Kent Conrad 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

TRIBUTES 

IN THE CONGRESS OF 

THE UNITED STATES 

UNUM

E PLURIBUS


congress.#15
Kent Conrad 

Courtesy U.S. Senate Historical Office 


81104.eps
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 2014

S. DOC. 113–6 

Tributes 

Delivered in Congress 

Kent Conrad 

United States Senator 

1987–2013 

÷ 

Compiled under the direction 

of the 

Joint Committee on Printing 

[ iii ] 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Biography .................................................................................................. v 

Farewell Address ..................................................................................... ix, xix 

Proceedings in the Senate: 

Tributes by Senators: 

Boxer, Barbara, of California .................................................... 29 

Cardin, Benjamin L., of Maryland ............................................ 22 

Conrad, Kent, of North Dakota ................................................. 7, 28 

Coons, Christopher A., of Delaware ......................................... 17 

Durbin, Richard J., of Illinois ................................................... 25 

Enzi, Michael B., of Wyoming ................................................... 19 

Harkin, Tom, of Iowa ................................................................. 9 

Hoeven, John, of North Dakota ................................................ 6 

Isakson, Johnny, of Georgia ...................................................... 3 

Klobuchar, Amy, of Minnesota .................................................. 26 

Leahy, Patrick J., of Vermont ................................................... 4, 21 

Levin, Carl, of Michigan ............................................................ 15 

Mikulski, Barbara A., of Maryland .......................................... 8 

Reed, Jack, of Rhode Island ...................................................... 14 

Reid, Harry, of Nevada ............................................................. 10, 29 

Sessions, Jeff, of Alabama ........................................................ 27, 29 

Stabenow, Debbie, of Michigan ................................................. 4 

Whitehouse, Sheldon, of Rhode Island ..................................... 5 

[ v ] 

BIOGRAPHY 

A fifth-generation North Dakotan, KENT CONRAD was born 

March 12, 1948, in Bismarck, and attended Roosevelt Elementary and Hughes Jr. High Schools. He attended Wheelus 

Air Force Base High School in Tripoli, Libya, and Phillips 

Exeter Academy. He graduated with a degree in government 

from Stanford University and obtained an MBA at George 

Washington University. He was elected North Dakota tax 

commissioner in 1980 and was reelected by a large margin 

in 1984. 

He was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 1986 on 

a platform of ‘‘Yes We Can!’’ optimism and a commonsense 

approach to Federal policy. During the 1986 campaign, Mr. 

CONRAD pledged not to run for reelection if the Federal 

budget was not reduced. It wasn’t, and he kept his promise 

and announced he wouldn’t seek reelection. But, months 

after he announced his retirement, the State’s other Senator, 

Quentin Burdick, died in office. In December 1992 he won a 

special election to fill the remaining 2 years of Senator Burdick’s term. 

During his time in the Senate KENT CONRAD earned a reputation as a champion for the needs of rural States like 

North Dakota and the farm sector. His top priorities were 

bringing new jobs and new opportunity to North Dakota and 

rural America, addressing the budget deficit and warning 

the country about the long-term debt threat, reforming the 

health care system, and strengthening the farm safety net. 

He also championed the State’s water needs from the delivery of clean drinking water, to flood protection, and disaster 

relief. Senator CONRAD led the effort to bring more than $1 

billion in Federal resources to respond to the 1997 flood that 

hit the city of Grand Forks to help it recover and prevent future disasters. 

His economic development efforts for North Dakota helped 

bring new businesses with hundreds of jobs to North Dakota’s cities and rural communities. Along with Agriculture 

Commissioner Sarah Vogel he founded the annual ‘‘Marketplace for Entrepreneurs’’ Exposition, which grew into one of 

[ vi ] 

the Nation’s largest conferences for rural development and 

the diversification of the rural economy. 

Senator CONRAD made his mark on the Agriculture Committee with a number of significant bills, including drought 

and disaster relief legislation, the 5-years farm bill, and 

groundbreaking legislation to commercialize new industrial 

products made from American crops. 

At the beginning of the 103d Congress he became the first 

North Dakotan in 70 years to be named to the powerful Senate Finance Committee. His background as North Dakota 

tax commissioner and his command of budget issues led to 

the coveted appointment. He also served as the chairman of 

the Subcommittee on Taxation, IRS Oversight, and LongTerm Growth, and was a member of the Subcommittee on 

Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth and the Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure. 

The start of the 107th Congress marked the beginning of 

a 12-year run for Senator CONRAD serving as chairman or 

ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, the longest serving Democrat to hold the position. As he took over 

the gavel, the country was returning to an era of deficits. He 

aggressively fought against the Bush-era tax cuts arguing 

they would plunge the country back into deficits and that 

they disproportionately benefited the wealthy. During the 

110th Congress, he teamed with Senator Judd Gregg, the 

then ranking member on the Budget Committee, in introducing the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action Act to set up a special task force to address the ballooning deficits. In 2010, it became the impetus for President 

Barack Obama to appoint a special 18-member commission 

to tackle the deficit, cochaired by Erskine Bowles and former 

Senator Alan Simpson. Senator CONRAD served on the socalled Bowles-Simpson Commission and was 1 of 11 commissioners to vote for the $4 trillion deficit reduction plan, 

though the plan did not garner the 14 votes required to send 

it to Congress for approval. 

During his long tenure on the Budget Committee, Senator 

CONRAD was one of the Senate’s strongest advocates for fiscal responsibility, particularly with regard to the threat 

posed by the buildup of long-term debt. He was a leader in 

asking U.S. allies in Western Europe and Japan to pay their 

own defense bills so that we can use the billions of dollars 

we spend overseas for pressing needs here at home. He was 

one of eight Senators who opposed the savings and loan bailVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:13 Apr 18, 2014 Jkt 081104 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 H:\DOCS\BYEBYE\BYEBYE12\81104.TXT KAYNE
[ vii ] 

out, arguing that the plan was badly structured and could 

not be improved to save taxpayer money. 

During his 26 years as an advocate for North Dakota in 

Washington, DC, Senator CONRAD helped write the 2002 and 

2008 farm bills, wrote health care policy that ensured continued access to hospitals in rural areas, and fought unfair 

trade practices that hurt North Dakota’s economy. He also 

introduced comprehensive energy legislation that would 

make the United States more energy independent. 

He is married to Lucy Calautti and has a daughter 

Jessamyn, a son Ivan, and a grandson Carter. 

[ ix ] 

Farewell to the Senate 

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have this long tradition 

in the Senate of Senators giving farewell remarks. I want to 

alert colleagues that mine will be especially long, so they 

might want to go have lunch and then come back. I don’t 

consider this my final speech because I am still hopeful we 

will reach an agreement on the farm bill. The distinguished 

Chair is here. I hope we can reach agreement on averting 

the fiscal cliff because that is important to the country. I 

hope we will have additional chances to communicate with 

colleagues and the public before we are done. 

These are my farewell remarks and observations of 26 

years of service here, and it has been an incredible experience. 

The first thing I want to do is say thank you to the people 

of North Dakota for having confidence in me when I was 

only 38 years old in sending me to represent them in the 

Senate. I was 38, but I looked about 25, and the people of 

North Dakota elected me in a stunning upset of a longestablished incumbent. I treasure the confidence they have 

had in me. 

I also want to thank my colleagues for the responsibilities 

they have given me. I want to thank the leadership team of 

Senator Reid, Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer, and Senator Murray and the confidence they have had in me. I have 

been so blessed to have people who have been with me on 

my staff in many cases for more than 20 years. My chiefs of 

staff include Jim Margolis, who is one of the top media gurus 

in the country. He has done much of the advertising for the 

President in this last campaign. Also, my thanks to David 

Herring and Mary Wakefield, as well as Kent Hall, who died 

an untimely death while working for me. 

Thank you to Sara Garland, Bob Van Heuvelen, and Wally 

Rustad. Thanks also to Tom Mahr, who was my legislative 

director for more than 20 years. 

I also wish to thank my executive assistant, who has been 

with me more than 20 years; Geri Gaginis, who we all fondly 

[ x ] 

call Mom in my office because she cracks the whip and 

makes sure the trains run on time; Mary Naylor, my longtime director on the Budget Committee and who has also 

been with me more than 20 years. 

My Budget Committee deputies John Righter and Joel 

Friedman have done extraordinary work on behalf of the 

people of this country. Stu Nagurka is here with me today 

and is going to help me with charts and has been my longtime communications director. 

There are so many more people I want to thank. Most of 

all, I want to thank my family. My wife Lucy, who has been 

my great partner through all of this. She was my campaign 

manager when I first ran for the Senate. My daughter Jessie, who has in many ways, perhaps, sacrificed the most, because when a person is in this job they miss birthdays and 

other important events. She has been a great daughter. She 

was here last night for our farewell party and we had a lovely time. Our son Ivan and his wife Kendra, who are in Oregon where they have a small farm called Tipping Tree 

Farm. We wish they could be here today. Our grandson 

Carter, who is a proud member of the University of Oregon 

marching band, the Ducks, and who served as an intern for 

me—not at government expense, by the way, it was at our 

expense; and our little dog Dakota who has become sort of 

a mascot of the U.S. Senate. Brian Williams, when he did a 

show on ‘‘A Day in the Life of the Senate,’’ concluded that 

program by calling Dakota the ‘‘101st Senator.’’ I think he 

will be missed perhaps more than I am as I leave the Senate. 

In 1964 I came here. I sat up in the gallery—in fact, it was 

the gallery right up there—I was 16 years old, and I watched 

a debate on civil rights. Hubert Humphrey was leading that 

debate. It so inspired me that I thought someday I would 

like to be down on that floor and I would like to debate the 

great issues of the day and I would like to represent the people of North Dakota. So I went home and wrote out on the 

back of an envelope that I would run for the U.S. Senate in 

1986 or 1988, and I ran in 1986 and was successful. That is 

the power of a plan. To the young pages who are here, if any 

of you seek to be in the U.S. Senate someday, have a plan, 

because there are so many people who sort of drift through 

life without one. If you have a plan, you will be light years 

ahead. 

In that race, as I indicated, my now-wife Lucy was my 

campaign manager. We won what was then believed to be 

[ xi ] 

the biggest political upset in the history of our State. I was 

proud of that victory and proud to have a chance to represent North Dakota here. 

I think we all know our country needs a plan now, and we 

know plans have worked before. I was here in 1993 when we 

had just come off the largest deficit in the history of the 

United States. The country was in the doldrums. The economy was just plugging along, not doing very well. We had a 

weak recovery from a deep recession, and we passed a plan 

to get the country back on track. We did it the old-fashioned 

way. We made tough decisions, some that were unpopular, 

but it was the right thing to do and it worked. We balanced 

the budget. We had the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in the Nation’s history. Twenty-three million 

jobs were created, and we were actually paying down the 

debt of the United States at the end of the Clinton administration. 

We did it again when disaster struck my State in 1997. We 

had one of the worst disasters ever in North Dakota, a 500- 

year flood that followed the worst winter storm in 50 years. 

Many of my colleagues may recall the images from that disaster when firemen were fighting an enormous conflagration 

in downtown Grand Forks in the middle of a blizzard and 

there was also a massive flood. Grand Forks was devastated. 

Again, we had a plan, a $500 million disaster recovery 

plan that became a $1 billion plan, and it worked, and we 

did it the old-fashioned way. We made tough decisions, some 

that were unpopular, but it was the right thing to do and it 

worked. The community held a recognition event for me last 

weekend. The leadership of the community was there, and 

many people from the community reported on the remarkable recovery in Grand Forks. It is, I think, an example of 

what can be done when government responds and does so intelligently and effectively. 

Now we face a new challenge. We have a fiscal cliff or a 

fiscal curb or whatever one terms it, but what we know is 

that if we fail to act, we could be pushed back into recession. 

Our country needs a plan—a plan to get us back on track, 

to revitalize economic growth, to secure our long-term economic future, and to get the country moving again, and we 

can do it. We have done much tougher work in the past. 

Sometimes I hear people being critical of this institution 

when they leave here. Let me say I am not in their ranks. 

I leave this institution with enormous respect. The U.S. Senate is the greatest deliberative body in the world, and I sinVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:13 Apr 18, 2014 Jkt 081104 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 H:\DOCS\BYEBYE\BYEBYE12\81104.TXT KAYNE
[ xii ] 

cerely believe the vast majority of my colleagues are seriousminded and have the best interests of the country at heart. 

I believe the vast majority of my colleagues want to do what 

is right for the country. We have differences—enormous differences—about what is the right thing to do, but I have no 

doubt most of our colleagues are well intentioned. 

In many circles it is fashionable now to bash government 

and play down its importance. I personally think we would 

do well to remember what it has accomplished. I can remember so clearly being called to an emergency meeting in this 

building in fall 2008. I was handed a note saying I was urgently requested to come here. It was about 6 o’clock in the 

evening. I was the last one to arrive. When I walked into the 

leader’s office, there were the leaders of the House and the 

Senate, Republicans and Democrats, the Secretary of the 

Treasury from the Bush administration, and the Chairman 

of the Federal Reserve. I instantly understood something 

very serious was afoot. They closed the door and told us they 

were going to take over AIG, the large insurance company, 

the next day. They weren’t there to ask for our approval or 

seek our agreement; they were there to tell us they were taking this step and they told us they were taking this step because they believed if they did not, there would be a financial collapse in this country within days, and they gave great 

specificity as to what would happen if there was a failure to 

take the action they were about to take. 

The public reaction was harshly negative. The notion of 

the Government of the United States bailing out a large private insurance company created controversy and criticism 

from almost every corner. Ultimately, the rescue of that company cost $180 billion—a staggering sum. But we have 

learned this week that the taxpayers will make money on 

the deal. Yes, it cost us $180 billion, but the taxpayers are 

going to make $22 billion on the transaction. If we hadn’t 

done it, we would have risked going into a depression. 

So when people say there is no role for government or it 

should be a limited, shrunken role, I say, really? Would we 

have wanted to stand by and risk this country going into another Great Depression? Let’s recall what that was like. 

More than 20 percent of the people in this country were out 

of work. I know my own grandfather, who refused to take 

bankruptcy, owned stock in the local bank. In those days 

people had unlimited liability if they owned stock in a bank. 

So when there was a run on the bank, as there was, he was 

called to bring money to the bank, which he did. He did it 

[ xiii ] 

over and over, and it took him 9 years to recover. People 

were hungry. People were desperate. That is what a depression is about. 

So when I reflect back to those decisions, I believe they 

were the right decisions to make. It is not just my view; that 

is the view of two of the most distinguished economists in 

this country, Mark Zandi, who was a key economic adviser 

to Senator John McCain in his Presidential race, and Alan 

Blinder, the former Deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Here is what they say, ‘‘Without that Federal response, we would have had 8 million fewer jobs and a 16- 

percent level of unemployment in this country, and we would 

have been in the second Great Depression.’’ They call it ‘‘Depression 2.0.’’ 

So let’s remember where we were when President Obama 

came to office. The Nation was facing the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. In the fourth quarter 

of 2008, the economy shrank at a rate of almost 9 percent. 

After the Federal actions, positive economic growth returned 

in the third quarter of 2009 and we have now had 13 consecutive quarters of economic growth. We have come a long 

way. This is a remarkable turnaround in a very short time, 

measured against previous financial crises. In fact, there has 

been an academic study just completed that suggests typically it takes 8 to 10 years to recover from a financial crisis. 

So the recovery here, while not everything we would have 

hoped, is a dramatic turnaround. 

At the same time our constituents know, and we know, the 

price has been high. We know we are currently borrowing 31 

cents of every dollar we spend. That is somewhat of an improvement, because we were borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. So this is an improvement, but we have a long 

way to go. The public understands we face both a spending 

and a revenue problem. Spending is near a 60-year high, as 

this chart shows. The red line is the spending line; the green 

line is the revenue line. But for those who say it is just a 

spending problem, I don’t think the facts bear that out, because the revenue is near a 60-year low. I think most logical 

people would say we have to work both sides of this equation. 

When we look at our debt, we see that our gross debt has 

now surpassed 100 percent of our gross domestic product. 

There was a landmark work done a couple of years ago by 

Rogoff and Reinhart. They looked at 200 years of economic 

history and they concluded that once our debt exceeds 90 

[ xiv ] 

percent of GDP, our future economic prospects are reduced, 

and reduced quite significantly: future economic growth reduced by 25 to 33 percent. So this is not just numbers on a 

page; this is a question of future economic opportunity. 

This growing debt is why many of us called for action a 

long time ago. In fact, it was 6 years ago this month that 

Senator Gregg and I came up with the idea of a commission 

to tackle the debt. That idea ultimately led to the President 

appointing the Bowles-Simpson Commission. Its bipartisan 

report recommended $4 trillion in deficit reduction in a balanced way, and I think in a fair way. It protected low-income 

programs, it actually improved the progressivity of the tax 

system quite significantly, and it was balanced between revenue and spending. Other bipartisan groups have concluded 

the same, that we need spending restraint and we need revenue. So there is a critical role for government here. We 

have seen it in the past and we will find it in the future. 

I think we also have to acknowledge there are problems in 

this Chamber. As proud as I am of this institution, and I will 

forever be, I have detected over the 26 years I have been 

here, a change. It has happened kind of gradually, but it has 

clearly happened. We now spend too much of our time seeking partisan advantage, and it happens on both sides, and it 

is all understandable. I understand it. I am not being critical 

of individuals. We spend too little time trying to solve problems. We spend too little time in our caucuses, in our meetings, focused on how to solve the problems facing the country. I deeply believe this observation is true. 

I believe we can do better than this. The institutions of our 

government have a proud history. The genius of our Founding Fathers can be found in every part of our history. Whether it was conquering the last Great Depression or winning 

World War I and World War II or launching a man into 

space or conquering dread diseases, over and over our country has organized to better the plight of mankind. We need 

that same kind of focus and effort now to address our challenges. I am confident we can do this, but it is not enough 

to be confident. It is not enough to be hopeful. It requires a 

plan, and I would like to take the next few minutes to lay 

out my belief of what that plan should include. 

Much of what I will talk about reflects the work of the 

Bowles-Simpson Commission, the Group of Six that I have 

been a part of, and the Group of Eight. 

It starts by looking at what both sides have laid down. Republicans have laid down the spending cut plan; the PresiVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:13 Apr 18, 2014 Jkt 081104 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 H:\DOCS\BYEBYE\BYEBYE12\81104.TXT KAYNE
[ xv ] 

dent has laid down a revenue plan. My own belief is we 

should take them both. We should take what the Republicans have proposed on spending, with some modest modifications which I will discuss, and we should take the President’s plan on revenue. 

The President laid down a plan that said we ought to raise 

$1.6 trillion over the next 10 years. Boy, that sounds like an 

awful lot of money, doesn’t it—$1.6 trillion. Not billion, not 

million—but trillion. People will be quick to say: Oh, my 

God, that is the biggest tax increase in the history of mankind. Terrible. We cannot do that. 

Well, we need to put it in perspective. The first thing we 

should recognize is this will take us to a revenue level that 

is 19.9 percent of our GDP. The last five times we have balanced the budget in this country, going back to 1969, we 

have been at 19.7 percent, 19.9 percent, 19.8 percent, 20.6 

percent, and 19.5 percent. Does 19.9 percent fit in? These are 

the only times we balanced the budget going back to 1969. 

To put it in even more perspective, how much revenue are 

we going to raise over the next 10 years without any change? 

Well, here is the number: $37.4 trillion. Nobody ever puts 

these things in perspective. These big numbers are in relationship to what; $1.6 trillion is what in relationship to $37.4 

trillion? As a percentage that is an increase of 4.3 percent. 

My goodness, we cannot increase the revenue by 4.3 percent 

in this country over the next 10 years? Of course we can. Of 

course we can, especially if it means we get our house in 

order and put the country on a more firm fiscal footing. 

It does not just matter how much money we raise; it also 

matters how we raise it. We have a Tax Code now which I 

cannot defend. I cannot defend it. I took a study that was 

done by a man named Martin Sullivan last year. He did a 

very interesting thing. He looked at one building on Park Avenue in New York, and he was able to do it because they 

happened to have the statistics that isolated that one building. Do you know what he found? The average income in 

that building was $1.167 million for the year—$1.167 million. The average tax rate of the people in that building was 

14.7 percent. 

The janitor in that building had an income of $33,000. He 

paid a tax rate of 24.9 percent. Is this fair? Is it fair that 

people making $1.1 million paid a tax rate of 14.7 percent, 

and the janitor who served them earning $33,000 a year paid 

a tax rate of 24.9 percent? Well, I personally do not think so. 

[ xvi ] 

I know all of the arguments. I have served on the Finance 

Committee. I have heard it all. The biggest reason for this 

differential, by the way, is not the earned-income tax rate, 

which has had almost all of the attention in this national 

discussion. Almost all of the attention has been on the 

earned-income tax rate and raising it from 35 percent to 39.6 

percent. 

Almost no attention has been paid to the unearned-income 

tax rate on capital gains and dividends. The unearned rate 

is currently at 15 percent. That is what allows very wealthy 

people to pay a tax rate that is a fraction of those who work 

full time and are paying rates of 25 percent. 

So I hope as we move to conclusion we will pay a little 

more attention to the unearned rates. The truth is, we would 

not have to have as much of an increase as is being proposed 

on the earned-income side and have more of an increase on 

the unearned-income side, and we would make the Tax Code 

fairer and we could raise the same amount of revenue. That 

is the revenue side. 

But the spending side Republicans have down. They have 

put out a proposal that asks for savings out of entitlements 

and other discretionary spending. If we look at their proposal 

and break it down—again, let’s look at health care. We are 

going to spend $11 trillion over the next 10 years on health 

care. Republicans are proposing saving $600 million. If we 

had a compromise between Republicans and Democrats let’s 

say at $500 million, that would be a savings of, again the 

magic, 4 percent. 

We are going to increase revenue 4 percent. If we had savings in health care of 41⁄2 percent, we would save $500 billion. Now, I have had conversations with colleagues who tell 

me we cannot possibly save $500 billion out of health care, 

just like people say, well, we cannot possibly increase revenue $1.6 trillion. 

Really, we cannot save $500 billion out of a pot of money 

where we are going to spend $11 trillion? I do not think that 

is true. I think we can save $500 billion. I will tell you, there 

is someone sitting on this floor who has a pretty good idea 

of how to do it. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has said to us 

over and over and over: We are spending more than any 

other country in the world as a share of our national income 

on health care. We are spending 18 percent of our GDP on 

health care. No other country spends more than 111⁄2 percent. 

[ xvii ] 

The best minds in this country have told us we are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in health care that do not 

improve health care outcomes at all. If we would save money 

in overall health care, 40 percent of that savings would flow 

through to the Federal Government. Senator Whitehouse is 

right about this. We ought to focus like a laser on where the 

waste is. 

We do not need to increase the eligibility age for Medicare. 

We absolutely do not have to do it to save $500 billion. What 

it would do, if we save $500 billion, is it would keep the 

growth in health care spending about equal to the growth in 

the overall economy. That would stabilize the growth of 

health care spending. That would be a huge contribution to 

the economic competitive position of the United States. 

Republicans have also said: Hey, let’s save $300 billion on 

domestic discretionary savings. Now, I will be the first to say 

we have already had lots of savings on the discretionary accounts. We have saved over $1 trillion in the discretionary 

accounts. But they say, ok, let’s save another $300 billion. I 

think we should say we will do it if they go with us on the 

revenue. We will do it because that represents a savings of 

2.6 percent of the $11.6 trillion we are going to spend in the 

discretionary accounts over the next 10 years. 

Now, I think we have gotten into a situation where we use 

numbers that are absolutely big numbers, but we do not put 

them in perspective. How can we save 2.6 percent out of discretionary accounts? Well, I believe we can. I absolutely believe we can. I believe we can save more out of defense. 

I did not vote for going to war in Iraq. I thought that was 

a huge mistake. But I have supported every dollar of spending for our troops in the field. I can tell you as the Budget 

Committee chairman, we can save more money in defense. 

There are lots of Republicans who know we can do it too. 

Other mandatory spending. That is another category the 

Republicans said to save $300 billion there. I think they are 

$100 billion too high because we are already saving over 

$100 billion out of other mandatory programs to offset the 

cost of extending certain policies just last year. So let’s save 

$200 billion. That would represent, again, 4 percent of what 

we are projected to spend over the next 10 years in other 

mandatory spending; $5.1 trillion is what we are programmed to spend. Two hundred billion dollars of savings 

there would represent 4 percent. 

Again, I have had colleagues tell me we cannot possibly 

save $200 billion. I have had staff people tell me we cannot 

[ xviii ] 

save $200 billion. So I say, how much are we going to spend? 

That $200 billion represents 4 percent of what we are going 

to spend. We cannot save 4 percent? Yes, we can. 

I was elected on the slogan in 1986, of ‘‘Yes We Can.’’ 

Somebody else used that slogan a few years later. President 

Obama used that slogan, ‘‘Yes We Can.’’ He called me up. 

He said, ‘‘Do I owe you royalties?’’ 

I said, ‘‘No, I am glad you are using it.’’ 

Yes we can. We need more of a yes-we-can attitude around 

here. 

So when I rack it all up and I look at what we have already done, we have saved $1 trillion in the Budget Control 

Act of last year. Here are other mandatory savings I just 

talked about: more than $100 billion that we have already 

done to offset the cost of extending certain policies, $900 billion of other discretionary savings already done. So we put 

that in the bank. We use that as the base. 

We put it all together and here is what we have: We save 

another $200 billion on defense; we have revenue of $1.6 trillion, which is the President’s proposal; we have $100 billion 

of nondefense. That gets us the $300 billion the Republicans 

have asked for. 

On health care we do $500 billion. That is close to what 

they have asked for, $100 billion less. Other mandatory, 

$200 billion; that is close to what they asked for. The $100 

billion difference reflects what we have already done. 

Interest savings. Because we are spending less and we 

have more revenue, we save interest, $400 billion. That gives 

us a total of spending cuts of $1.4 trillion. We add in what 

has already been done, $1.05 trillion, and we have a total of 

$2.45 trillion. We add that to the $1.6 trillion of revenue, we 

have $4.05 trillion of savings. 

Then I personally would extend the payroll tax holiday because CBO tells us, on the tax side, that holiday is the biggest bang for the buck in giving a lift to the economy. It will 

cost us $200 billion, for a net deficit reduction of $3.85 trillion. For those wondering what happens to AMT and what 

happens to the doc fix, we have those in the baseline so they 

are covered in this proposal. We can correct the alternative 

minimum tax. We can eliminate the doc fix and be done with 

them. 

This magnitude of package is precisely what was called for 

in the fiscal commission. In the Moment of Truth report, this 

is what they called for. I think they were right to call for it. 

I was proud to be part of that effort. I believe this is preVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:13 Apr 18, 2014 Jkt 081104 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 H:\DOCS\BYEBYE\BYEBYE12\81104.TXT KAYNE
[ xix ] 

cisely what we need to do now. So that is the plan. Now we 

need action. We should do it the old-fashioned way. We 

should make tough decisions, even some that will be unpopular. 

It will be the right thing to do, and it will work. It will stabilize our debt and begin to bring it down. It will provide certainty to our economy. I believe it will unleash the $1.7 trillion that is in the balance sheets of our corporations, and it 

will unlock the investment potential that lies all across this 

country. 

Let me end as I began by simply saying thank you. Thank 

you to the people of North Dakota, thank you to my colleagues, thank you to my staff and, most of all, thanks to my 

family—to my wife Lucy, to my daughter Jessie, to our son 

Ivan and his wife Kendra, and to our grandson Carter. To 

all my family members, my cousins, who have been with me 

in every campaign, I will never forget your support and your 

help. I will always consider serving here the honor of my life. 

I also thank my colleague Senator Hoeven, who, in the 2 

years he and I have overlapped, has been a good colleague. 

I have enjoyed working with him very much. 

I just close by noting, because as many of you know, I am 

sort of a numbers guy, that I started these remarks in the 

12th hour of the 12th day of the 12th month of 2012. I am 

sure numerologists will make much of those relationships. I 

began this speech in the 12th hour of the 12th day of the 

12th month of 2012, and I leave here forever grateful for the 

opportunity to serve. 

÷ 

Farewell to the Senate 

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. 

These will be my final remarks to the Senate, and I thought 

I would share with my colleagues my observations on what 

has just occurred to put in perspective where I believe we 

are and where we are headed and to lay down a challenge 

for my colleagues as I depart. A very significant challenge remains for the Congress and the country, and I hope very 

much that we find the courage to take on these challenges. 

[ xx ] 

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. 

[ xxi ] 

The path we are on, we are told by the Congressional 

Budget Office, will take us from a gross debt of 104 percent 

of our gross domestic product today to 115 percent by 2022 

if we fail to act. So further action is absolutely essential. 

Why? Why does it matter if our gross debt is more than 

100 percent of our gross domestic product? Well, because the 

best work that has been done on this question—by Rogoff 

and Reinhart—concluded, after looking at 200 years of economic history, the following. I quote from their study: 

We examine the experience of 44 countries spanning up to two centuries 

of data on central government debt, inflation and growth. Our main finding 

is that across both advanced countries and emerging markets, high debt/ 

GDP levels (90 percent and above) are associated with notably lower growth 

outcomes. 

To sum it up, Mr. President, when we have a gross debt 

of more than 90 percent of our GDP, we are headed down a 

path that dramatically reduces our future economic growth. 

That means we are reducing future economic opportunity for 

the people of our country. That is why this matters, because 

it will retard and restrict economic growth for our people. 

Here is what the Congressional Budget Office tells us 

about the long-term path we are on, in terms of debt held 

by the public. CBO tells us we are headed for a circumstance 

where publicly held debt will be 200 percent of our GDP. 

So, we are on a course that is utterly unsustainable. 

If we look at what has been done—because those who say 

nothing has been done are not giving the full story either— 

the fact is we passed a Budget Control Act in place of a 

budget. We put in place a law in place of a budget resolution. 

That budget law dropped discretionary spending to historic 

lows. We were at—in the year 2012—8.3 percent of GDP 

going to domestic spending. The Budget Control Act, the law 

that was passed, will take that down to 5.3 percent of GDP 

going for discretionary spending. That is a historic low. 

So when someone says nothing has been done, that is not 

accurate. We cut domestic spending, and cut it in a very significant way. We cut it to a level that will be a historic low, 

but that doesn’t mean the problem has been solved; nowhere 

close to it, because at the same time the nondiscretionary accounts are rising dramatically. Medicare, Medicaid, and 

other Federal health spending is the 800-pound gorilla. That 

is where we see such a dramatic increase in spending, both 

in real and nominal dollars, and as a share of GDP. 

Back in 1972, these health care accounts consumed 1.1 

percent of our gross domestic product. By 2050, if we don’t 

[ xxii ] 

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 

[ xxiii ] 

many times that is the most efficient building in the world. 

How can 18,000 companies be doing business out of a little 

five-story building down in the Cayman Islands? They are 

not doing business out of that building. The only business 

they are doing is monkey business, and the monkey business 

they are doing is to avoid the taxes they owe in the United 

States through shell games in which they show their profits 

in the Cayman Islands, where, happily, there are no income 

taxes to impose on those earnings. So they are avoiding 

showing their income here and putting it in the Cayman Islands where they can shield it from taxation. 

We also desperately need to restore fairness. The current 

system contributes to growing income inequality. I don’t 

know how anyone can conclude otherwise. I have also shown 

many times on the floor of the Senate the report on one 

building on Park Avenue in New York, where the average income is $1.2 million of the people who live in that building 

and the average tax rate those people are paying is about 15 

percent. The janitor in that building is paying a tax rate of 

25 percent with an income of $33,000 a year. How is that 

fair? How can that possibly be considered fair? These longterm fiscal imbalances simply must be addressed, and revenue is going to have to be part of the solution. 

Martin Feldstein, one of the distinguished economists in 

our country, conservative, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan, said this about the 

tax expenditures of the country because we are spending 

$1.2 trillion a year in the tax expenditures category of the 

United States. We are spending more through the Tax Code 

than we are through all the appropriated accounts. 

People say we are spending too much. Yes, we continue to 

have a spending problem and a revenue problem. But 

through the Tax Code we spend more there than we spend 

through all the appropriated accounts. 

Here is what Martin Feldstein said about the need to reduce tax expenditures: 

Cutting tax expenditures is really the best way to reduce government 

spending. . . . [E]liminating tax expenditures does not increase marginal tax 

rates or reduce the reward for saving, investment, or risk taking. It would 

also increase overall economic efficiency by removing incentives that distort 

private spending decisions. And eliminating or consolidating the large number of overlapping tax-based subsidies would also greatly simplify tax filing. 

In short, cutting tax expenditures is not at all like other ways of raising revenue. 

I say to my colleagues, we are going to have to raise more 

revenue; we are going to have to cut spending; and we are 

[ xxiv ] 

going to have to reform entitlements. It is as clear as it can 

be that those things are going to have to be done to get the 

country back on track. Here is one of the most distinguished 

economists in the country telling us that reforming tax expenditures is not like other ways of raising revenue in terms 

of its economic effect. I think Mr. Feldstein has that exactly 

right. 

By the way, who most benefits from these tax expenditures? Here is a chart that shows the increase in after-tax 

income from tax expenditures and here is the top 1 percent. 

On average, they benefit per year by over $250,000. The next 

quintile benefits by $32,000. The lowest quintile tax expenditures benefit by $707 a year. Wow. What an extraordinary 

disparity. The lowest quintile tax expenditures benefits are 

$707 a year. For the top 1 percent, their benefit from tax expenditures, on average, is over $250,000 a year. 

Here we are, borrowing 31 cents of every dollar we spend. 

We are on course taking the debt of the United States from 

over 100 percent of our gross domestic product to over 200 

percent if we fail to act. 

That is why we had the National Commission on Fiscal 

Responsibility and Reform. The report we put out was called 

‘‘The Moment of Truth.’’ What we called for in that report 

was $5.4 trillion in deficit reduction. We used the current 

baseline. That is what we would have provided, $5.4 trillion 

in deficit reduction. We lowered the deficit to 1.4 percent of 

GDP in 2022. We stabilized the gross debt by 2015. We reduced discretionary spending to 4.8 percent of GDP by 2022. 

We built on the health care reform savings. We called for Social Security reform and savings to be used only to extend 

the solvency of Social Security itself, and we also included 

fundamental tax reform that raised revenue and did it in 

part by reducing those tax expenditures I just referred to. 

Here is what would happen to the deficit as a percentage 

of GDP under the fiscal commission budget plan. We can see 

in 2012 the deficit is at 7.6 percent of GDP. By 2012 it would 

be taken down to 1.4 percent of GDP under the plan. 

Here is what would happen to the gross debt of the country as a percentage of GDP under the fiscal commission plan. 

From 104 percent of GDP in 2012, down to 93 percent of 

GDP in 2022. Stabilize the debt. Then begin to bring it 

down. That ought to be our challenge. 

The plan that was just passed took individual rate increases from 35 to 39.6 for couples earning over $450,000. 

Capital gains and dividends were increased from 15 percent 

[ xxv ] 

to 20 percent. PEP and Pease were reinstated. The estate 

tax was increased to 40 percent for those estates above $5 

million. The alternative minimum tax was patched on a permanent basis to prevent some 30 million people from being 

caught up in the alternative minimum tax. It extended other 

expiring provisions. 

On the spending side, the doc fix was put in place for 1 

year to prevent doctors who provide care for Medicareeligible beneficiaries from taking a 27-percent cut. It turned 

off the sequester for 2 months, the $1.2 trillion across-theboard 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. 

[ xxvi ] 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be 

printed in the Record, as follows: 

KENT CONRAD SPEECH ANNOUNCING RUN FOR THE SENATE, JANUARY 27, 

1986 

I will be a candidate for North Dakota’s seat in the U.S. Senate in 1986. 

I will be a candidate because I am intensely interested in North Dakota’s 

future. I am committed to doing what I can to improve the future for our 

State and its people. 

I have concluded that the serious economic problems facing our State can 

in large measure only be addressed in Washington. It is economic policies 

decided in our Nation’s Capital that are pushing our State into a difficult 

financial position. 

Since 1980, our national debt has doubled. Our national operating deficit 

has tripled. Our trade deficit has increased six-fold. And we have become 

a debtor nation for the first time in 71 years. 

We can do better. We must do better. And we will do better if we have 

the courage and leadership to move this country in a new direction. 

Current economic policies, which have increased the national debt in 5 

years by an amount that had taken 200 years to accumulate, have forced 

record high real interest rates. Those record high real interest rates have 

bloated the value of the American dollar, which in turn has put a hidden 

tax on every commodity exported by our State and Nation. That hidden tax 

has robbed us of our export markets and dramatically reduced our commodity values. 

These economic policies are not only devastating to the economy of the 

State of North Dakota but are rapidly exporting the economic strength of 

this country. This process must be stopped. 

It is time for politicians to stop posturing and promising and start guaranteeing performance and results. I pledge today that, if elected, the Federal 

deficit, the trade deficit, and real interest rates will be brought under control or I will not seek reelection in 1992. 

I have great confidence in the future of our State and of our country if 

our leadership and our people move swiftly in a new direction. 

I offer leadership and a new vision of the role of government in solving 

our common problems. 

We are at the dawn of a new era, one in which international competition 

will more and more shape the policies of states and nations. 

We must meet that challenge. 

That means the fundamentals of a healthy domestic economy, including 

a sound agricultural sector, an excellent educational system, a competitive 

business climate, a strong national defense, and an efficient and fair tax 

system must be among our highest priorities. 

At the same time we must fashion a society that cares for the least fortunate among us, respects our senior citizens, nurtures our young, and preserves a strong and growing middle class. Perhaps most important, we must 

actively pursue peace for our generation and for the generations ahead. 

We can accomplish all of this if we trust in the basic good judgment and 

decency of our people. I have that faith and look forward to a challenging 

campaign on the issues that confront us. 

The trade deficit is clearly out of control. We have gone from a trade deficit of $32 billion in 1980 to $149 billion last year, and this year we’re headed for a trade deficit of $175 billion. 

[ xxvii ] 

For the last 3 months, we have imported more agricultural production 

than we have exported. These are additional signs of an economic game plan 

that has gone seriously wrong. We must get the trade deficit under control 

or we will find our standard of living lowered for decades to come. 

I believe the Senate and House Members should tell the collective leadership in Washington—both Republicans and Democrats—that it’s no more 

business as usual. It’s time to seriously address the economic problems facing our country. 

The best way to get the leadership to face up to the problems facing our 

country is to refuse to extend the debt limit except on a temporary basis. 

There should be no permanent extension of the debt limit until there is an 

economic summit of the President and the Republican and Democratic leadership of both the House and the Senate to devise a plan to reduce our national deficit, to lower interest rates, to lower the bloated value of the American dollar, and to lower the trade deficit. These steps must be taken, and 

they must be taken now. 

We can have a better, more secure future, but only if we take the steps 

now to get our country back on an economic path that makes sense. 

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

I have concluded that the serious economic problems facing our State can 

in large measure only be addressed in Washington. It is economic policies 

decided in our Nation’s Capital that are pushing our State into a difficult 

financial position. 

Since 1980, our national debt has doubled. Our national operating deficit 

has tripled. Our trade deficit has increased six-fold. And we have become 

a debtor nation for the first time in 71 years. 

We can do better. We must do better. And we will do better if we have 

the courage and leadership to move this country in a new direction. 

Current economic policies, which have increased the national debt in 5 

years by an amount that had taken 200 years to accumulate, have forced 

record high real interest rates. Those record high real interest rates have 

bloated the value of the American dollar, which in turn has put a hidden 

tax on every commodity exported by our State and Nation. That hidden tax 

has robbed us of our export markets and dramatically reduced our commodity values. 

These economic policies are not only devastating to the economy of the 

State of North Dakota but are rapidly exporting the economic strength of 

this country. This process must be stopped. 

I will end with the next paragraph: 

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

Then I made a pledge. 

I pledge today that, if elected, the Federal deficit, the trade deficit, and 

real interest rates will be brought under control or I will not seek reelection 

in 1992. 

That is a statement I made 26 years ago. Some people are 

probably wondering, if you made that pledge, how are you 

still here? Well, 6 years after I made that pledge I announced I would not seek reelection, and I did not. I anVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:13 Apr 18, 2014 Jkt 081104 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 H:\DOCS\BYEBYE\BYEBYE12\81104.TXT KAYNE
[ xxviii ] 

nounced in April of that year I would not seek reelection. 

Congressman Dorgan was nominated to run for my seat and 

I thought I was leaving the Senate. 

Then the other Senator from North Dakota died in September of that year. The Governor called me and said, ‘‘Senator, you have to run to fill out the 2 years of his term because our State is going to lose all of its seniority in one fell 

swoop—all of Senator Burdick’s seniority, all of your seniority, and all of Congressman Dorgan’s seniority.’’ We will be 

the only State in the Nation with no seniority. You will have 

kept your pledge; you did not seek reelection; you will run 

in a special election which will be in December, after the regular elections in November. 

I will never forget, one of the news media stations back 

home did a poll and two-thirds of Republicans thought I 

should run to fill out the 2 years of that term, which I did— 

which means I am the answer to a trivia question, because 

I am the only Senator in history who served in both Senate 

seats from the same State in the same day. 

I believed then and I believe now that fiscal responsibility 

is one of the first obligations of government. My deep regret, 

my greatest regret, in leaving here is that we have not been 

able to fashion the grand bargain to put us back on track. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a tribute 

to the Budget Committee staff who have served so ably and 

so well, served this body, served our country, led by my staff 

director Mary Naylor, who is truly a remarkable person; I 

consider her a real patriot because she has absolutely dedicated herself to getting the fiscal affairs of the country in 

order. If I could, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 

the Record a tribute to all of the Budget Committee staff 

who have served with me so ably and so well. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be 

printed in the Record, as follows: 

TRIBUTE TO BUDGET COMMITTEE STAFF, JANUARY 2, 2013 

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, before I depart the Senate after 26 years, 

I wanted to offer a special tribute to a team of professionals who have 

served me, this body, and this country with high distinction. 

Since 2001, it has been my honor to serve as the senior Democrat on the 

Senate Budget Committee. Throughout my 12-year tenure as chairman or 

ranking member, I have had on the Budget Committee a staff of dedicated 

professionals who have advised me and other Senators on a wide array of 

complicated budget issues. 

The Committee’s portfolio touches every facet of the Federal Government. 

We write not only the budget resolution, but deal with the big picture consequences of tax and spending decisions. We enforce the many budget 

[ xxix ] 

points-of-order and other budget rules that govern our proceedings. Many of 

these rules, although well intentioned, are complex and often convoluted. 

We rely on the expertise of our Budget Committee staff professionals to help 

us comply with these rules. 

When my colleagues tapped me to lead the committee, I knew part of my 

success would depend greatly on the composition and caliber of staff that 

we could attract to the committee. 

SBC MAJORITY STAFF

Staff Director 

Job one was making sure I picked the right staff director—a Hill veteran, 

who knew how to advance ideas and move legislation through this political 

and legislative body. Someone who knew how to write budgets, excel at 

managing staff, and maybe most important, care about fiscal responsibility. 

Finding that right person turned out to be quite easy. Mary Naylor was 

already on my personal office staff, serving as my deputy chief of staff. She 

grew up in North Dakota. In 1989, her first task for me: writing my budget 

and tax mail. Twelve years later, in January 2001, she became my first and 

only Budget Committee staff director. 

Mary has been invaluable to me. She is a loyal and trusted aide. She 

works hard, has a gifted mind and memory, and never takes no for an answer. In addition, Mary has this uncanny ability to know what I am thinking, how I want to implement it, and how I want to explain it. I can’t thank 

Mary enough for her service and her loyalty to me, her contribution to the 

Budget Committee, the Senate’s deliberations, and the country’s overall 

well-being. 

Deputy Staff Director 

John Righter has served as the committee’s deputy staff director for the 

past 7-plus years. 

John was my numbers guy. He understood and mastered budget baselines 

and scoring issues like no one else ever has. His brilliant mind enabled him 

to develop and compare multiple budget plans simultaneously. He is the 

budget world’s equivalent of a chess grand master. There were times that 

I had John working on six different budget plans, all at once. I’d fire detailed questions to him about each of the varied plans, and he’d be able to 

respond quickly and accurately. Just like a grand master who can play multiple chess games at once, John can juggle multiple budget plans simultaneously. 

I was not the only Senator to rely on John’s abilities. John was a key resource for the staff and members of the President’s Fiscal Commission. And 

for the last two years, Senators from both sides of the aisle who have 

worked with me on the Group of Six—which later became the Group of 

Eight—have relied on John’s mastery of budgets. 

John joined the committee in May 2001 as an analyst focusing on appropriations, general government, and commerce. He was a 6-year veteran of 

the Congressional Budget Office, where he, among other things, excelled at 

budget concepts and scorekeeping issues. I can’t thank John enough for his 

exceptional service to the committee and me these past nearly 12 years. 

Communications Director 

Stu Nagurka served as the committee’s communications director, and 

came on board just days after I took over the reins of the committee. He 

[ xxx ] 

has been a trusted, valued, and loyal aide all these many years. As a former 

reporter, and with his background as a press secretary on the House side, 

and as a communications aide in the Clinton administration, he has been 

a great asset to the committee. He has always represented the committee 

and me before the press with great professionalism. He has been a delight 

to have on the committee, and I thank him for his 12 years of service. 

FORMER SENIOR STAFF

I was fortunate to attract high caliber staff on the committee throughout 

my tenure. Some of my staff went on to serve in the administration, others 

moved on to think tanks, while others retired or went on to pursue other 

opportunities both on and off the Hill. 

I would be remiss if I did not also thank them for their contributions, including Sue Nelson and Jim Horney. Both served as my co-deputy staff directors early in my tenure. As longtime veterans of helping to write and 

analyze budgets, they were an invaluable asset to me when I first served 

as chairman. 

Joel Friedman served as one of the committee’s two deputies during the 

last half of my tenure. He was the committee’s lead tax and revenue expert. 

He brought a wealth of knowledge to the committee from his previous government service at the Treasury Department, the Office of Management and 

Budget, and the House Budget Committee. Joel did yeoman’s work developing and evaluating tax policy during our bipartisan negotiations in the 

President’s Fiscal Commission, and later during our Group of Six and Group 

of Eight deliberations. Joel was a key staff member, who I greatly admire 

and appreciate. 

Steve Posner was a valued member of the committee staff for more than 

111⁄2 years. During that time, he wrote more than his share of my speeches, 

op-beds and other material. He is a brilliant writer, and knew exactly the 

words, phrases, and statements I wanted to make. He was of great help 

throughout my tenure, and I so appreciate his service. 

Lisa Konwinski served as the committee’s chief counsel for 11 years, 8 

coming under my tenure. She was not only an excellent counsel and advisor 

to me and my committee members, but she was of great assistance to leadership and the Senate as a whole. I was not surprised when President 

Obama asked her to serve as one of his deputy directors of legislative affairs. 

Joe Gaeta was the committee’s next chief counsel. I and my colleagues 

will forever be indebted to his invaluable service during the drafting and 

consideration of the Affordable Care Act. It was his work, his knowledge 

and understanding of the budget rules and process that helped us to get the 

President’s health law through the Senate. I am so pleased that he is still 

providing his services to the Senate, as Senator Whitehouse’s legislative director. 

Jamie Morin served as the committee’s lead analyst for the defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs budgets from 2003 through 2009. He was an exceptional staff member, and I was so pleased when the Obama administration asked him to serve as the Assistant Secretary of Financial Management 

and Comptroller of the Air Force. He really exemplifies the high caliber staff 

we had serving on this committee and in the Senate. 

Sarah Kuehl was another longtime staff member who joined the committee staff at the beginning of my tenure. Her portfolio included the health 

accounts, including Medicare, as well as Social Security. She had her hands 

full, particularly during the Affordable Care Act deliberations. I am so 

[ xxxi ] 

proud and grateful for the important contributions she made during that debate. She was a highly respected staff member. She also served as the deputy staff director of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. I appreciate her many years of trusted service on the committee. 

Steve Bailey was my lead revenue staff member in my personal office, and 

later on the Budget Committee. He was on my staff for some 14 years. He 

also staffed the President’s Fiscal Commission and served as senior tax 

counsel for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. He received national recognition in 2004 when he alerted me to what was then an unnoticed tax provision in a pending appropriations bill. It would have allowed 

congressional staffers access to anyone’s tax records. Thanks to Steve’s 

catch, the offending language was removed. The country is forever grateful 

for Steve’s heroic work, and I appreciate his service. 

Jim Esquea served as the committee’s lead analyst for income security 

and Medicaid for 11 years. In addition, at various times, he handled a wide 

array of issues ranging from veterans affairs and justice programs to child 

welfare, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, supplemental nutrition 

assistance, public housing, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and 

other health programs. It is his expertise in these areas, as well as his great 

understanding of the Congress, that caused the Obama administration to 

appoint him as the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Two other staffers of the committee left us to work in the Obama administration. David Vandivier, who served as our outreach director, is now the 

Chief of Staff of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. Brodi 

Fontenot served as the committee’s transportation analyst. He is now the 

Assistant Secretary for Administration at the Department of Transportation. 

ADDITIONAL LONGTIME STAFF

Mike Jones is the committee’s director of appropriations and our senior 

analyst for judiciary and homeland security. He has been with the committee for 11 years, and previously worked at the Department of Interior 

and the House Budget Committee, where he honed his budget skills. 

Kobye Noel is the committee’s graphics production coordinator. Since joining the committee early in my tenure as the senior Democrat, Kobye has 

been the lead staff member responsible for the countless number of charts 

that colleagues and C–SPAN viewers around the country have seen me use 

on this floor. Working with every committee staff member, she has helped 

design, create, produce, print, and mount hundreds of charts for me. 

I have kept Kobye a very busy woman. Keep in mind, for every chart the 

public sees on this floor, there are probably five or more charts that are created. Most of them are used in other public gatherings or private meetings. 

I thank Kobye for her tireless efforts. And I hope she knows how much I 

appreciate her contribution to the committee. 

BUDGET ANALYSTS

Jennifer Hanson is the committee’s senior budget analyst for Medicare 

and Social Security. She was deeply involved in the health care debate and 

a key member of a team of staff who provided the committee and the Senate 

with critical assistance during the deliberations of that historic legislation. 

Since joining the committee more than 3 years ago, Jennifer has provided 

extremely useful guidance on a wide array of health care matters. I particularly appreciate her sensitivity to how proposed changes in funding levels 

[ xxxii ] 

can impact real people, as well as health care providers. She is a great asset 

to the committee. 

Jim Miller is the committee’s senior policy advisor for agriculture, and 

this is his second tour of duty with the committee. The Senate is very fortunate that Jim decided to return to Capitol Hill after serving as the Department of Agriculture’s Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 

Services. Jim excelled in that Senate-confirmed position, and we are all so 

proud of his service in the Obama administration. 

Jim is a walking encyclopedia of agriculture knowledge. He is well respected by Senators and staff on both sides of the aisle, and played a critical 

role in the drafting, enactment, and implementation of the last farm reauthorization law. I have been well served by Jim, and can’t thank him 

enough for all he has done for the Senate, for the agricultural community 

and the country. 

Robyn Hiestand is the committee’s analyst responsible for education, discretionary health and appropriations issues. She and I share a passion for 

education, and I appreciate all the good work she has done to help us make 

education more affordable and to protect funding for important programs in 

the discretionary health accounts. Others have recognized her budget expertise as well. She took a brief leave of absence last year and served as a senior budget analyst for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. 

Brandon Teachout handles defense, international affairs, and veterans 

issues for the committee, and has been doing so for the past year-and-a-half. 

He is a trusted and valued aide who started his Senate career in my personal office 6 years ago. Brandon has a varied background that includes his 

work in TV news, a love of history and has taken courses through the Air 

Force’s Air University. 

Miles Patrie has been with the committee for several years and helps me 

on agriculture and trade issues, as well as nutrition. Miles is an exceptional 

analyst, who is detail oriented and focused, and has a calming presence on 

the committee. I appreciate all that he has done to make the committee and 

Senate a better place. 

Farouk Ophaso joined the committee about a year ago and serves as our 

budget review professional. Farouk previously worked as a program examiner at the Office of Management and Budget, and as a cost analyst at the 

Department of Defense. 

Gwen Litvak covers a lot of ground for us on the committee, handling 

housing, commerce, transportation, community and regional development, 

and general government issues. She is a workhorse who is immersing herself quickly in the work. She is now a 1-year veteran of the committee, and 

I appreciate her contribution during the past year. 

Tyler Kruzich handles energy, environment, and natural resources issues 

for the committee. He joined our staff in June and is a Hill veteran, having 

served on the House Appropriations and House Natural Resources Committees. He also was a budget analyst for the Congressional Budget Office. I 

appreciate his good work on the committee, and know the committee will 

benefit from his service. 

REVENUE TEAM

David Williams was the committee’s senior tax policy advisor. He just concluded his second tour of duty with the committee. He brought a wealth of 

knowledge to the Senate, having spent his career both writing and implementing tax policy. In addition to his previous Hill experience, he has held 

[ xxxiii ] 

a number of senior positions at the Internal Revenue Service, where he received rave reviews for his work administering the earned income tax credit. 

Alex Brosseau is another key member of the committee’s revenue team. 

He serves as our budget and tax policy analyst. Alex brings an important 

perspective to the committee as he joined the committee about a year ago 

from the private sector where he was a practicing accountant. That real life 

work experience is a tremendous asset to the committee. I thank Alex for 

sharing his wisdom and experience with us. 

Jeannie Biniek is an economist for the committee who excels at integrating her economic knowledge with the expertise of the budget and tax 

analysts. She works on joint projects with other analysts and provides helpful analysis to me and to the staff. She is also the committee’s Medicaid expert. 

Jeannie has been with the committee for more than 3 years, and this is 

her first public service position. I know it won’t be her last, as she cares 

deeply about people and the community at large. She has been an absolute 

delight to have on staff, and I thank her for her service. 

ECONOMIC TEAM

Brian Scholl is the committee’s chief economist. I commend him for continually noting that we must navigate through this recovery carefully; otherwise we risk taking a dangerous step backward. 

Zachary Moller is a member of the economic team serving as staff assistant. For more than a year, he’s been researching, writing, and providing the 

committee with updated economic data. He is a great team player, who does 

whatever is needed to get the job done. 

The committee has had a rich history of outstanding economists serving 

on staff. I have had the privilege to work with many of them including Chad 

Stone, Jim Klumpner, Lee Price, and Matt Salomon. 

ADDITIONAL STAFF MEMBERS

Robert Etter is the committee’s chief counsel whose specialties are budget 

process, budget rules and points of order, and other legal issues. His job is 

to make sure the committee, and everything we do, complies with all applicable laws and budget rules of the Senate. Robert joined the committee 1 

year ago, and previously served as a House committee counsel. I appreciate 

all he has done for the committee, and thank him for his service. 

Josh Ryan is responsible for outreach and new media for the committee. 

Josh is the committee’s liaison to the public, including interest groups here 

in Washington. He also maintains our committee’s Web site, handles our 

presence on Twitter and Facebook, and is our staff photographer. In short, 

Josh is a bit of a jack-of-all-trades type of staffer. I appreciate his dedicated 

service, and thank him for his many contributions. 

Amy Edwards is the committee’s performance budgeting specialist. She is 

the lead staff member who handles the committee’s Task Force on Government Performance. Amy has been with the committee since the task force’s 

inception in 2009. She has made important contributions in helping the 

committee in its monitoring and oversight capacity. 

Ben Soskin is the committee’s staff assistant and utility man 

extraordinaire. In addition to being an invaluable asset to Kobye in the 

chart production process, Ben is one of those important staff members who 

will do anything asked of him for the betterment of the committee. Ben has 

been with the committee for 7 years, and has helped countless staff members do their jobs, enabling Senators to do ours. 

[ xxxiv ] 

Brendon Dorgan joined the committee this past summer as a staff assistant. He has helped gather and track press coverage of interest to the committee. He also has helped staff members archive the considerable material 

of the committee. In addition, he has shown great eagerness in wanting to 

learn and is always anxious to take on a new assignment. I appreciate his 

good work, and the energy he brings to the committee. 

Anne Page is the committee’s executive assistant. Very simply, she keeps 

the trains running, and staff happy. She is an invaluable resource and a 

critical aide to the committee’s staff director. 

Anne brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the committee. She 

has a rich history, having worked for two former Speakers of the House, Jim 

Wright and Tom Foley. Anne is a staff and member favorite. She has so enriched our lives, and I so appreciate her service to the committee and the 

Congress. Thank you Anne for all you have done for us. 

NONDESIGNATED STAFF

The committee is fortunate to have a strong cadre of professional nondesignated staff who provide the necessary support functions for the committee. 

These professionals work tirelessly day in and day out, helping the committee staff and Members on both sides of the aisle. We couldn’t do our jobs 

without them. 

These five staff members are the 24-hour-a-day fix-it staff who come to 

our rescue when a computer, BlackBerry, copier, phone, or some other device goes on the blink. They are an invaluable resource, and as chairman, 

I am grateful for their dedication to service, and I thank each of the following nondesignated staff members. 

Joan Evans is the chief clerk of the committee, responsible for all of the 

administrative functions, and oversees all of the nondesignated staff. While 

relatively new to the committee, she has served in similar capacities with 

other Senate committees, and brings a wealth of knowledge and experience 

to the post. I appreciate all she has done to make the committee run so 

smoothly. 

George Woodall is the committee’s systems administrator. He’s been with 

the committee for more than 19 years and really excels at keeping the committee wired and connected with the latest technology. George joined the 

committee the very year that Senate offices started using email, so he has 

helped lead a remarkable technological transformation over these many 

years. The Senate, and our committee in particular, is very fortunate to 

have his dedicated service. 

Cathey Dugan is the committee’s archivist. She has been particularly 

busy helping the majority staff save and store important papers and other 

documents from the past 12 years, so that future scholars will have the opportunity to study our work. I know my staff has been particularly appreciative of her patience, her due diligence and her continuous offer of assistance as we’ve navigated through the archival process. 

Letitia Fletcher is a Government Printing Office detailee who has assisted 

the committee for the past 11 years. She is responsible for the compilation 

and publication of all the committee’s hearings and markups. She is a thorough and dedicated public service employee who was recently recognized by 

the Public Printer for her 25 years of Federal service. I thank her for her 

contributions to the committee and the Senate. 

Two staff assistants recently joined the committee. Kevin Stockert and 

Phillip Longbrake provide technical and administrative support to the comVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:13 Apr 18, 2014 Jkt 081104 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 H:\DOCS\BYEBYE\BYEBYE12\81104.TXT KAYNE
[ xxxv ] 

mittee staff. They are attentive, professional, and I thank them for their 

service. 

Although she is no longer on staff, I do want to publicly thank our former 

clerk of the committee, Lynne Seymour, who retired last year. She first 

joined the committee in the early 1980s, and later became the committee’s 

chief clerk, serving in that capacity for a record 17 years, 7 months. She was 

an exemplary employee who faced many administrative challenges during 

her long tenure, including multiple office moves whenever party control of 

the Senate changed hands. I will also never forget her outstanding leadership during 9/11. At the time, our floor in the Dirksen Building was being 

overhauled and rewired, so our offices, and all our staff, were in temporary 

trailers in the Russell Building courtyard. She managed the ensuing chaotic 

days with tremendous grace and professionalism. 

REPUBLICAN STAFF

Let me also thank the Republican professional staff members of the Budget Committee. They, too, work extremely hard, and have made great contributions to the Senate. My staff and I have always had a very cordial and 

productive relationship with the Republican committee staff members. 

In fact, over the years, I have forged long-lasting personal relationships 

with many of the Republican staff directors who served during my tenure. 

Senator Domenici’s top aide, Bill Hoagland, is a Washington budget institution, who I have great respect for. Hazen Marshall served under Senator 

Nickles, and Scott Gudes, Denzel McGuire and Cheri Reidy all served as 

staff director at various times for Senator Gregg. All of them were a delight 

to work with. I also appreciate the contributions of Senator Sessions’ Republican staff director, Marcus Peacock, and his current staff. 

CONCLUSION

As my colleagues know, there are many staff members who work extremely hard to help the Senate function. That is why I wanted to come to 

the floor today and offer my thanks and appreciation to the professional 

staff members who worked tirelessly for me during my tenure of the Budget 

Committee. They are the ones who worked so hard behind the scenes, content doing the people’s business in the background. 

I hope my staff members know how much they and their work have 

meant to me. Each of them has enriched me, both personally and professionally; I am grateful to them. 

Mr. CONRAD. I also wish to mention Sara Garland, my 

chief of staff, an extraordinary person, a North Dakota native, somebody who has dedicated herself to public service; 

Geri Gaginis, my executive assistant, who has been with me 

more than 20 years, also a North Dakota native—we call her 

‘‘Mom’’ in our office because she does a good job of keeping 

us all on track; Tracee Sutton, legislative director, also a 

North Dakota native—an exceptional person, she will be on 

the staff of my succeeding colleague, Senator-elect Heitkamp; 

Susan King, also a North Dakota native, who has been with 

me off and on for many years, an outstanding person; Barry 

Piatt, my communications director, with me here at the end; 

[ xxxvi ] 

Mary Jo Prouty, my office manager, still laboring to close 

down our office; Molly Spaeth, also with me right here to the 

final days. 

I also want to give special recognition to Sean Neary, who 

was my communications director for many years, who is now 

the communications director for the Finance Committee, 

truly an extraordinary person. 

With that, Mr. President, I thank Stu Nagurka. Stu is my 

communications director in the Budget Committee, has 

stayed with me right to the end, somebody who has an extraordinary record in government service; in fact, served 

your own Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, when he 

was in public service here in Washington. Stu was his communications director and did as everyone knows, an outstanding job. 

His son, I want to note, is our page, Jarrod Nagurka, 

called back into service because in these days, you know, we 

are a little short of people. They are people for whom I have 

the highest regard, Stu Nagurka, Jarrod. I mentioned Mary 

Naylor, my extraordinary staff director; John Righter, the 

deputy; but I mention and have gone into detail on all of my 

Budget Committee staff in this statement that I made part 

of the Record. 

Finally, let me note that my colleague on the Budget Committee, Senator Sessions, is here. Senator Sessions has been 

the ranking Republican. He has been a gentleman. He has 

been somebody with whom I have enjoyed working. He and 

his staff have been professional. I think we put on a series 

of hearings that laid out the issues for our country in a clear 

and undeniable way. 

Again, I leave with only one true regret and that is we 

were not able collectively to put in place a plan to get our 

country back on track. But I am not without hope because 

next year—this year, later this year—we will have more opportunities to do what needs to be done. 

TRIBUTES 

TO 

KENT CONRAD 

[ 3 ] 

Proceedings in the Senate 

TUESDAY, December 11, 2012 

Mr. ISAKSON. I wish to turn to another individual, a 

member of the Democratic conference and a dear friend of 

mine, KENT CONRAD from North Dakota. 

When I came to the Senate, the first thing I noticed about 

KENT CONRAD was how he dressed. The second thing I noticed was his dog Dakota. You will see Dakota in the evening 

walking through the Halls of Congress, a smart little dog 

and his pet that he loves very much. His wife Lucy is a great 

lady and great leader in her own right in terms of Major 

League Baseball. 

KENT CONRAD is a unique Member of the Senate. He has 

truly taken a bipartisan approach to the toughest problems 

we face in terms of spending, deficits, and debt. It was KENT

CONRAD who was willing to help support the SimpsonBowles proposal when it passed the Senate, and then it was 

KENT CONRAD who agreed to serve on Simpson-Bowles and 

came up with the recommendations they brought to us. It 

was KENT CONRAD who went on the Gang of Six and tried 

to work out a tough compromise on the tough issues before 

us, and it is KENT CONRAD who has served as chairman of 

the Budget Committee of the Senate for the last 6 years. 

Along with Senator Sessions, he has done a great job, and 

along with his predecessor, Judd Gregg, they did an even 

greater job to see to it that we brought forward budgets and 

principles of spending money to help us not go into deficit or 

debt. KENT is one of those rare leaders who find the sweet 

spot. He looks for the place where people can find common 

ground. He understands that the importance of our job is the 

future for our children and our grandchildren. 

Whether North Dakota or Georgia, California or New 

York, Pennsylvania or Ohio, KENT CONRAD is a Senator for 

all America. He has done a tremendous job for the United 

States. I wish him and Lucy and Dakota the very best. 

[ 4 ] 

WEDNESDAY, December 12, 2012 

Ms. STABENOW. I wish to take a moment to thank our 

distinguished colleague [Mr. CONRAD] and my dear friend for 

his wonderful service. We serve on three committees together. It has been my honor to serve on the committee Senator CONRAD chairs, the Budget Committee, and to have him 

serve as a senior member of the Agriculture Committee, 

which I chair. Both of us sit on the Finance Committee together. 

Today he has done what he has always done for us, which 

is to provide vision, common sense, intelligence, and a lot of 

numbers. They add up, and they make sense. In listening to 

Senator CONRAD’s farewell speech, I want to thank him 

again for giving us a path forward. He is someone who will 

forever be in Senate history as one of the great statesmen of 

our country, someone with intelligence, respect on both sides, 

and compassion. And a fighter from North Dakota like I 

have never seen. He is someone who serves in the best tradition of what it means to be an honorable public servant. 

He has been a role model for me all the way through to 

this point and a dear friend. I wish him, Lucy, and Dakota— 

he is, in fact, the 101st Senator—wonderful opportunities 

going forward in the future. The Senator from North Dakota 

will be greatly missed, but his contributions will forever be 

a part of the positive tradition of this great body. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island. 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I yield to the distinguished chairman 

of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Vermont. 

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator. I will be speaking later 

on to the senior Senator from North Dakota. 

Mr. President, I have had the privilege to serve with several hundred Senators since coming here. I have put in a 

very small list those who are extraordinary both for their talents and for our personal friendship, and KENT CONRAD is in 

that short list very easily. In fact, he defines it in many 

ways. Because of what we heard here, as I whispered to him 

a minute ago, it was nice to hear a grownup speak on the 

floor. 

I have seen him reach across the aisle. We have been privileged to serve with fine Senators from both parties. But 

KENT CONRAD is unique. Marcelle and I value more than I 

[ 5 ] 

could possibly say here our friendship with KENT and his 

wife Lucy and the 101st Senator, Dakota. 

As I said, I will speak later about this Senator, but what 

we heard today was a real giant of the Senate speaking, and 

I hope all Americans will listen to the lesson he gave us. 

I yield the floor. 

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Before the junior Senator from North 

Dakota speaks—and I appreciate his courtesy in allowing us 

to make a few brief, personal remarks before he speaks—I 

wanted to say to my friend and my chairman, the senior 

Senator from North Dakota, that, yes, in the most obvious 

respect, he is leaving the Senate, and we will be a smaller 

Senate for his departure. But in some very important ways, 

KENT CONRAD is not leaving the Senate. I can assure him 

that for as long as I remain a U.S. Senator and have the 

privilege to serve in this body, KENT CONRAD will remain in 

this Senate as an example that I will never forget as a young 

Senator tutored by him in the Budget Committee. I will only 

speak for myself when I say that I am absolutely confident 

there are dozens of other Members of this body who can say 

exactly the same thing. In that sense, KENT CONRAD will 

continue to be an important part of this Senate, and the effect he will have in those years through the example he has 

set, echoed down the hallways of time by people who had the 

opportunity to serve with him, is going to be an immensely 

valuable one. 

He displays the characteristics of diligence—an underrated 

attribute but an important one—of courtesy, of determination. It is an interesting combination, courtesy and determination, but Chairman CONRAD knows very well when to 

yield and when to fight. There was a politician hundreds of 

years ago in another country who said, ‘‘One ought not to be 

obstinate,’’ and then he continued, ‘‘unless one ought to be, 

and then one ought to be unshakable.’’ On the things that 

count, Senator CONRAD has always been unshakable. Where 

progress can be made, he has never been obstinate. It has 

been my honor to serve with him. 

I yield the floor. 

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

[ 6 ] 

Mr. HOEVEN. I rise to speak on behalf of the senior Senator from North Dakota and to thank him for his dedicated 

service on behalf of the people of North Dakota and on behalf 

of the people of this great Nation. 

I think this is 26 years that he has served in the Senate, 

and he has always served with great distinction and great 

commitment. He has been a leader in agriculture, in energy, 

and in fiscal efforts and many other areas. 

I have to say on a personal note that since I came to the 

Senate last year, he has reached out to me and to my family 

in a very warm and positive way, both personally and professionally, and I would say the same about his wife Lucy. I 

think this is in the finest tradition of the Senate, in the tradition of bipartisanship, in the tradition of working together, 

and in the tradition of truly caring and being committed to 

getting things done. It wasn’t just that he reached out on a 

personal level and said, ‘‘All right, how can I be helpful, how 

can we work together’’; when I had questions or needed assistance, he was there. He was more than helpful. 

In terms of working on legislation that matters, a farm 

bill, working together on the Agriculture Committee—Senator CONRAD has an amazing knowledge of agriculture and 

obviously incredible experience over the past 26 years building good farm policy for this Nation. So to work with him on 

the Agriculture Committee was not only rewarding but really an opportunity to craft good long-term policy for this country that will make a difference. 

I start with that example because when you look at it, 

here we are at a time when we need good policy for our country, but at the same time we need to find savings, real savings that will help us address the deficit and the debt. So we 

went to work on a farm bill that is not only responsive to the 

farmers, the ranchers, and the producers of this country who 

produce the highest quality of food supply in the world at the 

lowest cost—every American benefits from that. They wanted more crop insurance, and we went to work. We improved 

the farm bill in terms of the kind of crop insurance it provides, but at the same time we saved $23 billion to help with 

the deficit and the debt. That is doing it the right way. 

If you think about it and you went across all aspects of 

what we are doing here, all of the different types of policies 

that we have, if we could do the same—craft good policy and 

find real, meaningful savings on a bipartisan basis that empowers the very people who are impacted by that policy, the 

farmers and the ranchers who do such a great job producing 

[ 7 ] 

food, fuel, and fiber, but at the same time grow our economy, 

create a favorable balance of trade and an incredible number 

of jobs—that is what we have to do, whether it is agriculture, whether it is energy, whether it is disaster assistance when we have floods and hurricanes, whether it is our 

military. 

I am very pleased and honored to have had the opportunity to work with Senator CONRAD on those types of issues 

to try to make a real difference for the people of this country. 

As Senator CONRAD departs the Senate after 26 years—think 

about it: 26 years here, conducting himself in a professional 

manner with respect to this institution. He built relationships with Senators on both sides of the aisle but always 

with a commitment to the people of North Dakota and this 

country. 

As I look at the legacy he leaves, I think one of the most 

important right now is his willingness to work in a bipartisan way to get things done. He brings a practical, pragmatic approach that recognizes solutions are imperfect but 

that we have an obligation in a bipartisan way to come together and find real solutions for the people of the greatest 

nation on Earth. It is that legacy, that willingness to be bipartisan and work together that I saw up close and personal 

here every day. I believe it is that legacy, as well as many 

others, that will continue here in this body when we think 

about Senator KENT CONRAD and his service to North Dakota and his service to this great country. 

I rise to say thank you on behalf of the people of North Dakota and this country to my distinguished colleague for 26 

years of dedicated service. Thank you, good luck, and God 

bless in your future endeavors. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

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

Mr. CONRAD. I want to thank Senator Hoeven, my colleague, for his kind words. I have really enjoyed our relationship. I think you can tell we worked together very well, and 

I hope that serves as an example to our other colleagues. 

Even if you are on other side of the political aisle, you can 

work together, and you can get things done. 

I also thank Senator Leahy, my dear friend. He and his 

wife are very close friends of mine and my wife’s. 

To Senator Stabenow, the distinguished chairman of the 

Agriculture Committee, and Senator Whitehouse, who served 

[ 8 ] 

with me on the Budget Committee, I want to take special 

note of the friendships we have enjoyed. Senator Stabenow 

and Senator Whitehouse will be friends of ours for as long 

as we are on this Earth. 

I look forward to our continuing relationship with the 

Leahys, who, as I have indicated, have become very dear personal friends. 

In closing, to Senator Hoeven, the best part of service here 

is getting things done. Senator Hoeven has come with that 

attitude to this Chamber—to get results for the people we 

represent—and I appreciate that attitude, and I appreciate 

the friendship. 

Finally, I say to the distinguished occupant of the chair 

[Mr. Udall of New Mexico], we have had a very good relationship as well. I thank him for his service and for this opportunity to have my farewell remarks before the Senate on 

this the 12th day of the 12th month of 2012. That is a remarkable set of coincidences. 

I thank the Chair. 

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to comment 

about some wonderful men in the Senate who are retiring on 

both sides of the aisle. Earlier today I spoke about my deep 

affection and sorry-to-see-go friends Olympia Snowe and Kay 

Bailey Hutchison, but I want to rise as the dean of the 

women in the Senate to say some very special words about 

very special men on both sides of the aisle. Because when I 

came to the Senate, it was only Nancy Kassebaum and me, 

and yet we worked on so many issues together. There are 

really wonderful men here who supported me, supported our 

issues, but really stood up for those States and their communities. . . . 

I wish to comment about KENT CONRAD. Wow, what a 

numbers guy. Those charts—I loved those charts. But we 

have many other things in common besides a love of charts. 

We love baseball. We love the Baltimore Orioles and, I might 

add, an occasional polka at Blob’s Beer Garden in Maryland. 

Now you know KENT. He looks like Clark Kent. And he is 

a Superman when it comes to the budget. But, wow, when 

they played ‘‘Roll Out the Barrel,’’ he was quite a hoofer. 

Most of all, what I admired about him is the way he 

breathed life into the numbers. He not only wanted a more 

frugal government, but he was also passionate and compassionate about how we could use the power of the purse to improve the world and at the same time maintain sensible 

spending standards. 

[ 9 ] 

I am going to look forward to seeing him with or without 

his charts and maybe in a dugout. . . . 

I wanted to be sure that the day would not end without 

my acknowledging these wonderful people who have given a 

big part of their lives to making this country a better place. 

I want to, in the most heartfelt way—I am so sorry we did 

not have a bipartisan dinner or party to be able to express 

this. I would have liked to have been in the same room, 

breaking bread with them, in order to be able to tell them 

how much we appreciate them, across party lines, across 

those lines that ordinarily divide us. They came from different parts of the country, they arrived in the Senate with 

different objectives, they will leave under different circumstances. But I want to again let them know that each 

and every one of them had a positive impact on me and I 

think a wonderful impact on the future of this country. So 

I wish them well. God bless and Godspeed. 

THURSDAY, December 13, 2012 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, with the close of the 112th 

Congress, the Senate will lose its most determined champion 

of fiscal prudence and balance, Senator KENT CONRAD of 

North Dakota. Senator CONRAD is best known nationally for 

his leadership as chairman of the Committee on the Budget. 

That committee has limited legislative power, but that did 

not stop Senator CONRAD from using that committee relentlessly for fiscal restraint, for honest budgeting. As we all 

know, he has spent countless hours on the floor educating, 

exhorting Senators on budget issues, driving home his points 

by displaying a seemingly endless array of charts and 

graphs. 

Indeed, I would note in 2001, the Committee on Rules and 

Administration assigned Senator CONRAD his own printing 

equipment because he was producing more charts than all 

his colleagues combined. The other day, we had this so-called 

Secret Santa that Senator Franken had established, where 

we draw names out of a hat and we exchange these little 

gifts. You never know who is going to give you a gift. You 

know to whom you are giving, but you do not know who is 

giving you a gift. It turned out my gift giver was Senator 

CONRAD. 

So I got a nice little book. But most important, I got three 

charts. They were charts from the 2008 farm bill we both 

[ 10 ] 

worked on, and of which I was chairman at that time. I 

thought that was a great gift, both to get some of his charts 

but the charts pertaining to a major piece of legislation on 

which both he and I had worked very closely. We have been 

longtime colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. He joined that committee as a freshman 

Senator in 1987, just 2 years after I got here in 1985. We 

were in the midst of the worst economic crisis in the farm 

sector since the Great Depression. 

Senator CONRAD left a major imprint on the Agricultural 

Credit Act of 1987, advocating strongly for measures to help 

farm families and rural committees persevere through circumstances beyond their control, to preserve a family farm 

system of agriculture as well as to preserve small towns, the 

fabric of rural America. Over the years Senator CONRAD has 

been a key advocate in enacting major drought relief bills 

and other disaster assistance. 

He has consistently fought for effective programs to protect 

and enhance farm income through the farm commodity programs and crop insurance. For many years we have been allies in advancing farm bill initiatives to promote renewable 

energy production on farms and in rural communities. 

Let no one doubt that Senator CONRAD has always been a 

relentless, fierce advocate for the interests of his constituents 

in North Dakota. I know KENT is very proud of a framed resolution presented to him by his State’s Standing Rock Sioux 

Tribe. It bears his honorary Sioux name, Namni Sni, which 

translates as ‘‘never turns back.’’ I think that describes KENT

CONRAD. He never turns back. 

KENT CONRAD and I are proud of our shared roots in the 

Upper Midwest. He has been an outstanding Senator, a good 

friend for more than two-and-a-half decades in this body. 

I join with the entire Senate family in wishing KENT and 

Lucy all the best in the years ahead. 

WEDNESDAY, December 19, 2012 

Mr. REID. Madam President, it is often said a man is only 

as good as his word. In this new world we live in, the same 

applies to women. This is a world we live in where men and 

women, as much as we can, are treated equally. A good man 

is somebody who has his word that is good. A good woman 

is a person who has their word that is good. I believe that 

is true. 

[ 11 ] 

If that fact is true, then Mr. KENT CONRAD, the senior 

Senator from North Dakota, is a good man, indeed. 

When he was running for the Senate the first time, he 

promised the people of North Dakota he would not run for 

reelection if the Nation’s budget deficit was higher at the end 

of his term than at the beginning of it. 

We came to the Senate together. I can remember 27 years 

ago in the LBJ Room where I first met KENT CONRAD—we 

were running for the Senate—this studious man, very intense. I can still remember that. We have been friends now 

for all those many years. But think what he did. He could 

have been reelected so easily and he probably could have figured out some way around it: It was my intention to reduce 

the debt, but we weren’t able to do it. 

But he didn’t follow that path. He said, ‘‘I am not running 

for reelection,’’ and he didn’t. It is amazing what he did. He 

takes the national debt personally. He takes it very seriously. KENT announced he wouldn’t seek reelection. I was 

stunned. ‘‘KENT, how could you do that?’’ He said, ‘‘I gave my 

word.’’ But fate, as we know—and we are feeling it today 

with these flowers here behind me—fate is rarely anticipated. After his first term was set to expire and he had announced he wasn’t running for reelection, Quentin Burdick, 

with whom I had the pleasure of serving, died, and so he ran 

for his seat and was elected. So he has held both Senate 

seats in North Dakota. He ran in that special election to replace Senator Burdick and won. The Senate, the people of 

North Dakota, and every American who cares about controlling the Federal debt have benefited from his faithful service. 

Every time we have done something dealing with the debt 

in the last 26 years, KENT CONRAD has been at the forefront. 

ObamaCare, he was on top of that. He was one of the Gang 

of Six, it was called at the time, and took months and 

months. He came up, of course, with the magnificent idea, he 

and Judd Gregg—two people who know the finances of this 

country as well as any other two men in the world—they 

were going to do something about it, and they introduced 

legislation. It was patterned after the base closing commissions. They would do their work—the Commission—come 

back to the Senate, no filibusters, no amendments. That was 

KENT CONRAD and Judd Gregg’s idea. As we know, the problem was the Republicans who supported the legislation, cosponsored it, wouldn’t let us get it on the floor; six or seven 

of them voted against that. The Bowles-Simpson Commission; the Obama-Boehner talks, two rounds of those; BidenVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:13 Apr 18, 2014 Jkt 081104 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 H:\DOCS\BYEBYE\BYEBYE12\81104.TXT KAYNE
[ 12 ] 

Cantor, he was involved in every one of those; the Gang of 

Six, the Gang of Eight. Even though he wasn’t personally 

one of the three people on the supercommittee, Chairperson 

Murray was leaning on him all the time for information. 

He has been terrific. As chairman of the Budget Committee, no one could do more than he did. I can remember 

he managed the bills we had on getting budgets. He was 

here, my seat was there, and he wanted me to help him. 

Why? Because he didn’t have time to deal with procedure. 

He was dealing with substance. I still joke with him about 

this. He was so intense; we could see that mind of his working. So he was happy I was here working with him to get 

the budgets through. 

He has been a powerful voice against runaway deficits but 

always has been totally reasonable, with recognition that we 

are in a time of economic slowdown and we have to do something about the debt. He also believes that during any of 

these periods of time, we need stimulation of the economy; 

they go together. 

As I have indicated, no one cares more about addressing 

the national debt than Senator CONRAD. But he also understands the balance between fiscal responsibility and funding 

our national priorities. 

KENT CONRAD has been bipartisan. Sometimes some criticize him for being so bipartisan. He has never been afraid 

to reach across the aisle to keep our country on a responsible 

path. He is a person who is not an ideologue. I could be 

wrong, but I think he was the first person to endorse Barack 

Obama. President Obama was a Senator who gave indication 

he wanted to run for President. I think Senator CONRAD was 

the first to endorse him. We know Senator Obama didn’t sell 

very well in North Dakota, but that didn’t stop KENT

CONRAD. He thought he was the best person to be President 

of the United States. 

The proposal I mentioned with Senators CONRAD and 

Gregg was a blueprint for what the Bowles-Simpson Commission then came up with. As I have indicated, every bipartisan deficit reduction since then—and some partisan efforts—anytime there was involvement with the debt, he was 

there. 

Although we have yet to reach a solution or a conclusion 

to the very serious fiscal challenges this country faces, I 

credit KENT CONRAD for the progress we have made to this 

point. He will continue to be a voice for reason and moderation even in his retirement. See, KENT has always had a brilVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:13 Apr 18, 2014 Jkt 081104 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 H:\DOCS\BYEBYE\BYEBYE12\81104.TXT KAYNE
[ 13 ] 

liant mind for numbers. He is a step above an accountant’s 

mind. I truly like accountants. My daughter-in-law is an accountant, but he is a step above that. He is of the mathematician’s caliber; he is so very smart. 

After graduating from college, he worked for the North Dakota State Tax Commission. The person who ran that tax 

commission was Byron Dorgan, who later joined him in the 

Senate. In 1980, KENT succeeded Byron as the commissioner 

of taxes in North Dakota. They are the best of friends. He 

served as tax commissioner for 6 years. 

He is a fifth-generation North Dakotan, born in Bismarck. 

KENT CONRAD was raised by his grandparents. When he was 

5 years old, his parents were killed by a drunk driver and 

so he was raised by his wonderful grandparents and he has 

told me so many times about how good they were to him. 

He was always interested in politics. At his retirement 

party, he talked about as a youth coming to Washington, DC, 

and he went back to his room or wherever he went that 

evening and wrote on a piece of paper that he was going to 

be a Senator. He was just a boy, a little kid. He was a teenager, but at least in my view of a 16-year-old today he was 

still a little kid. He said he wanted to be a Senator to himself. ‘‘It so inspired me that I thought someday I’d like to be 

down on that floor and I’d like to debate the great issues of 

the day.’’ 

He has done it for 24 years. 

Today KENT doesn’t just debate the great issues of the day, 

he also is famous for making sure people understand what 

he is talking about. He has visual aids—we call them 

charts—that explain all his numbers and make them understandable. In 2001, the Rules Committee gave him his own 

printer since he was producing more charts than all the rest 

of the Senators combined—and that is the truth. He is famous for his charts. 

He is renowned for his dog. He loves that little dog named 

Dakota. It is a fluffy white dog, a bijon frise. Everywhere 

KENT goes, Dakota is with him. They love that dog like only 

people can love animals. I often question how—I used to 

question; I don’t anymore. I have a daughter. My oldest child 

is a daughter. She is allergic to cats. Her husband, trying to 

be nice to her, bought her a cat that had no hair. Frankly, 

it was kind of an ugly little animal, but my daughter loves 

that cat. They named the cat Olivia. The cat got out at 

night—they live in a suburb here—and a racoon attacked the 

[ 14 ] 

cat so the cat was never the same after that. But my daughter spent lots of money on this cat. 

I finally said, ‘‘Lana, why are you spending money on the 

cat?’’ 

She said, ‘‘Dad, I love that animal.’’ 

So that was the beginning; I don’t question it anymore. If 

my daughter feels that strongly about a cat, I am going to 

stop criticizing people who spend money on animals. 

I am reminded of my daughter every day I see him with 

Dakota because she loved Olivia like he loves Dakota. He 

and his lovely wife Lucy have spent lots of money on that little dog. They love that dog. He calls him Little Guy; that Little Guy. 

I am going to miss KENT a lot. He is my friend, my pal. 

I wish him and his family well. He has a lovely family. His 

wife Lucy was the longtime chief of staff for Byron Dorgan— 

two Senators, both representing the same State, one Senator’s wife is the chief of staff for his colleague. She went out 

in the private sector fairly recently and has done a great job. 

She has been involved in Major League Baseball. She and 

KENT love baseball. KENT always talks about how he talked 

to Pete Angelos, the owner of the Baltimore Orioles; that he 

is looking forward to his retirement because Angelos promised him a tryout. He is going to try to play professional 

baseball. He loves baseball. They go to spring training when 

they can. I hope they will still have a presence in Washington. I think so much of both of them. They are wonderful 

people. 

They have two children, a daughter who wrote a book 

about politics, and one grandson. KENT always boasts about 

how smart his daughter is. I went to the book signing. I am 

sure she is smart because she has such a brilliant father. 

I value both KENT’s friendship and leadership. While he 

will be missed in the Senate, he should rest assured that his 

legacy will remain long after he leaves. 

THURSDAY, December 20, 2012 

Mr. REED. Madam President, at this time, I wish to take 

a few minutes to salute my colleagues who are retiring at 

the end of this year with the conclusion of the 112th Congress: Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, KENT CONRAD of North 

Dakota, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Kay Bailey 

[ 15 ] 

Hutchison of Texas, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine, 

and Jim Webb of Virginia. They have all worked ceaselessly 

to give their constituents the best representation and give 

the country the benefit of their views, their wisdom, and 

their experience. They are men and women who are committed to the Nation, and they have every day in different 

ways contributed to this Senate and to our great country. 

I wish to thank them personally for their service, and, in 

so many cases, their personal kindness to me; for listening 

to my points and for, together, hopefully, serving this Senate 

and this Nation in a more positive and progressive way. 

In particular, let me say a few words about some of the 

Members with whom I have had the privilege to work more 

closely. . . . 

KENT CONRAD is an extraordinary budget chairman. No 

one knows more about the intricacies of the budget and no 

one brings to that very difficult debate more of an innate 

sense of fairness and decency than KENT CONRAD. 

I could go on with all of my colleagues, just thanking them 

for their friendship, for their camaraderie, and for their commitment to the Nation and the Senate. As they depart, they 

have left an extraordinary legacy. Now it is our responsibility to carry on in so many different ways, and I hope we 

measure up to what they have done. If we do, then we can 

go forward confidently. 

With that, I yield the floor. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there are many people in this 

town who say they are worried about the deficit. All too 

often, those claiming the mantle of ‘‘deficit hawk’’ are pretty 

dovish about making the hard decisions required to reduce 

the budget deficit and bring down the national debt. Some 

use the deficit to argue for damaging important programs 

that provide for the safety and well-being of Americans. Others, in a brazen bit of obfuscation now decades old, make the 

disproven claim that the budget-busting tax cuts they prefer 

would actually reduce the deficit. 

In this maze of distortion and debunked arguments, KENT

CONRAD is like a clean prairie breeze. He cares deeply about 

the fiscal health of our Nation, and for more than two decades, he has been dismantling faulty arguments and fuzzy 

budget math with facts and figures and with charts, yes, 

charts. In naming Senator CONRAD one of the 10 Best Senators in 2006, Time magazine reported that the support staff 

[ 16 ] 

here in the Senate had become so overwhelmed by Senator 

CONRAD’s chart requests that they gave up and gave him his 

own printing equipment. KENT CONRAD doesn’t just know 

the facts. He wants you to know them too—and in bright colors. 

Behind the flash charts are deep substantive knowledge 

and a rigorous approach that eschews wishful thinking. Senator CONRAD knows that the way out of our deficit problem, 

the path that avoids the fiscal cliff, means looking at our entire budget picture, both the spending that goes out and the 

revenue that comes in. He laid out the facts recently here on 

the Senate floor, saying: 

The public understands we face both a spending and a revenue problem. 

Spending is near a 60-year high, as this chart shows. The red line is the 

spending line; the green line is the revenue line. But for those who say it 

is just a spending problem, I don’t think the facts bear that out, because 

the revenue is near a 60-year low. I think most logical people would say we 

have to work both sides of this equation. 

This logical approach makes Senator CONRAD a strong 

ally. I have been proud to join with him on efforts to end 

some of the many distortions and loopholes that increase the 

deficit and make our Tax Code less fair to working families. 

Earlier this year, he and I introduced the CUT Loopholes 

Act, which would reduce the deficit by $155 billion over 10 

years through elimination of several offshore tax loopholes, 

and through elimination of the stock-option loophole, which 

forces American taxpayers to subsidize the large stock-option 

packages regularly awarded to corporate executives. In 

March, we were joined by Senator Whitehouse in advocating 

for inclusion of a portion of the CUT Loopholes Act in the 

Senate’s surface transportation bill, and our amendment was 

adopted by the Senate. It did not become law, but the Senate’s action represented real progress in the fight against tax 

loopholes. 

Senator CONRAD and I have worked together on another 

important issue—the effort by many multinational corporations to secure a ‘‘repatriation’’ tax break for some of the billions of dollars they hold offshore. That was tried once, in 

2004, and as Senator CONRAD accurately notes, that repatriation holiday was ‘‘a complete and utter failure at job generation.’’ 

He also has been a forceful advocate for the need to address the tax rates on capital gains and dividend income. 

The low rates on these forms of income is a driver of our 

budget deficits and of rising income inequality. As Senator 

[ 17 ] 

CONRAD said in a recent interview about the need to address 

tax rates: ‘‘It’s very clear to me. You do have to have rate 

increases, especially on capital gains and dividends. It’s 

needed and fair.’’ 

Not just needed, he said—fair. That is what I think we 

should keep in mind about Senator CONRAD’s work to address the deficit in an honest and forthright way. Yes, he 

knows the facts and figures, knows them as well as anyone. 

But knowing the numbers is not enough. Budget math is not 

an academic exercise. We are not here to represent numbers 

on spreadsheets. We represent people—actual human beings, 

with dreams and ambitions and hope. And always, KENT

CONRAD has marshaled the facts and figures in support of 

real people. He knows the toll that out-of-control deficits can 

have on generations to come. He recognizes the need to address rapidly rising entitlement spending—but also the need 

to preserve important programs that have made so much of 

a difference in the lives of Americans, especially the most 

vulnerable. 

He and his wonderful wife Lucy have been dear friends to 

my wife Barbara and me. The four of us have hosted dinners 

together to deepen our understanding of both the pressing 

issues of the day and of transcendent issues such as the origins of matter and the universe. 

Senator CONRAD is leaving the Senate, but the need for his 

kind of rigorous approach and concern for the impact of our 

policies is not going away. I hope we can learn from and follow his example as we move forward to confront our Nation’s 

challenges. 

Mr. COONS. . . . There are so many other Senators I want 

to speak about today [besides Daniel Inouye], but let me turn 

to a few, if I might, and give some insight for the folks who 

only see Members of this Chamber on cable TV shows or in 

the give-and-take of election season or who only know them 

as the cutout and caricatures that the public thinks of as 

Senators. If there is a common thread between them, it is 

that they share that loyalty, work ethic, and humility that 

so characterized Senator Inouye in his decades here. . . . 

There are a few more retiring Senators I would like to 

share some more detailed stories about today, and I will 

start with the chairman from the Budget Committee, Senator CONRAD. Senator KENT CONRAD of North Dakota is a 

Senator I met many years ago. But if I am going to talk 

about him, I believe I have to have a chart. I really cannot 

[ 18 ] 

speak to KENT CONRAD’s service and record in the Senate 

without a chart. 

For decades Senator CONRAD tackled the challenge of educating the men and women of the Senate and the people of 

this country about the very real fiscal and budgetary challenges facing our country. As we can see, especially after the 

debut of Microsoft Excel, and then after he was named Budget Committee chair, the steady increase and usage of floor 

charts by Senator CONRAD has paved a path which few of us 

can hope to find. 

Senator CONRAD is a budget wonk after my own heart. He 

is a numbers guy. He is not afraid to get into the weeds and 

to project in a clear and legible format the minutiae and 

magnifying details of the complex Federal budget. I am not 

sure I have met anyone in the Senate so passionately serious 

about the numbers and getting them right as my friend, Senator CONRAD. 

The first time I met him was more than 15 years ago. He 

had come to Wilmington for an event that then-Senator 

Biden hosted at the Delaware Art Museum. There were 200 

folks in a big auditorium. I will never forget Senator Biden 

introducing Senator CONRAD as the most thoughtful and detailed budget leader in Washington. 

Senator CONRAD stood up and fired up the overhead projector, the lights dimmed, and he launched into a lengthy 

discourse on the minutiae of the Federal budget and deficit. 

After 30 minutes and more than 40 slides later, the lights 

came back up, and I think there were maybe 20 of us left 

in the auditorium. Everyone else wandered outside for the 

cocktails. 

I was enthralled by his presentation, the clarity of his 

thinking, and his dedication to getting things right for the 

American people. Today I am on the Budget Committee, and 

I have enjoyed serving with Senator CONRAD as my chairman. It was, for this budget nerd, a dream come true to have 

the chance to show up on time and know that this Budget 

Committee chairman was the other member of the committee who always showed up on time. It gave us a moment 

to reflect on the challenges we faced and the very real solutions he has offered over these many years of service. 

Senator CONRAD has earned the deserved respect of his 

colleagues the old-fashioned way: through hard work, attention to detail, and thoughtful leadership. He has been 

trying and working hard for many years to get us to make 

the tough choices that we need to in the Senate to deal with 

[ 19 ] 

our national debt. He has not given up, and I don’t intend 

to either. I am grateful for his friendship and service. . . . 

So here we are, 5 days before my family celebrates Christmas and 12 days before the new year and the beginning of 

the so-called fiscal cliff. Our politics have paralyzed this 

Chamber and this town. But what the example of all of these 

remarkable Senators has shown us, what it has taught me 

is that we can still be better than our politics. 

The humanity of this place, too often shoved aside by the 

politics of the moment, shows us that we can do better. One 

by one, these Senators, in delivering their farewell addresses 

to this Chamber, stood at their desks and each in turn urged 

us to find a way to return to the days when Senators knew 

each other and worked together. What will it take to get us 

to that point again—a horrific tragedy in an elementary 

school, a dangerous economic cliff, some devastating attack, 

a cyberassault on America? 

Our retiring colleagues are each telling us, each in turn, 

that it is not too late to restore the humanity of this Chamber and make a positive difference in the lives of all we 

serve. Will we heed their call? I hope and pray we will because we can do better. We must do better. And in the spirit 

of each of these departing colleagues, I will do my level best. 

I hope we all can commit to doing the same. 

Thank you, and I yield the floor. 

FRIDAY, December 21, 2012 

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as the work of the Senate for the 

current session of Congress begins to wind down, it is good 

to take a moment to acknowledge and express our appreciation to our friends and colleagues who will be retiring when 

the final gavel brings to a close the 112th Session of Congress. One friend I know I will miss in the months to come 

is KENT CONRAD. 

KENT is a hard worker, a Senator who is fully focused on 

the needs of his home State and the work that needs to be 

done to address the issues of concern to his constituents. He 

is a Senator who will always be known as a serious and 

thoughtful legislator who has a good sense of how today’s 

problems will affect tomorrow’s bottom line if we don’t act 

now to bring our economic policies under control. 

Throughout his career, KENT has never been one to look 

for the most popular way of doing things. He was more conVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:13 Apr 18, 2014 Jkt 081104 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 H:\DOCS\BYEBYE\BYEBYE12\81104.TXT KAYNE
[ 20 ] 

cerned with finding the most productive way of doing things. 

He knows that what looks like a good idea in the short term 

doesn’t always lead to producing the kind of long-term results we must have if we are to strengthen our economy and 

put the Nation back to work. He has a great sense of what 

needs to be done now to ensure our children and grandchildren will have the same advantages that we had. That 

means never putting off until tomorrow what we ought to be 

doing today to ensure those issues are addressed. In fact, 

when KENT announced his decision to retire he made mention of that fact and how his time would be better spent 

working instead of campaigning. 

KENT has been a part of the Senate for four terms—I am 

on my third. Over the years I have enjoyed having a chance 

to come to know him and his wife. They are a very special 

couple and they are equally committed to each other and to 

the future of our Nation. Their shared determination to 

make this a better country for all of us has helped to make 

them a team that has left their mark on the Nation’s Capital. 

I have had a chance to travel with them, and both Diana 

and I have enjoyed the time we spent together. KENT has a 

tremendous sense of humor and he has a very interesting 

outlook on the world. He knows more about the legislation 

we take up on the Senate floor than almost anyone else, and 

his understanding of how our bills are written and the impact they will have on our future and our children’s future 

make him someone you would want to be on your side when 

the battles begin to rage in committee or on the floor. 

KENT is pretty easy to work with, and I have enjoyed the 

opportunities we have had to tackle some pretty difficult 

issues together. That sense of humor of his has helped him 

out on a number of occasions when the going got tough. I 

know, because I have seen him in action as we worked together on several bills. I also cochaired a caucus with him. 

As the chairman of the Budget Committee, KENT has really revealed his leadership abilities. The Budget Committee 

provided him with a platform that made it possible for him 

to speak out on issues that were of great interest and concern to him. He has been a very effective chairman and he 

has left a legacy of hard work and positive results that will 

provide all those who follow him with a good roadmap to follow that has already proven to be effective. 

The main thing I think I will always remember about 

KENT, however, is the way he prepares for his presentations. 

[ 21 ] 

I don’t think there has ever been, nor will there ever be a 

Senator who is always so well prepared. 

KENT and I both appreciate the power of a well-designed 

chart or graph. If you really want me to understand how the 

policy or program you are offering will affect my home State 

of Wyoming and the Nation as a whole, show me the data 

in pictures not words. KENT makes a regular habit of doing 

that, and he does it better than just about anyone else. 

I know that we will be hearing more from KENT in the 

months to come. I don’t think he views his retirement as an 

opportunity to stop working, I think he sees it as a chance 

to take on something new, some great and challenging new 

adventure in his life. I don’t know what he has planned, but 

I am looking forward to seeing him take it on day by day. 

KENT has been a friend to so many of us over the years, 

and I know he will be missed. We appreciate his service, we 

thank him for the way he handled the gavel in his committee, but most of all we thank him for his friendship, for 

his love of the Senate, and his determination to make the 

country a better place for us all—both current and future 

generations. KENT has been an effective Senator for his 

home State and in so many ways he has succeeded in helping to make North Dakota and our Nation a better place to 

live. 

THURSDAY, December 27, 2012 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for more than two decades, 

Senator KENT CONRAD has represented the people of North 

Dakota in the U.S. Senate. 

I have had the privilege to serve with several hundred 

Senators since I came to the Senate nearly 38 years ago. The 

list is short for those who are extraordinary both for their 

talents, and for their personal friendship. KENT CONRAD is 

on that list. In fact, he defines it in many ways. Senator 

CONRAD has reached across the aisle and demonstrated what 

bipartisanship truly means. 

Rooted in his days as a tax commissioner in North Dakota, 

Senator CONRAD has been a leading voice in Congress in difficult and complex budget debates. His floor charts are legendary, explaining complicated fiscal matters in terms many 

others can understand. As chairman of the Budget Committee, and as a senior member of the Finance Committee, 

he has been a key player in the fiscal debates that have 

[ 22 ] 

dominated the discourse in Washington as the country has 

recovered from the Great Recession. He has led bipartisan 

efforts to reduce the deficit, and helped create the 2007 task 

force with Republican Senator Judd Gregg to address longterm fiscal challenges. Senator CONRAD has also been dedicated to advancing American interests abroad. I have been 

fortunate to travel with Senator CONRAD and his wife overseas, most recently to the Eurozone, where he again brought 

his expertise in economic, budgetary, and fiscal policies to 

the table as we discussed the potential U.S. impacts of the 

E.U.’s financial crisis. 

He has always put North Dakota first, but Senator 

CONRAD has never neglected the needs of other parts of the 

country. He is a champion of the farm bill and understands 

the details and nuances of agriculture commodity programs 

perhaps better than any other member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Whether fighting for North Dakota’s 

farmers, or fighting for the Nation’s fiscal health, he has 

been a great partner. I was particularly moved by his support for Vermont in the wake of Tropical Storm Irene. 

Senator CONRAD has been one of the most important voices 

in the U.S. Senate for the past 25 years. He is one of the giants of the Chamber today. We will miss his expertise, but 

we know our friendships will continue. Both Marcelle and I 

wish our friends KENT and his wife Lucy the best. 

FRIDAY, December 28, 2012 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to 

the Senators who will not be returning when the 113th Congress commences next month. I have already spoken about 

Senator KYL and about Senator Inouye, one of the truly 

great Americans and giants of this institution. At the time 

of his death, Senator Inouye was just a few weeks short of 

celebrating 50 years of Senate service. Only Senator Byrd 

served in this institution longer. 

Turnover is a natural occurrence, but it’s important to 

acknowledge that the Senators who are departing have 

served in the Senate for a combined total of 237 years, or 

nearly 20 years per Senator, on average. Add Senator 

Inouye, and the total is close to 300 years. That service represents an enormous amount of expertise on issues ranging 

from national defense and foreign affairs to the Federal 

budget to energy policy. The departing Senators will also 

[ 23 ] 

take with them vast institutional knowledge and bipartisan 

friendships and working relationships that will leave a void 

we will need to fill. . . . 

Mr. President, few, if any, other Senators have devoted as 

much time and energy as Senator KENT CONRAD has to trying to balance the Federal budget. There are few more important—or difficult—tasks. The Senate will miss his steady 

hand as chairman of the Budget Committee and his expertise on budgetary and fiscal matters as a former tax commissioner for the State of North Dakota. 

As Senator CONRAD likes to note, he was 16 years old 

when he sat in the visitors gallery to this Chamber, listened 

to former Senator Hubert Humphrey speak on the Civil 

Rights Act, and decided that he wanted to be a U.S. Senator. 

Not only did he make that decision, he committed himself to 

running for a Senate seat in 1986 or 1988. After Senator 

CONRAD received degrees from Stanford University and 

George Washington University, he worked as an assistant to 

our former colleague, Byron Dorgan, who was the North Dakota tax commissioner from 1969 to 1980. He succeeded Senator Dorgan as tax commissioner but beat him to the Senate, 

defeating Republican incumbent Mark Andrews, who had 

represented North Dakota as a Representative or Senator 

since 1963. Senator CONRAD won that election in 1986. As he 

remarked in his farewell speech, ‘‘That is the power of a 

plan.’’ 

Senator CONRAD pledged that he would not seek reelection 

in 1992 if the Federal budget deficit had not declined by the 

end of his term. He honored that pledge. But North Dakotans, to their credit, encouraged him to run in a special election that year to fill the remainder of Senator Quentin Burdick’s term. Senator Burdick, the State’s senior Senator at 

the time, had died in September 1992. Byron Dorgan was 

elected to replace Senator CONRAD, and Senator CONRAD was 

elected to replace Senator Burdick. He was reelected three 

times, with 58 percent, 61 percent, and nearly 69 percent of 

the vote, respectively. This is an extraordinary political accomplishment in a largely Republican State and a testament 

to Senator CONRAD and the discernment of North Dakota 

voters. 

Agriculture is the single biggest component of the North 

Dakota economy. Senator CONRAD has successfully fought to 

make sure farm programs benefit North Dakota’s farmers 

and ranchers, from winning formula fights on drought legislation in his first term to leading the charge for disaster asVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:13 Apr 18, 2014 Jkt 081104 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 H:\DOCS\BYEBYE\BYEBYE12\81104.TXT KAYNE
[ 24 ] 

sistance in the late 1990s and playing a leading role in writing the 2002 and 2008 farm bills. North Dakota receives far 

more farm program benefits, on a per capita basis, than any 

other State, and they have helped produce prosperity in farm 

country. Senator CONRAD has also brought hundreds of millions of dollars to North Dakota to develop water supply and 

flood protection projects. Key victories include passage of the 

Dakota Water Resources Act to bring Federal legislation in 

line with North Dakota’s contemporary water needs, ensuring Federal help to protect Fargo against record spring flooding, and securing over $1 billion to rebuild Grand Forks and 

build new flood controls following the 1997 flood, an additional $1 billion to respond to the ongoing, devastating flooding in the Devils Lake Basin, and a final $1 billion to respond to the record-breaking 2011 flooding in Minot. 

While Senator CONRAD has been a leader on farm and energy policies, he has been the leader on budget policies as 

chairman of the Budget Committee and a senior member of 

the Finance Committee. Six years ago, he teamed with 

former Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire to 

propose a bipartisan commission to tackle the debt. That 

idea ultimately prompted President Barack Obama to create 

the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, also known as the Bowles-Simpson (or SimpsonBowles) Commission after its cochairs, former Republican 

Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming and former White House 

Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, in 2010. Senator CONRAD was 

appointed to the Commission and has subsequently served in 

the bipartisan Gang of Six and Gang of Eight groups of Senators attempting to find a budget compromise that would 

forestall the tax increases and automatic spending cuts 

scheduled to commence on January 1, 2013. 

Senator CONRAD has been indefatigable in his pursuit of 

sound budgetary and fiscal policies. He has brought a soberness to the subject, along with his trademark patience and 

extraordinary ability to discuss complex budget issues and 

large numbers in a way that is accessible to everyone, accompanied, of course, by his myriad charts. Senator CONRAD

has always promoted a balanced approach to addressing our 

budget deficits that includes higher revenues, spending cuts, 

and appropriate entitlement reform. The Bowles-Simpson 

Commission’s report, which he helped draft, should serve as 

a blueprint for congressional action. 

[ 25 ] 

No matter how arduous the budget negotiations become, 

Senator CONRAD is eternally optimistic. As he noted in his 

farewell speech: 

I think we all know our country needs a plan now, and we know plans 

have worked before. I was here in 1993 when we had just come off the largest deficit in the history of the United States. The country was in the doldrums. The economy was just plugging along, not doing very well. We had 

a weak recovery from a deep recession, and we passed a plan to get the 

country back on track. We did it the old-fashioned way. We made tough decisions, some that were unpopular, but it was the right thing to do and it 

worked. We balanced the budget. We had the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in the Nation’s history. Twenty-three million jobs 

were created, and we were actually paying down the debt of the United 

States at the end of the Clinton administration. 

I share Senator CONRAD’s fervent hope that his farewell 

speech won’t be his final Senate speech; he indicated that he 

will take to the floor again if we reach agreements in the 

next few days on the 2012 farm bill and the so-called fiscal 

cliff negotiations. If we do find a way forward, Senator 

CONRAD will have played a key role in both instances. It has 

been my honor to serve on the Budget Committee under Senator CONRAD’s leadership. . . . 

Mr. President, these men and women who will be leaving 

the Senate soon have made extraordinary sacrifices to serve 

our Nation. We are fortunate that they have chosen to spend 

significant parts of their lives in public service. All Americans owe them a debt of gratitude. Those of us who will be 

in the Senate next month when the 113th Congress convenes 

can best honor the legacy of our departing colleagues by 

reaching across the aisle as they have done so many times 

to forge bipartisan consensus and solutions to our Nation’s 

most vexing problems. The men and women who will be leaving the Senate at the end of this Congress understand that 

compromise isn’t a dirty word; it is the genius at the heart 

of our political system. We will miss them. 

SUNDAY, December 30, 2012 

Mr. DURBIN. . . . Beyond that, there is much work that 

needs to be done beyond the fiscal cliff. This negotiation does 

not go deeply into deficit reduction, and I think we need to. 

I was a member of the Simpson-Bowles Commission. I salute 

my colleague, KENT CONRAD of North Dakota, who is retiring 

in just a few days, for his amazing leadership in bringing us 

to this moment in this national debate, but we still have 

[ 26 ] 

much work to do, and I am sorry KENT will not be here to 

be personally part of it. I have viewed him as an almost 

irreplaceable resource in this debate. He knows more about 

our Federal budget and the deficit challenge we face than 

any Member of Congress, period. All the rest of us have 

learned so much from him, and we are certainly going to 

miss him. . . . 

MONDAY, December 31, 2012 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize my colleague KENT CONRAD for his many years of distinguished service and leadership on behalf of our country 

and the people of North Dakota. It has been such an honor 

for me to serve with KENT as my neighboring Senator these 

last 6 years. 

I like to kid with KENT that it seems like North Dakota 

is always in the middle of some kind of drought or flood or 

other natural disaster. There’s actually a joke I once told 

him about how you can spot a tourist from North Dakota in 

the middle of a beach in Florida. It’s easy—they are the ones 

putting all the sand in sandbags. 

Jokes aside, KENT has been truly tireless in his work to 

improve our current flood prevention measures and to ensure 

North Dakota has the tools it needs to prepare for and recover from natural disasters. 

As anyone who has worked with him on the Agriculture 

Committee knows, he has also been an outstanding advocate 

for our Nation’s farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. 

KENT has consistently led efforts to strengthen the sugar 

program, which is critical to sugar beet growers in States 

like North Dakota and Minnesota. He played a key role in 

crafting both the 2002 and 2008 farm bills, and he was a 

driving force in getting the 2012 farm bill drafted and passed 

out of the Senate on a strong bipartisan vote in June. 

So there is no question that KENT’s expertise on farm policy will be sorely missed. As Congressman Collin Peterson 

likes to say, ‘‘There are only 11 people who truly understand 

how the complex farm payment programs work. And ten of 

them are in North Dakota.’’ Well, with KENT retiring I guess 

there will only be nine. 

Whether it’s standing up for farmers or fighting floods or 

saving the Minot Military Base, KENT has touched and improved the lives of people in every corner of North Dakota. 

[ 27 ] 

At the national level, he has been an outspoken leader on 

the issue of debt reduction and has consistently advocated 

for policies that benefit the middle class. 

It would be impossible to do full justice to KENT’s legacy 

in a single statement, so instead I will simply say this: North 

Dakota is better off because of KENT CONRAD’s leadership, 

and so is our country. Senator, thank you for all of the 

friendship, wisdom, and support you have shown me over the 

years. You will be missed, but I know that even in retirement you will continue to find ways to improve our great 

country and work for the people of North Dakota. 

WEDNESDAY, January 2, 2013 

Mr. SESSIONS. I am so pleased to see that Senator 

CONRAD is here, that I could follow him. I had another subject I wanted to speak about, an important subject. But it is 

very important for all Americans to know how well he has 

served. 

Senator CONRAD is one of the very small group of people 

in this country who understands the debt challenges we face. 

He has been on the debt commission. He has been the budget chairman. He staked his first election on dealing with 

these issues, as he has explained to us. I truly believe if he 

had a little more support, maybe, from his caucus and others, his vision could have been a real part of the solution we 

would make to this debt crisis. We are not that far apart 

when you consider the true challenges this Nation faces financially. 

I remember a little over 2 years ago now, when the Senator called the debt commission cochairman Erskine Bowles 

before the budget committee. He gave a speech and written 

testimony, which said this Nation has never faced a more 

predictable financial crisis. I remember the Senator asked 

the cochairman when we might have this financial crisis if 

we don’t change our ways. He replied, ‘‘It could be 2 years, 

as close as 2 years.’’ That was 2 years ago, over 2 years ago 

now. 

I think, Senator CONRAD, we have maybe gotten a little 

overconfident. People were telling us we were on an 

unsustainable course, we were facing a potential crisis, the 

Rogoff and Reinhart book came out and said that our debt 

reaches 90 percent of GDP, and all that was discussed and 

[ 28 ] 

we had a lot of excitement about it, and we did not act. We 

did not act in a significant way. 

In times gone by, maybe people thought the crisis is never 

going to happen, but I think the Senator agrees the potential 

for it to happen is just as real, if not more so, than it was 

2 years ago. 

I want to say this. We did not always agree. The Senator 

didn’t always agree with my views and I understand that. 

But the Senator allowed the minority on the committee to 

have its voice heard, to ask our questions, and the Senator 

called some great hearings. We had some of the best minds 

in the country provide testimony before the Budget Committee. The Senator allowed and called the administration 

witnesses and we were able to examine them about how they 

were managing the country’s money. The Senator allowed 

that to happen in the great tradition of the Senate where we 

have open debate and honest questioning. The Senator was 

always a perfect gentleman, and always able, as I think the 

Presiding Officer would acknowledge, to give a little levity to 

a tense situation. The Senator has a great sense of humor 

that really endeared him to me. 

So I will say to Senator CONRAD, thank you for your service. I believe every member of the Budget Committee, Republican and Democrat, appreciated the Senator’s leadership. I 

know they did. I know the staff also respected the Senator’s 

leadership. We had a great time working with the Senator’s 

professional team. The Senator served his country exceedingly well dealing with the greatest issue we face today, our 

financial debt situation. I hope and I am confident the Senator will remain active, that he will not be silent, that he 

will provide continual input and advice to the Members of 

Congress as we wrestle with these tough issues. 

Mr. CONRAD. I wish to say thanks to my colleague, Senator Sessions. He will still be on the Budget Committee. 

These challenges remain. I will lend my voice in whatever 

way I can to the responsible efforts that are needed to get 

us back on track. It is truly my fondest wish that we find 

a way to come together to do what must be done. It would 

be so good for the country. It would be great for the Congress. It would be good for the people. I am confident this is 

a challenge we can meet. 

I thank the Senator. 

[ 29 ] 

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to 

my colleague, Senator KENT CONRAD, whom I have been fortunate to call a colleague and a friend. I have served with 

KENT for 20 years and my husband Stewart and I have valued the friendship of his and his wonderful wife Lucy 

Calautti. 

From helping North Dakota recover from devastating natural disasters to promoting North Dakota agriculture as a 

key member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, KENT

CONRAD has been a leader for North Dakota for more than 

30 years. 

No Senator knows budget and economic issues better than 

Senator CONRAD and he used his knowledge to great effect 

as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. His exacting 

and precise assessments of our Nation’s fiscal health added 

wisdom and maturity to a debate that was often difficult and 

divisive. His many budget charts alone are famous in the 

Senate—in fact, he uses even more charts on the floor than 

I do, which is saying something. 

He refers to his policymaking approach as ‘‘extreme moderation’’—an approach that perfectly sums up Senator 

CONRAD’s philosophy and demeanor. Senator CONRAD is one 

of our most respected Members, for his steady temperament, 

his open mind, and his willingness to reach across the aisle 

in search of policy solutions. 

The Senate is losing a powerful voice, and a great friend 

to us all in KENT CONRAD. 

THURSDAY, February 7, 2013 

ORDER FOR PRINTING OF TRIBUTES 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 

there be printed as a Senate document a compilation of materials from the Congressional Record in tribute to the retiring Members of the 112th Congress. 

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

Æ