Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session on June 27, 2012. The Committee will meet in room SD-124 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, beginning at 10 a.m.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 27, 2012, at 3 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to answer allegations made by the Washington Post in a front-page story in yesterday's edition. Here is the story: ``High-level Talks, then Changes to Holdings.'' First, I want to say I have great respect for the Washington Post. In many ways, the Post is a national treasure. But even great newspapers make mistakes, and in yesterday's story they made assumptions that are simply wrong. The story said my wife and I shifted savings in her retirement accounts from mutual funds to lower risk money market accounts on August 14, 2007. That is true. They showed we made those changes a day after a call from Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to me. That is also true. But their suggestion the two are related is absolutely false. They have made the same error in logic we studied in college. The case and faulty logic involved an observer who noted people were fainting and street pavement was melting. That led the observer to conclude that melting pavement caused people to faint. Of course, that was wrong. It was 106 degrees outside. The proper conclusion was that heat was causing the pavement to melt and people to faint. That error in logic was about causality, and that is precisely the error the Washington Post made in their story with respect to me. What the Washington Post missed in their graphic--and to be fair to them, they largely had the correct context in the story. If you read the whole story, it was fairly balanced. What was not balanced was the graphics that accompanied that story. Let me show the graphic. This is from the Washington Post of yesterday. Here is a picture of me. Quite a nice picture. I appreciate that. It says: Senator Conrad, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, was in contact with Paulson about the Nation's economy during the crisis. That is true. They then show a timeline with only two points on the timeline. They show that on August 13 Secretary Paulson called me at 4:30, and they show the next day, August 14, that my wife and I shifted from her retirement accounts money from mutual funds to lower risk money market funds. That is true. What they have not shown on the timeline is what was happening in the previous days. So let's go back to the Friday before. Here is what happened on the Friday before. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 200 points within minutes of the opening bell and closed the day down nearly 400 points. That is not on the timeline of the Washington Post. If they were going to be fair-- and I don't begrudge them writing the story. I think if I were the editor I would certainly have written the story too. It certainly has appeal. Here are Members of Congress talking to people in influential positions and then changing their holdings. But to be fair, they have to provide the context within which those decisions were made. The context within which my wife and I made our decisions were pretty clear. The Friday before, the market dropped nearly 400 points. What the Washington Post also didn't put in their timeline is their headline on that Friday. ``Credit Crunch in U.S. Upends Global Markets.'' In that story the Friday before, they showed in the weeks leading up to our decision to diversify our investments in my wife's retirement account the market had dropped in 2 days more than 500 points, leading up then to the Friday where the markets dropped almost 400 points. The Washington Post in their story also didn't put on the timeline what the headlines were in their own paper on the weekend leading up to our decision to make these changes. This is just one of the headlines: ``Looking for Footing on Shaky Ground,'' talking about the turmoil we saw globally. The truth is that what made my wife and me decide over the weekend to shift some of her retirement accounts from mutual funds to less risky money market accounts was what was happening in the markets themselves. That is what led us to make these decisions. The Paulson call was not about markets. Notes from my staff indicate Secretary Paulson was calling a number of members about the importance of raising the debt ceiling. The Secretary of Treasury was not calling me to give me stock market tips. He wasn't talking to me about the stock market. He was talking to me about the need for a debt limit increase. I wish to say clearly and unequivocally, to my friends at the Washington Post and anybody who read the story, the call from Secretary Paulson had nothing--nothing--do with my wife's and my decision over the weekend to shift some of her assets into less risky money market accounts. Those decisions had everything to do with what was happening in the marketplace itself, which was widely reported, even on the pages of the Washington Post. What was happening in the markets was readily available to every investor. We were not shifting my wife's retirement accounts based on some secret inside information. The Washington Post headline: ``Credit Crunch in U.S. Upends Global Markets.'' The stock market in 2 days, and the weeks leading up, dropped 500 points. On the Friday before the decisions we made over the weekend, the market dropped almost 400 points in 1 day. The Washington Post had a big story showing the Dow Jones industrial average dropped 200 points within minutes of opening and dropped almost 400 points for the day. Why didn't they put that in the timeline if they wanted to be fair? I didn't ask them not to run the story. I asked them to put in the context within which the decisions were made. Be fair. The fact is there is nothing Mr. Paulson could have said to me about market risk that would have been more persuasive than the drop of almost 400 points in the market the previous Friday. That, along with the 500-point drop that had occurred several weeks before, provided all the motivation my wife and I needed to make a decision to move some of her retirement assets to lower risked investments. To the Washington Post: I respect you. I have had a very good relationship with you for a long period of time. But your story was unfair to my family, it was unfair to me, and fundamentally it was unfair to your readers because the graphics you supplied with the story failed to provide a full or fair timeline and the full context that led to our decision. In fairness, if you read the whole story, much of the context is there. But the graphics--which, of course, is what most people are drawn to--have none of the context and don't have a timeline that in any way is fair. Finally, I just wish to say, I am retiring. This is not going to affect me for the future. But the notion that Members of Congress should just stick with whatever investment decisions they made when they began investing or be accused of trading on insider information is, to me, absurd. Our trades should be public knowledge, and they are. How did the Washington Post know about these trades? Because my wife and I reported each and every one of them in our financial disclosure. So trades of Members should be public--absolutely--and they are. The Washington Post and others should monitor for evidence of insider trading, and they do. But they should also provide context to their readers so they can fairly judge if any of us have taken action with our investments that are dishonorable. I have not, and that is the truth. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor an active community in North Dakota that will soon commemorate its 125th anniversary. From June 29 through July 1, the residents of Fullerton will be celebrating their community's history and founding. The history of Fullerton is closely connected to early American history. Fullerton was founded in 1887 on land donated by Mr. Edwin F. Sweet, an investor from Michigan. Sweet, who later served as a U.S. Congressman and Assistant U.S. Secretary of Commerce for President Wilson and President Harding, named the town after his wife's family, the Fullers. The Fuller family ancestry includes Dr. Samuel Fuller, who arrived in America on the Mayflower as a physician for the Plymouth Colony. Edwin and his wife Sophia named their first son after one of their ancestors, Charles Carroll, an original signer of the Declaration of Independence. Fullerton's most famous landmark, the Carroll House, has a wonderful history and has been a focal point of the community from the time its doors opened in 1889. Built by Edwin Sweet and named after Edwin and Sophia's first son Carroll Fuller Sweet, the hotel's ballroom was the meeting spot for all town social gatherings, including concerts, gala balls, and church meetings. Through the years, the Carroll House has undergone extensive renovations and is now recognized as a national historic landmark. Visitors from all over the country stay at the Carroll House, and the hotel continues to host town events, like ice cream socials and silent auctions. Fullerton is a fun and friendly community. The residents take great pride in their dining, recreation, hotel, and park facilities, in addition to their agricultural background. To celebrate the 125th anniversary, the community is holding an all-school reunion. Other planned activities for the weekend include the memorial tree planting ceremony, an all-community reunion banquet, a community choir concert, an apple pie contest, and a parade. I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Fullerton, ND, and its residents on their 125th anniversary and in wishing them a warm future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it has been nearly a year since the city of Minot and surrounding communities were devastated by a historic flood along the Souris River in North Dakota. As we recognize this anniversary, we are reminded of the devastation it brought to thousands of families throughout the Souris River Basin, the extraordinary leadership of local officials, the valiant efforts of residents and businesses, the outpouring of support, and the perseverance and determination of the region to rebuild. On June 22, 2011, the sirens sounded in Minot signaling the mandatory evacuation of nearly a quarter of the city's residents. A wall of water was coming at us, and we knew the existing levees would be overtopped. Work continued around the clock on temporary, secondary levees to protect as much of the city as possible, but we knew thousands of homes would be impacted by floodwaters. On June 23, the river overtopped the levees in Minot, spilling into neighborhoods and businesses. When the river finally peaked, it had surpassed the record set in 1881 by more than 3.5 feet and crested more than 12.5 feet above flood stage. While the flood damaged homes, businesses, schools, parks, the zoo, and many other things, it did not dampen the spirit of those in Minot and the surrounding communities or their resolve to rebuild. In those days leading up to and following the flood, many Federal agencies were on the ground assisting the region with response and recovery. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency were there from the beginning, and both are still there today helping residents recover and repairing levees. Many other Federal agencies also provided critical support throughout the disaster. For that, we are forever grateful. I also want to thank my colleagues for the disaster assistance provided through the Community Development Block Grant Program, the Economic Development Administration, and Emergency Relief to respond to this and other disasters in 2011. This funding is providing important resources for the region and a key part of its foundation for recovery. The city of Minot and surrounding communities, including Burlington, Velva, and Sawyer, have come a long way since those dark days last year. While the recovery will continue for some time, I am so proud of the spirit and can-do attitude of all in the basin as they rebuild their communities. Officials and residents will gather together this weekend to celebrate a ``Weekend of Hope: Return to Oak Park.'' It will be a time for reflection on how far the region has come and to focus on the region's continuing recovery. Hope is guiding the region's recovery and ensuring that Minot, Burlington, and the other communities will be back better and stronger than ever.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor St. Pius Verein, a social and fraternal organization in North Dakota that will soon celebrate its 100th anniversary. On June 23 and 24 of this year, the community of Schefield will host a celebration to recognize St. Pius Verein's history and founding. The town of Schefield started with the establishment of the St. Pius Catholic Church, which was built in 1910. The town's name is said to be derived from ``schoenfeld,'' the German word for beautiful field. In 1912, St. Pius Verein was founded by German settlers from Russia. The organization was first started as a way to unite the community. Members especially enjoyed singing and playing instruments together. Today, St. Pius Verein has 440 members. All members pay dues and contribute to a survivor benefit program that pays a benefit to families that experience a loss. St. Pius Verein holds monthly meetings, in addition to an annual picnic held on St. Pius Day. Schefield takes great pride in the history of St. Pius Verein, and the community is expecting an enjoyable gathering. To celebrate the 100-year anniversary of St. Pius Verein, Schefield residents and visitors will participate in many fun-filled activities. Over the span of 2 days, the celebrants will enjoy children's games, a town dance, a citywide mass at St. Pius Verein Hall, a parade, an antique tractor pull, and an old-time jam session. DVDs will also be sold that describe the proud history of the town. Although many St. Pius Verein members no longer live in Schefield, the town is expecting big numbers for the celebration. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating St. Pius Verein and the Schefield residents on the organization's 100th anniversary and in wishing them a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss the amendment that is pending to kill the Sugar Program in the United States. My colleagues should know that the domestic sugar industry employs 140,000 people in this country. If there were ever a jobs- killer amendment, it is the amendment that is going to be offered to kill the U.S. Sugar Program. In advancing that amendment, a series of claims have been made about the U.S. Sugar Program that I believe are false. First of all, it is said that the Sugar Program has a high cost for taxpayers. That is false. It is said that it keeps sugar prices artificially high. That is false. It is said that the Sugar Program drives the confectionary industry out of the United States. That is false. It is said that the Sugar Program impedes imports into the United States. That is false. It is also said that consumers will benefit from eliminating the Sugar Program. I believe that is false as well. Let's take each of these arguments in turn. First is that it has a high taxpayer cost. Here is the cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office, of the Sugar Program for 2013 to 2022. The cost is zero. It is hard to get lower than zero. Maybe the square root of zero would be lower. But those who say there is a high cost to taxpayers are just wrong. It is false. The second claim is that it keeps sugar prices artificially high-- false again. This chart shows the average retail sugar price in major countries around the world. Here is the United States way down here, 59 cents. The global average is 67 cents. The developed country average is 73 cents. We are below the global average, and we are below the average of developed countries. So the claim that it keeps sugar prices high is false again. The third claim is that the Sugar Program drives the confectionary industry out of the United States. Wrong again. Here is what is happening to the U.S. chocolate and nonchocolate confectionery production in the United States since 2004. Do you see the trend line? It is up. More production not less production. These are facts, and facts are stubborn things. Let's go to the fourth claim, that this Sugar Program impedes imports. This is maybe the biggest whopper of all. Here are the facts: The United States, in the period from 2008 2009 through 2010 2011, is the biggest importer of sugar in the world. So this program is impeding imports into the United States? If it is, it is not doing a very good job of it because the United States is No. 1 in imports of sugar in the world. Before we get to the final assertion, let's look at what other countries, poor countries that produce sugar are saying to us about our Sugar Program. The argument made on the Senate floor is we are hurting poor countries with our Sugar Program. Maybe we ought to listen to what those poor countries say. Here is their organization, the International Sugar Trade Coalition, that represents sugar producers in 17 developing nations in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. Here is what they say: The U.S. sugar policy contained in the Farm Bill passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee is important to sugar producers in developing nations because it provides a guaranteed level of access to the United States sugar market at fair, predictable prices. Attempts to weaken this policy through amendments on the Senate floor would not only harm U.S. farmers but also poor growers from developing countries where sugar is a key economic driver. These are the poor countries that produce sugar who are saying to us: Keep your Sugar Program because not only does it benefit you, but it benefits us. Let me go further in their letter: Ending the sugar program would reward only a handful of large food companies and agricultural superpowers like Brazil, while punishing some of the world's poorest economies. It goes on to say: This was what happened when the European Union radically altered its sugar policy, and thereby lowered standards of living in places like Guyana, Fiji and Mauritius where there is no agricultural alternative to sugarcane. Sadly, Saint Kitts and Nevis had to stop sugar production altogether after 300 years as a result of the EU's reforms. Let's not make that same mistake. Finally, on this notion that consumers are going to benefit by eliminating the Sugar Program--really? Let's look at the facts. The green line is the trendline on retail sugar prices. That trendline since 2010 is going up. Here is what the wholesale price of sugar has been--flat. Do you see the disconnection? Wholesale prices flat, retail prices up. The fact is that sugar is such a small part of the cost of finished products that it has almost no bearing whatsoever on retail prices of a candy bar, the box of cereal, or any of the other things that sugar goes into. The record is so clear on the facts that I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment being offered to kill the U.S. Sugar Program, to kill 140,000 good jobs in this country, to kill $19 billion of economic activity in this country. It would be a profound mistake not only for us but for the poor countries in the world that produce sugar, that are calling on us to keep our Sugar Program because not only is it important to U.S. farmers, it is important to their farmers as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 10 minutes be provided to Senator Udall of Colorado and then 5 minutes for Senator Gillibrand of New York.

Mr. CONRAD. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to say that the Senator has provided brilliant leadership on this legislation. I am in my 26th year here. I have never seen a chairwoman so personally and directly engaged to make legislation happen in an extraordinarily difficult and challenging environment. When the history of this legislation is written, Senator Stabenow, the chairwoman of our committee, will be in the front rank of those who made this happen. I want to express my gratitude to her on behalf of farm and ranch families all across America for the extraordinary leadership she has provided. Farm policy has many critics, and they perpetuate a myth about the farm bill: that it only benefits a handful of wealthy farm and ranch families. The truth is much different. The critics, who often look down their noses at hard-working farm families who feed this country, do not seem to understand the competition farmers face in the international arena and what an extraordinary success this farm policy has been. The simple fact is, our agricultural policy benefits every consumer in America. As a share of disposable income, Americans have the cheapest food in the history of the world. Americans spend less than 10 percent of their disposable income on food, which is far less than any other country. As the Senator, the chairwoman of the committee, Ms. Stabenow, says very clearly, this is not only good for consumers, this is a jobs bill. Sixteen million people in this country have jobs because of an agricultural policy that has been a stunning success. It is also a bill that helps us compete around the rest of the world. The 2008 farm bill has been a tremendous success by any measure--record farm income, record exports, record job creation. That is the history of the 2008 bill. It has contributed to the strong economic performance of American agriculture. As you may recall, it passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority and it was paid for. It was paid for. We actually reduced a little bit of the deficit with that legislation. That strong safety net created by the 2008 bill has enabled American farmers to continue to produce food for our Nation, even while facing tremendous market and weather risks. Critics of farm policy also imply that the farm bill is busting the budget. That is simply false. Farm bill spending is only a tiny sliver of the overall Federal budget. Total outlays for the new farm bill are about 2 percent of total Federal spending; and of the farm bill spending, only about 14 percent--14 percent--goes to commodity and crop insurance programs. The vast majority of the spending in this bill goes for nutrition. Mr. President, 79 percent of the spending in this bill goes for nutrition programs. Only 14 percent goes for what could traditionally be considered farm programs. The farm provisions constitute less than one-third of 1 percent of total Federal spending. That is a bargain for American consumers and taxpayers. The truth is, our producers face stiff international competition. In 2010, our major competitors--the Europeans--outspent us almost 4 to 1 in providing support for their farmers and ranchers. And the EU is not the only culprit. Brazil, Argentina, China, and others are gaining unfair market advantages through hidden subsidies such as currency manipulation, market access restrictions, and input subsidies that the WTO is incapable of disciplining. The reality is that farming is a risky business. Not only do farmers and ranchers have to deal with unfair global competition, they also have to face natural disasters and unpredictable price fluctuations. The Senate Agriculture Committee, working together in a bipartisan way, will contribute over $23 billion to deficit reduction. That is twice as much as the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission recommended-- twice the savings that the Simpson-Bowles commission recommended. In so doing, the committee has provided more than its fair share of fixing this country's deficit and debt problems. If the rest of the committees of Congress did what this committee has done under the leadership of Senator Stabenow, there would be no deficit and debt problem. That is a fact. This is also a reform bill. This is the strongest reform bill that has gone through a committee of Congress in the history of farm legislation, and the chairwoman and ranking member can be incredibly proud of the leadership they have provided. This legislation streamlines conservation programs, reducing the number of programs, and making them simpler to understand and administer. It reauthorizes important nutrition programs for 5 years, helping millions of Americans. I also want to thank Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin and the eight other sponsors on the Ag Committee for joining me in an amendment to continue funding for key rural energy programs. We are spending almost $1 billion a day importing foreign energy. How much better off would we be as a Nation if that money stayed here in the United States, instead of looking to the Middle East, if we could look to the Midwest for our energy supplies? This legislation will help move us in that direction. In addition, I want to thank Senator Baucus and Senator Hoeven for working with me to pass an amendment that will improve the bill for farmers in our part of the country. I am also pleased the new farm bill will continue the livestock disaster programs that are so important to our ranchers when feed losses or livestock deaths occur due to disaster-related conditions. This legislation is the product of countless hours of deliberation, and to reach this point was no easy task. However, I still have some concerns about this legislation. I am concerned that the new Agriculture Risk Coverage, or ARC, program will not do enough if agriculture prices collapse again, as they have done so many times in the past. For those of you who do not believe that crop prices can fall again, I will tell you that I have heard that argument before. In 1996, many said that we had reached a new plateau of high prices, so Congress put in place the freedom to farm legislation that removed price supports. Two years later, Congress had to pass the largest farm disaster program in history because prices had crashed and farmers were going under. I will continue to work to ensure that we improve these provisions before the final passage of this bill so that we do not find ourselves in that situation again. It is vital that we pass a farm bill, and it is just as vital that we make sure these programs continue to work for American producers and consumers. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the chairwoman and I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the men and women of our United States Air Force on the 60th anniversary of the B 52 Stratofortress strategic bomber. On April 15, 1952, 60 years ago, America's first B 52 lifted off on its maiden flight. This year also marks 50 years since the last B 52, tail number 61 040, rolled off the assembly line in Wichita, KS, and was delivered to Minot Air Force Base in the great state of North Dakota. Through its unwavering service during and after the Cold War, the B 52 has shown itself as a time-tested and proven solution for the long-range strike and nuclear deterrence missions and become an iconic symbol around the world of America's dedication to ``peace through strength.'' Half a century after this jet was developed and fielded to guarantee nuclear deterrence of the Soviet Union, it played a critical role in military operations after September 11. No other airframe in the history of the Nation has done more to keep this country strong and safe than the B 52. The Boeing Company originally built 744 B 52s. As the global environment evolved, many of these have since been retired. Nonetheless, 74 aircraft remain in the fleet--more than any other bomber. I sponsored legislation, later signed into law, which requires the B 52 fleet to be maintained at no less than 74 aircraft and preserves the fleet through 2018. With appropriate funding, we expect the remaining 74 B 52s to serve the Nation honorably until 2045. The fact that the B 52 is still serving the United States today is a testament to the innovation and dedication of the men and women all around this Nation who designed, built, maintained, supported and employed the B 52 for over 50 years. In fact, these aircraft have been so thoroughly and effectively upgraded and modernized that they are projected to continue to play a critical role defending our country for the foreseeable future and beyond. During this time of ever-tighter budgets, the B 52 is more important than ever, because it is the most cost effective bomber in our inventory. Or, as the military would say, the B 52 provides great ``economy of force,'' which means the B 52 brings a tremendous amount of ``bang'' for the taxpayer's dollar. B 52 modernization must be a top priority to ensure that ``the best bomb truck for the buck'' and its airmen can continue to meet emerging strategic challenges now and well into the future. The longevity, cost-effectiveness, and adaptability of the B 52 are a testament to the quality of its design and procurement. In many ways, the B 52 is the last great success story of American bomber design and procurement. As the development of the new Long Range Strike Bomber moves forward, we must demand the same innovative thought and dedication that led to the development of the B 52 in the 1950s. Our new bomber must be cost-effective, reliable, and versatile. And it must be produced on schedule, on budget and in quantity. Anything less would be mismanagement we cannot afford, either fiscally or strategically. 2012 has been coined the ``Year of the B 52.'' This year, more than ever, we celebrate the American innovation and dedication that produced this time-tested and tireless workhorse for the Nation. We also celebrate and give our whole-hearted thanks to the men and women who keep these great aircraft flying and keep our Nation safe.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a thriving community in North Dakota that will soon be celebrating its 125th anniversary. On June 15 through June 17 of this year, the residents of Edgeley will be celebrating their community's history and founding. Replacing the pioneer settlement of Saint George, the city of Edgeley has had a rich history. Edgeley is named after the birthplace of Englishman Richard Sykes, who was a significant developer and true believer in the potential of Edgeley and the surrounding area. In 1881, Mr. Sykes traveled from England to explore increasing his land holdings in America. Not surprisingly, he settled on the rich soil and beautiful country of Wells, Stutsman, LaMoure, and Morton counties in North Dakota. Edgeley is home to many bustling small businesses and farmers who grow wheat, corn, soybeans, sunflowers, barley, oats, potatoes, and all manner of small grains, in addition to raising cattle and other types of livestock. North Dakota's first wind farm was built 8 miles west of Edgeley, providing 1.5 megawatts of sustainable electricity to many residents of the State. Sponsored by the Edgeley Lions Club, the city is celebrating its 125th anniversary this summer. Among the events planned are a pageant, kids games on Main Street, a 5k run-walk, a golf tournament, two parades, and a commemorative gun raffle. Residents are also eagerly awaiting the grand opening of the new swimming pool. I ask the United States Senate to join me in congratulating Edgeley, ND, and its residents on their 125th anniversary and in wishing them a warm future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a vibrant community in North Dakota that will soon celebrate its 100th anniversary. From June 15 through June 17 of this year, the residents of Balta will commemorate their community's history and founding. Originally named Egan when the town was founded in 1912, its rail station was an important spot on the Soo Line Railroad. However, when it was discovered that a rail station in South Dakota had already claimed the name of Egan, the small village changed its name to Balta when the post office opened on February 6, 1913. This new name was taken from a town in southern Russia, which is not surprising considering the heritage of the settlers, who were mostly Germans from Russia. Balta enjoys a reputation for some of the best duck and deer hunting in the State, and the community especially enjoys boating, swimming, and fishing at the Balta Dam Recreation Area. The citizens of Balta are proud of their accomplishments and will celebrate the town's centennial with a number of activities and hold an all-school reunion. Among the planned festivities are a ``Dam Fun Run'' at Balta Dam, an alumni basketball game, a parade, car show, street fair, pedal tractor pull, beer garden, and street dance. The activities should prove to be entertaining for all and a celebration of both the past and future of the town. I ask the United States Senate to join me in congratulating the residents of Balta, ND, on their 100th anniversary and in wishing them a bright future. Growing up in Balta has shaped many generations of North Dakotans and instilled in them the ``North Dakota Way,'' bringing pride not only to North Dakota, but to our great Nation. This fine community is deserving of our recognition. Balta has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, this is a consequential discussion today. It is a question of the future economic policy of the United States. That is what we are talking about here today. I just heard the Republican leader say there is no budget. I don't know how to say this, but sometimes I wonder if colleagues pay attention to what they are voting on here. Last year in August we did not pass a budget resolution; instead, we passed a budget law. Anybody who has had 10th grade civics knows a law is stronger than any resolution. A resolution is purely a congressional document. It never goes to the President for his signature. A law has to pass both bodies and be signed by the President. Last year, instead of a budget resolution, we did a budget law called the Budget Control Act. The Budget Control Act set the budget for the next 2 years, for this year and next. More than that, it set 10 years of spending caps, saving $900 billion. In addition, the Budget Control Act gave a special committee the authority to reform the tax system and the entitlement system of the country, and it said: If you come to an agreement, special committee, your action cannot be filibustered. You have to go right to the floor for a vote. And if you do not agree, there will be an additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts put in place. The special committee did not agree, so that additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts is now the law, in addition to the $900 billion of spending cuts. That is a total spending cut package of more than $2 trillion. That is the biggest spending cut package in the history of the United States. For our colleagues to say there are no spending limits in place--really? What is the Budget Control Act, then? It is a law passed overwhelmingly in the Senate. It passed in the House. It was signed by the President of the United States. Why are they engaged in this diversion? I think I know why. Because the last time our colleagues on the other side were in control, when they had it all, the House, the Senate, the White House--from 2001 to 2006 they had both Houses of Congress, until 2008 they had the White House, so of course nothing could be changed in terms of the policies they put in place until we had a new President. And what happened when they had total control and their policies were in place? Republican policies led the United States to the brink of financial collapse. That is what happened. Do you know what they want to do now? They want to go back to those failed policies and do it all over again. We cannot let them do that. That would be a disaster for this country. It would be a disaster for the world's economy. I do not know what could be more clear than when their policies were in place they brought this Nation to the brink of financial collapse. I remember those days. I remember being called to a special meeting in this building with the leaders of the House and the Senate and the head of the Treasury Department under President Bush and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who told us if they did not take certain actions the next day there would be a financial collapse in the United States within days. I was in the room when the rescue for the major financial institutions in this country was designed and we were told, late on a Saturday night, if we did not reach agreement by the next day the Asian markets would open Sunday night and they would collapse and our markets would open the next Monday and they would collapse. Barack Obama was not the President; George W. Bush was the President. The Republican economic policies had been put in place in 2001, in 2002, in 2003, and those policies were still in place when we came close to collapse. We do not forget. Let's go back to what happened with the private sector jobs picture. At the end of the Bush administration we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. Now we are gaining 130,000 in the last month. In the months before that, immediately preceding, we were gaining about 200,000 jobs a month. We have had a gain, now that the economy has started to turn around under this President, of 4 million jobs created in the private sector. There it is. The red line is the results of the last time the Republicans controlled the policy here--job losses every month. Finally, under this President things have begun to turn around. Instead of losing jobs we are gaining jobs, and the same is true on economic growth. On economic growth the record is very clear. In the last quarter of the Bush administration the economy was shrinking at a rate of almost 9 percent. You can see it there, that long red bar--the economy in the last quarter of the Bush administration shrinking at a rate of almost 9 percent. But that, too, has turned around under this new President and we are now averaging economic growth of about 3 percent--a dramatic improvement. But our Republican friends are not satisfied. They want to take us back. They want to take us back to those failed policies that had the economy shrinking at a rate of 9 percent, had us losing 800,000 jobs a month. We are not going to support that. We are going to oppose that. One thing the Republican leader got right is we are going to be voting against going back to those failed policies that put this economy in the ditch, that put us on the brink of financial collapse. He is absolutely right. We are going to oppose that. Our policies have begun to turn things in the right direction. Here are the positive signs for the U.S. economy: 26 consecutive months of private sector job growth; 11 consecutive quarters of real GDP growth; unemployment rate down; manufacturing has expanded for 33 consecutive months; consumer confidence is showing signs of improvement--in fact, the last consumer confidence reading is at a 4-year high; U.S. auto manufacturers that were on the brink of bankruptcy under the Bush administration policies, the Republican policies, are now returning to profitability; and State revenues are showing signs of improvement. One way we can reality-test is how is our economy doing compared to our major competitors. How are we doing compared to the Europeans? How are we doing compared to Japan? How are we doing compared to the United Kingdom? On every one of those tests the United States comes out on top. Our economy is performing better than the European zone--all the European countries combined. We are doing better than Japan. We are doing better than the United Kingdom. This chart shows the story. Our economic growth is the best, compared to our major competitors. If there is any doubt that Republican policies had us on the brink of financial collapse, we can look to the study that was done by Alan Blinder, the former Deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Mark Zandi, who advised the McCain campaign on economic policy. The two of them did an analysis of the Federal actions taken to deal with the fiscal crisis and the financial crisis. Here is what they conclude: We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. When our friends attack the President and say he did not lead-- really? He averted a depression. He prevented a financial collapse, because that is exactly where we were headed when the Republicans were in control. Zandi and Blinder went on to write: When all is said and done, the financial and fiscal policies will have cost taxpayers a substantial sum, but not nearly as much as most had feared and not nearly as much as if policymakers had not acted at all. If the comprehensive policy responses saved the economy from another depression, as we estimate, they were well worth their cost. That is exactly right. But what do our colleagues on the other side want to do? They want to take us to extreme austerity. They want to slam on the brakes, even while this economy is in a fragile recovery. We do not have to wonder what would happen if we adopted the policies they are presenting here on the floor of the Senate today. We do not have to imagine it; we can just look across to Europe because they are pursuing the policies that our colleagues on the other side advocate here today. What is happening? We have kind of an experiment going on because what our Republican friends are pushing for is being done in Europe. What are they experiencing? Here is a column from the former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, ``Austerity Is Strangling Europe.'' [T]he direction of European economic and financial policy must change, away from pure austerity toward growth. Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy and Spain have made substantial progress in stabilizing their finances. But the economic and political situation in these countries shows that austerity alone is not the way to resolve the crisis. Do we have a problem with debt? Absolutely. Do we need to deal with it? Absolutely. I was part of the Bowles-Simpson commission. I was part of the group of six. I have spent hundreds of hours negotiating with colleagues on both sides to get a result. But the answer is not extreme austerity right now. Almost every economic analyst says if you do that you will slam this country right back into recession. Again, we do not have to look very far to find out if that is true, because Great Britain has tried that approach. What have they experienced? Here is an article from the Wall Street Journal on April 26: ``U.S. Slips Back Into Recession.'' That is exactly the formula that is being presented by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle today. Let's slam on the brakes. We are going to put this thing right back in recession. Hey, they had their chance. They ran the economic policy of this country for 8 years under the Bush administration, and sure enough they had this country on the brink of financial collapse. Now they want to return to those same failed policies. What a mistake that would be. We have heard the Republican leader say there is no budget; we have no budget. As I indicated in the beginning of my remarks, we do have a budget law that was passed last year. It is called the Budget Control Act. Let me read from the Budget Control Act because maybe my colleagues missed it when they were voting on it. Here is what it says in two places: The allocations, aggregates, and levels Referring to 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. Is that confusing? It says ``in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012.'' The identical language is repeated for 2013: 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. That is about as clear as it can be. I might add, the Budget Control Act, as I indicated earlier, is stronger than any resolution because a resolution is purely a congressional document. It never goes to the President for his signature. So the Budget Control Act that set the budget for 2012 and 2013 has the force of law, unlike a budget resolution that is not signed by the President. The Budget Control Act also sets spending limits not just for 2 years but for 10 years. It caps spending for 10 years, saving $900 billion. It also provided the full enforcement mechanisms, including a deeming resolution that allowed budget points of order to be enforced for the appropriations bills that come in 2012 and 2013. The Budget Control Act did something else. It created a supercommittee, a reconciliation-like procedure to address entitlement reform and tax reform backed up by a $1.2 trillion so-called sequester. ``Sequester'' is just a fancy word for more spending cuts. The Budget Control Act that is the law said if the special committee didn't reform the tax system, didn't reform the entitlement system, that there would be another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts imposed on top of the $900 billion. We all know the special committee didn't reach an agreement, so that additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts is in place. That is a total of $2 trillion in spending cuts. That is the biggest spending cut package in the history of the United States. For our friends on the other side to say there are no spending limits in place is just wrong. It is just wrong. We do have a problem. We have a big problem. This chart talks about the spending and revenue of the country over the last 60 years and tells us why we have a problem. The red line shows the spending in the United States over that period. The green line shows the revenues. We can see on the chart there is a big gap between the spending and the revenue, and that is why we have deficits. Our friends on the other side like to refer to one part of the equation. They just like to talk about spending. But the reality is deficits are created by the gap between the revenue and the spending. We can see on this chart we are at or near a 60-year high on spending. We have come off the 60-year high a little bit, and we are at or near a 60-year low on revenue. We have to work both sides of the equation. Again, we are at or near a 60-year high on the spending, and we are at or near a 60-year low on revenue. So what is to be done about it? The public says we ought to have a balanced plan: 62 percent say the best way to reduce the Federal budget deficit is a combination of additional revenue and spending cuts. Eight percent say we ought to just increase taxes. Seventeen percent say just cut programs. I was part of the so-called Bowles-Simpson Commission. There were 18 of us; 11 of the 18 supported the conclusions that called for that kind of approach--additional revenue but also additional spending cuts. That is what the American people say we ought to do, but that is not what our friends on the other side are proposing. They propose additional tax cuts, to dig the hole deeper before we start filling it in. Then they say: In addition to that, we will have Draconian spending cuts because if we are going to have more tax cuts that primarily go to the wealthiest among us, and we are trying to reduce the deficit, that means we have to have even more spending cuts. Let me just say that the budgets our Republican friends are going to be offering today have something in common. Every one of them ends Medicare as we know it. Every Republican budget offered today ends Medicare as we know it. One of the Republican budgets being offered today cuts Social Security by 39 percent. That is their answer. If we are going to have more tax cuts for the wealthiest among us--and many of them are not paying their fair share of taxes--and if we are going to give them additional tax cuts, trillions of dollars in some cases in these budgets they are presenting today, then how are we going to make it up? Their answer is end Medicare as we know it, and that is in every one of their budgets. One of them has gone so far as to say: Let's cut Social Security benefits 39 percent. We will be voting on that later today, and we will see who stands behind that proposal. Every Republican budget cuts taxes for millionaires by at least $150,000 a year. Are you listening? Every Republican budget being offered today cuts taxes for millionaires by at least $150,000 a year on average. Every Republican budget being offered today protects offshore tax havens. What are offshore tax havens? This is a picture of a building down in the Cayman Islands. It is an Ugland House. It is a little five-story building down in the Cayman Islands. That building claims to be the home of 18,857 companies, and they all say they are doing business out of that little building down in the Cayman Islands--18,857 companies. They are not doing business out of that building. They are doing monkey business out of that building, and the monkey business they are doing is avoiding the taxes they owe in the United States. Every Republican budget protects those offshore tax havens. The first House Republican budget plan we will be voting on today is totally unbalanced. There is no revenue. In fact, it is a lot more tax cuts, $1 trillion of additional tax cuts for the wealthiest in our country. They do cut some things other than taxes; they cut health care by almost $3 trillion. They shift Medicare to a voucher system which will end Medicare as we know it. They block-grant for Medicaid, going right after the most vulnerable in our society: children, the disabled, and those who have the least. They cut the safety net for seniors, children, the disabled, which will increase the number of uninsured by more than 30 million. They have large cuts to education, energy, and infrastructure. Cutting education doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Talk about eating your seed corn, that is it. After our House Republican colleagues put out their budget, the Catholic bishops said this in the Washington Post: Bishops say Ryan budget fails moral test. The House Republican budget authored by Mr. Ryan fails the moral test. It certainly does. Let's go to the next slide. This plan cuts discretionary spending $1 trillion beyond what the Budget Control Act did. If you look at priorities, it kind of leaps out at you. Health care is cut by almost $3 trillion. It goes from $12.7 trillion to $9.9 trillion. Then we go to the question of education, where the United States is already lagging. In fact, the United States ranks 25th out of 34 OECD countries in math. We are 25th in math. In science we are 17th out of 34. So we are 25th out of 34 in math, and we are 17th out of 34 in science. The budget from the House Republicans says to cut education by 25 percent; cut it from $77 billion to $58 billion. That is a 25- percent cut in education under the House Republican plan. We have all seen gasoline prices rising. We are thankful they have been easing back in recent days. But, nonetheless, on May 14 gasoline averaged $3.75 a gallon. What is the Republican answer to rising gasoline prices? Well, let's cut those energy programs that are designed to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. Let's cut them 60 percent. That is what the House Republican plan does. It cuts programs to reduce our dependence on foreign energy from $4.7 billion a year to $2 billion. That is a 60-percent cut in programs to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. If anybody has driven on the highways of America, we all know we have work to do there. If we look at spending on infrastructure in our country versus our major competitors, we can see China is spending 9 percent of its GDP on infrastructure: roads, bridges, airports, and rail. Europe spends 5 percent, and the United States spends 2.4 percent on infrastructure. We ought to do better than that. So what is the Republican answer? On transportation funding, they cut it 34 percent. They cut it 34 percent. I think we understand the direction our Republican colleagues want to take this country, and it is full speed in reverse. They want to go back to the failed policies that put this country on the brink of financial collapse the last time they were in charge. We will hear our colleagues on the Republican side say we can't raise any revenue. We can't raise any revenue, even though revenue is at or near a 60-year low right now. If we look historically at what it has taken to balance the budget, the last five times we balanced the budget, revenue was at 19.5 percent to 20.6 percent of GDP. Under the Republican plan, it never gets above 18.7 percent. So I don't think they are very serious about balancing the budget. Former Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg said this about the need for more revenue: [W]e also know revenues are going to have to go up, if you're going to maintain a stable economy and a productive economy, because of the simple fact that you're going to have this huge generation that has to be paid for. That is the baby boom generation. Former Senate Budget Committee Chairman Domenici also said we need more revenue. He said: A complete deficit reduction plan--one that can gain support from Republicans and Democrats--will need to combine comprehensive spending cuts with structural entitlement reform and new revenues . . . [A]dditional revenues will be needed if we are serious about controlling our debt. One of the issues that has become more and more clear in recent months is that income disparity is widening in America. This shows, since 1979, what has happened to the top 1 percent in terms of their income and what has happened to the middle quintile and the lowest quintile. Everybody else has been pretty much stagnant since 1979. The top 1 percent has gone up like a rocket. I have nothing to be critical about in terms of people doing well. We want everyone to succeed, not just part of the population. The hard reality is that since 1995, the effective tax rate for the wealthiest 400 taxpayers in this country has been cut from about 30 percent to 18 percent. That is not fair. The Republican plan is to give them more tax cuts. In fact, the House Republican plan on revenue provides an additional $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest among us by giving millionaires an average tax cut of more than $150,000 a year. It does not contribute one dime of revenue to deficit reduction. I want to end where I began. The last time our colleagues on the other side were in charge, when they controlled everything here from 2001 to 2006 and the White House until 2008, their Republican policies led the United States to the brink of financial collapse. The proposals they are making here today are to take us right back to those failed policies. We shouldn't let them do that. That would be a mistake for our country and it would be a mistake for the world. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, just to respond to my friend, the ranking member of the committee--and I have a lot of respect for the ranking member. The truth is on the larger issue we are not all that far apart. The larger issue is, as a nation, we are on an unsustainable course. This is as clear as it can be, and we have to deal with it. We have a difference with respect to what we have right now. I believe we do have a budget in place for this year and next year. The place where I would agree with the gentleman is we don't have the longer term plan. The problem is, Are we really going to get all sides to get off their fixed positions right before a national election? That is a matter of judgment. I don't believe that it is going to happen. I was part of the Simpson-Bowles Commission. In fact, Senator Gregg and I were the ones who got the Commission appointed, and he and I were 2 of the 11--five Democrats, five Republicans, one Independent--who voted in favor of the long-term plan that Bowles-Simpson put before the American people that would have reduced the debt from what it would otherwise be by more than $4 trillion. Depending on what baseline you use, even more than that. That is the minimum we need to do. I actually tried to convince the Commission to do $5.6 trillion. That was my proposal to the Commission, a $5.6 trillion package of deficit reduction and debt reduction. Why did I pick that? We could balance the budget in 10 years if we did. But I do want to go back to this question about whether we have a budget right now, for this year. I say, with respect, I believe it is very clear we do. The Budget Control Act--not a budget resolution but a law--said very clearly the allocations, aggregates, and levels of spending shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012. That identical language follows for 2013. So pursuant to the Budget Control Act, in April I provided to the appropriators and the authorizers these budget allocations for appropriations: For security discretionary budget authority for 2013, $546 billion; for nonsecurity discretionary budget authority, $501 billion. That is a total, onbudget, of $1,040,000,000,954; mandatory spending, $815 billion, $671 billion, for a total of $1,862,671,000,000. Then to the authorizing committees, I went through some of these numbers previously. The Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, $13,397 million; on entitlements for that same committee, $124,580 million; on Armed Services, $146,698 million; on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, $22,167 million. Again, I could go through every committee, but there it is. The appropriations spending limits have been provided to the appropriators. The authorizing committees have been given their designations. So for this year and next, it is clear we have spending limits put in place. What we don't have is the longer term plan. That is where I would agree with the gentleman. The question is, Is there any prospect of the two sides coming together, getting off their fixed positions right now? I doubt that very much. Madam President, Senator Paul is here and he has this time.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, we are waiting for a number of Senators who have sought time. They will be coming to the floor and we will hear from them momentarily. Let me say Senator Paul is sincere. One place I agree with him is that the country has to face up to our deficit and debt situation. As I indicated earlier, I was part of the Simpson-Bowles commission. We agreed to, and voted on, significant reforms, spending cuts, but we also used some additional revenue to have a balanced plan. I believe that has to be the test for any of the proposals that are made here. As I see the proposals coming from our Republican colleague, they flunk that test because they are not balanced. There is nothing on the revenue side. In fact, in all of their plans, there are deep additional tax cuts aimed at the wealthiest among us. None of the Republican plans have less than a $150,000 tax cut, on average, for people with earnings of over $1 million a year. Senator Paul's plan is truly radical. He didn't mention a lot of the elements, but his plan includes massive tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. He scraps the entire tax system and goes to a 17-percent flat tax. That is a massive tax cut for those of us who have higher income-- massive tax cut. I can tell you it would be a massive tax cut for my family. He also cuts discretionary spending, education, and energy, by huge amounts. I will go into that in a bit. He cuts health care by almost $4 trillion. He replaces the current progressive system with a 17-percent flat tax. He eliminates the estate tax--eliminates it. He eliminates taxes on capital gains and dividends--eliminates them. My goodness, think about what that would mean. People such as Warren Buffett would pay almost nothing in taxes. The richest people among us would pay almost nothing in taxes, because he eliminates taxes on capital gains and dividends. But he is not so generous when it comes to lower income people. He raises taxes on lower income people by ending the earned-income tax credit and the child tax credit. He eliminates it. Perhaps most stunning, his answer to saving Social Security is to cut the benefits 39 percent. The plan does not include a dime of revenue for Social Security. That is what Senator Paul has before this body. Really? Is that what we should do? Massive tax cuts for the wealthiest among us and make up for it by cutting Social Security benefits 39 percent. That is the Paul plan. He increases the retirement age three times faster than the Fiscal Commission plan and he shifts to something he calls ``progressive indexing'' for those earning above $33,000, which cuts their benefits even deeper over time. I respect his desire to do something about deficits and debt, but the answer is not massive tax cuts. Eliminate the estate tax? Eliminate capital gains taxation? No taxes--wow. Warren Buffett should send him a thank-you letter. And cut Social Security 39 percent? I can go into the other details. He cuts energy dramatically. He cuts education. What is his education cut? I think we have it there. We will go into the specifics of the massive cuts so we can have more tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, trillions of dollars, and then cut Social Security 39 percent. That is breathtaking. We will see how many colleagues are going to stand up and support that in a vote later today. Senator Durbin is here. I thank him very much for his involvement. He has not only served on the Simpson-Bowles commission but also served on the group of six and has spent literally hundreds of hours trying to find a way on a bipartisan basis working together to come up with a plan that is balanced and fair, to get us back on the track and save trillions of dollars on the debt. I applaud him for it. He has shown enormous courage and also extraordinary energy trying to get our country back on track.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Senator Alexander is next. I wonder if we could enter into a quick time agreement to get the next Senators slotted. That might help us manage the floor, I would say to my colleague, Senator Sessions.

Mr. CONRAD. We have Senator Reed slotted in between. I wonder if we could propose--I say to Senator Alexander, how much time would you like?

Mr. CONRAD. Perhaps we can ask for a unanimous consent request to lock in these next Senators so people know who is waiting.

Mr. CONRAD. We can do it. We have been doing this and I think it works out well. So I ask unanimous consent that Senator Grassley be recognized for 10 minutes, followed by Senator Cardin for 8, followed by Senator Crapo for 10 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. I would say to Senator Boxer the situation we find ourselves in is we only have 34 minutes left on our side. I will yield 7 minutes to Senator Boxer. Senator Murray is here now.

Mr. CONRAD. We have a situation in which our time is rapidly fleeting. They have much more time left on their side than we do on ours. Could the Senator do her presentation in 7 minutes?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Murray be allowed to speak for 7 minutes followed by Senator Boxer for 7 minutes.