[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 173 (Wednesday, January 2, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8641-S8646]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHALLENGE TO FUTURE CONGRESSES
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
[[Page S8642]]
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 there 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, even after what has just happened, 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 benefit
$707 a year. 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 $1 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 build
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.
[[Page S8643]]
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, January 27, 1986
I will be a candidate for North Dakota's seat in the United
States 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 seventy-one 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 five years by an amount that had taken two
hundred 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 three 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 seventy-one 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 five years by an amount that had taken two
hundred 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 performing 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
[[Page S8644]]
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 importantly, 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 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 6--which later became the Group of 8--have
relied on John's mastery of budgets.
John joined the Committee in May of 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 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-and-a-half years. During that time, he wrote
more than his share of my speeches, op-eds 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 XX 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 long-time staff member who joined
the committee staff at the beginning of my tenure. Her
portfolio including 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.
[[Page S8645]]
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 three 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 so 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 six years
ago. Brandon has a varied background that includes his work
in television 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 one-year veteran of the committee, and I so
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
backwards.
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 one 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 website, 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.
Non-Designated Staff
The committee is fortunate to have a strong cadre of
professional non-designated 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 non-
designated staff members.
Joan Evans is the chief clerk of the committee, responsible
for all of the administrative functions, and oversees all of
the non-designated 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
[[Page S8646]]
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 1980's, 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 ensuring 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 the 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.
____________________