Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back time on this side as well, so we can go to Senator Kennedy's amendment and try to get back on schedule as much as we can.

Mr. CONRAD. Even though I think using section 920 is the wrong way to go. The Senator indicated he has been informed there is $11 billion in the 920 accounts. I just direct the Senator's attention to page 29 of the concurrent resolution on the budget. If the Senator would direct his attention there and go down the table to allowances, 920, I think the Senator would see there, in fact, is no money in section 920. In fact, section 920 is $500 million in the hole. There is no $11 billion there. That is the problem we have. There is no $11 billion there. Section 920 is actually $500 million underwater. This will just put it further underwater, which will require an across- the-board cut in these other areas: homeland security among them, law enforcement, veterans benefits, defense. Actually, we do not know what the appropriators will do. So I just say that for the information of my colleagues, who may have some sense that there is money in this account, that there really is not. Mr. President, is the Senator prepared to yield back his time? Because I would be willing to yield back our time in the interest of trying to get back on schedule.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, for a moment, let me consult with the chairman and bill manager. Let me take one moment to consult with him and see how we might proceed. I ask if the Senator from Rhode Island would be prepared to yield back his time. The Senator has already yielded the time. I am prepared to yield back the time on our side as well. Let me say that it would be very helpful, if Senator Burns and his staff are listening, if he could come and do his amendment next--I know it is not scheduled until 1 o'clock--so we are using the time efficiently here on the floor. With that, I yield my time on the Chafee amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Bingaman is available. How much time remains on the Talent-Cantwell amendment?

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. I have now talked to officials at the Department of Defense, I have talked to the leaders of the services, at least some of them, about the daunting challenge we face for the future. My own view is we are probably going to have to think outside the box in terms of how we fund recapitalization on the force going forward. It will behoove us to begin thinking how we will take on those challenges. I personally believe we will need to consider leasing or some other way of spreading costs instead of our current practices of paying for new systems with cash on the barrelhead. I do not believe we are going to be able to recapitalize the force in the way we have in the past. I thank the Senator for, on the one hand, the proposal on restoring some of the proposed cuts here, but I am concerned about the way it is being paid for. I know the intention is to take it out of overhead. The way 920 works, we really do not know how it will be done. The fact is, the budget resolution controls the numbers that will be given to the Committee on Appropriations, but it does not tell them how to make the reductions. We do not control that. That is controlled in the appropriations process, as the Senator knows. The unintended consequence might be that actually this increase in defense be paid for by reducing homeland security, law enforcement, veterans, and defense itself. Those are decisions which will be made by the appropriators. That is why I wish that instead of paying for it in this way, we paid for it in some other way that assured that it was not just taking out of one pocket and putting it in the other. With that said, we need to restore this funding. We have a very serious problem going forward. Because of the burgeoning debt of the country and the deficits, defense is going to face very difficult challenges in the future when we try to rebuild these aging systems which are critically important to our national defense. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, the Senator is correct; function 920 is the other discretionary accounts. So the effect of the Senator's amendment is to ``plus up'' defense, but he does so by cutting homeland security, cutting law enforcement, cutting veterans' benefits, cutting defense itself. I say to my colleague, there is no new money here. This is taking out of one pot and putting it into the other pot. And one of pots that is being taken from is defense itself, homeland security, law enforcement, and others. My own assessment of cutting these function 920 accounts is that it is kind of robbing Peter to pay Paul. I hope we do not do much of this in the process of writing this budget. I support the underlying interest of the Senator in restoring the defense money that was cut in the Committee on the Budget by the mark of the Committee on the Budget chairman. However, I alert my colleagues, it is being paid for--are you willing to cut homeland security and law enforcement, veterans, and other defense accounts?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me say this Senator agrees with the Senator on the need to deal with the fundamental defense needs of the country. I say to the Senator, I know it is his intention to be cutting travel and overhead, but the way function 920 works is these will be across-the-board cuts to the other domestic elements of the budget; that is, homeland security will take a cut. They will decide where it goes. The Committee on the Budget does not decide that. So homeland security, in the programs themselves, may take reductions. That will be up to the Committee on Appropriations. Law enforcement will be cut to pay for this increase in defense. Defense itself may well be cut to pay for this increase in defense. Veterans programs will be cut, or at least the veterans function will be cut. I want my colleagues to understand how this works. Although I know it is the stated intention to cut overhead and to cut travel, that may well not be the result here because the way function 920 works, there will be an across-the-board cut to discretionary programs, and those accounts--and this will be a decision by the appropriators, how they spread these reductions--will be the money used to pay for an increase in defense. I find it a troubling approach in terms of the pay for--not the plus-up. The Senator is correct to ask that we provide the funding the President has requested in defense. Let me say that one of the great concerns I have in these defense accounts going forward--and I say this to my colleague from Missouri, and I think the Senator referenced this--we have these systems which are aging, whether it is our bombers, our fighters, our ships in the Navy, our aircraft carriers. The tanker fleet is more than 40 years old, much of the bomber fleet is more than 40 years old, and many of our naval ships are reaching the end of their useful lives. So how are we going to recapitalize the defense accounts? It will be one of the great challenges of our generation. I don't begrudge for a moment this increase in defense. It will help us take on some of those very substantial challenges we will confront in the future. We will have to do some thinking outside the box on how we will recapitalize the force going forward. I am told by National Guardsmen that much of the equipment they took to Iraq is never coming back. It is junk. The incredible heat, the combat conditions they have faced-- much of this equipment is simply being eaten alive.

Mr. CONRAD. Am I correct, then, in understanding that the Senator would pay for this increase in defense in part by cutting homeland security?

Mr. CONRAD. Let's take a minute and a half.

Mr. CONRAD. We ask unanimous consent for a minute apiece.

Mr. CONRAD. And we offered to close tax loopholes, these egregious tax loopholes that we have pointed out repeatedly. That is not a tax increase. It is more revenue. It is not a tax rate increase on anyone. But that gets us back to the fundamental question of, What is the direction we are going to take? Are we going to continue to run up the debt of the country, as the chairman proposes? Or are we going to take a new turn and go back to the budget disciplines that have worked in the past? I urge my colleagues to go back to the budget disciplines we have had in the past. If you want to spend more money, you have to pay for it. If you want to have more tax reductions, you have to pay for them. It is a simple principle. We have had it in the past. The chairman has endorsed it in the past. It is the right course.

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to complete my thought and finish. Over all the years when we were in control, Republicans did not offer alternative budgets. With respect to what we did in committee, every amendment we offered was paid for. The Senator is entirely correct. We offered amendments with revenue of $133 billion and with increased spending of $126 billion. So we paid for every amendment. We didn't pay for it with tax increases. We paid for it by closing the tax gap, money that is owed that is not being paid, which the revenue commissioner has said could be collected. I ask for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will not argue with the Senator on the need for this additional defense spending. My own view has been that what the President asks for at a time of war with respect to the defense, we ought to provide. We ought to stand shoulder to shoulder with the President at a time of war with respect to defense expenditures. What I do want to ask the Senator, how is he funding this increase? Is it correct that the Senator is paying for this increase with cuts in function 920?

Mr. CONRAD. I agree.

Mr. CONRAD. Senator Durbin has a disaster in his hometown.

Mr. CONRAD. Maybe we could at this moment then put that in place.

Mr. CONRAD. No, we would not.

Mr. CONRAD. That will take us to 3 o'clock, at which time we will be voting. I yield to Senator Bingaman 2 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. Senator Bingaman wishes to speak on the Cantwell amendment for 2 minutes and then to his amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. I am afraid I have only got a minute left.

Mr. CONRAD. They didn't offer alternative budgets.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the chairman says we have offered no budget. The chairman well knows the majority has the responsibility to offer a budget. Our responsibility is to critique that budget. We have done so by pointing out that this is the effect of the chairman's budget. It increases the debt every year by over $600 billion. That is the budget that has been offered by the majority. When we were in control, they didn't offer alternative budgets.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?