Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to submit to the Senate the second set of budget scorekeeping reports for the 2008 budget resolution. The reports, which cover fiscal years 2007 and 2008, 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 24, 2007, and includes legislation that was enacted and or cleared for the President's signature since I filed my first report last month. The new legislation includes: Public Law 110-42, an act to extend the authorities of the Andean Trade Preference Act until February 29, 2008; Public Law 110-48, a bill to provide for the extension of transitional medical assistance, TMA, and the abstinence education program through the end of fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes; and H.J. Res. 44; pending Presidential action, a joint resolution approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and for other purposes. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues used in the reports are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of S. Con Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution. For 2007, the estimates show that current level spending equals the budget resolution for both budget authority and outlays while current level revenues exceed the budget resolution by $4.2 billion. For 2008, the estimates show that current level spending is below the budget resolution by $928.1 billion for budget authority and $586.7 billion for outlays while current level revenues exceed the budget resolution level by $34.6 billion. I ask unanimous consent that the letters and accompanying tables from CBO be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the Record, the Budget Committee's official scoring of H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008. The bill, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, provides $36.4 billion in discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2008, which will result in new outlays of $21.3 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the bill will total $38.4 billion. The Senate-reported bill is at its section 302(b) allocation for budget authority and $10 million below its allocation for outlays. No points of order lie against the committee-reported bill. I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for bringing this legislation before the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 207(c) of S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the section 207(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 2008 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 the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, on June 27, 2007. That bill contains provisions that fulfill the conditions of section 207(c) for adjustments related to continuing disability reviews and supplemental secrity income redeterminations, health care fraud and abuse control, and unemployment insurance improper payment reviews. In addition, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2008, on July 13, 2007. That bill contains provisions that fulfill the conditions of section 207(c) for Internal Revenue Service tax enforcement. As a result, for fiscal year 2008, 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 $1,042 million in budget authority and $699 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 2008 appropriations bills. I ask unanimous consent to have the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 21 printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I say to my colleagues, if you want to kill this bill, this is the way to do it. If your real intention is to eliminate the educational assistance for millions of young people in America, vote for this amendment. Everybody knows what is at stake. The Constitution provides revenue bills must begin in the House of Representatives. To begin it here violates the blue slip process, violates the Budget Act, and will kill this bill. All of us know the AMT has to be fixed. In the budget we have passed it is fixed. It will be fixed by consideration in the Finance Committee, which is where alternatives for fixing it should be considered. This is not the time. It is not the place. It violates the Budget Act. It violates the constitutional requirement for the initiation of revenue measures. I hope my colleagues will resist the Kyl amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the pending amendment is not germane; therefore, I raise a point of order pursuant to sections 305(b)2 and 310(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I am pleased today to recognize a community in North Dakota that celebrated its 125th anniversary. On July 13 to 15, the residents of Sterling gathered to celebrate their community's history and founding. Sterling is a community in central North Dakota, only a short drive from Bismarck, the State capital. Sterling began as a railroad depot named Sixteenth Siding in 1873 and became home to settlers in 1880, who renamed it Ballville. In 1882, the post office was established with Oscar Ball serving as its postmaster, and the town then was renamed Sterling. Sterling has always been a quiet, small town, maintaining a population of fewer than 250 people since its founding. It has nonetheless been home to many notable establishments over the past 125 years--the bank and hotel buildings still stand as a testament to the life of the town over the past century and a quarter. Though the town may be small, the anniversary celebration was not small by any means. Over 1,000 people attended the festivities, a crowd comparable to the one at Sterling's centennial celebration 25 years ago. The celebration included dances, live music, a quilt show, a pickup mud run, and a parade, at which onlookers were showered with free gifts and wowed by the 100 horses that walked together at the rear of the procession. Madam President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Sterling, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and in wishing them well in the future. By honoring Sterling 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 Sterling that have helped shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, as chairman of the Committee on the Budget, pursuant to section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following list of reconciliation provisions considered to be extraneous and subject to the Byrd rule.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it has now been 2,131 days since 9/11. I think all of us remember that day. It was a horrific day. I will never forget having given a speech over in Crystal City that morning and having driven past the Pentagon, only to get to the Capitol and see that the Pentagon had been attacked and then seeing the incredible images from the World Trade Center and those buildings collapsing. The President said at the time that we would hold Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida to account, that we would smoke them out of their holes, and that we would bring them to justice. It is 2,131 days later, and still Osama bin Laden has not been brought to justice, nor has Mr. Zawahiri, who now regularly broadcasts additional threats against our country. I believe a very serious strategic mistake was made when the President chose to go to Iraq instead of finishing business with al- Qaida. In fact, we know special forces, who are experts in Arab culture, in Arab language, were transferred from the hunt in Afghanistan for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Those special forces were shifted to the hunt for Saddam Hussein in Iraq. They were replaced by experts in Spanish culture. There are not many Spanish speakers in Afghanistan. I have always believed it was a profound mistake not to finish business with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. I had the benefit of going to high school at an American military base in Tripoli, Libya, north Africa, and living in the Arab culture for 2 years. I think I learned a great deal from that experience about that culture. I think strategically it has been a profound mistake for us to go into Iraq instead of keeping our focus and effort and energy on the people who did attack us--al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden, and not Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq. As awful and despicable a character as Saddam Hussein was, that should not have been the focus of our effort. The people who attacked us were al-Qaida, not Iraq. Now we learn al-Qaida is ``considerably operationally stronger than a year ago'' and has ``regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001,'' a counterterrorism official said, paraphrasing a new intelligence report's conclusions. They are ``showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States.'' Are we not paying attention? Al-Qaida, according to these reports, has increased from 20,000 terrorist operatives to 50,000. We need to redirect the emphasis and the focus of our security efforts and go after Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. That is what this amendment does. It doubles the bounty on Osama bin Laden.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and conclude by saying that it requires an administration report on the strategy for bringing bin Laden and other terrorists to justice. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Yes.

Mr. CONRAD. Ten minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the September 11, 2001 attack by al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden, is seared on the soul of the Nation. I know it is a day I will never forget. President Bush vowed then to bring Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist allies to justice. Days after 9/11, President Bush said: This act will not stand; we will find those who did it; we will smoke them out of their holes . . . we will bring them to justice. Every American shared those feelings. Similar to Pearl Harbor, the date of 9/11 became a seminal moment for our Nation, a day we cannot and must not forget. But it has now been nearly 6 years--2,130 days-- since the attacks of 9/11--that's more time than America took fighting fascism in World War II. Osama bin Laden is still at large. In fact, he and al-Qaida are gaining strength, by all accounts. Two weeks ago in Great Britain, we saw a failed attempt to target airports with car bombs. Two years ago, London subway bombings killed 52 and injured 700--bombings which may be linked to al-Qaida. Today's newspapers report U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that al-Qaida has rebuilt to its pre-9/11 strengths. These analysts say al- Qaida is ``considerably operationally stronger than a year ago'' and has ``regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001.'' The reports suggest al-Qaida has created ``the most robust training program since 2001, with an interest in using European operatives'' and is ``showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States.'' Private experts agree al-Qaida is now stronger than before. According to the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, the number of al-Qaida operatives worldwide has grown from 20,000 6 years ago to 50,000 today. What is going on here? What does it say to jihadists around the world that a terrorist mastermind such as bin Laden can kill 3,000 Americans and remain alive and untouched 6 years later? What does it say that he and his allies are gaining strength? There can be only one conclusion: The President got our priorities wrong. Before finishing with al-Qaida and capturing bin Laden, President Bush lost focus. We know who attacked us on 9/11. It was Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, not Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Yet the painful truth is the administration got our priorities wrong. The President pulled troops and intelligence specialists out of Afghanistan and the search for Osama bin Laden and the leaders of al-Qaida and instead attacked Iraq. USA Today reported: In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish culture. Are people hearing this? We pulled experts in the Arab language and Middle East culture out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden, an Arabic speaker who led the attack on us, and we put those troops over into the hunt for Saddam Hussein in Iraq and replaced them with experts in Spanish culture. There are not many Spanish speakers in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate, and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from the Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered. I believe this will go down in history as a profound mistake. We lost focus. The President took us on a path that proved to be a distraction. Instead of following up on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, we got diverted and directed our energy and attention to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. I believe the priorities were wrong. The former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit called the invasion of Iraq ``a godsend to Osama bin Laden.'' So I have to ask why--why did we allow our post-9/11 focus on bin Laden to be distracted? Why didn't we have enough forces on the ground at Tora Bora to get the job done and capture bin Laden and his al-Qaida allies? The answer, I believe, unfortunately is clear: The administration made a strategic error and shifted its focus from Afghanistan to Iraq. I believe, as I have said before, that that was a profound mistake. I spent the last 2 years of my high school years living in the Arab culture. I attended an American Air Force base high school in Tripoli, Libya. In that culture, it is critically important not to allow someone to go uncaptured and unaccounted for who launched an attack. If you don't finish business with those who attack you, they only grow in the public mind. That is absolutely the wrong message to send. Last September, the administration once again showed it is not focused on al-Qaida. President Bush's national strategy for combating terrorism includes only one passing reference to Osama bin Laden. Last September, the White House issued an updated strategy for counterterrorism. In a 23-page document, bin Laden's name appears only once. This man ordered the killing of 3,000 innocent Americans, but in the administration's report on fighting terrorist threats, he is only an afterthought. It has now been 2,130 days since President Bush said ``We will find those who did it; we will smoke them out of their holes . . . we will bring them to justice.'' Those were absolutely the right sentiments and the right plan. Unfortunately, the President's strategy has failed. He has not found Osama bin Laden. He has not smoked him out of his hole, and he has not been brought to justice. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida operatives continue to threaten this Nation. I believe that is unacceptable. We must capture or kill Osama bin Laden. We must bring his entire network of terrorists to justice. I believe deeply that stopping al-Qaida should be our top priority. Our amendment makes that clear. It is very simple. It says that capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and dismantling al-Qaida should be our top priority. Our amendment has two parts. First, it doubles the bounty on Osama bin Laden. Whether we capture or kill him, it is past time that he be brought to justice. I urge my colleagues to join us in sending that message. Second, our amendment requires a clear report to Congress, laying out the administration's strategy for bringing bin Laden and al-Qaida operatives to justice. I urge my colleagues to make it this Nation's top military priority to bring Osama bin Laden to the justice that he deserves as the world's most notorious terrorist. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its anniversary. On July 27-29, the residents of Reynolds will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. Reynolds is a vibrant community located in eastern North Dakota. Founded in 1880, years before North Dakota was granted statehood, Reynolds was named for Dr. Henry A. Reynolds, who served as a surgeon in the Civil War and had recently migrated to the area from Maine. Reynolds, like many other North Dakota communities, was originally incorporated with the arrival of the railroad. Reynolds is now, and always has been, a very unique community. The city itself has two churches, two elevators, and is separated by two counties. The number two is very important to the residents of Reynolds, and celebrating its quasquicentennial 2 years late is, as the community says, kind of a ``Reynoldsism.'' Today, Reynolds has much to celebrate. Its 125th+2 celebration will be an event worth taking in. Festivities will include a steak fry, parade, street fair, alumni baseball game, fireworks, and much more. I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Reynolds, ND, and its residents on their first 127 years and in wishing them well in the future. By honoring Reynolds 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 Reynolds that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Reynolds has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my chief of staff upon his retirement from the U.S. Senate. Robert Van Heuvelen is recognized not only by me, but also by his colleagues and other Members, as a highly respected, effective, and engaging public servant. Mr. Van Heuvelen has had a remarkable career in the Federal Government, spanning over 32 years. Bob first came to Capitol Hill in 1975 to work as a legislative assistant for the Honorable Quentin Burdick in the Senate. Following that, he served as assistant counsel for the Environment and Public Works Committee for the Honorable Edmund Muskie. He remained in Washington and went on to work as a Federal prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice, rising to the position of deputy and acting chief of the Department of Justice's environmental enforcement section, and eventually to director of the Office of Regulatory Enforcement at the Environmental Protection Agency. For the past 10 years, I have been privileged to have Bob serve on my staff, first as policy director and then as chief of staff. He brought with him extensive experience in Government and his lifelong dedication to our home State of North Dakota. During his tenure in my office, some of his most notable accomplishments include coordinating disaster relief for the devastating 1997 flood of Grand Forks, spearheading the work of a tobacco task force to formulate a strong public health response to the tobacco settlements, fighting for a fair Medicare distribution formula and estate tax reform. He also made great strides in developing strong working relations with both his Democratic and Republican colleagues. Bob has helped organize monthly breakfasts, dinners, and policy meetings for chiefs of staff of both parties, fostering a sense of bipartisanship, an accomplishment which is truly praiseworthy. Bob is a native of Bismarck, ND. He earned his bachelor's degree at Macalester College in Minnesota. Following that, he attended the University of Minnesota, where he received his master's degree in public policy, and George Washington University, where he received his juris doctor. Today, Bob and his wife of 30 years, Jane Sherburne, live in Bethesda, MD. They have three wonderful children--Ben, Elizabeth, and Will. As Bob goes forward in his life and on to other endeavors, I hope that he proudly looks back at his time here on Capitol Hill and realizes the tremendous difference he has made for North Dakota, our Nation, and in the lives of so many people. I am honored to have had the pleasure to work with him and look forward to our ongoing friendship. We have had great fun doing the Nation's business, and I will miss him. I commend Bob for his many achievements and superior service and wish him the very best.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to remember a North Dakota hero who passed away last month. About 3 miles straight west of this Senate Chamber lies the Iwo Jima memorial. Its centerpiece is a statue of six men raising an American flag to symbolize the capture of Mount Suribachi and the ensuing U.S. military victory at Iwo Jima. On February 23, 1945, a 24-year-old marine from North Dakota named Charles W. Lindberg played a key role in the events immortalized by the Iwo Jima memorial. On that day, he was part of the group that raised the first American flag to fly over Japanese soil in the Second World War. Many names from that war stand out in our memories: Normandy, Midway, the Battle of the Bulge. But perhaps none stands out like Iwo Jima. The battle for Iwo Jima was one of the fiercest of the entire war. The American attack, planned to capture the two airfields on the island and provide a staging area for B-29 bombing runs on the Japanese home islands, was the first invasion of traditionally Japanese territory in the war. Fighting on the island lasted over a month. Over 20,000 Americans were injured and 6,825 more heroically made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. And on Iwo Jima North Dakota's Marine Cpl. Charles Lindberg made his mark on history. The indelible image of the battle for Iwo Jima is of six men raising an American flag atop the island. But those six men were not the first group of men to claim Iwo Jima for the United States. That honor belongs to a patrol that included Corporal Lindberg. The distinction between the two was one he spent a lifetime explaining. On February 23, Corporal Lindberg took his 72-pound flame-thrower to enemy pillboxes at the base of Mount Suribachi and set out for the top with five other marines, an old pipe to be used as a flagpole, and the American flag. They gained the summit and planted the flag. Lindberg recalled that the flag's raising created such a commotion of cheers and whistles that it brought the enemy back out. That threat drew Lindberg back to battle, and so he missed the raising of the second flag, which was captured for history and recreated at the Iwo Jima memorial. Lindberg won a Silver Star for his bravery that day, and a Purple Heart for the injury that led to his evacuation from the island less than one week later. Thirty-six members of his 40-man patrol were killed or wounded while fighting on Iwo Jima, which would rage for a full month after the flag-raising. Lindberg was fortunate enough to return home, to marry, and to live out a somewhat quieter life as an electrician. On June 24, at the age of 83, he passed away. He was the last surviving member of the group of heroes who had the honor of raising the first American flag to fly over Japanese territory. What is it that makes a young man from a simple town like Grand Forks, ND, risk his life the way Corporal Lindberg did on Iwo Jima? Was it the fight for freedom and liberty? Was it his patriotism and his love of country? Was it his bravery and courage? Perhaps it was all those things. In fact, I would say that the story of Charles Lindberg presents the best of all that is American. Duty. Honor. Bravery. Sacrifice. I am proud to say that Corporal Lindberg comes from my home State of North Dakota. I am proud to call Corporal Lindberg an American. Lindberg's passing serves as a reminder to be thankful for the heroic service of all those who answered the call to serve our country. The service of the millions of young men called to duty in World War II-- and in all of our nation's wars--can never be forgotten. We are all touched in some way by heroes like Charles Lindberg, whether they are our family members, our loved ones, or our neighbors. Let us always remember the debt we owe these heroes, and always cherish the freedom they successfully fought to preserve.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 125th anniversary. On July 13 to 15, the residents of Dunseith will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. Dunseith is a historic community located in north central North Dakota, only 14 miles away from the Canadian border. Founded by Giles Gilbert in 1882, Dunseith was settled by European immigrants and members of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa. In its early years, people were drawn to Dunseith because of the amount of land in the area made available under the Homestead Act. Just a short distance from Dunseith is the International Peace Garden. Founded in 1932, this 2,339-acre garden along the northern border symbolizes the peace, cooperation, and friendship between the United States and Canada. It is a treasure of more than 150,000 flowers, fountains, a sunken garden, and other notable structures that promote the garden's message of peace. Dunseith really is, as the residents say, an area undiscovered by the rest of the country. With the beautiful Turtle Mountains just nearby, residents like to spend time hunting, fishing, hiking, biking, and participating in various other outdoor activities. Today, Dunseith has much to celebrate. Its quasquicentennial celebration is occurring at the same time as the International Peace Garden's 75th anniversary, and it is bound to be a weekend worth taking in. With 450 registered participants already, the guests will enjoy an all-school reunion, parade, art show, all faith service, demolition derby, and much more. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Dunseith, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and in wishing them well in the future. By honoring Dunseith 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 Dunseith that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Dunseith has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 125th anniversary. On July 13 to 15, the residents of Arthur will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. Arthur is a small town in eastern North Dakota with a population of 402. Despite its small size, Arthur holds an important place in North Dakota's history. Originally named Rosedale, the settlement was renamed Arthur in 1881 in honor of Chester Alan Arthur, the 21st President of the United States. The post office was established in 1881, as was the lumber yard and the first general store, the Hall-Larson Store. Arthur was incorporated as a village in 1921. Today, the economy of Arthur is largely based on agriculture. The Arthur Mercantile, the First State Bank, and the Arthur Companies are family businesses that have been present in the community for over 100 years. This is a remarkable feat for such a small town. The town is also home to the Arthur Center, a notable good samaritan center, which will celebrate its 80th anniversary this summer, and two churches. Arthur's motto ``small town, big heart'' truly captures the essence of the town and its residents. The people of Arthur enjoy socializing, attending sporting events, and working together for the betterment of the community. The town has an exciting celebration planned that includes an all-school reunion, a parade, a fireman's rodeo, street dance, community worship, and much more. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Arthur, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and in wishing them well in the future. By honoring Arthur 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 Arthur that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Arthur 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 celebrated its 125th anniversary. On June 21 to 23, the residents of Grafton gathered to celebrate their community's history and founding. Grafton is a vibrant community in northeastern North Dakota with the Park River running through it. Grafton serves as the county seat of Walsh County. The post office in Grafton was established with Thomas E. Cooper serving as postmaster on May 20, 1879. Cooper named the community after his wife's home of Grafton County, NH. By 1883, the city had 2,000 residents, with Stewart Cairncross serving as the first mayor. Today, Grafton is still one of the larger communities in North Dakota. Residents of Grafton are proud of their community and what it has to offer. Residents strongly support the youth in the community and enjoy local sports events. Annually, the community hosts a ``Spirit of the Season'' festival, which includes breakfast with Santa, live concerts, horse-drawn wagon rides, and a bonfire in the park. Grafton residents have been dedicated to increasing the size of the community through economic development. Since implementing this program, the community is now home to Marvin Windows and Doors, a vibrant business that has helped fund incentives for individuals wishing to relocate to Grafton. The community of Grafton celebrated its 125th anniversary with live music, parades, a demolition derby, and tours of the Heritage Village and the school. Mr. President, I ask the U.S. Senate to join me in congratulating Grafton, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and in wishing them well in the future. By honoring Grafton 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 Grafton that have helped shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Grafton 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 20 to 22, the residents of Portland will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. The rural community of Portland is located in the beautiful and serene valley of the Goose River. Like so many rural towns in North Dakota, Portland was established by a railroad. The town was named Portland because railroad officials considered it the midway point between Portland, ME, and Portland, OR. In 1883 it was incorporated as a village. The Dakota territory's first insurance company was chartered in Portland in 1885. Portland has come a long way since its beginnings in the early 1880s. The town has built a rich heritage of agriculture but has also grown to incorporate technology, manufacturing, and health services. Portland has been described by its citizens as the way America is supposed to be. The MayPort Community Center offers the chance for recreational activities such as ice skating and hockey. The community of Portland is the ideal location for its residents to grow and prosper together. To celebrate its 125th anniversary, the town will hold several golf tournaments, a parade, comedic acts, and a street dance. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Portland, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and in wishing them well in the future. By honoring Portland 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 Portland that have helped shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Portland has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to submit to the Senate the first budget scorekeeping reports for the 2008 budget resolution. The reports, which cover fiscal years 2007 and 2008, 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 June 25, 2007. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of S. Con Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution. For 2007, the estimates show that current level spending equals the budget resolution for both budget authority and outlays while current level revenues exceed the budget resolution by $4.2 billion. For 2008, the estimates show that current level spending is below the budget resolution by $928.1 billion for budget authority and $586.7 billion for outlays while current level revenues exceed the budget resolution level by $34.6 billion. I ask unanimous consent that the letters and accompanying tables from CBO be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to a friend and distinguished North Dakotan, Francis Cree, who passed away on June 15 at the age of 86. Francis Cree was a highly respected Ojibwe elder of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa of North Dakota. He was the official pipe carrier for the tribe, a position of honor and leadership. He led the tribe as chairman in the 1960s and served several terms on tribal council. Francis spent countless hours teaching young people about Ojibwe culture and traditions. He was also a singer, a crafter and artist, a spiritual leader, a carver of pipes, and a keeper of the ceremonial drum for the Dunseith community. On November 8, 2001, we had the honor here in the Senate of being led in opening prayer by Francis. It was indeed a proud day for Francis and his family. Francis was married to Rose Cree, herself a well-known artist who made beautiful willow baskets, several of which were featured at the Smithsonian's Festival of American Folk Life on The Mall here in our Nation's Capital. The Crees collaborated on these baskets. Both collected the materials, while Francis made the frames from ash, and Rose wove the willows. In 2002, Francis and Rose received the National Endowment for the Arts National Heritage Fellowship, which recognizes the significant contributions of American folk artists. Francis was a kind, humble, and generous man. He gave selflessly and never expected or wanted anything in return. Francis and Rose raised 14 children and opened their hearts and home to many more. They were also proud grandparents to more than 100 grandchildren and great- grandchildren and many, many great-great grandchildren. Each and every one of them is a reflection of Francis's caring and endearing spirit. Mr. President, this is a tremendous loss for the Cree family, but it is also an incredible loss to North Dakota and the Nation. Francis's life and the legacy he leaves behind is truly an inspiration to us all.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 320(c) of S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 Budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels for legislation that extends the Transitional Medical Assistance program, so long as that legislation does not worsen the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 or fiscal years 2007 through 2017. I find that S. 1701, introduced today by Senator Baucus, satisfies the conditions of the deficit-neutral reserve fund for Transitional Medical Assistance. Therefore, pursuant to section 320(c), I am adjusting the aggregates in the 2008 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. 21 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the contributions of a New Yorker with North Dakota ties--J. Cleveland Cady. A few weeks ago while reading the New York Times, I happened across an article that referenced Mr. Cady's contributions to Manhattan's architecture. Mr. Cady was a prominent architect in New York during the late 1800s. He designed the American Museum of Natural History as well as the original Metropolitan Opera House. He also designed a significant portion of a fairly notable institution we know today as Yale University. This article caught my eye because of a special connection between Mr. Cady and the State of North Dakota. Early in the last century, a young North Dakotan named William Langer was attending a concert during his time at Columbia University when he noticed a beautiful woman sitting below him on the orchestra level. According to the William Langer Papers collected at the University of North Dakota, Mr. Langer was fond of recalling how he managed to have the woman's date called away on a phantom phone call. Seizing his opportunity, Mr. Langer approached the young lady and struck up a conversation. They began a long courtship shortly thereafter before marrying in 1918. That woman was Lydia Cady, the daughter of J. Cleveland Cady. Sadly, Mr. Cady died just 1 year after his daughter's wedding. However, as the New York Times piece indicates, Mr. Cady's momentous architectural contributions continue to shape the landscape of New York City today. In much the same way, his son-in-law's achievements played a key role in shaping the North Dakota of today. ``Wild Bill'' Langer was a larger-than-life figure in North Dakota politics for nearly half a century. Mr. Langer was elected attorney general of North Dakota in 1916. He went on to be elected Governor of North Dakota in 1932 and again in 1936. He then represented North Dakota in the U.S. Senate from 1941 to 1959, holding the seat I am now privileged to hold. In the Senate, Bill Langer was a champion for a range of issues that remain important to North Dakota today, including rural electrification, agriculture, and health care. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article on Mr. Cady's architecture be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, last week, pursuant to section 309 of S. Con. Res. 21, I filed revisions to S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 Budget Resolution. Those revisions were made for Senate amendment No. 1704, an amendment pending to Senate amendment No. 1502, an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6, the energy bill. The Senate did not adopt Senate amendment No. 1704. As a consequence, I am further revising the 2008 Budget Resolution and the adjustments made last week pursuant to section 309 to the aggregates and the allocation provided to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for Senate amendment No. 1704. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 21 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, in this body we are on the brink of something that is momentous, and that is significant energy legislation to reduce our dependence on foreign fuels. The bill before us will break new ground. We will have fuel efficiency standards increased for the first time since 1975. This is the result of compromise, of principled compromise that advances the cause of reducing our dependence on foreign fuel. Last year I introduced the BOLD act, Breaking Our Long-term Dependence. That was perhaps the most comprehensive energy legislation introduced in this body all last year. It had many provisions, many provisions to encourage further development of ethanol and biodiesel and wind energy and solar energy--all the renewables. But more than that, it had provisions to expand domestic production of oil and gas in a responsible way; also providing clean coal incentives because, after all, over 50 percent of our electricity in this country comes from coal. That is not going to fundamentally change anytime soon. So we have to take measures to increase the environmentally friendly aspects of coal usage and to improve our ability to produce and use that resource in a clean way. While I am delighted we are on the brink of passing something significant and the beginning of something that could be much bigger, I am very disappointed the provisions that passed the Senate Finance Committee on an overwhelming bipartisan vote did not get the 60 votes required to advance. Those provisions would have also taken us in a new direction, and they contained many of the provisions contained in the BOLD Act that I introduced last year. Those provisions shifted our incentives away from fossil fuels because, with the high price of fossil fuels, incentives aren't required there. Instead, we took money that had previously gone to fossil fuels and shifted the funds to renewables and conservation-- again, in a vote that passed on a bipartisan basis, a very strong vote out of the Senate Finance Committee. Let me say there are some who have argued it costs too much money to have those incentives for renewables and for conservation. It is true, that bill costs $28.6 billion over the next 10 years--$28.6 billion over the next 10 years. But we are going to spend, over that same period, $3,000 billion on imported oil. In fact, that is probably a low-side estimate because last year alone we spent over $270 billion importing foreign oil, much of it from the least stable parts of the world. Yes, $28 billion is a lot of money over 10 years. But $3,000 billion on imported oil dwarfs it. It is over 100 times as much. Isn't it a good investment to spend 1 percent of what we are going to spend importing foreign oil to develop our own resources in this country? How much better would it be for a President of the United States, instead of depending on the Middle East, to be able to look to the Midwest of this country to help grow our way out of this crisis by using ethanol and biodiesel? Instead of sending $270 billion to places that are unfavorable to us, to spend $270 billion right here in America--how different would our country look if that money, instead of going abroad, was staying at home? No one should think we are not going to have another possibility on the legislation that came out of the Finance Committee. There will be another opportunity. We will have a chance in the House of Representatives, in the conference committee, to add back those provisions that passed on a strong majority vote, not only in the Finance Committee but on the floor of the Senate. We didn't have a supermajority, we didn't have the 60 votes. We had 57. Of course the leader changed his vote to be on the prevailing side so he could move to reconsider. We are missing another Senator because of a family obligation and, of course, we are missing our colleague, Senator Johnson, because of his illness. But Senator Johnson will be back, and the Senator who was missing because of a family obligation will be back. And Senator Reid will switch his vote. Then we will have the 60 votes necessary. No one should be under any illusion that we are not going to take this opportunity to strengthen our country and to reduce our dependence on foreign oil because we will have that additional opportunity and the votes will be here and we will have a comprehensive energy package to take to the Nation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.