Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Children's Health and Environmental Responsibility of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 16, 2012, at 10 a.m. in room SD 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Growing Long-Term Value: Corporate Environmental Responsibility and Innovation.''

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Chantel Boyens, a detailee to the Budget Committee, be given floor privileges for the pendency of the debate on the budget resolutions and S. 2516, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks on Wednesday, May 16, the Senate proceed to the consideration of motions to proceed to the following budget resolutions listed, en bloc: Calendar No. 357, S. Con. Res. 41; Calendar No. 354, H. Con. Res. 112; Calendar No. 356, S. Con. Res. 37; Calendar No. 384, S. Con. Res. 42; and Calendar No. 395, S. Con. Res. 44; that there be 6 hours of debate on the motions to proceed equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on the five motions to proceed in the order listed above; that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes and that all after the first vote be 10-minute votes; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that notwithstanding the adoption of any motion to proceed, the Senate proceed to the remaining votes on motions to proceed; further, that at the conclusion of those votes, the Senate resume consideration of the budget resolution if a motion to proceed is adopted; and that if no motion to proceed has been adopted, the majority leader be recognized.

Mr. CONRAD. Objection has been heard on our side.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, just on the note that the Senator raised, I want to make clear that I have heard over and over: No budget resolution has passed in 1,000 days. What is not being said is that instead of a budget resolution last year, the Senate and the House passed the Budget Control Act. The Budget Control Act is not a resolution, it is a law. A resolution, as all Members know, is purely a congressional document. It never goes to the President for his signature. Last year, instead of a budget resolution, this body and the other body passed legislation called the Budget Control Act that set a budget, budget limits, and spending limits for this year and next. Actually, it went even further: It set 10 years of spending caps. A budget resolution usually only sets 1 year of spending caps. So I wanted to make clear that instead of a budget resolution being passed last year, the House and the Senate passed the Budget Control Act to set spending limits for this year and next and for the 8 years beyond. In addition, the Budget Control Act established a supercommittee and gave it special authority to reform the tax system and the entitlement system and said that if they could come to an agreement, they would not face a filibuster. With a simple majority, we could reform the tax system and the entitlement system here in the Senate. The Budget Control Act further said that if the special committee does not agree to reform the tax system, to reform the entitlement system, there will be an additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts put in place over and above the $900 billion of cuts put in place by the Budget Control Act through spending caps for 10 years. That is a total--because the special committee did not agree--of over $2 trillion of spending cuts that are now in law as a result of the Budget Control Act. That is the largest spending cut package in the history of the United States, and it is law. It is law because of the Budget Control Act passed last year. Now, my colleagues can go and shout it through the rooftops, as they have done, that the Congress has not passed a budget resolution in 1,000 days, but they are not telling the whole story. They are not telling people that instead of a resolution, the House and the Senate passed a law. A law is stronger than any resolution. A resolution is purely a congressional document. A law has to be signed by the President of the United States. The Budget Control Act was passed by the Senate on an overwhelming bipartisan vote, passed by the House, and signed by the President of the United States. It sets the budget limits for this year and next, and it goes beyond that. It sets 10 years of spending caps, saving $900 billion. And because the special committee could not agree to reforming the tax system and the entitlement system, it put in place another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts that are now in law. That is a total of over $2 trillion of spending cuts. What we do not have is the longer term plan the Budget Control Act hoped would come about as a result of the work of the special committee. So that is work we still need to do, but nobody should be under any misimpression or misunderstanding that we do not have spending limits in place for this year and next and, in fact, for all discretionary spending, spending limits in place for the whole of the next 10 years. That is a fact. Tomorrow we are going to have a chance to debate fundamental issues of where the resources of the United States go. But we are in a different situation than we normally would be because the Budget Control Act is in law. We know what the appropriators can spend for this year and next. That is locked in. And tomorrow we will have a chance to debate longer term plans. I will be interested to see what some of our colleagues say about some of the truly extraordinary and extreme budget plans that are being offered by my colleagues on the other side--plans to eliminate Medicare in 2 years, plans to cut Social Security benefits by 39 percent, plans to have trillions of dollars of additional tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, and at the same time cut education 25 percent, cut funding to reduce our dependence on foreign energy by 60 percent, plans to cut spending beyond the Budget Control Act limitations by another $2 trillion. We are going to see, from some of my colleagues on the other side, truly extreme plans. I hope they will be voted down tomorrow. I hope we will be able to make clear to the American people with the Budget Control Act law that passed last year, instead of a budget resolution, there are spending caps in place this year and next and the 8 years beyond. Tomorrow will be an interesting day to discuss different Members' views of the fiscal future of this country. Make no mistake, we need to come together on a long-term plan to get us back on track. I was part of the Bowles-Simpson Commission. In fact, it was the idea of Senator Gregg and myself to have such a commission. I voted for the findings of that commission to save more than $4 trillion. I was part of the Group of 6 who spent an entire year trying to find a way to implement Bowles-Simpson. So I am fully prepared to have this debate and this discussion. I am eager for us to come together around a plan to get us back on track, but it is going to require all sides to get out of their fixed positions. That is probably unlikely right before an election, but it needs to happen before the end of this year. I am very hopeful that Bowles-Simpson--that fiscal commission plan--serves as a good example of where we might find common ground. Both sides, all sides, need to get out of their fixed positions to reach an agreement to get our country back on track. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am submitting--for the third year in a row--resolution to designate June 27 as National Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Awareness Day. That date was inspired by the birthday of North Dakota National Guard Staff Sergeant Joe Biel. Staff Sergeant Biel served two tours of duty in Iraq as a Trailblazer, part of a unit responsible for route clearance operations. Each day, Joe's mission was to go out with his unit to find and remove Improvised Explosive Devices and other dangers from heavily traveled roads to make it safe for coalition forces and Iraqi civilians to travel. Joe lost his post- deployment struggle and, suffering from PTSD, tragically took his own life 6 months after returning home. There is no doubt that Joe Biel is a hero who gave his life for our country. I learned of Joe's story because friends from his platoon, the 4th Platoon, A Company, of the North Dakota National Guard's 164th Combat Engineer Battalion, have organized an annual motorcycle ride across the State of North Dakota in his memory. The Joe Biel Memorial Ride serves as a reunion for the 164th, a memorial for a lost friend, and a beacon to those suffering from PTSD and other mental health issues across the region. The key point made to me by the event's organizer, Staff Sergeant Matt Leaf, is that we have to raise awareness of this issue so that the lives of service members, veterans, and other PTSD sufferers and their families can be saved. For many, the war does not end when the warrior comes home. All too many service members and veterans face PTSD symptoms like anxiety, anger, and depression as they try to adjust to life after war. We cannot sweep these problems under the rug. PTSD is real. We know PTSD is caused by a traumatic event. We also know that we are sending our troops into combat situations where they are going to experience traumatic events. We know that the percentage of PTSD diagnoses increases with each deployment into combat. We know, as a nation, that we must take responsibility to help our sons and daughters cope with what they have experienced. We owe them that much. When our troops came home from Vietnam, we ignored their health concerns for far too long. When our troops came home from the first Gulf War we tried to make sure the government was doing all it could to resolve their health concerns. PTSD is this conflict's Gulf War Illness. The Department of Defense has created a Defense Center of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury and teams with the National Institute for Mental Health and universities to address PTSD. The Department of Veterans Affairs has likewise established the National Center for the study of PTSD. These departments have made significant advances in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of PTSD and its symptoms to help us live up to our responsibility. But more can and must be done. We need to ensure that these efforts are coordinated. In 1995, a President's Advisory Commission was created to conduct an independent, open, and comprehensive review of government activities relating to Gulf War illness. Today, I am calling on President Obama to establish a new Presidential Advisory Commission to conduct a similar review of the Government's efforts to address PTSD in order to maximize the time and treasure we are spending on solving this problem. We owe it to those who have served. I am proud that Staff Sergeant Leaf and his fellow Trailblazers continue the annual Joe Biel Memorial Bike Ride, to be held on Memorial Day this year. am proud that I was able to help boost their efforts to bring attention to this issue by creating a National PTSD Awareness Day. I am proud to introduce this Resolution once again. Actions like these garner attention and help to eliminate the stigma surrounding mental health issues. They are about letting our troops and veterans know it is okay to come forward and say they need help--that it is a sign of strength, not weakness, to seek assistance. And they help show that we can, and we must, do more.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the first nomination.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Crapo in introducing the 21st Century Language Act of 2012. This bipartisan legislation updates federal law by eliminating references that contribute to the stigmatization of mental health conditions. Specifically, this legislation removes the word ``lunatic'' from several sections of the United States Code to reflect our nation's modern understanding of mental health conditions. Recently, a North Dakota constituent contacted my office to express support for legislative efforts to remove this outdated and inappropriate language from federal law. Senator Crapo and I agree that federal law should reflect the 21st century understanding of mental illness and disease, and that the continued use of this pejorative term has no place in the U.S. Code. Senator Crapo and I have worked with the Senate Banking Committee to confirm that ``lunatic'' is an unnecessary term and that its removal will have no impact on the broader federal law. This legislation enjoys strong support from a number of mental health advocates across the nation, including the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Mental Health America, National Council on Community Behavioral Healthcare, and the Clinical Social Work Association. I hope my colleagues will join me in working to pass this overdue update to the U.S. Code.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Crapo in introducing the 21st Century Language Act of 2012. This bipartisan legislation updates federal law by eliminating references that contribute to the stigmatization of mental health conditions. Specifically, this legislation removes the word ``lunatic'' from several sections of the United States Code to reflect our nation's modern understanding of mental health conditions. Recently, a North Dakota constituent contacted my office to express support for legislative efforts to remove this outdated and inappropriate language from federal law. Senator Crapo and I agree that federal law should reflect the 21st century understanding of mental illness and disease, and that the continued use of this pejorative term has no place in the U.S. Code. Senator Crapo and I have worked with the Senate Banking Committee to confirm that ``lunatic'' is an unnecessary term and that its removal will have no impact on the broader federal law. This legislation enjoys strong support from a number of mental health advocates across the nation, including the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Mental Health America, National Council on Community Behavioral Healthcare, and the Clinical Social Work Association. I hope my colleagues will join me in working to pass this overdue update to the U.S. Code.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss what I did in the Budget Committee yesterday, why I did it, and where we are headed. I have heard people say repeatedly that the Senate has now gone for some 1,000 days since passing a budget resolution. What they are not telling people is that last year, instead of a budget resolution, the Senate and the House and the President signed a budget control law. The occupant of the chair knows very well, being a former attorney general, that a resolution is purely a congressional document. It never goes to the President for his signature. The Budget Control Act we passed last year, while it is true it is not a resolution, was a law signed by the President of the United States, and that law--the Budget Control Act-- said we are going to set the budget for this year and next, but beyond that we are also going to put in place 10 years of spending caps, saving $900 billion. On the question of whether the Budget Control Act represents or takes the place of a budget resolution for this year and next, let me read from the text because I think it makes it abundantly clear. It says: The allocations, aggregates, and levels set in the Budget Control Act shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget. That is pretty clear. This law, the Budget Control Act law, is to serve in the same manner as a budget resolution for 2012 and 2013, and it sets out the spending limits for those years. But it even goes further and sets spending caps for 10 years--something that, in my time here, has never been done in a budget resolution. Never in a budget resolution, while I have been here, has there been the setting of 10 years of spending caps, but that is what was done in the Budget Control Act last year. But that law went even further than that. It also created a special committee and empowered that committee to come up with a proposal to reform the entitlement programs--Social Security and Medicare--and reform the tax system of the United States, and it told that special committee that if it came to an agreement, that legislation could come to the floor without fear of filibuster--without fear of filibuster. Extraordinary powers were granted in that Budget Control Act to reform Social Security and Medicare and the tax system as well. That special committee did not agree, and the Budget Control Act said: If you don't agree, there are consequences, and the consequences are another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts on top of the $900 billion of spending restraint that was in the underlying act. So the special committee didn't agree, and now we have the prospect of a sequester imposing another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts on top of the $900 billion of spending cuts in the underlying act, for a total of over $2 trillion of spending cuts. That is the biggest spending cut package, as far as I know, in the history of the United States. Yet the other side suggests repeatedly that nothing has been done to set spending limits when they know full well what the Budget Control Act, passed last year, does. Yes, it wasn't a resolution; it was a law. Boy, that is sort of civics 101, that a law is stronger than a resolution. I said several days ago I would go to markup in the Budget Committee and I would lay out a long-term plan because while it is true that we have in place for the next 2 years a budget under the Budget Control Act, what we don't have is an overall long-term plan. The Budget Control Act limits discretionary spending for the next 10 years, but we also need a program that outlines what we are going to do about entitlement programs--Medicare, Social Security--and what we are going to do to reform our tax system, which is badly broken. So several days ago I said I would lay before the Budget Committee the Bowles-Simpson plan, which is the only bipartisan plan that has emerged. It was supported by 11 of the 18 Commissioners. I was proud to be one of five Democrats, five Republicans, and one Independent. Eleven of the 18 voted to support that Bowles-Simpson package. Unfortunately, it took a super supermajority for that plan to come to the floor of the House and the Senate; it required 14 of the 18 members to agree. Eleven of 18 did, which is more than 60 percent. Even in Washington, usually 60 percent carries the day, but it didn't with respect to the Bowles- Simpson recommendations. So I said several days ago I would put before the body the Bowles- Simpson plan. I did not suggest we would complete action on it at the beginning of the markup. Why? Because we already have in place the spending limitations for this year and next. What we don't have is a longer term plan. We don't need that longer term plan right at this moment, but we need it before the end of the year because at the end of the year all of the Bush-era tax cuts are going to expire, and at the end of this year we are going to face that sequester I mentioned that is in the Budget Control Act law that we passed last year instead of a budget resolution. Why do we need this longer term plan? Well, because we are borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar we spend, and that is unsustainable. It has to change. I have warned repeatedly of where we are headed if we don't change course. And here is where we are headed. This chart shows the gross debt of the United States if we stay on the trajectory we are on. We can see we are here in 2012. At the end of this year, the gross debt of the United States will be 104 percent of our gross domestic product, headed for 119 percent on our current trajectory. That shouldn't be permitted to happen, and under the plan I laid before our colleagues yesterday, it won't happen. If we look at the underlying cause of these deficits and debt, we can see it is the relationship between spending and revenue. The red line is the spending line, the green line is the revenue line of the United States looking back to 1950, and what one sees is that spending is at or near a 60-year high. Actually, we have fallen back somewhat from the 60-year high we reached 2 years ago. Revenue is at or near a 60-year low. Actually, we can see it bumped up to a 70-year low back in 2010. But still we see a very wide gap between revenue and spending. As a result, there is a very large deficit--a deficit of $1.2 trillion. Now, I could have gone before the Budget Committee yesterday and laid out another partisan plan, because that is what is happening. Congressman Ryan, to his credit, laid out a plan, and in the House they passed his plan. I give him credit for laying out a plan. I think the plan is a very bad plan for the country and completely lacks balance. It is all done on the spending side of the equation, which leads him to truly Draconian cuts--dramatic changes in Medicare, for example, dramatic changes in Medicaid, dramatic changes in the whole structure of services the government provides people in this country. And the American people don't want a plan that is just a partisan plan. They do not want a plan that lacks balance. They do not want a plan that is just on one side of the ledger. As I showed in the previous chart, we have a problem on both sides of the ledger--on revenue and on spending. We have to work on both sides of the ledger. And the American people believe that as well. When asked in the Pew Research Center poll last year in November, ``What is the best way to reduce the Federal budget deficit?'' 17 percent said just cut major programs--only 17 percent, 1 7. On increasing taxes, 8 percent said just increase taxes. And 62 percent said a combination of both. I think the American people have it right. They are pretty smart. They are pretty smart. In 2010 we had the Bowles-Simpson Commission, the so-called fiscal commission. Eighteen of us were named to serve. It was created by the President after a legislative attempt, led by Senator Gregg of New Hampshire, a Republican, and myself, failed here. We got a majority but we didn't get a supermajority. So our attempt to form a commission legislatively was thwarted. President Obama showed leadership and named a Presidential commission in order to take on the subject, and in December of 2010 that commission reported their conclusion, with 11 of the 18 of us agreeing to the recommendations. Here are the principles and values the fiscal commission used to guide their efforts: that it is a patriotic duty to make America better; that we shouldn't do anything that would disrupt the economic recovery; that we ought to cut and invest to promote economic growth and keep America competitive; that we ought to protect the truly disadvantaged; that we ought to cut spending we cannot afford, with no exceptions; that we ought to demand productivity and effectiveness from Washington; that we ought to reform and simplify the Tax Code; that we shouldn't make promises we can't keep; and that the problem of deficits and debt are real and the solution will be painful. Let's be honest. When you are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar you spend, you are not going to solve this in a way that doesn't affect anyone. All of us are going to have to participate in the solution. The last principle that was used to guide the commission was that we should do things to make America sound over the long run. So what does the fiscal commission plan I laid out do? It puts in place $5.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years, including savings that have already been enacted in the Budget Control Act. It lowers the deficit from 7.6 percent of GDP in 2012 to 2.5 percent in 2015 and down to 1.4 percent in 2022. So because of the reductions in deficits, it stabilizes the debt and begins to bring it down. In fact, it stabilizes the gross debt by 2015 and lowers it to 93 percent of GDP by 2022. Remember my previous slide? Here is the quiz. What did it say the debt would become by 2022 if we don't do anything as a share of GDP? It said it would become 119 percent if we didn't act. Under the proposal I laid before the Budget Committee yesterday, it would bring down the debt to 93 percent of GDP--the gross debt to 93 percent of GDP by 2022 instead of 119 percent if we fail to act. The plan I laid out reduces overall spending to 21.9 percent of GDP by 2022, discretionary spending to 4.8 percent of GDP by 2022, a record low--a record low. In fact, this overall spending level is lower than the average spending level during the Reagan administration. Our colleagues on the other side are always eager to embrace Ronald Reagan's policies. The proposal I laid out yesterday has a lower average spending as a share of our national income than did President Reagan during the entire period of his Presidency. The plan I laid out also builds on health care reform with additional health care savings and fully funds the doc fix. What is the doc fix? That is the measure to prevent the doctors who treat Medicare patients from taking a cut of more than 20 percent. The plan also calls for Social Security reform that ensures the 75- year solvency of Social Security, with the savings only to extend solvency, not for deficit reduction. In other words, Social Security reform, those savings are not used for deficit reduction. They are only used to extend the solvency of the program itself. The plan I laid out includes fundamental tax reform; makes the Tax Code simpler, fairer, more efficient, while raising more revenue to reduce our deficit and debt. This chart shows the deficit as a percentage of GDP under the fiscal commission budget plan I laid before our colleagues yesterday. We can see, it takes the deficit from 7.6 percent of GDP this year--which is down, by the way, substantially from 10 percent, which is where it has been--down to 1.4 percent in 2022. The fiscal commission budget plan reduces the deficits below the 3-percent-of-GDP level that is considered sustainable by economists, and it does that by 2015. Again, the gross debt under the plan I put before colleagues that comes from the fiscal commission work, the Bowles-Simpson plan that was concluded and recommended in 2010, would take the gross debt down to 93 percent of GDP from the 104 percent it is now and, as I indicated earlier, an even more dramatic improvement compared to what the debt would be if we failed to act. As I indicated, the spending level under the fiscal commission budget plan is about 21.8 percent of GDP. During the Reagan administration, spending was 22.1 percent of GDP. So we have lower overall spending as a share of the national income than was the case during the Reagan administration. In fact, discretionary spending goes to an all-time low of 4.8 percent by the end of the 10-year plan. We can see, discretionary spending--that is distinct from mandatory spending. Mandatory spending are things such as Social Security and Medicare. Discretionary spending are things such as defense and national parks and law enforcement and education. We can see, discretionary spending as a share of our national income is dropping very sharply under this plan. What is happening on the other side of the spending ledger is the 800-pound gorilla, which is health care. That is the thing that threatens to swamp the boat around here because we can see what is happening. Back in 1972 Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health spending was about 1 percent of our gross domestic product. If we don't take further steps by 2050, it is going to be 13 percent of our gross domestic product, from 1 percent to 13 percent. Right now in this country, 18 percent of our GDP is going to health care. One in every six dollars in our whole economy is going to health care--more than $1 in every $6. So that is something we have to focus on like a laser, and in the fiscal commission plan, we do focus on it like a laser. It doesn't open the health care reform debate that we just concluded, but it does provide an option to phase out the tax exclusion for health care that economists tell us would be one of the most effective things we could do to change the direction of health care expenditure. It fully offsets the cost of the so-called doc fix, so our doctors treating Medicare patients don't face this huge cut that is currently in the law. We have additional savings proposals with Medicare beneficiary cost sharing, payments to health care providers being reformed, eliminating State gaming of the Medicaid tax, and providing the Medicaid drug rebate for those who are duly eligible in Medicare. This would save hundreds of billions of dollars. While the fiscal commission did make a recommendation on Social Security, those numbers are not included in the proposal I put before our colleagues yesterday because I am precluded from doing so by the law. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 prohibits the inclusion of Social Security in deficit totals of a budget resolution. So I did lay out the proposal from the fiscal commission on reforming Social Security; but I could not include it in the numbers because I am precluded from doing so by the law. Here are the recommendations from the fiscal commission that I included in my proposal to our colleagues but that are not in the numbers for the reason I have given: calls for Social Security reforms to make it solvent, not for deficit reduction; restores 75-year solvency and puts it on a stable path beyond 75 years; strengthens the safety net by enhancing the minimum benefit for low-wage workers and by giving an actual bump up in benefits for the oldest seniors and the long-time disabled. One of the things we know, people who live a long time run out of their benefits. So in the fiscal commission we proposed to actually give them a little bump up after they have been in retirement for an extended period of time. We also provided a hardship exemption for those who are unable to work past the age of 62. One of the things we know is a person can take early retirement at age 62--and we are going to have to increase the retirement age of Social Security over time, over a very long time, by the way. In this proposal, we increase the retirement age to 69 over decades. We have to increase also the maximum level of wages that are taxed for Social Security because the traditional standard is no longer being followed. We are not taxing 90 percent of wages. That doesn't mean the tax is 90 percent, by the way. It means 90 percent of wages is being subjected to the tax. What has been happening over years is we have been getting a reduced share of income in this economy to apply the Social Security tax to. That is one of the reasons we have a shortfall over time. Under this plan, we raise the retirement age--but only very gradually--reaching 69 by 2075. This is 2012. So we don't raise the retirement age to 69 until 2075. That is 63 years from now. But make no mistake, that is important because people are living longer. In fact, people are living much longer. We also have a need for tax reform. The Tax Code is out of date, it is inefficient, and it is hurting U.S. competitiveness. The complexity imposes significant burden on individuals and businesses. The expiring provisions create uncertainty and confusion. We are hemorrhaging revenue to the tax gap, to tax havens, to abusive tax shelters. Many times on this floor I have shown a picture of a little building down in the Cayman Islands called Ugland House. Ugland House claims to be the home to 18,000 corporations. A little 5-story building down in the Cayman Islands claims to be the home to 18,000 companies. Are all those companies doing business out of that little five-story building? No. The only business they are doing down there is monkey business, and the monkey business they are doing is ducking their taxes here and shoving the burden onto all the rest of us who pay our taxes. That is not right. We have to go after these tax havens, these abusive tax shelters, and we can do it. We need to restore fairness. The current system is contributing to growing income inequality, and our long-term fiscal imbalance, the deficits and debt we talked about, must be addressed. CBO Director Elmendorf talked about the economic benefits of tax reform in a hearing before the Budget Committee. He said: I think analysts would widely agree that reform of the Tax Code that broadened the base and brought down rates would be a positive force for economic growth, both in the short term and over a longer period. Tax reform has to be part of the agenda of this Congress. Here is what is happening to income disparity in America. Look at what is happening. The top 1 percent--and I am all for the top 1 percent doing well. I want everyone to do well in America, but look what is happening. Since 1979, the top 1 percent, their incomes have gone up almost 300 percent. Look at what has happened to those in the middle and those at the bottom. Their incomes have stagnated. They have been about stable--gone up a little bit but not very much. The top 1 percent has gone up like a rocket. One of the reasons is the Tax Code of the United States has dramatically reduced for the wealthiest in our country the tax burden they shoulder. They will show us, oh, their taxes have gone way up. Sure, they have because their incomes have gone way up. What has gone down--what has gone way down is the effective tax rate they pay. The top 400 families, the wealthiest 400 families in America, have had their effective tax rate almost cut in half since 1995. Again, I am not one who is against success. I come from a family who has succeeded. I come from a family who has done well, and I am deeply appreciative. I am grateful for the opportunity this country has provided to my family. But do you know what. What is fair is fair. What is fair is fair. We have to ask everybody to help pull this wagon out of the ditch. We are in the ditch, and let's get serious about getting out. If we broaden the base of our tax system, the people who will be most affected are the wealthiest among us because look what happens. Here is the increase in aftertax income, on average, from tax expenditures in this country; that is, the loopholes, the deductions, the credits, the exclusions that are in the current Tax Code. The average benefit for the top 1 percent is $219,000 a year. The middle quintile, their benefit is $3,000. If we reform tax expenditures, which we should do, that will put some additional burden on those who are the wealthiest among us. By the way, not everybody who is doing well is treated the same way under this Tax Code. There are many people who are doing well who are paying a tax rate that is very close to the top rate of 35 percent. There are others who are paying at a level one-half as much; the same income but paying much less in taxes. Why? Because they have set up their affairs in a way that they especially benefit from the credits, the exclusions, the deductions, and all the rest of the tax gimmicks that riddle the current Tax Code. Here is what one of the most conservative economists in the country said about reducing tax expenditures. This is Martin Feldstein, professor of economics at Harvard, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan. This is what he said about cutting tax expenditures: 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 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. That, from one of the most conservative economists in the country. Our colleagues on the other side say wait a minute, we should not have revenues more than 18 percent of gross domestic product because that is, on average, what it has been over the last 30 or 40 years. The problem with their analysis is the last five times we have balanced the budget the revenue has not been 18 percent of GDP. The last five times we have balanced the budget, revenue has been at 19.7, in 1969; 19.9, in 1998; 19.8 percent of GDP in 1999; 20.6 percent of GDP in 2000; and 19.5 percent of GDP in 2001. If people want to be serious about balancing the budget, we are going to have to have a revenue level, based on what we see historically, that is more than 18 percent of GDP. The fiscal commission plan I laid before colleagues yesterday, the so-called Bowles-Simpson plan, does this with respect to tax reform. It eliminates or scales back those tax expenditures we were discussing but lowers tax rates. You can lower tax rates and get more money if you broaden the base, if you reduce some of these tax expenditures that frankly go disproportionately to the wealthiest among us and have grown like Topsy in the Tax Code. We can promote economic growth and improve America's global competitiveness, we can make the Tax Code more competitive, we can have what was included in the fiscal commission, an option, a reform plan that calls for three rates for individuals: 12 percent, 22 percent, and 28 percent. The top rate now is 35 percent. A corporate rate of 28 percent. The corporate rate now is 35 percent. The fiscal commission plan called for capital gains and dividends to be taxed as ordinary income. Instead of having a differential for capital gains and dividends, they were taxed at ordinary rates. But the fiscal commission also said if you want to have a differential, you have to pay for it by buying up the top rate. For those who believe strongly you need to have a differential for cap gains and perhaps dividends, you can do that, but then you have to have a higher top rate than 28 percent. The fiscal commission plan reforms the mortgage interest and charitable deductions, it preserves the child tax credit and earned- income tax credit, and completely repeals the alternative minimum tax. Under this plan, revenues grow to 20.5 percent of GDP by 2022. In fact, the revenue under the fiscal commission plan during the 10 years of the plan averages 19.7 percent. That is right at the level that has been required the last five times we have balanced the budget. That is very close to the revenue level during the Clinton administration, the last time we did balance the budget. By the way, that was a Democratic President. Some say that is a big tax increase you are talking about, Senator. No, it is not a big tax increase. It is additional revenue of $2.4 trillion compared to roughly current policy, what is happening right now. But compared to current law it is actually a $1.8 trillion tax cut because all of the tax cuts that were put in place in the Bush administration are about to expire. So if you compare it to that law, this proposal represents a $1.8 trillion tax cut. It is more revenue than we would get under current policy but less revenue than we would get under current law. The fiscal commission plan I laid before colleagues yesterday, the so-called Bowles-Simpson plan, also had certain process changes to tighten things up around here, to become more disciplined. It set discretionary spending caps through 2022 enforced by a 60-vote point of order and sequester; firewalls between security and nonsecurity spending so money could not be diverted between the two; a separate cap for war funding with annual limits proposed by the President; more rigorous emergency designation procedures and annual budgeting for disasters; a fail-safe to pressure Congress to maintain a stable debt- to-GDP ratio starting in 2015; more accurate inflation adjustments for indexed programs--that is the so-called chained CPI, a more accurate measurement for inflation adjustment; and a process to ensure more reliable and timely extended unemployment insurance benefits. I have heard from my colleagues repeatedly that the President showed no leadership. I don't believe that. I think the President showed extraordinary leadership. He averted a depression--and make no mistake, that is where we were headed when he came into office. When he came into office here is what was happening. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month in the private sector. That is what he walked into. He did not create the conditions that led to losing 800,000 jobs a month, he inherited that. Look at the progress that has been made. Since 24 months ago we have seen jobs in the private sector on the positive side of the ledger--4 million jobs created. That is after he was in a situation in which we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. In the last 4 months we have been averaging 200,000 jobs created. That is pretty good leadership. That is a dramatic turnaround. The same is true of economic growth. When he came into office the economy was shrinking at a rate of almost 9 percent. Now it is growing at a rate of about 3 percent. That is pretty good leadership. That is a dramatic change from what he inherited. When I hear that the President did not show leadership--oh, yes? I would say he showed pretty good leadership. He stopped the hemorrhaging. He got us going back in the right direction. It is not everything we hoped for, but my goodness, what a remarkable turnaround. Two of the most distinguished economists in this country said if we had not taken the actions that were taken by the Federal Government at the end of the Bush administration and during this administration, we would be in a depression. We are not in a depression. In fact we are growing. We are growing modestly but we are growing. We are creating jobs in the private sector. The private sector is growing. It added 4 million jobs since this President got things turning around. This President named the fiscal commission. There would not be a Bowles-Simpson commission had the President not appointed it. The Bowles-Simpson commission plan is what I put before our colleagues yesterday. Some have criticized me to say: You didn't vote on it. That is right. We are not going to vote on it until we believe there is the best possible chance to actually get results. If you go back to the Bowles- Simpson commission approach, what you saw is they did not time the vote until after the 2010 election. What I am saying to colleagues is I think we ought to follow their good example. That is because the truth is, people are not likely--all sides are unlikely to get off their fixed position right before a national election. Let me end as I began. We have a budget for this year and next. It is contained in the Budget Control Act, a law that was passed last year. When my colleagues say there was no budget resolution passed, what they are not telling you is instead of a budget resolution, we passed a budget control law. A law is stronger than any resolution. A resolution is purely a congressional document and never goes to the President for his signature. The Budget Control Act passed the House and the Senate and was signed by the President of the United States. It says in part: The allocations, aggregates and levels of spending set in this act shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget. What could be more clear? This law is in place of a budget resolution. It is stronger than any resolution because it is a law. Next time somebody tells you there has been no budget resolution for 1000 days, ask them, but did they pass a law that set spending limits? That set the budget for this year and next? That set 10 years of spending caps that saved $900 billion, that gave a special committee the ability to change Social Security and Medicare and the tax system of the United States and not face a filibuster? And if they did not succeed, there would be another $1.2 trillion of cuts? And because they did not agree, that additional $1.2 trillion of cuts is now in law and will begin to be imposed at the beginning of next year? That is a total of more than $2 trillion of spending cuts in the Budget Control Act passed by the Congress, signed by the President, and in force today. That is the biggest spending cut package in the history of the country. If anybody suggests to you no spending limits have been put in place, ask them: What about the Budget Control Act? Didn't you vote on that? Because it passed the House. The Republican-controlled House, they passed it. It passed the Senate and it was signed by the President of the United States. It is the law. A law is stronger than any resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise along with my colleague, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Sessions, to pay tribute to Jennifer L. Smith, who is retiring this week after more than 32 years of distinguished service to the Congress. Ms. Smith began her congressional career in 1979, working in the Senate. While working, she attended law school at night and became one of the Senate's Assistant Parliamentarians. She has since served as an Assistant Counsel for the House Budget Committee, the General Counsel for the Senate Budget Committee, and the Deputy General Counsel for CBO. In 2006, she returned to the Senate Parliamentarian's Office as the Senate Precedents Editor and in 2010 returned to CBO as the Associate General Counsel. In each of her roles, Ms. Smith worked tirelessly to ensure that the decisions of each office were carefully researched, well reasoned, and fully documented. As an attorney for CBO, Ms. Smith ensured that CBO's estimates of legislation were based on a solid understanding of the law. Her skills as an attorney have been highlighted in the diverse issues she has worked on while at CBO, ranging from immigration, to Social Security to lease-purchase issues. Her knowledge of appropriations law, copyright law, and the ethics rules of the House of Representatives rivals those of the most acknowledged experts in those fields. Ms. Smith's excellent work has been recognized throughout her career. In 2005, for instance, as CBO's Deputy General Counsel, she received a CBO Director's Award for outstanding performance, one of many such awards. Ms. Smith has exemplified CBO's high standard of professionalism, objectivity, and nonpartisanship. As chairman, I greatly appreciate the sacrifices that Ms. Smith--as well as her family--has made in assisting the Budget Committee and Congress. I would like to turn to my colleague, Senator Sessions, for his remarks.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish to add my voice to those of my colleagues paying tribute to the senior Senator from Maryland, who recently became the longest-serving female Member of Congress in American history. Senator Barbara Mikulski and I were first elected to the Senate at the same time. Over the past 26 years she has been a colleague, a legislative partner, and a friend. Courageous, determined, and honorable are only a few of the words I use when describing Senator Mikulski. Senator Mikulski has devoted her life to public service. She began her career as a social worker in Baltimore, where she worked with high- risk children and educated seniors about Medicare. In 1971, she transitioned into politics by attaining a seat on the Baltimore City Council. As a council member, she continued to advocate for those in need. In 1976, she was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where she became the first woman ever to sit on the influential Energy and Commerce Committee. As a member of the House, she worked on a variety of important legislation, including funding for shelters for battered spouses. Issues concerning women have always been a passion of Senator Mikulski's. From sponsoring the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to being a leader in women's health issues, she has been a champion for women's rights. Senator Mikulski was particularly helpful to me during the Grand Forks flooding in 1997. When our third largest city was devastated by flooding and fire, Senator Mikulski stood with Grand Forks residents every step of the way as we fought for Community Development Block Grant funding to recover and rebuild. Her support was critical. More recently, Senator Mikulski joined me in pushing for comparative effectiveness research as part of health reform, so that patients and doctors can have better information on which treatments and medical interventions are most effective and which amount to wasteful spending. Senator Mikulski is a fierce advocate for her constituents--and for working men and women everywhere. She will never back down from a cause she believes in, and she has compiled an impressive record of results. I congratulate her on being the longest-serving female Member of Congress.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Budget Control Act of 2011, which was signed into law by the President last August, set in place budget enforcement measures in the Senate for budget years 2012 and 2013, as well as established caps for 10 years to address discretionary spending and established the so-called supercommittee to address entitlement spending and revenues. Specifically, to provide continued enforcement in the Senate for 2012 and budget year 2013, section 106(b)(2) requires the chairman of the Budget Committee to file not later than April 15, 2012: (1) allocations for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 for the Committee on Appropriations; (2) allocations for fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2013 through 2017, and 2013 through 2022 for committees other than the Committee on Appropriations; (3) aggregate spending levels for fiscal years 2012 and 2013; (4) aggregate revenue levels for fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2013 through 2017, and 2013 through 2022; and (5) aggregate levels of outlays and revenue for fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2013 through 2017, and 2013 through 2022 for Social Security. In the case of the Committee on Appropriations, the allocations for 2012 and 2013 shall be set consistent with the discretionary spending limits set forth in the Budget Control Act. Consequently, the initial allocation matches the discretionary levels set in the Budget Control Act and will be revised to reflect adjustments to those levels as authorized by the Budget Control Act. In the case of allocations for committees other than the Committee on Appropriations and the revenue and Social Security aggregates, the levels shall be set consistent with the Congressional Budget Office's March 2012 baseline. In the case of the spending aggregates for 2012 and 2013, the levels shall be set consistent with the Congressional Budget Office's March 2012 baseline and the discretionary spending limits set forth in the Budget Control Act. In addition, section 106(c)(2) requires the chairman of the Budget Committee to reset the Senate pay-as-you-go scorecard to zero for all fiscal years and to notify the Senate of this action. I ask unanimous consent that the following tables detailing enforcement in the Senate for budget year 2013, including new committee allocations, budgetary and Social Security aggregates, and pay-as-you- go scorecard, be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish to inform my colleagues that this morning I filed the budget deeming resolution for 2013 pursuant to the Budget Control Act passed last year. This resolution sets forth the spending limits for fiscal year 2013 at the levels agreed to by Democrats and Republicans in last summer's Budget Control Act. It allows the appropriations committees to now proceed with their work in drafting bills for next year, and it ensures the Senate will have the tools to enforce the spending limits we agreed to on a bipartisan basis. I want to emphasize for my colleagues that we do have a budget. Those who continue to claim we do not have a budget are either unaware of what they voted on last year or are seeking to deliberately mislead the public. The Budget Control Act was passed by the House of Representatives, it was passed by the Senate, and signed into law by the President. It is the law of the land, and it established the key components of the budget for 2012 and 2013. Here is the language from the Budget Control Act itself. It is very clear the Budget Control Act is intended to serve as the budget for 2012 and 2013. It states: For the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 through April 15, 2012 . . . the allocations, aggregates, and levels set in subsection (b)(1) shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012. It goes on to use that exact same language for fiscal year 2013. In many ways, the Budget Control Act was even more extensive than a traditional budget. It has the force of law, unlike a budget resolution that is not signed by the President. I think most Members here know a budget resolution is purely a congressional document. The Budget Control Act is actually the law. No. 2, the Budget Control Act set discretionary spending caps for 10 years instead of the 1 year normally set in a budget resolution. No. 3, it provided enforcement mechanisms, including 2 years of deeming resolutions which allow budget points of order to be enforced. And No. 4, it created a reconciliation-like supercommittee process to address entitlement and tax reforms, and it backed up that process with a $1.2 trillion sequester. So these claims that we do not have a budget can now be put to rest. By filing the deeming resolution provided for in the Budget Control Act this morning, the budget levels have been set for next year. Last week, we received CBO's updated budget estimates, which allowed me to complete work on the budget deeming resolution for 2013. The filing of this deeming resolution was required under the Budget Control Act. I filed a similar resolution for 2012 back in September. The Budget Control Act is crystal clear that the spending limits in the resolution should be set at the levels agreed to in the Budget Control Act. Again, here is the language taken directly from the law. It states: Not later than April 15, 2012, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall file . . . for the Committee on Appropriations, committee allocations for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 consistent with the discretionary spending limits set forth in this Act. It doesn't say at a level below the limits set forth in this Act, it says at a level consistent with the limits set forth in this Act. Let's remember what these limits mean. Under the Budget Control Act spending caps, discretionary spending is cut by about $900 billion below the CBO baseline over the next 10 years, and that is not including the sequester cuts. That is just the results of the Budget Control Act spending limits. Let me make clear, our House Republican friends now seem to be walking away from these levels, even though they agreed to them last year. Let's look at what they said last summer. Here is what House Budget Committee Chairman Ryan said on the House floor on August 1: What the Budget Control Act has done is it has brought our two parties together. So I would just like to reflect for a moment that we have a bipartisan compromise here. That doesn't happen all that often around here; so I think that's worth noting. That's a good thing. And what are we doing? We are actually cutting spending while we do this. That's cultural. That's significant. That's a big step in the right direction. We are getting two-thirds of the cuts we wanted in our budget, and, as far as I am concerned, 66 percent in the right direction is a whole lot better than going in the wrong direction. So last summer our House Republican colleagues were pleased to be getting 66 percent of what they wanted. They made an agreement. They shook on it. They ought to keep the agreement they made. It seems that our House Republican friends are on their own, because at least so far the Senate Republican leadership has agreed we should keep to the spending limits we took on last year. Here is what Senate Minority Leader McConnell said on the floor last month: We have negotiated the top line for the discretionary spending for this coming fiscal year. . . . We already have that number. . . . There is no good reason for this institution not to move forward with an appropriations process that avoids what we have done so frequently under both parties for years and years: either continuing resolutions or omnibus appropriations. . . . I hope we can join together and do the basic work of government this year and do it in a timely fashion. I hope so too. I hope our House Republican colleagues are listening. We still must come together on a budget plan that addresses the long- term fiscal imbalances we confront, but the short-term budget is in place and it is in law. It was included in the Budget Control Act that everyone agreed to last summer. It provided for about $900 billion in discretionary spending cuts. The Senate is now poised to proceed with its business. I have filed the budget deeming resolution for 2013, and we will be moving forward with appropriations bills at the levels we all agreed to. I believe House Republicans should do the same. If they fail to do so, they will once again threaten to shut down the government and needlessly imperil the economic recovery. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for this time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am introducing the Kidney Disease Equitable Access, Prevention, and Research Act. This legislation recognizes the importance of patient choice, access to care, and educational efforts to assist the more than 400,000 Americans with kidney failure to manage their disease and understand the treatment options. First, the legislation seeks to maintain patient choice to retain their private insurance options, even after they qualify for Medicare by virtue of their disease state. Under current law, an individual diagnosed with kidney failure, or End Stage Renal Disease, ESRD, has the choice to maintain his/her current group health plan or transition immediately to Medicare. The legislation introduced today would direct the Secretary to clarify that this long-standing requirement also applies to group health plans established through Health Benefit Exchanges, as well as more traditional plans. Second, the legislation seeks to improve access to preventive and educational services by expanding access to coverage for kidney disease education services. Finally, the legislation seeks to address barriers to receiving this life-sustaining treatment, including transportation issues and factors that lead to disparities among minority populations. It also calls on the Secretary to report on gaps in quality and care management metrics to support ongoing efforts to continue quality improvement in the Medicare ESRD program. I call on my colleagues to reaffirm the Congressional commitment to Americans with ESRD by ensuring equitable access to care for individuals with kidney disease, supporting research to improve access to high quality kidney care, and improving access to preventive care for individuals with ESRD. The Kidney Disease Equitable Access, Prevention, and Research Act is a comprehensive bill that improves upon the Medicare ESRD program. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am introducing the Kidney Disease Equitable Access, Prevention, and Research Act. This legislation recognizes the importance of patient choice, access to care, and educational efforts to assist the more than 400,000 Americans with kidney failure to manage their disease and understand the treatment options. First, the legislation seeks to maintain patient choice to retain their private insurance options, even after they qualify for Medicare by virtue of their disease state. Under current law, an individual diagnosed with kidney failure, or End Stage Renal Disease, ESRD, has the choice to maintain his/her current group health plan or transition immediately to Medicare. The legislation introduced today would direct the Secretary to clarify that this long-standing requirement also applies to group health plans established through Health Benefit Exchanges, as well as more traditional plans. Second, the legislation seeks to improve access to preventive and educational services by expanding access to coverage for kidney disease education services. Finally, the legislation seeks to address barriers to receiving this life-sustaining treatment, including transportation issues and factors that lead to disparities among minority populations. It also calls on the Secretary to report on gaps in quality and care management metrics to support ongoing efforts to continue quality improvement in the Medicare ESRD program. I call on my colleagues to reaffirm the Congressional commitment to Americans with ESRD by ensuring equitable access to care for individuals with kidney disease, supporting research to improve access to high quality kidney care, and improving access to preventive care for individuals with ESRD. The Kidney Disease Equitable Access, Prevention, and Research Act is a comprehensive bill that improves upon the Medicare ESRD program. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I wanted to say a few words today about Paul Laney, who is the Sheriff of Cass County, ND. Sheriff Laney has just been named the Sheriff of the Year for 2011 by the National Sheriff's Association, and I can tell you that it is a well-deserved honor. Sheriff Laney has long been known for his tireless, diligent and innovative efforts on behalf of the people of Cass County. He is always out in public putting the best face on the Sheriff's Department and working hard to strengthen community bonds in that part of the Red River Valley. Last year he received the 9-1-1 Government Leader Award from the E9-1-1 Institute for his work in helping create the Fargo- Moorhead regional dispatch center, which was the first in the nation to integrate services across State lines. Sheriff Laney also played a strong and pivotal role in coordinating response to major flooding in both 2009 and 2010 in Cass County. The flooding in 2009 was the worst ever seen in the region, and his leadership made a major difference in a situation that many thought would end in catastrophic loss. I congratulate Sheriff Laney for being named Sheriff of the Year. I know the citizens of Cass County, like me, greatly appreciate all he has done on their behalf.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to submit to the Senate a budget scorekeeping report. The report, which covers fiscal year 2012, was prepared by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to Section 308(b) and in aid of Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. The report shows the effects of Congressional action through January 20, 2012, and includes the effects of legislation enacted since passage of the Budget Control Act of 2011, which established allocations, aggregates and other levels for 2011, 2012, 2012-16, and 2012-21. The legislation includes: P.L. 112-29, the America Invents Act; P.L. 112- 33, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012; P.L. 112-40, an act to extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for other purposes; P.L. 112-41, the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act; P.L. 112-42, the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act; P.L. 112-43, the United States- Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act; P.L. 112-55, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012; P.L. 112- 56, an act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding, and for other purposes; P.L. 112- 74, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012; P.L. 112-77, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2012; P.L. 112-78, the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act, 2012; and P.L. 112-80, an act to amend title 39, U.S.C., to extend the authority of the United States Postal Service to issue a semipostal to raise funds for breast cancer research. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of Section 106 of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and CBO's March 2011 baseline. The estimates show that for fiscal year 2012, spending is $27.5 billion in budget authority and $20 billion in outlays above the levels provided pursuant to the Budget Control Act, while revenues are $0.9 billion below the levels provided pursuant to the Budget Control Act. The overage in spending is the result of P.L. 112-78, the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2012, which was passed at the end of last session. While that legislation was fully paid for over 10 years, it increased spending in 2012. Finally, the estimates show that, in total, there has been no net change for Social Security. I ask unanimous consent that the letter and accompanying tables from CBO be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, in listening to some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--both in speeches here and in press statements they have made--I repeatedly hear them saying we have not had a budget for 1,000 days. That is just wrong. That is absolutely wrong. Sometimes I wonder if our colleagues are paying attention to what goes on here on the floor of the Senate. Have they already forgotten the Budget Control Act? Here it is. On August 2nd of last year, the Budget Control Act passed this body 74 to 26. More than half of our Republican colleagues voted for it. Didn't they know what they were voting on? The Budget Control Act contains the budget for this year and for next year. Weren't they paying attention? Don't they know what they voted on? In many ways, the Budget Control Act is stronger than a typical budget resolution, and it is stronger in these ways: No. 1, it is more extensive than a traditional budget resolution. No. 2, it has the force of law. Unlike a budget resolution that is not signed by the President, the Budget Control Act that we passed last August, that provides the budget for this year and for next year, is a law passed by the House of Representatives, passed by the Senate, signed by the President of the United States--the Budget Control Act. It also set discretionary caps on spending for 10 years instead of the 1 year normally set in a budget resolution. So when our colleagues come out here and say we have not had a budget in 1,000 days, wow, can they really have missed the vote, the debate, the consideration of the Budget Control Act? Did they really miss all that or--or--are they saying something they know to be untrue, because really those are the only choices you are left with. Either they do not know what they did or they are misrepresenting what we all did. Not only does the Budget Control Act set discretionary caps for 10 years, it also provided enforcement mechanisms, including a 2-year ``deeming'' resolution, allowing budget points of order to be enforced. That is what a budget does. It sets the spending levels, it creates spending caps, and it provides enforcement mechanisms. All of that is in the Budget Control Act we passed on August 2nd of last year with a vote of 74 to 26. Not only did we pass it, but the Republican- controlled House passed it, and the President signed it. It is the law of the land. It sets the budget for this year. It sets the budget for next year. It provides enforcement mechanisms. It sets 10 years of spending caps. And it created a reconciliation-like supercommittee to address entitlement and tax reforms. That supercommittee did not come up with a result, but they were established in the Budget Control Act, and they were given the authority--just like a reconciliation provision would--to come back with a package that could not be filibustered and could not be altered and could pass with a simple majority. That is the fact. So if we hear colleagues come out and say one more time that we have not had a budget for 1,000 days, I hope somebody will have the sense to stand up and say: Really? What was the Budget Control Act about? What was this legislation that passed not only the Senate on a vote of 74 to 26 but passed the House of Representatives, which is controlled by the other party, and was signed by the President of the United States? Republican rhetoric aside, Congress did pass a budget--not through the normal way of a budget resolution but through an actual law. The Republican-controlled House passed it, the Democratic Senate passed it, and the President signed it. The Budget Control Act set 10 years of spending caps, established a 2-year ``deeming'' resolution to enforce spending levels, and it created a reconciliation-like process to consider entitlement and tax reform. I hope we have laid this issue to rest. So now if I hear colleagues come out and say that we have not had a budget for 1,000 days--I will know they have been put on fair notice. Maybe they missed somehow what they were voting on back in August. Maybe they gapped out. Maybe they forgot. But you know what, they voted for it. Every Member of the Senate voted on the Budget Control Act. Seventy-four to twenty-six--add it up--that is 100. Everybody was here. And if they did not know what they were voting on, now they do. So if I hear another assertion that there has not been a budget for 1,000 days, I will know and the listeners will know that somebody is not telling the truth. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield back all time on our side.