[Senate Document 113-6]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]








                                     Kent Conrad

                         U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA

                                      TRIBUTES

                                IN THE CONGRESS OF

                                THE UNITED STATES

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


















                                                      S. Doc. 113-6
 
                                      Tributes

                                Delivered in Congress

                                     Kent Conrad

                                United States Senator

                                      1987-2013


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]







                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

                              WASHINGTON : 2014











                            Compiled under the direction

                                       of the

                             Joint Committee on Printing
















                                      CONTENTS
             Biography.............................................
                                                                      v
             Farewell Address 
               .....................................................
               ................................
                                                                ix, xix
             Proceedings in the Senate:
                Tributes by Senators:
                    Boxer, Barbara, of California..................
                                                                     29
                    Cardin, Benjamin L., of Maryland...............
                                                                     22
                    Conrad, Kent, of North Dakota..................
                                                                  7, 28
                    Coons, Christopher A., of Delaware.............
                                                                     17
                    Durbin, Richard J., of Illinois................
                                                                     25
                    Enzi, Michael B., of Wyoming...................
                                                                     19
                    Harkin, Tom, of Iowa...........................
                                                                      9
                    Hoeven, John, of North Dakota..................
                                                                      6
                    Isakson, Johnny, of Georgia....................
                                                                      3
                    Klobuchar, Amy, of Minnesota...................
                                                                     26
                    Leahy, Patrick J., of Vermont..................
                                                                  4, 21
                    Levin, Carl, of Michigan.......................
                                                                     15
                    Mikulski, Barbara A., of Maryland..............
                                                                      8
                    Reed, Jack, of Rhode Island....................
                                                                     14
                    Reid, Harry, of Nevada 
                     ...............................................
                     ..............
                                                                 10, 29
                    Sessions, Jeff, of Alabama 
                     ...............................................
                     .........
                                                                 27, 29
                    Stabenow, Debbie, of Michigan..................
                                                                      4
                    Whitehouse, Sheldon, of Rhode Island...........
                                                                      5




















                                      BIOGRAPHY

               A fifth-generation North Dakotan, Kent Conrad was born 
             March 12, 1948, in Bismarck, and attended Roosevelt 
             Elementary and Hughes Jr. High Schools. He attended 
             Wheelus Air Force Base High School in Tripoli, Libya, and 
             Phillips Exeter Academy. He graduated with a degree in 
             government from Stanford University and obtained an MBA at 
             George Washington University. He was elected North Dakota 
             tax commissioner in 1980 and was reelected by a large 
             margin in 1984.
               He was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 1986 on a 
             platform of ``Yes We Can!'' optimism and a commonsense 
             approach to Federal policy. During the 1986 campaign, Mr. 
             Conrad pledged not to run for reelection if the Federal 
             budget was not reduced. It wasn't, and he kept his promise 
             and announced he wouldn't seek reelection. But, months 
             after he announced his retirement, the State's other 
             Senator, Quentin Burdick, died in office. In December 1992 
             he won a special election to fill the remaining 2 years of 
             Senator Burdick's term.
               During his time in the Senate Kent Conrad earned a 
             reputation as a champion for the needs of rural States 
             like North Dakota and the farm sector. His top priorities 
             were bringing new jobs and new opportunity to North Dakota 
             and rural America, addressing the budget deficit and 
             warning the country about the long-term debt threat, 
             reforming the health care system, and strengthening the 
             farm safety net. He also championed the State's water 
             needs from the delivery of clean drinking water, to flood 
             protection, and disaster relief. Senator Conrad led the 
             effort to bring more than $1 billion in Federal resources 
             to respond to the 1997 flood that hit the city of Grand 
             Forks to help it recover and prevent future disasters.
               His economic development efforts for North Dakota helped 
             bring new businesses with hundreds of jobs to North 
             Dakota's cities and rural communities. Along with 
             Agriculture Commissioner Sarah Vogel he founded the annual 
             ``Marketplace for Entrepreneurs'' Exposition, which grew 
             into one of the Nation's largest conferences for rural 
             development and the diversification of the rural economy.
               Senator Conrad made his mark on the Agriculture 
             Committee with a number of significant bills, including 
             drought and disaster relief legislation, the 5-years farm 
             bill, and groundbreaking legislation to commercialize new 
             industrial products made from American crops.
               At the beginning of the 103d Congress he became the 
             first North Dakotan in 70 years to be named to the 
             powerful Senate Finance Committee. His background as North 
             Dakota tax commissioner and his command of budget issues 
             led to the coveted appointment. He also served as the 
             chairman of the Subcommittee on Taxation, IRS Oversight, 
             and Long-Term Growth, and was a member of the Subcommittee 
             on Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth and the 
             Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and 
             Infrastructure.
               The start of the 107th Congress marked the beginning of 
             a 12-year run for Senator Conrad serving as chairman or 
             ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, the longest 
             serving Democrat to hold the position. As he took over the 
             gavel, the country was returning to an era of deficits. He 
             aggressively fought against the Bush-era tax cuts arguing 
             they would plunge the country back into deficits and that 
             they disproportionately benefited the wealthy. During the 
             110th Congress, he teamed with Senator Judd Gregg, the 
             then ranking member on the Budget Committee, in 
             introducing the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible 
             Fiscal Action Act to set up a special task force to 
             address the ballooning deficits. In 2010, it became the 
             impetus for President Barack Obama to appoint a special 
             18-member commission to tackle the deficit, cochaired by 
             Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson. Senator 
             Conrad served on the so-called Bowles-Simpson Commission 
             and was 1 of 11 commissioners to vote for the $4 trillion 
             deficit reduction plan, though the plan did not garner the 
             14 votes required to send it to Congress for approval.
               During his long tenure on the Budget Committee, Senator 
             Conrad was one of the Senate's strongest advocates for 
             fiscal responsibility, particularly with regard to the 
             threat posed by the buildup of long-term debt. He was a 
             leader in asking U.S. allies in Western Europe and Japan 
             to pay their own defense bills so that we can use the 
             billions of dollars we spend overseas for pressing needs 
             here at home. He was one of eight Senators who opposed the 
             savings and loan bailout, arguing that the plan was badly 
             structured and could not be improved to save taxpayer 
             money.
               During his 26 years as an advocate for North Dakota in 
             Washington, DC, Senator Conrad helped write the 2002 and 
             2008 farm bills, wrote health care policy that ensured 
             continued access to hospitals in rural areas, and fought 
             unfair trade practices that hurt North Dakota's economy. 
             He also introduced comprehensive energy legislation that 
             would make the United States more energy independent.
               He is married to Lucy Calautti and has a daughter 
             Jessamyn, a son Ivan, and a grandson Carter.
                               Farewell to the Senate
                            Wednesday, December 12, 2012

               Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have this long tradition 
             in the Senate of Senators giving farewell remarks. I want 
             to alert colleagues that mine will be especially long, so 
             they might want to go have lunch and then come back. I 
             don't consider this my final speech because I am still 
             hopeful we will reach an agreement on the farm bill. The 
             distinguished Chair is here. I hope we can reach agreement 
             on averting the fiscal cliff because that is important to 
             the country. I hope we will have additional chances to 
             communicate with colleagues and the public before we are 
             done.
               These are my farewell remarks and observations of 26 
             years of service here, and it has been an incredible 
             experience.
               The first thing I want to do is say thank you to the 
             people of North Dakota for having confidence in me when I 
             was only 38 years old in sending me to represent them in 
             the Senate. I was 38, but I looked about 25, and the 
             people of North Dakota elected me in a stunning upset of a 
             long-established incumbent. I treasure the confidence they 
             have had in me.
               I also want to thank my colleagues for the 
             responsibilities they have given me. I want to thank the 
             leadership team of Senator Reid, Senator Durbin, Senator 
             Schumer, and Senator Murray and the confidence they have 
             had in me. I have been so blessed to have people who have 
             been with me on my staff in many cases for more than 20 
             years. My chiefs of staff include Jim Margolis, who is one 
             of the top media gurus in the country. He has done much of 
             the advertising for the President in this last campaign. 
             Also, my thanks to David Herring and Mary Wakefield, as 
             well as Kent Hall, who died an untimely death while 
             working for me.
               Thank you to Sara Garland, Bob Van Heuvelen, and Wally 
             Rustad. Thanks also to Tom Mahr, who was my legislative 
             director for more than 20 years.
               I also wish to thank my executive assistant, who has 
             been with me more than 20 years; Geri Gaginis, who we all 
             fondly call Mom in my office because she cracks the whip 
             and makes sure the trains run on time; Mary Naylor, my 
             longtime director on the Budget Committee and who has also 
             been with me more than 20 years.
               My Budget Committee deputies John Righter and Joel 
             Friedman have done extraordinary work on behalf of the 
             people of this country. Stu Nagurka is here with me today 
             and is going to help me with charts and has been my 
             longtime communications director.
               There are so many more people I want to thank. Most of 
             all, I want to thank my family. My wife Lucy, who has been 
             my great partner through all of this. She was my campaign 
             manager when I first ran for the Senate. My daughter 
             Jessie, who has in many ways, perhaps, sacrificed the 
             most, because when a person is in this job they miss 
             birthdays and other important events. She has been a great 
             daughter. She was here last night for our farewell party 
             and we had a lovely time. Our son Ivan and his wife 
             Kendra, who are in Oregon where they have a small farm 
             called Tipping Tree Farm. We wish they could be here 
             today. Our grandson Carter, who is a proud member of the 
             University of Oregon marching band, the Ducks, and who 
             served as an intern for me--not at government expense, by 
             the way, it was at our expense; and our little dog Dakota 
             who has become sort of a mascot of the U.S. Senate. Brian 
             Williams, when he did a show on ``A Day in the Life of the 
             Senate,'' concluded that program by calling Dakota the 
             ``101st Senator.'' I think he will be missed perhaps more 
             than I am as I leave the Senate.
               In 1964 I came here. I sat up in the gallery--in fact, 
             it was the gallery right up there--I was 16 years old, and 
             I watched a debate on civil rights. Hubert Humphrey was 
             leading that debate. It so inspired me that I thought 
             someday I would like to be down on that floor and I would 
             like to debate the great issues of the day and I would 
             like to represent the people of North Dakota. So I went 
             home and wrote out on the back of an envelope that I would 
             run for the U.S. Senate in 1986 or 1988, and I ran in 1986 
             and was successful. That is the power of a plan. To the 
             young pages who are here, if any of you seek to be in the 
             U.S. Senate someday, have a plan, because there are so 
             many people who sort of drift through life without one. If 
             you have a plan, you will be light years ahead.
               In that race, as I indicated, my now-wife Lucy was my 
             campaign manager. We won what was then believed to be the 
             biggest political upset in the history of our State. I was 
             proud of that victory and proud to have a chance to 
             represent North Dakota here.
               I think we all know our country needs a plan now, and we 
             know plans have worked before. I was here in 1993 when we 
             had just come off the largest deficit in the history of 
             the United States. The country was in the doldrums. The 
             economy was just plugging along, not doing very well. We 
             had a weak recovery from a deep recession, and we passed a 
             plan to get the country back on track. We did it the old-
             fashioned way. We made tough decisions, some that were 
             unpopular, but it was the right thing to do and it worked. 
             We balanced the budget. We had the longest period of 
             uninterrupted economic growth in the Nation's history. 
             Twenty-three million jobs were created, and we were 
             actually paying down the debt of the United States at the 
             end of the Clinton administration.
               We did it again when disaster struck my State in 1997. 
             We had one of the worst disasters ever in North Dakota, a 
             500-year flood that followed the worst winter storm in 50 
             years. Many of my colleagues may recall the images from 
             that disaster when firemen were fighting an enormous 
             conflagration in downtown Grand Forks in the middle of a 
             blizzard and there was also a massive flood. Grand Forks 
             was devastated.
               Again, we had a plan, a $500 million disaster recovery 
             plan that became a $1 billion plan, and it worked, and we 
             did it the old-fashioned way. We made tough decisions, 
             some that were unpopular, but it was the right thing to do 
             and it worked. The community held a recognition event for 
             me last weekend. The leadership of the community was 
             there, and many people from the community reported on the 
             remarkable recovery in Grand Forks. It is, I think, an 
             example of what can be done when government responds and 
             does so intelligently and effectively.
               Now we face a new challenge. We have a fiscal cliff or a 
             fiscal curb or whatever one terms it, but what we know is 
             that if we fail to act, we could be pushed back into 
             recession. Our country needs a plan--a plan to get us back 
             on track, to revitalize economic growth, to secure our 
             long-term economic future, and to get the country moving 
             again, and we can do it. We have done much tougher work in 
             the past.
               Sometimes I hear people being critical of this 
             institution when they leave here. Let me say I am not in 
             their ranks. I leave this institution with enormous 
             respect. The U.S. Senate is the greatest deliberative body 
             in the world, and I sincerely believe the vast majority of 
             my colleagues are serious-minded and have the best 
             interests of the country at heart. I believe the vast 
             majority of my colleagues want to do what is right for the 
             country. We have differences--enormous differences--about 
             what is the right thing to do, but I have no doubt most of 
             our colleagues are well intentioned.
               In many circles it is fashionable now to bash government 
             and play down its importance. I personally think we would 
             do well to remember what it has accomplished. I can 
             remember so clearly being called to an emergency meeting 
             in this building in fall 2008. I was handed a note saying 
             I was urgently requested to come here. It was about 6 
             o'clock in the evening. I was the last one to arrive. When 
             I walked into the leader's office, there were the leaders 
             of the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, 
             the Secretary of the Treasury from the Bush 
             administration, and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. I 
             instantly understood something very serious was afoot. 
             They closed the door and told us they were going to take 
             over AIG, the large insurance company, the next day. They 
             weren't there to ask for our approval or seek our 
             agreement; they were there to tell us they were taking 
             this step and they told us they were taking this step 
             because they believed if they did not, there would be a 
             financial collapse in this country within days, and they 
             gave great specificity as to what would happen if there 
             was a failure to take the action they were about to take.
               The public reaction was harshly negative. The notion of 
             the Government of the United States bailing out a large 
             private insurance company created controversy and 
             criticism from almost every corner. Ultimately, the rescue 
             of that company cost $180 billion--a staggering sum. But 
             we have learned this week that the taxpayers will make 
             money on the deal. Yes, it cost us $180 billion, but the 
             taxpayers are going to make $22 billion on the 
             transaction. If we hadn't done it, we would have risked 
             going into a depression.
               So when people say there is no role for government or it 
             should be a limited, shrunken role, I say, really? Would 
             we have wanted to stand by and risk this country going 
             into another Great Depression? Let's recall what that was 
             like. More than 20 percent of the people in this country 
             were out of work. I know my own grandfather, who refused 
             to take bankruptcy, owned stock in the local bank. In 
             those days people had unlimited liability if they owned 
             stock in a bank. So when there was a run on the bank, as 
             there was, he was called to bring money to the bank, which 
             he did. He did it over and over, and it took him 9 years 
             to recover. People were hungry. People were desperate. 
             That is what a depression is about.
               So when I reflect back to those decisions, I believe 
             they were the right decisions to make. It is not just my 
             view; that is the view of two of the most distinguished 
             economists in this country, Mark Zandi, who was a key 
             economic adviser to Senator John McCain in his 
             Presidential race, and Alan Blinder, the former Deputy 
             Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Here is what they say, 
             ``Without that Federal response, we would have had 8 
             million fewer jobs and a 16-percent level of unemployment 
             in this country, and we would have been in the second 
             Great Depression.'' They call it ``Depression 2.0.''
               So let's remember where we were when President Obama 
             came to office. The Nation was facing the worst economic 
             catastrophe since the Great Depression. In the fourth 
             quarter of 2008, the economy shrank at a rate of almost 9 
             percent. After the Federal actions, positive economic 
             growth returned in the third quarter of 2009 and we have 
             now had 13 consecutive quarters of economic growth. We 
             have come a long way. This is a remarkable turnaround in a 
             very short time, measured against previous financial 
             crises. In fact, there has been an academic study just 
             completed that suggests typically it takes 8 to 10 years 
             to recover from a financial crisis. So the recovery here, 
             while not everything we would have hoped, is a dramatic 
             turnaround.
               At the same time our constituents know, and we know, the 
             price has been high. We know we are currently borrowing 31 
             cents of every dollar we spend. That is somewhat of an 
             improvement, because we were borrowing 40 cents of every 
             dollar we spend. So this is an improvement, but we have a 
             long way to go. The public understands we face both a 
             spending and a revenue problem. Spending is near a 60-year 
             high, as this chart shows. The red line is the spending 
             line; the green line is the revenue line. But for those 
             who say it is just a spending problem, I don't think the 
             facts bear that out, because the revenue is near a 60-year 
             low. I think most logical people would say we have to work 
             both sides of this equation.
               When we look at our debt, we see that our gross debt has 
             now surpassed 100 percent of our gross domestic product. 
             There was a landmark work done a couple of years ago by 
             Rogoff and Reinhart. They looked at 200 years of economic 
             history and they concluded that once our debt exceeds 90 
             percent of GDP, our future economic prospects are reduced, 
             and reduced quite significantly: future economic growth 
             reduced by 25 to 33 percent. So this is not just numbers 
             on a page; this is a question of future economic 
             opportunity.
               This growing debt is why many of us called for action a 
             long time ago. In fact, it was 6 years ago this month that 
             Senator Gregg and I came up with the idea of a commission 
             to tackle the debt. That idea ultimately led to the 
             President appointing the Bowles-Simpson Commission. Its 
             bipartisan report recommended $4 trillion in deficit 
             reduction in a balanced way, and I think in a fair way. It 
             protected low-income programs, it actually improved the 
             progressivity of the tax system quite significantly, and 
             it was balanced between revenue and spending. Other 
             bipartisan groups have concluded the same, that we need 
             spending restraint and we need revenue. So there is a 
             critical role for government here. We have seen it in the 
             past and we will find it in the future.
               I think we also have to acknowledge there are problems 
             in this Chamber. As proud as I am of this institution, and 
             I will forever be, I have detected over the 26 years I 
             have been here, a change. It has happened kind of 
             gradually, but it has clearly happened. We now spend too 
             much of our time seeking partisan advantage, and it 
             happens on both sides, and it is all understandable. I 
             understand it. I am not being critical of individuals. We 
             spend too little time trying to solve problems. We spend 
             too little time in our caucuses, in our meetings, focused 
             on how to solve the problems facing the country. I deeply 
             believe this observation is true.
               I believe we can do better than this. The institutions 
             of our government have a proud history. The genius of our 
             Founding Fathers can be found in every part of our 
             history. Whether it was conquering the last Great 
             Depression or winning World War I and World War II or 
             launching a man into space or conquering dread diseases, 
             over and over our country has organized to better the 
             plight of mankind. We need that same kind of focus and 
             effort now to address our challenges. I am confident we 
             can do this, but it is not enough to be confident. It is 
             not enough to be hopeful. It requires a plan, and I would 
             like to take the next few minutes to lay out my belief of 
             what that plan should include.
               Much of what I will talk about reflects the work of the 
             Bowles-Simpson Commission, the Group of Six that I have 
             been a part of, and the Group of Eight.
               It starts by looking at what both sides have laid down. 
             Republicans have laid down the spending cut plan; the 
             President has laid down a revenue plan. My own belief is 
             we should take them both. We should take what the 
             Republicans have proposed on spending, with some modest 
             modifications which I will discuss, and we should take the 
             President's plan on revenue.
               The President laid down a plan that said we ought to 
             raise $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years. Boy, that 
             sounds like an awful lot of money, doesn't it--$1.6 
             trillion. Not billion, not million--but trillion. People 
             will be quick to say: Oh, my God, that is the biggest tax 
             increase in the history of mankind. Terrible. We cannot do 
             that.
               Well, we need to put it in perspective. The first thing 
             we should recognize is this will take us to a revenue 
             level that is 19.9 percent of our GDP. The last five times 
             we have balanced the budget in this country, going back to 
             1969, we have been at 19.7 percent, 19.9 percent, 19.8 
             percent, 20.6 percent, and 19.5 percent. Does 19.9 percent 
             fit in? These are the only times we balanced the budget 
             going back to 1969.
               To put it in even more perspective, how much revenue are 
             we going to raise over the next 10 years without any 
             change? Well, here is the number: $37.4 trillion. Nobody 
             ever puts these things in perspective. These big numbers 
             are in relationship to what; $1.6 trillion is what in 
             relationship to $37.4 trillion? As a percentage that is an 
             increase of 4.3 percent. My goodness, we cannot increase 
             the revenue by 4.3 percent in this country over the next 
             10 years? Of course we can. Of course we can, especially 
             if it means we get our house in order and put the country 
             on a more firm fiscal footing.
               It does not just matter how much money we raise; it also 
             matters how we raise it. We have a Tax Code now which I 
             cannot defend. I cannot defend it. I took a study that was 
             done by a man named Martin Sullivan last year. He did a 
             very interesting thing. He looked at one building on Park 
             Avenue in New York, and he was able to do it because they 
             happened to have the statistics that isolated that one 
             building. Do you know what he found? The average income in 
             that building was $1.167 million for the year--$1.167 
             million. The average tax rate of the people in that 
             building was 14.7 percent.
               The janitor in that building had an income of $33,000. 
             He paid a tax rate of 24.9 percent. Is this fair? Is it 
             fair that people making $1.1 million paid a tax rate of 
             14.7 percent, and the janitor who served them earning 
             $33,000 a year paid a tax rate of 24.9 percent? Well, I 
             personally do not think so.
               I know all of the arguments. I have served on the 
             Finance Committee. I have heard it all. The biggest reason 
             for this differential, by the way, is not the earned-
             income tax rate, which has had almost all of the attention 
             in this national discussion. Almost all of the attention 
             has been on the earned-income tax rate and raising it from 
             35 percent to 39.6 percent.
               Almost no attention has been paid to the unearned-income 
             tax rate on capital gains and dividends. The unearned rate 
             is currently at 15 percent. That is what allows very 
             wealthy people to pay a tax rate that is a fraction of 
             those who work full time and are paying rates of 25 
             percent.
               So I hope as we move to conclusion we will pay a little 
             more attention to the unearned rates. The truth is, we 
             would not have to have as much of an increase as is being 
             proposed on the earned-income side and have more of an 
             increase on the unearned-income side, and we would make 
             the Tax Code fairer and we could raise the same amount of 
             revenue. That is the revenue side.
               But the spending side Republicans have down. They have 
             put out a proposal that asks for savings out of 
             entitlements and other discretionary spending. If we look 
             at their proposal and break it down--again, let's look at 
             health care. We are going to spend $11 trillion over the 
             next 10 years on health care. Republicans are proposing 
             saving $600 million. If we had a compromise between 
             Republicans and Democrats let's say at $500 million, that 
             would be a savings of, again the magic, 4 percent.
               We are going to increase revenue 4 percent. If we had 
             savings in health care of 4\1/2\ percent, we would save 
             $500 billion. Now, I have had conversations with 
             colleagues who tell me we cannot possibly save $500 
             billion out of health care, just like people say, well, we 
             cannot possibly increase revenue $1.6 trillion.
               Really, we cannot save $500 billion out of a pot of 
             money where we are going to spend $11 trillion? I do not 
             think that is true. I think we can save $500 billion. I 
             will tell you, there is someone sitting on this floor who 
             has a pretty good idea of how to do it. Senator Sheldon 
             Whitehouse has said to us over and over and over: We are 
             spending more than any other country in the world as a 
             share of our national income on health care. We are 
             spending 18 percent of our GDP on health care. No other 
             country spends more than 11\1/2\ percent.
               The best minds in this country have told us we are 
             wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in health care 
             that do not improve health care outcomes at all. If we 
             would save money in overall health care, 40 percent of 
             that savings would flow through to the Federal Government. 
             Senator Whitehouse is right about this. We ought to focus 
             like a laser on where the waste is.
               We do not need to increase the eligibility age for 
             Medicare. We absolutely do not have to do it to save $500 
             billion. What it would do, if we save $500 billion, is it 
             would keep the growth in health care spending about equal 
             to the growth in the overall economy. That would stabilize 
             the growth of health care spending. That would be a huge 
             contribution to the economic competitive position of the 
             United States.
               Republicans have also said: Hey, let's save $300 billion 
             on domestic discretionary savings. Now, I will be the 
             first to say we have already had lots of savings on the 
             discretionary accounts. We have saved over $1 trillion in 
             the discretionary accounts. But they say, ok, let's save 
             another $300 billion. I think we should say we will do it 
             if they go with us on the revenue. We will do it because 
             that represents a savings of 2.6 percent of the $11.6 
             trillion we are going to spend in the discretionary 
             accounts over the next 10 years.
               Now, I think we have gotten into a situation where we 
             use numbers that are absolutely big numbers, but we do not 
             put them in perspective. How can we save 2.6 percent out 
             of discretionary accounts? Well, I believe we can. I 
             absolutely believe we can. I believe we can save more out 
             of defense.
               I did not vote for going to war in Iraq. I thought that 
             was a huge mistake. But I have supported every dollar of 
             spending for our troops in the field. I can tell you as 
             the Budget Committee chairman, we can save more money in 
             defense. There are lots of Republicans who know we can do 
             it too.
               Other mandatory spending. That is another category the 
             Republicans said to save $300 billion there. I think they 
             are $100 billion too high because we are already saving 
             over $100 billion out of other mandatory programs to 
             offset the cost of extending certain policies just last 
             year. So let's save $200 billion. That would represent, 
             again, 4 percent of what we are projected to spend over 
             the next 10 years in other mandatory spending; $5.1 
             trillion is what we are programmed to spend. Two hundred 
             billion dollars of savings there would represent 4 
             percent.
               Again, I have had colleagues tell me we cannot possibly 
             save $200 billion. I have had staff people tell me we 
             cannot save $200 billion. So I say, how much are we going 
             to spend? That $200 billion represents 4 percent of what 
             we are going to spend. We cannot save 4 percent? Yes, we 
             can.
               I was elected on the slogan in 1986, of ``Yes We Can.'' 
             Somebody else used that slogan a few years later. 
             President Obama used that slogan, ``Yes We Can.'' He 
             called me up.
               He said, ``Do I owe you royalties?''
               I said, ``No, I am glad you are using it.''
               Yes we can. We need more of a yes-we-can attitude around 
             here.
               So when I rack it all up and I look at what we have 
             already done, we have saved $1 trillion in the Budget 
             Control Act of last year. Here are other mandatory savings 
             I just talked about: more than $100 billion that we have 
             already done to offset the cost of extending certain 
             policies, $900 billion of other discretionary savings 
             already done. So we put that in the bank. We use that as 
             the base.
               We put it all together and here is what we have: We save 
             another $200 billion on defense; we have revenue of $1.6 
             trillion, which is the President's proposal; we have $100 
             billion of nondefense. That gets us the $300 billion the 
             Republicans have asked for.
               On health care we do $500 billion. That is close to what 
             they have asked for, $100 billion less. Other mandatory, 
             $200 billion; that is close to what they asked for. The 
             $100 billion difference reflects what we have already 
             done.
               Interest savings. Because we are spending less and we 
             have more revenue, we save interest, $400 billion. That 
             gives us a total of spending cuts of $1.4 trillion. We add 
             in what has already been done, $1.05 trillion, and we have 
             a total of $2.45 trillion. We add that to the $1.6 
             trillion of revenue, we have $4.05 trillion of savings.
               Then I personally would extend the payroll tax holiday 
             because CBO tells us, on the tax side, that holiday is the 
             biggest bang for the buck in giving a lift to the economy. 
             It will cost us $200 billion, for a net deficit reduction 
             of $3.85 trillion. For those wondering what happens to AMT 
             and what happens to the doc fix, we have those in the 
             baseline so they are covered in this proposal. We can 
             correct the alternative minimum tax. We can eliminate the 
             doc fix and be done with them.
               This magnitude of package is precisely what was called 
             for in the fiscal commission. In the Moment of Truth 
             report, this is what they called for. I think they were 
             right to call for it. I was proud to be part of that 
             effort. I believe this is precisely what we need to do 
             now. So that is the plan. Now we need action. We should do 
             it the old-fashioned way. We should make tough decisions, 
             even some that will be unpopular.
               It will be the right thing to do, and it will work. It 
             will stabilize our debt and begin to bring it down. It 
             will provide certainty to our economy. I believe it will 
             unleash the $1.7 trillion that is in the balance sheets of 
             our corporations, and it will unlock the investment 
             potential that lies all across this country.
               Let me end as I began by simply saying thank you. Thank 
             you to the people of North Dakota, thank you to my 
             colleagues, thank you to my staff and, most of all, thanks 
             to my family--to my wife Lucy, to my daughter Jessie, to 
             our son Ivan and his wife Kendra, and to our grandson 
             Carter. To all my family members, my cousins, who have 
             been with me in every campaign, I will never forget your 
             support and your help. I will always consider serving here 
             the honor of my life.
               I also thank my colleague Senator Hoeven, who, in the 2 
             years he and I have overlapped, has been a good colleague. 
             I have enjoyed working with him very much.
               I just close by noting, because as many of you know, I 
             am sort of a numbers guy, that I started these remarks in 
             the 12th hour of the 12th day of the 12th month of 2012. I 
             am sure numerologists will make much of those 
             relationships. I began this speech in the 12th hour of the 
             12th day of the 12th month of 2012, and I leave here 
             forever grateful for the opportunity to serve.

                                          a
                                           

                               Farewell to the Senate
                             Wednesday, January 2, 2013

               Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. These 
             will be my final remarks to the Senate, and I thought I 
             would share with my colleagues my observations on what has 
             just occurred to put in perspective where I believe we are 
             and where we are headed and to lay down a challenge for my 
             colleagues as I depart. A very significant challenge 
             remains for the Congress and the country, and I hope very 
             much that we find the courage to take on these challenges. 
             It is incredibly important to the future strength of our 
             Nation, and we can do it. We have done much tougher things 
             in the past, and we can certainly take on these 
             challenges.
               On New Year's Eve we were called into session and were 
             briefed by the Vice President and other staff from the 
             White House with respect to the deal that was before us. I 
             told our colleagues on that night that I believed we had 
             to support the proposal before us because to fail to do so 
             would send us back into a recession. Most economists said 
             the economy would shrink 4 percent in the first quarter, 2 
             percent in the second quarter, that 1 million more people 
             would be unemployed, and that the 2 million people now on 
             unemployment insurance would lose that and would have no 
             safety net. So, Mr. President, I saw no alternative but to 
             support this agreement.
               At the same time, I told my colleagues: I hate this 
             agreement. I hate it with every fiber of my being because 
             this is not the grand bargain I had hoped for and worked 
             for and believe is so necessary to the future of the 
             country. This is not, by any standard, a deficit reduction 
             plan. As necessary as it is, no one should be misled that 
             this deals with our deficit and debt because it only makes 
             our debt circumstance worse.
               Now, some question that assessment, but that is 
             precisely the assessment the Congressional Budget Office 
             has come to. I would like to take just a few moments to 
             put in perspective where we are.
               The United States is borrowing 31 cents of every dollar 
             it spends. That is an unsustainable circumstance. It is an 
             improvement somewhat because we were borrowing 40 cents of 
             every dollar we spend. So there has been some modest 
             improvement. But, this cannot go on. It has to be 
             addressed or we will weaken the Nation.
               This chart puts in perspective the spending and revenue 
             of the United States going back to 1950. Looking back 60 
             years, the red line is the spending line, and the green 
             line is the revenue line. You can see our spending is 
             close to a 60-year high. We are not quite at a 60-year 
             high because there has been some improvement in the last 2 
             years. We are close to a 60-year low on revenue. So our 
             colleagues who say this is just a spending problem are 
             missing the point. This is a problem of the relationship 
             between spending and revenue. The gap--much higher 
             spending than we have revenue--is what leads to deficits 
             and leads to additions to the debt.
               The path we are on, we are told by the Congressional 
             Budget Office, will take us from a gross debt of 104 
             percent of our gross domestic product today to 115 percent 
             by 2022 if we fail to act. So further action is absolutely 
             essential.
               Why? Why does it matter if our gross debt is more than 
             100 percent of our gross domestic product? Well, because 
             the best work that has been done on this question--by 
             Rogoff and Reinhart--concluded, after looking at 200 years 
             of economic history, the following. I quote from their 
             study:

               We examine the experience of 44 countries spanning up to 
             two centuries of data on central government debt, 
             inflation and growth. Our main finding is that across both 
             advanced countries and emerging markets, high debt/GDP 
             levels (90 percent and above) are associated with notably 
             lower growth outcomes.

               To sum it up, Mr. President, when we have a gross debt 
             of more than 90 percent of our GDP, we are headed down a 
             path that dramatically reduces our future economic growth. 
             That means we are reducing future economic opportunity for 
             the people of our country. That is why this matters, 
             because it will retard and restrict economic growth for 
             our people.
               Here is what the Congressional Budget Office tells us 
             about the long-term path we are on, in terms of debt held 
             by the public. CBO tells us we are headed for a 
             circumstance where publicly held debt will be 200 percent 
             of our GDP.
               So, we are on a course that is utterly unsustainable.
               If we look at what has been done--because those who say 
             nothing has been done are not giving the full story 
             either--the fact is we passed a Budget Control Act in 
             place of a budget. We put in place a law in place of a 
             budget resolution. That budget law dropped discretionary 
             spending to historic lows. We were at--in the year 2012--
             8.3 percent of GDP going to domestic spending. The Budget 
             Control Act, the law that was passed, will take that down 
             to 5.3 percent of GDP going for discretionary spending. 
             That is a historic low.
               So when someone says nothing has been done, that is not 
             accurate. We cut domestic spending, and cut it in a very 
             significant way. We cut it to a level that will be a 
             historic low, but that doesn't mean the problem has been 
             solved; nowhere close to it, because at the same time the 
             nondiscretionary accounts are rising dramatically. 
             Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health spending is 
             the 800-pound gorilla. That is where we see such a 
             dramatic increase in spending, both in real and nominal 
             dollars, and as a share of GDP.
               Back in 1972, these health care accounts consumed 1.1 
             percent of our gross domestic product. By 2050, if we 
             don't do something, they will consume 12.4 percent. That 
             is totally unsustainable. It is gobbling up bigger and 
             bigger chunks of our budget, putting increasing pressure 
             on our deficits and debt, and eating up the ability of the 
             United States to have the flexibility to respond to crises 
             that might occur.
               The aging population is the primary driver of Medicare, 
             Medicaid, and Social Security cost growth. We can see in 
             this chart, the effect of cost growth is the yellow part; 
             the effect of aging is the red part; and the spending in 
             absence of aging and excess cost growth is the green part 
             of this chart. In other words, our spending on Medicare, 
             Medicaid, and Social Security would actually be very 
             stable absent the effect of aging and the effect of excess 
             cost growth. Now the effect of aging has become the 
             biggest driver. There is nothing we can do about that 
             because these people have been born. They are alive today. 
             They are going to be eligible for Medicare and Social 
             Security, and we are going to have to find a way to be 
             able to afford this combined effect.
               The revenue side of the equation I think is critically 
             important to understand. Many of our colleagues say: It is 
             true we are at a very low share of GDP going to revenue 
             today. In 2012, less than 16 percent of our GDP came as 
             revenue to the Federal Government. Typically, it is about 
             18.5 percent of GDP. But if we look back on the last five 
             times we have actually balanced the budget around here, 
             revenue hasn't been 18 or 18.5 percent of GDP. The last 
             five times we have balanced the budget, revenue has been 
             19.7 percent, 19.9 percent, 19.8 percent, 20.6 percent, 
             19.5 percent of GDP.
               So those who say we have to get back to the normal 
             revenue stream, I think miss the point. The average is not 
             going to do it. It never has, at least going back to 1969.
               We are going to have to have more revenue at the same 
             time we have more spending discipline, especially with 
             respect to the health care accounts.
               We need fundamental tax reform. This Tax Code is out of 
             date; it is inefficient; and it is hurting U.S. global 
             competitiveness. The complexity imposes a significant 
             burden on individuals and businesses. The expiring 
             provisions create uncertainty and confusion. It is 
             hemorrhaging revenue to tax gaps, tax havens, abusive tax 
             shelters.
               I have shown many times on the floor of the Senate a 
             picture of a little five-story building in the Cayman 
             Islands called Ugland House. Ugland House, this little 
             five-story building, claims to be the home of 18,000 
             companies that all say they are doing business out of that 
             building. I have said many times that is the most 
             efficient building in the world. How can 18,000 companies 
             be doing business out of a little five-story building down 
             in the Cayman Islands? They are not doing business out of 
             that building. The only business they are doing is monkey 
             business, and the monkey business they are doing is to 
             avoid the taxes they owe in the United States through 
             shell games in which they show their profits in the Cayman 
             Islands, where, happily, there are no income taxes to 
             impose on those earnings. So they are avoiding showing 
             their income here and putting it in the Cayman Islands 
             where they can shield it from taxation.
               We also desperately need to restore fairness. The 
             current system contributes to growing income inequality. I 
             don't know how anyone can conclude otherwise. I have also 
             shown many times on the floor of the Senate the report on 
             one building on Park Avenue in New York, where the average 
             income is $1.2 million of the people who live in that 
             building and the average tax rate those people are paying 
             is about 15 percent. The janitor in that building is 
             paying a tax rate of 25 percent with an income of $33,000 
             a year. How is that fair? How can that possibly be 
             considered fair? These long-term fiscal imbalances simply 
             must be addressed, and revenue is going to have to be part 
             of the solution.
               Martin Feldstein, one of the distinguished economists in 
             our country, conservative, chairman of the Council of 
             Economic Advisers under President Reagan, said this about 
             the tax expenditures of the country because we are 
             spending $1.2 trillion a year in the tax expenditures 
             category of the United States. We are spending more 
             through the Tax Code than we are through all the 
             appropriated accounts.
               People say we are spending too much. Yes, we continue to 
             have a spending problem and a revenue problem. But through 
             the Tax Code we spend more there than we spend through all 
             the appropriated accounts.
               Here is what Martin Feldstein said about the need to 
             reduce tax expenditures:

               Cutting tax expenditures is really the best way to 
             reduce government spending. ... [E]liminating tax 
             expenditures does not increase marginal tax rates or 
             reduce the reward for saving, investment, or risk taking. 
             It would also increase overall economic efficiency by 
             removing incentives that distort private spending 
             decisions. And eliminating or consolidating the large 
             number of overlapping tax-based subsidies would also 
             greatly simplify tax filing. In short, cutting tax 
             expenditures is not at all like other ways of raising 
             revenue.

               I say to my colleagues, we are going to have to raise 
             more revenue; we are going to have to cut spending; and we 
             are going to have to reform entitlements. It is as clear 
             as it can be that those things are going to have to be 
             done to get the country back on track. Here is one of the 
             most distinguished economists in the country telling us 
             that reforming tax expenditures is not like other ways of 
             raising revenue in terms of its economic effect. I think 
             Mr. Feldstein has that exactly right.
               By the way, who most benefits from these tax 
             expenditures? Here is a chart that shows the increase in 
             after-tax income from tax expenditures and here is the top 
             1 percent. On average, they benefit per year by over 
             $250,000. The next quintile benefits by $32,000. The 
             lowest quintile tax expenditures benefit by $707 a year. 
             Wow. What an extraordinary disparity. The lowest quintile 
             tax expenditures benefits are $707 a year. For the top 1 
             percent, their benefit from tax expenditures, on average, 
             is over $250,000 a year.
               Here we are, borrowing 31 cents of every dollar we 
             spend. We are on course taking the debt of the United 
             States from over 100 percent of our gross domestic product 
             to over 200 percent if we fail to act.
               That is why we had the National Commission on Fiscal 
             Responsibility and Reform. The report we put out was 
             called ``The Moment of Truth.'' What we called for in that 
             report was $5.4 trillion in deficit reduction. We used the 
             current baseline. That is what we would have provided, 
             $5.4 trillion in deficit reduction. We lowered the deficit 
             to 1.4 percent of GDP in 2022. We stabilized the gross 
             debt by 2015. We reduced discretionary spending to 4.8 
             percent of GDP by 2022. We built on the health care reform 
             savings. We called for Social Security reform and savings 
             to be used only to extend the solvency of Social Security 
             itself, and we also included fundamental tax reform that 
             raised revenue and did it in part by reducing those tax 
             expenditures I just referred to.
               Here is what would happen to the deficit as a percentage 
             of GDP under the fiscal commission budget plan. We can see 
             in 2012 the deficit is at 7.6 percent of GDP. By 2012 it 
             would be taken down to 1.4 percent of GDP under the plan.
               Here is what would happen to the gross debt of the 
             country as a percentage of GDP under the fiscal commission 
             plan. From 104 percent of GDP in 2012, down to 93 percent 
             of GDP in 2022. Stabilize the debt. Then begin to bring it 
             down. That ought to be our challenge.
               The plan that was just passed took individual rate 
             increases from 35 to 39.6 for couples earning over 
             $450,000. Capital gains and dividends were increased from 
             15 percent to 20 percent. PEP and Pease were reinstated. 
             The estate tax was increased to 40 percent for those 
             estates above $5 million. The alternative minimum tax was 
             patched on a permanent basis to prevent some 30 million 
             people from being caught up in the alternative minimum 
             tax. It extended other expiring provisions.
               On the spending side, the doc fix was put in place for 1 
             year to prevent doctors who provide care for Medicare-
             eligible beneficiaries from taking a 27-percent cut. It 
             turned off the sequester for 2 months, the $1.2 trillion 
             across-the-board cut in discretionary spending in both 
             defense and nondefense. It provided for a 1-year extension 
             of unemployment benefits and also for a 1-year extension 
             of the farm bill.
               Again, while I believe that plan had to be supported--
             and I did, albeit reluctantly because I think if we had 
             failed to support it, we would be headed back into 
             recession, an additional 1 million people would have lost 
             their jobs, the unemployment rate would be headed to 9.1 
             percent, and 2 million people would have lost their 
             unemployment benefits. So there was good reason to support 
             that plan. But I want to end as I began. I hated that 
             plan. I hated it with every fiber of my being because the 
             truth is it increased the debt of the United States. That 
             is not just my word; that is the word of the Congressional 
             Budget Office that tells me the revenue loss from that 
             plan is $3.6 trillion; the new spending, $332 billion. The 
             total impact on the deficit and debt, $4 trillion. That 
             doesn't account for the additional debt service which is 
             another $650 billion. The total increase in the debt as a 
             result of that plan is over $4.6 trillion.
               So don't let anybody tell you that was a deficit 
             reduction plan or a plan to deal with the debt because it 
             was not and it is not. That leaves the unresolved 
             challenge of our time. Because for this Nation's future, 
             it is critically important that the next Congress, in its 
             early days, try to get back to doing the grand bargain, 
             the big deal, something that would reduce our deficits and 
             debt by at least $4 trillion over the next 10 years to 
             stabilize the debt to begin to bring it down.
               I leave here in many ways with a heavy heart because I 
             came here 26 years ago believing one of the foremost 
             responsibilities of a Senator was to guide the fiscal 
             affairs of this country.
               I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
             the announcement speech I made in 1986 in running for the 
             Senate.
               There being no objection, the material was ordered to be 
             printed in the Record, as follows:

             Kent Conrad Speech Announcing Run for the Senate, January 
                                      27, 1986

               I will be a candidate for North Dakota's seat in the 
             U.S. Senate in 1986. I will be a candidate because I am 
             intensely interested in North Dakota's future. I am 
             committed to doing what I can to improve the future for 
             our State and its people.
               I have concluded that the serious economic problems 
             facing our State can in large measure only be addressed in 
             Washington. It is economic policies decided in our 
             Nation's Capital that are pushing our State into a 
             difficult financial position.
               Since 1980, our national debt has doubled. Our national 
             operating deficit has tripled. Our trade deficit has 
             increased six-fold. And we have become a debtor nation for 
             the first time in 71 years.
               We can do better. We must do better. And we will do 
             better if we have the courage and leadership to move this 
             country in a new direction.
               Current economic policies, which have increased the 
             national debt in 5 years by an amount that had taken 200 
             years to accumulate, have forced record high real interest 
             rates. Those record high real interest rates have bloated 
             the value of the American dollar, which in turn has put a 
             hidden tax on every commodity exported by our State and 
             Nation. That hidden tax has robbed us of our export 
             markets and dramatically reduced our commodity values.
               These economic policies are not only devastating to the 
             economy of the State of North Dakota but are rapidly 
             exporting the economic strength of this country. This 
             process must be stopped.
               It is time for politicians to stop posturing and 
             promising and start guaranteeing performance and results. 
             I pledge today that, if elected, the Federal deficit, the 
             trade deficit, and real interest rates will be brought 
             under control or I will not seek reelection in 1992.
               I have great confidence in the future of our State and 
             of our country if our leadership and our people move 
             swiftly in a new direction.
               I offer leadership and a new vision of the role of 
             government in solving our common problems.
               We are at the dawn of a new era, one in which 
             international competition will more and more shape the 
             policies of states and nations.
               We must meet that challenge.
               That means the fundamentals of a healthy domestic 
             economy, including a sound agricultural sector, an 
             excellent educational system, a competitive business 
             climate, a strong national defense, and an efficient and 
             fair tax system must be among our highest priorities.
               At the same time we must fashion a society that cares 
             for the least fortunate among us, respects our senior 
             citizens, nurtures our young, and preserves a strong and 
             growing middle class. Perhaps most important, we must 
             actively pursue peace for our generation and for the 
             generations ahead.
               We can accomplish all of this if we trust in the basic 
             good judgment and decency of our people. I have that faith 
             and look forward to a challenging campaign on the issues 
             that confront us.
               The trade deficit is clearly out of control. We have 
             gone from a trade deficit of $32 billion in 1980 to $149 
             billion last year, and this year we're headed for a trade 
             deficit of $175 billion.
               For the last 3 months, we have imported more 
             agricultural production than we have exported. These are 
             additional signs of an economic game plan that has gone 
             seriously wrong. We must get the trade deficit under 
             control or we will find our standard of living lowered for 
             decades to come.
               I believe the Senate and House Members should tell the 
             collective leadership in Washington--both Republicans and 
             Democrats--that it's no more business as usual. It's time 
             to seriously address the economic problems facing our 
             country.
               The best way to get the leadership to face up to the 
             problems facing our country is to refuse to extend the 
             debt limit except on a temporary basis. There should be no 
             permanent extension of the debt limit until there is an 
             economic summit of the President and the Republican and 
             Democratic leadership of both the House and the Senate to 
             devise a plan to reduce our national deficit, to lower 
             interest rates, to lower the bloated value of the American 
             dollar, and to lower the trade deficit. These steps must 
             be taken, and they must be taken now.
               We can have a better, more secure future, but only if we 
             take the steps now to get our country back on an economic 
             path that makes sense.

               Mr. CONRAD. This is what I said 26 years ago in my 
             candidacy for the Senate:

               I have concluded that the serious economic problems 
             facing our State can in large measure only be addressed in 
             Washington. It is economic policies decided in our 
             Nation's Capital that are pushing our State into a 
             difficult financial position.
               Since 1980, our national debt has doubled. Our national 
             operating deficit has tripled. Our trade deficit has 
             increased six-fold. And we have become a debtor nation for 
             the first time in 71 years.
               We can do better. We must do better. And we will do 
             better if we have the courage and leadership to move this 
             country in a new direction.
               Current economic policies, which have increased the 
             national debt in 5 years by an amount that had taken 200 
             years to accumulate, have forced record high real interest 
             rates. Those record high real interest rates have bloated 
             the value of the American dollar, which in turn has put a 
             hidden tax on every commodity exported by our State and 
             Nation. That hidden tax has robbed us of our export 
             markets and dramatically reduced our commodity values.
               These economic policies are not only devastating to the 
             economy of the State of North Dakota but are rapidly 
             exporting the economic strength of this country. This 
             process must be stopped.

               I will end with the next paragraph:

               It is time for politicians to stop posturing and 
             promising and start guaranteeing performance and results.

               Then I made a pledge.

               I pledge today that, if elected, the Federal deficit, 
             the trade deficit, and real interest rates will be brought 
             under control or I will not seek reelection in 1992.

               That is a statement I made 26 years ago. Some people are 
             probably wondering, if you made that pledge, how are you 
             still here? Well, 6 years after I made that pledge I 
             announced I would not seek reelection, and I did not. I 
             announced in April of that year I would not seek 
             reelection. Congressman Dorgan was nominated to run for my 
             seat and I thought I was leaving the Senate.
               Then the other Senator from North Dakota died in 
             September of that year. The Governor called me and said, 
             ``Senator, you have to run to fill out the 2 years of his 
             term because our State is going to lose all of its 
             seniority in one fell swoop--all of Senator Burdick's 
             seniority, all of your seniority, and all of Congressman 
             Dorgan's seniority.'' We will be the only State in the 
             Nation with no seniority. You will have kept your pledge; 
             you did not seek reelection; you will run in a special 
             election which will be in December, after the regular 
             elections in November.
               I will never forget, one of the news media stations back 
             home did a poll and two-thirds of Republicans thought I 
             should run to fill out the 2 years of that term, which I 
             did--which means I am the answer to a trivia question, 
             because I am the only Senator in history who served in 
             both Senate seats from the same State in the same day.
               I believed then and I believe now that fiscal 
             responsibility is one of the first obligations of 
             government. My deep regret, my greatest regret, in leaving 
             here is that we have not been able to fashion the grand 
             bargain to put us back on track.
               Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a tribute 
             to the Budget Committee staff who have served so ably and 
             so well, served this body, served our country, led by my 
             staff director Mary Naylor, who is truly a remarkable 
             person; I consider her a real patriot because she has 
             absolutely dedicated herself to getting the fiscal affairs 
             of the country in order. If I could, I ask unanimous 
             consent to have printed in the Record a tribute to all of 
             the Budget Committee staff who have served with me so ably 
             and so well.
               There being no objection, the material was ordered to be 
             printed in the Record, as follows:

                  Tribute to Budget Committee Staff, January 2, 2013
               Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, before I depart the Senate 
             after 26 years, I wanted to offer a special tribute to a 
             team of professionals who have served me, this body, and 
             this country with high distinction.
               Since 2001, it has been my honor to serve as the senior 
             Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. Throughout my 12-
             year tenure as chairman or ranking member, I have had on 
             the Budget Committee a staff of dedicated professionals 
             who have advised me and other Senators on a wide array of 
             complicated budget issues.
               The Committee's portfolio touches every facet of the 
             Federal Government. We write not only the budget 
             resolution, but deal with the big picture consequences of 
             tax and spending decisions. We enforce the many budget 
             points-of-order and other budget rules that govern our 
             proceedings. Many of these rules, although well 
             intentioned, are complex and often convoluted. We rely on 
             the expertise of our Budget Committee staff professionals 
             to help us comply with these rules.
               When my colleagues tapped me to lead the committee, I 
             knew part of my success would depend greatly on the 
             composition and caliber of staff that we could attract to 
             the committee.
                                 sbc majority staff
             Staff Director
               Job one was making sure I picked the right staff 
             director--a Hill veteran, who knew how to advance ideas 
             and move legislation through this political and 
             legislative body. Someone who knew how to write budgets, 
             excel at managing staff, and maybe most important, care 
             about fiscal responsibility.
               Finding that right person turned out to be quite easy. 
             Mary Naylor was already on my personal office staff, 
             serving as my deputy chief of staff. She grew up in North 
             Dakota. In 1989, her first task for me: writing my budget 
             and tax mail. Twelve years later, in January 2001, she 
             became my first and only Budget Committee staff director.
               Mary has been invaluable to me. She is a loyal and 
             trusted aide. She works hard, has a gifted mind and 
             memory, and never takes no for an answer. In addition, 
             Mary has this uncanny ability to know what I am thinking, 
             how I want to implement it, and how I want to explain it. 
             I can't thank Mary enough for her service and her loyalty 
             to me, her contribution to the Budget Committee, the 
             Senate's deliberations, and the country's overall well-
             being.
             Deputy Staff Director
               John Righter has served as the committee's deputy staff 
             director for the past 7-plus years.
               John was my numbers guy. He understood and mastered 
             budget baselines and scoring issues like no one else ever 
             has. His brilliant mind enabled him to develop and compare 
             multiple budget plans simultaneously. He is the budget 
             world's equivalent of a chess grand master. There were 
             times that I had John working on six different budget 
             plans, all at once. I'd fire detailed questions to him 
             about each of the varied plans, and he'd be able to 
             respond quickly and accurately. Just like a grand master 
             who can play multiple chess games at once, John can juggle 
             multiple budget plans simultaneously.
               I was not the only Senator to rely on John's abilities. 
             John was a key resource for the staff and members of the 
             President's Fiscal Commission. And for the last two years, 
             Senators from both sides of the aisle who have worked with 
             me on the Group of Six--which later became the Group of 
             Eight--have relied on John's mastery of budgets.
               John joined the committee in May 2001 as an analyst 
             focusing on appropriations, general government, and 
             commerce. He was a 6-year veteran of the Congressional 
             Budget Office, where he, among other things, excelled at 
             budget concepts and scorekeeping issues. I can't thank 
             John enough for his exceptional service to the committee 
             and me these past nearly 12 years.
             Communications Director
               Stu Nagurka served as the committee's communications 
             director, and came on board just days after I took over 
             the reins of the committee. He has been a trusted, valued, 
             and loyal aide all these many years. As a former reporter, 
             and with his background as a press secretary on the House 
             side, and as a communications aide in the Clinton 
             administration, he has been a great asset to the 
             committee. He has always represented the committee and me 
             before the press with great professionalism. He has been a 
             delight to have on the committee, and I thank him for his 
             12 years of service.
                                 former senior staff
               I was fortunate to attract high caliber staff on the 
             committee throughout my tenure. Some of my staff went on 
             to serve in the administration, others moved on to think 
             tanks, while others retired or went on to pursue other 
             opportunities both on and off the Hill.
               I would be remiss if I did not also thank them for their 
             contributions, including Sue Nelson and Jim Horney. Both 
             served as my co-deputy staff directors early in my tenure. 
             As longtime veterans of helping to write and analyze 
             budgets, they were an invaluable asset to me when I first 
             served as chairman.
               Joel Friedman served as one of the committee's two 
             deputies during the last half of my tenure. He was the 
             committee's lead tax and revenue expert. He brought a 
             wealth of knowledge to the committee from his previous 
             government service at the Treasury Department, the Office 
             of Management and Budget, and the House Budget Committee. 
             Joel did yeoman's work developing and evaluating tax 
             policy during our bipartisan negotiations in the 
             President's Fiscal Commission, and later during our Group 
             of Six and Group of Eight deliberations. Joel was a key 
             staff member, who I greatly admire and appreciate.
               Steve Posner was a valued member of the committee staff 
             for more than 11\1/2\ years. During that time, he wrote 
             more than his share of my speeches, op-beds and other 
             material. He is a brilliant writer, and knew exactly the 
             words, phrases, and statements I wanted to make. He was of 
             great help throughout my tenure, and I so appreciate his 
             service.
               Lisa Konwinski served as the committee's chief counsel 
             for 11 years, 8 coming under my tenure. She was not only 
             an excellent counsel and advisor to me and my committee 
             members, but she was of great assistance to leadership and 
             the Senate as a whole. I was not surprised when President 
             Obama asked her to serve as one of his deputy directors of 
             legislative affairs.
               Joe Gaeta was the committee's next chief counsel. I and 
             my colleagues will forever be indebted to his invaluable 
             service during the drafting and consideration of the 
             Affordable Care Act. It was his work, his knowledge and 
             understanding of the budget rules and process that helped 
             us to get the President's health law through the Senate. I 
             am so pleased that he is still providing his services to 
             the Senate, as Senator Whitehouse's legislative director.
               Jamie Morin served as the committee's lead analyst for 
             the defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs budgets 
             from 2003 through 2009. He was an exceptional staff 
             member, and I was so pleased when the Obama administration 
             asked him to serve as the Assistant Secretary of Financial 
             Management and Comptroller of the Air Force. He really 
             exemplifies the high caliber staff we had serving on this 
             committee and in the Senate.
               Sarah Kuehl was another longtime staff member who joined 
             the committee staff at the beginning of my tenure. Her 
             portfolio included the health accounts, including 
             Medicare, as well as Social Security. She had her hands 
             full, particularly during the Affordable Care Act 
             deliberations. I am so proud and grateful for the 
             important contributions she made during that debate. She 
             was a highly respected staff member. She also served as 
             the deputy staff director of the Joint Select Committee on 
             Deficit Reduction. I appreciate her many years of trusted 
             service on the committee.
               Steve Bailey was my lead revenue staff member in my 
             personal office, and later on the Budget Committee. He was 
             on my staff for some 14 years. He also staffed the 
             President's Fiscal Commission and served as senior tax 
             counsel for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit 
             Reduction. He received national recognition in 2004 when 
             he alerted me to what was then an unnoticed tax provision 
             in a pending appropriations bill. It would have allowed 
             congressional staffers access to anyone's tax records. 
             Thanks to Steve's catch, the offending language was 
             removed. The country is forever grateful for Steve's 
             heroic work, and I appreciate his service.
               Jim Esquea served as the committee's lead analyst for 
             income security and Medicaid for 11 years. In addition, at 
             various times, he handled a wide array of issues ranging 
             from veterans affairs and justice programs to child 
             welfare, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 
             supplemental nutrition assistance, public housing, the 
             Children's Health Insurance Program, and other health 
             programs. It is his expertise in these areas, as well as 
             his great understanding of the Congress, that caused the 
             Obama administration to appoint him as the Assistant 
             Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the Department of 
             Health and Human Services.
               Two other staffers of the committee left us to work in 
             the Obama administration. David Vandivier, who served as 
             our outreach director, is now the Chief of Staff of the 
             President's Council of Economic Advisers. Brodi Fontenot 
             served as the committee's transportation analyst. He is 
             now the Assistant Secretary for Administration at the 
             Department of Transportation.
                              additional longtime staff
               Mike Jones is the committee's director of appropriations 
             and our senior analyst for judiciary and homeland 
             security. He has been with the committee for 11 years, and 
             previously worked at the Department of Interior and the 
             House Budget Committee, where he honed his budget skills.
               Kobye Noel is the committee's graphics production 
             coordinator. Since joining the committee early in my 
             tenure as the senior Democrat, Kobye has been the lead 
             staff member responsible for the countless number of 
             charts that colleagues and C-SPAN viewers around the 
             country have seen me use on this floor. Working with every 
             committee staff member, she has helped design, create, 
             produce, print, and mount hundreds of charts for me.
               I have kept Kobye a very busy woman. Keep in mind, for 
             every chart the public sees on this floor, there are 
             probably five or more charts that are created. Most of 
             them are used in other public gatherings or private 
             meetings. I thank Kobye for her tireless efforts. And I 
             hope she knows how much I appreciate her contribution to 
             the committee.
                                   budget analysts
               Jennifer Hanson is the committee's senior budget analyst 
             for Medicare and Social Security. She was deeply involved 
             in the health care debate and a key member of a team of 
             staff who provided the committee and the Senate with 
             critical assistance during the deliberations of that 
             historic legislation.
               Since joining the committee more than 3 years ago, 
             Jennifer has provided extremely useful guidance on a wide 
             array of health care matters. I particularly appreciate 
             her sensitivity to how proposed changes in funding levels 
             can impact real people, as well as health care providers. 
             She is a great asset to the committee.
               Jim Miller is the committee's senior policy advisor for 
             agriculture, and this is his second tour of duty with the 
             committee. The Senate is very fortunate that Jim decided 
             to return to Capitol Hill after serving as the Department 
             of Agriculture's Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
             Agricultural Services. Jim excelled in that Senate-
             confirmed position, and we are all so proud of his service 
             in the Obama administration.
               Jim is a walking encyclopedia of agriculture knowledge. 
             He is well respected by Senators and staff on both sides 
             of the aisle, and played a critical role in the drafting, 
             enactment, and implementation of the last farm 
             reauthorization law. I have been well served by Jim, and 
             can't thank him enough for all he has done for the Senate, 
             for the agricultural community and the country.
               Robyn Hiestand is the committee's analyst responsible 
             for education, discretionary health and appropriations 
             issues. She and I share a passion for education, and I 
             appreciate all the good work she has done to help us make 
             education more affordable and to protect funding for 
             important programs in the discretionary health accounts. 
             Others have recognized her budget expertise as well. She 
             took a brief leave of absence last year and served as a 
             senior budget analyst for the Joint Select Committee on 
             Deficit Reduction.
               Brandon Teachout handles defense, international affairs, 
             and veterans issues for the committee, and has been doing 
             so for the past year-and-a-half. He is a trusted and 
             valued aide who started his Senate career in my personal 
             office 6 years ago. Brandon has a varied background that 
             includes his work in TV news, a love of history and has 
             taken courses through the Air Force's Air University.
               Miles Patrie has been with the committee for several 
             years and helps me on agriculture and trade issues, as 
             well as nutrition. Miles is an exceptional analyst, who is 
             detail oriented and focused, and has a calming presence on 
             the committee. I appreciate all that he has done to make 
             the committee and Senate a better place.
               Farouk Ophaso joined the committee about a year ago and 
             serves as our budget review professional. Farouk 
             previously worked as a program examiner at the Office of 
             Management and Budget, and as a cost analyst at the 
             Department of Defense.
               Gwen Litvak covers a lot of ground for us on the 
             committee, handling housing, commerce, transportation, 
             community and regional development, and general government 
             issues. She is a workhorse who is immersing herself 
             quickly in the work. She is now a 1-year veteran of the 
             committee, and I appreciate her contribution during the 
             past year.
               Tyler Kruzich handles energy, environment, and natural 
             resources issues for the committee. He joined our staff in 
             June and is a Hill veteran, having served on the House 
             Appropriations and House Natural Resources Committees. He 
             also was a budget analyst for the Congressional Budget 
             Office. I appreciate his good work on the committee, and 
             know the committee will benefit from his service.
                                    revenue team
               David Williams was the committee's senior tax policy 
             advisor. He just concluded his second tour of duty with 
             the committee. He brought a wealth of knowledge to the 
             Senate, having spent his career both writing and 
             implementing tax policy. In addition to his previous Hill 
             experience, he has held a number of senior positions at 
             the Internal Revenue Service, where he received rave 
             reviews for his work administering the earned income tax 
             credit.
               Alex Brosseau is another key member of the committee's 
             revenue team. He serves as our budget and tax policy 
             analyst. Alex brings an important perspective to the 
             committee as he joined the committee about a year ago from 
             the private sector where he was a practicing accountant. 
             That real life work experience is a tremendous asset to 
             the committee. I thank Alex for sharing his wisdom and 
             experience with us.
               Jeannie Biniek is an economist for the committee who 
             excels at integrating her economic knowledge with the 
             expertise of the budget and tax analysts. She works on 
             joint projects with other analysts and provides helpful 
             analysis to me and to the staff. She is also the 
             committee's Medicaid expert.
               Jeannie has been with the committee for more than 3 
             years, and this is her first public service position. I 
             know it won't be her last, as she cares deeply about 
             people and the community at large. She has been an 
             absolute delight to have on staff, and I thank her for her 
             service.
                                    economic team
               Brian Scholl is the committee's chief economist. I 
             commend him for continually noting that we must navigate 
             through this recovery carefully; otherwise we risk taking 
             a dangerous step backward.
               Zachary Moller is a member of the economic team serving 
             as staff assistant. For more than a year, he's been 
             researching, writing, and providing the committee with 
             updated economic data. He is a great team player, who does 
             whatever is needed to get the job done.
               The committee has had a rich history of outstanding 
             economists serving on staff. I have had the privilege to 
             work with many of them including Chad Stone, Jim Klumpner, 
             Lee Price, and Matt Salomon.
                               additional staff members
               Robert Etter is the committee's chief counsel whose 
             specialties are budget process, budget rules and points of 
             order, and other legal issues. His job is to make sure the 
             committee, and everything we do, complies with all 
             applicable laws and budget rules of the Senate. Robert 
             joined the committee 1 year ago, and previously served as 
             a House committee counsel. I appreciate all he has done 
             for the committee, and thank him for his service.
               Josh Ryan is responsible for outreach and new media for 
             the committee. Josh is the committee's liaison to the 
             public, including interest groups here in Washington. He 
             also maintains our committee's Web site, handles our 
             presence on Twitter and Facebook, and is our staff 
             photographer. In short, Josh is a bit of a jack-of-all-
             trades type of staffer. I appreciate his dedicated 
             service, and thank him for his many contributions.
               Amy Edwards is the committee's performance budgeting 
             specialist. She is the lead staff member who handles the 
             committee's Task Force on Government Performance. Amy has 
             been with the committee since the task force's inception 
             in 2009. She has made important contributions in helping 
             the committee in its monitoring and oversight capacity.
               Ben Soskin is the committee's staff assistant and 
             utility man extraordinaire. In addition to being an 
             invaluable asset to Kobye in the chart production process, 
             Ben is one of those important staff members who will do 
             anything asked of him for the betterment of the committee. 
             Ben has been with the committee for 7 years, and has 
             helped countless staff members do their jobs, enabling 
             Senators to do ours.
               Brendon Dorgan joined the committee this past summer as 
             a staff assistant. He has helped gather and track press 
             coverage of interest to the committee. He also has helped 
             staff members archive the considerable material of the 
             committee. In addition, he has shown great eagerness in 
             wanting to learn and is always anxious to take on a new 
             assignment. I appreciate his good work, and the energy he 
             brings to the committee.
               Anne Page is the committee's executive assistant. Very 
             simply, she keeps the trains running, and staff happy. She 
             is an invaluable resource and a critical aide to the 
             committee's staff director.
               Anne brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the 
             committee. She has a rich history, having worked for two 
             former Speakers of the House, Jim Wright and Tom Foley. 
             Anne is a staff and member favorite. She has so enriched 
             our lives, and I so appreciate her service to the 
             committee and the Congress. Thank you Anne for all you 
             have done for us.
                                 nondesignated staff
               The committee is fortunate to have a strong cadre of 
             professional nondesignated staff who provide the necessary 
             support functions for the committee. These professionals 
             work tirelessly day in and day out, helping the committee 
             staff and Members on both sides of the aisle. We couldn't 
             do our jobs without them.
               These five staff members are the 24-hour-a-day fix-it 
             staff who come to our rescue when a computer, BlackBerry, 
             copier, phone, or some other device goes on the blink. 
             They are an invaluable resource, and as chairman, I am 
             grateful for their dedication to service, and I thank each 
             of the following nondesignated staff members.
               Joan Evans is the chief clerk of the committee, 
             responsible for all of the administrative functions, and 
             oversees all of the nondesignated staff. While relatively 
             new to the committee, she has served in similar capacities 
             with other Senate committees, and brings a wealth of 
             knowledge and experience to the post. I appreciate all she 
             has done to make the committee run so smoothly.
               George Woodall is the committee's systems administrator. 
             He's been with the committee for more than 19 years and 
             really excels at keeping the committee wired and connected 
             with the latest technology. George joined the committee 
             the very year that Senate offices started using email, so 
             he has helped lead a remarkable technological 
             transformation over these many years. The Senate, and our 
             committee in particular, is very fortunate to have his 
             dedicated service.
               Cathey Dugan is the committee's archivist. She has been 
             particularly busy helping the majority staff save and 
             store important papers and other documents from the past 
             12 years, so that future scholars will have the 
             opportunity to study our work. I know my staff has been 
             particularly appreciative of her patience, her due 
             diligence and her continuous offer of assistance as we've 
             navigated through the archival process.
               Letitia Fletcher is a Government Printing Office 
             detailee who has assisted the committee for the past 11 
             years. She is responsible for the compilation and 
             publication of all the committee's hearings and markups. 
             She is a thorough and dedicated public service employee 
             who was recently recognized by the Public Printer for her 
             25 years of Federal service. I thank her for her 
             contributions to the committee and the Senate.
               Two staff assistants recently joined the committee. 
             Kevin Stockert and Phillip Longbrake provide technical and 
             administrative support to the committee staff. They are 
             attentive, professional, and I thank them for their 
             service.
               Although she is no longer on staff, I do want to 
             publicly thank our former clerk of the committee, Lynne 
             Seymour, who retired last year. She first joined the 
             committee in the early 1980s, and later became the 
             committee's chief clerk, serving in that capacity for a 
             record 17 years, 7 months. She was an exemplary employee 
             who faced many administrative challenges during her long 
             tenure, including multiple office moves whenever party 
             control of the Senate changed hands. I will also never 
             forget her outstanding leadership during 9/11. At the 
             time, our floor in the Dirksen Building was being 
             overhauled and rewired, so our offices, and all our staff, 
             were in temporary trailers in the Russell Building 
             courtyard. She managed the ensuing chaotic days with 
             tremendous grace and professionalism.
                                  republican staff
               Let me also thank the Republican professional staff 
             members of the Budget Committee. They, too, work extremely 
             hard, and have made great contributions to the Senate. My 
             staff and I have always had a very cordial and productive 
             relationship with the Republican committee staff members.
               In fact, over the years, I have forged long-lasting 
             personal relationships with many of the Republican staff 
             directors who served during my tenure. Senator Domenici's 
             top aide, Bill Hoagland, is a Washington budget 
             institution, who I have great respect for. Hazen Marshall 
             served under Senator Nickles, and Scott Gudes, Denzel 
             McGuire and Cheri Reidy all served as staff director at 
             various times for Senator Gregg. All of them were a 
             delight to work with. I also appreciate the contributions 
             of Senator Sessions' Republican staff director, Marcus 
             Peacock, and his current staff.
                                     Conclusion
               As my colleagues know, there are many staff members who 
             work extremely hard to help the Senate function. That is 
             why I wanted to come to the floor today and offer my 
             thanks and appreciation to the professional staff members 
             who worked tirelessly for me during my tenure of the 
             Budget Committee. They are the ones who worked so hard 
             behind the scenes, content doing the people's business in 
             the background.
               I hope my staff members know how much they and their 
             work have meant to me. Each of them has enriched me, both 
             personally and professionally; I am grateful to them.

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

                                           

                                      TRIBUTES

                                         TO

                                     KENT CONRAD
                              Proceedings in the Senate
                                             Tuesday, December 11, 2012
               Mr. ISAKSON. I wish to turn to another individual, a 
             member of the Democratic conference and a dear friend of 
             mine, Kent Conrad from North Dakota.
               When I came to the Senate, the first thing I noticed 
             about Kent Conrad was how he dressed. The second thing I 
             noticed was his dog Dakota. You will see Dakota in the 
             evening walking through the Halls of Congress, a smart 
             little dog and his pet that he loves very much. His wife 
             Lucy is a great lady and great leader in her own right in 
             terms of Major League Baseball.
               Kent Conrad is a unique Member of the Senate. He has 
             truly taken a bipartisan approach to the toughest problems 
             we face in terms of spending, deficits, and debt. It was 
             Kent Conrad who was willing to help support the Simpson-
             Bowles proposal when it passed the Senate, and then it was 
             Kent Conrad who agreed to serve on Simpson-Bowles and came 
             up with the recommendations they brought to us. It was 
             Kent Conrad who went on the Gang of Six and tried to work 
             out a tough compromise on the tough issues before us, and 
             it is Kent Conrad who has served as chairman of the Budget 
             Committee of the Senate for the last 6 years. Along with 
             Senator Sessions, he has done a great job, and along with 
             his predecessor, Judd Gregg, they did an even greater job 
             to see to it that we brought forward budgets and 
             principles of spending money to help us not go into 
             deficit or debt. Kent is one of those rare leaders who 
             find the sweet spot. He looks for the place where people 
             can find common ground. He understands that the importance 
             of our job is the future for our children and our 
             grandchildren.
               Whether North Dakota or Georgia, California or New York, 
             Pennsylvania or Ohio, Kent Conrad is a Senator for all 
             America. He has done a tremendous job for the United 
             States. I wish him and Lucy and Dakota the very best.
                                           Wednesday, December 12, 2012
               Ms. STABENOW. I wish to take a moment to thank our 
             distinguished colleague [Mr. Conrad] and my dear friend 
             for his wonderful service. We serve on three committees 
             together. It has been my honor to serve on the committee 
             Senator Conrad chairs, the Budget Committee, and to have 
             him serve as a senior member of the Agriculture Committee, 
             which I chair. Both of us sit on the Finance Committee 
             together.
               Today he has done what he has always done for us, which 
             is to provide vision, common sense, intelligence, and a 
             lot of numbers. They add up, and they make sense. In 
             listening to Senator Conrad's farewell speech, I want to 
             thank him again for giving us a path forward. He is 
             someone who will forever be in Senate history as one of 
             the great statesmen of our country, someone with 
             intelligence, respect on both sides, and compassion. And a 
             fighter from North Dakota like I have never seen. He is 
             someone who serves in the best tradition of what it means 
             to be an honorable public servant.
               He has been a role model for me all the way through to 
             this point and a dear friend. I wish him, Lucy, and 
             Dakota--he is, in fact, the 101st Senator--wonderful 
             opportunities going forward in the future. The Senator 
             from North Dakota will be greatly missed, but his 
             contributions will forever be a part of the positive 
             tradition of this great body.

               The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

               Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I yield to the distinguished chairman of 
             the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Vermont.

               Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator. I will be speaking later 
             on to the senior Senator from North Dakota.
               Mr. President, I have had the privilege to serve with 
             several hundred Senators since coming here. I have put in 
             a very small list those who are extraordinary both for 
             their talents and for our personal friendship, and Kent 
             Conrad is in that short list very easily. In fact, he 
             defines it in many ways. Because of what we heard here, as 
             I whispered to him a minute ago, it was nice to hear a 
             grownup speak on the floor.
               I have seen him reach across the aisle. We have been 
             privileged to serve with fine Senators from both parties. 
             But Kent Conrad is unique. Marcelle and I value more than 
             I could possibly say here our friendship with Kent and his 
             wife Lucy and the 101st Senator, Dakota.
               As I said, I will speak later about this Senator, but 
             what we heard today was a real giant of the Senate 
             speaking, and I hope all Americans will listen to the 
             lesson he gave us.
               I yield the floor.

               The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is 
             recognized.

               Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Before the junior Senator from North 
             Dakota speaks--and I appreciate his courtesy in allowing 
             us to make a few brief, personal remarks before he 
             speaks--I wanted to say to my friend and my chairman, the 
             senior Senator from North Dakota, that, yes, in the most 
             obvious respect, he is leaving the Senate, and we will be 
             a smaller Senate for his departure. But in some very 
             important ways, Kent Conrad is not leaving the Senate. I 
             can assure him that for as long as I remain a U.S. Senator 
             and have the privilege to serve in this body, Kent Conrad 
             will remain in this Senate as an example that I will never 
             forget as a young Senator tutored by him in the Budget 
             Committee. I will only speak for myself when I say that I 
             am absolutely confident there are dozens of other Members 
             of this body who can say exactly the same thing. In that 
             sense, Kent Conrad will continue to be an important part 
             of this Senate, and the effect he will have in those years 
             through the example he has set, echoed down the hallways 
             of time by people who had the opportunity to serve with 
             him, is going to be an immensely valuable one.
               He displays the characteristics of diligence--an 
             underrated attribute but an important one--of courtesy, of 
             determination. It is an interesting combination, courtesy 
             and determination, but Chairman Conrad knows very well 
             when to yield and when to fight. There was a politician 
             hundreds of years ago in another country who said, ``One 
             ought not to be obstinate,'' and then he continued, 
             ``unless one ought to be, and then one ought to be 
             unshakable.'' On the things that count, Senator Conrad has 
             always been unshakable. Where progress can be made, he has 
             never been obstinate. It has been my honor to serve with 
             him.
               I yield the floor.

               The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is 
             recognized.

               Mr. HOEVEN. I rise to speak on behalf of the senior 
             Senator from North Dakota and to thank him for his 
             dedicated service on behalf of the people of North Dakota 
             and on behalf of the people of this great Nation.
               I think this is 26 years that he has served in the 
             Senate, and he has always served with great distinction 
             and great commitment. He has been a leader in agriculture, 
             in energy, and in fiscal efforts and many other areas.
               I have to say on a personal note that since I came to 
             the Senate last year, he has reached out to me and to my 
             family in a very warm and positive way, both personally 
             and professionally, and I would say the same about his 
             wife Lucy. I think this is in the finest tradition of the 
             Senate, in the tradition of bipartisanship, in the 
             tradition of working together, and in the tradition of 
             truly caring and being committed to getting things done. 
             It wasn't just that he reached out on a personal level and 
             said, ``All right, how can I be helpful, how can we work 
             together''; when I had questions or needed assistance, he 
             was there. He was more than helpful.
               In terms of working on legislation that matters, a farm 
             bill, working together on the Agriculture Committee--
             Senator Conrad has an amazing knowledge of agriculture and 
             obviously incredible experience over the past 26 years 
             building good farm policy for this Nation. So to work with 
             him on the Agriculture Committee was not only rewarding 
             but really an opportunity to craft good long-term policy 
             for this country that will make a difference.
               I start with that example because when you look at it, 
             here we are at a time when we need good policy for our 
             country, but at the same time we need to find savings, 
             real savings that will help us address the deficit and the 
             debt. So we went to work on a farm bill that is not only 
             responsive to the farmers, the ranchers, and the producers 
             of this country who produce the highest quality of food 
             supply in the world at the lowest cost--every American 
             benefits from that. They wanted more crop insurance, and 
             we went to work. We improved the farm bill in terms of the 
             kind of crop insurance it provides, but at the same time 
             we saved $23 billion to help with the deficit and the 
             debt. That is doing it the right way.
               If you think about it and you went across all aspects of 
             what we are doing here, all of the different types of 
             policies that we have, if we could do the same--craft good 
             policy and find real, meaningful savings on a bipartisan 
             basis that empowers the very people who are impacted by 
             that policy, the farmers and the ranchers who do such a 
             great job producing food, fuel, and fiber, but at the same 
             time grow our economy, create a favorable balance of trade 
             and an incredible number of jobs--that is what we have to 
             do, whether it is agriculture, whether it is energy, 
             whether it is disaster assistance when we have floods and 
             hurricanes, whether it is our military.
               I am very pleased and honored to have had the 
             opportunity to work with Senator Conrad on those types of 
             issues to try to make a real difference for the people of 
             this country. As Senator Conrad departs the Senate after 
             26 years--think about it: 26 years here, conducting 
             himself in a professional manner with respect to this 
             institution. He built relationships with Senators on both 
             sides of the aisle but always with a commitment to the 
             people of North Dakota and this country.
               As I look at the legacy he leaves, I think one of the 
             most important right now is his willingness to work in a 
             bipartisan way to get things done. He brings a practical, 
             pragmatic approach that recognizes solutions are imperfect 
             but that we have an obligation in a bipartisan way to come 
             together and find real solutions for the people of the 
             greatest nation on Earth. It is that legacy, that 
             willingness to be bipartisan and work together that I saw 
             up close and personal here every day. I believe it is that 
             legacy, as well as many others, that will continue here in 
             this body when we think about Senator Kent Conrad and his 
             service to North Dakota and his service to this great 
             country.
               I rise to say thank you on behalf of the people of North 
             Dakota and this country to my distinguished colleague for 
             26 years of dedicated service. Thank you, good luck, and 
             God bless in your future endeavors.
               Mr. President, I yield the floor.

               The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is 
             recognized.

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

               Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to comment about 
             some wonderful men in the Senate who are retiring on both 
             sides of the aisle. Earlier today I spoke about my deep 
             affection and sorry-to-see-go friends Olympia Snowe and 
             Kay Bailey Hutchison, but I want to rise as the dean of 
             the women in the Senate to say some very special words 
             about very special men on both sides of the aisle. Because 
             when I came to the Senate, it was only Nancy Kassebaum and 
             me, and yet we worked on so many issues together. There 
             are really wonderful men here who supported me, supported 
             our issues, but really stood up for those States and their 
             communities. ...
               I wish to comment about Kent Conrad. Wow, what a numbers 
             guy. Those charts--I loved those charts. But we have many 
             other things in common besides a love of charts. We love 
             baseball. We love the Baltimore Orioles and, I might add, 
             an occasional polka at Blob's Beer Garden in Maryland. Now 
             you know Kent. He looks like Clark Kent. And he is a 
             Superman when it comes to the budget. But, wow, when they 
             played ``Roll Out the Barrel,'' he was quite a hoofer.
               Most of all, what I admired about him is the way he 
             breathed life into the numbers. He not only wanted a more 
             frugal government, but he was also passionate and 
             compassionate about how we could use the power of the 
             purse to improve the world and at the same time maintain 
             sensible spending standards.
               I am going to look forward to seeing him with or without 
             his charts and maybe in a dugout. ...
               I wanted to be sure that the day would not end without 
             my acknowledging these wonderful people who have given a 
             big part of their lives to making this country a better 
             place. I want to, in the most heartfelt way--I am so sorry 
             we did not have a bipartisan dinner or party to be able to 
             express this. I would have liked to have been in the same 
             room, breaking bread with them, in order to be able to 
             tell them how much we appreciate them, across party lines, 
             across those lines that ordinarily divide us. They came 
             from different parts of the country, they arrived in the 
             Senate with different objectives, they will leave under 
             different circumstances. But I want to again let them know 
             that each and every one of them had a positive impact on 
             me and I think a wonderful impact on the future of this 
             country. So I wish them well. God bless and Godspeed.
                                            Thursday, December 13, 2012
               Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, with the close of the 112th 
             Congress, the Senate will lose its most determined 
             champion of fiscal prudence and balance, Senator Kent 
             Conrad of North Dakota. Senator Conrad is best known 
             nationally for his leadership as chairman of the Committee 
             on the Budget.
               That committee has limited legislative power, but that 
             did not stop Senator Conrad from using that committee 
             relentlessly for fiscal restraint, for honest budgeting. 
             As we all know, he has spent countless hours on the floor 
             educating, exhorting Senators on budget issues, driving 
             home his points by displaying a seemingly endless array of 
             charts and graphs.
               Indeed, I would note in 2001, the Committee on Rules and 
             Administration assigned Senator Conrad his own printing 
             equipment because he was producing more charts than all 
             his colleagues combined. The other day, we had this so-
             called Secret Santa that Senator Franken had established, 
             where we draw names out of a hat and we exchange these 
             little gifts. You never know who is going to give you a 
             gift. You know to whom you are giving, but you do not know 
             who is giving you a gift. It turned out my gift giver was 
             Senator Conrad.
               So I got a nice little book. But most important, I got 
             three charts. They were charts from the 2008 farm bill we 
             both worked on, and of which I was chairman at that time. 
             I thought that was a great gift, both to get some of his 
             charts but the charts pertaining to a major piece of 
             legislation on which both he and I had worked very 
             closely. We have been longtime colleagues on the Committee 
             on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. He joined that 
             committee as a freshman Senator in 1987, just 2 years 
             after I got here in 1985. We were in the midst of the 
             worst economic crisis in the farm sector since the Great 
             Depression.
               Senator Conrad left a major imprint on the Agricultural 
             Credit Act of 1987, advocating strongly for measures to 
             help farm families and rural committees persevere through 
             circumstances beyond their control, to preserve a family 
             farm system of agriculture as well as to preserve small 
             towns, the fabric of rural America. Over the years Senator 
             Conrad has been a key advocate in enacting major drought 
             relief bills and other disaster assistance.
               He has consistently fought for effective programs to 
             protect and enhance farm income through the farm commodity 
             programs and crop insurance. For many years we have been 
             allies in advancing farm bill initiatives to promote 
             renewable energy production on farms and in rural 
             communities.
               Let no one doubt that Senator Conrad has always been a 
             relentless, fierce advocate for the interests of his 
             constituents in North Dakota. I know Kent is very proud of 
             a framed resolution presented to him by his State's 
             Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. It bears his honorary Sioux 
             name, Namni Sni, which translates as ``never turns back.'' 
             I think that describes Kent Conrad. He never turns back.
               Kent Conrad and I are proud of our shared roots in the 
             Upper Midwest. He has been an outstanding Senator, a good 
             friend for more than two-and-a-half decades in this body.
               I join with the entire Senate family in wishing Kent and 
             Lucy all the best in the years ahead.
                                           Wednesday, December 19, 2012
               Mr. REID. Madam President, it is often said a man is 
             only as good as his word. In this new world we live in, 
             the same applies to women. This is a world we live in 
             where men and women, as much as we can, are treated 
             equally. A good man is somebody who has his word that is 
             good. A good woman is a person who has their word that is 
             good. I believe that is true.
               If that fact is true, then Mr. Kent Conrad, the senior 
             Senator from North Dakota, is a good man, indeed.
               When he was running for the Senate the first time, he 
             promised the people of North Dakota he would not run for 
             reelection if the Nation's budget deficit was higher at 
             the end of his term than at the beginning of it.
               We came to the Senate together. I can remember 27 years 
             ago in the LBJ Room where I first met Kent Conrad--we were 
             running for the Senate--this studious man, very intense. I 
             can still remember that. We have been friends now for all 
             those many years. But think what he did. He could have 
             been reelected so easily and he probably could have 
             figured out some way around it: It was my intention to 
             reduce the debt, but we weren't able to do it.
               But he didn't follow that path. He said, ``I am not 
             running for reelection,'' and he didn't. It is amazing 
             what he did. He takes the national debt personally. He 
             takes it very seriously. Kent announced he wouldn't seek 
             reelection. I was stunned. ``Kent, how could you do 
             that?'' He said, ``I gave my word.'' But fate, as we 
             know--and we are feeling it today with these flowers here 
             behind me--fate is rarely anticipated. After his first 
             term was set to expire and he had announced he wasn't 
             running for reelection, Quentin Burdick, with whom I had 
             the pleasure of serving, died, and so he ran for his seat 
             and was elected. So he has held both Senate seats in North 
             Dakota. He ran in that special election to replace Senator 
             Burdick and won. The Senate, the people of North Dakota, 
             and every American who cares about controlling the Federal 
             debt have benefited from his faithful service.
               Every time we have done something dealing with the debt 
             in the last 26 years, Kent Conrad has been at the 
             forefront. ObamaCare, he was on top of that. He was one of 
             the Gang of Six, it was called at the time, and took 
             months and months. He came up, of course, with the 
             magnificent idea, he and Judd Gregg--two people who know 
             the finances of this country as well as any other two men 
             in the world--they were going to do something about it, 
             and they introduced legislation. It was patterned after 
             the base closing commissions. They would do their work--
             the Commission--come back to the Senate, no filibusters, 
             no amendments. That was Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg's idea. 
             As we know, the problem was the Republicans who supported 
             the legislation, cosponsored it, wouldn't let us get it on 
             the floor; six or seven of them voted against that. The 
             Bowles-Simpson Commission; the Obama-Boehner talks, two 
             rounds of those; Biden-Cantor, he was involved in every 
             one of those; the Gang of Six, the Gang of Eight. Even 
             though he wasn't personally one of the three people on the 
             supercommittee, Chairperson Murray was leaning on him all 
             the time for information.
               He has been terrific. As chairman of the Budget 
             Committee, no one could do more than he did. I can 
             remember he managed the bills we had on getting budgets. 
             He was here, my seat was there, and he wanted me to help 
             him. Why? Because he didn't have time to deal with 
             procedure. He was dealing with substance. I still joke 
             with him about this. He was so intense; we could see that 
             mind of his working. So he was happy I was here working 
             with him to get the budgets through.
               He has been a powerful voice against runaway deficits 
             but always has been totally reasonable, with recognition 
             that we are in a time of economic slowdown and we have to 
             do something about the debt. He also believes that during 
             any of these periods of time, we need stimulation of the 
             economy; they go together.
               As I have indicated, no one cares more about addressing 
             the national debt than Senator Conrad. But he also 
             understands the balance between fiscal responsibility and 
             funding our national priorities.
               Kent Conrad has been bipartisan. Sometimes some 
             criticize him for being so bipartisan. He has never been 
             afraid to reach across the aisle to keep our country on a 
             responsible path. He is a person who is not an ideologue. 
             I could be wrong, but I think he was the first person to 
             endorse Barack Obama. President Obama was a Senator who 
             gave indication he wanted to run for President. I think 
             Senator Conrad was the first to endorse him. We know 
             Senator Obama didn't sell very well in North Dakota, but 
             that didn't stop Kent Conrad. He thought he was the best 
             person to be President of the United States.
               The proposal I mentioned with Senators Conrad and Gregg 
             was a blueprint for what the Bowles-Simpson Commission 
             then came up with. As I have indicated, every bipartisan 
             deficit reduction since then--and some partisan efforts--
             anytime there was involvement with the debt, he was there.
               Although we have yet to reach a solution or a conclusion 
             to the very serious fiscal challenges this country faces, 
             I credit Kent Conrad for the progress we have made to this 
             point. He will continue to be a voice for reason and 
             moderation even in his retirement. See, Kent has always 
             had a brilliant mind for numbers. He is a step above an 
             accountant's mind. I truly like accountants. My daughter-
             in-law is an accountant, but he is a step above that. He 
             is of the mathematician's caliber; he is so very smart.
               After graduating from college, he worked for the North 
             Dakota State Tax Commission. The person who ran that tax 
             commission was Byron Dorgan, who later joined him in the 
             Senate. In 1980, Kent succeeded Byron as the commissioner 
             of taxes in North Dakota. They are the best of friends. He 
             served as tax commissioner for 6 years.
               He is a fifth-generation North Dakotan, born in 
             Bismarck. Kent Conrad was raised by his grandparents. When 
             he was 5 years old, his parents were killed by a drunk 
             driver and so he was raised by his wonderful grandparents 
             and he has told me so many times about how good they were 
             to him.
               He was always interested in politics. At his retirement 
             party, he talked about as a youth coming to Washington, 
             DC, and he went back to his room or wherever he went that 
             evening and wrote on a piece of paper that he was going to 
             be a Senator. He was just a boy, a little kid. He was a 
             teenager, but at least in my view of a 16-year-old today 
             he was still a little kid. He said he wanted to be a 
             Senator to himself. ``It so inspired me that I thought 
             someday I'd like to be down on that floor and I'd like to 
             debate the great issues of the day.''
               He has done it for 24 years.
               Today Kent doesn't just debate the great issues of the 
             day, he also is famous for making sure people understand 
             what he is talking about. He has visual aids--we call them 
             charts--that explain all his numbers and make them 
             understandable. In 2001, the Rules Committee gave him his 
             own printer since he was producing more charts than all 
             the rest of the Senators combined--and that is the truth. 
             He is famous for his charts.
               He is renowned for his dog. He loves that little dog 
             named Dakota. It is a fluffy white dog, a bijon frise. 
             Everywhere Kent goes, Dakota is with him. They love that 
             dog like only people can love animals. I often question 
             how--I used to question; I don't anymore. I have a 
             daughter. My oldest child is a daughter. She is allergic 
             to cats. Her husband, trying to be nice to her, bought her 
             a cat that had no hair. Frankly, it was kind of an ugly 
             little animal, but my daughter loves that cat. They named 
             the cat Olivia. The cat got out at night--they live in a 
             suburb here--and a racoon attacked the cat so the cat was 
             never the same after that. But my daughter spent lots of 
             money on this cat.
               I finally said, ``Lana, why are you spending money on 
             the cat?''
               She said, ``Dad, I love that animal.''
               So that was the beginning; I don't question it anymore. 
             If my daughter feels that strongly about a cat, I am going 
             to stop criticizing people who spend money on animals.
               I am reminded of my daughter every day I see him with 
             Dakota because she loved Olivia like he loves Dakota. He 
             and his lovely wife Lucy have spent lots of money on that 
             little dog. They love that dog. He calls him Little Guy; 
             that Little Guy.
               I am going to miss Kent a lot. He is my friend, my pal. 
             I wish him and his family well. He has a lovely family. 
             His wife Lucy was the longtime chief of staff for Byron 
             Dorgan--two Senators, both representing the same State, 
             one Senator's wife is the chief of staff for his 
             colleague. She went out in the private sector fairly 
             recently and has done a great job. She has been involved 
             in Major League Baseball. She and Kent love baseball. Kent 
             always talks about how he talked to Pete Angelos, the 
             owner of the Baltimore Orioles; that he is looking forward 
             to his retirement because Angelos promised him a tryout. 
             He is going to try to play professional baseball. He loves 
             baseball. They go to spring training when they can. I hope 
             they will still have a presence in Washington. I think so 
             much of both of them. They are wonderful people.
               They have two children, a daughter who wrote a book 
             about politics, and one grandson. Kent always boasts about 
             how smart his daughter is. I went to the book signing. I 
             am sure she is smart because she has such a brilliant 
             father.
               I value both Kent's friendship and leadership. While he 
             will be missed in the Senate, he should rest assured that 
             his legacy will remain long after he leaves.
                                            Thursday, December 20, 2012
               Mr. REED. Madam President, at this time, I wish to take 
             a few minutes to salute my colleagues who are retiring at 
             the end of this year with the conclusion of the 112th 
             Congress: Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Jeff Bingaman of New 
             Mexico, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Kent Conrad of North 
             Dakota, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Kay Bailey Hutchison 
             of Texas, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Jon Kyl of Arizona, 
             Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Richard Lugar of Indiana, 
             Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Jim 
             Webb of Virginia. They have all worked ceaselessly to give 
             their constituents the best representation and give the 
             country the benefit of their views, their wisdom, and 
             their experience. They are men and women who are committed 
             to the Nation, and they have every day in different ways 
             contributed to this Senate and to our great country.
               I wish to thank them personally for their service, and, 
             in so many cases, their personal kindness to me; for 
             listening to my points and for, together, hopefully, 
             serving this Senate and this Nation in a more positive and 
             progressive way.
               In particular, let me say a few words about some of the 
             Members with whom I have had the privilege to work more 
             closely. ...
               Kent Conrad is an extraordinary budget chairman. No one 
             knows more about the intricacies of the budget and no one 
             brings to that very difficult debate more of an innate 
             sense of fairness and decency than Kent Conrad.
               I could go on with all of my colleagues, just thanking 
             them for their friendship, for their camaraderie, and for 
             their commitment to the Nation and the Senate. As they 
             depart, they have left an extraordinary legacy. Now it is 
             our responsibility to carry on in so many different ways, 
             and I hope we measure up to what they have done. If we do, 
             then we can go forward confidently.
               With that, I yield the floor.

               Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there are many people in this 
             town who say they are worried about the deficit. All too 
             often, those claiming the mantle of ``deficit hawk'' are 
             pretty dovish about making the hard decisions required to 
             reduce the budget deficit and bring down the national 
             debt. Some use the deficit to argue for damaging important 
             programs that provide for the safety and well-being of 
             Americans. Others, in a brazen bit of obfuscation now 
             decades old, make the disproven claim that the budget-
             busting tax cuts they prefer would actually reduce the 
             deficit.
               In this maze of distortion and debunked arguments, Kent 
             Conrad is like a clean prairie breeze. He cares deeply 
             about the fiscal health of our Nation, and for more than 
             two decades, he has been dismantling faulty arguments and 
             fuzzy budget math with facts and figures and with charts, 
             yes, charts. In naming Senator Conrad one of the 10 Best 
             Senators in 2006, Time magazine reported that the support 
             staff here in the Senate had become so overwhelmed by 
             Senator Conrad's chart requests that they gave up and gave 
             him his own printing equipment. Kent Conrad doesn't just 
             know the facts. He wants you to know them too--and in 
             bright colors.
               Behind the flash charts are deep substantive knowledge 
             and a rigorous approach that eschews wishful thinking. 
             Senator Conrad knows that the way out of our deficit 
             problem, the path that avoids the fiscal cliff, means 
             looking at our entire budget picture, both the spending 
             that goes out and the revenue that comes in. He laid out 
             the facts recently here on the Senate floor, saying:

               The public understands we face both a spending and a 
             revenue problem. Spending is near a 60-year high, as this 
             chart shows. The red line is the spending line; the green 
             line is the revenue line. But for those who say it is just 
             a spending problem, I don't think the facts bear that out, 
             because the revenue is near a 60-year low. I think most 
             logical people would say we have to work both sides of 
             this equation.

               This logical approach makes Senator Conrad a strong 
             ally. I have been proud to join with him on efforts to end 
             some of the many distortions and loopholes that increase 
             the deficit and make our Tax Code less fair to working 
             families. Earlier this year, he and I introduced the CUT 
             Loopholes Act, which would reduce the deficit by $155 
             billion over 10 years through elimination of several 
             offshore tax loopholes, and through elimination of the 
             stock-option loophole, which forces American taxpayers to 
             subsidize the large stock-option packages regularly 
             awarded to corporate executives. In March, we were joined 
             by Senator Whitehouse in advocating for inclusion of a 
             portion of the CUT Loopholes Act in the Senate's surface 
             transportation bill, and our amendment was adopted by the 
             Senate. It did not become law, but the Senate's action 
             represented real progress in the fight against tax 
             loopholes.
               Senator Conrad and I have worked together on another 
             important issue--the effort by many multinational 
             corporations to secure a ``repatriation'' tax break for 
             some of the billions of dollars they hold offshore. That 
             was tried once, in 2004, and as Senator Conrad accurately 
             notes, that repatriation holiday was ``a complete and 
             utter failure at job generation.''
               He also has been a forceful advocate for the need to 
             address the tax rates on capital gains and dividend 
             income. The low rates on these forms of income is a driver 
             of our budget deficits and of rising income inequality. As 
             Senator Conrad said in a recent interview about the need 
             to address tax rates: ``It's very clear to me. You do have 
             to have rate increases, especially on capital gains and 
             dividends. It's needed and fair.''
               Not just needed, he said--fair. That is what I think we 
             should keep in mind about Senator Conrad's work to address 
             the deficit in an honest and forthright way. Yes, he knows 
             the facts and figures, knows them as well as anyone. But 
             knowing the numbers is not enough. Budget math is not an 
             academic exercise. We are not here to represent numbers on 
             spreadsheets. We represent people--actual human beings, 
             with dreams and ambitions and hope. And always, Kent 
             Conrad has marshaled the facts and figures in support of 
             real people. He knows the toll that out-of-control 
             deficits can have on generations to come. He recognizes 
             the need to address rapidly rising entitlement spending--
             but also the need to preserve important programs that have 
             made so much of a difference in the lives of Americans, 
             especially the most vulnerable.
               He and his wonderful wife Lucy have been dear friends to 
             my wife Barbara and me. The four of us have hosted dinners 
             together to deepen our understanding of both the pressing 
             issues of the day and of transcendent issues such as the 
             origins of matter and the universe.
               Senator Conrad is leaving the Senate, but the need for 
             his kind of rigorous approach and concern for the impact 
             of our policies is not going away. I hope we can learn 
             from and follow his example as we move forward to confront 
             our Nation's challenges.

               Mr. COONS. ... There are so many other Senators I want 
             to speak about today [besides Daniel Inouye], but let me 
             turn to a few, if I might, and give some insight for the 
             folks who only see Members of this Chamber on cable TV 
             shows or in the give-and-take of election season or who 
             only know them as the cutout and caricatures that the 
             public thinks of as Senators. If there is a common thread 
             between them, it is that they share that loyalty, work 
             ethic, and humility that so characterized Senator Inouye 
             in his decades here. ...
               There are a few more retiring Senators I would like to 
             share some more detailed stories about today, and I will 
             start with the chairman from the Budget Committee, Senator 
             Conrad. Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota is a Senator I 
             met many years ago. But if I am going to talk about him, I 
             believe I have to have a chart. I really cannot speak to 
             Kent Conrad's service and record in the Senate without a 
             chart.
               For decades Senator Conrad tackled the challenge of 
             educating the men and women of the Senate and the people 
             of this country about the very real fiscal and budgetary 
             challenges facing our country. As we can see, especially 
             after the debut of Microsoft Excel, and then after he was 
             named Budget Committee chair, the steady increase and 
             usage of floor charts by Senator Conrad has paved a path 
             which few of us can hope to find.
               Senator Conrad is a budget wonk after my own heart. He 
             is a numbers guy. He is not afraid to get into the weeds 
             and to project in a clear and legible format the minutiae 
             and magnifying details of the complex Federal budget. I am 
             not sure I have met anyone in the Senate so passionately 
             serious about the numbers and getting them right as my 
             friend, Senator Conrad.
               The first time I met him was more than 15 years ago. He 
             had come to Wilmington for an event that then-Senator 
             Biden hosted at the Delaware Art Museum. There were 200 
             folks in a big auditorium. I will never forget Senator 
             Biden introducing Senator Conrad as the most thoughtful 
             and detailed budget leader in Washington.
               Senator Conrad stood up and fired up the overhead 
             projector, the lights dimmed, and he launched into a 
             lengthy discourse on the minutiae of the Federal budget 
             and deficit. After 30 minutes and more than 40 slides 
             later, the lights came back up, and I think there were 
             maybe 20 of us left in the auditorium. Everyone else 
             wandered outside for the cocktails.
               I was enthralled by his presentation, the clarity of his 
             thinking, and his dedication to getting things right for 
             the American people. Today I am on the Budget Committee, 
             and I have enjoyed serving with Senator Conrad as my 
             chairman. It was, for this budget nerd, a dream come true 
             to have the chance to show up on time and know that this 
             Budget Committee chairman was the other member of the 
             committee who always showed up on time. It gave us a 
             moment to reflect on the challenges we faced and the very 
             real solutions he has offered over these many years of 
             service.
               Senator Conrad has earned the deserved respect of his 
             colleagues the old-fashioned way: through hard work, 
             attention to detail, and thoughtful leadership. He has 
             been trying and working hard for many years to get us to 
             make the tough choices that we need to in the Senate to 
             deal with our national debt. He has not given up, and I 
             don't intend to either. I am grateful for his friendship 
             and service. ...
               So here we are, 5 days before my family celebrates 
             Christmas and 12 days before the new year and the 
             beginning of the so-called fiscal cliff. Our politics have 
             paralyzed this Chamber and this town. But what the example 
             of all of these remarkable Senators has shown us, what it 
             has taught me is that we can still be better than our 
             politics.
               The humanity of this place, too often shoved aside by 
             the politics of the moment, shows us that we can do 
             better. One by one, these Senators, in delivering their 
             farewell addresses to this Chamber, stood at their desks 
             and each in turn urged us to find a way to return to the 
             days when Senators knew each other and worked together. 
             What will it take to get us to that point again--a 
             horrific tragedy in an elementary school, a dangerous 
             economic cliff, some devastating attack, a cyberassault on 
             America?
               Our retiring colleagues are each telling us, each in 
             turn, that it is not too late to restore the humanity of 
             this Chamber and make a positive difference in the lives 
             of all we serve. Will we heed their call? I hope and pray 
             we will because we can do better. We must do better. And 
             in the spirit of each of these departing colleagues, I 
             will do my level best. I hope we all can commit to doing 
             the same.
               Thank you, and I yield the floor.
                                              Friday, December 21, 2012
               Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as the work of the Senate for 
             the current session of Congress begins to wind down, it is 
             good to take a moment to acknowledge and express our 
             appreciation to our friends and colleagues who will be 
             retiring when the final gavel brings to a close the 112th 
             Session of Congress. One friend I know I will miss in the 
             months to come is Kent Conrad.
               Kent is a hard worker, a Senator who is fully focused on 
             the needs of his home State and the work that needs to be 
             done to address the issues of concern to his constituents. 
             He is a Senator who will always be known as a serious and 
             thoughtful legislator who has a good sense of how today's 
             problems will affect tomorrow's bottom line if we don't 
             act now to bring our economic policies under control.
               Throughout his career, Kent has never been one to look 
             for the most popular way of doing things. He was more 
             concerned with finding the most productive way of doing 
             things. He knows that what looks like a good idea in the 
             short term doesn't always lead to producing the kind of 
             long-term results we must have if we are to strengthen our 
             economy and put the Nation back to work. He has a great 
             sense of what needs to be done now to ensure our children 
             and grandchildren will have the same advantages that we 
             had. That means never putting off until tomorrow what we 
             ought to be doing today to ensure those issues are 
             addressed. In fact, when Kent announced his decision to 
             retire he made mention of that fact and how his time would 
             be better spent working instead of campaigning.
               Kent has been a part of the Senate for four terms--I am 
             on my third. Over the years I have enjoyed having a chance 
             to come to know him and his wife. They are a very special 
             couple and they are equally committed to each other and to 
             the future of our Nation. Their shared determination to 
             make this a better country for all of us has helped to 
             make them a team that has left their mark on the Nation's 
             Capital.
               I have had a chance to travel with them, and both Diana 
             and I have enjoyed the time we spent together. Kent has a 
             tremendous sense of humor and he has a very interesting 
             outlook on the world. He knows more about the legislation 
             we take up on the Senate floor than almost anyone else, 
             and his understanding of how our bills are written and the 
             impact they will have on our future and our children's 
             future make him someone you would want to be on your side 
             when the battles begin to rage in committee or on the 
             floor.
               Kent is pretty easy to work with, and I have enjoyed the 
             opportunities we have had to tackle some pretty difficult 
             issues together. That sense of humor of his has helped him 
             out on a number of occasions when the going got tough. I 
             know, because I have seen him in action as we worked 
             together on several bills. I also cochaired a caucus with 
             him.
               As the chairman of the Budget Committee, Kent has really 
             revealed his leadership abilities. The Budget Committee 
             provided him with a platform that made it possible for him 
             to speak out on issues that were of great interest and 
             concern to him. He has been a very effective chairman and 
             he has left a legacy of hard work and positive results 
             that will provide all those who follow him with a good 
             roadmap to follow that has already proven to be effective.
               The main thing I think I will always remember about 
             Kent, however, is the way he prepares for his 
             presentations. I don't think there has ever been, nor will 
             there ever be a Senator who is always so well prepared.
               Kent and I both appreciate the power of a well-designed 
             chart or graph. If you really want me to understand how 
             the policy or program you are offering will affect my home 
             State of Wyoming and the Nation as a whole, show me the 
             data in pictures not words. Kent makes a regular habit of 
             doing that, and he does it better than just about anyone 
             else.
               I know that we will be hearing more from Kent in the 
             months to come. I don't think he views his retirement as 
             an opportunity to stop working, I think he sees it as a 
             chance to take on something new, some great and 
             challenging new adventure in his life. I don't know what 
             he has planned, but I am looking forward to seeing him 
             take it on day by day.
               Kent has been a friend to so many of us over the years, 
             and I know he will be missed. We appreciate his service, 
             we thank him for the way he handled the gavel in his 
             committee, but most of all we thank him for his 
             friendship, for his love of the Senate, and his 
             determination to make the country a better place for us 
             all--both current and future generations. Kent has been an 
             effective Senator for his home State and in so many ways 
             he has succeeded in helping to make North Dakota and our 
             Nation a better place to live.
                                            Thursday, December 27, 2012
               Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for more than two decades, 
             Senator Kent Conrad has represented the people of North 
             Dakota in the U.S. Senate.
               I have had the privilege to serve with several hundred 
             Senators since I came to the Senate nearly 38 years ago. 
             The list is short for those who are extraordinary both for 
             their talents, and for their personal friendship. Kent 
             Conrad is on that list. In fact, he defines it in many 
             ways. Senator Conrad has reached across the aisle and 
             demonstrated what bipartisanship truly means.
               Rooted in his days as a tax commissioner in North 
             Dakota, Senator Conrad has been a leading voice in 
             Congress in difficult and complex budget debates. His 
             floor charts are legendary, explaining complicated fiscal 
             matters in terms many others can understand. As chairman 
             of the Budget Committee, and as a senior member of the 
             Finance Committee, he has been a key player in the fiscal 
             debates that have dominated the discourse in Washington as 
             the country has recovered from the Great Recession. He has 
             led bipartisan efforts to reduce the deficit, and helped 
             create the 2007 task force with Republican Senator Judd 
             Gregg to address long-term fiscal challenges. Senator 
             Conrad has also been dedicated to advancing American 
             interests abroad. I have been fortunate to travel with 
             Senator Conrad and his wife overseas, most recently to the 
             Eurozone, where he again brought his expertise in 
             economic, budgetary, and fiscal policies to the table as 
             we discussed the potential U.S. impacts of the E.U.'s 
             financial crisis.
               He has always put North Dakota first, but Senator Conrad 
             has never neglected the needs of other parts of the 
             country. He is a champion of the farm bill and understands 
             the details and nuances of agriculture commodity programs 
             perhaps better than any other member of the Senate 
             Agriculture Committee. Whether fighting for North Dakota's 
             farmers, or fighting for the Nation's fiscal health, he 
             has been a great partner. I was particularly moved by his 
             support for Vermont in the wake of Tropical Storm Irene.
               Senator Conrad has been one of the most important voices 
             in the U.S. Senate for the past 25 years. He is one of the 
             giants of the Chamber today. We will miss his expertise, 
             but we know our friendships will continue. Both Marcelle 
             and I wish our friends Kent and his wife Lucy the best.
                                              Friday, December 28, 2012
               Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute 
             to the Senators who will not be returning when the 113th 
             Congress commences next month. I have already spoken about 
             Senator Kyl and about Senator Inouye, one of the truly 
             great Americans and giants of this institution. At the 
             time of his death, Senator Inouye was just a few weeks 
             short of celebrating 50 years of Senate service. Only 
             Senator Byrd served in this institution longer.
               Turnover is a natural occurrence, but it's important to 
             acknowledge that the Senators who are departing have 
             served in the Senate for a combined total of 237 years, or 
             nearly 20 years per Senator, on average. Add Senator 
             Inouye, and the total is close to 300 years. That service 
             represents an enormous amount of expertise on issues 
             ranging from national defense and foreign affairs to the 
             Federal budget to energy policy. The departing Senators 
             will also take with them vast institutional knowledge and 
             bipartisan friendships and working relationships that will 
             leave a void we will need to fill. ...
               Mr. President, few, if any, other Senators have devoted 
             as much time and energy as Senator Kent Conrad has to 
             trying to balance the Federal budget. There are few more 
             important--or difficult--tasks. The Senate will miss his 
             steady hand as chairman of the Budget Committee and his 
             expertise on budgetary and fiscal matters as a former tax 
             commissioner for the State of North Dakota.
               As Senator Conrad likes to note, he was 16 years old 
             when he sat in the visitors gallery to this Chamber, 
             listened to former Senator Hubert Humphrey speak on the 
             Civil Rights Act, and decided that he wanted to be a U.S. 
             Senator. Not only did he make that decision, he committed 
             himself to running for a Senate seat in 1986 or 1988. 
             After Senator Conrad received degrees from Stanford 
             University and George Washington University, he worked as 
             an assistant to our former colleague, Byron Dorgan, who 
             was the North Dakota tax commissioner from 1969 to 1980. 
             He succeeded Senator Dorgan as tax commissioner but beat 
             him to the Senate, defeating Republican incumbent Mark 
             Andrews, who had represented North Dakota as a 
             Representative or Senator since 1963. Senator Conrad won 
             that election in 1986. As he remarked in his farewell 
             speech, ``That is the power of a plan.''
               Senator Conrad pledged that he would not seek reelection 
             in 1992 if the Federal budget deficit had not declined by 
             the end of his term. He honored that pledge. But North 
             Dakotans, to their credit, encouraged him to run in a 
             special election that year to fill the remainder of 
             Senator Quentin Burdick's term. Senator Burdick, the 
             State's senior Senator at the time, had died in September 
             1992. Byron Dorgan was elected to replace Senator Conrad, 
             and Senator Conrad was elected to replace Senator Burdick. 
             He was reelected three times, with 58 percent, 61 percent, 
             and nearly 69 percent of the vote, respectively. This is 
             an extraordinary political accomplishment in a largely 
             Republican State and a testament to Senator Conrad and the 
             discernment of North Dakota voters.
               Agriculture is the single biggest component of the North 
             Dakota economy. Senator Conrad has successfully fought to 
             make sure farm programs benefit North Dakota's farmers and 
             ranchers, from winning formula fights on drought 
             legislation in his first term to leading the charge for 
             disaster assistance in the late 1990s and playing a 
             leading role in writing the 2002 and 2008 farm bills. 
             North Dakota receives far more farm program benefits, on a 
             per capita basis, than any other State, and they have 
             helped produce prosperity in farm country. Senator Conrad 
             has also brought hundreds of millions of dollars to North 
             Dakota to develop water supply and flood protection 
             projects. Key victories include passage of the Dakota 
             Water Resources Act to bring Federal legislation in line 
             with North Dakota's contemporary water needs, ensuring 
             Federal help to protect Fargo against record spring 
             flooding, and securing over $1 billion to rebuild Grand 
             Forks and build new flood controls following the 1997 
             flood, an additional $1 billion to respond to the ongoing, 
             devastating flooding in the Devils Lake Basin, and a final 
             $1 billion to respond to the record-breaking 2011 flooding 
             in Minot.
               While Senator Conrad has been a leader on farm and 
             energy policies, he has been the leader on budget policies 
             as chairman of the Budget Committee and a senior member of 
             the Finance Committee. Six years ago, he teamed with 
             former Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire to 
             propose a bipartisan commission to tackle the debt. That 
             idea ultimately prompted President Barack Obama to create 
             the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and 
             Reform, also known as the Bowles-Simpson (or Simpson-
             Bowles) Commission after its cochairs, former Republican 
             Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming and former White House 
             Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, in 2010. Senator Conrad was 
             appointed to the Commission and has subsequently served in 
             the bipartisan Gang of Six and Gang of Eight groups of 
             Senators attempting to find a budget compromise that would 
             forestall the tax increases and automatic spending cuts 
             scheduled to commence on January 1, 2013.
               Senator Conrad has been indefatigable in his pursuit of 
             sound budgetary and fiscal policies. He has brought a 
             soberness to the subject, along with his trademark 
             patience and extraordinary ability to discuss complex 
             budget issues and large numbers in a way that is 
             accessible to everyone, accompanied, of course, by his 
             myriad charts. Senator Conrad has always promoted a 
             balanced approach to addressing our budget deficits that 
             includes higher revenues, spending cuts, and appropriate 
             entitlement reform. The Bowles-Simpson Commission's 
             report, which he helped draft, should serve as a blueprint 
             for congressional action.
               No matter how arduous the budget negotiations become, 
             Senator Conrad is eternally optimistic. As he noted in his 
             farewell speech:

               I think we all know our country needs a plan now, and we 
             know plans have worked before. I was here in 1993 when we 
             had just come off the largest deficit in the history of 
             the United States. The country was in the doldrums. The 
             economy was just plugging along, not doing very well. We 
             had a weak recovery from a deep recession, and we passed a 
             plan to get the country back on track. We did it the old-
             fashioned way. We made tough decisions, some that were 
             unpopular, but it was the right thing to do and it worked. 
             We balanced the budget. We had the longest period of 
             uninterrupted economic growth in the Nation's history. 
             Twenty-three million jobs were created, and we were 
             actually paying down the debt of the United States at the 
             end of the Clinton administration.

               I share Senator Conrad's fervent hope that his farewell 
             speech won't be his final Senate speech; he indicated that 
             he will take to the floor again if we reach agreements in 
             the next few days on the 2012 farm bill and the so-called 
             fiscal cliff negotiations. If we do find a way forward, 
             Senator Conrad will have played a key role in both 
             instances. It has been my honor to serve on the Budget 
             Committee under Senator Conrad's leadership. ...
               Mr. President, these men and women who will be leaving 
             the Senate soon have made extraordinary sacrifices to 
             serve our Nation. We are fortunate that they have chosen 
             to spend significant parts of their lives in public 
             service. All Americans owe them a debt of gratitude. Those 
             of us who will be in the Senate next month when the 113th 
             Congress convenes can best honor the legacy of our 
             departing colleagues by reaching across the aisle as they 
             have done so many times to forge bipartisan consensus and 
             solutions to our Nation's most vexing problems. The men 
             and women who will be leaving the Senate at the end of 
             this Congress understand that compromise isn't a dirty 
             word; it is the genius at the heart of our political 
             system. We will miss them.
                                              Sunday, December 30, 2012
               Mr. DURBIN. ... Beyond that, there is much work that 
             needs to be done beyond the fiscal cliff. This negotiation 
             does not go deeply into deficit reduction, and I think we 
             need to. I was a member of the Simpson-Bowles Commission. 
             I salute my colleague, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, who is 
             retiring in just a few days, for his amazing leadership in 
             bringing us to this moment in this national debate, but we 
             still have much work to do, and I am sorry Kent will not 
             be here to be personally part of it. I have viewed him as 
             an almost irreplaceable resource in this debate. He knows 
             more about our Federal budget and the deficit challenge we 
             face than any Member of Congress, period. All the rest of 
             us have learned so much from him, and we are certainly 
             going to miss him. ...
                                              Monday, December 31, 2012
               Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize 
             my colleague Kent Conrad for his many years of 
             distinguished service and leadership on behalf of our 
             country and the people of North Dakota. It has been such 
             an honor for me to serve with Kent as my neighboring 
             Senator these last 6 years.
               I like to kid with Kent that it seems like North Dakota 
             is always in the middle of some kind of drought or flood 
             or other natural disaster. There's actually a joke I once 
             told him about how you can spot a tourist from North 
             Dakota in the middle of a beach in Florida. It's easy--
             they are the ones putting all the sand in sandbags.
               Jokes aside, Kent has been truly tireless in his work to 
             improve our current flood prevention measures and to 
             ensure North Dakota has the tools it needs to prepare for 
             and recover from natural disasters.
               As anyone who has worked with him on the Agriculture 
             Committee knows, he has also been an outstanding advocate 
             for our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. 
             Kent has consistently led efforts to strengthen the sugar 
             program, which is critical to sugar beet growers in States 
             like North Dakota and Minnesota. He played a key role in 
             crafting both the 2002 and 2008 farm bills, and he was a 
             driving force in getting the 2012 farm bill drafted and 
             passed out of the Senate on a strong bipartisan vote in 
             June.
               So there is no question that Kent's expertise on farm 
             policy will be sorely missed. As Congressman Collin 
             Peterson likes to say, ``There are only 11 people who 
             truly understand how the complex farm payment programs 
             work. And ten of them are in North Dakota.'' Well, with 
             Kent retiring I guess there will only be nine.
               Whether it's standing up for farmers or fighting floods 
             or saving the Minot Military Base, Kent has touched and 
             improved the lives of people in every corner of North 
             Dakota. At the national level, he has been an outspoken 
             leader on the issue of debt reduction and has consistently 
             advocated for policies that benefit the middle class.
               It would be impossible to do full justice to Kent's 
             legacy in a single statement, so instead I will simply say 
             this: North Dakota is better off because of Kent Conrad's 
             leadership, and so is our country. Senator, thank you for 
             all of the friendship, wisdom, and support you have shown 
             me over the years. You will be missed, but I know that 
             even in retirement you will continue to find ways to 
             improve our great country and work for the people of North 
             Dakota.
                                             Wednesday, January 2, 2013
               Mr. SESSIONS. I am so pleased to see that Senator Conrad 
             is here, that I could follow him. I had another subject I 
             wanted to speak about, an important subject. But it is 
             very important for all Americans to know how well he has 
             served.
               Senator Conrad is one of the very small group of people 
             in this country who understands the debt challenges we 
             face. He has been on the debt commission. He has been the 
             budget chairman. He staked his first election on dealing 
             with these issues, as he has explained to us. I truly 
             believe if he had a little more support, maybe, from his 
             caucus and others, his vision could have been a real part 
             of the solution we would make to this debt crisis. We are 
             not that far apart when you consider the true challenges 
             this Nation faces financially.
               I remember a little over 2 years ago now, when the 
             Senator called the debt commission cochairman Erskine 
             Bowles before the budget committee. He gave a speech and 
             written testimony, which said this Nation has never faced 
             a more predictable financial crisis. I remember the 
             Senator asked the cochairman when we might have this 
             financial crisis if we don't change our ways. He replied, 
             ``It could be 2 years, as close as 2 years.'' That was 2 
             years ago, over 2 years ago now.
               I think, Senator Conrad, we have maybe gotten a little 
             overconfident. People were telling us we were on an 
             unsustainable course, we were facing a potential crisis, 
             the Rogoff and Reinhart book came out and said that our 
             debt reaches 90 percent of GDP, and all that was discussed 
             and we had a lot of excitement about it, and we did not 
             act. We did not act in a significant way.
               In times gone by, maybe people thought the crisis is 
             never going to happen, but I think the Senator agrees the 
             potential for it to happen is just as real, if not more 
             so, than it was 2 years ago.
               I want to say this. We did not always agree. The Senator 
             didn't always agree with my views and I understand that. 
             But the Senator allowed the minority on the committee to 
             have its voice heard, to ask our questions, and the 
             Senator called some great hearings. We had some of the 
             best minds in the country provide testimony before the 
             Budget Committee. The Senator allowed and called the 
             administration witnesses and we were able to examine them 
             about how they were managing the country's money. The 
             Senator allowed that to happen in the great tradition of 
             the Senate where we have open debate and honest 
             questioning. The Senator was always a perfect gentleman, 
             and always able, as I think the Presiding Officer would 
             acknowledge, to give a little levity to a tense situation. 
             The Senator has a great sense of humor that really 
             endeared him to me.
               So I will say to Senator Conrad, thank you for your 
             service. I believe every member of the Budget Committee, 
             Republican and Democrat, appreciated the Senator's 
             leadership. I know they did. I know the staff also 
             respected the Senator's leadership. We had a great time 
             working with the Senator's professional team. The Senator 
             served his country exceedingly well dealing with the 
             greatest issue we face today, our financial debt 
             situation. I hope and I am confident the Senator will 
             remain active, that he will not be silent, that he will 
             provide continual input and advice to the Members of 
             Congress as we wrestle with these tough issues.

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

               Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will repeat my admiration 
             and affection for the Senator from North Dakota and 
             appreciation for his leadership.

               Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute 
             to my colleague, Senator Kent Conrad, whom I have been 
             fortunate to call a colleague and a friend. I have served 
             with Kent for 20 years and my husband Stewart and I have 
             valued the friendship of his and his wonderful wife Lucy 
             Calautti.
               From helping North Dakota recover from devastating 
             natural disasters to promoting North Dakota agriculture as 
             a key member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Kent 
             Conrad has been a leader for North Dakota for more than 30 
             years.
               No Senator knows budget and economic issues better than 
             Senator Conrad and he used his knowledge to great effect 
             as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. His exacting 
             and precise assessments of our Nation's fiscal health 
             added wisdom and maturity to a debate that was often 
             difficult and divisive. His many budget charts alone are 
             famous in the Senate--in fact, he uses even more charts on 
             the floor than I do, which is saying something.
               He refers to his policymaking approach as ``extreme 
             moderation''--an approach that perfectly sums up Senator 
             Conrad's philosophy and demeanor. Senator Conrad is one of 
             our most respected Members, for his steady temperament, 
             his open mind, and his willingness to reach across the 
             aisle in search of policy solutions.
               The Senate is losing a powerful voice, and a great 
             friend to us all in Kent Conrad.
                                             Thursday, February 7, 2013
                            ORDER FOR PRINTING OF TRIBUTES
               Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
             there be printed as a Senate document a compilation of 
             materials from the Congressional Record in tribute to the 
             retiring Members of the 112th Congress.

               The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so 
             ordered.
