Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the chairman and ranking member for allowing me to offer this amendment, although because of the misinformation I missed the time. We had a long debate about cutting this. We now have a shorter one because we have got a time agreement. The amendment I offer would reduce the authorization by 0.7 percent, seven-tenths of 1 percent. I cannot tell the Members how much that is in dollars because there might be a spy that knows algebra and if a spy knew algebra he could take 0.7, he could multiply, he could do some other things and he would know the total. I certainly would not want to violate the law by indicating the total. So in deference to the algebraic literate Iranians who may be lurking, I will tell any Member who comes to me privately what the dollar amount is. Let me say it is significant. Seven-tenths of 1 percent does not look like a lot, but we are not dealing here with the NEA or the CPB or low-income fuel assistance. We are here dealing with national security, which means it is serious money. So I will be glad to tell people how much we are talking about. I cannot tell it publicly because they are listening. What I am proposing to do is to reduce this to the amount the President requested. We have had conversations about how the amount was reduced. Ten years ago, we faced a heavily nuclear armed Soviet Union. Fortunately, we no longer have that serious problem. Indeed, the greatest intelligence problem in Europe in the months and years ahead may be to keep track of just how many countries have joined NATO. We certainly have had a substantial reduction in the threat, and we have not had a remotely commensurate reduction in the spending. I happen to believe that the administration has given in and asked for too much in the national security area, but I accept the judgment of the House, we are not going to make any substantial reduction of the sort I voted for. But I do not understand how we could vote to raise what the President has requested for this item. Because, remember, we are in the zero sum game situation of the budget deal, and every $10 or $100 or $200 million by which we raise what the President has asked for in this account, we must reduce somewhere else. We must reduce elsewhere in defense or we must reduce in transportation. Members here almost voted to increase transportation. So the question before us is, shall we at this point increase by a significant albeit unstatable sum what the President has asked for for intelligence, knowing that we do this at the cost of other important items? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment that was printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent because I, relying on advice I was given earlier, thought that we were going to have amendments in order at any time. Therefore, I missed the specific time. I ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment which is covered by the time agreement articulated by the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have a later amendment dealing with a cut, in case this one does not pass. Maybe we can have that number by then, what the percentage was of what it was cut.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, he cannot tell me because the Iranians would find out.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the gentleman, he and I agree we should not be under this restriction but we are, he cannot give us the dollar figure. He said intelligence has already been cut. Could he tell us what the percentage cut was?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, during the month of June, gay and lesbian people throughout this country celebrated our presence in this country. That is a tradition that has now gone on for more than 20 years, but this year there was one difference. As Herb and I prepared to go to New York to participate in the New York celebration, I carried with me a statement from the President of the United States in which he welcomed the gay and lesbian pride celebrations and reaffirmed his commitment, the President's commitment, to fighting anti-gay and lesbian prejudice. Bill Clinton is the first President in our history to confront this prejudice. Unfortunately, by the norms of American political discourse, you generally today get criticized by people when they are unhappy and ignored when you have done something that they should be applauding. President Clinton is entitled to a good deal of praise for his willingness to confront one of the enduring prejudices that has blighted our ability as a nation to fully realize our constitutional ideals. I believe Mr. Speaker, given the historic nature of this proclamation which I was pleased to get a copy of from Richard Socarides, a very able aid at the White House who worked on these issues, I think it is appropriate that the President's statement on Gay and Lesbian Pride Celebration 1997 be shared here in this Chamber. So I will now, with unanimous consent, proceed to read the President's celebration: Warm greetings to all those participating in the 1997 Gay and Lesbian Pride Celebration. Throughout America's history, we have overcome tremendous challenges by drawing strength from our great diversity. We must never believe that our diversity is a weakness. The talents, contributions and goodwill of people from so many different backgrounds have enriched our national life and have enabled us to fulfill our common hopes and dreams. As we stand at the dawn of a new century, we must all rededicate ourselves to reaching the vital goals of acceptance and inclusion. America's continued success will depend on our ability to understand, appreciate, and care for one another. We're not there yet, and that is why our efforts to end discrimination against lesbians and gays are so important. Like each of you, I remain dedicated to ending discrimination and preserving the civil rights of every citizen in our society. We have begun to wage an all-out campaign against hate crimes in America, crimes that are often viciously directed at gay men and lesbians. I have also endorsed and fought for civil rights legislation that would protect gay and lesbian Americans from discrimination. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act now being considered in Congress would put an end to discrimination against gay men and lesbians in the workplace, discrimination that is currently legal in 39 States. These efforts reflect our belief in the right of every American to be judged on his or her merits and ability, and to be allowed to contribute to society without facing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And they reflect our ongoing fight against bigotry and intolerance in our country and in our hearts. My Administration's record of inclusiveness is a strong one, but it is a record to build on. I am proud of the many openly gay men and lesbians who serve with distinction in my Administration, and their impact will continue to be significant in the years ahead. I pledge to you that I will continue striving to foster compassion and understanding, working not simply to tolerate our differences, but to celebrate them. Best wishes for a memorable celebration. Bill Clinton. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the President on his willingness to speak out. It is consonant with the many actions he has taken in a number of areas to ban discrimination and to fight for the right of all Americans, as he said, to be judged on their individual merits, without being held back by some irrational prejudice.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, people often call for dialog on difficult issues, but rarely engage in it beyond talking about what a nice idea it would be if we had some. In the June 29 issue of the Boston Globe, Charles R. Stith of Boston, President of the Organization for a New Equality made a genuinely useful contribution to the dialog on race that we should be having. I have known Charles Stith for many years and I am an admirer of the work he has done on many fronts to further the cause of racial justice--and indeed social justice for all people--in greater Boston and in America. I believe his short essay is a wise and useful contribution to the national conversation and given the importance of this topic and his credentials to speak out on it, I ask that it be printed here. President Clinton has challenged Americans to resume our efforts on racial reconciliation and plans to lead us in a national dialogue toward that end. After listening to the pundits, pontificators, and prognosticators muse about the virtues and failings of the president's effort, I will add my view to the discussion. It can be summarized in one word-- hope. There is cause for hope when it comes to racial justice and racial reconciliation in this country. The naysayers are not credible arbiters of history. If the past 30 years mean anything, they are a testament to the possibility of change. I am of that generation of African-Americans born on the cusp of discriminatory laws, customs, and change. I remember integrating the Fox movie theater during my adolescent years in St. Louis. I remember my brother and me getting dressed on that fateful day in our ``Sunday-go-to-meeting clothes'' and being admonished by our mother not to do ``anything to embarrass the race.'' America has come a long way since those days. Not only are we beyond the embarrassment and inconvenience of petty apartheid American-style, but we have made some equally important advances in other areas. For example, in 1960 approximately 18 percent of African- American families were middle class; by 1990 there were 42 percent. About 30 years ago there were 1,400 black elected officials; today there are close to 10,000. In that group are black mayors of predominantly white cities and a US senator. In addition, minority-owned businesses are one of the fastest growing segments of the economy. The number of businesses owned by minorities in the United States increased 60 percent between 1987 and 1992. This compares to an increase of 26 percent for all US firms over the same period. On the social front, there is a broader acceptance in both the black and white communities of interracial marriage and interracial adoption. Are we as a nation where we ought to be regarding racial justice and reconciliation? Obviously not; ergo the necessity of the national dialogue. But having acknowledged that, the past 30 years provide a demonstration of what can be accomplished if there is a will. The other reason that hope ought to be the first word in this national dialogue on race relations is the flip side of the first. The progress achieved over the past 30 years was possible because people believed that we should not live as a ``house divided against itself'' and that we could do something individually and societally to make a difference. If we are to finish the unfinished business of racial reconciliation in this country, then people have to believe that things can change. The reason is simple: unless people believe that there is a way, there is no will. Those on the left must go beyond bashing Clinton for what they see as his inadequacies of perspective and policy. We must stop contributing to the cynicism that grips the nation. If we don't, then just as we lost political power at the national level in '92, we will also lose our moral authority to challenge the nation to pursue the high ground of racial justice and racial reconciliation. If we are not in the vanguard of trying to lead this nation to believing again that the quest to bring people together across color, class, and community lines is worthwhile, then who will? We might do well to reflect on Martin Luther King Jr.'s essay ``A Testament of Hope:'' ``I am an optimist,'' he wrote, because while ``it is possible for me to falter, I am profoundly secure in my knowledge that God loves us; he has not worked out a design for our failure. Man has the capacity to do right as well as wrong, and his history is a path upward, not downward. The past is strewn with the ruins of empires of tyranny, and each is a monument not merely to man's blunders but to his capacity to overcome them.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues ought to make clear the basis on which the Republicans are denying these families that participation in the tax cut. They are apparently under the impression that Social Security payroll taxes are not taxes but are a voluntary gift that the lowest earning people in America make to the Government. What the Republican bill does is to say that people who get the earned income tax credit will not be eligible on the whole for this other credit. Now the earned income tax credit was something that Ronald Reagan thought well of, but the current group has made some of us who believe in moderation nostalgic for Mr. Reagan from time to time because what they say is this. The earned income tax credit compensates people who have families, by and large, who make 20 and 25 and $26,000 a year and who pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes of any of us because every penny they make is fully taxed under the Social Security payroll tax. And what the earned income tax credit does is offset to some extent the regressiveness of the Social Security payroll tax, and people who get the earned income tax credit, they do not get the earned income tax credit unless they are working or paying payroll tax on all of their income and they are then getting some credit for that less than the aggressiveness. And the Republicans are now saying, ``If that's your situation, you're not a taxpayer.'' They said we cannot give this to people, they do not pay taxes. Mr. Speaker, if Social Security payroll taxes are not taxes, then I guess we need a new dictionary and that is how it becomes so regressive. What they are saying to people is, ``You are paying these very aggressive Social Security taxes,'' for which, by the way, according to the Senate they have to wait a couple more years to get anything for medical care, ``and we are going to deny you as a consequence of that the tax credit.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, the gentleman is absolutely right, and I think what we have here is something we can offer up to the dictionary. This is the definition of adding insult to injury. These working people who work in hard jobs at relatively low wages are injured by the Republican bill by being denied the tax credit that everybody else gets. Even if they have two and three children, their children do not qualify, and then they are insulted by being characterized as people who do not work and as simply tax eaters. I would just close by saying we have this national effort, I thought, to help people get off welfare and into the wage-earning pool. Well, it is precisely the formal welfare recipients who are being told to go to work, who are being required to go to work, who will then be penalized by the way the Republican tax bill is crafted, because they will go to work at the beginning at relatively low wages, will pay a full Social Security tax for every penny they earn, but not get the tax credit.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The argument that we have heard from Republicans, from the Speaker, and others that, ``Oh, you shouldn't give the tax credit to these people who don't pay any taxes,'' they forget to say income taxes or capital gains taxes, that is true. Very few of these people making 23 and $24,000 a year are paying capital gains taxes. They are paying the Social Security taxes in the most aggressive way; that is the group of people who are getting hurt by this.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker. One of the legislative accomplishments of which I am most proud is my role, along with others in the Massachusetts Congressional delegation, in securing passage last year of the legislation which created a national park in the City of New Bedford, commemorating the City's crucial role as a world whaling center. The fact that New Bedford played a leading role in the history of whaling is of course chronicled most famously in Herman Melville's Moby-Dick, but, although the whaling industry has long since moved elsewhere and now largely come to an end, the city is still a remarkable storehouse of information on the history of whaling, and the establishment of the national park will bring that story to millions of visitors in the coming years. While the people of New Bedford are looking forward to sharing that history--and the many other important contributions their city has made to American culture--they have been celebrating their history on their own for decades. In fact, I was honored to have had the chance to participate in a parade in April in honor of the 150th anniversary of New Bedford's incorporation as a city, an event attended by more than 50,000 people. Of course New Bedford as a community has existed much longer than 150 years, but it is surely no accident that its incorporation as a city dates to the heyday of the whaling industry there. Since 1847, New Bedford, like so many other American cities, has gone through many changes and many stages of economic development, but its residents have continued to work to make the city a better place to live, while still preserving its wonderful history. And New Bedford has been an extraordinary city indeed. Beyond its role in the whaling industry, New Bedford has been the home of many ``firsts'' and other important events in American history, and I would like to take note of several. It is no surprise that the city was involved in a number of key maritime events, including, in the 1770s, the construction of Old Ironsides by George Claghorn, a New Bedford resident and ship builder. Also, in 1783, the American Ship Bedford, owned by William Rotch, Jr. of New Bedford, became the first vessel to display the American flag in English waters. And, it was in 1896 that the city's Joshua Slocum competed the first solo trip around the world in his sloop ``Spray.'' The city also played a key role in the fight for an end to slavery, and for fair treatment generally of African Americans. It was an important site on the Underground Railroad, and in 1838, a fugitive slave and his wife traveled to New Bedford from Newport, Rhode Island at the invitation of two quakers who invited him to share their carriage. Upon arriving in New Bedford, where he lived for several years and played an active role in the Underground Railroad, this former slave took the name of Frederick Douglass, and, under that name, became one of the best known African American authors and activists in our nation's history. In 1848, Lewis Temple, an African American blacksmith invented the Temple Toggle Harpoon, which revolutionized the whaling industry. And, in 1863, Sgt. William Carney of New Bedford saved the American flag in a Civil War battle at Fort Wagner, where he fought with members of the Massachusetts 54th Regiment, made up of black soldiers (a battle depicted in the film ``Glory''). Sgt. Carney was later the first black recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor. Other New Bedford historical events of note include the 1853 opening of the city's Free Public Library (this was the nation's second free library, opening its doors just weeks after the first opened in Boston); the 1871 founding of St. John the Baptist Catholic Church, the first Portuguese Catholic Church in North America; and the 1874 writing of ``Robert's Rules of Order'' by Captain Henry Robert, then stationed at the city's Fort Taber (which was designed by Robert E. Lee). Beyond these specific events, the history of New Bedford illustrates the strengths and challenges of older industrial area in our country from the latter half of the nineteenth century through the end of the twentieth. Most important, it demonstrates the importance of the commitment and character of a city's residents in creating a vibrant community. The whaling industry which was so essential to New Bedford has of course ended as an ongoing commercial activity. But, the city remains one of the centers of fishing in the world, and one example of the creative spirit of the people of New Bedford is the extent to which they have blended the maritime history of the city into its ongoing economic life. Too often in America respect for history and tradition is somehow considered to be a detraction from a concern with current economic activity. Indeed, many urban areas in this country during the middle part of this century, began, in one way or another, to separate their waterfronts from their main commercial centers. In New Bedford, however, the waterfront has always had an important place of pride in the economic life and culture of the city, and this experience is a graphic repudiation of the idea that tradition and economic activity must perpetually be in conflict. Rather, as shown so clearly in New Bedford, they can be mutually reinforcing to everyone's benefit. New Bedford also has a proud history as one of the industrial centers of this country, serving as an important hub of the garment and textile industry. While this has meant that the city--and the region--has also become an example of the shortsightedness of national trade and industrial policies which often promote the interests of some at the expense of others, once again, the spirit of the people of New Bedford has been strengthened by these adverse trends. And, now in its 151st year, New Bedford continues to strive for economic expansion that takes full advantage of twenty-first century norms. The city is striving hard for a number of improvements in the transportation grid which serves the region, and which, when brought to fruition, hold great promise for significant economic expansion. Another area where New Bedford has an important lesson for the rest of the country is in dealing with the consequences of past environmental damage. Until fairly recently in our nation's history we paid very little attention to the negative effects of air and water pollution. For the past twenty-five years we have worked hard to address the environmental problems that have arisen in cities and towns throughout the country. New Bedford, as one of the older industrial areas of the country, was not immune from the effects of the pre- environmental regime in which so little attention was paid to the cleanliness of our air and water. But, today, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency, which has shown a great deal of responsiveness to the City's needs, New Bedford is an example of how to proceed in a constructive fashion to address past environmental difficulties while maximizing current economic potential. With the ongoing work to restore the city's harbor, ensure the protection of Buzzards Bay's waters, convert abandoned manufacturing sites into opportunities for new economic growth, explore the potential of aquaculture, and in so many other ways, the people of New Bedford continue to strive for an appropriate balance between sensitivity to the environment and economic growth. Finally, New Bedford reminds America of a lesson which, sadly, the country appears to be very much in need of remembering: the importance of immigration in building this great country, culturally, socially and economically. As a port, New Bedford has long been a center of immigration. Today, people continue to immigrate in large numbers to the area from Portugal, the Azores, Madeira and the Republic of Cape Verde. All continue to be a source of vitality for the city, and those of us who point to the industrious and valued work force that constitutes one of the city's great assets know that immigration is a major factor in the composition of the work force. Furthermore, the city's example is an excellent argument in favor of a continuation of the generous attitude toward immigration that the United States has traditionally held, but which, unfortunately, is now being questioned in some quarters. Mr. Speaker, in the years ahead at the appropriate anniversaries on which people take stock of the city's condition, I believe we will be able to look back to today as a period when the people of New Bedford, working together as they have so often in the past, continued to make important strides in both transforming the city's economy to prepare it for the twenty-first century and in preserving its incredibly rich legacy. I have represented New Bedford in the United States House of Representatives since January of 1993, and in that capacity it is a great honor as well as a distinct pleasure for me to join in celebrating with the people of the city on this glorious 150th birthday.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I agree that America should have gone in. I may differ with some of the others on this resolution. I think it was essential because only we could do it. But we have been in, and the fighting has stopped, and it is one thing to say, well, the Europeans should have been able to do it from the beginning. I never said that. The question is now are the Europeans capable of maintaining this kind of maintenance force? And the point I make is this. Of course I care about Europeans, I care about a lot of people, but there are limited resources, and for the United States to continue to encourage on the Europeans the notion that they do not have to do very much while we do it all I think is ultimately damaging to the values the gentleman is seeking. I think precisely because America does have important roles to play in various parts of the world where the mission has now been reduced to a more easily accomplished one than originally when we had to go in, we have a right to ask the Europeans to do a hand-off from now.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I differ with some of those, and I support the Hilleary amendment, I differ with some of those who join me in supporting it. I think the mission has been successful. I think it was a good idea. I was glad the gentleman from California decried the argument that these are somehow subhuman people who cannot get along. This is a mission that ought to be done but America should not be doing it. Where are our European allies? Yes; they are there with us. We are alone in South Korea with the Koreans, standing up to North Korea. We are essentially alone in the Middle East, standing up to Iran and Iraq. We do our part in Latin America and in Haiti. Is it never Europe's turn? Bosnia is in Europe. It is close to Germany, close to France. Can they do nothing by themselves? We are the great enablers of dependency in this House, not of welfare but of a Europe that simply will not stand up for its own interests. Indeed, I think maybe we should send out an investigating committee, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure there is a Europe. I think that France and Germany and Italy and Denmark and Belgium, at least for military purposes, are a fraud that has been perpetuated on us. Because the fact is that when it comes to their own interests, when we are talking about problems 100, 200, 300 miles from their own border, this collection of wealthy, powerful democratic nations acts like a bunch of immature teenagers that have to hide behind the United States. Yes, it was a good thing that the President did. Yes; it has been more successful than people thought. And there is a reason for people to stay. But with America in South Korea, America in the Middle East, America elsewhere, we have a right to tell our European allies this one is theirs. At the recent summit meeting, the Europeans complained to the President that he was thinking of leaving. Sometimes people have to learn to do things on their own. This is a job for the Europeans. We should adopt the Hilleary amendment and let the Europeans show that they can defend their own interests.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I express my appreciation to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith]. I think this is a mistake on the part of the Justice Department, and I am glad that Congress is appropriately stepping in to let universities do as they think best with the funds they have. We should note that this is twice today that we have legislated to say that antitrust rules should not be used in effect to interfere with charity. We did it earlier on the annuity question. Universities that are trying to maximize the extent to which they can help people go to school who could not otherwise afford it deserve a lot of credit. Mr. Speaker, I admire the willingness of the universities to persevere. I want to particularly say the Massachusetts Institute of Technology it seems to me showed a good deal of courage in this whole incident by not simply bucking under when they were sued. All the universities here, we should understand, the ones involved are fighting on behalf of themselves and other universities for the right to try to address the economic problems of people who could not afford to go to these schools. This is an effort by them to maximize the extent to which they give scholarship aid to people who genuinely need it and for whom it would be a necessity in going to school. They deserve credit for that. What they basically said is they will take on this fight and come to Congress for the right to be charitable in the best sense. So I am glad we are acting. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], a member of the majority took, in making sure we could bring this forward. I am delighted this is going forward now. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the desecration of graves is a particularly despicable act. It clearly bespeaks simply malice. No one can ever claim any necessity. No one can ever claim to be driven by circumstances to do so vicious a thing. The harm it does to survivors is intolerable. I think it is entirely appropriate that we express our desire that the sentences be increased. I concur with this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] has said about this bill. I do feel constrained to point out that I think these are unnecessary Federal employees doing an unnecessary job. I still do not understand why the Federal Government thinks the States cannot handle this. But as long as we have set up this commission, over my objection, there is no reason to immunize these commissioners. The Federal Tort Claims Act is a perfectly sensible approach. I have to say it is unlikely that any of the commissioners are going to get sued. I am not sure for what. I do not think counting cards at a casino where they play blackjack is a suable offense. But in case it is, if the commissioners are sued for tortious interfering with other people's gambling, they will be able to defend themselves under the Federal Tort Claims Act. This seems to me a perfectly reasonable solution to a problem which we should not have allowed to arise in the first place.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the distinguished chairman has explained this quite adequately. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], extremely knowledgeable and thoughtful ranking minority member of this committee.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. Danner].

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes and 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I offer this on behalf of my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit]. We are about to vote a budget deal, some of us will vote no but it will pass. It will severely constrain spending, including defense spending. We can differ over how much defense spending ought to be, but we all acknowledge that we are about to adopt in this budget resolution a binding constraint that will mean far less for the national security part of this budget than many Members think. Given that, it is essential that we not spend money unwisely. One way to spend unwisely is to spend money which instead should be spent by our wealthy allies in Western Europe. I believe America has been insufficiently active in the international front in many ways. But one area where we have erred on the other side is in Western Europe, where we have allowed Germany and France and Norway and Belgium and Denmark and many other now quite prosperous nations to do less than they should. NATO expansion is a test of this. NATO expansion will cost money. I am not talking now about the money that nations will have to spend on their own military equipment. We are talking about what NATO itself will have to spend on telecommunications and in other ways. We believe, those of us who have offered this amendment, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] and myself, that it is unfair for the American taxpayers to continue to pay disproportionately in Western Europe, particularly if had we have adopted a budget agreement which leaves many Members convinced that defense itself will have too little. I do not agree with that. I would like to be able to free up money for other purposes, but we certainly do not want our defense dollars spent unnecessarily. The administration has said, the Clinton administration, that the cost to the United States of NATO expansion over the next 12 years will be a total of $2 billion. I take them at their word. This amendment takes what the administration has told us NATO expansion will cost, $2 billion, and makes that a cap. It does say and the administration is proposing that we spend about 7 or 8 percent. I go them one better. The amendment says that, if costs are considerably less than we expect, that could happen, although it rarely does, we would cap our contribution at 10 percent. So I have an amendment here, along with the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], which conserves American defense spending for purposes that we may feel necessary by taking the President at his word and saying we will spend a maximum of $2 billion on NATO expansion, or 10 percent, the higher percentage that he says, if that should be less than $2 billion. Finally, for those who say what if there is an unforeseen emergency, that is why we have a Congress, people can come back to us. This does not say you can never have another penny, it says you cannot have a blank check.