Charles W. Stenholm: “I rise in opposition to the Frank amendment. I do so because of my growing concerns, now supported by this…”

“I rise in opposition to the Frank amendment. I do so because of my growing concerns, now supported by this administration, that to cut defense further could unnecessarily jeopardize our Nation's security. There has also been a great deal of confusion as to whether or not the Frank amendment reduces the deficit. Let me begin by saying that the gentleman from Massachusetts has been very honest insofar as not reallocating the $2.4 billion in budget authority which he removes from function 050, the National Defense function. Where I differ with Mr. Frank is in his claim that this simple lack of reallocation will cause deficit reduction. In my opinion, none of the facts of the amendment support such a claim. First, you will note that while the defense BA has been reduced by $2.4 billion, there is no reduction in defense outlays. As we all know, the deficit is an outlay number. If you compare the deficit numbers of the Sabo committee bill with the deficit numbers of the Frank amendment, you will note that they are identical. I do not understand how a deficit reduction claim can be made when the amendment itself shows precisely the same deficit number. Second, if Mr. Frank were committed to his new-found conversion to deficit reduction, he would have included in his amendment a lowering of the spending caps.”