughter has cystic fibrosis and she needs the care and love of both of her parents, sir. I am not a bad person. I am not a terrorist. I am a man who made some mistakes when I was a foolish kid. Sir, I love my children very much, more than life itself, and I have the means to support my children very well with the career I intend to make for myself. I can go anywhere in this country and get a good job driving tractor trailers. I do not know how to write or read Portuguese. I know just enough language to get by. Where am I going to live? How am I going to eat? I don't know the answers to these questions myself. I am terrified. All of my family is here. I don't know why they want to take a father away from his children. Did I do something that bad where my children are going to lose their father? I am a 31-year-old Catholic that wants to work hard, pay his taxes, become a citizen, vote, raise my children the best I know how and help them live the American dream. Sir, in my heart and soul I am an American. I love this land and I would die for it. But he is going to be deported. This is a man, now 31, who when he was very young, after an accident, became addicted to heroin. He should not have been addicted to heroin. He was sentenced to 2 year's probation. He completed that sentence successfully. He has now been in treatment. He has for 8 years been a good citizen. He has since that time brought three children into the world whom he is trying to bring up and protect. By an arbitrary and thoughtless act of this Congress, well, I should not say thoughtless, unfortunately, thought went into it, he will be deported, no matter how good a citizen he is. No matter how clearly we can establish that he is no threat to anyone, he will be deported and he will be sent to a country which is a foreign country to him. I hope we will, in this House, change the law and prevent this sort of injustice from being visited on this individual, his children, and other people. Center for Health and Human Services, Inc., Fall River, MA., July 24, 1997. Dear Congressman Frank: ------ is my client. He has been in recovery on this clinic for 6 years and receiving treatment. Due to recent changes in Immigration laws, he is being deported due to a felony charge (possession of Heroin in 1989). Since that time he has had no further incidents. Due to the new law, having had a prior felony, Immigration wants to deport him. Both he, his family, and I are asking for any assistance you might to be able to provide, to prevent this from happening.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. I agree with the legislation that the gentleman has introduced, and I share his regret that the Senate made it only a 4-year extension. There was no good reason for that. But, Mr. Speaker, I also share the gentleman's view that the best thing for us to do is to concur, so we can at least keep it going. The colleges deserve to have been supported by the Federal Government, not interfered with when this first came up. As the gentleman from Texas very accurately explained, what we are talking about here is an effort by the colleges to put their scholarship money where the need is the greatest. Absent this kind of antitrust exemption, there would be pressures on them to bid for a few students, regardless of whether or not need existed, and that would take money away in a limited-resource universe that we live in, from students in great need. Mr. Speaker, I thought it was a serious error when the Department of Justice years ago interfered here. Congress did the right thing by stepping in to protect the right of the universities to do this. We should be making it permanent, and the gentleman from Texas has taken the lead here in a very good way. Given that the Senate did not want to go along with the permanent extension, this is the best we could do and so we should do it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I first want to address some of those who have been churlish enough to suggest that this is not the finest use of time of this body. This has been a very educational debate. For instance, I did not know until right now that if you were opposed to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration you pronounce it AHSHA, whereas if you are in favor of its mission, you pronounce it OHSHA. I will now recommend to people that when you hear them say AHSHA they wish it was abolished. When they say OHSHA, they are in favor of it. That may be the only thing people will learn tonight. There is one other thing. I did want to extend condolences. I have some colleagues on our side who have been talking about slowing down the procedures of the House to demonstrate the importance of campaign financing. I congratulate some on the other side who have figured out how to preempt that because there is no way in the world anybody could be noticed as slowing down this process. So the Republican conservatives have here preempted the Democratic liberals. There is no way anyone will notice that people are trying to burlesque these proceedings with this set of amendments. But now let us get to the merits. I think it is very important. We are here choosing between worthy programs, because I think both aid to children with disabilities, and I heard one of my colleagues complaining that the Federal Government is insisting that children be educated. I suppose there are some who think that is a terrible thing for the Federal Government to do. I think it is rather a good thing for the government to do. But I would acknowledge, we are forced to choose between two good things, because I am in the ``pronounce it OHSHA'' category. I think having a Federal agency that tries to reduce death and industrial accidents is important. I think the history is clear that left to their own devices, corporations, not because they are evil but because they are profit maximizers, by instinct will not in fact put enough into safety and health. Unless you have a government entity insisting on that, there simply will not be enough. Is it perfect? No. But here is what strikes me. We are choosing between two goods. And we are choosing at very small margins. Meanwhile, this House continues to support tens of billions of dollars for the B-2 bomber. People have talked about problems with individual decisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, but the majority voted for an airplane that cannot go out in the rain. If, in fact, OSHA had ever decided that you could not make umbrellas that would retract in the rain, we would be very upset. But we just did this with a big airplane. So what this demonstrates is the lack of sensible priorities that has been governing in this House. If in fact we were to vote enough for the military, but not way too much, we would not have this problem. I should note one other thing for people to keep track of, and that is when is a level funding in dollars not a cut? Well, it is not a cut when it happens to deal with occupational safety and health. If you provide the same dollars for the Labor Department, that is not a cut; but if you were to provide the same dollars for the Defense Department, that is a cut. People who denounce the notion that level funding is a cut here will tell us that we are making a cut there. There is, of course, a difference. We are debating $11 million here. In the defense bill, we would not debate $11 million because of the principle de minimis non curat lex, or the law does not deal with trifles. Neither does the defense appropriation bill. Because ``million,'' I do not think in the Pentagon there is an ``M'' on the typewriter, because they never deal with less than a billion. A million, nobody would notice a million. As a matter of fact, I think it would be a violation of occupational safety and health to tell the Pentagon to worry about millions, because they spend so much money, they would get severe eyestrain if they had to worry about millions. So what we have here is a very clear indication of the distorted priorities that obtain in this House. No, we should not have to choose between trying to prevent occupational disasters for working men and women and educating children. I hope when we vote again on the budget and when the appropriations committees' conferences come back, we will cut a tinsy-little bit out of that military, and they will be able to take care of OHSHA, AHSHA, and the children.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana who just spoke. He managed to point out to the membership that since John Kennedy became President, we created the Medicare Program. It is true in 1962 defense was a much higher percentage of the total spending. We had no Medicare Program. But that was not John Kennedy's fault. He wanted one. It is true that we had no environmental spending. So the argument from 1962 in terms of percentages is built on the fact that in 1962 we had no environmental program, we had no Medicare Program, we had no Medicaid Program, and it is true that they have now reduced the total percentage. But it also has nothing to do with a rational decision about how much to spend. The point of defense spending is to be far stronger than your enemies. One thing has changed even more since 1985 than the defense number and that is the nature of our enemy in the world. No one I know of thought at the time that the Soviet Union and its allies in the Warsaw Pact were not the major focus of our defense spending. There were other enemies, there was North Korea, there was Iran, but the major focus of our defense in every way, shape and form in terms of nuclear and conventional was the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. That has disappeared. There is no area of government where the objective situation has changed so greatly in our favor. Yes, we do have a potential problem with China. We have Iran and Iraq and Libya. We had those then. So, of course, we have cut spending some since 1985. If what had happened to the Soviet Union between 1985 and now had happened to cancer, we would not have a National Cancer Institute. There has been a total collapse, a disappearance of the major enemy. The question is, do we need to spend at the current level to be secure against Iraq and Libya, et cetera? The answer seems to me to be clearly no. Of course, we should be the strongest Nation in the world. It is much cheaper to be. The gentleman from Florida, the chairman of the committee, said this is what the budget agreement called for, this is what the authorization called for. The gentleman knows that those are ceilings, not floors. The budget resolution, the authorization, they set ceilings. We are told at the time, this is the ceiling, this is the maximum. The notion that we always must appropriate up to every penny of the authorizing and budget resolutions is clearly one this House rejects. The gentleman also inaccurately stated that this amendment would give the President the authority to make the changes. Nothing could be clearer. If this amendment were to pass, the bill would go to conference and the conferees would have entire authority to change the spending priorities. The gentleman says, well, we would have to cut breast cancer, we would have to cut this. No. How about enforcing this House's vote that said we should be withdrawing from Bosnia? This bill funds, and let us be clear about this, this bill funds a full 12 months in Bosnia despite the fact that this House voted that the Bosnia enterprise should end June 30. This bill is inconsistent because it gives the administration the money to keep the troops in Bosnia in July and August and September over the vote of the House. This bill continues the practice of saying to France and Germany and England and Norway and Italy and Belgium, ``You are objects of our charity.'' The worst example of cultural lag in the history of the world is that the United States taxpayers through this bill will be continuing to subsidize our NATO allies. We have voted several times to say they do not do enough. Their percentage of their spending of their GDP on defense far lags ours. Yes, defending Western Europe is in our interest, but let me make a statement that I hope is accepted. While defending Western Europe is in our interest, it is at least as much in the interest of the Western Europeans. Let me make it a 50-50 proposition. It is at least as important to Belgium and France and Italy that we defend Belgium and France and Italy as it is to the United States. But we would not know that from looking at the figures or from looking at the appropriations, because while people in those countries have health care, people in those countries have much better unemployment compensation, their American equivalents may find themselves without health care, without unemployment compensation, without other things that we could use because we are subsidizing their defense, because we spend in many cases twice as much of our gross domestic product on defending them. So I say to the Committee on Appropriations, work a little at it. Tell the administration that we are serious about withdrawing from Bosnia on June 30. We would save a billion or two there. They can do it if they put their minds to it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] for yielding. Let me anticipate one argument. This is not an across-the-board cut. This would, if it passed, have the Subcommittee on Appropriations, in conference, have the authority to allocate where to reduce what they ask for. And if they have trouble fingering places, I will suggest some: Funds for Bosnia; the funds for the expansion of NATO beyond our fair share. Maybe they are even talking about not sending 100 officers over here to help us do our job. The point is that we are talking about the largest single operational budget in the Federal Government, and we are saying, at a time of great austerity, at a time when we are admittedly cutting back on programs that are of great value in a number of areas, we would ask the Defense Department to participate. A number of Members here have said that they think we are overextended. We have passed legislation in this House that has said to the administration, cut back, you are overextended here, you do not belong over there. They will continue to ignore those with absolute impunity until this House does the one thing it can do to restrain excessive interventionism, and that is reduce the funding. We know that from our history. What this bill then says is to Members who think we are excessively engaged here or there, we will trust the appropriations subcommittee. They will tell us with false modesty that this will be a job much too hard for them. But I have more confidence in their ingenuity than that. Given the mandate from this House to make this relatively small cut to bring it back to a freeze, they would have the option of restraining the administration from entering into or continuing efforts which we do not think they should be in. They could crack down on waste. We could get serious about telling our allies in Europe that it is their turn to pick up some of the tab. Indeed, if we forced the Europeans to do just a little bit of what they ought to be doing, we could easily afford this cut. This at this point, because we are in a fire wall situation, would not be available for domestic spending. I wish it would. In later years, it might be. What we are talking about is another $3-plus billion of deficit reduction. I must say, as I look at how that deal is working out, which I do not happen to be a fan of, some of my colleagues who are voting for it may need a little extra deficit reduction, because that deal is going to be a deficit increase for a while. So those of my colleagues who are planning to vote for the deal and claim credit for getting the deficit down might want to borrow our $3\1/2\ billion, because they are going to need it, as I do the arithmetic, in the next year. But, in any case, it would be a very grave error to continue spending at the level that the committee asked for, increasing spending by a couple percentage points, continuing to fund excessive intervention, continuing to fund the subsidy of our Western European allies. All we do in this amendment is say to the Appropriations Subcommittee we have confidence that you, if you ask for a fair shake for America in the world, can make this small saving at a time when we are in fact putting the crunch to program after program after program. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] for his leadership, and I yield back to him.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to see other Members here to join this debate. We are talking about the largest single appropriation. It seems to me appropriate that we ought to fully air it. First of all, I was disappointed my friend from California had to rush off the floor and could not yield to me because he, I do not think, and he is back, good; he did not perhaps read the amendment when he said it is an across-the-board cut. It simply is not. An across-the- board cut, as we all know, means we cut every item by the same percentage. This amendment does not do that, and I am flattered that he apparently thinks the real amendment would be hard to criticize so he criticized a nonexisting amendment. And I would join him in opposing that nonexisting across-the-board amendment, if offered. This amendment clearly says the total amount obligated cannot exceed X, and if it passes without question it is then within the province of the appropriations subcommittee in conference to comply with it. It would be entirely their choice. The President would have nothing to say. He would get a bill that would have to be this total, but what the components were would be entirely up to them. And so they would not have to cut these other things. They could, as I have said before, enforce this House's view about Bosnia, and let us be clear we had a large majority that said we want to pull out of Bosnia by June 30. Why then is the Committee on Appropriations fully funding them to stay there for 12 months? We have had the House say that we are picking up a disproportionate share in Europe. My friend from Massachusetts who yielded to me noted we ought to compare what the average worker gets in health benefits and unemployment compensation and tuition for higher education. In every case they get a better deal than the American because the American gets to pay for Germany's defense and Belgium's defense and France's defense because the percentage that we pay far exceeds theirs, and this appropriations bill funds a continuation of that inequitable pattern. That is what we are telling the Committee on Appropriations: Instead of all this talk about burden sharing you are the ones who can enforce it because you are the ones who can say to our European allies, ``You will have to pay some more on your own.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield now to a man who has been genuine in his consistent interest in reducing the deficit, the author of the amendment, the gentleman from Connecticut.