Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Collins, as we introduce the REAP Reauthorization Act of 2011. Nearly one-third of America's public schools are in rural places, and 23 percent of our students attend these schools. Unfortunately, the unique nature of rural schools creates significant challenges as they work to meet federal education requirements. Geographic isolation, diseconomies of scale, and poverty are some the challenges commonly cited as major barriers to education delivery in rural places. Unfortunately, Federal education funding programs--which are often based on population--do not provide adequate resources for rural schools to overcome these obstacles and meet programmatic requirements. Additionally, rural school districts often forgo federal education dollars because they lack the capacity to apply for competitive grants. Senator Collins and I began working together a decade ago to ensure equity for rural schools. With bipartisan support, we successfully fought to include the original Rural Education Achievement Program-- otherwise known as REAP--in the No Child Left Behind Act. To date, REAP is the only source of federal funding dedicated to helping rural school districts overcome financial inequality caused by geographic isolation and poverty. REAP dollars make a critical difference in rural States like North Dakota, where schools with graduating classes of five try to enact the same education reforms and provide ash same opportunities as those provided by schools with graduating classes of 500. Since its creation, REAP has provided rural schools with flexibility and over $1.5 billion to carry out Federal education programs. With the pending reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we are reintroducing our REAP Reauthorization Act in the 112th Congress. The REAP Reauthorization Act makes improvements to the Rural Education Achievement Program that will more closely target Federal resources to geographically isolated and high-poverty rural districts. The program-wide changes made in this bill will provide many districts with access to necessary resources by allowing eligible districts that do not receive funds under the Small Rural Schools Program to participate in the Rural Low Income Schools Program. Our bill also incorporates new locale codes to make the program consistent with those developed by the National Center for Education Statistics. Additionally, the bill makes program-specific improvements to the Small, Rural School Achievement Program to increase minimum and maximum grant allocations when REAP is funded at $200 million or above. Lastly, our REAP Reauthorization proposal incorporates a more accurate measurement of poverty to determine eligibility for the Rural and Low- Income Schools Program. With these changes, more school districts and students in rural America will benefit from REAP resources. I am pleased that Senator Collins is joining me again this year as an original cosponsor of this bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Collins, as we introduce the REAP Reauthorization Act of 2011. Nearly one-third of America's public schools are in rural places, and 23 percent of our students attend these schools. Unfortunately, the unique nature of rural schools creates significant challenges as they work to meet federal education requirements. Geographic isolation, diseconomies of scale, and poverty are some the challenges commonly cited as major barriers to education delivery in rural places. Unfortunately, Federal education funding programs--which are often based on population--do not provide adequate resources for rural schools to overcome these obstacles and meet programmatic requirements. Additionally, rural school districts often forgo federal education dollars because they lack the capacity to apply for competitive grants. Senator Collins and I began working together a decade ago to ensure equity for rural schools. With bipartisan support, we successfully fought to include the original Rural Education Achievement Program-- otherwise known as REAP--in the No Child Left Behind Act. To date, REAP is the only source of federal funding dedicated to helping rural school districts overcome financial inequality caused by geographic isolation and poverty. REAP dollars make a critical difference in rural States like North Dakota, where schools with graduating classes of five try to enact the same education reforms and provide ash same opportunities as those provided by schools with graduating classes of 500. Since its creation, REAP has provided rural schools with flexibility and over $1.5 billion to carry out Federal education programs. With the pending reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we are reintroducing our REAP Reauthorization Act in the 112th Congress. The REAP Reauthorization Act makes improvements to the Rural Education Achievement Program that will more closely target Federal resources to geographically isolated and high-poverty rural districts. The program-wide changes made in this bill will provide many districts with access to necessary resources by allowing eligible districts that do not receive funds under the Small Rural Schools Program to participate in the Rural Low Income Schools Program. Our bill also incorporates new locale codes to make the program consistent with those developed by the National Center for Education Statistics. Additionally, the bill makes program-specific improvements to the Small, Rural School Achievement Program to increase minimum and maximum grant allocations when REAP is funded at $200 million or above. Lastly, our REAP Reauthorization proposal incorporates a more accurate measurement of poverty to determine eligibility for the Rural and Low- Income Schools Program. With these changes, more school districts and students in rural America will benefit from REAP resources. I am pleased that Senator Collins is joining me again this year as an original cosponsor of this bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to recognize the retirement this week of Robert A. Dennis, CBO's Assistant Director for Macroeconomic Analysis. Mr. Dennis is retiring after more than 30 years of service at CBO. He began his career at CBO in 1979, working as a Principal Analyst in CBO's Macroeconomic Division. He was promoted to the position of Deputy Assistant Director of the Division in 1988 and then to the position of Assistant Director of the Division in 1992, where he has served since. As the head of CBO's Macroeconomic Analysis Division, Mr. Dennis has been one of the leading economists at CBO and has helped drive the agency's outstanding work. His skills as an economist have been highlighted in the diverse issues he has worked on while at CBO, ranging from macroeconomic effects of tax policy, to the impact of flu epidemics and terrorist disruptions at U.S. ports. Mr. Dennis has also played a critical role at CBO by developing many of the procedures the Macroeconomic Analysis Division has used to prepare its economic forecasts. He even wrote the computer software that the division used for many years to analyze current economic developments and prepare charts for CBO publications. Mr. Dennis's excellent work has been recognized throughout his career. In the 1980s, as a principal analyst, he received a CBO Director's Award for outstanding performance. And he has since received a number of awards recognizing his outstanding management at CBO. Mr. Dennis has exemplified CBO's high standard of professionalism, objectivity, and nonpartisanship. He has worked tirelessly to ensure Congress was given accurate and timely information on the key policy issues of the day. I thank Robert Dennis and commend him for his many years of dedicated, faithful, and outstanding service to CBO, to Congress, and to the American people. I wish him all the best in his well-deserved retirement.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rules of the Committee on the Budget for the 112th Congress be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 311 of S. Con. Res. 70, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009. Mr. President, the amendment will significantly worsen the deficit--a fact confirmed by the CBO in a letter to Speaker Boehner on January 6. The CBO letter says clearly they estimate that enacting the health care law repeal would increase Federal deficits in the decade after 2019 by an amount that is in the broad range around one-half percent of GDP for that period. The GDP for that period is $293 trillion. Mr. President, one-half of 1 percent is an increase in the deficit and debt of this country of more than $1.4 trillion. We have heard colleagues on all sides say we have to get our deficits and debt under control. Yet one of the first measures is to explode the deficits and debt, add $1.4 trillion to the debt. That is not just irresponsible, it is reckless. I urge my colleagues to support the budget point of order.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is the Statement of Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation for H.R. 847, as amended. Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 847 for the 5-year Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: net decrease in the deficit of $101 million. Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 847 for the 10-year Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: net decrease in the deficit of $443 million. Also submitted for the Record as part of this statement is a table prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, which provides additional information on the budgetary effects of this Act, as follows:

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleague, Senator Byron Dorgan. This is his last day voting in the Senate. He is retiring after serving the people of North Dakota in the Congress, the House, and Senate, for 30 years. But Byron's record in North Dakota goes even beyond that--another 12 years in State office, so a total of 42 years of serving the people of North Dakota. I want to first say I am not objective when it comes to Byron Dorgan because he is my best friend. We have been friends and allies for all of those 42 years. In 1968 I was running a campaign to lower the voting age in North Dakota and first met Byron Dorgan, a young tax commissioner--very young, in his twenties, appointed after the previous tax commissioner took his life. Byron had extraordinary responsibility thrust on him at a very young age, the youngest statewide official in our State's history. Byron disposed of those responsibilities with real distinction, becoming recognized as the most influential State leader, even more influential than the Governor of the State, by a major publication in North Dakota. I met Byron Dorgan in that year and was so struck by his ability, his charisma, and his vision for our State and our Nation that I thought: This is somebody I want to work with in my career. We started a friendship that has lasted to this day. In 1970 I was helping run the reelection campaign of Senator Quentin Burdick, who served in this Chamber for more than 30 years. I got to know Byron even better then. In fact, my wife and I spent time with him and his wife. In the years that followed we became very close friends. In 1974, when I got back from business school, Byron called me and asked me to come to his office. I did the day after I returned home. We took a walk around the Capitol Grounds of the State of North Dakota and he talked to me about what he saw as the future--the future of our State, things that were happening in the country that needed to be addressed, and how the two of us might, working together, change that future and make a difference. I agreed that day to be his campaign manager for the House of Representatives. In that campaign, Earl Pomeroy, now North Dakota's lone Congressman, was the driver. I was the campaign manager. Byron is always quick to point out it was the only election he ever lost. He always said it was the fault of the campaign manager. I always said it was the fault of the driver. And Earl always believed we would have won if only he had been the candidate. Those were incredible days. I remember so well that campaign, the three of us--we bonded in a way that I think is very rare in politics and served together in a way that is unusual. There was never the kind of competition that often exists between Members. But there was always a keen friendship and a real partnership. We were allies, fighting for North Dakota, fighting to change the country, deeply committed to each other and to our State. After that campaign Byron asked me to be his assistant. Weeks later he hired Lucy Calautti. Lucy, years later, became my wife, so I have always credited Byron with bringing us together. We were also joined by my college roommate who became another assistant to then tax commissioner Byron Dorgan, a young man named Jim Lang, a very dear friend of mine, an absolute genius, and the four of us worked to build the Democratic Party in North Dakota and to change the political landscape. Those were incredible times. We fought great battles for a coal severance tax in North Dakota, for an oil severance tax, things that helped build the financial base for our State. In 1980, Byron announced that he would seek North Dakota's lone seat in the House of Representatives. I ran to succeed him as tax commissioner. Lucy, who by then was somebody for whom I had great respect, was his campaign manager in that race for the House of Representatives. Byron was successful, and I was successful in a year in which no other Democrats were successful in our State. We then had a period of time, 6 years, before the Senate race in which Byron was in Washington, I was in North Dakota, and we campaigned together day after day, weekend after weekend, month after month, all across North Dakota, building a movement, a movement that resulted in my running for the Senate in 1986. It was really Byron's turn. He could have chosen to run, but he decided not to, and so I did, in a race that many thought was impossible for me to win. I started out more than 30 points behind the incumbent. He had over $1 million in the bank. When I got into the race, I think I had $126. But Byron Dorgan was my ally in that race every step of the way. I think very few others would have done what he did for me. I think very few other Members of the House of Representatives, having someone else leapfrog them to come to the Senate, would have put themselves on the line as much as Byron Dorgan did for me in that Senate race in 1986. But he was with me in every corner of the State fighting tooth and nail, an uphill battle in which, as I said, I started out 38 points behind. But on election day, I won a very narrow victory, winning by about 2,000 votes over an incumbent who had won his previous race with over 70 percent of the vote and a man who really looked like a U.S. Senator, Mark Andrews--6 feet 5 inches, booming voice, white mane of hair, very powerful speaker. Yet I was able to win that race in a squeaker, and I never could have without Byron's extraordinary assistance and support. For a period of time that I was in the Senate, he was in the House, and then in 1992 I announced I would not seek reelection to my seat because I made a pledge in that 1986 campaign, and the pledge I made was that I would not run for reelection unless the deficit was dramatically reduced. If you have reviewed 1992, you know the deficit was at a record level. After the first Bush administration, deficits were at record levels. So I announced I would not seek reelection, in keeping with my pledge. Byron Dorgan announced for my seat, and there was Lucy helping to run Byron's campaign for what was my seat in the Senate--a remarkable time in our lives. Then later that year, Senator Burdick, the other Senator from North Dakota, died. The Governor called me and said: Kent, you have to run to fill out the 2 years of his term; otherwise, North Dakota is going to lose all its seniority in one fell swoop, lose all of Senator Burdick's more than 30 years of seniority. We are going to lose Byron's 12 years of seniority in the House because he is running for your seat in the Senate, and we will lose your 6 years of seniority if you do not run to fill the term of Senator Burdick. I have always remembered that the media in North Dakota took a poll on whether I should run to fill the 2 years of Senator Burdick's term, and even an overwhelming majority of Republicans thought I should run. So the Governor told me there would be a special election after the regular elections in November. He said: Look, you have kept your pledge. You did not run for reelection to your seat. Byron is running for election to your seat. You would be in a special election in December. So I agreed to run, and Byron and I were running simultaneous campaigns for the Senate in 1992, he for my seat in the regular election, and I was running for the special election in December. Once again, we crisscrossed North Dakota campaigning together, making our case, and both of us won very big victories in 1992. From that time period forward until today, Byron and I have served together representing the State of North Dakota--best friends. What a remarkable story. I can still remember one of the publications here on the Hill--I can't remember if it was The Hill or Roll Call--when the two Senators from Mississippi were fighting for the majority leader position, ran a cartoon that said: Why can't the two Senators from Mississippi be more like the Senators from North Dakota--friends forever. And Byron and I have been friends forever and will be friends forever. After the 1992 race, we both served North Dakota, and, unlike so many delegations, we did everything we could to support each other. I can't think of a time when there were ever angry words exchanged between Byron Dorgan and Earl Pomeroy and myself. It was what many people back home called Team North Dakota. And we have been a team, as close as you could be. During Byron's time in the Senate, he has been a fierce fighter for policies that benefit average people and also somebody very suspicious of corporate power. He passionately opposed what he thought were misguided trade policies that contributed to jobs moving overseas. He was one of a handful of Senators who warned against consolidation and the excessive risk that would result from repealing the barriers between commercial and investment banking. He warned at the time, in what has become a famous speech, that if we passed that legislation, we would face a financial crisis in the years ahead. That prediction looks prescient today in light of the financial collapse of 2008. He was a leader in fighting for farm policies to benefit family farmers and ranch families rather than corporate agriculture. In the midst of it all, he wrote two books: take this job and shove it--or ``Take This Job and Ship It'' and ``Reckless! How Debt, Deregulation, and Dark Money Nearly Bankrupted America.'' Most importantly, Byron Dorgan had a vision, an energy, and a persistence that has played a huge role in building the prosperity of our State. Robert Kennedy once said: ``There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?'' That is really the way Byron approached service to North Dakota. He did not see limits; he saw opportunity. He looked at our university system and technology industries and saw no reason they could not be built into the Red River Valley Research Corridor that could power the economy of eastern North Dakota. And he set about making it happen, and he has succeeded. He looked at our energy industry and saw no reason North Dakota could not be the energy powerhouse for the Nation. Through his position on the Energy Committee and the Energy and Water Subcommittee of Appropriations, he helped build North Dakota into one of the leading energy-producing States in the Nation. He looked at the growth of the knowledge industries and the Internet and saw no reason North Dakota could not be wired with the same 21st- century telecommunications infrastructure as the rest of the country. He used his position on the Commerce Committee to get that done as well. The results of his work can be seen in every corner of our State. Modern highways and air terminals, new and improved water infrastructure, a booming energy and agricultural economy, high-tech companies springing up everywhere across our State, the strongest economic growth in the Nation, the lowest unemployment rate in the Nation--by any measure, North Dakota is doing very well. Most of that, Byron will tell you, is because of the hard work and good judgment of the people of North Dakota. But among them, no one has worked harder or smarter on behalf of North Dakota than Senator Byron Dorgan. Let me close by saying that I do not know of a harder working or more productive person than Byron Dorgan. He produces extraordinary amounts of high-quality work. He is type A squared, but he never forgot his roots. Byron Dorgan grew up in Regent, ND, a town of 300. He often reminds us that he graduated in a class of nine and he was in the top five. He is proud of that background, he is proud of that heritage, he is proud of our State, he is proud of our Nation, and we are proud of him. I will miss Byron Dorgan's partnership here every day, but I know he will be with us because Byron Dorgan will never be far from the fray. Byron Dorgan has served this body well, served the Nation well, and served our State extraordinarily well. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) The Senator from Colorado.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. This is the Statement of Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation for H.R. 6517, as amended. Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 6517 for the 5-year Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: net decrease in the deficit of $2.208 billion. Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 6517 for the 10-year Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: net decrease in the deficit of $450 billion. Also submitted for the Record as part of this statement is a table prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, which provides additional information on the budgetary effects of this act, as follows:

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleague, Senator Jim Bunning. After 12 years in the U.S. Senate, Senator Bunning is retiring from this chamber at the end of this session. Jim has led a remarkable life. As a baseball fan, I am especially envious of his first career as a Major League pitcher. He was a classic, hard-nosed competitor, which foreshadowed his style as a public servant later in life. My favorite story about Senator Bunning's baseball career is that he was the only pitcher to strike out Ted Williams three times in a single game. He is also one of only seven pitchers to throw a perfect game and a no-hitter. Senator Bunning retired from the sport in 1971 with 2,855 career strikeouts, which, at the time, was the second highest total of all-time. He was rightfully inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1996. Following his outstanding baseball career, Jim went into politics. And, once again, he was a winner. He has held office at the local, State, and Federal level. After serving Kentucky's 4th District for 12 years in the House of Representatives, Senator Bunning began his service in this Chamber in 1999. I have served with him on the Budget and Finance committees, and have always known him to freely speak his mind and ask tough questions. He remained true to the fierce style he first demonstrated as a young pitcher who was not afraid to brush back a hitter. Nor was Senator Bunning intimidated by the often arcane and technical issues we confronted as members of the Finance Committee. Over the years we have served there as colleagues, we have worked productively on a wide range of legislative proposals that included the taxation of life insurance companies, shortening the depreciation period for farm equipment, and capital gains treatment for songwriters, just to name a few. He was always willing to reach across the aisle to help achieve a common objective a longstanding Finance Committee tradition. Senator Bunning will now enter a new phase in his life, and I am certain he will now have the luxury of spending time with his wonderful family. Jim has the good fortune of being married to his childhood sweetheart, Mary. They met in grade school, and I am impressed that Jim knew at such a young age that he found a truly special person. I find Mary to be an absolutely lovely woman and admire their lasting love for each other. Mary is the mother of their nine children, and Jim and Mary now share 40 grandchildren. I wish Jim, Mary, and their entire family many years of health and happiness.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in favor of the New START treaty and to do so strongly. First let me say I have been listening to Chairman Kerry and Senator Lugar discuss this treaty. I think they have been clear and compelling with respect to the arguments they have advanced. I think Senator Kerry has made abundantly clear why this treaty is entirely in the interests of the United States. This treaty simultaneously takes real steps toward reducing the number of nuclear arms in the world while also recognizing the important role these weapons play in our national defense. Above all else, I believe this treaty is stabilizing, which should be the goal of any action related to nuclear weapons. I currently serve as chairman of the Senate ICBM Coalition. North Dakota proudly hosts the only Air Force base in the country that has two nuclear missions. Minot Air Force Base houses both ICBMs and nuclear bombers. As a result, North Dakotans have a special appreciation for the awesome power of these weapons and their critical role in our national security. While most people approach the existence of these weapons purely from an academic standpoint, we in North Dakota are confronted with their reality on a daily basis. Still, we as North Dakotans are only observers. I assure my colleagues there is nothing more sobering than visiting a missile facility and talking with the young men and women who stand every day as the sentinels of our security, or talking with bomber pilots as they prepare to fly halfway around the world to patrol the skies for our protection, which I was fortunate to do this summer. Let me say parenthetically, these young people are extraordinary. We can be incredibly proud of the young men and women of our military. The quality of these young people is extraordinary. These brave men and women live the reality of nuclear deterrence and the stability and the security it brings to our Nation. As we approach this treaty, our first consideration must be its implications for our ability to maintain deterrence and stability and our overall national security. My colleagues on the ICBM Coalition and I watched closely throughout the negotiation of this treaty. We attended dozens of meetings and briefings to understand the impacts this treaty would have on our national security. I even visited Russia shortly after the treaty was presented to the world and met with many of their top military leadership. After careful and thorough analysis of this treaty, I can say with confidence that this treaty will strengthen our national security. I have no doubt about that fact. There is no question the treaty will reduce the number of launchers that deliver nuclear weapons. This treaty has real cuts to those forces--cuts that perhaps go even deeper than the ICBM Coalition initially would have liked. But after speaking at length with our military leaders, the men and women responsible for developing the plans for the use of these weapons, it is clear to me the numbers contained in this treaty remain sufficient to ensure the success of the nuclear deterrence mission. They tell me that while absolute numbers are important, there is no precise number that assures our security and enhances our nuclear stability. The bottom line is that we must maintain enough launchers to have a credible and secure deterrent that promotes stability in times of crisis. This treaty does that. It not only maintains our nuclear deterrent, but enshrines it for coming decades. Beyond protecting a sufficient, credible, nuclear deterrent, this treaty advances our national security in other ways as well. President Ronald Reagan famously said: ``Trust, but verify.'' However, for over a year, we have been unable to inspect Russia's weapons. That is not in our interests. It risks developments that harm our national security going undetected or even misunderstandings that could lead to a national security crisis. This treaty allows us to resume the extensive and intrusive inspections that began under the first START treaty signed by the first President Bush and ratified by this body on a vote of 93 to 6. This treaty also moves our nuclear security forward at a more advanced level. Although I doubt we can ever rid the world of all nuclear weapons, we are no longer in the midst of a nuclear arms race, and thank God for that. By signaling our commitment to reducing our nuclear arsenal while still maintaining a sufficient and credible deterrent, this treaty will advance our interests in halting nuclear proliferation. The single biggest threat to our Nation would be a terrorist organization with a nuclear weapon. This treaty will enhance our ability to deter the development of nuclear weapons by rogue states, and it will reduce the risk that nuclear arms races around the globe destabilize regions of the world or create opportunities for terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons. Many treaty opponents argue this treaty may weaken our national security. After closely reviewing their concerns and consulting with experts, I do not find their arguments persuasive. Let's look at those arguments in turn. First, some opponents greatly inflate the importance of a short phrase in the nonbinding preamble of the treaty to argue that it would somehow constrain our missile defense abilities. This ignores the remaining 17 pages of treaty text and 165 pages of protocol text. Let me say, I have long favored missile defense. I have at many times been in the minority on my own side on that question. If I believed this prevented our creating a stable and secure missile defense, I would not favor the treaty. This treaty doesn't do that. I think it is as clear as it can be. Other than limiting the conversion of existing ICBM launchers to missile defense interceptors, which our military leaders have already said would be more expensive than building new launchers--and more important, in my view--would degrade our ICBM capability, there are no restrictions on our missile defense--none. Others argue the treaty will restrict future conventional missile capabilities. That is simply not accurate. The treaty fully allows for the use of conventional missiles. We as a nation are free to unilaterally decide what conventional capability we want. We also hear that Russia's tactical weapons should be included in the treaty. I have also been one who has long favored restrictions on tactical nuclear weapons. While I recognize the importance of addressing that threat, a strategic arms treaty, by definition, is not the place to debate them. Never in history have tactical weapons been included in treaties aimed at strategic weapons. That hasn't stopped this Senate from ratifying those agreements, nor has it stopped them for serving our national security interests for decades. I am quick to recognize that tactical weapons, at some point, can become a strategic issue. The problem we confront is never before in the context of a strategic agreement have we included tactical systems. That is the reality. Frankly, I would very much like to have tactical weapons included in this treaty. That would be my preference. But that is not the reality of the history of these negotiations. Mr. President, some argue the number of total warheads goes too low. However, the treaty allows nearly twice as many warheads as launchers. More important, the number of total launchers available is a far more important deterrence for our national security than the number of warheads. This treaty shows the administration understands the critical need to maintain a sufficient number of launchers to assure continued nuclear stability. With that said, like many other military and civilian experts on our nuclear forces, I would be extremely wary of any efforts to further decrease the number of our launchers. I have argued repeatedly, as chairman of the ICBM caucus, against further reductions at this stage. I believe that is a prudent position. Finally, opponents argue that the administration has not committed to an investment in the modernization of our nuclear weapons and infrastructure. This argument completely ignores the dramatic increase in the modernization funding the President proposed in his budget. As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I can attest to the fact that this increase is unprecedented. This commitment ensures that the remaining launchers and warheads will be reliable and effective in the event we ever need to launch them. In short, the arguments advanced by those who claim this treaty would hurt our national security are not convincing. That is not just my conclusion; that is the conclusion of former Secretaries of Defense and former Secretaries of State from both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and previous administrations, as well as current and former military officers who have all publicly stated that this treaty will advance, not harm, our national security. Let me say I have two major Air Force bases in my State: Grand Forks Air Force Base and Minot Air Force Base. I spend a significant amount of time talking to our top Air Force leadership. I have consulted with them closely on this matter, as chairman of the ICBM caucus. I am absolutely persuaded by the best military thinking available to me that this treaty is entirely in the national security interests of the United States. I believe that is clear. Mr. President, I am proud of my record in the Senate on national security over the past 23 years, especially when it comes to our nuclear arsenal. For generations, the young men and women who have served at Minot and Grand Forks Air Force Bases have declared peace as their profession, as they defended the United States from global threats through nuclear deterrence. Though they may not be recognized as publicly today as they were 50 years ago, the airmen who stand guard at Minot remain at the vanguard of our Nation's most important military mission. I would never do anything to undermine the mission they carry out every day. After a careful review and discussions with our Nation's best nuclear experts, both those in uniform and those who do not wear the uniform, I am confident this treaty makes our Nation safer and more secure. Mr. President, I will strongly support approving this treaty, and I call on my colleagues to join me in that effort. I want to conclude as I began, by thanking the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on this matter. It is in the highest tradition of the United States Senate. Working together in a bipartisan--really nonpartisan--way, Senator Lugar and Senator Kerry have provided vital leadership to this body and this country. We are all very deeply in their debt. I express my gratitude to them both for the statesmanlike quality they have brought to this discussion and debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to honor a friend and colleague, Senator Bob Bennett, who will be moving on from the Senate after 18 years of service to the people of Utah. Bob has had a long and impressive career. Out of college, he served for several years in the Utah National Guard and worked as a congressional liaison for the Department of Transportation. Turning next to the private sector, he worked for 20 years in public relations and later in the technology field. He put that experience to good use once elected to the Senate, using his high-tech know-how to chair the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, serve on the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force, and work on issues from broadband infrastructure development to cyber security. Utah and North Dakota have many things in common. Both are largely rural States with unique needs that often go unrecognized by those who live in densely-populated areas. Senator Bennett should be proud that he has been a vocal and consistent supporter of funding for Utah's farmers and ranchers, veterans, rural health care institutions, military installations, and roads, highways, and mass-transit infrastructure. I know that Utah has many reasons to be grateful for what Bob Bennett's hard work on the Appropriations Committee has brought to the State over the years. During his time here, Senator Bennett and I have worked closely on a number of important issues, especially those related to our national defense. As an important member of the Senate ICBM Coalition, Senator Bennett has worked with me to ensure that our Nation preserves both its fleet of Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles and the infrastructure required to keep them operational for years into the future. Senator Bennett is also a member of the Senate Tanker Caucus, which has vocally and consistently pushed for the Department of Defense to quickly and fairly select and procure a next-generation aerial refueling tanker to replace the aging KC-135. His advocacy on this issue has been key in the work of the caucus. Finally, of course, and I think most importantly to Bob, he is a dedicated and outstanding family man. Though I know he will be missed here in the Senate, the new time he will have to spend with his wife Joyce and his six children will certainly be counted among his many blessings. My wife Lucy and I wish Bob and his family many happy years ahead. Evan Bayh Mr. President, I rise today to honor my colleague from Indiana, Senator Evan Bayh, who is retiring from the Senate. Senator Bayh has been a strong voice for the people of Indiana , both in two terms as their Governor and 12 years as their Senator. He has brought a keen intellect and a commonsense perspective to the Senate that should make his fellow Hoosiers proud. Building on the Senate traditions he learned from his father, he has worked hard to build consensus across party lines to strengthen our country. It is clear to me that Senator Bayh never forgets his other job in life. As a father of twin boys, he often reminds his colleagues to consider the impact of our decisions on our children and the following generations. That is why I admire Senator Bayh's deeply held belief in fiscal responsibility. Senator Bayh played a key role in helping push for a fiscal commission to address our Nation's debt. He also urged that the long-term debt increase we passed earlier this year include a commitment to dealing with our debt. With his experience on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Bayh has been a respected voices on national security issues. He has used that position to make sure our troops are properly equipped and supplied while on duty and to reduce the financial burden on their families. He has also been a strong supporter for efforts to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of dangerous states and terrorist groups. Senator Bayh 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 Governor of Indiana, Senator Bayh created the 21st Century Scholars Program, which offers a path to higher education at Indiana's State universities for at-risk students. Senator Bayh continued his strong support of education in the Senate, working to make college more affordable through new tax credits for qualified tuition expenses, higher student aid grants, and more affordable student loans. Senator Bayh has served the people of the State of Indiana with integrity. I will miss having him as a colleague in the Senate, but I also know that his wife Susan and his sons, Beau and Nick, will be excited to have him back home in Indiana. I wish him success in whatever he chooses to do in the next chapter of his life.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I also want to add my voice in respect and recognition for the service of Senator Kit Bond. He has been a terrific colleague. We have jousted over issues such as water policy affecting our two States, but he has always conducted himself with honor and integrity and he will be missed in this Chamber. Remembering Richard Holbrooke

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, for a moment, I also want to note the passing of Richard Holbrooke, a distinguished ambassador, somebody who has played a key role in working on the policy towards Iraq and Afghanistan. Richard Holbrooke was a giant in American diplomatic history. Richard Holbrooke was a friend. I actually was with him the Sunday before he passed away and was shocked to learn that he had been stricken; even more shocked to learn that he passed away on Monday. Richard Holbrooke leaves an extraordinary legacy of working for peace and for advancing the interests of this country. Richard Holbrooke will be missed. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to discuss the tax extension package before us. I support this package because it will provide, I believe, a significant boost to the economy next year. It is necessary because the alternative would be a significant tax increase on millions of middle-class families in just a matter of weeks. I recognize this package will increase the deficit over the next 2 years, but we need to distinguish between what is the right economic policy short term and longer term. Short term, I don't think there is any question that this economy remains weak, unemployment stubbornly high, and that means we need to do more to provide liquidity in the short term. That does not mean that we should ignore the growing debt that is all around us. That is a longer term challenge, but it requires our urgent attention. We need to put together a plan this year to deal with our deficits and debt. That is what the fiscal commission was all about that Senator Gregg and I pushed for, which has just recently concluded its work, with 11 of the 18 members endorsing a plan to reduce our debt by $4 trillion. Just as with that package, I do not agree with all elements of this package. In fact, part of this tax package I strongly oppose. Most notably, I am opposed to those provisions that give overly generous tax reductions to the wealthiest among us in the estate tax area. But I understand that the President did what he had to do to get an agreement. This economy clearly remains in a fragile state and we can't afford to wait until we get everything we want. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Too often in this Chamber, in this Congress, people insist on having it their way or take the highway. Unfortunately, that prevents us from doing things that are absolutely essential for the Nation. Economists project that a failure to pass this package could reduce economic growth next year by as much as 50 percent. That would mean millions of jobs. So those who say, well, let's just scuttle this, have to think very carefully. What is the risk to the economy of the United States? Just to review where we have come from, I believe the Federal response to the recession and the financial crisis has successfully pulled this economy back from the brink. I believe we were headed for financial collapse. Economic growth has returned--not as robustly as we would have liked, but nonetheless it has returned. In the fourth quarter of 2008, lest we forget, economic growth was a negative 6.8 percent. In the most recent quarter, it was a positive 2.5. That is a remarkable turnaround. The same can be seen on the job front. In January of 2009, the economy lost over 800,000 private sector jobs in 1 month. The next month we lost another 700,000 jobs; the next month, another 700,000; the next month, almost 650,000. Now we fast forward to today, November of 2010, and 50,000 jobs were created. That is a dramatic turnaround, and we can see for month after month after month that we now have positive job growth. This economy has turned in the right direction and has done so in quite a dramatic way. We have also seen the rebound in the markets. The stock market hit a low of 6,547 back on March 9, 2009. We are now well over 11,000. So in economic growth, job creation, and the stock market, we have seen dramatic improvement as a direct result of TARP and the stimulus program. This economy still remains too weak, too fragile, with unemployment stubbornly high at 9.8 percent. By the way, without TARP, without stimulus, the best economists in this country, including Alan Blinder, the former deputy chairman of the Fed, and the chief economist at Moody's, Mark Zandi, said without TARP, without stimulus, unemployment today would be 15 percent--8 million more people would be unemployed. Despite some who say they haven't worked, TARP and stimulus, I believe the evidence is quite clear they have worked. But more needs to be done. As we enter the holiday season, we can't forget that one in six Americans are now unemployed or underemployed and so we must do more to create jobs. In a recent speech to the European Central Bank, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke went as far as he could go on the question of fiscal policy, and he urged Congress to do more to help the near-term economy, while at the same time taking steps to bring down long-term deficits. This is what he said: On its current economic trajectory, the United States runs the risk of seeing millions of workers unemployed or underemployed for many years. As a society we should find that outcome unacceptable. Monetary policy is working in support of both economic recovery and price stability, but there are limits to what can be achieved by the Central Bank alone. A fiscal program that combines near-term measures to enhance growth with strong confidence-inducing steps to reduce longer term structural deficits would be an important complement to the policies of the Federal Reserve. I think the Chairman has it right. He is clearly saying the Fed alone and its actions are not enough to keep the recovery going. Congress also needs to act. It needs to act in the near term by taking steps to generate economic growth, and it needs to act on the long-term challenge by putting in place a plan to bring down deficits and debt in the immediate term and in the longer term. This package, the one before us, will ensure that middle-class taxpayers are not hit with a tax increase at the start of the year. It extends for 2 years all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. By the way, by far the most important thing for the economy is the middle-class tax cut. That is what is critically important to the economy. The tax cuts for the high end--we can either do or not do--in effect are mildly stimulative but, according to CBO, they have pretty low bang for the buck in terms of economic growth. That is the high end tax cuts--pretty low bang for the buck, according to the CBO. This package also has the expanded child credit and earned-income tax credit for families, the American opportunity tax credit for college expenses, an alternative minimum tax fix--otherwise millions of people would be getting a tax hike completely unintended--and the R&D tax credit and other expiring provisions. This package, according to the best economic advice we can get, will help economic growth, will help job creation, creating additional jobs in the private sector next year. The package also includes three critical measures to help the economy. It includes a payroll tax cut for working families. This will provide a 2-percentage point reduction in employees' Social Security payroll taxes; a worker with $40,000 in income would save $800. This measure is widely recognized as one of the most effective ways to boost near-term growth. In fact, I asked CBO last year: What are the most effective steps we could take to promote economic growth. No. 1, interestingly enough, extend unemployment insurance. That is in this package. No. 2, a payroll tax holiday. That is in this package. In fact, as I indicated, this package has an extension of unemployment insurance benefits at their current level for 13 months. This will prevent 7 million workers from losing unemployment in 2011. Economists also rank this measure as high on bang for the buck, as I indicated. It also includes a business expensing provision allowing businesses to write off 100 percent of capital purchases in 2011. This is a useful incentive to get businesses to start spending again and could generate more than $50 billion in additional investment in 2011. And, again, CBO rated this measure as high on bang for the buck. Here are some of the examples of the tax cut benefits provided by this package. A mother with one child with $20,000 in income will receive a $1,100 tax cut, a married couple with $40,000 of income will receive a tax cut of almost $2,000, and a married couple with two children with $60,000 of income will receive a tax cut of more than $3,300. Mark Zandi, the chief economist for Moody's and a former adviser to Senator McCain's Presidential campaign, has examined the potential economic impact of this package. This is what he concluded: The fiscal policy compromise will be good for the economy next year. The mandatory tax cuts and spending increases will provide a substantial boost to growth in 2011, ensuring that the still fragile economic recovery evolves into a self- sustaining economic expansion. The deal's surprisingly broad scope meaningfully changes the near-term economic outlook. That is according to Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's. For those who are concerned about the deficit, as I am, job one is to get this economy growing more strongly. That is job one. Then we have to pivot and deal with the long-term plan to deal with the deficit and the debt. As I noted previously, the one provision in this package that I particularly am unhappy with is the estate tax provision. I support the continuation of the 2009 level with an estate tax exemption of $3.5 million for an individual, $7 million for a couple, and a rate of 45 percent. At those levels only one-quarter of 1 percent of estates would be subject to any estate tax in 2011--one-quarter of 1 percent of estates would be affected. That means 99.75 percent of estates would be exempt from any estate tax under the provisions I am proposing and did propose in the budget. Unfortunately, under the compromise package certain of our colleagues on the other side insisted that the exemption level be raised to $5 million for individuals, $10 million per couple, with the rate of 35 percent. This will reduce the number of estates subject to the estate tax to one-seventh of 1 percent. It adds about $20 billion to the cost of the package over 2 years, and it will do absolutely nothing to generate economic growth and to create jobs. If made permanent, this provision would add $100 billion in lost revenue to the Treasury in the next 10 years--$100 billion more than the package that I proposed. I don't think that is fiscally responsible, I don't think it is wise, and I don't think it should be approved. While we need to pass the overall package to give a near-term boost to the economy, we must also now pivot and deal with the Nation's growing debt. Gross Federal debt is already expected to reach 100 percent of the gross domestic product of this country in 2011--well above the 90 percent threshold that many economists see as the danger zone. One of our Nation's leading economists, Dr. Carmen Reinhart, came before the President's fiscal commission. She had recently coauthored a study of the impact of debt on more than 20 countries over the last 200 years. She concluded that when government debt as a share of the economy exceeds 90 percent, economic growth tends to be about 1 percentage point lower than if debt levels were not so high. But don't be misled by 1 point lower. That sounds like nothing. The economy is growing typically at 3\1/2\ percent. One point less would be about one- third less economic growth. So we need to understand--the consequences of debt are lower economic growth for the future. Our long-term debt outlook is even more serious. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Federal debt could rise on the current trend to almost 400 percent of GDP by 2054. That is a completely unsustainable course. I personally believe the deficit and debt reduction plan assembled by the President's fiscal commission, on which I served, could prove a way forward. Even though the plan did not receive the necessary 14 of the 18 votes on the commission to guarantee a vote in Congress, it did receive the support of 11 of the 18 commission members, which is more than 60 percent of the panel. With 60 percent here, we can pass anything. But on our Commission we required 14 of 18 of the Commissioners to agree to assure a vote in Congress this year. By the way, among the 11 who supported the plan, it was completely bipartisan: 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 1 Independent. That outcome proved that Democrats and Republicans can come together to solve this challenge. Here is a quick overview of the fiscal commission plan: It provides nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years. It lowers the deficit from 8 percent of GDP in 2011 to 2.3 percent in 2015 and 1.2 percent in 2020. It stabilizes the debt by 2014 and then lowers it to 60 percent of GDP by 2023 and 40 percent of GDP by 2035. It reforms Social Security to ensure its solvency for at least 75 years and puts the program on a more sustainable path beyond the next 75 years. And it includes fundamental tax reform, making the Tax Code simpler, fairer, and more efficient, while also raising more revenue for deficit reduction. Now that we have a responsible and realistic bipartisan plan on the table and national attention is focused on the issue, it is up to Congress and the President to finish the job. Tax reform may be the most important component of the fiscal commission plan. Here are the key elements included in the fiscal commission plan: It eliminates or scales back tax expenditures that are currently running $1.1 trillion a year and lowers tax rates. That will promote economic growth and dramatically improve America's global competitiveness. And it makes the Tax Code more progressive. The Commission's illustrative tax reform plan demonstrates how scaling back tax expenditures can lower rates. This plan is a beginning. It has to become law in order to have its full effect. I hope very much our colleagues will consider supporting this plan, the tax plan before us, and the deficit reduction plan that needs to be an integral component of a long-term fiscal plan for the Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 14, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 14, 2010, at 2:05 p.m.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 14, 2010, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my colleague, Senator Sam Brownback, who will be leaving the Senate at the end of this term. Senator Brownback has served the people of Kansas for 16 years in the Congress, serving one term in the House of Representatives before being elected to the Senate in 1996. Sam is leaving the Senate to serve the people of Kansas as their Governor. As rural, Midwestern States, Kansas and North Dakota have a lot in common, sharing many of the same challenges and opportunities. Agriculture is a key component of both States' economies. In fact, North Dakota and Kansas often vie for the position of top wheat producer. Senator Brownback knows agriculture well, having been raised on a farm near Parker, KS, and serving as a State leader of Future Farmers of America in high school. Early in his career, Sam served as Kansas Secretary of Agriculture. These experiences prepared him for his work in the Senate, where he championed producing more energy from biofuels and opening overseas markets to American beef--two issues that are just as important to farmers and ranchers in North Dakota as they are to those in Kansas. I worked closely with Sam on a program that helps ensure that individuals who live in rural areas have access to doctors. The Conrad State 30 program allows foreign doctors educated in the United States on J-1 visas to obtain a waiver of the requirement to return to their home country for 2 years if they agree to practice for 3 years in a medically underserved area of the country. This program has been vital for individuals in rural States like Kansas and North Dakota. Without it, residents of rural areas would have to travel long distances to visit physicians. I am proud to have Senator Brownback's support of legislation to expand this program and make it permanent. Senator Brownback's concern for his fellowman does not stop at America's borders. Although he does not serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sam has been very involved in international affairs, and has dedicated himself to causes that protect the most vulnerable. He was instrumental in passing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, worked to bring peace to Darfur, and, most recently, fought to end the trade in conflict minerals from the Congo. Sam is one of the most genuine Members of the Senate. He is willing to listen to opposing views and engage in respectful debate. This great body will miss Senator Brownback's collegiality. I thank Senator Brownback for his service in the Senate and wish him the best as he continues to represent the people of Kansas as their Governor. George Voinovich

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have just heard from Senator Dorgan, an extraordinary Senator and even more extraordinary as a friend. He has served in the Congress for 30 years. He has served in public office in my State for more than 40 years. It has been my privilege to call him my best friend for 42 years. We just heard the remarkable ability he has, a gift, to paint word pictures that communicate with people, that help us understand the consequences of the actions we take here. In recent weeks, I have become very interested in the universe and the vastness of what surrounds us. One of the things I have found most striking is that 1 light-year takes light 1 year, it goes 5.8 trillion miles and the universe is 12 to 15 billion light-years across. This is a vastness that is hard for us to calculate. Scientists tell us it all started with a big bang almost 14 billion years ago. Now scientists are saying it may not just be one big bang but there is a cycle that takes place over 1 trillion years that leads to repeated big bangs. Byron Dorgan has been a big bang in the Senate. He has made a difference here. He has made an enormous difference in our home State of North Dakota. He helped build a foundation that has made North Dakota, today, the most successful State in the country--the lowest unemployment, the best financial situation, the fastest economic growth. Byron Dorgan helped build a foundation that has transformed our State. We are forever in his debt. As his friend and colleague, we are forever grateful to the contributions he has made to North Dakota and to the Nation. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, section 311(c) of S. Con. Res. 13, the 2010 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in the resolution for legislation that would improve the safety of the food supply in the United States. This adjustment to S. Con. Res. 13 is contingent on the legislation not increasing the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2019. I find that S. 510, a bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the safety of the food supply, fulfills the conditions of the deficit-neutral reserve fund for food safety. Therefore, pursuant to section 311(c), I am adjusting the aggregates in the 2010 budget resolution, as well as the allocation to the Senate Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 13 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. After consultation with the chairman of the House Budget Committee, and on behalf of both of us, I hereby submit this Statement of Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation for H.R. 3619, as amended. Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 3619 for the 5-year Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: $0. Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 3619 for the 10-year Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: $0. Also submitted for the Record as part of this statement is a table prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, which provides additional information on the budgetary effects of this Act, as follows:

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. This is the Statement of Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation for S. 685, as amended. Total Budgetary Effects of S. 685 for the 5-year Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: $0. Total Budgetary Effects of S. 685 for the 10-year Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: $0. Also submitted for the Record as part of this statement is a table prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, which provides additional information on the budgetary effects of this Act, as follows:

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to submit to the Senate the seventh budget scorekeeping report for the 2010 budget resolution. The report, which covers fiscal year 2010, was prepared by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. The report shows the effects of congressional action through September 24, 2010, and includes the effects of legislation enacted since I filed my last report for fiscal year 2010 in June. The new legislation includes: Public Law 111-191, an act to amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to authorize advances from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill; Public Law 111-192, Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010; Public Law 111-197, Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part II; Public Law 111-198, Homebuyer Assistance and Improvement Act of 2010; Public Law 111-205, Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010; Public Law 111-212, Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010; Public Law 111-224, United States Patent and Trademark Office Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010; Public Law 111-226, an act to modernize the air traffic control system, improve the safety, reliability, and availability of transportation by air in the United States, provide for modernization of the air traffic control system, reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes; Public Law 111-228, General and Special Risk Insurance Funds Availability Act of 2010; Public Law 111-230, an act making emergency supplemental appropriations for border security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; and Public Law 111-237, Firearms Excise Tax Improvement Act of 2010. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of S. Con. Res. 13, the 2010 budget resolution. The estimates show that for fiscal year 2010 current level spending is above the levels provided in the budget resolution by $17.1 billion for budget authority and $5.4 billion above for outlays. For revenues, current level shows that $14.2 billion in room remains relative to the budget resolution level. I ask unanimous consent that the letter and accompanying tables from CBO be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I want to recognize and thank the Helmets to Hardhats program for its important work on behalf of our Nation's veterans. In these tough economic times, unemployment among recent veterans is a growing concern. Recent statistics indicate that the jobless rate among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans tracks a full five points higher than the rate for the Nation as a whole. It is clear that we must take serious steps to address this issue. The Helmets to Hardhats program has helped tens of thousands of veterans find work in the construction industry by evaluating recently separated servicemembers to identify their strengths and experience and match them with employers within the construction industry. The long- term partnerships that result benefit veterans, construction firms, and the Nation as a whole. In times of crisis, it is our best and bravest that step forward in defense of our Nation. We owe our servicemembers a debt of gratitude for their sacrifice that we can never fully repay. The least that a grateful nation can do is to give them assistance in finding good jobs when they return from service. Though the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs do excellent work with their transition programs, organizations like Helmets to Hardhats serve as the ``boots on the ground'' forces needed to help our veterans realize the American dream. I thank all of those involved in this important organization for their work across the country, and look forward to partnering with them to help veterans in North Dakota.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is the Statement of Budgetary Effects of PAYGO legislation for H.R. 3219, as amended. Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 3219 for the 5-year Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: net decrease in the deficit of $394 million. Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 3219 for the 10-year Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: net decrease in the deficit of $8 million. Also submitted for the Record as part of this statement is a table prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, which provides additional information on the budgetary effects of this Act, as follows: