[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18626-18631]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 18627]]

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

[[Page 18628]]

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, 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

[[Page 18629]]

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 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

[[Page 18630]]

     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 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

[[Page 18631]]

     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 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.

                          ____________________