Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, before I talk about the matter at hand, I would like to remember Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. I did not have a chance to know Detective Gibson. I did have a chance to know J.J. and he was someone who lit up a room. He had a 1,000-watt smile. I will never forget the time I was going to a meeting at the House of Representatives. I wasn't familiar with where the room was, and J.J. took me right to it. He was a delightful man, and it was tragic that his life was taken. I will never forget the funeral. It was one of the most remarkable outpourings I have ever seen, and so we remember with enormous respect Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. The Economy Mr. President, I have to respond to the Republican leader. What a fountain of misinformation. He repeats this canard that no budget action has been taken here for 4 years. What about the Budget Control Act that was passed last year with more than 70 votes in the Senate? That was passed instead of a budget resolution. It was a law. Anybody who has had even a little bit of civics knows a law is stronger than a resolution. Indeed, that law cut spending by $900 billion over 10 years and put in place this sequester we now face that cuts another $1.2 trillion over 10 years for a total spending cut of over $2 trillion. It was the biggest spending cut in the history of the United States, and the Republican leader acts as though he never heard of it; it never happened. Let's get real. We took action in the House and Senate, and it was signed into law by the President. The last time our friends on the other side were in charge, their policies brought us to the brink of financial collapse. Have we forgotten that the economy was shrinking at a rate of 9 percent in the last quarter of the previous administration? In their last month in office we lost 800,000 jobs--in 1 month. That was their record. This administration has turned things around. We are no longer losing jobs; we are gaining them. The economy is no longer shrinking; it is growing. Maybe it is not as strong as we would like, but it has been a remarkable turnaround after the other side and their policies led us to the brink of financial collapse. Let's talk about the legislation before us. It assures 98 percent of the American people are not going to have a tax increase, extends expiring provisions on income taxes, and income tax relief for everyone making below $250,000 a year. It includes incentives to promote work and support families, and it provides relief from the individual alternative minimum tax for 1 year, a tax that is increasingly affecting the middle class. Our friends on the other side say: Whoa. Wait a minute. That means those making more than $250,000 will have a top rate of 39.6 percent. That is true. What happened the last time we had a top rate of 39.6 percent? That was during the Clinton administration. What was the economic record then? It was 39 straight quarters of economic growth from 1991 until 2000. It was the longest period of uninterrupted growth in this Nation's history. There were 24 million jobs created. That is what happened the last time we had a top rate of 39.6 percent. Why is it important we begin doing something about these growing deficits and debt? It is because we are on an unsustainable course. This is one place where the Republican leader and I would agree. We are on an unsustainable course; we have been since the previous administration. Have they forgotten that they tripled foreign holdings of U.S. debt during that administration, and doubled the debt? We are on an unsustainable course. We are headed for a debt that will be 200 percent of our GDP if we don't act. This is a spending and revenue problem. This chart shows spending and revenue as a share of the economy over the last 60 years. Spending is the red line, and the green line is revenue. As we can see, we are at or near a 60-year high in spending. We are at or near a 60-year low on revenue. It is true we have a spending problem. It is also true we have a revenue problem. Revenue is at or near a 60-year low. Our friends on the other side want to just have the historic average for revenue. The problem with that is it is not a useful benchmark. This is spending going back to 1972, 40 years. The red line shows spending. The green line is the historic average for revenue. We can see that if we just had the historic average for revenue, we never would have balanced the budget in a single year over 40 years. That is what the other side wants to do. The fact is the five times we have balanced the budget since 1969--in 44 years--the revenue was nearly 20 percent of GDP. It was 19.7 percent in 1969, 19.9 percent in 1998, 19.8 percent in 1999, 20.6 percent in 2000, and 19.5 percent in 2001. Facts are stubborn. Former Republican Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg said this about revenue: We also know revenues are going to have to go up, if you're going to maintain a stable economy and a productive economy, because of the simple fact that you're going to have to have this huge generation that has to be paid for. It is the baby boom generation. That is not a forecast; that is not a projection. They have been born, they are alive today, and they are going to be eligible for Medicare and Social Security. In 2010, we saw some wealthy people paying no Federal income tax-- nothing. People with incomes of $500,000 to $1 million in 2010, 14,000 paid nothing, zero. Those earning over $1 million in 2010 who paid nothing were 4,000. Is that fair? It is outrageous that 4,000 people earning over $1 million paid absolutely nothing and 14,000 earning between $500,000 and $1 million of income paid absolutely nothing and our friends want to defend that system. Shocking. Here is what is happening to so-called tax expenditures. We are now spending more money through the Tax Code than through all the appropriated accounts. Who are the big winners? The top 1 percent in income, on average, get a benefit of $255,000 a year by the so-called credits, deductions, exclusions, and preferences that are shot through the Tax Code. We have a little five-story building in the Cayman Islands that claims to be home to 18,000 companies. They all say they are doing business out of that little five-story building. Are they doing business out of that little building or are they doing monkey business out of that building? Eighteen thousand companies in a little five-story building in the Cayman Islands evading and avoiding the taxes due in the United States. Our friends on the other side say: No change. Shouldn't touch that. That is fair? I don't think so. Let's get real. Let's get serious. Let's take on deficits and debt. Let's make certain everybody has a chance to contribute, including those who are at the top rungs who are now paying nothing. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I understand there is a bill at the desk and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. CONRAD. I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, July 24; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the majority leader be recognized; that the first hour be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings; finally, that at 3:40 p.m., the Senate observe a moment of silence in memory of Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson of the U.S. Capitol Police, who were killed 14 years ago in the line of duty defending this Capitol, the people who work here, and its visitors against an armed intruder.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, today the majority leader filed cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 3412, the Middle Class Tax Cut Act. If no agreement is reached, that vote will be on Wednesday.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I understand there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading.

Mr. CONRAD. On behalf of the majority leader, I object to any further proceedings with respect to these bills en bloc.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. This is the Statement of Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation for H.R. 1627, as amended. Total Budgetary Effects of H.R 1627 for the 5-year Statutory PAYGO Scorecard--net reduction in the deficit of $401 million. Total Budgetary Effects of H.R 1627 for the 10-year Statutory PAYGO Scorecard--net reduction in the deficit of $215 million. Also submitted for the Record as part of this statement is a table prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, which provides additional information on the budgetary effects of this Act. The table follows:

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor the 125th Anniversary of Thompson-Markward Hall, which was formerly known as the Young Women's Christian Home. Many young women working as interns or beginning staffers, including many from my office throughout the years, have found a safe place to live and meet friends as they establish their professional careers. The Thompson-Markward Hall, located across from the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill, provides a valuable service to young women working in Washington and our Congressional community. Its remarkable story is one very much worth sharing. In 1833, Mrs. Mary G. Wilkinson recognized the need in the District of Columbia for suitable lodging for young ladies of good character and meager means. She vowed that there should someday be a home for young women coming alone to Washington seeking employment, where they could be protected and cared for until they became established in the community. She began what developed into the Young Woman's Christian Home by housing two such young women in her home. In 1887, the Young Woman's Christian Home was chartered by Congress and incorporated ``to provide a temporary home for young women coming to and being in the District of Columbia, who shall, from any cause, be in want of and willing to accept temporary home, care and assistance . . .'' By 1890, the Home was receiving an annual appropriation of $1,000 from Congress. Over the years, the Young Woman's Christian Home underwent renovations and changed locations. In 1931, Mrs. Flora Markward Thompson, a devoted Life Member of the Board of Trustees, passed away, leaving instructions for the executors of her estate to establish a suitable memorial to her mother and her husband. The executors decided that the most suitable memorial could be entrusted to the Young Woman's Christian Home. The Home then became known as Thompson-Markward Hall now most commonly known as TMH--to perpetually remember Mrs. Thompson's generous gift. Despite the many changes throughout the years, the original spirit and mission of the founders and early benefactors remain. Today, TMH continues to be a ``home away from home'' for 120 young women in Washington for work or school. As TMH celebrates the 125th anniversary of its Congressional charter, its roots are strong and the devotion to its founder's mission remains firm and constant. I ask the United States Senate to join me in congratulating Thompson-Markward Hall on this important milestone.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a truly exceptional member of my staff who recently departed after 22 years of service in the Senate. Tom Mahr is one of the longest-serving members of my staff, and he has made invaluable contributions to important debates and the drafting of key pieces of legislation in the Senate over the past 2 decades. He will be missed. Like many staff members, Tom began his career on Capitol Hill as an intern. I tapped him to join my staff in January 1988 as a legislative correspondent. Tom excelled from the start, and it was not long after that he began a steady path to increasing levels of responsibility. His first major effort as a banking legislative assistant was during the Savings and Loan bailout. He provided me with sound advice, and I was one of only 8 Senators to vote against the bailout. Tom left briefly to complete graduate school at Princeton; he rejoined my staff in 1991, working on a number of important issues, including what to do to help the economy. When I joined the Finance Committee in 1993, Tom was assigned to work on trade issues. For North Dakota, with its significant agricultural interests, ensuring fair trade agreements and opening new markets for our products was vital. In those days, the rapid rise in imports of wheat and barley from Canada was negatively affecting farmers in North Dakota. Addressing this was a top priority for me, and Tom was a key part of the effort. With his guidance and strategic advice, I was successful in getting the U.S. Trade Representative to negotiate an agreement under which the Canadians agreed not to flood our markets. In the mid-1990s, Tom took over the health care portfolio in my office. Health care was an integral part of the major budget battles that took place then, when the Speaker of the House was proposing to slash Medicare spending to pay for tax cuts. Tom was deeply involved and assisted in staffing me on the Chafee-Breaux bipartisan group, which ultimately produced a bipartisan budget proposal in 1996 that garnered 46 votes over the opposition of both leaders. Tom spearheaded Medicare and Medicaid changes, including improvements to rural Medicare programs and securing reimbursement for telehealth services, that became part of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. During that time I worked with others to prevent budget legislation from block-granting nutrition programs. Winning that amendment during consideration of the 1996 welfare reform bill was an incredibly important legislative accomplishment, in terms of helping to protect the most vulnerable in our society, a priority that Tom has always had with his work on health and other issues. In the summer of 1997, I was tasked by Leader Daschle to lead a Democratic Senate task force to develop legislation to implement the proposed tobacco settlement between the State attorneys general and a number of private tobacco plaintiffs. Tom played an integral role in developing that bill and negotiating improvements as it moved through the Senate. That bill was seen as the gold standard for public health and it won key support from the White House. In 1998, Tom became my legislative director, a position he held until July 6, 2012. I have relied on Tom's advice, counsel, and strategic thinking on so many key initiatives that I have advanced for both North Dakota and the country. You name it, Tom was a part of it. He has been a trusted advisor during key debates from the resolution authorizing the war in Iraq that I voted against to budget and tax issues to Medicare prescription drugs and health reform. And he has led negotiations on many critical bills that I have introduced or played a role in developing. Tom has proven himself as a strategic thinker when it comes to putting together the farm bill compromises necessary to achieve legislative success in the Senate. He has worked tirelessly with other Senate offices during the critical stages of the last three farm bills to ensure the best possible outcomes for North Dakota, while also addressing the needs and concerns of other States. On energy, Tom has a deep understanding of the challenges and opportunities our Nation faces. He was instrumental in my efforts with the bipartisan energy group, the Gang of 10. It grew to 20, 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans. Through our efforts, we were able to come together on a bipartisan, comprehensive energy package to reduce fuel prices, lessen our dependence on foreign energy, and strengthen our economy. The New Energy Reform Act legislation produced by the group represented a true compromise, incorporating commonsense ideas, and it was fully offset. Tom could always be counted on to think ahead, anticipate obstacles, and develop solutions that were critical to reaching an agreement. Tom is one of the smartest people I have ever had working for me, and he has brought that knowledge and his sound judgment to so many successful efforts. He is enormously talented, hard-working, dedicated, and incredibly loyal. And he has earned the greatest respect of other Senators, staff, and many constituents he has worked with through the years. Tom will be leaving my office to serve as policy director for Minority Whip Steny Hoyer in the U.S. House of Representatives. We are fortunate that he will continue using his incredible talent to serve the public good. While I will miss him terribly, I am so pleased that he has chosen to continue in service to Congress and our great Nation. I am so grateful for the leadership Tom has provided in my office these past 22 years. The country is very fortunate to have someone of his caliber in public service. It is with deepest gratitude for his years of service to me, the State of North Dakota, the Senate, and the Nation that I wish him all the best in the next stage of his career.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I previously filed committee allocations and budgetary aggregates pursuant to section 106 of the Budget Control Act of 2011. Today, I am adjusting some of those levels, specifically the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2013 and the budgetary aggregates for fiscal year 2013. Section 101 of the Budget Control Act allows for various adjustments to the statutory limits on discretionary spending, while section 106(d) allows the chairman of the Budget Committee to make revisions to allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments. The Committee on Appropriations reported four bills that are eligible for adjustments under the Budget Control Act. Consequently, I am making adjustments to the 2013 allocation to the Committee on Appropriations and to the 2013 aggregates for spending by a total of $9.245 billion in budget authority and $2.385 billion in outlays. Those adjustments reflect the sum of $5.648 billion in budget authority and $403 million in outlays for funding designated for disaster relief, $2.547 billion in budget authority and $1.075 billion in outlays for funding designated as being for overseas contingency operations, and $1.050 billion in budget authority and $907 million in outlays for program integrity initiatives. The two program integrity initiatives for which adjustments are in order under the Budget Control Act are continuing disability reviews and redeterminations and health care fraud and abuse control. I ask unanimous consent that the following tables detailing the changes to the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations and the budgetary aggregates be printed in the Record. There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community in North Dakota that will soon celebrate its 125th anniversary. On July 13, 2012, the residents of Forest River will recognize the community's history and founding. Named after the river that flows through the area, Forest River was established in 1878 as a stop for both the Northern Pacific Railroad Company and the Soo Line Railroad. The river's original name was the Big Salt River; however, it was later changed to reflect the thick growth of trees along the banks of the water. Residents of Forest River will celebrate the town's 125th anniversary with fun activities, including a parade, an ice cream social, a street fair, several street dances, and a museum exhibit chronicling the history and heritage of the town and its residents. These activities reflect the charm and character of Forest River and the town's strong sense of community. I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Forest River, ND, and its residents on their 125th anniversary and in wishing them a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community in North Dakota that will soon celebrate its 100th anniversary. From July 13 through the 15, the residents of Regan will recognize the community's history and founding. Regan, like many towns in North Dakota, began with the coming of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company. Regan was named after J. Austin Regan, a businessman from nearby Fessenden and an official of Dakota Land and Townsite, the company which originally mapped the town. The first building in Regan was a cream station named Tolchinsky's, where early settlers sold their cream. In the following years, the town grew quickly with the additions of a post office, a church, many businesses, and a baseball diamond. Dubbed ``Rockin' Regan'' the residents have an extensive list of events for the centennial celebration, including a parade, a raffle, and the Centennial Tractor Trek that will travel along ND-Highway 36. Today, Regan, although small, is still a prominent farming community. I am reminded of a saying from their 75th celebration: ``We are not just a town, but a community, and a community we will remain.'' This is the true essence of the people of North Dakota; no matter what the future brings, communities will remain. The town of Regan has demonstrated its independence as a strong community and has remained strong since 1912. I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Regan, ND, and its residents on their 100th anniversary and in wishing them a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community in North Dakota that will soon celebrate its 125th anniversary. On July 14th, 2012, the residents of Milton will recognize the community's history and founding. When Milton was founded in 1887, the postmaster initially suggested that the town be called Springfield. Some historians claim the town was named after the famous English poet, John Milton. However, most historians agree the town was named for Milton, Ontario, the hometown of pioneer settler Steven Sophar. Steven Sophar was instrumental in obtaining land and creating townships across North Dakota, as well as in several other northern states. After establishing a post office, Milton reached its boom in population during the 1890s. The dedication of the residents keeps the community vibrant through its events and businesses. The local elevator, Little Star Theater and Milton Cafe are focal points in the community. Farming is also a thriving industry, due to the rich soil in the area. Organized by local residents, the city is celebrating its 125th anniversary on July 14. During the celebration, the Senior Center will highlight area businesses, along with other community favorites, with historic photos and displays. Events will also include a parade, a car/ bike/tractor show, a community dinner and program, a dance and fireworks sponsored by the Milton Fire Department. Mr. President, I ask the United States Senate to join me in congratulating Milton, ND, and its residents on their 125th anniversary and in wishing them a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community in North Dakota that will soon celebrate its 125th anniversary. On July 14, 2012, the town of Gilby will recognize their community's history and founding. Founded in 1887, Gilby was named for John Gilby Jr., who came to the area in 1878. The rich soil has made it possible for farms to thrive in the area, growing wheat, soybeans, corn, sugar beets, and edible beans. The Scott farm, the oldest farm in Gilby, has been growing crops since the early 1800s. The Oppegard building has been a prominent landmark in Gilby since the town was established, starting out as a blacksmith's shop. Currently, the Oppegard building is home to an independent repair shop serving the needs of farmers in the area. The people of this friendly town are predominantly from German heritage. To celebrate its 125th anniversary, Gilby is collaborating with Midway's 50th All School reunion on July 12, and Forest River's 125th anniversary on July 13. The activities culminate with Gilby's 125 celebration on July 14. Events in Gilby will include a pie and ice cream social, a volleyball tournament, train rides, and a parade. I ask the United States Senate to join me in congratulating Gilby, ND, and its residents on the 125th anniversary of their founding and in wishing them a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I want to indicate, while listening to the remarks of the Senator from Texas about the introduction of a bill apparently on cybersecurity, how critically important that is to the country. I am a relatively new member of the Intelligence Committee, but if there is anything I have learned, it is what a major threat this is to our country and how critically important it is we address it. So I commend the Senator from Texas for her leadership and I appreciate that she and her colleagues have taken this step of actually introducing legislation.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. I look forward to reviewing her proposal and, hopefully, together we can find a way to get something passed that will further protect our country. The Economy

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about the state of our economy, where we have come from, where we are headed, and the critical challenges facing our Nation. I want to go back and remind people of where we have come from. I think it is very important to put in context the circumstances we now confront. First of all, the economic crisis of 2008 and 2009 was the worst recession since the Great Depression. By the way, this was not the creation of Barack Obama. He inherited this mess, and he has done quite a good job of getting us moving in a better direction, but more of that later. In the fourth quarter of 2008--that is the last quarter before this President took office--the economy was actually shrinking at a rate of almost 9 percent. In the first month of 2009, we lost 800,000 jobs. The housing market was in crisis, home building and sales were plummeting, we faced record foreclosures, and the financial market crisis was threatening global economic collapse. In fact, I will never forget being called to a meeting in the Capitol in the fall of 2008, and I was the last one to arrive. It was the leaders of the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, and there was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Secretary of the Treasury in the Bush administration telling us they were going to take over AIG the next morning. They told us if they did not, there would be a financial collapse in this country within days. I have to say, that gets your attention. But those were the circumstances that were being confronted in late 2008. Since that time, we have seen a dramatic improvement. Here is the economy in the fourth quarter of 2008 before President Obama took office, shrinking at a rate of almost 9 percent. In the subsequent quarters it continued to shrink until it began to get better in late 2009, frankly, because of the stimulus and TARP that helped start to turn our country around. Since that time we have had consistent growth in the economy--not as robust as we would like but nonetheless consistent growth. It was a rather remarkable turnaround given how serious the economic downturn was. We also see the same pattern with respect to the private sector jobs picture. Again in January 2009, in 1 month alone we lost more than 800,000 jobs, and those were private sector jobs--more than 800,000 jobs in a month. Again, in 2009 things began to turn and we got back to growing jobs. In fact, we have had over 4\1/2\ million jobs in the private sector created since the turnaround began. Again, job growth was not as robust as we would like, but nonetheless it was quite a remarkable turnaround from where it was. What we have seen in looking at previous crises is that economic recovery is shallower and takes much longer after a financial crisis. So we can't compare this to the garden variety of recessions we faced since World War II. I think we have had nine recessions since World War II, but this went far beyond a typical recession. This was enormous damage to the financial sector. In looking back, historically, here is what Dr. Reinhart of the Peter Peterson Institute for International Economics and Dr. Vincent Reinhart of the American Enterprise Institute have found in their research: Real per capita GDP growth rates are significantly lower during the decade following severe financial crises . . . In the ten-year window following severe financial crises, unemployment rates are significantly higher than in the decade that presided the crisis. . . . That is the circumstance we are in. That is not the fault of President Obama. He inherited this mess. The fact is after a financial crisis, if we look back historically, it takes up to 10 years to recover. For those who say, well, the Federal Government response didn't work or that it hasn't made any difference, I don't think that is true. I don't think that will stand up to scrutiny. Two of the most distinguished economists in the country, Alan Blinder, who was a former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Mark Zandi, who was actually one of the economic advisers to the John McCain campaign, said: We find that its effects-- Talking about the Federal Government's actions to deal with the crisis-- on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. They went on to say: . . . When all is said and done, the financial and fiscal policies will have cost taxpayers a substantial sum, but not nearly as much as most had feared and not nearly as much as if policymakers had not acted at all. If the comprehensive policy responses saved the economy from another depression, as we estimate, they were well worth their cost. Madam President, here are two of the most distinguished economists in the country telling us that had we not taken the actions that the Federal Government did, we would have had a depression. They also looked at what would have happened without the Federal response on the jobs front. Here is what they found running their econometric models. The green line is the response with the Federal response, the red line is what they estimate would have happened without the Federal response. We can see they find a difference of 8 million jobs. In other words, we have 8 million more jobs than we would have otherwise had had the Federal Government done nothing. I just say this to my colleagues who say, well, the stimulus and TARP didn't work because we are not growing as rapidly as we would like. Let's think back. What was happening when those steps were taken? The economy wasn't growing; the economy was shrinking. We weren't getting more jobs; we were losing jobs at a record rate. So to those who say none of these Federal actions were successful, I say I don't think that is what the record shows. I think what the record shows is they didn't accomplish all we would like, but they really led to quite a dramatic turnaround from the worst recession since the Great Depression. Here are the positive signs we see now that are facts. They are not projections; they are facts. We have had 27 consecutive months of private sector job growth. We have had 11 consecutive quarters of real GDP growth. The unemployment rate is down from the 2009 peak. Manufacturing has expanded for 34 consecutive months. The U.S. auto manufacturers have returned to profitability. And State revenues are now showing signs of improvement. So, again, this isn't political talk. These are facts, and facts matter. The facts demonstrate there has been quite a remarkable turnaround. Again, these aren't projections; these are facts. These are things that have occurred. If we then compare the U.S. performance to other countries with which we compete, we can see the United States has done the best in terms of the comparisons here. Some developing nations have certainly done better than we have, but if we look at the developed world, the United States is doing the best. This chart shows our economic performance, the top line, which is far better than the eurozone, all the European countries, which is the green line. Japan is the red line and we are doing much better than them. We are doing much better than the United Kingdom. If we look at how well we have done compared to the rest of the world, we are doing much better, at least in terms of the developed nations. We know Europe has gone in a somewhat different direction. They have imposed austerity without regard to growth policies. Here are the headlines from the International Herald Tribune: ``Austerity Is Strangling Europe.'' I pulled out a paragraph because I think it speaks very well of what has been the effect of the European strategy: The direction of European economic and financial policy must change, away from pure austerity toward growth. Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy and Spain have made substantial progress in stabilizing their finances. But the economic and political situation in these countries shows that austerity alone is not the way to resolve the crisis. On the contrary, there is a danger of half-strangling national economies with a strict policy of austerity. We would therefore be well advised to cushion harsh austerity measures with programs for growth. I believe there is a lesson in that for us as well. I am an unvarnished deficit hawk. I have been my entire career. I have called repeatedly for us to get our fiscal house in order. I believe it is imperative that we do that, but it is also imperative to recognize that we don't impose austerity on a weak and struggling economy. We would only make things worse. Getting back on a more sustainable financial path has to be done in a measured way. Absolutely, we need a long-term plan to take on our deficits and debt. I have made that speech 500 times. Absolutely, that has to be done. But that has to be done in a phased way, and the austerity should not be imposed until we are on a stronger growth path. I think economic history tells us that, and that is a lesson we need to learn. What is holding back the U.S. economy from a stronger recovery? Well, we have identified these elements: No. 1, the European debt/financial crisis has thrown a cloud over global markets, and they are still our biggest trading partners. So a chilling of economic activity in Europe has had an adverse effect on our own economic performance. No. 2, the Iran/Middle East situation has threatened to disrupt oil supplies. That creates uncertainty, because we know the Straits of Hormuz would close, prices would jump, economic activity would weaken, and we would be hurting. That has led companies, even though they have $2 trillion on their balance sheets, to be very cautious about expanding their investment and expanding their hiring. Federal, State, and local government cutbacks have also created economic drag. I will go to that issue in a moment. The political deadlock on fiscal issues here in Congress has also created uncertainty, and we face, of course, the threat from the fiscal cliff. The fiscal cliff is the fact that at the end of this year, all of the Bush tax cuts are going to expire, which means an automatic tax increase for virtually every American. We also face additional spending cuts, including $1.2 trillion from the so-called sequester, evenly shared between defense and nondefense. That would reduce demand. That would further reduce economic growth. Also, of course, the housing market continues to pose a threat, at least in many parts of the country. Certainly in Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and in parts of California, the housing market crisis still leaves an overhang. I thought this article in the New York Times on Saturday, May 5, was very interesting. I think if we gave a quiz to the American people listening to the debates here, they would conclude that government has gotten bigger and bigger during the Obama administration, but that is not true. A previous President said ``facts are stubborn things,'' and these are facts. If we take State, local, and Federal Government and we combine them, the government is getting smaller in the United States. In fact, again, I pulled out a paragraph: For the first time in 40 years, the government sector of the American economy has shrunk during the first three years of a presidential administration. Spending by the Federal Government, adjusted for inflation, has risen at a slow rate under President Obama. But that increase has been more than offset by a fall in spending by State and local governments, which have been squeezed by weak tax receipts. In the first quarter of this year, the real gross domestic product for the government--including State and local governments as well as Federal--was 2 percent lower than it was 3 years earlier, when Barack Obama took office, in early 2009. All the talk we hear on this floor about the exploding size of government is bloviation. It is bloviation. Let's get real. The government in the United States is shrinking. Facts are stubborn things. This is what is happening to the U.S. Government workforce under this President. Obama took office in January of 2009. This chart shows millions of Federal, State, and local employees. We had more than 22.5 million Federal, State, and local employees. Look what has happened. Do we have more employees in government today than when President Obama took office or do we have less? We have less, and we have a lot less. This chart shows very clearly the number of employees has gone down dramatically--dramatically--during the years of this administration. Facts are stubborn things. What is underlying our current weakness? Well, before the Budget Committee, we had Dr. Joel Prakken, the chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers. This is the testimony he gave earlier this year: The No. 1 problem that [small businesses] say they have to deal with right now is lack of demand. Are my colleagues paying attention? Can we pass a quiz? What is the problem? The problem is a lack of demand. Further tax increases or further spending cuts will only weaken demand in the short term. So we have to be paying attention to what we do here. Some of our colleagues say, Let's slash spending some more, make government even smaller. Guess what that will do to demand? It will weaken it. That will make the economic recovery even more tepid, even weaker. That is not the answer. Yes, it is absolutely the case over the longer term. We have to be aggressive at reducing spending and reforming entitlements and reforming the tax system. I have been part of virtually every effort here to do that. I was part of Bowles- Simpson and part of the group of six. I am actually actively engaged in that effort now. We have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. What we need to understand is we need a two-step strategy: strengthen growth in the short term, and then pivot and deal with our deficits and debt over the longer term. We cannot get confused about this and think the answer is to impose immediate austerity now. We have already imposed a fair amount of austerity, which I will get into in a minute, with the budget cuts that were included in the Budget Control Act passed last year. I want to repeat the testimony of Dr. Prakken: The No. 1 problem that [small businesses] say they have to deal with right now is lack of demand. They do not say access to capital. They do not say burden of regulation. They say their order books are thin. I say to my colleagues, let's pay attention to what the problem is: weak demand. We have to take steps to strengthen demand in the short term while at the same time putting in place a longer term plan to get us back on track with our Nation's finances. One reason we have a weak demand is we have made weak investments in infrastructure. Look at where we are compared to our global competitors. China is investing 9 percent of their GDP on infrastructure. Europe is spending 5 percent, and here we are at 2.4 percent. One of the reasons we have a weak recovery is we are not investing sufficiently in roads, bridges, airports, rail, and, as a result, our infrastructure across America is becoming second rate. That is about as clear as it can be. I hear my colleagues say: Well, our problem is the Senate has not passed a budget in over 1,000 days. Sometimes I wonder if our colleagues pay very close attention to what they are voting on here, because last year, instead of a budget resolution we passed the Budget Control Act--a law. What is the difference between a resolution and a law? I think any high school student could tell us a resolution is weaker than a law. Yet our colleagues continue to come to the floor and complain and say we have not passed a resolution in more than 1,000 days. That is true. What we did do is pass a law called the Budget Control Act. We passed it last year with an overwhelming vote here in the U.S. Senate--a bipartisan vote. It also passed in the House of Representatives and was signed into law by the President. A budget resolution never even goes to the President. A budget resolution is purely a congressional document. So a law is stronger than any resolution, and it is true, we didn't pass a budget resolution last year, we passed a law called the Budget Control Act. That law, in part, said: The allocations, aggregates, and spending levels set in subsection (b)(1) shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget. That is about as clear as it can be. The Budget Control Act says that the spending levels will apply in the same manner as a budget resolution. So all these speeches that have been given--oh, we have not had a budget resolution in a thousand days--is not telling people the rest of the story. Instead of a budget resolution, we passed a budget law called the Budget Control Act. What did that law do? One of the things it did was cut spending $900 billion over the next 10 years. I can tell you, it put in place 10 years of spending caps--10 years of spending caps. A typical budget resolution only deals with 1 year. The Budget Control Act--the law we passed last year--put in place 10 years of spending caps, saving $900 billion. In addition, it said: We are going to create a special committee to deal with the entitlement programs and the tax system. We are going to say to that special committee: If you can come to an agreement, you will not face a filibuster. You will not face delays, you will be able to bring that proposal right to the floor of the Senate and get a vote. They further said: But if you do not agree, there will be another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts imposed. Of course, we all know now the special committee could not agree. So that additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts is now the law of the land, on top of the $900 billion of spending cuts that was in the Budget Control Act as well. So let's do the math: $900 billion of discretionary savings in the Budget Control Act, plus this sequester--the $1.2 trillion of additional spending cuts focused on defense and nondefense spending-- for a total of $2.1 trillion of spending cuts that were in the Budget Control Act passed last year that is now the law of the land. That is the biggest spending cut package in the history of the United States. I think facts are stubborn things, and we need to remind our colleagues of what the facts are. Here is another unfortunate fact: We are borrowing almost 40 cents of every $1 we spend. We can do that for a while. We cannot do it endlessly. We are borrowing almost 40 cents of every $1 we spend, so we have to deal with that. What does it mean in terms of our debt? This is what is happening to our debt: Gross debt as a percentage of our gross domestic product under what is called the CBO alternative fiscal scenario--that is their prediction of what we might do here--shows the gross debt of the United States is going to be 104 percent of our gross domestic product at the end of this year--104 percent of our gross domestic product. It shows, if we do not do anything, that is going to go up to 119 percent. Our gross debt will be 119 percent of the size of our economy by 2022 if we do not do anything. That is not a path we should allow to be followed. Why not? Because the best economic analysis that has been done, by Reinhart and Rogoff, ``Growth in a Time of Debt,'' found that once we get a gross debt of more than 90 percent of our GDP, our future economic prospects are diminished. It does not happen all at once. It is not like falling off a cliff when we get to gross debt that is 90 percent of our GDP. It is more like a long, slow decline in terms of our future economic prospects. So here is what they concluded after studying 200 years' of economic history, 44 different countries: We examine the experience of 44 countries spanning up to two centuries of data on central government debt, inflation and growth. Our main finding is that across both advanced countries and emerging markets, high debt/GDP levels (90 percent and above)-- Again, this is gross debt, when we get to a gross debt of 90 percent or more. are associated with notably lower growth outcomes. So this is not just about numbers on a page. This is about future economic prospects, future economic opportunity, future job prospects, that the future wealth of a nation is hurt when they get to a gross debt of more than 90 percent of their GDP. The previous chart I showed is that we will be at 104 percent of GDP at the end of this year. So absolutely we have to focus on deficits and debt. But we should not lose sight of the fact that we cannot pivot and do that when the economy is weak or we will make the economy even weaker. So the initial steps we need to take are to strengthen growth. At the same time, we ought to put in place a plan that gets us back on track fiscally that deals with this debt problem for the longer term because this is not a matter of we get to this point and fall off the cliff. It does not work that way. What is critically important is that we adopt the right economic policies now to strengthen the economy, to lift growth, but at the same time to put in place a longer term plan that deals with deficits and debt. As shown on this chart here is where we are headed if we fail to act. This is according to the Congressional Budget Office. It is nonpartisan. We have gross debt that I was referencing before: 104 percent. Look at this and you will say: Gee, it is not 104 percent on this chart. That is because this is not gross debt. This is debt held by the public, which most economists like to talk about. I talk about the gross debt because gross debt includes what we owe to the trust funds, and the work of Reinhart and Rogoff focused on gross debt. So if we are going to compare ourselves to the research they did, we have to be talking about gross debt. This is debt held by the public, and this is what CBO says is going to happen to debt held by the public if we fail to act: We are going to have a debt more than 200 percent of GDP. That is the track we are on. So, hey, we have to sober up. We need a plan that gets us back on track. When we analyze how we got in this situation, what is critical is that we look at spending and revenue because it is that mismatch which leads to deficits. It is when we are spending more than we are taking in. It is when our outlays are greater than our revenues that we have deficits. It is the accumulation of deficits that is the debt. Right. The debt is adding up all the deficits over all these years. The red line on this chart shows the spending of the United States. The green line shows the revenue. What jumps out at you is that spending is near a 60-year high. That is not surprising because we just had the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. What happens when we have a strong economic downturn? What we call the automatic stabilizers kick in to prevent us from going into a depression. What are the automatic stabilizers? Things such as unemployment insurance, spending on food stamps, other things that are done to prevent going from a recession into a depression. Those things kicked in, and the result is--and, of course, we had TARP and we had stimulus, which I have already demonstrated worked actually quite effectively. Without them, the best economists in the country tell us we would have been in a depression. Spending is near a 60-year high. But look at revenue. Revenue is near a 60-year low. Low revenue, high spending, big deficits, big additions to debt. That is what is happening to us. We can see, the spending has come back somewhat now. Revenue has improved somewhat. So things are starting to get better, but we still have a big gap and a deficit of $1.2 trillion for this year--staggering. That over time has to be addressed. The Budget Control Act we passed last year--the law our friends over there say: Oh, you have not passed a budget resolution for a thousand days. Wow. Did they forget they voted on a law called the Budget Control Act that cut spending by the biggest amount in the history of the United States? Look what has happened to discretionary spending. Under the Budget Control Act, discretionary spending is going to go to a historic low. So all this talk about the runaway spending around here--yes, spending went up when we had a deep economic decline in order to prevent that decline from becoming even worse and becoming a depression. But do you know what. We have already taken steps to rein that spending back in in the future in the Budget Control Act. Look how it is going to do it. We saw, back in 1968, discretionary spending--in Federal spending there are two kinds of spending. There is mandatory spending--things such as Social Security, Medicare, that is mandatory spending. Then there is discretionary spending; that is things such as education, law enforcement, parks. And back in 1968, 13.6 percent of budget outlays went to discretionary spending. In 2012, even after this uptick, we are still far below where we were in 1968. Only 8.4 percent of budget outlays are going to discretionary spending. But look what happens under the Budget Control Act. Discretionary spending, as a share of the total budget, will drop to less than 5 percent. We have not been there going way back. That is a historic low. So those who say, well, we have runaway spending, nothing has been done about it, they have not done their homework, and they, obviously, have not paid attention to the laws that have been passed. The Budget Control Act that passed last year is taking us to spending for discretionary programs that is a historic low. Where is the spending going up? Well, it is those mandatory accounts. That is where the spending is going up. Of course, as shown on this chart, this is the picture on Social Security. Again, this goes back to 1972. Social Security was 3.3 percent of GDP. Here we are in 2012 and it is up to well over 5 percent of GDP. It is headed for over 6 percent of GDP as the baby boomers retire. That is not a projection. The baby boomers have been born. They are alive today. They are going to retire. I am a baby boomer. I see a number of others in front of me in the Chamber. That is not a projection. That is baked in the cake. So we know we have gone in 1972 from Social Security being 3.3 percent of GDP to being 6 percent of GDP. That is not because we have had increases in the program; it is because we have increases in the number of people who are eligible for the program. The same is true in other mandatory parts of the budget. Here is Medicare. Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health spending--if we added it all up in 1972--was 1.1 percent of GDP. In 2050, we expect that to increase to 12.4 percent of GDP. So if we are looking for where the spending is really increasing, it is certainly not in the domestic accounts. That has gone down as a share of GDP. For Social Security, we have seen an increase because of increased people eligible because of the baby boom generation. But the big place we have seen an explosion is in the health care accounts. Now, that is not because of the law that was passed--what some people call ObamaCare. That has nothing to do with this. This is long-term trends because of the increase in the cost of medicine and because of the baby boom generation. That is where we see a large increase in Federal spending. We are seeing Medicare enrollment soaring. Back in 1970, there were 20 million people eligible for Medicare. In 2085, it is going to be 115 million. So a key reason we are seeing increases in costs in the so-called mandatory programs is a dramatic increase in the number of people who are eligible. That is no fault of the program. That is a demographic reality, and we have to cope with this reality. If we are going to have a Medicare Program that gives an assurance that people in their senior years have medical treatment available to them, we have to deal with this reality of a dramatic increase in the number of people who are eligible for Medicare. An aging population is the primary driver of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security cost growth--an aging population. The world is changing. As a population, we have a much bigger group that is eligible for these programs--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. It is absolutely essential that those programs be maintained in order for our seniors to have a comfortable retirement and in their aging years to have security. That is the genius of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. They have transformed lives for people in their senior years. But we also have this reality to confront that because we have a growing number-- because of the baby boom generation the costs to the Federal Government are swelling. Again, it is not on discretionary spending. That part of the budget, as I have demonstrated, is going down as a share of the economy. It is in these areas where our budget is sensitive to the growing number of people eligible for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Interestingly enough, the Medicare trustees say the health care reform law passed has reduced long-term Medicare costs. I hear people, especially our friends on the other side, say the law we have passed has increased these costs. That is not what the Medicare trustees have found. The Medicare trustees have said the ``projected Medicare costs over 75 years are substantially lower than they otherwise would be because of provisions in the `Affordable Care Act' or ACA. Our colleagues say they want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They are talking about making the situation worse, not according to Kent Conrad but according to the Medicare trustees. The Medicare trustees--I wish to repeat this--said the ``projected Medicare costs over 75 years are substantially lower than they otherwise would be because of provisions in the Affordable Care Act. . . . '' So our colleagues who are lining up to say they want to repeal the affordable care act are lining up to increase Medicare costs. By the way, they are lining up to increase the debt because the Congressional Budget Office has told us that in the first 10 years of the affordable care act, it saves more than a hundred billion dollars in the deficit, but in the second 10 years, it saves well over $1 trillion on deficits and debt. Let me repeat that. The Congressional Budget Office tells us the affordable care act, which some of our colleagues are lining up to repeal, will reduce deficits and debt in the second 10 years by well over $1 trillion. So my friends who are lining up--they want to repeal the affordable care act--they are lining up to increase Medicare costs. They are lining up to increase the debt of the United States, according to the Congressional Budget Office, which is nonpartisan. This is what the Medicare trustees project in terms of reduction in Medicare costs. The percent change in average per beneficiary cost from 2001 to 2011 was up 94 percent. From 2011 to 2021, they predict it will go up 37 percent, a dramatic slowing of the rise in costs because of the affordable care act. We also hear colleagues on the other side say the answer to this deficit and debt situation is to have further tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthiest among us. Really? I have just shown a chart that showed our revenue is near a 60-year low. So does digging the hole deeper make much sense before we start to fill it in? I do not think so. We hear our colleagues say: If we look in the last 40 years, revenue has been about 18 percent of GDP. That is true. But you know what, the five times we have balanced the budget since 1969 the revenue has not been at 18 percent of GDP. The revenue has been at 19.7 percent of GDP, 19.9 percent, 19.8 percent, 20.6 percent, 19.5 percent of GDP. So these friends who say they want to balance the budget, let's study their numbers. It does not add up. It does not add up. They want to cut the revenue, which already is near a 60-year low-- cut it some more. They say: Sometimes it is going to get back toward historic average. That is not going to cut it, because we can see the times we have balanced the budget, the revenue has not been at 18 percent of GDP. Right now, it is at less than 16 percent. Revenue has been about 20 percent of GDP. I do not know what could be more clear; that we need tax reform in this country. The Tax Code is out of date. It is inefficient. It is hurting U.S. global competitiveness. Complexity imposes a significant burden on individuals and businesses. The expiring provisions create uncertainty and confusion. We are hemorrhaging revenue to the tax gap, the tax havens, to abusive tax shelters. I have shown on this floor many times a picture of a little five- story house called Ugland House. Ugland House--I am going to put it up in just 1 minute--claims to be the home to 8,000 companies. They all say they are doing business out of this little five-story building. Really? Is that what they are doing? We will talk about that in a moment. But we are hemorrhaging revenue to the tax gap, the tax havens, to abusive tax shelters. We need to restore fairness. The current system is contributing to growing income inequality. I do not know how anybody can deny this. We have seen a dramatic growth in income inequality in our country. One of the reasons is we have a Tax Code which favors those at the very top, at least some of them. Very interesting because not all people at the top pay a lot of taxes. Some people at the top and some companies pay nothing, even though they are highly profitable. That is not fair. It is not right. It is hurting the country. Our long-term fiscal imbalance must be addressed. Revenue must be part of the solution. Martin Feldstein, a distinguished conservative economist--nobody ever accused Martin Feldstein of being a liberal-- said this: Cutting tax expenditures is really the best way to reduce government spending. . . . [E]liminating tax expenditures does not increase marginal tax rates or reduce the reward for saving, investment or risk-taking. It would also increase the overall economic efficiency by removing incentives that distort private spending decisions. And eliminating or consolidating the large number of overlapping tax-based subsidies would also greatly simplify tax filing. In short, cutting tax expenditures is not at all like other ways of raising revenue. In this case, I think Martin Feldstein has it about right. One way we can raise additional revenue is to reform the current tax system, making our system more competitive and at the same time raising additional revenue that can be used to help reduce the deficit, along with reform of entitlement programs, along with additional spending restraint. These tax expenditures go overwhelmingly to the top 1 percent. Here is the increase in aftertax income from tax expenditures. We can see the middle quintile. They get $3,200 a year of value. But look at the top 1 percent. The top 1 percent get over $\1/4\ million a year in benefits from tax expenditures. Overwhelmingly, those tax expenditures that are now costing us $1.2 trillion a year are going to the wealthiest among us. I have nothing against wealth or people who succeed--all for it. I am for there being a fair distribution of the burden of raising the revenue necessary to support the country, and this is not fair. It is not fair when the top 1 percent get $\1/4\ million in value every year from these tax expenditures. That gets almost no attention. This is the picture I was talking about. This is a little building in the Cayman Islands, a five-story building called Ugland House. Now, 18,857 companies call this building home. Truly. That is the most efficient building in the world. Can you imagine all these companies doing business out of that little building, 18,857 companies? Are they truly doing business out of that little building? The only business they are doing out of there is monkey business, and the monkey business they are doing is to avoid the taxes they legitimately owe in this country. That is what is going on in this building in the Cayman Islands, the avoidance of taxes, legitimate taxes in this country. There is a reason there are some very large companies that even though they are hugely profitable pay absolutely nothing in taxes. That is not right. That is not fair. It should be stopped. Our colleagues on the other side, they do not want to stop it. They are against it. In fact, they have taken a pledge that they will not increase tax revenues by closing down this kind of tax dodge. They have taken a pledge not to do anything about it. Virtually every Republican has taken a pledge that this would be a tax increase to shut down this kind of tax dodge. That is not right. When we look at the longer term deficit and debt problem--I have tried to be clear--what we need to do is a two-step approach. The first step, we need more economic growth. We need things to support this economic recovery. We need more investment certainly in infrastructure where we are falling badly behind. But we also need a comprehensive long-term plan to get us back on track, to face up to these deficits and debt. What is the best way to do that? Here is what the American people say: We need a balanced approach. Some people say cut spending. That is where 17 percent of the American people are. Some say increase taxes. That is where 8 percent of the American people are. But 62 percent of the American people say we have to do some of both. We have to cut spending. We have to raise revenue. We ought to have a balanced plan. So that is what the American people are telling us. Interestingly enough, that is what the President's fiscal commission concluded, the Bowles-Simpson Commission. I was a member of it. There were 18 members, and 11 supported the recommendations of the commission--5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 1 Independent. That is as bipartisan as you can get. We took that balanced approach. We reformed the revenue system to have a more fair tax system and shut down abusive tax havens and loopholes but also had further savings on the spending side of the equation. On this chart is an overview of the budget plan I developed based on the fiscal commission's plan: $5.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years; lowers deficit to 1.4 percent of GDP in 2022, which is around 10 percent of GDP; stabilizes gross debt by 2015; reduces discretionary spending to 4.8 percent of GDP by 2022, which has already been done; builds on health care reform savings; calls for Social Security reform, with the savings to be used only to extend the life of Social Security itself. Social Security was not part of the deficit reduction plan because Social Security has not been a contributor to building the deficit and debt. We also know Social Security is in trouble. Its solvency is in question. We recommended that any changes to Social Security be purely for the purpose of extending the life of Social Security itself given the incredibly important role it plays in our country. We also included fundamental tax reform to raise revenue and to go after these tax havens, these abusive tax shelters, and, yes, to ask the wealthiest among us, some of whom--not all--have gotten away with paying very little, to pay their fair share. This is what would happen to the deficit as a percentage of GDP under that plan. You can see on this chart that it would be reduced dramatically--from 7.6 percent of GDP this year to 1.4 percent of GDP by 2021, really dramatic reductions as a percentage of GDP by 2016. This chart is what would happen to the debt. Instead of it continuing to grow to more than 119 percent of GDP by 2022, that debt would be at 93 percent of GDP by 2022. In the near term, debt would go up some more, absolutely, because we have to deal with this economic weakness, but over the full 10 years of the plan, the debt would be brought under control and be brought down somewhat. Those are the elements of the plan. I say to my colleagues that we have to find a way to come together. It is important to the country that we do. I am retiring at the end of this year, but I hope we can find a way to reform the tax system and make it more fair, reform entitlements in recognition that the baby boom generation is upon us. They are going to retire, and they are putting stress on these programs. These programs are critically important to life in America--certainly the lives of our senior citizens. And we are going to have to do more about the discretionary accounts because, as I have indicated, they have already been hit repeatedly, and we are headed for a share of our budget going to the discretionary accounts that are a record low. I personally don't believe going back and cutting them more, beyond what has already been done in the Budget Control Act passed last year, is a winning strategy. I think this is an important and defining moment in this country's history. These are problems that are real. Certainly, to the millions of people who are without a job, we have an absolute obligation to do everything we can to strengthen this economy. We also have an absolute obligation to take on this debt threat because that hangs over the country as well. We can do this. We have done it before. In the Clinton administration, we got back to balanced budgets and strong economic growth, with the creation of more than 20 million jobs, and a country that was prospering and doing better than any competitor on the face of the globe. We can do it. I believe we will. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 27, 2012, at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 27, 2012, at 2 p.m.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 27, 2012, at 10 a.m.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 27, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''