Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, January 2, the majority leader be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I wish to say thanks to my colleague, Senator Sessions. He will still be on the Budget Committee. These challenges remain. I will lend my voice in whatever way I can to the responsible efforts that are needed to get us back on track. It is truly my fondest wish that we find a way to come together to do what must be done. It would be so good for the country. It would be great for the Congress. It would be good for the people. I am confident this is a challenge we can meet. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the period for morning business be extended until 3 p.m. for debate only, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. This is what I said 26 years ago in my candidacy for the Senate: I have concluded that the serious economic problems facing our state can in large measure only be addressed in Washington. It is economic policies decided in our nation's capital that are pushing our state into a difficult financial position. Since 1980, our national debt has doubled. Our national operating deficit has tripled. Our trade deficit has increased six-fold. And we have become a debtor nation for the first time in seventy-one years. We can do better. We must do better. And we will do better if we have the courage and leadership to move this country in a new direction. Current economic policies, which have increased the national debt in five years by an amount that had taken two hundred years to accumulate, have forced record high real interest rates. Those record high real interest rates have bloated the value of the American dollar, which in turn has put a hidden tax on every commodity exported by our state and nation. That hidden tax has robbed us of our export markets and dramatically reduced our commodity values. These economic policies are not only devastating to the economy of the State of North Dakota but are rapidly exporting the economic strength of this country. This process must be stopped. I will end with the next paragraph: It is time for politicians to stop posturing and promising and start guaranteeing performing results. Then I made a pledge. I pledge today that, if elected, the federal deficit, the trade deficit and real interest rates will be brought under control or I will not seek reelection in 1992. That is a statement I made 26 years ago. Some people are probably wondering, if you made that pledge, how are you still here? Well, 6 years after I made that pledge I announced I would not seek reelection, and I did not. I announced in April of that year I would not seek reelection. Congressman Dorgan was nominated to run for my seat and I thought I was leaving the Senate. Then the other Senator from North Dakota died in September of that year. The Governor called me and said: Senator, you have to run to fill out the 2 years of his term because our State is going to lose all of its seniority in one fell swoop--all of Senator Burdick's seniority, all of your seniority, and all of Congressman Dorgan's seniority. We will be the only State in the Nation with no seniority. You will have kept your pledge; you did not seek reelection; you will run in a special election which will be in December, after the regular elections in November. I will never forget, one of the news media stations back home did a poll and two-thirds of Republicans thought I should run to fill out the 2 years of that term, which I did--which means I am the answer to a trivia question, because I am the only Senator in history who served in both Senate seats from the same State in the same day. I believed then and I believe now that fiscal responsibility is one of the first obligations of government. My deep regret, my greatest regret, in leaving here is that we have not been able to fashion the grand bargain to put us back on track. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a tribute to the Budget Committee staff who have served so ably and so well, served this body, served our country, led by my staff director Mary Naylor, who is truly a remarkable person; I consider her a real patriot because she has absolutely dedicated herself to getting the fiscal affairs of the country in order. If I could, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a tribute to all of the Budget Committee staff who have served with me so ably and so well.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. These will be my final remarks to the Senate, and I thought I would share with my colleagues my observations on what has just occurred to put in perspective where I believe we are and where we are headed and to lay down a challenge for my colleagues as I depart. A very significant challenge remains for the Congress and the country, and I hope very much that we find the courage to take on these challenges. It is incredibly important to the future strength of our Nation, and we can do it. We have done much tougher things in the past, and we can certainly take on these challenges. On New Year's Eve we were called into session and were briefed by the Vice President and other staff from the White House with respect to the deal that was before us. I told our colleagues on that night that I believed we had to support the proposal before us because to fail to do so would send us back into a recession. Most economists said the economy would shrink 4 percent in the first quarter, 2 percent in the second quarter, that 1 million more people would be unemployed, and that the 2 million people now on unemployment insurance would lose that and would have no safety net. So, Mr. President, I saw no alternative but to support this agreement. At the same time, I told my colleagues: I hate this agreement. I hate it with every fiber of my being because this is not the grand bargain I had hoped for and worked for and believe is so necessary to the future of the country. This is not, by any standard, a deficit reduction plan. As necessary as it is, no one should be misled that this deals with our deficit and debt because it only makes our debt circumstance worse. Now, some question that assessment, but that is precisely the assessment the Congressional Budget Office has come to. I would like to take just a few moments to put in perspective where we are. The United States is borrowing 31 cents of every dollar it spends. That is an unsustainable circumstance. It is an improvement somewhat because we were borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. So there has been some modest improvement. But, this cannot go on. It has to be addressed or we will weaken the Nation. This chart puts in perspective the spending and revenue of the United States going back to 1950. Looking back 60 years, the red line is the spending line, and the green line is the revenue line. You can see our spending is close to a 60-year high. We are not quite at a 60-year high because there has been some improvement in the last 2 years. We are close to a 60-year low on revenue. So our colleagues who say this is just a spending problem are missing the point. This is a problem of the relationship between spending and revenue. The gap--much higher spending than we have revenue--is what leads to deficits and leads to additions to the debt. The path we are on, we are told by the Congressional Budget Office, will take us from a gross debt of 104 percent of our gross domestic product today to 115 percent by 2022 if we fail to act. So further action is absolutely essential. Why? Why does it matter if our gross debt is more than 100 percent of our gross domestic product? Well, because the best work that has been done on this question--by Rogoff and Reinhart--concluded, after looking at 200 years of economic history, the following. I quote from their study: 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) are associated with notably lower growth outcomes. To sum it up, Mr. President, when we have a gross debt of more than 90 percent of our GDP, we are headed down a path that dramatically reduces our future economic growth. That means we are reducing future economic opportunity for the people of our country. That is why this matters, because it will retard and restrict economic growth for our people. Here is what the Congressional Budget Office tells us about the long- term path we are on, in terms of debt held by the public. CBO tells us we are headed for a circumstance where publicly held debt will be 200 percent of our GDP. So, we are on a course that is utterly unsustainable. If we look at what has been done--because those who say nothing has been done are not giving the full story either--the fact is we passed a Budget Control Act in place of a budget. We put in place a law in place of a budget resolution. That budget law dropped discretionary spending to historic lows. We were at--in the year 2012--8.3 percent of GDP going to domestic spending. The Budget Control Act, the law that was passed, will take that down to 5.3 percent of GDP going for discretionary spending. That is a historic low. So when someone says nothing has been done, that is not accurate. We cut domestic spending, and cut it in a very significant way. We cut it to a level that will be a historic low, but that doesn't mean the problem has been solved; nowhere close to it, because at the same time the nondiscretionary accounts are rising dramatically. Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health spending is the 800-pound gorilla. That is where we see such a dramatic increase in spending, both in real and nominal dollars, and as a share of GDP. Back in 1972, these health care accounts consumed 1.1 percent of our gross domestic product. By 2050, if we don't do something, they will consume 12.4 percent. That is totally unsustainable. It is gobbling up bigger and bigger chunks of our budget, putting increasing pressure on our deficits and debt, and eating up the ability of the United States to have the flexibility to respond to crises that might occur. The aging population is the primary driver of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security cost growth. We can see in this chart, the effect of cost growth is the yellow part; the effect of aging is the red part; and the spending in absence of aging and excess cost growth is the green part of this chart. In other words, our spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security would actually be very stable absent the effect of aging and the effect of excess cost growth. Now the effect of aging has become the biggest driver. There is nothing we can do about that because these people have been born. They are alive today. They are going to be eligible for Medicare and Social Security, and we are going to have to find a way to be able to afford this combined effect. The revenue side of the equation I think is critically important to understand. Many of our colleagues say: It is true we are at a very low share of GDP going to revenue today. In 2012, less than 16 percent of our GDP came as revenue to the Federal Government. Typically, it is about 18.5 percent of GDP. But if we look back on the last five times we have actually balanced the budget around here, revenue hasn't been 18 or 18.5 percent of GDP. The last five times we have balanced the budget, revenue has been 19.7 percent, 19.9 percent, 19.8 percent, 20.6 percent, 19.5 percent of GDP. So those who say we have to get back to the normal revenue stream, I think miss the point. The average is not going to do it. It never has, at least going back to 1969. We are going to have to have more revenue at the same time we have more spending discipline, especially with respect to the health care accounts. We need fundamental tax reform. This Tax Code is out of date, it is inefficient, and it is hurting U.S. global competitiveness. The complexity imposes a significant burden on individuals and businesses. The expiring provisions create uncertainty and confusion. It is hemorrhaging revenue to tax gaps, tax havens, abusive tax shelters. I have shown many times on the floor of the Senate a picture of a little five-story building in the Cayman Islands called Ugland House. Ugland House, this little five-story building, claims to be the home of 18,000 companies that all say they are doing business out of that building. I have said many times that is the most efficient building in the world. How can 18,000 companies be doing business out of a little five-story building down in the Cayman Islands? They are not doing business out of that building. The only business they are doing is monkey business, and the monkey business they are doing is to avoid the taxes they owe in the United States through shell games in which they show their profits in the Cayman Islands, where, happily, there are no income taxes to impose on those earnings. So they are avoiding showing their income there here and putting it in the Cayman Islands where they can shield it from taxation. We also desperately need to restore fairness. The current system contributes to growing income inequality. I don't know how anyone can conclude otherwise. I have also shown many times on the floor of the Senate the report on one building on Park Avenue in New York, where the average income is $1.2 million of the people who live in that building and the average tax rate those people are paying is about 15 percent. The janitor in that building is paying a tax rate of 25 percent with an income of $33,000 a year. How is that fair? How can that possibly be considered fair? These long-term fiscal imbalances simply must be addressed, and revenue is going to have to be part of the solution. Martin Feldstein, one of the distinguished economists in our country, conservative, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan, said this about the tax expenditures of the country because we are spending $1.2 trillion a year in the tax expenditures category of the United States. We are spending more through the Tax Code than we are through all the appropriated accounts. People say we are spending too much. Yes, we continue to have a spending problem and a revenue problem. But through the Tax Code, we spend more there than we spend through all the appropriated accounts. Here is what Martin Feldstein said about the need to reduce 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. I say to my colleagues, even after what has just happened, we are going to have to raise more revenue, we are going to have to cut spending, and we are going to have to reform entitlements. It is as clear as it can be that those things are going to have to be done to get the country back on track. Here is one of the most distinguished economists in the country telling us that reforming tax expenditures is not like other ways of raising revenue in terms of its economic effect. I think Mr. Feldstein has that exactly right. By the way, who most benefits from these tax expenditures? Here is a chart that shows the increase in after-tax income from tax expenditures and here is the top 1 percent. On average, they benefit per year by over $250,000. The next quintile benefits by $32,000. The lowest quintile tax expenditures benefit by $707 a year. Wow. What an extraordinary disparity. The lowest quintile tax expenditures benefit $707 a year. The top 1 percent, their benefit from tax expenditures, on average, is over $250,000 a year. Here we are, borrowing 31 cents of every $1 we spend. We are on course taking the debt of the United States from over 100 percent of our gross domestic product to over 200 percent if we fail to act. That is why we had the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. The report we put out was called ``The Moment of Truth.'' What we called for in that report was $5.4 trillion in deficit reduction. We used the current baseline. That is what we would have provided, $5.4 trillion in deficit reduction. We lowered the deficit to 1.4 percent of GDP in 2022. We stabilized the gross debt by 2015. We reduced discretionary spending to 4.8 percent of GDP by 2022. We build on the health care reform savings. We called for Social Security reform and savings to be used only to extend the solvency of Social Security itself, and we also included fundamental tax reform that raised revenue and did it in part by reducing those tax expenditures I just referred to. Here is what would happen to the deficit as a percentage of GDP under the fiscal commission budget plan. We can see in 2012, the deficit is at 7.6 percent of GDP. By 2012, it would be taken down to 1.4 percent of GDP under the plan. Here is what would happen to the gross debt of the country as a percentage of GDP under the fiscal commission plan. From 104 percent of GDP in 2012, down to 93 percent of GDP in 2022. Stabilize the debt. Then begin to bring it down. That ought to be our challenge. The plan that was just passed took individual rate increases from 35 to 39.6 for couples earning over $450,000. Capital gains and dividends were increased from 15 percent to 20 percent. PEP and Pease were reinstated. The estate tax was increased to 40 percent for those estates above $5 million. The alternative minimum tax was patched on a permanent basis to prevent some 30 million people from being caught up in the alternative minimum tax. It extended other expiring provisions. On the spending side, the doc fix was put in place for 1 year to prevent doctors who provide care for Medicare-eligible beneficiaries from taking a 27-percent cut. It turned off the sequester for 2 months, the $1.2 trillion across-the-board cut in discretionary spending in both defense and nondefense. It provided for a 1-year extension of unemployment benefits and also for a 1-year extension of the farm bill. Again, while I believe that plan had to be supported--and I did, albeit reluctantly because I think if we had failed to support it, we would be headed back into recession, an additional 1 million people would have lost their jobs, the unemployment rate would be headed to 9.1 percent, and 2 million people would have lost their unemployment benefits. So there was good reason to support that plan. But I want to end as I began. I hated that plan. I hated it with every fiber of my being because the truth is it increased the debt of the United States. That is not just my word; that is the word of the Congressional Budget Office that tells me the revenue loss from that plan is $3.6 trillion; the new spending, $332 billion. The total impact on the deficit and debt, $4 trillion. That doesn't account for the additional debt service which is another $650 billion. The total increase in the debt as a result of that plan is over $4.6 trillion. So don't let anybody tell you that was a deficit reduction plan or a plan to deal with the debt because it was not and it is not. That leaves the unresolved challenge of our time. Because for this Nation's future, it is critically important that the next Congress, in its early days, try to get back to doing the grand bargain, the big deal, something that would reduce our deficits and debt by at least $4 trillion over the next 10 years to stabilize the debt to begin to bring it down. I leave here in many ways with a heavy heart because I came here 26 years ago believing one of the foremost responsibilities of a Senator was to guide the fiscal affairs of this country. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the announcement speech I made in 1986 in running for the Senate.

Mr. CONRAD. I also wish to mention Sara Garland, my chief of staff, an extraordinary person, a North Dakota native, somebody who has dedicated herself to public service; Geri Gaginis, my executive assistant, who has been with me more than 20 years, also a North Dakota native--we call her ``mom'' in our office because she does a good job of keeping us all on track; Tracee Sutton, legislative director, also a North Dakota native--an exceptional person, she will be on the staff of my succeeding colleague, Senator-elect Heitkamp; Susan King, also a North Dakota native, who has been with me off and on for many years, an outstanding person; Barry Piatt, my communications director, with me here at the end; Mary Jo Prouty, my office manager, still laboring to close down our office; Molly Spaeth, also with me right here to the final days. I also want to give special recognition to Sean Neary, who was my communications director for many years, who is now the communications director for the Finance Committee, truly an extraordinary person. With that, Mr. President, I thank Stu Nagurka. Stu is my communications director in the Budget Committee, has stayed with me right to the end, somebody who has an extraordinary record in government service; in fact, served your own Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, when he was in public service here in Washington. Stu was his communications director and did as everyone knows, an outstanding job. His son, I want to note, is our page, Jarrod Nagurka, called back into service because in these days, you know, we are a little short of people. They are people for whom I have the highest regard, Stu Nagurka, Jarrod. I mentioned Mary Naylor, my extraordinary staff director; John Righter, the deputy; but I mention and have gone into detail on all of my Budget Committee staff in this statement that I made part of the Record. Finally, let me note that my colleague on the Budget Committee, Senator Sessions, is here. Senator Sessions has been the ranking Republican. He has been a gentleman. He has been somebody with whom I have enjoyed working. He and his staff have been professional. I think we put on a series of hearings that laid out the issues for our country in a clear and undeniable way. Again, I leave with only one true regret and that is we were not able collectively to put in place a plan to get our country back on track. But I am not without hope because next year--this year, later this year--we will have more opportunities to do what needs to be done.

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, I previously filed committee allocations and budgetary aggregates pursuant to section 106 of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and, on June 29, I revised some of those levels pursuant to the Budget Control Act. Today, I am further adjusting 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 two bills that are eligible for an adjustment under the Budget Control Act: One, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 2013 includes $93.297 billion in budget authority that is designated as funding for Overseas Contingency Operations/the Global War on Terrorism. That funding is estimated to result in $50.697 billion in outlays in 2013. Two, the fiscal year 2013 disaster assistance supplemental includes $55.957 billion in budget authority that is designated as funding either for a disaster, $5.379 billion, or an emergency ($50.578 billion). In total, that funding is estimated to result in $8.974 billion in outlays in 2013. In addition, I am making corrections to the June 29, 2012, adjustment by removing the off-budget portion of the program integrity funding previously provided for continuing disability reviews and redeterminations. Consequently, I am revising the budgetary aggregates for 2013 by a total of $148.840 billion in budget authority and $59.302 billion in outlays. I am also revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Appropriations Committee by $93.409 billion in security budget authority, $55.845 billion in nonsecurity budget authority, and $59.671 in total outlays. 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.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Jeff Bingaman, who is retiring from the Senate at the end of this year. Senator Bingaman has been a strong voice for the people of New Mexico, first as their attorney general and then during 30 years of service in the Senate. He has brought a keen intellect and a commonsense perspective to the Senate that should make the people of New Mexico proud. He has worked to build consensus across party lines to help strengthen our Nation. Senator Bingaman and I serve together on the Finance Committee, and we also worked together on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee during my first term in the Senate. I greatly admire the thoughtfulness he applies to every issue. Throughout his career, he has focused intently on finding solutions to the challenges facing our country. For example, in 2009, I worked closely with him and other colleagues on the Finance Committee in crafting the health care reform bill that was signed into law as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. He was a key author of that legislation, which has already improved millions of people's lives. Senator Bingaman has brought a tremendous breadth of knowledge to his chairmanship of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He has long understood the need to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy and has worked diligently to push Congress to create a national energy policy suited to the 21st century. That includes the Energy Independence and Security Act, which helped put us on the right path by improving gas mileage in the vehicles Americans drive, increasing production of domestic biofuels, and boosting energy efficiency in homes and businesses across our country. Senator Bingaman also understands the importance of education as a source of opportunity to our people and a key investment in the ongoing prosperity of our country. As a member of the Senate Health Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Bingaman has worked to advance teacher training, student technological literacy, and boosting graduation rates at underperforming schools. He also helped pass legislation that increases student aid and caps Federal student loan payments to assist students struggling with excessive debt. Senator Bingaman has been an outstanding public servant for the people of New Mexico and our Nation. I will miss having him as a colleague in the Senate, but I also know that his wife Anne will be excited to have him back home. I wish him happiness and success in whatever he chooses to do in the next chapter of his life. Olympia Snowe

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I also pay tribute to my friend and colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, who is retiring from the Senate after 18 years of exemplary service representing the people of Maine. Though thousands of miles apart, Maine and North Dakota face similar challenges. In particular, we share very similar climates. Our States' residents must endure long winters, and, for the most vulnerable, keeping their homes warm is sometimes a challenge. Senator Snowe has always understood how difficult it can be for some families to pay their utility bills and keep their heat on through harsh winters and has been a tireless supporter of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which provides struggling families in our States with the certainty of a warm home. Senator Snowe's constant attention to constituent concerns have made her one of the most popular Senators in the Nation, and her dedication to her State and country has not gone unrecognized. Throughout her 37 years of public service, Senator Snowe has earned many honors and distinctions. In 2005, Forbes rated her as the 54th most powerful woman in the world. Later, in 2006, Time magazine recognized her as one of America's Best Senators. She was also recognized as one of eight female politicians that could run and be elected President of the United States. Senator Snowe is a true statesman and public servant, never hesitating to put people over politics and fiercely representing the values and needs of her constituents. Throughout all her years of service, her steady resolve, moderate voice, and willingness to work across the aisle have been a force in Washington. It has truly been an honor working with her to find practical solutions to our Nation's most pressing issues. In a time of partisan excess, Senator Snowe's ability to reach compromises with Members on both sides of the aisle was extremely valuable to this venerable institution. She will be sorely missed. I thank Senator Snowe for her service to her country in the U.S. Senate and wish her the very best in the future. Herb Kohl Mr. President, today I honor my colleague, Senator Herb Kohl, who will be leaving the Senate at the end of this term. Senator Kohl has served the people of Wisconsin for 24 years since first being elected to the Senate in 1988. Throughout his time in Congress, Senator Kohl has stayed above political partisanship, while remaining true to his Midwest roots. He has represented the people of Wisconsin well and answered to no one but the citizens of his State. When he announced his retirement from the Senate, he said ``The office doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the people of Wisconsin, and there is something to be said for not staying in office too long.'' These words describe a humble man who truly believes that it is his duty to represent the ideals of his constituents, even in an era of political polarization. Born and raised in Wisconsin, Senator Kohl is known throughout the Senate as a philanthropist. He had a successful career in business, eventually purchasing the Milwaukee Bucks. Throughout his time in Congress, Senator Kohl has proven that he is as openminded as he is honest, while continually holding on to his core principles. From expanding the coverage of health care to promoting education advancements, Senator Kohl's legislative history is truly impressive. Wisconsin and North Dakota have a lot in common. We share a similar culture and geography as well as an agriculture industry that is a crucial component of both our States' economies. In 2011, the National Farmers Union recognized Senator Kohl as a champion of dairy and competition issues. But that is only part of the story concerning Senator Kohl's support for family farmers. Senator Kohl has served as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture. In that capacity, he has been instrumental in ensuring that the partnership between the Federal Government and rural communities contributes to economic development throughout rural America. He has enhanced the conservation of our natural resources and ensured the United States remains at the forefront in agricultural research and innovation. In addition, Senator Kohl has been a stalwart supporter of food assistance programs for those who are the least fortunate among us. On a personal note, Senator Kohl recommended my wife Lucy for a position with Major League Baseball. It has been my wife's dream job, so I am personally indebted to him for that. Senator Kohl's commitment to the people of Wisconsin has been unwavering. The Senate will miss his honesty and hard work. I thank Senator Kohl for his service in the Senate and wish him the best in his future endeavors. Wisconsin should be proud of Senator Kohl, he remained true to his 1988 Senate campaign slogan, serving as ``Nobody's Senator But Yours.'' Jim Webb

Mr. CONRAD. Finally, Mr. President, I am proud today to honor my colleague from Virginia, Jim Webb. In just 6 years in the Senate, he has proven himself to be an agile and independent thinker on both military matters and issues of economic fairness, as well as a tireless advocate for veterans. His candid and moderate voice in the Senate will be sorely missed. Jim Webb has spent an impressive career working in public service and on behalf of our veterans and active troops overseas. The importance of discipline and service to country was instilled in him as a young boy, as he moved with his father, a career Air Force officer, to various Air Force Bases across the country. A graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, Senator Webb served as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs under President Reagan, as well as the U.S. Secretary of the Navy, before coming to the Senate in 2007. Senator Webb demonstrated his unwavering commitment to our troops and veterans on his very first day in the Senate when he introduced the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill of Rights. He won passage for this important piece of legislation, the most comprehensive G.I. bill since World War II, in only his second year as a Senator--a remarkable feat. Since its passage, more than 1 million post-9/11 veterans have applied to use their G.I. bill benefits. The G.I. bill has been instrumental in providing a great opportunity and a demonstration of gratitude for our troops as they separate from service. I personally had the privilege of working closely with Senator Webb on a bill that aims to preserve the valor of our decorated military heroes. I was proud to join him in introducing the Military Service Integrity Act, which creates criminal penalties for individuals who lie about receiving military medals for personal gain. On behalf of the nearly 60,000 veterans in North Dakota and all of our active troops, it was an honor to work with him on this legislation in ensuring that the integrity of our Nation's military awards are not belittled by those attempting to seek a profit. But apart from his dedication to our military heroes, I also respect Senator Webb for his commitment to fiscal responsibility. Together with Senator McCaskill, he formed the US Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan to analyze the efficacy and expenditures of Federal contractors abroad. When the findings of the Commission were published, he subsequently introduced comprehensive reform legislation to address the failures and mismanagement of overseas contractors. As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I deeply respect his initiative and commitment to eliminating any waste, fraud, or abuse in our national security operations. It is a deep loss for the Senate to be losing such a candid and independent voice. Senator Webb has set an extraordinary example of discipline, initiative, and candor in his work on behalf of working- class Americans and military families. I thank Senator Webb for his career of service in the Senate and the armed services and wish him all the best. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my colleague, Senator Scott Brown, who will leave the Senate at the conclusion of the 112th Congress. Senator Brown won a special election in 2010 to fill the seat of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, but his service to the State of Massachusetts began many years ago. Senator Brown began his career in public service in 1992, working as a real estate assessor for the town of Wrentham, MA. In 1998, he was elected to the Massachusetts House. Six years later, he was elected to the State senate, where he was known as a strong advocate for veterans issues. As a State senator, he championed legislation that created a check-off box on State income tax forms for veterans to indicate service in Iraq or Afghanistan so that they could be efficiently notified of benefits. His work on behalf of veterans is not surprising considering Senator Brown has proudly served in the Army National Guard since enlisting at age 19 when he attended college at Tufts University. Once elected to the U.S. Senate, his commitment to military and veterans issues continued as he served on the Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, Armed Services, and the Veteran's Affairs Committees. Although his time in the Senate was short, Senator Brown advanced several initiatives, including several that assist servicemembers and their families. He successfully included a provision in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which made certain that members of the National Guard and their families receive a fair housing allowance when deployed overseas. Senator Brown also worked across the aisle on legislation that demonstrated his commitment to our troops. He fought to provide greater oversight at Arlington National Cemetery, ensuring proper burials of America's fallen heroes and secured a provision to create the Office of Service Member Affairs at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to help returning servicemembers avoid financial fraud. The hard work and dedication that Senator Brown has shown during his years of public service will surely bring him continued success in the future. I thank Senator Brown for his service in the Senate and wish him the best. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my colleague, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who will be leaving the Senate at the end of this term. Senator Hutchison has represented the State of Texas in the Senate since her election in 1993. Senator Hutchison has deep Texas roots, with her great-great- grandfather signing Texas Declaration of Independence in 1836. Growing up in La Marque, TX, Senator Hutchison has represented her State as only a true Texan could. Senator Hutchison attended the University of Texas at Austin, graduating with bachelor of arts degree. She then went on to earn her J. D. from the University of Texas Law School in 1967. Senator Hutchison began her career as a political and legal reporter for KPRC in Houston. In 1972, Senator Hutchison began her long career of public service by twice being elected to represent Houston in the Texas House of Representatives. In 1990, Senator Hutchison was elected Texas State treasurer. In 1993, Senator Hutchison won a special election, becoming the first and only woman to date to represent Texas in the U.S. Senate. She has continued to represent Texas for almost 20 years in the Senate, repeatedly winning her seat by overwhelming margins, including her reelection in 2000 with more votes than any statewide candidate in Texas history. Throughout her Senate career, Senator Hutchison has been known as a strong leader on defense issues. In 1993, Senator Hutchison became the first woman to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee since 1974. In 2003, Senator Hutchison introduced the legislation creating an overseas basing commission, which ensured our forces were capable of meeting the threats we face in the 21st century. Following the September 11 attacks, Senator Hutchison was instrumental in securing provisions to increase air cargo screening as part of the National Intelligence Reform Act. Senator Hutchison has also been a champion of education during her time in the Senate. She has used her firm belief that every child is deserving of a quality education to advocate for increased investments in science, technology, and education. Senator Hutchison has served the people of the State of Texas with integrity. I wish her success in whatever she chooses to do in the next chapter of her life. Dan Akaka

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute and recognize the accomplishments of a colleague and dear friend who will be retiring from the U.S. Senate at the end of the term. Senator Akaka has represented the State of Hawaii with distinction for 36 years. He has been a firm advocate for his constituents, especially for Native Hawaiians. I have had the honor and privilege to work alongside Senator Akaka on the Indian Affairs Committee. During this time and throughout his tenure as chairman, I have witnessed his commitment to improving the overall well-being of Native Hawaiians as well as all indigenous people. He has been a tireless advocate for their rights, and, with his leadership and bipartisan dedication, he has brought many issues they confront to the forefront. For more than a decade, Senator Akaka has championed the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which establishes a process for Native Hawaiians to gain Federal recognition. He has also been the driving force in advancing the Native Hawaiian language movement. His dedication and leadership has ensured survival of the language. As part of the greatest generation and a veteran, Senator Akaka also used his time as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to champion laws to improve health care and benefits for countless veterans, servicemembers, and their families. Known for breaking down barriers and building relationships, Senator Akaka has served the people of Hawaii with integrity and humility. He is a true statesman, gentleman, and patriot, and our country is better for his service. He leaves a distinguished legacy and will be greatly missed by us all. I thank Senator Akaka for his friendship and service to our Nation, and I wish him and his wife Millie all the best for the future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me add my words of commendation to those of Senator Coats for Senator Lugar. I have often joked with him that he has been my Secretary of State while I have served here in the Senate. We could count on Senator Lugar to give good, unbiased advice on complicated foreign relations issues, and we will very much miss Senator Lugar's voice here in the Senate, and also his better half, Char Lugar, who I think we all know is a bright light. It has been an honor and a privilege to serve with Senator Lugar, and I know his voice will continue to be heard on the important issues of the day. In both Indiana and North Dakota, agriculture is a pillar of the economy. Senator Lugar fully understands the importance of farming, and it has always been near his heart. He still manages a 600-acre corn, soybean, and tree operation back home. Here in the Senate, he has been a champion for his State's farmers, serving on the Agriculture Committee since his first term. I have worked with him as a member of that committee since I joined the Senate a decade later. He twice served as chairman, most notably during the passage of the 1996 farm bill. I had the privilege to work with Senator Lugar in crafting numerous farm bills. During the Agriculture Committee's debate of the last farm bill, Senator Lugar and I teamed up to fund rural energy programs. We both understand the importance of getting more energy from the Midwest instead of the Middle East. Rather than sending our dollars outside of the country to buy oil, we can invest in renewable energy that is produced at home. Without Dick's support, the Senate's version of the farm bill would have lacked these important provisions. When the history books are written about our era, Senator Lugar will be remembered as one of the Senate's leading voices on foreign policy. A proven leader, Dick has been recognized by his colleagues for his clear-eyed analysis and practical solutions to global problems. His expertise has been invaluable to the Senate, whether it was regarding the threats of the Soviet Union during the Cold War or Islamic terrorism today. One of Senator Lugar's brightest achievements was the creation of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, commonly known as Nunn-Lugar. Through this program, the United States helps partner countries destroy and secure weapons of mass destruction. It has deactivated over 7,600 nuclear warheads that once threatened our Nation. Our world is undoubtedly a safer place because of Senator Lugar's unwavering commitment to secure nuclear material. Dick has been one of the most pragmatic Members of the Senate. He understood that compromising with others does not mean betraying one's beliefs. He was willing to work with Members on both sides of the aisle to achieve sensible solutions to our Nation's problems. At a time when our country desperately needs to set aside inflexible partisan rigidity in order to advance the common good, Senator Lugar will be greatly missed. I thank Senator Lugar for his service in the Senate, to his State and the country. I thank him for being a friend to me, and I wish him and his family the very best in the future. Farewell To The Senate Mr. President, we have this long tradition in the Senate of Senators giving farewell remarks. I want to alert colleagues that mine will be especially long, so they might want to go have lunch and then come back. I don't consider this my final speech because I am still hopeful we will reach an agreement on the farm bill. The distinguished Chair is here. I hope we can reach agreement on averting the fiscal cliff because that is important to the country. I hope we will have additional chances to communicate with colleagues and the public before we are done. These are my farewell remarks and observations of 26 years of service here, and it has been an incredible experience. The first thing I want to do is say thank you to the people of North Dakota for having confidence in me when I was only 38 years old in sending me to represent them in the Senate. I was 38, but I looked about 25, and the people of North Dakota elected me in a stunning upset of a long-established incumbent. I treasure the confidence they have had in me. I also want to thank my colleagues for the responsibilities they have given me. I also want to thank the leadership team of Senator Reid, Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer, and Senator Murray and the confidence they have had in me. I have been so blessed to have people who have been with me on my staff in many cases for more than 20 years. My chiefs of staff, include Jim Margolis, who is one of the top media gurus in the country. He has done much of the advertising for the President in this last campaign. Also, my thanks to David Herring and Mary Wakefield, as well as Kent Hall, who died an untimely death while working for me. Thank you to Sara Garland, Bob Van Heuvelen, and Wally Rustad. Thanks also to Tom Mahr, who was my legislative director for than 20 years. I also wish to thank my executive assistant, who has been with me more than 20 years; Geri Gaginis, who we all fondly call Mom in my office because she cracks the whip and makes sure the trains run on time; Mary Naylor, my long-time director on the Budget Committee and who has also been with me more than 20 years. My Budget Committee deputies John Righter and Joel Friedman have done extraordinary work on behalf of the people of this country. Stu Nagurka is here with me today and is going to help me with charts and has been my long-time communications director. There are so many more people I want to thank. Most of all, I want to thank my family. My wife Lucy, who has been my great partner through all of this. She was my campaign manager when I first ran for the Senate. My daughter Jessie, who has in many ways, perhaps, sacrificed the most, because when a person is in this job they miss birthdays and other important events. She has been a great daughter. She was here last night for our farewell party and we had a lovely time. Our son Ivan and his wife Kendra, who are in Oregon where they have a small farm called Tipping Tree Farm. We wish they could be here today. Our grandson Carter, who is a proud member of the University of Oregon marching band, The Ducks, and who served as an intern for me--not at government expense, by the way, it was at our expense; and our little dog Dakota who has become sort of a mascot of the U.S. Senate. Brian Williams, when he did a show on ``A Day in the Life of the Senate,'' concluded that program by calling Dakota the ``101st Senator.'' I think he will be missed perhaps more than I am as I leave the Senate. In 1964, I came here. I sat up in the gallery--in fact, it was the gallery right up there--I was 16 years old, and I watched a debate on civil rights. Hubert Humphrey was leading that debate. It so inspired me that I thought, you know, someday I would like to be down on that floor and I would like to debate the great issues of the day and I would like to represent the people of North Dakota. So I went home and wrote out on the back of an envelope that I would run for the U.S. Senate in 1986 or 1988, and I ran in 1986 and was successful. That is the power of a plan. To the young pages who are here, if any of you seeks to be in the U.S. Senate someday, have a plan, because there are so many people who sort of drift through life without one. If you have a plan, you will be light years ahead. In that race, as I indicated, my now-wife Lucy was my campaign manager. We won what was then believed to be the biggest political upset in the history of our State. I was proud of that victory and proud to have a chance to represent North Dakota here. I think we all know our country needs a plan now, and we know plans have worked before. I was here in 1993 when we had just come off the largest deficit in the history of the United States. The country was in the doldrums. The economy was just plugging along, not doing very well, we had a weak recovery from a deep recession, and we passed a plan to get the country back on track. We did it the old-fashioned way. We made tough decisions, some that were unpopular, but it was the right thing to do and it worked. We balanced the budget. We had the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in the Nation's history. Twenty-three million jobs were created, and we were actually paying down the debt of the United States at the end of the Clinton administration. We did it again when disaster struck my State in 1997. We had one of the worst disasters ever in North Dakota, a 500-year flood that followed the worst winter storm in 50 years. Many of my colleagues may recall the images from that disaster when firemen were fighting an enormous conflagration in downtown Grand Forks in the middle of a blizzard and there was also a massive flood. Grand Forks was devastated. Again, we had a plan, a $500 million disaster recovery plan that became a $1 billion plan, and it worked, and we did it the old- fashioned way. We made tough decisions, some that were unpopular, but it was the right thing to do and it worked. The community held a recognition event for me last weekend. The leadership of the community was there, and many people from of the community reported on the remarkable recovery in Grand Forks. It is, I think, an example of what can be done when government responds and does so intelligently and effectively. Now we face a new challenge. We have a fiscal cliff or a fiscal curb or whatever one terms it, but what we know is that if we fail to act, we could be pushed back into recession. Our country needs a plan--a plan to get us back on track, to revitalize economic growth, to secure our long-term economic future, and to get the country moving again, and we can do it. We have done much tougher work in the past. Sometimes I hear people being critical of this institution when they leave here. Let me say I am not in their ranks. I leave this institution with enormous respect. The U.S. Senate is the greatest deliberative body in the world, and I sincerely believe the vast majority of my colleagues are serious-minded and have the best interests of the country at heart. I believe the vast majority of my colleagues want to do what is right for the country. We have differences--enormous differences--about what is the right thing to do, but I have no doubt most of our colleagues are well intentioned. In many circles it is fashionable now to bash government and play down its importance. I personally think we would do well to remember what it has accomplished. I can remember so clearly being called to an emergency meeting in this building in the fall of 2008. I was handed a note saying I was urgently requested to come here. It was about 6 o'clock in the evening. I was the last one to arrive. When I walked into the leader's office, there were the leaders of the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, the Secretary of the Treasury from the Bush administration, and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. I instantly understood something very serious was afoot. They closed the door and told us they were going to take over AIG, the large insurance company, the next day. They weren't there to ask for our approval or seek our agreement; they were there to tell us they were taking this step and they told us they were taking this step because they believed if they did not, there would be a financial collapse in this country within days, and they gave great specificity as to what would happen if there was a failure to take the action they were about to take. The public reaction was harshly negative. The notion of the Government of the United States bailing out a large private insurance company created controversy and criticism from almost every corner. Ultimately, the rescue of that company cost $180 billion--a staggering sum. But do my colleagues know what. We have learned this week that the taxpayers will make money on the deal. Yes, it cost us $180 billion, but the taxpayers are going to make $22 billion on the transaction. If we hadn't done it, we would have risked going into a depression. So when people say there is no role for government or it should be a limited, shrunken roll, I say, Really? Would we have wanted to stand by and risk this country going into another Great Depression? Let's recall what that was like. More than 20 percent of the people in this country were out of work. I know my own grandfather, who refused to take bankruptcy, owned stock in the local bank. In those days people had unlimited liability if they owned stock in a bank. So when there was a run on the bank, as there was, he was called to bring money to the bank, which he did. He did it over and over, and it took him 9 years to recover. People were hungry. People were desperate. That is what a depression is about. So when I reflect back to those decisions, I believe they were the right decisions to make. It is not just my view; that is the view of two of the most distinguished economists in this country, Mark Zandi, who was a key economic adviser to Senator John McCain in his Presidential race, and Alan Blinder, the former Deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Here is what they say: Without that Federal response, we would have had 8 million fewer jobs and a 16-percent level of unemployment in this country, and we would have been in the second Great Depression. They call it ``Depression 2.0.'' So let's remember where we were when President Obama came to office. The Nation was facing the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. In the fourth quarter of 2008, the economy shrank at a rate of almost 9 percent. After the Federal actions, positive economic growth returned in the third quarter of 2009 and we have now had 13 consecutive quarters of economic growth. We have come a long way. This is a remarkable turnaround in a very short time, measured against previous financial crises. In fact, there has been an academic study just completed that suggests typically it takes 8 to 10 years to recover from a financial crisis. So the recovery here, while not everything we would have hoped, is a dramatic turnaround. At the same time, our constituents know, and we know, the price has been high. We know we are currently borrowing 31 cents of every dollar we spend. That is somewhat of an improvement, because we were borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. So this is an improvement, but we have a long way to go. And the public understands we face both a spending and a revenue problem. Spending is near a 60-year high, as this chart shows. The red line is the spending line; the green line is the revenue line. But for those who say it is just a spending problem, I don't think the facts bear that out, because the revenue is near a 60-year low. I think most logical people would say we have to work both sides of this equation. When we look at our debt, we see that our gross debt has now surpassed 100 percent of our gross domestic product. There was a landmark work done a couple of years ago by Rogoff and Reinhart. They looked at 200 years of economic history and they concluded that once our debt exceeds 90 percent of GDP, our future economic prospects are reduced, and reduced quite significantly: future economic growth reduced by 25 to 33 percent. So this is not just numbers on a page; this is a question of future economic opportunity. This growing debt is why many of us called for action a long time ago. In fact, it was 6 years ago this month that Senator Gregg and I came up with the idea of a commission to tackle the debt. That idea ultimately led to the President appointing the Bowles-Simpson Commission. Its bipartisan report recommended $4 trillion in deficit reduction in a balanced way, and I think in a fair way. It protected low-income programs, it actually improved the progressivity of the tax system quite significantly, and it was balanced between revenue and spending. Other bipartisan groups have concluded the same, that we need spending restraint and we need revenue. So there is a critical role for government here. We have seen it in the past and we will find it in the future. But I think we also have to acknowledge there are problems here. There are problems in this Chamber. As proud as I am of this institution, and I will forever be, I have detected over the 26 years I have been here, a change. It has happened kind of gradually, but it has clearly happened. We now spend too much of our time seeking partisan advantage, and it happens on both sides, and it is all understandable. I understand it. I am not being critical of individuals. We spend too little time trying to solve problems. We spend too little time in our caucuses, in our meetings, focused on how to solve the problems facing the country. I deeply believe this observation is true. I believe we can do better than this. The institutions of our government have a proud history. The genius of our Founding Fathers can be found in every part of our history. Whether it was conquering the last Great Depression or winning World War I and World War II or launching a man into space or conquering dread diseases, over and over our country has organized to better the plight of mankind. We need that same kind of focus and effort now to address our challenges. I am confident we can do this, but it is not enough to be confident. It is not enough to be hopeful. It requires a plan, and I would like to take the next few minutes to lay out my belief of what that plan should include. Much of what I will talk about reflects the work of the Bowles- Simpson Commission, the Group of 6 that I have been a part of, and the Group of 8. It starts by looking at what both sides have laid down. Republicans have laid down the spending cut plan; the President has laid down a revenue plan. My own belief is we should take them both. We should take what the Republicans have proposed on spending, with some modest modifications which I will discuss, and we should take the President's plan on revenue. The President laid down a plan that said we ought to raise $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years. Boy, that sounds like an awful lot of money, doesn't it--$1.6 trillion. Not billion, not million, trillion. And people will be quick to say: Oh, my God, that is the biggest tax increase in the history of mankind. Terrible. We cannot do that. Well, we need to put it in perspective. The first thing we should recognize is this will take us to a revenue level that is 19.9 percent of our GDP. The last five times we have balanced the budget in this country, going back to 1969, we have been at 19.7 percent, 19.9 percent, 19.8 percent, 20.6 percent, and 19.5 percent. Does 19.9 percent fit in? These are the only times we balanced the budget going back to 1969. To put it in even more perspective, how much revenue are we going to raise over the next 10 years without any change? Well, here is the number: $37.4 trillion. Nobody ever puts these things in perspective. These big numbers are in relationship to what; $1.6 trillion is what in relationship to $37.4 trillion? As a percentage that is an increase of 4.3 percent. My goodness, we cannot increase the revenue by 4.3 percent in this country over the next 10 years? Of course we can. Of course we can, especially if it means we get our house in order and put the country on a more firm fiscal footing. It does not just matter how much money we raise; it also matters how we raise it. We have a Tax Code now which I cannot defend. I cannot defend it. I took a study that was done by a man named Martin Sullivan last year. He did a very interesting thing. He looked at one building on Park Avenue in New York, and he was able to do it because they happened to have the statistics that isolated that one building. Do you know what he found? The average income in that building was $1,167,000 for the year--$1,167,000. The average tax rate of the people in that building was 14.7 percent. The janitor in that building had an income of $33,000. He paid a tax rate of 24.9 percent. Is this fair? Is it fair that people making $1.1 million paid a tax rate of 14.7 percent, and the janitor who served them earning $33,000 a year paid a tax rate of 24.9 percent? Well, I personally do not think so. I know all of the arguments. I have served on the Finance Committee. I have heard it all. The biggest reason for this differential, by the way, is not the earned-income tax rate, which has had almost all of the attention in this national discussion. Almost all of the attention has been on the earned-income tax rate and raising it from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. Almost no attention has been paid to the unearned-income tax rate on capital gains and dividends. The unearned rate is currently at 15 percent. That is what allows very wealthy people to pay a tax rate that is a fraction of those who work full time and are paying rates of 25 percent. So I hope as we move to conclusion we will pay a little more attention to the unearned rates. The truth is, we would not have to have as much of an increase as is being proposed on the earned-income side and have more of an increase on the unearned-income side, and we would make the Tax Code fairer and we could raise the same amount of revenue. That is the revenue side. But the spending side Republicans have down. They have put out a proposal that asks for savings out of entitlements and other discretionary spending. And if we look at their proposal and break it down--again, let's look at health care. We are going to spend $11 trillion over the next 10 years on health care. Republicans are proposing saving $600 million. If we had a compromise between Republicans and Democrats let's say at $500 million, that would be a savings of, again the magic, 4 percent. We are going to increase revenue 4 percent. If we had savings in health care of 4\1/2\ percent, we would save $500 billion. Now, I have had conversations with colleagues who tell me we cannot possibly save $500 billion out of health care, just like people say, well, we cannot possibly increase revenue $1.6 trillion. Really, we cannot save $500 billion out of a pot of money where we are going to spend $11 trillion? I do not think that is true. I think we can save $500 billion. And I will tell you, there is someone sitting on this floor who has a pretty good idea of how to do it. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has said to us over and over and over: We are spending more than any other country in the world as a share of our national income on health care. We are spending 18 percent of our GDP on health care. No other country spends more than 11\1/2\ percent. The best minds in this country have told us we are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in health care that do not improve health care outcomes at all. If we would save money in overall health care, 40 percent of that savings would flow through to the Federal Government. Senator Whitehouse is right about this. We ought to focus like a laser on where the waste is. We do not need to increase the eligibility age for Medicare. We absolutely do not have to do it to save $500 billion. But what it would do, if we save $500 billion, is it would keep the growth in health care spending about equal to the growth in the overall economy. That would stabilize the growth of health care spending. That would be a huge contribution to the economic competitive position of the United States. Republicans have also said: Hey, let's save $300 billion on domestic discretionary savings. Now, I will be the first to say we have already had lots of savings on the discretionary accounts. We have saved over $1 trillion in the discretionary accounts. But they say, ok, let's save another $300 billion. I think we should say we will do it if they go with us on the revenue. We will do it because that represents a savings of 2.6 percent of the $11.6 trillion we are going to spend in the discretionary accounts over the next 10 years. Now, I think we have gotten into a situation where we use numbers that are absolutely big numbers, but we do not put them in perspective. We cannot save 2.6 percent out of discretionary accounts. Well, I believe we can. I absolutely believe we can. I believe we can save more out of defense. I have supported every penny--I did not vote for going to war in Iraq. I thought that was a huge mistake. But I have supported every dollar of spending for our troops in the field. I can tell you as the Budget Committee chairman, we can save more money in defense. There are lots of Republicans who know we can do it too. Other mandatory. That is another category the Republicans said to save $300 billion there. I think they are $100 billion too high because we are already saving over $100 billion out of other mandatory programs to offset the cost of extending certain policies just last year. So let's save $200 billion. That would represent, again, 4 percent of what we are projected to spend over the next 10 years in other mandatory spending; $5.1 trillion is what we are programmed to spend. Two hundred billion dollars of savings there would represent 4 percent. Again, I have had colleagues tell me we cannot possibly save $200 billion. I have had staff people tell me we cannot save $200 billion. So I say, how much are we going to spend? How much are we going to spend? That $200 billion represents 4 percent of what we are going to spend. We cannot save 4 percent? Yes, we can. Yes, we can. I was elected on the slogan, in 1986, of ``Yes We Can.'' And somebody else used that slogan a few years later. President Obama used that slogan, ``Yes We Can.'' He called me up. He said: Do I owe you royalties? I said: No, I am glad you are using it. But, yes we can. We need more of a yes-we-can attitude around here. So when I rack it all up and I look at what we have already done, we have saved $1 trillion in the Budget Control Act of last year. Here is other mandatory savings I just talked about: more than $100 billion that we have already done to offset the cost of extending certain policies, $900 billion of other discretionary savings already done. So we put that in the bank. We use that as the base. We put it all together and here is what we have: We save another $200 billion on defense; we have revenue of $1.6 trillion, which is the President's proposal; we have $100 billion of nondefense. That gets us the $300 billion the Republicans have asked for. On health care we do $500 billion. That is close to what they have asked for, $100 billion less. Other mandatory, $200 billion; that is close to what they asked for. The $100 billion difference reflects what we have already done. Interest savings. Because we are spending less and we have more revenue, we save interest, $400 billion. That gives us a total of spending cuts of $1.4 trillion. We add in what has already been done $1.050 trillion, and we have a total of $2.450 trillion. We add that to the $1.6 trillion of revenue, we have $4.050 trillion of savings. Then I personally would extend the payroll tax holiday because CBO tells us, on the tax side, that holiday is the biggest bang for the buck in giving a lift to the economy. It will cost us $200 billion, for a net deficit reduction of $3.850 trillion. For those wondering what happens to AMT and what happens to the doc fix, we have those in the baseline so they are covered in this proposal. We can correct the alternative minimum tax. We can eliminate the doc fix and be done with them. This magnitude of package is precisely what was called for in the fiscal commission. In The Moment of Truth report, this is what they called for. I think they were right to call for it. I was proud to be part of that effort. I believe this is precisely what we need to do now. So that is the plan. Now we need action. We should do it the old- fashioned way. We should make tough decisions, even some that will be unpopular. It will be the right thing to do, and it will work. It will stabilize our debt and begin to bring it down. It will provide certainty to our economy. I believe it will unleash the $1.7 trillion that is in the balance sheets of our corporations, and it will unlock the investment potential that lies all across this country. Let me end as I began by simply saying thank you. Thank you to the people of North Dakota, thank you to my colleagues, thank you to my staff and, most of all, thanks to my family--to my wife Lucy, to my daughter Jessie, to our son Ivan and his wife Kendra, and to our grandson Carter. To all my family members, my cousins, who have been with me in every campaign, I will never forget your support and your help. I will always consider serving here the honor of my life. I also thank my colleague Senator Hoeven, who, in the 2 years he and I have overlapped, has been a good colleague. I have enjoyed working with him very much. I just close by noting, because as many of you know, I am sort of a numbers guy, that I started these remarks in the 12th hour of the 12th day of the 12th month of 2012. I am sure numerologists will make much of those relationships. I began this speech in the 12th hour of the 12th day of the 12th month of 2012, and I leave here forever grateful for the opportunity to serve.

Mr. CONRAD. I want to thank Senator Hoeven, my colleague, for his kind words. I have really enjoyed the relationship. I think you can tell we worked together very well, and I hope that serves as an example to others of our colleagues. Even if you are on other side of the political aisle, you can work together, and you can get things done. I also thank Senator Leahy, my dear friend. He and his wife are very close friends of mine and my wife's. To Senator Stabenow, the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and Senator Whitehouse, who served with me on the Budget Committee, I want to take special note of the friendships we have enjoyed. Senator Stabenow and Senator Whitehouse will be friends of ours for as long as we are on this Earth. I look forward to our continuing relationship with the Leahys, who, as I have indicated, have become very dear personal friends. In closing, to Senator Hoeven, the best part of service here is getting things done. And Senator Hoeven has come with that attitude to this Chamber--to get results for the people we represent--and I appreciate that attitude, and I appreciate the friendship. Finally, I say to the distinguished occupant of the chair, we have had a very good relationship as well. I thank him for his service and for this opportunity to have my farewell remarks before the Senate on this the 12th day of the 12th month of 2012. That is a remarkable set of coincidences. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my colleague, Senator Joe Lieberman, who will be leaving the Senate at the end of this term. Senator Lieberman's long career in public service began in the Connecticut State Senate, where he served for 10 years, including three terms as the majority leader. Joe then put his Yale law degree to good use as the attorney general for the State before winning his bid for the U.S. Senate in 1988. He has served in this esteemed body for 24 years, and I am grateful for his dedication and service to our country. Joe is a true patriot. As Senator, he has made ensuring the security and safety of our Nation his priority. He spearheaded the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 and has served honorably as the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. In this position, Senator Lieberman promoted a forward- thinking security strategy of preparing our military to respond to the unique security threats posed in the 21st century. In particular, he has worked to address cyber security issues and prepare our military to respond to evolving warfare tactics. Senator Lieberman has also worked to ensure that our Nation can stand strong in the face of natural disasters. In 2006, he worked with Senator Collins to make the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, more effective and responsive to communities suffering from the effects of natural disasters. He insisted that FEMA centralize and upgrade its information technology, IT, system to better respond to disasters and the needs of the public. Joe and I have worked together as members of the Anti-Meth Caucus to fight the methamphetamine epidemic. Senator Lieberman recognizes the threat drugs like methamphetamine pose to the security of our borders, the health of our citizens, and the economic prosperity of our Nation. I was proud to work with him on this important issue. In 2000, Senator Lieberman ran as the Vice Presidential candidate, becoming the first person of the Jewish faith to represent a major political party on a national ticket. Despite rising to the top of the ticket as a representative of the Democratic Party, Senator Lieberman has frequently demonstrated his willingness to work across the aisle to achieve his vision. I respect Joe's commitment to his personal convictions and his hard work on behalf of the people of Connecticut. I thank him for his service to our country and wish him all the best. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to and recognize the achievements of Senator Ben Nelson, who, like me, will be leaving the Senate at the end of this year. I consider Senator Nelson, who has represented Nebraska in the Senate since 2000, a friend and an excellent colleague. Senator Nelson has had a long and impressive career, spanning both the private sector as well as State and Federal Government service. After graduating from law school at the University of Nebraska, Senator Nelson spent roughly two decades working in the insurance industry, both as a legal practitioner and in leadership roles at the Central National Insurance Group, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, and the Nebraska Department of Insurance. It was upon this impressive background that Senator Nelson launched his career in public service when, in 1990, as a moderate Democrat, he was elected Governor of Nebraska. As a testament to his dedicated service and popularity, he was reelected to a second term in 1994 after garnering nearly three-quarters of the vote. Nebraskans then sent him to the U.S. Senate in 2000. Senator Nelson was reelected in 2006 in a landslide. Nebraska and my State of North Dakota share a great deal in common. Both States are populated by residents who value hard work and who possess an independent streak that places pragmatism above partisan politics. Senator Nelson is a product of his Nebraska roots--he brought those same characteristics to Washington and, as a direct result, was able to work across the aisle and within his party to benefit his State in ways more partisan legislators likely never could have done. Rural States such as ours also face unique challenges, particularly those involving the agriculture industry, which often go unnoticed by those who live in densely populated areas. I have worked closely with Senator Nelson over the years on farm legislation and know firsthand his passion for the industry and his drive to see family farmers succeed. Nebraskans should be very proud of Senator Nelson's hard work on the Agriculture, Appropriations, and Armed Services Committees. I will greatly miss having Senator Nelson as a colleague, but I also know that his wife Diane as well as his children and grandchildren will be excited to have him back home in Nebraska. My wife Lucy and I wish Ben and his family many happy years ahead. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. First, I thank my colleagues, Senator Reid, our leader, and Senator Durbin for their kind words. I very much appreciate those kind words. I also must say I am a little taken aback by what I heard earlier on the floor from some of my Republican colleagues because it truly does represent an attempt to rewrite history, the history I have lived in my 26 years in the Senate. I announced a little more than a year and a half ago that I would not seek reelection, so I don't have a political ox to gore. But I am here to report what I have seen after 26 years of service. Let me start by saying our Republican colleagues at the leadership level decided early on that their strategy to be successful was to stop things from passing in the Senate. It is very clear that has been their strategy. That is why we have seen more than 380 filibusters in this body, which is completely unprecedented in the history of the Senate. The Republican leader made it very clear years ago that his highest priority was to defeat for reelection President Obama. He did not say his top priority was to solve the problems of the country. He did not say his top priority was to get our economy back on track. He did not say his top priority was to address the deficits and debt of the Nation. He did not say his top priority was to improve the security position of the United States. He said his top priority was to defeat President Obama. Shame on him. That should never be the top priority of a leader in this body, Republican or Democratic. The top priority ought to be to help solve the problems the country confronts. I am a little cranky because many of my colleagues know my wife and I have a little dog named Dakota that is suffering from cancer. Last night we were up from 12:30 until 5:30 as he was bleeding internally. So I must say I am a little cranky after having been up most of the night, and I got a lot crankier when I heard colleagues say things they know are not true. When they say there is no budget for the United States, they know that is not true. How do I know it is not true, and that there is a budget? Because I remember what we voted on, and it is in writing. It is a law. It is called the Budget Control Act. The Budget Control Act passed last year and contained the budget for 2012 and 2013. Some say that is not a budget. Let's look to the language of the law itself and see what it says. Here is what it says: For the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including section 300 of that Act, and enforcing budgetary points of order in prior concurrent resolutions on the budget, the allocations, aggregates, and spending levels set shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget. What they are trying to do is mislead the American people by saying we have not passed a budget resolution. What they failed to tell people is that instead of a budget resolution, we passed a budget law. What is the difference? A resolution is purely a congressional document. It never goes to the President for his signature. So instead of a resolution, we passed a budget law called the Budget Control Act. It set out spending limits not just for 2012 and 2013, it actually set out on the discretionary side of the budget limits for 10 years. In fact, the Budget Control Act, in many ways, is more extensive than any budget resolution could provide. It has the force of law, unlike the budget resolution that is not signed by the President. It set discretionary caps on spending for 10 years instead of the 1 year normally set in a budget resolution. It provided enforcement mechanisms, including a 2-year provision allowing budget points of order to be enforced. It created a reconciliation-like supercommittee process to address entitlement and tax reforms. It said if the special committee could not agree on reforming the entitlement programs and the tax system of the United States, there would be an additional $1.2 trillion in spending cuts. Let's add it up. The Budget Control Act first cut $900 billion from the discretionary accounts over 10 years. Then it said if the supercommittee didn't reform the tax system and entitlement system of the country, there would be another $1.2 trillion cut from the discretionary accounts over the next 10 years. That is a total of $2.1 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years. That is the biggest package of spending cuts in the history of the United States. That is a fact. The Budget Control Act set the spending limits for 2012 and 2013 and further set limits for 8 years beyond that. So when they say there is no budget resolution, what they fail to tell people is there is a budget law. It is interesting if we compare and contrast what their side presented as their priorities in a budget because Mr. Ryan, their candidate for Vice President, came before the House of Representatives and laid out his budget blueprint. What does that do? First of all, it extends all the Bush-era tax cuts. Think about this. Here we have a circumstance in which the revenue of our country is at or near a 60-year low. The first thing the Ryan budget does is extend all the Bush-era tax cuts, even those for the very highest income. Then it says that is not enough for the wealthiest among us. So the Ryan budget, after extending all the Bush era-tax cuts, goes and provides another $1 trillion of tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. I have nothing against wealthy people. I hope all Americans have the opportunity to become wealthy; that would be my fondest hope. That was why I was drawn to public service. What could I do that would strengthen the economy of the United States? It has always been my top priority. It is what I truly believe is essential to our democracy. But in a circumstance in which we are borrowing 40 cents of every $1 we spend, and then to say the answer is more and more tax cuts for the very wealthiest among us and try to pay for it by shredding the social safety net that is critically important to those who are the least fortunate among us, frankly, I think that fails the moral test. I think that fails any moral test of government. The Ryan budget, which our colleagues have endorsed, would give, on average, those earning over $1 million a year an additional tax reduction of $265,000 a year. I know if I were listening to this I would say, How can it be that someone earning over $1 million can get a $265,000 tax cut, because that is about all they would pay in taxes. Remember, we are talking about the average for those earning over $1 million a year, so we are talking about not just people who earn $1 million a year but people who earn hundreds of millions of dollars a year. And the average tax cut provided in the Ryan budget for those folks is another $265,000 a year. What does Ryan do in order to offset that massive additional tax cut for the very wealthiest among us? Well, here is an interesting quote from a former top economic adviser to Ronald Reagan, a man named Bruce Bartlett, who was a top economic adviser to Ronald Reagan. Here is what he said about the Ryan budget that our colleagues here have endorsed: Distributionally, the Ryan plan is a monstrosity. The rich would receive huge tax cuts while the social safety net would be shredded to pay for them. Even as an opening bid to begin budget negotiations with the Democrats, the Ryan plan cannot be taken seriously. It is less of a wish list than a fairy tale utterly disconnected from the real world, backed up by make-believe numbers and unreasonable assumptions. Ryan's plan isn't even an act of courage; it's just pandering to the Tea Party. A real act of courage would have been for him to admit, as all serious budget analysts know, that revenues will have to rise well above 19 percent of GDP to stabilize the debt. Those are not my words. Those are the words of a top economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan. The Ryan plan is a monstrosity. If anybody seriously studies the Ryan budget they would have to conclude that Mr. Bartlett is correct, because Mr. Ryan cuts taxes in a very dramatic way for the richest among us. Let me be clear. The first thing he does is extend all the Bush-era tax cuts. Then, on top of that, he cuts the top rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. That provides over $1 trillion of additional tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. And they refuse to do anything to close the tax loopholes that are allowing certain wealthy people to avoid paying taxes in this country entirely. I have shown on the floor of the Senate many times a picture of a five-story building in the Cayman Islands called the Ugland House. The Ugland House claims to be the home of 18,000 companies. A little five- story building in the Cayman Islands claims to be the home of 18,000 companies. I say that is the most efficient building in the world. Can you imagine 18,000 companies operating out of a little five-story building down in the Cayman Islands? All those companies claim they are doing business out of that little building for a reason. They claim they are doing business out of that little building in the Cayman Islands because they don't want to pay taxes in the United States. So here is what they do, and it is very clever. Through paper manipulations, they show the profits of certain subsidiaries of their companies in the Cayman Islands rather than in the places where they actually earned the profits. Why would they do that? Because the Cayman Islands doesn't have a corporate income tax. So by showing their profits in the Cayman Islands, even though in truth they were never earned in the Cayman Islands--through accounting gimmicks they show their profits in the Cayman Islands and they aren't taxed. They avoid paying here what they legitimately owe here. What does that mean? That means all the rest of us get stuck paying for ourselves and them. I said earlier the Ryan budget fails the moral test, and it is not just my judgment that it fails the moral test. How can one justify cutting taxes dramatically for the wealthiest among us and then turn around and shred Medicare, which is what the Ryan budget did? The Ryan budget he initially proposed changed Medicare's finances over time so that instead of Medicare paying 75 percent of health care costs for seniors who are eligible, the Ryan budget, over time, would switch that so Medicare would pay 32 percent. To be clear, under the Ryan plan, we would wind up with a situation in which the majority of one's health care costs, if one is eligible for Medicare, would be paid by that person, not by Medicare. That is to make up for the massive tax cuts he gives the wealthiest among us. Here is what the Catholic bishops said. The Catholic bishops say the Ryan budget fails the moral test. I agree with the Catholic bishops. This is what they said in the Washington Post in 2012: A week after House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said that his Catholic faith inspired the Republicans' cost- cutting budget plan, the Nation's Catholic bishops reiterated their demand that the Federal budget protect the poor and said the GOP measure fails to meet these moral criteria. In any moral test that I know of in any religion, we don't take from those who have the least to give it to those who have the most. I don't know of any religion that practices that as an article of faith--that we take from those who have the least to give to those who have the most. Anybody who knows me knows I am pretty conservative. I come from a business family. I have a master's in business administration. Throughout my career, I have been someone who has been judged as fiscally conservative, someone who believes deeply in balancing budgets. I was the grandfather of the Bowles-Simpson Commission; served on it proudly. I was one of the 11 votes for its product--5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, 1 independent. By the way, when our colleagues said this morning we haven't worked in a bipartisan way--well, I have spent 5 years working in a bipartisan way trying to get our debts and deficit under control. Senator Gregg, the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, and I proposed the Bowles-Simpson Commission. We served on it. We voted for it. I subsequently served in the group of six, three Democrats, three Republicans, who were given the assignment by our colleagues to come up with a plan to reduce the deficit. We worked for a year and a half to try to find a bipartisan solution. We have had the Biden group. We have had the supercommittee, all bipartisan efforts that have gone on for years to try to produce an agreement. So my friends saying there hasn't been an effort, that is not true. What is true is when our friends on the other side were in charge, they brought this economy to the brink of financial collapse. That is the truth. Anybody who doubts it can simply go back to the end of the Bush administration and see where the country was. The stock market was collapsing. The housing market was collapsing. The financial system was collapsing. That is what President Obama inherited. He did not create those crises; he inherited them. At the time President Obama came into office, the economy was shrinking at a rate of almost 9 percent a year. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month. Now the economy is growing at a rate of about 2 percent a year, and we are gaining about 200,000 jobs a month. That is a dramatic turnaround. So when they ask the question: Are we better off now than 4 years ago? Undeniably, we are better off. Undeniably, we are better off. We have gone from an economy shrinking at a rate of more than 8 percent to one growing at a rate of 2 percent. We have moved from a time when we were losing 800,000 jobs a month to a time when we are gaining about 200,000 jobs a month. We have gone from a circumstance in which the stock market was plunging to a circumstance in which the stock market has about doubled during the time of President Barack Obama. President Obama inherited two wars, a war on terror, a financial system that was collapsing, a financial system that had seen, under the previous President, the debt double; foreign holdings of U.S. debt were tripling; and this President has ended the slide and has us going back in the right direction, and with precious little help from the other side. I ask the American people before they cast their votes to think back to the final days of the Bush administration. I will never forget as long as I live being called to an emergency meeting in this building with the Secretary of the Treasury of the Bush administration, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the leaders, Republicans and Democrats, in the House and the Senate, and being told by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Bush administration and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve that if they did not act, they expected a financial collapse within days--a financial collapse within days. Those were in the final months of the Bush administration. That is what President Barack Obama inherited. The hard fact is that when our colleagues were in charge of everything--they had the House, the Senate, and they controlled the White House--they brought this country to the brink of financial collapse. That is a fact. Thank goodness this President, acting with this Congress, was able to draw us back from the brink, but we have a long way to go. We have a long way to go. It is going to take everybody working together to pull us out of the ditch completely. I have been part of major efforts for the last 5 years--bipartisan efforts--including Bowles-Simpson, the group of six; right now the group of six has been expanded to the group of eight. We have been working nonstop, hundreds of hours of discussions, on a bipartisan plan--four Democrats, four Republicans--to be enacted when we return, to get America back on track. That is what is required here. What we saw this morning from our colleagues on the other side is not the answer; it is the problem. The same old tired political gamesmanship is not going to cut it. What we desperately need is Republicans and Democrats working together to solve America's problems. That is what we owe the American people. I very much hope when we return after this election that colleagues on both sides will be prepared to act in that spirit. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community in North Dakota that will celebrate its 100th anniversary next year. On July 4 through July 7, 2013, residents of Hazen will be celebrating their community's history and founding. Hazen has a rich Native American and settler's history, from the Mandan and Hidatsa tribes establishing horticultural villages to Lewis and Clark spending a winter in what is now Mercer County. Settlers began establishing the area after the Lewis and Clark expedition discovered the ``highway to the Northwest'', otherwise known as the Missouri River. Hazen was named for A.D. Hazen, who was Third Assistant Postmaster General in the summer of 1884. General Hazen served at Fort Stevenson, a military post on the north side of the Missouri River. Located in the Bakken oil formation, Hazen is part of North Dakota's thriving energy industry. The community supports investing and expanding the energy industry and also remains committed to a high quality of life for its residents. The city of Hazen has developed a well-rounded business district and a dedicated parks and recreation department, offering activities such as fishing, camping, and archery. The area offers many opportunities to enjoy North Dakota's natural beauty. Among the events planned for the centennial are a fireworks display, concerts, dinners, a glow-in-the-dark 5k run, and a fish fry. Hazen's celebration is sure to give attendees an all-around experience that is true to its roots, providing that unique hometown feel for which North Dakota is known. I ask the United States Senate to join me in congratulating Hazen, ND, and its residents on their 100th anniversary and in wishing them well in the future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have been listening to our colleague, the Senator from Georgia, who is one of the real gentlemen of this body. I listened to his warm words about his friend who has passed. Sometimes what people say about others is a better reflection on them than on who they are describing. In many ways, I thought that about what Senator Isakson was just saying because what he just said about his friend, any one of us in the Senate could say about him because he is a gentleman. I was very much moved by the words of my friend. We thank him for all he does to make this a better place. The Economy I have come to the floor on different business, which is to talk about the budget circumstance we are in and to try to answer the question we have heard asked in recent days: Are we better off now than we were 4 years ago? I believe the answer to that question is very clear. To answer the question we have to take ourselves back 4 years and remember the conditions we faced then. I will never forget as long as I live being called to an urgent meeting in the Capitol late one evening in September 2008. I was the last one to arrive. There were assembled the leaders of the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the Secretary of the Treasury of the Bush administration. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve quickly told us they were going to take over the giant insurer AIG the next morning. They weren't there to ask our approval or seek our support; they were there to tell us what they were doing. They told us if they did not do it, they believed we would have a financial collapse within days. This was September 2008. Barack Obama was not the President of the United States; George W. Bush was the President of the United States, and we were on the brink of financial collapse, according to the description of his own Secretary of the Treasury. Let's remember what the economy was doing in the fourth quarter of 2008. The economy was shrinking at a rate of over 8 percent. In fact, it was shrinking at a rate of almost 9 percent. In the first month of 2009, the last month of the Bush administration, we lost 800,000 jobs in 1 month. So when people ask if we are better off today than we were then, just as a factual matter there can be no dispute. We are dramatically better off today than we were 4 years ago. Four years ago we were on the brink of financial collapse. Four years ago the economy was shrinking at a rate of almost 9 percent, and we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. Those are facts. They cannot be disputed. Today we are growing, not as fast as we would like; jobs are being created, not as fast as we would like, but that is a dramatic improvement over 4 years ago. Let's remember the housing market was in crisis. Home building and sales were plummeting. There were record foreclosures. The financial market crisis threatened global economic collapse. That was 4 years ago. Anybody who wonders can go back and read the headlines. Those were grim days. I also remember as though it were yesterday being part of the group who was given a responsibility to negotiate the TARP--the Troubled Asset Relief Program. I remember being in this complex late on a Saturday night, again with the Secretary of the Treasury of the Bush administration, and him telling us if we did not come up with a solution by 5 o'clock Sunday night, the Asian markets would open and they would collapse, and our markets would open the next day and they would collapse. So when people ask if we are better off today than we were 4 years ago, as a factual matter there really is no question--none. We are dramatically better off. The other thing we should keep in mind is, what happens after a severe financial crisis such as the one we faced 4 years ago? Dr. Carmen Reinhart, from the Peter Peterson Institute for International Economics, and her husband, Dr. Vincent Reinhart of the American Enterprise Institute--which, by the way, is a pretty conservative place--have done an analysis, and here is what they found: After a severe financial crisis such as the one we suffered 4 years ago, economic recoveries are shallower and take much longer. Here is the quote from their analysis: 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 preceded the crisis. . . . That is what we had in 2008. Again, Barack Obama was not the President of the United States; George W. Bush was President of the United States, and we had a severe financial crisis. We were on the brink of financial collapse. It takes a long time to dig out from a disaster of that magnitude. Two of the most distinguished economists in the country--one of whom, by the way, advised John McCain in his most recent Presidential race, and the other who is Deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve--did an analysis of what would have happened without the Federal response, what would have happened in terms of jobs. Here is what they found: With a Federal response we got 8 million jobs we would not have had otherwise. In other words, if there had been no Federal response, the red line is what would have happened to jobs. The green line is what happened as a result of Federal action: 8 million fewer jobs lost than if there had been no Federal response. Again, this is work that was done by Alan Blinder, former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Mark Zandi, who was one of the economic advisers to John McCain in the last Presidential race. So when we go back to this question, are we better off now than we were 4 years ago, I think the answer is unequivocally, yes. We are dramatically better off than we were 4 years ago. Now, those people who are still unemployed don't feel better off. I understand that. That is dreadful, that is painful, and it is painful in every way. Not only does it hurt in the pocketbook, but much more than that: It hurts the way people feel about themselves. It hurts the way people feel about their role in their families. So we have lots of work to do, but if we are going to be honest with people about comparing where we are today and where we were 4 years ago, there really can be no serious question about the answer to that question. This chart shows the economy in the fourth quarter of 2008--that is the last quarter of the Bush administration--was shrinking at a rate of almost 9 percent. Now the economy is growing at a rate of 1.7 percent, for the most recent quarter. Is that good? No. Would we like it to be stronger? Absolutely. But is this better than almost any other developed country in the world? Yes. The Eurozone is in recession. Their economies are shrinking. Japan is not doing as well as we are doing. So when we look around the world and compare ourselves, the answer by comparison is we are doing remarkably well given the depth of the financial crisis we experienced. Not only is it true in economic growth, it is true in terms of private sector jobs. Again, in the last month of the Bush administration, this economy lost over 800,000 jobs--in 1 month. In the most recent month in the United States, we gained 103,000 private sector jobs. That is a turnaround of over 900,000 jobs in a month. That is a dramatic improvement. And if we look at the stock market, we can answer that question as well. Are we better off now than we were 4 years ago? Well, this chart shows the stock market. In March of 2009, it hit its low of 6547--the low during this period. Look where it is today. More than double what it was 4 years ago. So, again, if we are seriously asking the question, Are we better off than we were 4 years ago? In terms of economic growth? Yes. In terms of job creation? Yes. In terms of the stock market? Yes. In terms of economic performance? Yes. I have also heard my colleagues on the other side say at the convention just concluded that there has been no budget here for 3 years. Well, there has been no budget resolution. But there is a budget law that was passed called the Budget Control Act. And a law is much stronger than any resolution. A resolution is purely a congressional document. It never goes to the President for his signature. A law, obviously, has to go to the President for his signature. So when they say there has been no budget passed, there has been no budget resolution passed, but, instead, Congress passed the Budget Control Act. Look what it said in the Budget Control Act: . . . 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 for fiscal year 2012. . . . That same language is repeated in the next paragraph: . . . the allocations, aggregates, and levels set in subsection (b)(2) shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013. . . . I say to you, a budget is a limitation on spending. The Budget Control Act contained very clear limitations on spending for 2012 and 2013. So when our friends say there has been no budget passed by this body, oh, yes, there has. There has been a budget passed for 2012, and one for 2013. Instead of a resolution, it was done in a law. What we do not have is a long-term plan, a 10-year plan. That is what we need. But it is pretty clear both sides are not ready yet, and perhaps will not be until we have had this election, to sit down and agree to the kind of 10-year plan we so desperately need. The Budget Control Act represented the largest deficit reduction package in the history of the United States. How can that be? Well, because it contained $900 billion in discretionary savings over 10 years, and it included the so-called sequester that we hear so much about that added another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts over the next 10 years, for a total of $2.1 trillion in spending cuts. That is the largest deficit reduction package we have ever passed. So, again, when people say there is no budget, there has been no action taken, it is not accurate. The Budget Control Act operates in the same way as a budget resolution, and it is a law, not a resolution that is purely a congressional document that never goes to the President. The Budget Control Act passed both Houses of Congress, went to the President for his signature, and cut $2.1 trillion in spending. People may not like it. There are a lot of things I do not like about it--certainly the sequester. I think we ought to find alternative savings for it. But the fact is, this is now law, and it cut $2.1 trillion. That still leaves us with the problem that we are borrowing 40 cents of every $1 we spend, and that cannot be permitted to continue. So we have to add a package on top of the Budget Control Act. We have to do more. I would prefer, strongly, to do another at least $3 trillion. I tried to convince the Bowles-Simpson Commission to do a package of $5 trillion of deficit reduction. Actually, I tried to persuade them to do a package of $5.6 trillion of deficit reduction because we can balance the budget if we would do a package that large. The people who were on that commission will tell you I tried repeatedly to convince my colleagues to go big, let's do a package that really balanced the budget. And we could do it. It is not that hard. I think people sometimes get it in their head this is some impossible task. I told them, let's talk about a 6-percent solution. If we would do 6 percent more revenue than current law provides and 6 percent less spending, we would save $6 trillion over 10 years and balance the budget. I actually would argue for more weighting on the spending cut side of the ledger than on the revenue side. But I do this for illustrative purposes, to indicate we cannot do 6 percent? Come on. We cannot do 6 percent? Sure we can. The occupant of the chair, the Governor of West Virginia in his previous life in politics, I will tell you, he did not have any trouble making tough decisions, and I will bet you he reduced spending a lot more than 6 percent. He survived. He is here. He is respected. We can do this. Hey, we have done much tougher things than this in the past. I hope colleagues think about this carefully. This next chart is so important because it looks at the spending and the revenue lines of the Federal Government going back to 1950. This is 60 years of our economic history on one little chart. The red line is the spending line. The green line is the revenue line. And look what it shows. We got to, in 2010, an all-time high in spending for the last 60 years, taking out the effect of inflation, so you have an even-steven comparison over that 60-year period. And we were at a 60-year high in spending--not surprising given the dimensions of the financial crisis we faced. But at the same time, we were at a 60-year low in revenue. When you have record spending and record low revenue, you have record deficits and record additions to the debt. That is exactly what was happening to us. We have seen some improvement in the last few years. Spending is down as a share of GDP. Revenue is up a little bit. We still have a big chasm. In the midst of all this comes Representative Ryan and his plan. I would say to those who might be attracted to his plan: Be careful what you wish for--be careful what you wish for--because, first of all, the Ryan plan does not balance the budget, if ever, until 2040, and it only balances in 2040 because of certain assumptions he told the Congressional Budget Office to make about his plan and the revenue contained in it. I personally do not think it ever balances. I do not believe it ever balances. It is absolutely an unbalanced plan. All of the deficit reduction is on the spending side. He actually digs the revenue hole much deeper, extends all the Bush era tax cuts, and then adds hundreds of billions of dollars of more tax cuts, primarily to the most fortunate among us. There is $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest. He gives those with an income of over $1 million an average tax cut of $265,000 a year. Somebody is sitting out there saying: How is that possible? A person earning $1 million a year probably does not pay much more than $265,000. How can they, on average, be getting a $265,000 tax cut? Remember, this is the average for everybody over $1 million, so this includes people making $1 billion a year. And there are a fortunate few who make $1 billion a year. So if you take everybody over $1 million, and you average the tax cut they get under the Ryan plan, it is over $265,000 a year. He has $2.9 trillion in health care cuts. So first of all, he extends all the Bush era tax cuts. Then he adds hundreds of billions more of tax cuts for those who are the most fortunate. And to start to make up for it, he has $2.9 trillion in health care cuts--not million, not billion: trillion. He repeals health care reform. He shifts Medicare to vouchers. And he block-grants Medicaid and cuts Medicaid drastically. Who benefits from Medicaid? Well, low-income people, disabled people, but also a lot of middle-income people in this country benefit from Medicaid because their folks are in nursing homes and they have spent down their assets, and the only way they can stay in the nursing home is that Medicaid picks up the tab. There are hundreds of thousands of families in America, middle-class families, who have benefited from Medicaid because that is what has paid the nursing home bills for their relatives--their mom, their dad, their grandpa, their grandma. That is the truth. The Ryan budget also dramatically cuts the safety net for seniors, the children, the disabled. It increases the uninsured by more than 30 million people. It is going to increase the number of uninsured by 30 million. Well, if you are not uninsured, why should you care? I will tell you why you should care. Because if they are not paid for by insurance, they are going to be paid for by all the rest of us. Because the hard reality of how the health care system works in America is this: If you are in a car accident and you do not have insurance and you are taken to the hospital, you are treated. If you do not have insurance to pay for it, and you do not have resources to pay for it, guess who pays for it. All the rest of us pay for it. That is why it is absolutely in our interest to have as many people insured as is possible. It is not just a nice thing to do; it is a smart thing to do. Because one of the things we have found out is that about a third of the people who do not have insurance can afford it. They can afford it. They just choose not to have it because they know if something drastic happens to them, all the rest of us are going to pay. There are also large cuts in the Ryan budget for education, for energy, for infrastructure--building roads, bridges, highways, and the rest. Those things undermine the engines of economic growth. So I do not think that is the way to go. When we look at the Ryan budget plan on revenue, here is what we find. It provides $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. It gives millionaires an average tax cut of more than $265,000 a year. It does not contribute one dime of revenue to deficit reduction. And the revenues reach 18.7 percent of GDP by 2022. Now why does that matter? Because the last four times we have balanced, the revenue of the country has been 19.6 percent, 19.7 percent, 19.8 percent, 20.6 percent. So, hey, if we are going to be serious about belling this cat, we are going to have to cut spending, we are going to have to reform the entitlements, we are also going to have to raise some revenue, hopefully not in a way that hurts economic growth, because we think we have found ways of doing it. But the Ryan tax plan, I have to say, I do not think adds up. Why don't I believe it adds up? Well, let's look at what he proposes. First of all, he says we should reduce individual tax rates to just two--one at 10 percent and one at 25 percent. Right now, the top rate is 35 percent. If you reduce that rate to 25 percent, and you have only one other rate of 10 percent, that package costs $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years. So instead of filling in the hole, you are digging the hole deeper. Then he puts the top corporate rate at 25 percent. Again, that is a significant reduction from the top corporate rate today. That costs another $1 trillion. Then he repeals the alternative minimum tax. That costs another $670 billion. Then he repeals all the tax levies in the health care reform. That costs another $350 billion. Then he allows the stimulus provisions to expire from the Recovery Act, which raises $210 billion. Before he starts filling in the hole, he has dug the hole deeper by almost $4\1/2\ trillion, and he says he is going to offset all of that with individual base broadening and corporate base broadening. We are spending about $1.2 trillion a year in tax expenditures. Over 10 years that is about $15 trillion with inflation. So we could come up with this $4\1/2\ trillion, but what would we have to do in order to do it? Almost every objective observer has said we would have to raise taxes on the middle class--because he says this is going to be somehow, in the Romney plan, revenue neutral. I do not know that the Ryan plan ever claimed to be revenue neutral. But if we are going to pay for this, how are we going to do it, which of the exemptions and the exclusions? Are we going to reduce the mortgage interest exemption? Are we going to reduce the health care tax exclusion? Because those two affect middle-class people. Let's be honest. Let's be straight. So there is no way Congressman Ryan's plan does all the things he claims for it without raising taxes on the middle class. When he gets to a revenue level of 18.7 percent and says that is the historic average, that is true. The problem with that is we have never balanced the budget, going back to 1969, with that amount of revenue. The five times we have balanced since 1969--that is 43 years ago-- revenues have been at 19.7, 19.9, 19.8, 20.6, 19.5. So just getting back to the historic average, I do not think it is going to be enough. If we are looking at what it has taken to actually balance the budget in our history, we can see we have to be very close to 20 percent. By the way, these levels of revenue were before the baby boom generation, and the baby boom generation, that is not a forecast. That is not a prediction. Those people have been born. They are alive today. They are going to be eligible for Social Security and Medicare. If we are going to be honest with ourselves, honest with the American people, I do not think what Congressman Ryan is talking about adds up. If we look at his budget on health care, we see $2.9 trillion in health care cuts. As I indicated, he repeals health care reform. I hear a lot--I hear it in my State: Let's repeal health care reform. Why not? Because the Congressional Budget Office tells us if we repeal it we add over $1 trillion to the debt. We add over $1 trillion to the debt, we deny coverage to 30 million people who would otherwise have it. His plan also ends the effort to promote quality over quantity of care, reopens the prescription drug doughnut hole that raises costs to seniors by $4,200, allows insurance companies to drop coverage when we get sick. It ends the provision allowing young adults to stay on their parents' plan until the age of 26. It shifts Medicare to vouchers in 2023 and includes, after that, an aggressive cap on payments that most analysts have said would dramatically increase what Medicare beneficiaries would have to pay for their own health care. Currently, Medicare pays 75 percent of the cost. The beneficiary pays 25 percent. If the Ryan plan were adopted, the original Ryan plan--he has subsequently put out other plans. But his original plan would have stood that on its head. He would have Medicare beneficiaries paying the substantial majority of the cost. Instead of Medicare beneficiaries paying 25 percent, he would have them paying 68 percent of the cost-- Medicare beneficiaries. I have a brother who is gravely ill in the hospital, Medicare eligible. I can tell you, he is getting phenomenal care--very costly. I would say it would break our family. If we had to pay 68 percent of the cost instead of 25 percent, it would break our family. We are a middle- class family. I am talking about the extended family. These things have real consequences. Anybody who thinks these are just political statements and they do not affect people's lives, oh, yes, they do. They have a profound effect on people's lives. The Ryan plan block grants Medicaid, shifts the cost to seniors, children, disabled, and States. I do not think that is the path America has in mind. I like Paul Ryan. I agree with him that we are on an unsustainable course. I was on the Bowles-Simpson Commission with him. But unlike him, I was one of the 11 who supported the recommendations of Bowles-Simpson. Of the 11 of us who did, 5 are Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 1 Independent. That is about as bipartisan as we can get. There were 18 Commissioners. We had to get 14 to get the recommendations to a vote in the Congress. We got 11. That is 60 percent of the membership who voted yes; five Democrats, five Republicans, one Independent. Paul Ryan was part of Bowles- Simpson. He voted no because it was not just the way he wanted it. It was not just the way I wanted it either. I hated things on almost every page of that report. But as I told my staff, the only thing worse than being for it would be being against it because it would have gotten us back on track. It would have lowered our deficit and debt by $4 trillion and have done it with revenue and spending cuts and reform of entitlements, maybe not as much on any one of those areas as I would do, but it would have made a profound difference in the economic future of this country. Perhaps the most striking thing to me in all the speeches at the Republican convention was the claim by Congressman Ryan and the attack on President Obama for supporting $716 billion in Medicare savings. Why was I so taken aback by that? Because I have read Congressman Ryan's own budget. His budget has precisely that same level of Medicare savings that he now politically attacks President Barack Obama for supporting. Did you see what former President Clinton said? He said that takes real brass, to attack somebody for something you have done. Congressman Ryan, when you give a speech, make your speech before tens of millions of people listening and you attack the President for supporting $716 billion in Medicare savings and you have the exact same savings in your budget, shame on you. Shame on you. The Catholic bishops reviewed the Ryan budget. Here is what they said. They said it fails the moral test. These are Catholic bishops in America. Look, they have issues with the President too. I understand that, but this is what they said about the Ryan budget. They said: It fails the moral test. The Nation's Catholic bishops reiterated their demand that the Federal budget protect the poor and said the GOP measure fails to meet these moral criteria. I think they got that right. Here is what a former Reagan economic adviser said about the Ryan budget. This is Bruce Bartlett, former Reagan administration economic adviser. This is what he said about the Ryan budget. Again, this is a former President Reagan economic adviser. Here is what he said about the Ryan budget: Distributionally, the Ryan plan is a monstrosity. The rich would receive huge tax cuts while the social safety net would be shredded to pay for them. Even as an opening bid to begin budget negotiations with the Democrats, the Ryan plan cannot be taken seriously. It is less of a wish list than a fairy tale utterly disconnected from the real world, backed up by make-believe numbers and unreasonable assumptions. Ryan's plan isn't even an act of courage; it's just pandering to the Tea Party. A real act of courage would have been for him to admit, as all serious budget analysts know, that revenues will have to rise well above 19 percent of GDP to stabilize the debt. Mr. Bartlett, I do not know the man. He is telling the truth. He is telling the truth, as painful as it is. He is telling the truth. When we go to the question of are we better off than we were 4 years ago, let's remember where we were 4 years ago. We were on the brink of financial collapse. Republican policies led the United States to the brink of financial collapse. They cannot rewrite history. We know what happened. We tried their experiment. It did not work. Now things have improved, not as much as we would like, and there is much more work to be done. But I trust in the judgment of the American people. I do not think they have forgotten. I certainly have not forgotten. I will never forget where their policies took us in the fall of 2008. We were on the brink of financial collapse. Let's not repeat that failed experiment. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, through the Chair, I would say to my colleague, I do have a matter that is a parliamentary inquiry that is a matter that is important for us to resolve. I do not want to intrude on the Senator's time.

Mr. CONRAD. No more than 4 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I come to the floor today to clear up some confusion with respect to the Budget Control Act of 2011. Some have suggested that the Budget Control Act indirectly authorized the Senate to use a fast-track process to modify the across-the-board cuts scheduled to go into effect next year due to failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. Madam President, if that claim were true, it would result in a fundamental change in Senate procedures and prerogatives. However, it is clear in looking at both the statutory language and Congress's intent in passing the Budget Control Act that this claim is completely without merit. First, let's look at what the law actually says. The key provision at issue is section 258A of the Deficit Control Act of 1985. Section 258A would allow the majority leader to introduce a joint resolution to modify or provide an alternative to a sequestration order--and I quote--``issued under Section 254.'' That joint resolution could not be filibustered and would pass the Senate with a simple majority vote. The sequestration orders under section 254 were put in place two decades ago to enforce deficit targets and discretionary spending limits that have long since expired. A sequestration order under the Budget Control Act is not an order issued under section 254. The Budget Control Act created a new sequestration process under a completely different section of the law: section 251A. Section 251A explicitly authorized a new set of Presidential sequestration orders in fiscal year 2013 for both discretionary and direct spending, and did so without any reference at all to the old section 258A procedures. The statutory language is clear, therefore, that these old procedures do not apply to sequestration under the Budget Control Act.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. I think it is an important decision to get affirmed publicly so that we might proceed and not be engaged in distractions. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.