Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to submit to the Senate the second set of budget scorekeeping reports for the 2009 budget resolution. The reports, which cover fiscal years 2008 and 2009, were 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 reports show the effects of congressional action through September 8, 2008, and include legislation that was enacted since I filed my last reports in July. The new legislation includes: Public Law 110-275, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008; Public Law 110-287, a joint resolution approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003; Public Law 110-289, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008; and Public Law 110-315, the Higher Education Opportunity Act. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of S. Con. Res. 70, the 2009 budget resolution. For 2008, the estimates show that current level spending is below the budget resolution by $5.2 billion for budget authority and $2.4 billion for outlays while current level revenues are above the budget resolution by $3 billion. For 2009, the estimates show that current level spending is below the budget resolution by $958 billion for budget authority and $591.1 billion for outlays while current level revenues are above the budget resolution level by $56.7 billion. I ask unanimous consent that the letters and accompanying tables from CBO be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I join my good friend and colleague, Senator Baucus, in introducing the Comparative Effectiveness Research Act of 2008. This proposal is the product of months of careful deliberations regarding the best way to expand the quality and quantity of evidence available to health consumers about the comparative clinical effectiveness of health care services and treatments. We have met with dozens of key stakeholders and thought leaders to discuss various aspects of this legislation. I am proud of the result. This legislation lays the groundwork for improving health care outcomes, enhancing patient safety, and reducing overall health care costs in the long-run. As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I am acutely aware of the long-term budget challenges facing our nation. Health care spending is growing at an unsustainable rate. Although demographic changes associated with the retirement of the baby boom generation contribute to this spending growth, the most significant factor is growth in health care costs in excess of per capita GDP growth. According to Congressional Budget Office projections, by 2050, Medicare and Medicaid spending alone will consume 12 percent of our Nation's gross domestic product. But excess growth in per capita health care costs is not just a challenge for Federal health spending and the federal budget. If we continue on the current trajectory, the private sector will also be overwhelmed by rising health care costs. In fact, total health care spending is projected to grow from about 16 percent of GDP in 2007-- which is far higher than in other industrialized countries--to more than 37 percent of GDP in 2050. Clearly, we need to address the underlying causes of rising health care costs, not just in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, but in the overall health care system. Simply cutting Medicare and Medicaid without making other changes will do little to solve the larger problem we face. As GAO Comptroller General David Walker pointed out in testimony before the House Budget Committee, in 2005, ``[F]ederal health spending trends should not be viewed in isolation from the health care system as a whole . . . . Rather, in order to address the long-term fiscal challenge, it will be necessary to find approaches that deal with health care cost growth in the overall health care system.'' A key problem we must confront is that our health care system does not deliver care as efficiently or effectively as it should. In fact, the United States spends far more on health expenditures as a percent of GDP than any other country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. For example, the United States spent 16 percent of GDP on health expenditures in 2006, compared to 9 percent in Italy. And the disparity is even starker today. Despite this additional health care spending, health outcomes in the United States are no better than health outcomes in the other OECD countries. In fact, by some measures, they are worse. We can and must find ways to deliver health care more efficiently, reduce ineffective or unnecessary care, and get better health outcomes without harming patients. One solution is to generate better information about the relative effectiveness of alternative health strategies--and encourage patients and providers to use that information to make better choices about their health. Many newer, more expensive health care services and treatments are absorbed quickly into routine medical care--yet there is little evidence that these services and treatments are any more clinically effective than existing treatments and services. The Federal Government currently funds some comparative effectiveness research through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The Effective Health Care Program has been a successful initiative, and we commend AHRQ for its work, but comparative effectiveness research is not the primary focus of any federal agency--nor is this federal funding occurring on a large-scale. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, and the Institute of Medicine, IOM, have all discussed the positive impact of creating a new entity charged solely with conducting research on the comparative effectiveness of health interventions, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, medical procedures, diagnostic tools, medical services and other therapies. In its June 2007 report to Congress, MedPAC issued a unanimous recommendation that ``Congress should charge an independent entity to sponsor credible research on comparative effectiveness of health care services and disseminate this information to patients, providers, and public and private payers.'' And the Congressional Budget Office agrees. In a recent report, entitled, ``Research on the Comparative Effectiveness of Medical Treatments: Issues and Options for an Expanded Federal Role,'' CBO Director Peter Orszag wrote that, ``generating better information about the costs and benefits of different treatment options--through research on the comparative effectiveness of those options--could help reduce health care spending without adversely affecting health overall.'' The IOM also supports getting better information into the hands of patients and providers. As part of its report, ``Learning What Works Best: The Nation's Need for Evidence on Comparative Effectiveness in Health Care,'' the Institute concluded that, ``[a] substantially increased capacity to conduct and evaluate research on clinical effectiveness of interventions brings many potential opportunities for improvement across a wide spectrum of healthcare needs.'' This bill that Senator Baucus and I are introducing today represents an important step in expanding comparative effectiveness research. The bill would significantly expand the conduct of comparative clinical effectiveness research to get better information into the hands of patients and providers in the hopes of improving health outcomes and reducing unnecessary or ineffective care. The purpose of this bill is to provide health care providers and patients with objective and credible evidence about which health care treatments, services, and items are most clinically effective for particular patient populations. The research conducted under our bill would evaluate and compare the clinical effectiveness of two or more health care interventions, treatment protocols, procedures, medical devices, diagnostic tools, pharmaceuticals, and other processes or items used in the treatment or diagnosis of patients. Access to better evidence about what works best will help patients and health care providers make better-informed decisions about how best to treat particular diseases and conditions. Our hope is that the evidence generated by this research could lead to savings in the overall health care system over the long-term by allowing providers to avoid treatments that may be clinically ineffective, while at the same time improving health care outcomes. Specifically, our bill creates a private, nonprofit corporation, known as the Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute, which would be responsible for organizing and implementing a national comparative effectiveness research agenda. In conducting the research, the Institute would contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Institutes of Health and other appropriate public and private entities and could use a variety of research methods, including clinical trials, observational studies and systematic reviews of existing evidence. Many thought leaders on this issue, such as the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, had concerns that a large entity within the Federal Government would be vulnerable to political interference that could hamper the Institute's credibility, and, therefore, limit the usefulness of its research. As a result, we chose a model outside of the Federal Government, but subject to government oversight. In order to ensure that the information developed is credible and unbiased, our bill establishes a 21-Member Board of Governors to oversee the Institute's activities. Permanent board members would include the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Directors of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health, NIH. The remaining 18 board members would be appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States and would include a balanced mix of patients, physicians, drug, device, and technology manufacturers, public and private payers, academic researchers, philanthropic organizations and quality improvement entities. To ensure further credibility, the Institute is also required to appoint advisory panels of patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders that would assist in the development and carrying out of the research agenda; establish a methodology committee that would help create standards by which all research commissioned by the Institute must be conducted; create a peer review process through which all research findings must be assessed; and develop protocols to help translate and disseminate the evidence in the most effective, user-friendly way. Moreover, Senator Baucus and I want to ensure that the operations of the Institute are transparent. Therefore, we built in a strong role for public comment prior to all key decisions made by the Institute. For example, the bill requires public comment periods prior to the approval of the overall research agenda and the individual study designs. In addition, the bill calls for periodic public forums to seek input, requires that all proceedings of the Institute be made public and available through annual reports, and requires that any conflicts of interest be made public and that board members recuse themselves from matters in which they have a financial or personal interest. Because all health care users will benefit from this research, our legislation funds the Institute with contributions from both public and private payers. These contributions will include mandatory general revenues from the Federal Government, amounts from the Medicare Trust Funds equal to $1 per beneficiary annually, and amounts from a $1 fee per-covered life assessed annually on insured and self-insured health plans. Funding will ramp up over a series of years. By the fifth year, we expect the Institute's total annual funding to exceed $300 million per year and continue to grow thereafter. The concept of an all-payer approach for comparative effectiveness research has been embraced by a number of health care experts. For example, on the subject of comparative effectiveness information in its June 2008 report, MedPAC stated: ``The Commission supports funding from federal and private sources as the research findings will benefit all users--patients, providers, private health plans, and federal health programs. The Commission also supports a dedicated funding mechanism to help ensure the entity's independence and stability. Dedicated broadly based financing would reduce the likelihood of outside influence and would best ensure the entity's stability . . .'' To ensure accountability for these funds and to the Institute's mission, our bill requires an annual financial audit of the Institute. In addition, the bill requires GAO to report to Congress every five years on the processes developed by the Institute and its overall effectiveness, including how the research findings are used by health care consumers and what impact the research is having on the health economy. Finally, the bill requires a review after eight years of the adequacy of the Institute's funding, which will include a review of the appropriateness and adequacy of each funding source. Let me take a moment to address some of the criticisms that might be levied against this proposal. Some may say this Institute will impede access to care and will deny coverage for high-cost health care services. That is not the case. Our proposal explicitly prohibits the Institute from making coverage decisions or setting practice guidelines. It will be up to specialty societies and patient groups to use the research findings as they see fit. Moreover, to the extent that high-cost health care services or new technologies are studied by the Institute and found to be clinically ineffective compared to other services and technologies, such evidence will be made public to consumers and providers so that they can make the best possible health care decisions. Other critics may claim that this proposal will result in one-size-fits-all approach to comparative clinical effectiveness research. We recognize that different health care treatments may have different levels of effectiveness for different subpopulations. That is why our bill requires that the Institute's research be designed, as appropriate, to take into account the potential differences in the effectiveness of health care services as used with various subpopulations, such as women, racial and ethnic minorities, different age groups, and individuals with different comorbidities. This bill is a balanced, carefully crafted proposal that has taken into consideration the recommendations of a broad range of stakeholders and thought-leaders. We welcome further discussion and suggested improvements. But we refuse to allow this proposal to get bogged down in political maneuvering or scare tactics. Our nation needs to ramp up comparative effectiveness research immediately to improve health outcomes and reduce ineffective and inefficient care. Senator Baucus and I will work jointly to push for the expeditious enactment of this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to join our effort and cosponsor the Comparative Effectiveness Research Act of 2008. There is no time to waste.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 222 of S. Con. Res. 70, the 2009 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in the resolution for legislation improving education, including legislation that makes higher education more accessible or more affordable. The revisions are contingent on certain conditions being met, including that such legislation not worsen the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018. I find that the conference report to accompany H.R. 4137, the Higher Education Opportunity Act, satisfies the conditions of the reserve fund for improving education. Therefore, pursuant to section 222, I am adjusting the aggregates in the 2009 budget resolution, as well as the allocation provided to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 70 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I join my good friend and colleague, Senator Baucus, in introducing the Comparative Effectiveness Research Act of 2008. This proposal is the product of months of careful deliberations regarding the best way to expand the quality and quantity of evidence available to health consumers about the comparative clinical effectiveness of health care services and treatments. We have met with dozens of key stakeholders and thought leaders to discuss various aspects of this legislation. I am proud of the result. This legislation lays the groundwork for improving health care outcomes, enhancing patient safety, and reducing overall health care costs in the long-run. As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I am acutely aware of the long-term budget challenges facing our nation. Health care spending is growing at an unsustainable rate. Although demographic changes associated with the retirement of the baby boom generation contribute to this spending growth, the most significant factor is growth in health care costs in excess of per capita GDP growth. According to Congressional Budget Office projections, by 2050, Medicare and Medicaid spending alone will consume 12 percent of our Nation's gross domestic product. But excess growth in per capita health care costs is not just a challenge for Federal health spending and the federal budget. If we continue on the current trajectory, the private sector will also be overwhelmed by rising health care costs. In fact, total health care spending is projected to grow from about 16 percent of GDP in 2007-- which is far higher than in other industrialized countries--to more than 37 percent of GDP in 2050. Clearly, we need to address the underlying causes of rising health care costs, not just in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, but in the overall health care system. Simply cutting Medicare and Medicaid without making other changes will do little to solve the larger problem we face. As GAO Comptroller General David Walker pointed out in testimony before the House Budget Committee, in 2005, ``[F]ederal health spending trends should not be viewed in isolation from the health care system as a whole . . . . Rather, in order to address the long-term fiscal challenge, it will be necessary to find approaches that deal with health care cost growth in the overall health care system.'' A key problem we must confront is that our health care system does not deliver care as efficiently or effectively as it should. In fact, the United States spends far more on health expenditures as a percent of GDP than any other country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. For example, the United States spent 16 percent of GDP on health expenditures in 2006, compared to 9 percent in Italy. And the disparity is even starker today. Despite this additional health care spending, health outcomes in the United States are no better than health outcomes in the other OECD countries. In fact, by some measures, they are worse. We can and must find ways to deliver health care more efficiently, reduce ineffective or unnecessary care, and get better health outcomes without harming patients. One solution is to generate better information about the relative effectiveness of alternative health strategies--and encourage patients and providers to use that information to make better choices about their health. Many newer, more expensive health care services and treatments are absorbed quickly into routine medical care--yet there is little evidence that these services and treatments are any more clinically effective than existing treatments and services. The Federal Government currently funds some comparative effectiveness research through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The Effective Health Care Program has been a successful initiative, and we commend AHRQ for its work, but comparative effectiveness research is not the primary focus of any federal agency--nor is this federal funding occurring on a large-scale. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, and the Institute of Medicine, IOM, have all discussed the positive impact of creating a new entity charged solely with conducting research on the comparative effectiveness of health interventions, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, medical procedures, diagnostic tools, medical services and other therapies. In its June 2007 report to Congress, MedPAC issued a unanimous recommendation that ``Congress should charge an independent entity to sponsor credible research on comparative effectiveness of health care services and disseminate this information to patients, providers, and public and private payers.'' And the Congressional Budget Office agrees. In a recent report, entitled, ``Research on the Comparative Effectiveness of Medical Treatments: Issues and Options for an Expanded Federal Role,'' CBO Director Peter Orszag wrote that, ``generating better information about the costs and benefits of different treatment options--through research on the comparative effectiveness of those options--could help reduce health care spending without adversely affecting health overall.'' The IOM also supports getting better information into the hands of patients and providers. As part of its report, ``Learning What Works Best: The Nation's Need for Evidence on Comparative Effectiveness in Health Care,'' the Institute concluded that, ``[a] substantially increased capacity to conduct and evaluate research on clinical effectiveness of interventions brings many potential opportunities for improvement across a wide spectrum of healthcare needs.'' This bill that Senator Baucus and I are introducing today represents an important step in expanding comparative effectiveness research. The bill would significantly expand the conduct of comparative clinical effectiveness research to get better information into the hands of patients and providers in the hopes of improving health outcomes and reducing unnecessary or ineffective care. The purpose of this bill is to provide health care providers and patients with objective and credible evidence about which health care treatments, services, and items are most clinically effective for particular patient populations. The research conducted under our bill would evaluate and compare the clinical effectiveness of two or more health care interventions, treatment protocols, procedures, medical devices, diagnostic tools, pharmaceuticals, and other processes or items used in the treatment or diagnosis of patients. Access to better evidence about what works best will help patients and health care providers make better-informed decisions about how best to treat particular diseases and conditions. Our hope is that the evidence generated by this research could lead to savings in the overall health care system over the long-term by allowing providers to avoid treatments that may be clinically ineffective, while at the same time improving health care outcomes. Specifically, our bill creates a private, nonprofit corporation, known as the Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute, which would be responsible for organizing and implementing a national comparative effectiveness research agenda. In conducting the research, the Institute would contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Institutes of Health and other appropriate public and private entities and could use a variety of research methods, including clinical trials, observational studies and systematic reviews of existing evidence. Many thought leaders on this issue, such as the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, had concerns that a large entity within the Federal Government would be vulnerable to political interference that could hamper the Institute's credibility, and, therefore, limit the usefulness of its research. As a result, we chose a model outside of the Federal Government, but subject to government oversight. In order to ensure that the information developed is credible and unbiased, our bill establishes a 21-Member Board of Governors to oversee the Institute's activities. Permanent board members would include the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Directors of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health, NIH. The remaining 18 board members would be appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States and would include a balanced mix of patients, physicians, drug, device, and technology manufacturers, public and private payers, academic researchers, philanthropic organizations and quality improvement entities. To ensure further credibility, the Institute is also required to appoint advisory panels of patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders that would assist in the development and carrying out of the research agenda; establish a methodology committee that would help create standards by which all research commissioned by the Institute must be conducted; create a peer review process through which all research findings must be assessed; and develop protocols to help translate and disseminate the evidence in the most effective, user-friendly way. Moreover, Senator Baucus and I want to ensure that the operations of the Institute are transparent. Therefore, we built in a strong role for public comment prior to all key decisions made by the Institute. For example, the bill requires public comment periods prior to the approval of the overall research agenda and the individual study designs. In addition, the bill calls for periodic public forums to seek input, requires that all proceedings of the Institute be made public and available through annual reports, and requires that any conflicts of interest be made public and that board members recuse themselves from matters in which they have a financial or personal interest. Because all health care users will benefit from this research, our legislation funds the Institute with contributions from both public and private payers. These contributions will include mandatory general revenues from the Federal Government, amounts from the Medicare Trust Funds equal to $1 per beneficiary annually, and amounts from a $1 fee per-covered life assessed annually on insured and self-insured health plans. Funding will ramp up over a series of years. By the fifth year, we expect the Institute's total annual funding to exceed $300 million per year and continue to grow thereafter. The concept of an all-payer approach for comparative effectiveness research has been embraced by a number of health care experts. For example, on the subject of comparative effectiveness information in its June 2008 report, MedPAC stated: ``The Commission supports funding from federal and private sources as the research findings will benefit all users--patients, providers, private health plans, and federal health programs. The Commission also supports a dedicated funding mechanism to help ensure the entity's independence and stability. Dedicated broadly based financing would reduce the likelihood of outside influence and would best ensure the entity's stability . . .'' To ensure accountability for these funds and to the Institute's mission, our bill requires an annual financial audit of the Institute. In addition, the bill requires GAO to report to Congress every five years on the processes developed by the Institute and its overall effectiveness, including how the research findings are used by health care consumers and what impact the research is having on the health economy. Finally, the bill requires a review after eight years of the adequacy of the Institute's funding, which will include a review of the appropriateness and adequacy of each funding source. Let me take a moment to address some of the criticisms that might be levied against this proposal. Some may say this Institute will impede access to care and will deny coverage for high-cost health care services. That is not the case. Our proposal explicitly prohibits the Institute from making coverage decisions or setting practice guidelines. It will be up to specialty societies and patient groups to use the research findings as they see fit. Moreover, to the extent that high-cost health care services or new technologies are studied by the Institute and found to be clinically ineffective compared to other services and technologies, such evidence will be made public to consumers and providers so that they can make the best possible health care decisions. Other critics may claim that this proposal will result in one-size-fits-all approach to comparative clinical effectiveness research. We recognize that different health care treatments may have different levels of effectiveness for different subpopulations. That is why our bill requires that the Institute's research be designed, as appropriate, to take into account the potential differences in the effectiveness of health care services as used with various subpopulations, such as women, racial and ethnic minorities, different age groups, and individuals with different comorbidities. This bill is a balanced, carefully crafted proposal that has taken into consideration the recommendations of a broad range of stakeholders and thought-leaders. We welcome further discussion and suggested improvements. But we refuse to allow this proposal to get bogged down in political maneuvering or scare tactics. Our nation needs to ramp up comparative effectiveness research immediately to improve health outcomes and reduce ineffective and inefficient care. Senator Baucus and I will work jointly to push for the expeditious enactment of this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to join our effort and cosponsor the Comparative Effectiveness Research Act of 2008. There is no time to waste.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community in North Dakota that recently celebrated its 125th anniversary. On June 27 through June 29, the residents of Churchs Ferry celebrated their community's history and founding. This Great Northern Rail Road town site was founded in 1886 and named for the ferry service operated by Irvine A. Church. Mr. Church moved his Church post office to the town on November 13, 1886, adopting the new name. To conform to new government spelling regulations the name was changed to Churchs Ferry on November 30, 1894. Although its population is small, Churchs Ferry serves as a testament to hard work and determination. Even after a Federal buyout in 2000 relocated many residents of Churchs Ferry from the rising flood waters of Devils Lake, some residents remained. These 10 residents have persevered and worked extremely hard to keep Churchs Ferry alive. Paul Christenson is the mayor, mechanic, and mower of the community's 30 acres of grass and takes great pride in keeping Churchs Ferry beautiful. Two new businesses have opened, including Gardendwellers Farm, which grows custom crops for wineries and restaurants and offers horticulture tours and workshops, and Water's Edge Dog Boarding kennel. Visitors who pass through Churchs Ferry still see that the street signs are up and can drive by city hall, the post office, Kat's Korral bar, Paul's Repair shop, the Zion Lutheran Church, a museum, the Masonic Temple and the former school's gym/kitchen/stage addition that was purchased by the school's alumni association. The 125th anniversary celebration started off Friday, June 27, with a 1-mile walk and concluded on Sunday with a polka church service. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Churchs Ferry, ND, and its residents on their 125th anniversary and in wishing them well in the future. By honoring Churchs Ferry and all the other historic small towns of ND, we keep the pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Churchs Ferry that have helped shape this country into what it is today, which is why this community is deserving of our recognition.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize a community in North Dakota that recently celebrated its 125th anniversary. On July 4-6, the residents of Havana gathered to celebrate their community's history and founding. Havana is a town of nearly 100 inhabitants. It is located in southeast North Dakota. Originally, the town was named Weber, but it was subsequently changed to Havana to avoid confusion with a town of a similar sounding name on the same railroad line. Havana was incorporated in 1904. By 1913, the town claimed a population of 450. In its early days, Havana had numerous general stores, pool halls, hotels, businesses dedicated to agriculture, a newspaper and an opera house. Today, Havana offers its citizens plenty of leisure activities. Residents can enjoy a game of baseball at Williamson Park. The town maintains a grocery store and a post office. The Havana Civic Center hosts events for Havana's citizens. One of the favorite gathering places of residents of Havana is the town's cafe, the Farmer's Inn. Havana's anniversary celebration began with a parade. In addition to many other activities, the community hosted a craft show, a banquet at the Havana Civic Center, a street dance, and fireworks display. Havana held a music festival, featuring bluegrass and gospel music, on the last day of the celebration. One of the highlights of Havana's festivities was the All School Reunion, which brought together former classmates of Havana School. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Havana, ND and its residents on their first 125 years and in wishing them well in the future. By honoring Havana and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places like Havana that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this community is deserving of our recognition. Havana has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community in North Dakota that is celebrating its 125th anniversary. On July 25 through July 27, the residents of Minnewaukan will celebrate their community's history and founding. Minnewaukan is a small town with a population of 318 residents located in Benson County in northeastern North Dakota. In 1883, the town site was founded as one of several sites competing for the important Northern Pacific Railroad connection at the west end of Devils Lake. It became the county seat in 1884. The name is based on the Indian name Mini Waukon Chante, meaning water of bad spirits. The post office was established on March 12, 1884, by Thomas B. Ware. In 1898, Minnewaukan became a city. Today, Minnewaukan remains a proud community that has a prosperous economy consisting of farming, service businesses, outdoor tourism, computer processing and retail businesses. Like so many smaller rural communities in North Dakota, Minnewaukan is a tight-knit town where everyone knows their neighbor. The Minnewaukan Community Club is a valuable asset to the community. The efforts of the club have successfully established a thriving fish cleaning station and boat ramp in the area. Minnewaukan is a great place for enjoying the outdoors all year round, including hunting, fishing, boating, and camping. People from across the State and Nation are drawn by the lengthy seasons and abundant populations of waterfowl and fish. Grahams Island State Park provides citizens of the community and tourists an opportunity to enjoy the beauty of North Dakota through hiking, canoeing, biking, horseback riding and cross-country skiing. The community has planned a wonderful weekend celebration to commemorate its 125th anniversary. Current and former residents of Minnewaukan will gather to celebrate this special occasion. The celebration includes an all-school reunion, a 5k walk/run, parade, fireworks display, concerts, and much more. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Minnewaukan, ND, and its residents on their 125th anniversary and in wishing them well in the future. By honoring Minnewaukan and all the other historic towns of North Dakota, we keep the pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Minnewaukan that have helped shape this country into what it is today, which is why this community is deserving of our recognition. Minnewaukan has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community in North Dakota that recently celebrated its 125th anniversary. On July 12 and 13, the residents of Guelph gathered to celebrate their community's history and founding. Guelph is located in Dickey County in southeastern North Dakota. It was founded in 1886 as a station for the Great Northern Rail Road. The post office was established on March 8, 1887, and its postmaster, Silas R. Dales, named the town for his hometown of Guelph, Ontario. Although its population is small, Guelph is a popular destination because of its proximity to the James River for recreational boating and fishing. In addition, there are eight farms in the community that have been in the same families for 100 years. The celebratory events on July 12 included a performance by the Guelph Community Band and Chorus, an all-school reunion, children's games, pony rides, a Shine and Show classic car/collectible vehicle show, a banquet and a dance. Activities for July 13 included a turkey barbeque, children's games and a tractor pull. Also, the anniversary committee created memorabilia rooms representing the former Guelph school classes, and the town of Guelph. Video presentations of the community history and past celebrations were available for viewing throughout the weekend. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Guelph, ND, and its residents on their 125th anniversary and in wishing them well in the future. By honoring Guelph and all other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. Communities such as Guelph have helped shape this Nation into what it is today, which is why this community is deserving of our recognition.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, section 312(c) of S. Con. Res. 70, the 2009 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the section 312(b) discretionary spending limits and allocations pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for legislation reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee that provides a certain level of funding for fiscal year 2009 for four program integrity initiatives. The initiatives are: continuing disability reviews and supplemental security income redeterminations, Internal Revenue Service tax enforcement, health care fraud and abuse control, and unemployment insurance improper payment reviews. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 3230, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009, on July 8, 2008. That bill contains provisions that fulfill the conditions of section 312(c) for adjustments related to continuing disability reviews and supplemental security income redeterminations, health care fraud and abuse control, and unemployment insurance improper payment reviews. In addition, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 3260, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2009, on July 14, 2008. That bill contains provisions that fulfill the conditions of section 312(c) for Internal Revenue Service tax enforcement. As a result, for fiscal year 2009, I am revising both the discretionary spending limits and the allocation to the Senate Appropriations Committee for discretionary budget authority and outlays. The amount of the adjustment is $968 million in budget authority and $892 million in outlays. The revised discretionary limits and allocations for discretionary budget authority and outlays are the appropriate levels to be used for enforcement during consideration of the fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 70 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, pursuant to sections 221(f) and 227 of S. Con. Res. 70, I previously filed adjustments to the 2009 budget resolution for H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. Those adjustments reflected the Congressional Budget Office's estimate at that time of the budgetary effects of H.R. 6331. CBO has since revised that estimate. While H.R. 6331 still meets the conditions required for the release of the reserve funds under sections 221(f) and 227, including being fully paid for over both the 6- and 11- year time periods, the net effect of CBO's revisions is to lower the estimated net savings of the legislation. Consequently, I am revising the adjustments made on July 9 pursuant to sections 221(f) and 227 to both the budgetary aggregates and the allocation provided to the Senate Finance Committee to reflect CBO's revised scoring. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 70 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to say a few words about the retirement of GEN T. Michael Moseley. This morning at Bolling Air Force Base, the Air Force said farewell to its 18th Chief of Staff. Buzz Moseley faced a staggering array of challenges during his tenure: Recapitalizing and modernizing the oldest inventory of aircraft in the history of the Air Force, training and developing young airmen in a tumultuous time, and sustaining ongoing operations in two theatres of war as well as a worldwide fight against al-Qaida. Buzz tackled those significant challenges head-on, and made substantial progress in addressing each of them. The crucial role played by the Air Force in the current fight is often and unfortunately overlooked. Over the past 12 months, the Air Force has identified some serious lapses in attention to the nuclear mission. There were significant problems, and General Moseley took immediate action to strengthen compliance and discipline, heighten attention to detail and execution, expand inspection and evaluation, and broadly refocus the service on the nuclear mission. He and Secretary Michael Wynne have not received the credit they deserved for their efforts. But even if General Moseley will not be the one to oversee the conclusion of these efforts, there is no doubt that the Air Force will be building on the solid foundations laid by Buzz as it continues to aim for the zero-defect standard the American people are entitled to expect when it comes to nuclear weapons. The U.S. Air Force has always held its airmen and leaders to the highest standards, and in my view, Buzz Moseley consistently exceeded them throughout more than 36 years of service. He was an outstanding leader for the Air Force, and he should be proud of what he accomplished there. Our country owes him a deep debt of gratitude. It has been an honor to work with him over the years. But more than that, it has been an honor to call him my friend. This great American goes into his retirement with my deepest appreciation. Our fellow citizens should know he is a great patriot who protected our freedoms at great personal sacrifice and with real distinction. GEN Buzz Moseley is among our very best.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to submit to the Senate the first budget scorekeeping reports for the 2009 budget resolution. The reports, which cover fiscal years 2008 and 2009, were 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 reports show the effects of congressional action through July 7, 2008 and include the effects of Public Law 110-252, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, which the President signed into law on June 30, 2008. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of S. Con Res. 70, the 2009 budget resolution. For 2008, the estimates show that current level spending is below the budget resolution by $5.4 billion for budget authority and $2.6 billion for outlays while current level revenues are above the budget resolution by $4 billion. For 2009, the estimates show that current level spending is below the budget resolution by $983 billion for budget authority and $615.8 billion for outlays while current level revenues are above the budget resolution level by $67.8 billion. I ask unanimous consent that the letters and accompanying tables from CBO be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, section 221(f) of S. Con. Res. 70, the 2009 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in the resolution for legislation providing economic relief for American families, including reauthorizing the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. In addition, section 227 authorizes the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in the resolution for legislation making improvements in health care, including within Medicare (subsection (b)), Medicaid (subsection (e)), and other health areas (subsection (f)). The revisions are contingent on certain conditions being met, including that such legislation not worsen the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018. I find that H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008, satisfies the conditions of the reserve funds to provide economic relief for American families and improve America's health. Therefore, pursuant to sections 221(f) and 227, I am adjusting the aggregates in the 2009 budget resolution, as well as the allocation provided to the Senate Finance Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 70 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, to those who live in Fargo, ND, Terry DeVine has been a prominent and steady voice for decades. DeVine was hired by my State's biggest newspaper, the Fargo Forum, in 1981. DeVine was known as a consummate newsman. It has been said that, if a big story was brewing, DeVine wanted it. His readers know that he got it more often than not. Throughout his 27 years as managing editor, and later as a columnist, he maintained an integrity and dedication to journalism that was self- evident, spread every morning across the pages of the Forum for all to see. As a marine during Vietnam, he escorted wounded journalists off the battlefield. He began work with the Sioux Falls Argus Leader newspaper after the war, followed by a time with the Associated Press in Sioux Falls, before finally landing at the Forum, where his presence has been unmistakable. DeVine's recent retirement saddened many. Justly, the conclusion of his tenure has been seen in Fargo as the end of an era. In North Dakota, community matters. People share a connection and a concern that is not to be found in all places. But community cannot flourish in a vacuum. It requires a dialogue. It takes a willingness to be truthful and involved. It calls for an understanding of events that is untarnished and open. Perhaps Terry DeVine's greatest contribution has been to consistently furnish these qualities, and through this, to support the community he lives and works in.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to discuss a bill that I am introducing along with Senator Hatch today, the Carbon Reduction Technology Bridge Act of 2008. This bill is designed to develop the technologies that will enable us to use coal in a manner that helps address the threat of climate change. Our country depends on coal to provide half of our electricity. In North Dakota, coal accounts for over 90 percent of our power. This is the power we need for lighting and heating our homes, powering our businesses, and, in the future, charging our cars. The U.S. has vast resources of coal, enough to last over 250 years. We need to ensure that we can continue to enjoy the affordable electricity provided by coal, while developing technologies that will lower the greenhouse gas emissions that result from coal use. We need to advance carbon capture and storage technologies to address the reality of climate change. The scientific evidence is clear that human activity is increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which contributes to warming temperatures. The increased occurrence of severe weather and other effects that we have seen to date are small in comparison to what scientists say are the likely consequences of continued warming. This bill will help jumpstart investment in technologies to capture and store carbon. It provides tax credits to the first generation of highly efficient advanced coal plants that capture carbon dioxide. It helps companies make the first investments in carbon capture and storage equipment on the first existing plants. It also provides credits for each ton of carbon dioxide captured and stored underground. It provides a number of other incentives to advance coal technology. The science on climate change is clear, but what is not proven is the technology that can provide the solution. This bill sets ambitious but achievable goals for those companies willing to be the first to address this challenge head-on and build and install these technologies. Under this bill, a typical new coal plant would be required to capture 65 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions. After the first generation of projects supported by this bill, we will have tested and refined the technologies to enable an even higher rate of capture on future plants. This bill will provide an important step toward affordable, low- carbon power. I welcome comments from my colleagues on this proposal and hope that they will join me in sponsoring this bill.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to discuss a bill that I am introducing along with Senator Hatch today, the Carbon Reduction Technology Bridge Act of 2008. This bill is designed to develop the technologies that will enable us to use coal in a manner that helps address the threat of climate change. Our country depends on coal to provide half of our electricity. In North Dakota, coal accounts for over 90 percent of our power. This is the power we need for lighting and heating our homes, powering our businesses, and, in the future, charging our cars. The U.S. has vast resources of coal, enough to last over 250 years. We need to ensure that we can continue to enjoy the affordable electricity provided by coal, while developing technologies that will lower the greenhouse gas emissions that result from coal use. We need to advance carbon capture and storage technologies to address the reality of climate change. The scientific evidence is clear that human activity is increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which contributes to warming temperatures. The increased occurrence of severe weather and other effects that we have seen to date are small in comparison to what scientists say are the likely consequences of continued warming. This bill will help jumpstart investment in technologies to capture and store carbon. It provides tax credits to the first generation of highly efficient advanced coal plants that capture carbon dioxide. It helps companies make the first investments in carbon capture and storage equipment on the first existing plants. It also provides credits for each ton of carbon dioxide captured and stored underground. It provides a number of other incentives to advance coal technology. The science on climate change is clear, but what is not proven is the technology that can provide the solution. This bill sets ambitious but achievable goals for those companies willing to be the first to address this challenge head-on and build and install these technologies. Under this bill, a typical new coal plant would be required to capture 65 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions. After the first generation of projects supported by this bill, we will have tested and refined the technologies to enable an even higher rate of capture on future plants. This bill will provide an important step toward affordable, low- carbon power. I welcome comments from my colleagues on this proposal and hope that they will join me in sponsoring this bill.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 323(d) of S. Con. Res. 70, the 2009 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to make appropriate adjustments in aggregates, allocations, and other levels assumed in the resolution to reflect the budgetary impact of certain legislation. I am filing adjustments pursuant to section 323(d) for legislation that Congress cleared prior to the adoption of S. Con. Res. 70 but for which the necessary information to incorporate their budgetary effects was not available at the time the conference report was filed. The revisions are for public law 110-232, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act of 2008, and public law 110-245, the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008. For the information of my colleagues, the combined effect of the adjustments, including accompanying changes in debt service, is to reduce the on-budget deficit assumed in S. Con. Res. 70 by $965 million in 2008, while increasing it by $933 million in 2009 and by roughly $1 billion over the 2009 to 2013 period. On a unified basis, the legislation is expected to lower deficits by $322 million over the 2008 to 2013 period. Because the revisions are being made for legislation that has already cleared Congress, they will neither raise nor lower the amount of room available to Congress under the budgetary aggregates and committee allocations. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a set of tables which show the revised allocations, aggregates, and other levels for S. Con. Res. 70, the 2009 budget resolution.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community in North Dakota that is celebrating its 125th anniversary. On July 18 through 20, the residents of New Salem, ND, will celebrate their community's history and founding. New Salem began on an April day in 1882 when young John Christiansen hopped off a westbound freight train. The only sign of civilization he saw were the train tracks behind him and the belongings he brought. Soon after his arrival a Colonization Bureau out of Chicago sent settlers to the area and gave the colony its independence for $600. A church, land office, lumber yard, drugstore, and general store were soon built, and by the end of 1883, the town was ready for great plains living. Known nationally as the home of the world's largest Holstein cow, New Salem is a community filled with pride and energy. ``Salem Sue'' stands 38 feet high, weighs over 6 tons, and was erected by the New Salem Lions Club in 1974 to honor the dairymen of North Dakota. New Salem also has a nine-hole golf course, public swimming pool, and numerous parks to entertain residents and tourists. To celebrate its 125th anniversary, the community of New Salem is organizing a celebration that will include a parade, demolition derby, mixed golf scramble, pitchfork fondue, and numerous outdoor activities. A street dance down New Salem's Main Street will also be held. It promises to be a wonderful event. Mr. President, I ask the U.S. Senate to join me in congratulating New Salem, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and in wishing them well in the future. By honoring New Salem and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as New Salem that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. New Salem has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 125th anniversary. On July 11 through 13, the residents of Richardton will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. Richardton is located in Stark County in the southwest part of the State. Oscar L. Richard named the town in 1882 after his relative, C.B. Richard, who was an agent for the Hamburg-American Steamship Co., which promoted German-Russian settlement in this area. The post office was established a year later by Adolph Norberg. In 1906, the village was incorporated, and Richardton was officially recognized as a city in 1935. Richardton has a prominent Roman Catholic monastery, which was founded by Bishop Vincent DePaul Wehrle in 1899. Vincent was the first Abbot of the monastery, which was named St. Mary's Priory, from 1903- 1910. Under his leadership, the great twin-tower cathedral was built in 1906. St. Mary's faced significant challenges after its completion in 1910 which eventually led to its closure. Abbot Alcuin Deutsch of St. John's Abbey in Minnesota wanted to revive the Richardton community because it was still struggling financially. In 1926, Abbot Deutsch and other monks around North Dakota helped reopen the monastery with the name Assumption Abbey. Assumption Abbey remains in operation today. Richardton's attractions also include a golf course, bed and breakfasts, restaurants, motels and much more. Residents of Richardton take great pride in their community. To celebrate their 125th centennial anniversary, the community will be holding a 5k walk/run, a parade, games, an antique car show, a Rough Rider Rodeo, a dance, and a fireworks show. Mr. President, I ask the U.S. Senate to join me in congratulating Richardton, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and in wishing them well in the future. By honoring Richardton and all other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Richardton that have helped shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Richardton has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community in North Dakota that recently celebrated its 125th anniversary. On June 21, the residents of Menoken gathered to celebrate their community and its historic founding. Menoken is located in Burleigh County, just a few miles from the State capital. Although its population is small, Menoken holds an important place in our State's history. As the first tracks of the Northern Pacific Railroad were being laid across North Dakota, the Seventeenth Siding was marked; later to be known as what is now Menoken. Upon the completion of the railroad, settlers from Maine occupied the territory and named the town Blaine, after Maine Senator James G. Blaine. Once more the town's name was changed to Clark, and then finally secured as Menoken. The citizens of Menoken take great pride in their community enriched with history. The town is home to the Menoken Indian Village, which is a preserved prehistoric earthlodge village that dates back to the early 13th century A.D. In addition, the battlegrounds of General Sibley's campaign of 1863 are located near Menoken. These two landmarks are among many of the town's sacred keepsakes that resemble the very essence of North Dakota. The 125th anniversary celebration included a school tour, fashion show, and parade. It was followed by a horseshoe tournament, tractor pull, and old-time music. Once evening set in, people witnessed an exceptional cavalry reenactment. It was no doubt a day unlike any other. Mr. President, I ask the U.S. Senate to join me in congratulating Menoken, ND, and its residents on their 125th anniversary and in wishing them well for the future. By honoring Menoken and all other towns of North Dakota, we keep the pioneering, frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Menoken that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Menoken has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community in North Dakota that is celebrating it 125th anniversary. On July 24 through July 27, the residents of Michigan will celebrate their community's history and founding. Michigan is a small town with a population of 345 residents located in Nelson County in northeastern North Dakota. It was established on January 2, 1883, with the completion of its post office with C.J. Bondurant as postmaster. Soon after its establishment, railroad tracks were completed, and, in March of 1883, the first train reached Michigan. The town quickly became known as a trading center. With the railroads came more people, who built businesses, churches and schools. The settlers began to cultivate the land and raise crops. Agriculture soon became the center of their economy and remains so to this day. Today, Michigan remains a proud community that has a prosperous economy consisting of farming, manufacturing industries, and retail businesses. Residents of Michigan are known for their honesty, strong work ethic, and living off the land. It is a great place for enjoying the outdoors all year round, including hunting, cross-country skiing, fishing, boating, and camping. Michigan Days is a highlight each summer. During Michigan Days, the residents enjoy live music, a softball tournament, street dances, a tractor pull, and ice cream socials. As part of the weekend anniversary celebration residents will be able to go to the interesting Dakota Mysteries and Oddities Museum. Michigan will also hold a golf tournament at the Duffers Club and dedicate the Veteran's Memorial Building for all the brave residents of Michigan who have served in past wars. Several other wonderful activities will be taking place throughout the weekend. Mr. President, I ask the U.S. Senate to join me in congratulating Michigan, ND, and its residents on their 125th anniversary and in wishing them well in the future. By honoring Michigan and all the other historic towns of North Dakota, we keep the pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Michigan that have helped shape this country into what it is today, which is why this community is deserving of our recognition. Michigan has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish to recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 125th anniversary. On July 18-20, the residents of Milnor will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. During the summer of 1863, Henry Hastings Sibley and his army camped on the shore of Storm Lake--Camp Buel--and about 20 years later, in 1883, Milnor was established on that historical site. Milnor was named after William E. Milnor, the first telegrapher at the Milnor Station and WM Milnor Roberts, a famous civil engineer of the day. In October 1883, Milnor's post office was established, and it became a city in 1914. Today, Milnor remains a small, proud community. Each year, the community gathers in June for its annual Jamboree. The residents celebrate with a BBQ, golf tournament, street dance, parade and many other fun activities. During the summer, many Milnor residents can be found at the local pool, catching up with friends and family, or at the Lakeview golf course playing a few holes. Two National Wildlife Refugees are located near Milnor, the Tewaukon and Storm Lake Refuges. Many residents enjoy camping, fishing, and spotting wildlife at these beautiful sites. Milnor also has many other outdoor recreational areas located nearby, like Buffalo Lake--Kandiotta Lake--and Dead Colt Creek. To celebrate the 125th anniversary, the residents of Milnor will gather for many fun and exciting activities, including a parade, a street dance, and a time capsule unveiling. Mr. President, I ask the U.S. Senate to join me in congratulating Milnor, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and wishing them well in the future. By honoring Milnor and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Milnor that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Milnor has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community in North Dakota that is celebrating its 125th anniversary. From July 11 to July 13, the residents of Belfield, ND, will celebrate their community's history and founding. Belfield is situated along the banks of the Heart River in western North Dakota. As the westward expansion of the Northern Pacific Railroad progressed, settlers established this community and first identified it as Fort Houston. Belfield is said to have later adopted its current name after Belle Field, the daughter of a railroad engineer. Belfield offers visitors and residents fresh air and beautiful scenery. From Custer's Trail and Initial Rock, to Belfield Dam and the Maah Daah Hey Trail, Belfield has a wealth of outdoor recreational activities. This gateway to the west is also birthplace of North Dakota Supreme Court Judge Herbert L. Meschke. To celebrate its 125th anniversary, Belfield is organizing a weekend filled with events such as a parade, class reunions, a demolition derby, a steak fry, historical photo and pottery displays, and games for all ages. Belfield will also be host to the Black Daggers, a U.S. Army Special Operations Command Parachute Demonstration Team. The team will be performing parachute jumps throughout the weekend at various locations. It will no doubt add a breathtaking element to this celebration. Mr. President, I ask the U.S. Senate to join me in congratulating Belfield, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and in wishing them well in the future. By honoring Belfield and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Belfield that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Belfield has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 125th anniversary. On July 25 to 27, the residents of Minto will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. Minto is a community of over 600 residents located in the fertile Red River Valley in northeast North Dakota. The Homestead Act brought the first settlers to the Minto area, including a Canadian by the name of Angus Gillespie, Sr., who left his home in Minto Township, Ontario, to farm in North Dakota. Minto was incorporated in 1883. Twenty years later, Minto was recognized as a city. Minto's links with its Canadian forefathers have been renewed as the town of Minto, ND, became the sister city of Minto, Ontario, in 2007. The community of Minto is host to many businesses and amenities. There are numerous enterprises dedicated to farming, including elevators, implement dealerships, and trucking services. It also offers its citizens many leisure activities. Residents of the town and the surrounding area are able to enjoy a meal at the town's cafe and have their hair done at one of the salons. Families often gather in Minto's beautiful park, which has a baseball field, tennis court, playground, and picnic area. In the winter, the children of Minto can be found skating or playing hockey at the town's outdoor ice rink. Current and former residents of Minto will gather to celebrate the 125th anniversary. Events will begin with the telling of area Polish family histories at Minto's new community center. The Walsh County Historical Museum will also be open to the public. Minto's park will host a classic car show, magic show, and community baseball game. Each day of celebration will close with a dance. Mr. President, I ask the U.S. Senate to join me in congratulating Minto, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and in wishing them well in the future. By honoring Minto and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places like Minto that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this community is deserving of our recognition. Minto has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking member. I thank them for their leadership and their partnership and their vision. This is a bill that is good for consumers, good for taxpayers, and good for farmers. This is the same song, second verse. We have been through this whole rotation once already, but we have to do it again. I think it is very important to remind people this is much more than a farm bill. This is a food bill with important nutritional components. In fact, 66 percent of the spending in this bill goes for nutrition. It is an important conservation bill to conserve our national resources. It is an important energy bill, as was referenced by the chairman and the ranking member. This bill is going to turn the page on developing our long-range renewable energy potential, and it contains very significant farm program reform. In addition, it provides a disaster title so the people who are being so devastated in Iowa, in other States, are not going to have to come to the Federal Government and ask for disaster aid. It will be there for them. The bottom line is this bill does not add to the deficit or debt because this bill is paid for. That is not my claim; that is the finding of the Congressional Budget Office, which says over the first 5 years this bill has a modest surplus of $67 million. And over the life of the bill, the 10-year projections that we are required to comply with, this bill saves $110 million. I conclude by again thanking the chairman for his vision, thanking his staff for their incredible dedication, and thanking the ranking member, Senator Chambliss, whom I call Cool Hand Luke. You couldn't have a better guy in the pit, and it is a pit at times when you are writing a bill of this magnitude and this complexity and this importance. But he always kept his calm, and that helped enormously in these negotiations. And to his outstanding staff, we thank you. Thank you for being willing to serve in public life. We know you could make much more money some other place, but you have made an enormous contribution to this country. Finally, to Jim Miller, who is my lead negotiator, my very special, personal thanks for extraordinary dedication, for doing something good for the country and my State. I hope my colleagues will vote to override the President's ill- considered veto. I yield the floor.