John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge). (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order under the rule.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) who wishes to rise and speak in support of the President's budget, who was the chairman of the Committee on the Budget when the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 was passed which has brought us to this point.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me simply make clear that that is not in our budget, not in the Spratt substitute. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. SPRATT. The Chair just stated it should be referred to as the Coburn resolution rather than as the President's budget.

Mr. SPRATT. Point of Order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to say that we have a letter from Jacob J. Lew, director of the Office of Management and Budget, saying that he is informed that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) will be offering a substitute to the budget resolution today. This amendment is being characterized as the President's budget. The Administration has not been consulted in the development of this amendment. It is our understanding that it is based on a set of assumptions that is quite different from those presented in the President's budget. Therefore, we do not support the amendment. While we are talking about the President's budget, though, and drawing comparisons and contrasts, let me take just a minute to point out a very significant difference between the Republican budget and the President's budget. The President sent up early this year a request to increase defense by $84 billion over the next 6 years, $68 billion of which would fall in the next 5 years. As Members can see, the President has proposed a pretty robust defense budget starting this year and continuing through the 10-year time frame of the budget to the point where it reaches nearly $385 billion. Let me point out two factors in the Republican budget which really work against the claim, undercut the claim, that their budget is supportive of national defense. First of all, in the first 5 years of their budget they offer $29 billion more than the President, $29.6 billion in budget authority. Members can only use budget authority, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) earlier said, if it has outlays to back it up. Outlays are money we can spend. In giving spending authority to the Pentagon, their budget in the first 5 years matches the $30 billion increase in defense spending budget authority. With only $5.2 billion, only one-sixth of the money they are putting up can actually be used in this period of time. So in the first 5 years, while they sort of beat their breast and say, look what we are doing for defense over and above the President, in truth, they pull this punch by not providing the outlays to back it up. In the second period of time this chart very graphically shows what happens to their defense budget and where they put their preferences. Because in the year 2004 their defense budget peaks, and thereafter it is the black line on this chart, it is flat as a pancake. It never increases in the next 5 years more than $1 billion. What is wrong with that? That is the period when the procurement holiday is over. That is the period when the F-22 and the V-22 and the joint strike fighter and missile defense and everything else is going to be procured. That is when we need the money more than ever. What happens in the Republican budget? It bottoms out. Why does it bottom out? Because when they were forced to choose between national defense and tax cuts, they opted clearly for tax cuts, so much so that they plotted an out year budget that is totally unrealistic. I asked the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) on the floor the other day, when he came to speak in support of missile defense, how in the world was he going to pay for it? Because that is the time frame when he would be deploying missile defense, putting the satellites in space, the ground interceptors in place. He said, I can say that our numbers are real. That is the thing that worries me, this is a real number. Their tax cut will make impossible any increase in defense in those years to do the things they say and purport they want to do for national defense. Their budget is a disaster for national defense compared to the President's budget.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SPRATT. Would it be in order to ask if the gentleman does indeed support this, or if he is offering it for dilatory purposes?

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, do the rules of the House require that an offeror of the amendment be a supporter and proponent of the amendment that he offers and proposes to the House?

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to raise a parliamentary point of order.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, 6 years ago the President sent us a budget on February 17 which passed this House by 2 votes. Opponents on the other side of the aisle said it would cut the economy off at the knees and mushroom the deficit. Six years later, the economy is running strong and the deficit has dropped from $290 billion to a $70 billion surplus. That is the finest tribute we can pay to the Humphrey-Hawkins debate.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).