Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I say to the Senator, this is on my time. The Senator provided a good deal of misinformation to our colleagues. It is unfortunate he does not want to hear the other side of the story. General Jumper, who is the head of the Air Force, said to me the Air Force currently has 500 KC-135 tanker aircraft. The average age is 43 years; 100 of the 500 planes are in the depot for repair at any one time. Some have been in the depot for repair as long as 600 days. The Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Texas said this is not a priority for the Air Force. I do not think they are right when the head of the Air Force calls me and says it is an absolute priority. They are talking about past history. They are talking about before the attack on this country that occurred on September 11. General Jumper said to me: Senator, the attack has changed everything. We now have to fly air cover over 26 American cities. We are providing the air bridge for half a world away to Afghanistan. These planes are being flown at an OPTEMPO that requires us to replace them sooner than was anticipated. This is the head of the Air Force, and the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Texas say it is not an Air Force priority? They better call the Air Force and ask them what their priorities are, and they better talk about the priorities that exist now, not the priorities that existed before this country was attacked. The lease agreement that was proposed between the Air Force and Boeing did not meet our test for lease agreement. That is why I became involved. It is the only reason I know anything about this. As a result, I convened a meeting on November 1 with the Air Force, the head of the Congressional Budget Office, the top management of the Office of Management and Budget, Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, and the Senators from Washington to hear from OMB and CBO on their objections to this agreement. CBO and OMB said they would score this lease agreement not as a lease but as a purchase costing $22 billion. We then worked with the Congressional Budget Office to structure a true lease agreement. The Senator from Arizona says to our colleagues this would cost five times as much as a direct acquisition. That is absolute sheer nonsense. The fact is, to acquire these planes would cost $22 billion. To lease the planes costs $20 billion. In the math that I learned in North Dakota, $20 billion is less than $22 billion. Where the Senator from Arizona ever came up with the wild claim that this costs five times as much as an acquisition is beyond me because it is absolutely not accurate. When we come out on the floor, it seems to me we have some obligation to report accurately to our colleagues. I do not hold it against anybody to come out here and offer an amendment on any matter, but there is some obligation to be accurate in reporting to our colleagues. The only reason I got involved in this is because we saw a lease agreement that was truly not, according to the Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget, a lease. That is the reason I have learned what I have learned. But for the Senator from Arizona to come out here and assert the Air Force does not want these planes is not true. For him to assert that it is not a priority is not true. It may have been the case before the war occurred, but it is not the case now. The simple fact is, the head of the Air Force himself has called me directly on three occasions to talk about this specific issue and to ask me not to block the acquisition of these planes, which I was prepared to do until they entered into what is, in fact, a lease agreement, a lease agreement that costs less than acquiring these planes directly. As I have indicated, the head of the Air Force said to me, these planes are urgently needed in the national security interest of the United States of America. That is what General Jumper said to me on repeated occasions. I hope when we vote on this matter, we vote based on facts. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. I will take 3 minutes off our side's time.

Mr. CONRAD. Let me complete my remarks and then I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Arizona. I say to the Senator from Arizona, I hope he will stay and listen because the Senator from Arizona provided a good deal----

Mr. CONRAD. I will not yield at this point.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I ask the Senator from Texas to delay for just a moment so we might seek a unanimous-consent agreement?

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from Kansas indicated he has a letter from the Secretary of the Air Force specifically requesting these planes.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from Arizona asserts that we are forcing these planes on the Air Force. Was the Senator from Kansas ever contacted by General Jumper or the Air Force and asked to support providing these planes to the Air Force?

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise to answer some of the charges made by the Senator from Arizona with respect to this lease agreement between the Air Force and Boeing to acquire 100 Boeing 767s to replace 100 of the aging KC-135 tanker aircraft for the U.S. Air Force. The Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Texas have suggested that this is a matter of the appropriators requiring the Air Force to acquire planes that are not a priority for the U.S. Air Force. That is wrong. That is not even close to being right. I know something about this, not because I am an appropriator, I am not. I know something about it because, as chairman of the Budget Committee, we saw in the appropriations bill a proposed lease agreement that we did not regard as a true lease. So I became involved in this effort and learned a good deal about what is being discussed. First, the Air Force is not required to lease planes from Boeing or anyone else. The statement of the Senator from Arizona that the Air Force is being required to lease planes from Boeing or anywhere else is simply not true. I direct my colleagues to the language that is before us: The Secretary of the Air Force may, from funds provided in this act or any future appropriations act, establish a multiyear pilot program for leasing general purpose aircraft for tanker purposes. That is what this is about. This is no requirement. This is an authorization so that if the head of the Air Force determines it is in the national interest to do so, they can acquire planes through the leasing process. As I became involved in this matter, General Jumper, who is the head of the U.S. Air Force, called me personally on three occasions to say how urgently needed these planes are. The Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Texas have suggested the Air Force does not want these planes. The head of the Air Force, General Jumper, called me on three occasions saying these planes are desperately needed and asked me not to stop the acquisition through lease of these aircraft. General Jumper made this case to me.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Murray of Washington, Senator Grassley of Iowa, and myself be permitted to go in front of Senator Wellstone. He himself has proposed this, so I know it is OK.

Mr. CONRAD. That is part of our request.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Texas. I am just wondering if we can have in place an agreement that the Senator from Texas would speak, and then the Senator from Minnesota would proceed, and then I would like to have the chance to respond to the remarks of the Senators from Arizona and Texas with respect to this lease agreement, because there is another side of this story that has not been told that I think would be important for our colleagues to hear. I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of myself and the Senator from Washington, that I be granted 10 minutes for myself, 10 minutes for the Senator from Washington, and that the Senator from Iowa--you would like how much time? Five minutes. I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Minnesota, I be recognized for 10 minutes, the Senator from Washington be recognized for 10 minutes, and the Senator from Iowa be recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, we should not wait. We should act.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget Committee's official scoring of H.R. 3338, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. H.R. 3338 provides $317.206 billion in nonemergency discretionary budget authority for defense activities and $13 million in nonemergency budget authority for general purpose activities. Those amounts will result in new outlays in 2002 of $213.063 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, nonemergency discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $309.412 billion in 2002. In addition, the bill includes $35 billion in emergency-designated budget authority. Of that total, $20 billion represents amounts previously authorized by and designated as emergency spending under Public Law 107-38, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Attacks on the United States, and $15 billion is for homeland defense. That budget authority will result in new outlays in 2002 of $12.123 billion. In accordance with standard budget practice, the budget committee will adjust the appropriations committee's allocation for emergency spending at the end of conference. Because the funds for homeland security include amounts for nondefense activities, the emergency designation violates section 205 of the budget resolution for fiscal year 2001 (H. Rept. 106-577). The Senate bill also violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 because it exceeds the subcommittee's Section 302(b) allocation for both budget authority and outlays. Similarly, because the committee's allocation is tied to the current law cap on discretionary spending, H.R. 3338 also violates section 312(b) of the Congressional Budget Act. The bill includes language that raises the cap on discretionary category spending to $681.441 billion in budget authority and $670.447 billion in outlays. However, because that language is not yet law, the budget committee cannot increase the appropriations committee's allocation at this time, putting it in violation of the two points of order. In addition, by including language that increases the cap on discretionary spending and adjusts the balances on the pay-as-you-go scorecard for 2001 and 2002 to zero, H.R. 3338 also violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act. Finally, the bill violates section 311(a)(2)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act by exceeding the spending aggregates assumed in the 2002 budget resolution for fiscal year 2002. H.R. 3338 violates several budget act points of order; however, it is a good bill that addresses the nation's defense needs, including the defense of our homeland. The President and Congressional leaders from both parties agreed in the wake of the September 11th attack that more money was needed to respond to the terrorists and to protect our homeland. This bill follows that bipartisan agreement and includes language that raises the cap on discretionary spending to the necessary level. I commend Chairman Byrd and subcommittee Chairman Inouye on their excellent work in bringing this important bill to the Senate floor. I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee scoring of H.R. 3338 be inserted in the Record at this point.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask for 2 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise to offer for the Record the Budget Committee's official scoring on the conference report to H.R. 2944, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. The conference report provides $408 million in discretionary budget authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $370 million. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the conference report total $418 million in 2002. By comparison, the Senate passed bill included $408 million for the District, which would have increased total outlays by $416 million in 2002. The conference report is at the subcommittee's Section 302(b) allocation for both budget authority and outlays. It does not include any emergency-designated funding. In addition to the Federal funds, the conference report to H.R. 2944 also approves the District government's budget for 2002, including granting it the authority to spend $7.154 billion of local funds. It is important that the Congress complete its work on the remaining appropriations bills for 2002. In the case of this report, H.R. 2944 not only provides a limited amount of Federal funding to the District, but also, through the enactment of its budget, allows the city to obligate and spend its own local revenues. We should act on behalf of the citizens of D.C. to allow the District to implement the budget sent forth to us by its elected leaders. I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee scoring of the conference report to H.R. 2944 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today a giant presence in North Dakota history is being laid to rest. Harold Schafer was truly larger than life. He was perhaps North Dakota's most prominent citizen--accomplished in his public life, and generous in his private life. He grew up in western North Dakota in hard times, and went on to be the most successful entrepreneur in our State's history. Harold Schafer was a salesman's salesman. He had a magnetic personality, boundless energy, a genuine interest in people and tremendous enthusiasm for life. His curiosity and passion for living were contagious. Harold Schafer was just plain fun to be around. He started a small business in his basement, and grew it into a multi-million dollar national enterprise. His Gold Seal company was the kind of great American success story that gave meaning to the phrase ``household name.'' Harold Schafer gave us Glass Wax, Snowy Bleach, and Mr. Bubble. He enjoyed great financial success, and his rags-to-riches story earned him the Horatio Alger award. But Harold Schafer was much more than a successful businessman. He was interested and involved in every part of the life of North Dakota and the Nation. His acquaintances ranged from the powerful and well- known to the shoeshine man on the corner, and he enjoyed the company of all of them. He entertained General Douglas MacArthur in his home in Bismarck. He was a friend to Ronald Reagan and Perry Como. He appeared in the movie ``How the West Was Won.'' And he will always be remembered as our State's most prominent philanthropist, even though he never sought recognition for his generosity. He helped hundreds of young North Dakotans through college, almost always anonymously. I know, because he offered to put me through college when I was a young man. He helped hundreds and hundreds of others, in ways big and small. Almost always, he reached out to assist the less fortunate in ways that others never knew about. He preferred it that way, but how he loved to help. Harold Schafer was a big man with a big heart, and a real love for life. He could talk to anyone, and learn from everyone. His enthusiasm and energy took him into the worlds of politics, business education and philanthropy. He was the man who restored the town of Medora in the North Dakota Badlands, an important place in the life of President Theodore Roosevelt. Harold spent millions of dollars of his own money to bring the story of that town to a national audience. Today, Medora is the premier vacation spot in our State. It is the gateway to the rugged beauty of Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and hosts a professional show every evening in the summer in a spectacular outdoor amphitheater. Harold Schafer did not invest in Medora to make money, but to preserve the area's rich history. Medora tells a story that has inspired thousands of young people with the vision that Theodore Roosevelt and Harold Schafer shared, the ``can-do'' attitude that says, ``every person can make a difference, and every person should try.'' Harold Schafer adopted as the symbol of his company a statue of a pioneer entitled ``Work.'' He loved to work, to build and to make things better. That was at the heart of Harold Schafer's philosophy. I know these things because I first met Harold Schafer when I was a small boy, and had the privilege of being part of his extended family. He was a close friend of my father. When my parents were killed in an automobile accident, Harold Schafer adopted my family as he did so many others. Every Christmas Eve, Harold would come to my home with a trunkload of gifts for the family, a wide smile, and genuine glee celebrating all that life had to offer. He brought happiness to hundreds of families that had suffered a loss or a hardship. That's the kind of man Harold Schafer was. He made the world a better place while he was here, and he leaves the world a sadder place for his passing. Our sympathy goes out to his wife, Sheila, and his children, Haroldeen, Ed, Joanne, Dianne, Pamela, Mark, Michele, and Maureen, their families, and his many grandchildren and great-grandchildren. We will miss him greatly.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, requires the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to make adjustments to budget resolution allocations and aggregates for amounts designated as emergency requirements pursuant to section 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. Pursuant to section 314, I hereby submit the following revisions to H. Con. Res. 83 as a result of provisions designated as emergency requirements in P.L. 107-42, the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act. This measure was enacted into law on September 22, 2001. I ask consent that the following table be printed in the Record, which reflects the changes made to the allocations provided to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and to the budget resolution aggregates enforced under section 311(2)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. That is correct. If one looks at the different fiscal outcomes based on the Republican stimulus plan and the Democratic stimulus plan just over the next 3 years, it is over $140 billion of additional deficits and additional debt with the Republican stimulus plan versus the Democratic stimulus plan. Interestingly enough, they are criticizing adding $7.5 billion for homeland security to respond to the bioterrorism threat, to improve security at airports, to improve security at our harbors, to improve security for the rail system in this country--all things that are clearly necessary. I submit that terrorists are unlikely to wait for us. But I also have learned that within the administration, they are working on a supplemental that would come to us early next year for as much as $20 billion for these same items. So what we have in terms of resistance on the other side to addressing the vulnerability of this country now on the terrorist threat rings pretty hollow--rings pretty hollow--when they say, on the one hand, gee, you are going to be adding $7.5 billion to the deficit and the debt, and yet when we examine their stimulus package over the next 3 years, compared to ours, they are going to be adding $140 billion to the deficit and debt and perhaps most revealing, all of their talk about how this represents big spending, and we have learned through sources in the administration they are working on their own additional spending plan to be brought before us next year in the amount of approximately $20 billion. I did not know if the leader had heard of these calculations or of these reports, but I thought it might be useful to the discussion as to what the issue is going to be when we vote on these questions on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. CONRAD. I thought I should report on testimony we had before the Budget Committee with respect to stimulus. We had a number of economists who appeared who said spending to strengthen security is perhaps the very best thing we could do to stimulate the economy. Not only would the spending itself be stimulative, but, more important, it would improve the security of people in the country. One of the big problems we have is a lack of confidence. People are feeling threatened. People are feeling vulnerable. That inhibits economic activity. We see that in airline travel. People don't feel safe flying. To the extent you can make expenditures that improve the security of airports and improve the security of rail operations and improve the security in ports, that is going to improve the psychological security factor that people feel. That is going to help the economy. They said you actually get a double hit: Not only the expenditures will be stimulative, but the additional security will make people feel safer and be safer. I hope this does not become kind of a political debate, a partisan political debate, but that we deal with the underlying realities. The fact is, we know there are things that have to be done to strengthen our security. We can make that commitment now and get the work underway now. That makes sense instead of delaying. We are talking about $7.5 billion, when our Republican friends are talking about a stimulus package that means $140 billion of additional debt over the next 3 years over and above what Democrats are advocating. This choice is going to be a relatively simple one.

Mr. CONRAD. Just 3 years.

Mr. CONRAD. I saw their discussion occurring on the floor. I have been doing some calculations with my staff in the Budget Committee. I thought some of what we found might be useful in the discussion. Over the next 3 years, the difference between the Republican stimulus plan and the Democratic stimulus plan is that the Republicans would add $140 billion more in deficits with their stimulus plan than with ours. And now they are talking about----

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, will the leader yield?

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for an additional observation?