Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first I want to correct the gentleman from Texas. He used the figure of families spending more than 50 percent of their income, but that depends on the family. If one is rich enough, thanks to the Tax Code, one is spending a much smaller percentage of one's income, and by the time we get through with the tax bill, if one is rich enough, that will be even less. The CEO's who are making a couple of million dollars are not spending 50 percent of their income. We have very differential effects according to how much money one makes. Second, I do welcome, though, the gentleman from California is of course correct. I do not think we are spending enough on the environment, I do not think we are spending enough on, for instance, the Cops on the Street Program, which is so helpful, or helping kids going to school. But we can economize. We will be voting today and tomorrow on the military bill. The military bill, the National Security bill, represents 50 percent of the discretionary spending of the Federal Government. If we set aside Medicare, we set aside Medicaid and Social Security, 50 percent of what is left spent by the Federal Government will be voted on by this House over the next couple of days, and I am delighted at this spending, cutting zeal on the other side. I look forward to them helping us defeat the unnecessary B-2 bomber at the cost of tens of billions. I will be offering an amendment, along with a Republican cosponsor, the gentleman from Connecticut, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], to put a limit on the amount that we spend for NATO so that our European allies stop getting subsidized. We continue to subsidize our European allies. So I agree we should be conscious of that spending, and while I hope we will not be passing a Tax Code that will make it more unfair, so that the bigger income families will in fact pay a bigger share, I also look forward to seeing some of this spending reduction zeal which we are hearing voiced today. I trust that the spending zeal in general we are hearing will not disappear when we get to the particular, because remember, the National Security bill represents 50 percent of the discretionary spending of the Federal Government. The bill we are going to vote on today will contain more spending than the Department of Transportation and the Department of Labor, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and several other major Federal departments put together; throw in the Environmental Protection Administration. So let us see some more of that cost-cutting zeal, and we will begin today when we start to vote on the military budget.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No one is arguing, Mr. Chairman, that there is no benefit to the United States from our presence in Europe. What we are arguing is that there is at least as much benefit to the Europeans. They simply have not been doing a fair share. The gentleman from Florida who just spoke cited the contribution we get from the Japanese, but that is a direct result of this Congress, over the objections of the administration then in power, mandating that the Japanese pay us some part of the nonpersonnel costs. I believe we ought to be doing the same with Western Europe. There is an enormous disparity between the percentage of the American gross domestic product that goes to the military and that of our European allies, and it is all the more important that we do this now, because the Europeans are now facing pressure to cut their budgets, to get their deficits down to 3 percent so they can get into the common European currency. If we do not send a strong message to this administration, which has been as sadly reluctant as its predecessors seriously to represent the American taxpayers' interest in equity here, then we will see a continued drop in what the Europeans do, with an expectation that we will continue to do more. Members have noted that we have been promised we would be out of Bosnia some time ago. We are there because the Europeans simply will not live up to their responsibilities. We are not asking Europe to replace us in the Middle East where we take on the burden. We are not asking them to replace us in South Korea. We are not asking them to replace us in many other parts of the world. We are not asking for European troops to come to the United States. What we are saying is that where we are talking about military presence in Western Europe, it is simply illogical for the United States taxpayer to be doing so much compared to the Western Europeans that do so little. These nations are prosperous, they face no overpowering enemy, they are populous. We started the policy of America basically picking up all the tab 45 or 50 years ago when Europe was poor and they faced a strong enemy. They are no longer poor and they no longer face a strong enemy. We should not still be picking up so disproportionate a part of the tab.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, that is the toughest argument to counter I have ever been presented with, and I will confess to my friend from South Carolina, I have no answer for him, but I will work on one. I do want to talk about why this is so important, and I appreciate his spirit of cooperation. The gentleman from Connecticut and I have been working on this. We kind of inherited this from the former Member, the gentleman from Colorado, and others. What we are saying is very important, and we want to get this into the Record. We have signed a budget deal. The budget deal includes some difficult choices. Some of us have rejected it, a great majority have accepted it, but obviously, among those who have accepted it, they are aware, in fact, they are proud of the fact that it will cause some difficulty, it will impose some restraints. One big set of constraints comes in discretionary spending. Military spending is half of that. Many of those who support a strong military think we are allocating too little to the military. Some of us feel that the military is getting too much and that is constraining other programs. We ought to have virtual unanimity on this point. If we could get our wealthy allies who are now doing so little in comparison to the American taxpayer to provide for the common defense, we could make funds available that we could use for defense, we could use for domestic discretionary, we could use for foreign economic cooperation; we could use those funds. I sent out over the weekend, or I sent out on Monday an article from the Washington Post which reported the trend of our European allies, our wealthy and powerful European allies, to cut their military budget. And Klaus Naumann, the Chairman of the NATO military committee, pointed out that the disparity in military spending, both in dollars and as a percentage of gross domestic product between the United States and the Western Europeans, is so great that a little disconnect has grown up. We spend so much greater a percentage of our gross domestic product on the military than Germany and France and England and Norway and Denmark and Belgium, et cetera, that we no longer have a genuinely integrated military. We have gone too far ahead of them. Obviously, there are places in this world where the United States must bear the burden: In the Middle East; we must stand by South Korea facing that terrible regime in North Korea. But there is no good reason for the American taxpayer to subsidize Western Europe. This amendment repeats an amendment that was adopted overwhelmingly by the House in the last budget, with one very important change. We, after conference, for the first time got into law some legislation requiring the administration to try burden-sharing. Let me say, one of the problems we have had, Mr. Chairman, is this administration, as all of its predecessors, has failed to do its job in trying to get an adequate share from the allies. Mr. Chairman, we set up some criteria to measure what our allies are doing. The administration was told to report, and guess what, Mr. Chairman? This administration, like every previous administration, reported that the allies were doing terrific. They are just wonderful people. They note that the best is Japan, and by the way, it is not an accident that Japan gives us the most. As my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] points out, Japan gives us significantly more than any other country because this Congress singled out Japan and insisted that it does. The time has come now to make sure others do. The point I want to make is on page 3 of this amendment there is a critical new section beginning on line 21. It now sets up a series of comparisons. We have this year's report. What we hope to do is to now get a series by which we can measure the extent to which administrations have successfully pressed our allies to contribute more. Mr. Chairman, it is important for us to continue this, to let the administration know and our allies know that especially now that we have so constrained spending here, we do not think it appropriate for the American taxpayers to carry a disproportionate share of the burden. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I appreciate the very thoughtful way he has addressed this. Let me say, I agree with him and the gentleman from Maryland who mentioned this. It is a great mistake. I would like to connect two dots, if I could. The gentleman said he was generally supportive of this but he was made uncomfortable by some of the measures. Let me say to him, in an ideal world, we would not be coming up with this amendment because the administration would, as a matter of course, be doing everything it could to get our allies to do it. The problem we have run into, as he alluded to with Germany, is there has been a bipartisan bias on the part of administrations, executive branches, State Departments not to press any of our allies anywhere, any time, until we got into it. So the reason, it seems to me, we have to legislate and legislate with more specificity than would be ideal and to put more pressure on is precisely the kind of attitude that was evinced by the administration that negotiated everything away and that I do not think would protect our interests in South Korea sufficiently unless we intervened. There is just a constituency problem there, and the State Department and, to some extent, the Defense Department, have a constituency that is not concerned with the taxes here, more concerned with making nice overseas. And I think that the gentleman has stated it very clearly. I agree with him. That is why we need to do this.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, people talk frequently in this House about the need for accountability, but it is too often a case of Members here demanding that others be held accountable. A little self-accountability would go a very long way in this institution, and the recent article by Mark Shields on the minimum wage in the Saturday, June 14 issue of the Washington Post does a good deal to hold Members of Congress accountable for things they have said. As Mr. Shields points out, when we debated the minimum wage in the previous Congress, many Republican Members predicted that an increase in the minimum wage would be an economic and social disaster. They could hardly have been more wrong. As Mr. Shields shows, while most Republicans opposed the increase in minimum wage and many of the Republican leaders predicted that increasing it would be disastrous, Republicans were wrong. As Mr. Shields notes, directly contrary to the Republican predictions, which apparently grew organically out of their view of economic reality, today, with the increased minimum wage in effect for 8\1/2\ months, we see ``no adverse effect on the employment of young workers * * * bigger paychecks and * * * a healthier national economy * * *.'' Of course the minimum wage did not cause all of this to happen, although it has played a significant role in the bigger paycheck part of this for people at the low end of the wage scale. But the fact that we are enjoying this continued economic boom, with increased employment at the lowest end of the wage scale, directly contradicts what the Republican Party made its official doctrine during the debate on the minimum wage, and Mr. Shields is right to document the glaring disparity between what they said and reality. The GOP's Chicken Littles (By Mark Shields) When it comes to economic forecasting, conservative Republicans on Capitol Hill give a new respectability to astrology. Consider the matter of the federal minimum wage. Last summer Congress voted to increase the minimum wage, effective last Oct. 1, from $4.25 an hour to $4.75 (it will rise again next Sept. 1 to $5.15 an hour). Democrats almost unanimously favored the increase, and Republicans almost unanimously opposed it. But many Republicans did more than merely oppose the hike, they were prophets of doom and gloom: Chicken Little and Gloomy Gus rolled up into a single morose caucus. House Republican Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was his usual direct self in panning the increase: ``The Democrat party is to job creation what Dr. Kevorkian is to health care; a job- killer cloaked in kindness.'' A little less restrained was Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who accused House Democrats, whom he referred to in floor debate as the ``comrades on the other side,'' of failing to understand that a minimum-wage increase would destroy jobs, adding, ``The folks over there are simply economically ignorant.'' But the Cassandra award belongs to Rep. John Shadegg (R- Ariz.), who declared: ``Raising the minimum wage will put one out of every four minority workers between the ages of 17 and 24 who are out of school and working out of work.'' What was being voted on then was a modest proposal that simply would guarantee that a worker in America who labors 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, would earn about what a member of Congress is paid every three weeks. Republicans were wrong. The economy, almost eight months after the minimum-wage increase became law, is much better, not worse. The nation's unemployment is at its lowest point in 24 years. The proportion of the population with jobs is the highest in American history. The stock market continues to set new altitude records. But what about the dire GOP predictions concerning lost jobs? Minimum-wage opponents emphasized that job losses would be heavy in the eating and drinking industry, where nearly one out of three private-sector minimum-wage earners is employed. In the first four months after the minimum wage was raised, employment in eating and drinking businesses grew at a rate four times faster than it had in the year before the increase. And wait, there is still more good news for the workers this hike was intended to help. Teenage unemployment is measurably lower than where it stood just last September, before the wage increase. In a soon-to-be-released study, the Economic Policy Institute finds that not only has unemployment for teenagers and young adults not been adversely affected in the first eight months following the wage increase but that the benefits have primarily gone to low-income working families. Minimum-wage workers, contradicting the myths spun by foes of the federal wage law, are not typically the spoiled stepson of the investment banker just picking up gas money for his BMW convertible. Instead, 35 percent of the workers who benefited from the increase are the sole breadwiners in their families. Three out of five of them are women. Seven out of 10 are 20 or older. That's why it's encouraging to learn that the increase has had its biggest impact upon the earnings of black and Hispanic teens. The benefits of the wage increase have gone overwhelmingly to low-income working families. Nearly 56 percent of the families that have benefited from the wage increase are in the bottom 40 percent of American income. With no adverse effect on the employment of young workers, with bigger paychecks and with a healthier national economy, about all that's left to say to those pessimistic, it's-five- minutes-to-midnight conservatives is, ``Cheer up, fellas, eventually things will get worse.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have believed for some time that our policy for mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses at the Federal level represents a poor policy choice, given the resources available to us. A uniform mandatory minimum policy results in unfair sentences to some and an unwise expenditure of funds in many other cases, if our goal is in fact to reduce drug use and drug-related crime. I was therefore interested to read of the recent study by researchers at the RAND Drug Policy Research Center. Jonathan Caulkins, C. Peter Rydell, William Schwabe, and James Chiesa report that, ``mandatory minimums produce the smallest bang for the buck by far'', compared to conventional enforcement and treatment of heavy drug users. Indeed, their conclusion is that, ``treatment of heavy drug users produces the biggest bang of all.'' Because of the importance of this as a public policy question, and because I believe that this RAND research report confirms that we are making a serious error in our current allocation of resources in drug policy, I ask that the RAND Drug Policy Research Center brief on mandatory minimum drug sentences' cost effective be printed here. Washington, DC May 12.--If cutting drug consumption and drug-related crime are the nation's prime drug control objectives, then the mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws in force at the federal level and in most states are not the way to get there. this is the key finding of Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences: Throwing Away the Key or the Taxpayer's Money?, a new RAND study that provides the first quantitative analysis of how successful these measures are in achieving what Director Barry McCaffrey of the Office of National Drug Control Policy has called ``our central purpose and mission-- reducing illicit drug use and its consequences.'' Researchers Jonathan P. Caulkins, C. Peter Rydell, William Schwebe and James Chiesa estimate the cost-effectiveness of extended sentences in reducing cocaine consumption and crime, compare the results to those for two other drug control strategies, and show that mandatory minimums produce the smallest bang for the buck by far. Conventional enforcement (meaning more drug dealer arrests, confiscations, prosecutions and standard-length incarcerations) is a substantially better investment. Treatment of heavy drug users producers the biggest bang of all. Mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws, dating largely to the 1980s, have been among the most popular crime-fighting measures of recent years. Details vary with the jurisdiction, but all of these statutes stipulate a sentence of specified length given certain triggering criteria, notably the quantity of an illicit drug possessed at time of arrest. For example, federal law requires judges to impose a sentence of at least five years for anyone convicted of possessing half a kilogram of cocaine powder or five grams of crack cocaine. Caulkins and his colleagues begin their analysis by estimating the effects of spending an additional $1 million on each of several alternative strategies over a 15-year period. The results: Spending the money on mandatory minimum-length sentences for a representative national sample of drug dealers can reduce total national cocaine consumption by 13 kilograms. Spending it on conventional enforcement against such dealers cuts use by 27 kilograms. Spending it to treat heavy users reduces consumption by over 100 kilograms. A principal reason that long sentences are not more cost-effective is the high cost of incarceration. If the analysis is restricted to drug dealers at a somewhat higher level--those prosecuted by the federal government and in possession of enough drugs to trigger a federal mandatory- minimum sentence--the numbers change but the rankings remain the same. In fact, mandatory minimums are the least cost- effective way to reduce consumption under any set of conditions save one: They could be efficient if judges were given leeway to apply them only to certain very high-level dealers. Unfortunately, these laws are not selective and do not allow judges to use discretion. Dollar for dollar, conventional enforcement efforts reduce 70 percent more crimes against persons than longer sentences. Treatment reduces about 10 times more serious crime than conventional enforcement and 15 times more than mandatory minimums. Explanation: Most drug-related crime is economically motivated and associated with the amount of money flowing through the cocaine market. Incarceration has little effect on this flow because it suppresses drug use by driving up drug prices. In contrast, treatment removes some users from the market altogether (both those who are in treatment and the minority who do not relapse afterwards). To their proponents, the certainty and severity of mandatory minimums ensure that drug criminals will be punished, be kept off the streets for extended periods, and be examples that deter others. Critics protest that the laws foreclose discretionary judgment where it is most needed and often result in unjust punishment or even racial bias. In mid-April, the Supreme Court refused to hear a claim that the distinction between cocaine powder and crack amounts is discriminatory because crack arrestees are predominantly african-american. Two weeks ago, the U.S. sentencing commission recommended reducing the disparities between sentences for possession of crack and powder cocaine. The RAND study focuses on what is arguably the most problematic substance--cocaine--and provides quantitative answers to a different but fundamental question: How effective are mandatory minimums relative to other means of achieving the nation's drug control goals? ``Our results indicate that we would make greater drug control progress by sentencing more dealers to standard prison terms than by sentencing fewer dealers to longer, mandatory terms,'' summarizes study leader Caulkins. ``They also suggest that treatment should receive higher priority than it does today. But the shift toward treatment should not be pushed too far. After all, it often takes enforcement to provide willing clients for treatment.'' This research was supported by a gift from Florida businessman Richard B. Wolf and by funding from The Ford Foundation and was carried out by RAND's Drug Policy Research Center. RAND is a private, not-for-profit organization that helps improve public policy through research and analysis.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to make this clear, this should not be interpreted as an anti-NATO-expansion argument. Indeed, I would tell those who are in favor of a full-fledged unrestricted NATO expansion that it is in their interests to be supportive of burdensharing. Franklin Roosevelt was described once by John Kennedy in a phrase that is very important for Members to remember. When John Kennedy began the Alliance for Progress and he looked back to Franklin Roosevelt's Good Neighbor Policy as a first step toward a recognition of mutual interest, he said that Franklin Roosevelt was able to be a good neighbor abroad because he was a good neighbor at home. The American people will more willingly support international engagement militarily, economically, and other sorts, if they feel they are being treated fairly, if they do not think it is coming at their expense. The United States, I believe, is prepared to support foreign assistance to people in need, to deal with disease and poverty and economic development. But I think the American people understandably say with regard to France and England and Germany and Denmark and Belgium, and some of the wealthiest and most successful societies in the world, countries that have already benefited greatly from our generosity, that it is time for them not to subsidize us, but no longer to be subsidized by us. What the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] and I seek to do in this is to say, and I believe frankly it will underpin NATO expansion, it will give the American people more willingness to support this, because we have just done a budget deal. Defense spending will be constrained, not as much as I would like, but it will be constrained. Domestic spending will be constrained. It is simply inappropriate for our allies to allow a disproportionate share of the funding to fall on the American taxpayer. We have one particular fear. The European nations have to, those that are in the European Union, the majority of whom are in NATO, they have to get their deficits down to 3 percent of their gross domestic product. We are the only country that would meet the European Union's definition, I think, right now. There will be a strong temptation for them to do that by further cutting their military expenditures. We need for them to understand that they cannot do that in a way that shifts the burden to the United States. It is entirely legitimate, yes, there will be benefits to the United States, but there will be even more benefits for Europe. Peace and security in the Czech Republic, in Hungary, and Slovenia, and Romania and elsewhere will be of at least equal benefit to our European allies; and under the current rules, they do not pay an equal share. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would be willing to adopt this, and as I say, I believe it will strengthen the case for NATO expansion among the American people.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer this on behalf of myself and the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit]. Mr. Speaker, there are differing views about NATO expansion. There is, I think, great agreement in this Chamber that the cost of NATO expansion should not be paid in the same formula in which existing and past NATO costs have been paid. As Members mentioned, NATO grew out of a time when the United States had a degree of superiority in the world as a result of World War II that was unparalleled probably in recent history. America was quite generous in helping bring, among others, our European allies and our former European enemies, it should not be forgotten, up to the current level that they now enjoy. But we believe, and I think it is a widely shared sentiment across this House, that it is no longer appropriate for our European allies to accept a subsidy in the form of disproportionately large payments by the United States. What this motion to recommit says is that we believe that the increased NATO costs that will come from expansion, there will have to be military standardization and communication upgrades, that to the extent they are borne by existing NATO members, the European members of NATO should pick up the bulk of those costs. In other words, we are not here trying to impose more costs on the new NATO members. We are saying that the existing NATO members, wealthy and prosperous and the beneficiaries, as they have been over all these years, of our beneficence, and it may have been in our interests as well as theirs; it was in our interests as well as theirs, but it was our dollars much more than theirs, we ask that they now do more than they have been doing.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is a terrible thing that this central question of foreign policy comes before us under a closed rule with only 1 hour. I think the concept of NATO expansion is a reasonable one, but it is not reasonable to go to the American taxpayer, in the light of a budget deal, which will severely constrain spending both in the defense and nondefense areas, and tell the American taxpayer that they will continue to bear a disproportionate share of the cost of defending Europe. Everyone acknowledges that the expansion of NATO will cost money. The more countries involved, the more money it will cost. That is not a disqualification. But that cost should not be borne by the current formula, which has the U.S. taxpayer subsidizing the nations of Western Europe. We talked about welfare reform last year. We did not go after the real welfare. The real welfare is the United States taxpayer, 52 years after the end of World War II, years after the Marshall plan succeeded, continuing to subsidize Germany and England and France and Denmark and Belgium. This bill assumes the status quo. It is shocking that we were not allowed a chance to offer an amendment to this bill that would say that, whether one is for or against NATO expansion, we in the House do not want a continuation of this subsidy by the American taxpayer of our wealthy allies in Western Europe. As the Western European nations struggle to meet their 3-percent deficit deadline to get into the Euro, we can be sure they will start cutting back on their military expenditures. And they will cut back on their military expenditures secure in the hope that the American Congress will again be suckered and bail them out. What this bill does, erroneously in my judgment, is to assume that status quo. I will vote ``no''. I might be supportive of NATO expansion in some context, but this bill assumes an expansion of NATO under the same terms. The Washington Post editorial that the gentleman from New York talked about referred to the need for more spending. Do not send the American taxpayer once again to the defense of Europe when the European nations are allowed to get a free ride.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot from from time to time about burnout--about people whose constitutions are too delicate to allow them to continue with hard work. Unfortunately, that is a condition which often affects those who have taken on a commitment to serve others, especially recently, when the Nation has, sadly, cut back on the resources it makes available to people who seek to alleviate poverty and injustice. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the next time someone committed to this fight starts to feel sorry for himself or herself and contemplates easier work, they will read the following editorial and take some inspiration from the example of Mark A. Sullivan. As this editorial in the Fall River Herald News explains, Mark Sullivan has been the chief executive--and chief strategist, motivator, and philosopher--of Citizens for Citizens in Fall River, MA, an effective community action agency. I was fortunate enough to meet Mark Sullivan 15 years ago when the Massachusetts congressional district lines were changed and I found Fall River and myself in the same congressional district. Throughout the ensuing period, Mark Sullivan has been one of the strongest sources of advice, encouragement, and inspiration to me. The Fall River Herald News editorial aptly describes the respect in which he is so justifiably held by those who work for him and, perhaps most interestingly, against him. Mr. Speaker I have always felt lucky to hold this job, and one of the examples I give when people ask me to explain why I feel that way is that I have had the chance to know, befriend, learn from, and work with Mark Sullivan. Sullivan Leads By Doing The row of crock pots lined up along the buffet table at Mark A. Sullivan's silver anniversary celebration just about said it all. The decidedly casual affair, held at Citizens for Citizens headquarters on Griffin Street, was organized as a surprise to the man who has served as its executive director for the past 25 years. Clearly, Sullivan's employees know him well. Home-cooked chourico and peppers is more his style than filet mignon and Delmonico potatoes. And that unpretentiousness is the source of both Sullivan's charm and success. The son of a bus driver/union president and community activist in his own right, Sullivan learned to accept people from all walks of life at a tender age. Sullivan credits both his mother and father with teaching him--by example--to treat all people equally. That's a quality Sullivan has carried into his work at the community action agency, where he put his own unique and refreshing spin on it. Renowned--at least in The Herald News newsroom--for knowing how to turn a phrase, Sullivan is seldom without an opinion on issues that effect his constituency. ``That designation qualifies us for a grant of $256,000 to eliminate poverty in southeastern Massachusetts,'' Sullivan once said, explaining the Fall River City Council's endorsement of the agency. ``And that's enough to buy everybody a hamburger and send them home.'' Indeed, Sullivan has demonstrated a gift for glibness, but also for putting a human face on dry statistics with irreverent, no-nonsense--sometimes bordering on offensive-- explanations. The sideburns that dipped an inch or two below his earlobes have long since been trimmed and the thickly pin-striped suit probably placed in mothballs since Sullivan began as CFC director in 1972, but his passion about his job remains undiminished. Even though Sullivan expresses disdain for what was once known as the war on poverty, pointing to the absurdity of its existence in the greatest economic nation in the history in the world, he has been one of its finest warriors The secret to his success, Sullivan says with characteristic modesty, is his talent for hiring good people. ``I've hired people of good character and intelligence,'' he said. None of them, we suspect, doubt where the ultimate authority lies, however. A sign on Sullivan's wall in a 1985 photograph reading, ``Never mind the dog--beware of the owner,'' sums up his philosophy on those who cross him. His shirt sleeves ever rolled up, Sullivan has well earned his reputation as a hands-on administrator. Having never hesitated to admit his own foibles, Sullivan's empathy for those he serves no doubt comes from having experience in life's valleys himself. Citizens for Citizens is an apt name for an agency of people helping people. And no one seems better suited to leading the organization than the unassuming Sullivan.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in the June 23d issue of Fortune magazine, Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute has a concise coherent and persuasive statement of the case for a substantial reduction in U.S. military spending. At a time when we are facing drastic measures in various places to meet the widely shared goal of a balanced budget, we can afford even less than before tens of billions of dollars in unnecessary military spending. As Mr. Bandow notes, ``the bulk of the Pentagon budget continues to fund Washington's Cold War alliances. For example, through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 100,000 U.S. soldiers stand guard lest phantom Soviet divisions invade Europe * * * the final refuge of those who support big military budgets is `leadership'. As Newt Gingrich puts it, `you do not need today's defense budget to defend the United States. You need today's defense budget to lead the world'.'' The notion that the United States must spend tens of billions of dollars a year for no valid military purpose but simply to enhance our world leadership, as Mr. Bandow goes on to point out, is simply wrong. Few dispute the importance of the United States being by far the strongest military power. What we are disputing is the need for us to spend tens of billions per year beyond what it takes to maintain that position for the nebulous privilege of leadership which, according to some apparently, we must purchase from our wealthy allies by subsidizing them. Indeed, in the New York Times for June 4, an article noted that the Japanese plan to deal with their budget deficit by, among other things, further reducing their already very small military budget--secure, no doubt, in the knowledge that the United States taxpayers will provide. I ask that Mr. Bandow's very thoughtful article be printed for the edification of Members as we debate the budget. The Case for a Much Smaller Military (By Doug Brandow) How big a military does the U.S. need? The Pentagon, which recently completed its once-every-four-years review, thinks we need pretty much everything we've got. It proposes that we preserve the current force structure, pare manpower levels slightly, and allow inflation to slowly erode overall expenditures--all as if the Cold War had never ended. In reality, the nation's defense needs have changed very dramatically in recent years. The President and Congress should ignore the Pentagon's wish list and cut military spending much more deeply by more than a third. Military spending is the price of our foreign policy, and after world War II that policy was dictated by the threat of an aggressive Soviet Union and its satellites. All told, America spent more than $13 trillion (in today's dollars) to win the Cold War. But starting in 1989, all the old assumptions collapsed. The Central and Eastern European states overthrew communism, the Berlin Wall fell, and the Warsaw Pact dissolved. The Soviet Union itself disappeared. A foreign policy and force structure designed to deter Soviet aggression suddenly became obsolete. But U.S. military spending did not change accordingly. Outlays have fallen, but only from the 1985 peak caused by the Reagan defense buildup. Adjusted for inflation, expenditures today remain above those of 1980. President Clinton is spending more now than Richard Nixon did in 1975 and almost as much as Lyndon Johnson did in 1965. The U.S. spends more than three times as much as Moscow, and nearly twice as much as Britain, France, Germany, and Japan combined. Although the world remains a dangerous place, it is not particularly dangerous for the U.S. observed Colin Powell when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ``I'm running out of demons . . . I'm down to Castro and Kim Il Sung.'' The bulk of the Pentagon budget continues to fund Washington's Cold War alliances. For example, through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 100,000 U.S. soldiers stand guard lest phantom Soviet Divisions invade Europe. It's not as if the Western Europeans, with a combined population of 414 million GDP of $7.4 trillion, couldn't defend themselves against Russia, with 149 million people and a $1.1 trillion GDP, Britain, France, and Germany together spend 25% more on the military than Russia, which just announced a further cut in defense outlays. It is time for the Europeans to take over NATO. There is certainly no need to expand NATO into Central and Eastern Europe. The old Eastern Bloc needs access to Western markets, not Western soldiers. And America has no vital interest that warrants guaranteeing the borders of Poland, say, or Hungary. The case for maintaining 100,000 soldiers in East Asia is equally dubious. South Korea has 20 times the GDP and twice the population of North Korea, U.S. citizens spend more than the South Koreans to defend South Korea. No new threats loom on the horizon. Germany and Japan remain feared by some alleged friends, but neither is likely to declare war on one of its powerful neighbors--many of whom now possess nuclear weapons. China is growing but seems assertive rather than aggressive. Its military expansion has been measured. Brazil, India, and other nations may eventually evolve into regional military powers, but the U.S. has no quarrels with them and can adjust its policies over time if necessary. Outlaw states like Iraq and North Korea pose diminishing conventional threats that should be contained by their neighbors, not by America. The final refuge of those who support big military budgets is ``leadership.'' As Newt Gingrich puts it, ``You do not need today's defense budget to defend the United States. You need today's defense budget to lead the world.'' But do you, really? The U.S., after all, has the largest and most productive economy. It is the leading trading nation. Its constitutional system has proved to be one of the world's most durable. Its culture permeates the globe. Perhaps an outsized military isn't required for ``leadership.'' Indeed, even significant budget cuts would still leave Washington with the world's biggest and best military. No one wants America to be weak, which is why spending on training and technology should remain priorities. But we're ready for a radical restructuring--from, for instance, 1.5 million to 900,000 servicemen, 12 to six aircraft-carrier battle groups, and 20 to ten tactical Air Force wings. The military budget could be cut to some $170 billion from today's nearly $270 billion.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the majority is perpetuating as egregious a violation of the rules that ought to govern a democracy as I have ever seen. This outrage of telling us that we will have 1 hour with no amendments to debate the fundamental question of NATO policy is a disrespect for the rules that ought to govern beyond what I have ever seen. I hope the gentleman from New York will be prepared to amend his earlier statement when he said, well, if it had come up as an amendment it would also not have been amendable. That is, of course, not remotely true. If the European Security Act had been offered as an amendment to the bill, a 17-page amendment, it would have been amendable. It would have been debatable without limit. It would have been subject to a motion for substitution. The question of policy regarding NATO is of extraordinary importance. The gentleman from New York said, well, we have to provide some money for these Eastern European countries. Vote for this bill and we are committing billions of dollars from the American taxpayer to our European new allies. The whole question of burdensharing, the question of whether or not Americans ought to continue to subsidize Europe militarily in the absence of a military threat, we are being asked to vote on this with no amendments and only a half hour on either side. It is absolutely unprecedented in my experience for a matter as central as the NATO policy, what kind of policy, nuclear policy, conventional arms policy, which countries join, that that is to be a closed rule, 1 hour, one bill, on this NATO question. I understand the majority is somewhat at odds right now. There is an incoherence in their strategy. They are trying to fill time. But to take one of the central questions facing the world today, whether and on what terms we should expand NATO, how much the American taxpayer should contribute, what should be the rules and which nations should come in, and to do it unamendably, to bring that forward without an amendment, is, as I say, as great a disrespect for democratic process as I have ever seen. The majority ought to be ashamed of itself.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman tried to evade the point. The question is not whether we should debate it, but whether we should debate it in a closed rule with no amendments. I am all for democracy in Eastern Europe. I am sorry the gentleman is not in favor of democracy here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, rollcall recently put out a very useful supplement on the question of America's defense. One of the articles, written by two very well informed defense specialists, Michael O'Hanlon and William Durch, makes an important point which is often left out of discussions of how much America should be spending on the military. Much of what America spends on the military is essential for our national security. But a significant part--tens of billions per year I believe--is spent as an active international charity. That is, the United States continues to subsidize our wealthy European and East Asian allies, in a pattern which made sense when it began in the late 1940's after World War II, but no longer has any real justification. In the closing paragraphs of their report, the authors note that ``those who argue for greater international burden sharing have a point: The United States does do more than its fair share today.'' And they go on to state, in what should be the central point of our defense budget debates, ``it is time to start asking our major allies, especially the wealthy and well established democracies of Western Europe, to do their fair share.'' These authors fully understand the importance of a strong national defense, and the point they make is that we could make considerable savings for the U.S. taxpayers in ways that would have no negative effect whatsoever on our national security or international objectives, simply by ending the unjustified policy of subsidy of the wealthy which is an unfortunate continuing part of our military spending. I am inserting the relevant part of their article here: Beyond QDR At a more general level, those who argue for greater international burdensharing have a point: The United States does do more than its fair share today. Not only in backstopping difficult peace operations, but in maintaining its forces from Korea to the Taiwan Straits to the Persian Gulf to Bosnia, the United States undertakes activities and maintains stability in a way that no other state can rival. It also spends a considerably higher share of its GDP doing so than most allies devote to their militaries--roughly 3.5 percent of the GDP in this country, versus an average of just more than 2 percent among the NATO allies and just over one percent in Japan. Some of these costs and risks ought to be reallocated. For starters, US dues for U.N. peacekeeping should be reduced through negotiation with other countries. But that is not enough. Perhaps the most serious flaw of the QDR is that it lets the major allies off the hook. They have no role in US war plans under the Bottom-Up Review, and apparently will have no role under the QDR's assumptions either. That is partly because we cannot dictate political decisions to our allies about when to fight. But it is also because they have not done enough to equip their forces for the types of wars that are most likely in this post-Cold War era. It is time to start asking our major allies, especially the wealthy and well-established democracies of Western Europe, to do their fair share. They should buy military airlift and sealift, more logistics capabilities like trucks, and other assets that would help them help us fight the next war in a place like Southwest Asia. Though depending heavily on imported oil, they provided only one-tenth as many forces to Desert Storm as the United States--and could probably not do even that well today. Overall, the Pentagon, has done a passable job with the defense review. Give the generals and Cohen a solid B. But rough spots remain--and plenty of defense challenges await lawmakers on Capitol Hill in the months and years ahead. High on the list are implementing the recommendations of the ODR, further scrutinizing weapons modernization programs, finding money for unforeseeable needs like peace operations, and pressing our wealthy allies to reshape their policies and force structures for the post-Cold War world.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker. One of the most interesting aspects of representing Massachusetts is our history as one of the original 13 States, and as a place where much of America began. One great example of this is the Fellowship Lodge, A.F. & A.M. in Bridgewater, MA. On June 15 this lodge will celebrate its 200th anniversary. On that day in 1797, the grand master of Masons in Massachusetts went to the town of Bridgewater to present a charter to Fellowship Lodge, and that same charter remains in Fellowship Lodge in Bridgewater today. Of particular interest is that the grand master who made that trip is a man who made another, more well known trip in Massachusetts 20 years earlier--Paul Revere. And the man who organized the petition drive to open a lodge of Masons in Bridgewater, Hector Orr, preceded myself and my House colleagues to Washington. I congratulate the members of the lodge for their persistence in preserving this important part of our history. Massachusetts flourishes in part because our citizens recognize the value of maintaining our strong historical traditions even as we are pioneers in so many breakthrough technologies. It is I think of great note that the town of Bridgewater is the home both of this 200-year-old lodge, begun with a charter by Paul Revere when he was grand master of Masons, and also the John Joseph Moakley Technology Center at Bridgewater State College, which is a state-of-the-art facility helping residents of the area master the latest in telecommunications skills. Mr. Speaker I ask that the history of this lodge, written by Luther Hayden, Jr., be printed here as an important example of how a community can nurture and be nurtured by its history. Historical Highlights--1797-1972 (By Worshipful Luther L. Hayden, Jr.) The first record of any movement toward the formation of the Lodge bears the date of October 1, 1796. At that time, a group of Masons of the old town of Bridgewater, desirous of having a meeting-place at or near their place of abode, appointed a committee to present a petition to the nearest Lodge. The petition was signed by Hector Orr, Charles Angier, Josiah Otis, Noah Fearing, Isaac Lazell, Nathan Lazeli, and Joseph Lazell. It was presented to Orphan's Hope Lodge of Weymouth, asking for a recommendation to the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge that it grant a charter for a lodge in Bridgewater, to be called Fellowship Lodge. The first meeting of which we have a record was held at the home of Brother Hector Orr, in the East Parish of Bridgewater, on June 30, 1797. On October 2, officers of The Grand Lodge of Masons in Massachusetts came to Bridgewater, and at that time Most Worshipful Paul Revere consecrated and constituted Fellowship Lodge. The charter of Fellowship Lodge is dated June 15, 1797, and is worthy of special mention. It is signed by Most Worshipful Paul Revere. During his term of office, twenty-three new lodges were formed, and several of these have their original charter. Fellowship Lodge is one of these. In order to appreciate the period in which Fellowship Lodge was formed, it would be well to note what was happening in our country in 1797. George Washington had just completed his second term, and in March, 1797, John Adams, second president of the United States, had been inaugurated. The cornerstone of the first Capitol building in Washington had just been laid with elaborate Masonic ceremonies, in which George Washington took part. The Town of Bridgewater was composed of what is now Brockton, West Bridgewater, East Bridgewater and Bridgewater. In 1835, due to the strong anti-Masonic feeling which prevailed throughout this nation, the Lodge voted to suspend its regular meetings. From 1835-1845, only one candidate received the degrees. The charter was never surrendered during this time. Tradition informs us that it was concealed in the caves of the Jonathan Ames house on South Street in West Bridgewater. Regular meetings were resumed in September, 1845, and a period of lively Masonic activity took place. By 1868, 140 new members had been added to the rolls. In 1869, Fellowship Lodge purchased its first permanent home, located on the site of the present Temple. In 1872, a third story was added to form the lodge room which many of us came to know so well. On June 15, 1897, the 100th Anniversary was observed. Apparently the whole town participated, for a newspaper list of decorated buildings includes practically all public and commercial buildings, as well as many homes. The Most Worshipful Grand Master, Most Worshipful Charles G. Hutchinson, and many members of Grand Lodge were in attendance. After an hour-long parade, an anniversary meeting was held, followed by a banquet. the Reverend Dr. George C. Lorimer, minister of Tremont Temple, delivered the principal address. One report states that over 800 attended. In 1922, the 125th Anniversary was observed with a church service, ladies' night, and a commemorative communication. The grand Lodge was represented by the Right Worshipful Senior Grand Warden. In 1936, according to Right Worshipful Herbert K. Pratt, ``the Lodge was swept with a wave of dramatic fervor.'' The Fellowship Players were organized, and for several years a different play by Worshipful Carl H. Claudy was produced annually. Invitations were received from far and wide, and the Players traveled from Provincetown to Boston, appearing before an estimated ten thousand Masons. During World War II. the Players submerged, but every now and then they surface, upon request, to reenact their perennial favorite ``A Rose on The Altar.'' On June 15, 1947, the Lodge celebrated its 150th Anniversary with church services and a special communication. Most Worshipful Samuel H. Wragg and several other Grand Lodge officers were our guests. The observance ended with a banquet at the Albert Gardner Boyden Gymnasium. At the February 24, 1964 meeting of the Lodge, a committee was appointed to look into the advisability of either remodeling the lodge building or erecting a new Temple. For a number of years it had become increasingly apparent that extensive repairs would have to be made to the old structure, which had been the home of Fellowship lodge for nearly 100 years. The building was structurally weak and the lodge room on the third floor was a potential firetrap. After considerable study, by this committee and others that follows, at the May 2, 1996 meeting, erection of a new building on the same site was recommended and it was voted to proceed with the project. The building committee then set to work in earnest. A brochure was prepared showing plans for the proposed new Temple, and at the June 6th communication a drive for funds was initiated, with Brother Thomas Carroll, our oldest member, making the first contribution. Arrangements were made for the Lodge to meet in the quarters of Satucket Lodge in East Bridgewaterr. Late in July, demolition of the old building was begun. Construction proceeded with few interruptions, and by the fall of 1967 the building was ready for occupancy. September 7, 1967, was a Red Letter Day in the history of Fellowship Lodge. On that day, officers of the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Masons in Massachusetts came to Bridgewater, and Most Worshipful Thomas A. Booth presided over the laying of the cornerstone and dedication of the new Temple. Masons from far and near taxed the capacity of the lodge room to participate in the traditional Masonic ceremonies. Then, on April 3, 1968, a mortgage-burning ceremony proclaimed the Lodge's freedom from encumberances. Thus, the hopes and plans of Fellowship Lodge came to fruition, and another page added to the story of Masonry in Bridgewater. No account of the building of the Temple would be complete without credit being given to those whose efforts and contributions made it possible. First, to the Building Committee, who labored so tirelessly for a period of more than two years, studying, planning, and finally supervising the building construction. Second, to all those who subscribed so generously to the drive for funds. Third, to the memory of those whose gifts and bequests were largely responsible for our being able to build without incurring indebtedness: namely, Brothers Elmer Edson Kimball and John Gardner Braman; Paul Revere, great-grandson of the signer of our charter; Mrs. Flora T. Little, widow of Brother Walter S. Little; and Mrs. Eleanor G. Reynolds, daughter of Brother Harry H. Bragdon, Lodge treasurer for thirty-nine years. To these, and many others, Fellowship Lodge owes a debt of undying gratitude. For 175 years, Fellowship Lodge has survived through wars, depressions and the anti-Masonic period, and has prospered. It has become a recognized and respected influence for good in the community. As a unit of a great Fraternity, international in its scope, we should like to feel that it has played its part in the promotion of Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth to all men ``whereever dispersed over the face of this earth.'' May God grant that its future be as bright as its past.