Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community in North Dakota that will soon celebrate its 100th anniversary. From July 13 through the 15, the residents of Regan will recognize the community's history and founding.

Regan, like many towns in North Dakota, began with the coming of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company. Regan was named after J. Austin Regan, a businessman from nearby Fessenden and an official of Dakota Land and Townsite, the company which originally mapped the town. The first building in Regan was a cream station named Tolchinsky's, where early settlers sold their cream. In the following years, the town grew quickly with the additions of a post office, a church, many businesses, and a baseball diamond.

Dubbed ``Rockin' Regan'' the residents have an extensive list of events for the centennial celebration, including a parade, a raffle, and the Centennial Tractor Trek that will travel along ND-Highway 36.

Today, Regan, although small, is still a prominent farming community. I am reminded of a saying from their 75th celebration: ``We are not just a town, but a community, and a community we will remain.'' This is the true essence of the people of North Dakota; no matter what the future brings, communities will remain. The town of Regan has demonstrated its independence as a strong community and has remained strong since 1912.

I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Regan, ND, and its residents on their 100th anniversary and in wishing them a bright future.

Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community in North Dakota that will soon celebrate its 125th anniversary. On July 14th, 2012, the residents of Milton will recognize the community's history and founding.

When Milton was founded in 1887, the postmaster initially suggested that the town be called Springfield. Some historians claim the town was named after the famous English poet, John Milton. However, most historians agree the town was named for Milton, Ontario, the hometown of pioneer settler Steven Sophar. Steven Sophar was instrumental in obtaining land and creating townships across North Dakota, as well as in several other northern states. After establishing a post office, Milton reached its boom in population during the 1890s.

The dedication of the residents keeps the community vibrant through its events and businesses. The local elevator, Little Star Theater and Milton Cafe are focal points in the community. Farming is also a thriving industry, due to the rich soil in the area.

Organized by local residents, the city is celebrating its 125th anniversary on July 14. During the celebration, the Senior Center will highlight area businesses, along with other community favorites, with historic photos and displays. Events will also include a parade, a car/ bike/tractor show, a community dinner and program, a dance and fireworks sponsored by the Milton Fire Department.

Mr. President, I ask the United States Senate to join me in congratulating Milton, ND, and its residents on their 125th anniversary and in wishing them a bright future.

Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community in North Dakota that will soon celebrate its 125th anniversary. On July 14, 2012, the town of Gilby will recognize their community's history and founding.

Founded in 1887, Gilby was named for John Gilby Jr., who came to the area in 1878. The rich soil has made it possible for farms to thrive in the area, growing wheat, soybeans, corn, sugar beets, and edible beans. The Scott farm, the oldest farm in Gilby, has been growing crops since the early 1800s. The Oppegard building has been a prominent landmark in Gilby since the town was established, starting out as a blacksmith's shop. Currently, the Oppegard building is home to an independent repair shop serving the needs of farmers in the area. The people of this friendly town are predominantly from German heritage.

To celebrate its 125th anniversary, Gilby is collaborating with Midway's 50th All School reunion on July 12, and Forest River's 125th anniversary on July 13. The activities culminate with Gilby's 125 celebration on July 14. Events in Gilby will include a pie and ice cream social, a volleyball tournament, train rides, and a parade.

I ask the United States Senate to join me in congratulating Gilby, ND, and its residents on the 125th anniversary of their founding and in wishing them a bright future.

Madam President, I want to indicate, while listening to the remarks of the Senator from Texas about the introduction of a bill apparently on cybersecurity, how critically important that is to the country. I am a relatively new member of the Intelligence Committee, but if there is anything I have learned, it is what a major threat this is to our country and how critically important it is we address it. So I commend the Senator from Texas for her leadership and I appreciate that she and her colleagues have taken this step of actually introducing legislation.

I thank the Senator. I look forward to reviewing her proposal and, hopefully, together we can find a way to get something passed that will further protect our country.

The Economy

Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about the state of our economy, where we have come from, where we are headed, and the critical challenges facing our Nation. I want to go back and remind people of where we have come from. I think it is very important to put in context the circumstances we now confront.

First of all, the economic crisis of 2008 and 2009 was the worst recession since the Great Depression. By the way, this was not the creation of Barack Obama. He inherited this mess, and he has done quite a good job of getting us moving in a better direction, but more of that later.

In the fourth quarter of 2008--that is the last quarter before this President took office--the economy was actually shrinking at a rate of almost 9 percent. In the first month of 2009, we lost 800,000 jobs. The housing market was in crisis, home building and sales were plummeting, we faced record foreclosures, and the financial market crisis was threatening global economic collapse.

In fact, I will never forget being called to a meeting in the Capitol in the fall of 2008, and I was the last one to arrive. It was the leaders of the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, and there was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Secretary of the Treasury in the Bush administration telling us they were going to take over AIG the next morning. They told us if they did not, there would be a financial collapse in this country within days. I have to say, that gets your attention. But those were the circumstances that were being confronted in late 2008.

Since that time, we have seen a dramatic improvement. Here is the economy in the fourth quarter of 2008 before President Obama took office, shrinking at a rate of almost 9 percent. In the subsequent quarters it continued to shrink until it began to get better in late 2009, frankly, because of the stimulus and TARP that helped start to turn our country around.

Since that time we have had consistent growth in the economy--not as robust as we would like but nonetheless consistent growth. It was a rather remarkable turnaround given how serious the economic downturn was. We also see the same pattern with respect to the private sector jobs picture.

Again in January 2009, in 1 month alone we lost more than 800,000 jobs, and those were private sector jobs--more than 800,000 jobs in a month. Again, in 2009 things began to turn and we got back to growing jobs. In fact, we have had over 4\1/2\ million jobs in the private sector created since the turnaround began. Again, job growth was not as robust as we would like, but nonetheless it was quite a remarkable turnaround from where it was.

What we have seen in looking at previous crises is that economic recovery is shallower and takes much longer after a financial crisis. So we can't compare this to the garden variety of recessions we faced since World War II. I think we have had nine recessions since World War II, but this went far beyond a typical recession. This was enormous damage to the financial sector. In looking back, historically, here is what Dr. Reinhart of the Peter Peterson Institute for International Economics and Dr. Vincent Reinhart of the American Enterprise Institute have found in their research:

Real per capita GDP growth rates are significantly lower

during the decade following severe financial crises . . . In

the ten-year window following severe financial crises,

unemployment rates are significantly higher than in the

decade that presided the crisis. . . .

That is the circumstance we are in. That is not the fault of President Obama. He inherited this mess. The fact is after a financial crisis, if we look back historically, it takes up to 10 years to recover. For those who say, well, the Federal Government response didn't work or that it hasn't made any difference, I don't think that is true. I don't think that will stand up to scrutiny.

Two of the most distinguished economists in the country, Alan Blinder, who was a former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Mark Zandi, who was actually one of the economic advisers to the John McCain campaign, said:

We find that its effects--

Talking about the Federal Government's actions to deal with the crisis--

on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably

averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0.

They went on to say:

. . . When all is said and done, the financial and fiscal

policies will have cost taxpayers a substantial sum, but not

nearly as much as most had feared and not nearly as much as

if policymakers had not acted at all. If the comprehensive

policy responses saved the economy from another depression,

as we estimate, they were well worth their cost.

Madam President, here are two of the most distinguished economists in the country telling us that had we not taken the actions that the Federal Government did, we would have had a depression. They also looked at what would have happened without the Federal response on the jobs front.

Here is what they found running their econometric models. The green line is the response with the Federal response, the red line is what they estimate would have happened without the Federal response. We can see they find a difference of 8 million jobs. In other words, we have 8 million more jobs than we would have otherwise had had the Federal Government done nothing.

I just say this to my colleagues who say, well, the stimulus and TARP didn't work because we are not growing as rapidly as we would like. Let's think back. What was happening when those steps were taken? The economy wasn't growing; the economy was shrinking. We weren't getting more jobs; we were losing jobs at a record rate. So to those who say none of these Federal actions were successful, I say I don't think that is what the record shows.

I think what the record shows is they didn't accomplish all we would like,

but they really led to quite a dramatic turnaround from the worst recession since the Great Depression. Here are the positive signs we see now that are facts. They are not projections; they are facts. We have had 27 consecutive months of private sector job growth. We have had 11 consecutive quarters of real GDP growth. The unemployment rate is down from the 2009 peak. Manufacturing has expanded for 34 consecutive months. The U.S. auto manufacturers have returned to profitability. And State revenues are now showing signs of improvement.

So, again, this isn't political talk. These are facts, and facts matter. The facts demonstrate there has been quite a remarkable turnaround. Again, these aren't projections; these are facts. These are things that have occurred.

If we then compare the U.S. performance to other countries with which we compete, we can see the United States has done the best in terms of the comparisons here. Some developing nations have certainly done better than we have, but if we look at the developed world, the United States is doing the best. This chart shows our economic performance, the top line, which is far better than the eurozone, all the European countries, which is the green line. Japan is the red line and we are doing much better than them. We are doing much better than the United Kingdom. If we look at how well we have done compared to the rest of the world, we are doing much better, at least in terms of the developed nations.

We know Europe has gone in a somewhat different direction. They have imposed austerity without regard to growth policies. Here are the headlines from the International Herald Tribune: ``Austerity Is Strangling Europe.'' I pulled out a paragraph because I think it speaks very well of what has been the effect of the European strategy:

The direction of European economic and financial policy

must change, away from pure austerity toward growth. Greece,

Ireland, Portugal, Italy and Spain have made substantial

progress in stabilizing their finances. But the economic and

political situation in these countries shows that austerity

alone is not the way to resolve the crisis. On the contrary,

there is a danger of half-strangling national economies with

a strict policy of austerity. We would therefore be well

advised to cushion harsh austerity measures with programs for

growth.

I believe there is a lesson in that for us as well. I am an unvarnished deficit hawk. I have been my entire career. I have called repeatedly for us to get our fiscal house in order. I believe it is imperative that we do that, but it is also imperative to recognize that we don't impose austerity on a weak and struggling economy. We would only make things worse. Getting back on a more sustainable financial path has to be done in a measured way. Absolutely, we need a long-term plan to take on our deficits and debt. I have made that speech 500 times. Absolutely, that has to be done. But that has to be done in a phased way, and the austerity should not be imposed until we are on a stronger growth path. I think economic history tells us that, and that is a lesson we need to learn.

What is holding back the U.S. economy from a stronger recovery? Well, we have identified these elements: No. 1, the European debt/financial crisis has thrown a cloud over global markets, and they are still our biggest trading partners. So a chilling of economic activity in Europe has had an adverse effect on our own economic performance.

No. 2, the Iran/Middle East situation has threatened to disrupt oil supplies. That creates uncertainty, because we know the Straits of Hormuz would close, prices would jump, economic activity would weaken, and we would be hurting. That has led companies, even though they have $2 trillion on their balance sheets, to be very cautious about expanding their investment and expanding their hiring.

Federal, State, and local government cutbacks have also created economic drag. I will go to that issue in a moment.

The political deadlock on fiscal issues here in Congress has also created uncertainty, and we face, of course, the threat from the fiscal cliff. The fiscal cliff is the fact that at the end of this year, all of the Bush tax cuts are going to expire, which means an automatic tax increase for virtually every American. We also face additional spending cuts, including $1.2 trillion from the so-called sequester, evenly shared between defense and nondefense. That would reduce demand. That would further reduce economic growth. Also, of course, the housing market continues to pose a threat, at least in many parts of the country. Certainly in Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and in parts of California, the housing market crisis still leaves an overhang.

I thought this article in the New York Times on Saturday, May 5, was very interesting. I think if we gave a quiz to the American people listening to the debates here, they would conclude that government has gotten bigger and bigger during the Obama administration, but that is not true. A previous President said ``facts are stubborn things,'' and these are facts. If we take State, local, and Federal Government and we combine them, the government is getting smaller in the United States. In fact, again, I pulled out a paragraph:

For the first time in 40 years, the government sector of

the American economy has shrunk during the first three years

of a presidential administration. Spending by the Federal

Government, adjusted for inflation, has risen at a slow rate

under President Obama. But that increase has been more than

offset by a fall in spending by State and local governments,

which have been squeezed by weak tax receipts.

In the first quarter of this year, the real gross domestic product for the government--including State and local governments as well as Federal--was 2 percent lower than it was 3 years earlier, when Barack Obama took office, in early 2009.

All the talk we hear on this floor about the exploding size of government is bloviation. It is bloviation. Let's get real. The government in the United States is shrinking. Facts are stubborn things.

This is what is happening to the U.S. Government workforce under this President. Obama took office in January of 2009. This chart shows millions of Federal, State, and local employees. We had more than 22.5 million Federal, State, and local employees. Look what has happened. Do we have more employees in government today than when President Obama took office or do we have less? We have less, and we have a lot less. This chart shows very clearly the number of employees has gone down dramatically--dramatically--during the years of this administration. Facts are stubborn things.

What is underlying our current weakness? Well, before the Budget Committee, we had Dr. Joel Prakken, the chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers. This is the testimony he gave earlier this year:

The No. 1 problem that [small businesses] say they have to

deal with right now is lack of demand.

Are my colleagues paying attention? Can we pass a quiz? What is the problem? The problem is a lack of demand. Further tax increases or further spending cuts will only weaken demand in the short term. So we have to be paying attention to what we do here.

Some of our colleagues say, Let's slash spending some more, make government even smaller. Guess what that will do to demand? It will weaken it. That will make the economic recovery even more tepid, even weaker. That is not the answer. Yes, it is absolutely the case over the longer term. We have to be aggressive at reducing spending and reforming entitlements and reforming the tax system. I have been part of virtually every effort here to do that. I was part of Bowles- Simpson and part of the group of six. I am actually actively engaged in that effort now. We have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. What we need to understand is we need a two-step strategy: strengthen growth in the short term, and then pivot and deal with our deficits and debt over the longer term. We cannot get confused about this and think the answer is to impose immediate austerity now. We have already imposed a fair amount of austerity, which I will get into in a minute, with the budget cuts that were included in the Budget Control Act passed last year.

I want to repeat the testimony of Dr. Prakken:

The No. 1 problem that [small businesses] say they have to

deal with right now is lack of demand. They do not say access

to capital. They do not say burden of regulation. They say

their order books are thin.

I say to my colleagues, let's pay attention to what the problem is: weak

demand. We have to take steps to strengthen demand in the short term while at the same time putting in place a longer term plan to get us back on track with our Nation's finances.

One reason we have a weak demand is we have made weak investments in infrastructure. Look at where we are compared to our global competitors. China is investing 9 percent of their GDP on infrastructure. Europe is spending 5 percent, and here we are at 2.4 percent. One of the reasons we have a weak recovery is we are not investing sufficiently in roads, bridges, airports, rail, and, as a result, our infrastructure across America is becoming second rate. That is about as clear as it can be.

I hear my colleagues say: Well, our problem is the Senate has not passed a budget in over 1,000 days. Sometimes I wonder if our colleagues pay very close attention to what they are voting on here, because last year, instead of a budget resolution we passed the Budget Control Act--a law. What is the difference between a resolution and a law? I think any high school student could tell us a resolution is weaker than a law. Yet our colleagues continue to come to the floor and complain and say we have not passed a resolution in more than 1,000 days. That is true. What we did do is pass a law called the Budget Control Act. We passed it last year with an overwhelming vote here in the U.S. Senate--a bipartisan vote. It also passed in the House of Representatives and was signed into law by the President.

A budget resolution never even goes to the President. A budget resolution is purely a congressional document. So a law is stronger than any resolution, and it is true, we didn't pass a budget resolution last year, we passed a law called the Budget Control Act. That law, in part, said:

The allocations, aggregates, and spending levels set in

subsection (b)(1) shall apply in the Senate in the same

manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget.

That is about as clear as it can be. The Budget Control Act says that the spending levels will apply in the same manner as a budget resolution.

So all these speeches that have been given--oh, we have not had a budget resolution in a thousand days--is not telling people the rest of the story. Instead of a budget resolution, we passed a budget law called the Budget Control Act.

What did that law do? One of the things it did was cut spending $900 billion over the next 10 years. I can tell you, it put in place 10 years of spending caps--10 years of spending caps. A typical budget resolution only deals with 1 year. The Budget Control Act--the law we passed last year--put in place 10 years of spending caps, saving $900 billion.

In addition, it said: We are going to create a special committee to deal with the entitlement programs and the tax system. We are going to say to that special committee: If you can come to an agreement, you will not face a filibuster. You will not face delays, you will be able to bring that proposal right to the floor of the Senate and get a vote.

They further said: But if you do not agree, there will be another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts imposed. Of course, we all know now the special committee could not agree. So that additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts is now the law of the land, on top of the $900 billion of spending cuts that was in the Budget Control Act as well.

So let's do the math: $900 billion of discretionary savings in the Budget Control Act, plus this sequester--the $1.2 trillion of additional spending cuts focused on defense and nondefense spending-- for a total of $2.1 trillion of spending cuts that were in the Budget Control Act passed last year that is now the law of the land. That is the biggest spending cut package in the history of the United States.

I think facts are stubborn things, and we need to remind our colleagues of what the facts are.

Here is another unfortunate fact: We are borrowing almost 40 cents of every $1 we spend. We can do that for a while. We cannot do it endlessly. We are borrowing almost 40 cents of every $1 we spend, so we have to deal with that.

What does it mean in terms of our debt? This is what is happening to our debt: Gross debt as a percentage of our gross domestic product under what is called the CBO alternative fiscal scenario--that is their prediction of what we might do here--shows the gross debt of the United States is going to be 104 percent of our gross domestic product at the end of this year--104 percent of our gross domestic product. It shows, if we do not do anything, that is going to go up to 119 percent. Our gross debt will be 119 percent of the size of our economy by 2022 if we do not do anything.

That is not a path we should allow to be followed. Why not? Because the best economic analysis that has been done, by Reinhart and Rogoff, ``Growth in a Time of Debt,'' found that once we get a gross debt of more than 90 percent of our GDP, our future economic prospects are diminished. It does not happen all at once. It is not like falling off a cliff when we get to gross debt that is 90 percent of our GDP. It is more like a long, slow decline in terms of our future economic prospects.

So here is what they concluded after studying 200 years' of economic history, 44 different countries:

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)--

Again, this is gross debt, when we get to a gross debt of 90 percent or more.

are associated with notably lower growth outcomes.

So this is not just about numbers on a page. This is about future economic prospects, future economic opportunity, future job prospects, that the future wealth of a nation is hurt when they get to a gross debt of more than 90 percent of their GDP.

The previous chart I showed is that we will be at 104 percent of GDP at the end of this year. So absolutely we have to focus on deficits and debt. But we should not lose sight of the fact that we cannot pivot and do that when the economy is weak or we will make the economy even weaker. So the initial steps we need to take are to strengthen growth. At the same time, we ought to put in place a plan that gets us back on track fiscally that deals with this debt problem for the longer term because this is not a matter of we get to this point and fall off the cliff. It does not work that way.

What is critically important is that we adopt the right economic policies now to strengthen the economy, to lift growth, but at the same time to put in place a longer term plan that deals with deficits and debt.

As shown on this chart here is where we are headed if we fail to act. This is according to the Congressional Budget Office. It is nonpartisan. We have gross debt that I was referencing before: 104 percent. Look at this and you will say: Gee, it is not 104 percent on this chart. That is because this is not gross debt. This is debt held by the public, which most economists like to talk about. I talk about the gross debt because gross debt includes what we owe to the trust funds, and the work of Reinhart and Rogoff focused on gross debt. So if we are going to compare ourselves to the research they did, we have to be talking about gross debt.

This is debt held by the public, and this is what CBO says is going to happen to debt held by the public if we fail to act: We are going to have a debt more than 200 percent of GDP. That is the track we are on. So, hey, we have to sober up. We need a plan that gets us back on track.

When we analyze how we got in this situation, what is critical is that we look at spending and revenue because it is that mismatch which leads to deficits. It is when we are spending more than we are taking in. It is when our outlays are greater than our revenues that we have deficits. It is the accumulation of deficits that is the debt. Right. The debt is adding up all the deficits over all these years.

The red line on this chart shows the spending of the United States. The green line shows the revenue. What jumps out at you is that spending is near a 60-year high. That is not surprising because we just had the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

What happens when we have a strong economic downturn? What we call the automatic stabilizers kick in to prevent us from going into a depression. What are the automatic stabilizers?

Things such as unemployment insurance, spending on food stamps, other things that are done to prevent going from a recession into a depression. Those things kicked in, and the result is--and, of course, we had TARP and we had stimulus, which I have already demonstrated worked actually quite effectively. Without them, the best economists in the country tell us we would have been in a depression.

Spending is near a 60-year high. But look at revenue. Revenue is near a 60-year low. Low revenue, high spending, big deficits, big additions to debt. That is what is happening to us. We can see, the spending has come back somewhat now. Revenue has improved somewhat. So things are starting to get better, but we still have a big gap and a deficit of $1.2 trillion for this year--staggering. That over time has to be addressed.

The Budget Control Act we passed last year--the law our friends over there say: Oh, you have not passed a budget resolution for a thousand days. Wow. Did they forget they voted on a law called the Budget Control Act that cut spending by the biggest amount in the history of the United States?

Look what has happened to discretionary spending. Under the Budget Control Act, discretionary spending is going to go to a historic low. So all this talk about the runaway spending around here--yes, spending went up when we had a deep economic decline in order to prevent that decline from becoming even worse and becoming a depression. But do you know what. We have already taken steps to rein that spending back in in the future in the Budget Control Act.

Look how it is going to do it. We saw, back in 1968, discretionary spending--in Federal spending there are two kinds of spending. There is mandatory spending--things such as Social Security, Medicare, that is mandatory spending. Then there is discretionary spending; that is things such as education, law enforcement, parks. And back in 1968, 13.6 percent of budget outlays went to discretionary spending.

In 2012, even after this uptick, we are still far below where we were in 1968. Only 8.4 percent of budget outlays are going to discretionary spending. But look what happens under the Budget Control Act. Discretionary spending, as a share of the total budget, will drop to less than 5 percent. We have not been there going way back. That is a historic low.

So those who say, well, we have runaway spending, nothing has been done about it, they have not done their homework, and they, obviously, have not paid attention to the laws that have been passed. The Budget Control Act that passed last year is taking us to spending for discretionary programs that is a historic low.

Where is the spending going up? Well, it is those mandatory accounts. That is where the spending is going up. Of course, as shown on this chart, this is the picture on Social Security. Again, this goes back to 1972. Social Security was 3.3 percent of GDP. Here we are in 2012 and it is up to well over 5 percent of GDP. It is headed for over 6 percent of GDP as the baby boomers retire. That is not a projection. The baby boomers have been born. They are alive today. They are going to retire. I am a baby boomer. I see a number of others in front of me in the Chamber. That is not a projection. That is baked in the cake. So we know we have gone in 1972 from Social Security being 3.3 percent of GDP to being 6 percent of GDP. That is not because we have had increases in the program; it is because we have increases in the number of people who are eligible for the program.

The same is true in other mandatory parts of the budget.

Here is Medicare. Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health spending--if we added it all up in 1972--was 1.1 percent of GDP. In 2050, we expect that to increase to 12.4 percent of GDP. So if we are looking for where the spending is really increasing, it is certainly not in the domestic accounts. That has gone down as a share of GDP.

For Social Security, we have seen an increase because of increased people eligible because of the baby boom generation. But the big place we have seen an explosion is in the health care accounts.

Now, that is not because of the law that was passed--what some people call ObamaCare. That has nothing to do with this. This is long-term trends because of the increase in the cost of medicine and because of the baby boom generation.

That is where we see a large increase in Federal spending. We are seeing Medicare enrollment soaring. Back in 1970, there were 20 million people eligible for Medicare. In 2085, it is going to be 115 million. So a key reason we are seeing increases in costs in the so-called mandatory programs is a dramatic increase in the number of people who are eligible. That is no fault of the program. That is a demographic reality, and we have to cope with this reality.

If we are going to have a Medicare Program that gives an assurance that people in their senior years have medical treatment available to them, we have to deal with this reality of a dramatic increase in the number of people who are eligible for Medicare.

An aging population is the primary driver of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security cost growth--an aging population. The world is changing. As a population, we have a much bigger group that is eligible for these programs--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. It is absolutely essential that those programs be maintained in order for our seniors to have a comfortable retirement and in their aging years to have security.

That is the genius of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. They have transformed lives for people in their senior years. But we also have this reality to confront that because we have a growing number-- because of the baby boom generation the costs to the Federal Government are swelling. Again, it is not on discretionary spending. That part of the budget, as I have demonstrated, is going down as a share of the economy. It is in these areas where our budget is sensitive to the growing number of people eligible for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Interestingly enough, the Medicare trustees say the health care reform law passed has reduced long-term Medicare costs. I hear people, especially our friends on the other side, say the law we have passed has increased these costs. That is not what the Medicare trustees have found. The Medicare trustees have said the ``projected Medicare costs over 75 years are substantially lower than they otherwise would be because of provisions in the `Affordable Care Act' or ACA.

Our colleagues say they want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They are talking about making the situation worse, not according to Kent Conrad but according to the Medicare trustees. The Medicare trustees--I wish to repeat this--said the ``projected Medicare costs over 75 years are substantially lower than they otherwise would be because of provisions in the Affordable Care Act. . . . ''

So our colleagues who are lining up to say they want to repeal the affordable care act are lining up to increase Medicare costs. By the way, they are lining up to increase the debt because the Congressional Budget Office has told us that in the first 10 years of the affordable care act, it saves more than a hundred billion dollars in the deficit, but in the second 10 years, it saves well over $1 trillion on deficits and debt.

Let me repeat that. The Congressional Budget Office tells us the affordable care act, which some of our colleagues are lining up to repeal, will reduce deficits and debt in the second 10 years by well over $1 trillion. So my friends who are lining up--they want to repeal the affordable care act--they are lining up to increase Medicare costs. They are lining up to increase the debt of the United States, according to the Congressional Budget Office, which is nonpartisan.

This is what the Medicare trustees project in terms of reduction in Medicare costs. The percent change in average per beneficiary cost from 2001 to 2011 was up 94 percent. From 2011 to 2021, they predict it will go up 37 percent, a dramatic slowing of the rise in costs because of the affordable care act.

We also hear colleagues on the other side say the answer to this deficit and debt situation is to have further tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthiest among us. Really? I have just shown a chart that showed our revenue is near a 60-year low. So does digging the hole deeper make much sense before we start to fill it in? I do not think so.

We hear our colleagues say: If we look in the last 40 years, revenue has been about 18 percent of GDP. That is true. But you know what, the five times we have balanced the budget since 1969 the revenue has not been at 18 percent of GDP. The revenue has been at 19.7 percent of GDP, 19.9 percent, 19.8 percent, 20.6 percent, 19.5 percent of GDP. So these friends who say they want to balance the budget, let's study their numbers. It does not add up. It does not add up.

They want to cut the revenue, which already is near a 60-year low-- cut it some more. They say: Sometimes it is going to get back toward historic average. That is not going to cut it, because we can see the times we have balanced the budget, the revenue has not been at 18 percent of GDP. Right now, it is at less than 16 percent. Revenue has been about 20 percent of GDP. I do not know what could be more clear; that we need tax reform in this country. The Tax Code is out of date. It is inefficient. It is hurting U.S. global competitiveness. Complexity imposes a significant burden on individuals and businesses. The expiring provisions create uncertainty and confusion. We are hemorrhaging revenue to the tax gap, the tax havens, to abusive tax shelters.

I have shown on this floor many times a picture of a little five- story house called Ugland House. Ugland House--I am going to put it up in just 1 minute--claims to be the home to 8,000 companies. They all say they are doing business out of this little five-story building. Really? Is that what they are doing? We will talk about that in a moment.

But we are hemorrhaging revenue to the tax gap, the tax havens, to abusive tax shelters. We need to restore fairness. The current system is contributing to growing income inequality. I do not know how anybody can deny this. We have seen a dramatic growth in income inequality in our country.

One of the reasons is we have a Tax Code which favors those at the very top, at least some of them. Very interesting because not all people at the top pay a lot of taxes. Some people at the top and some companies pay nothing, even though they are highly profitable. That is not fair. It is not right. It is hurting the country.

Our long-term fiscal imbalance must be addressed. Revenue must be part of the solution. Martin Feldstein, a distinguished conservative economist--nobody ever accused Martin Feldstein of being a liberal-- said this:

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 the

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.

In this case, I think Martin Feldstein has it about right. One way we can raise additional revenue is to reform the current tax system, making our system more competitive and at the same time raising additional revenue that can be used to help reduce the deficit, along with reform of entitlement programs, along with additional spending restraint.

These tax expenditures go overwhelmingly to the top 1 percent. Here is the increase in aftertax income from tax expenditures. We can see the middle quintile. They get $3,200 a year of value. But look at the top 1 percent. The top 1 percent get over $\1/4\ million a year in benefits from tax expenditures. Overwhelmingly, those tax expenditures that are now costing us $1.2 trillion a year are going to the wealthiest among us.

I have nothing against wealth or people who succeed--all for it. I am for there being a fair distribution of the burden of raising the revenue necessary to support the country, and this is not fair. It is not fair when the top 1 percent get $\1/4\ million in value every year from these tax expenditures. That gets almost no attention.

This is the picture I was talking about. This is a little building in the Cayman Islands, a five-story building called Ugland House. Now, 18,857 companies call this building home. Truly. That is the most efficient building in the world. Can you imagine all these companies doing business out of that little building, 18,857 companies? Are they truly doing business out of that little building? The only business they are doing out of there is monkey business, and the monkey business they are doing is to avoid the taxes they legitimately owe in this country. That is what is going on in this building in the Cayman Islands, the avoidance of taxes, legitimate taxes in this country. There is a reason there are some very large companies that even though they are hugely profitable pay absolutely nothing in taxes. That is not right. That is not fair. It should be stopped. Our colleagues on the other side, they do not want to stop it. They are against it. In fact, they have taken a pledge that they will not increase tax revenues by closing down this kind of tax dodge. They have taken a pledge not to do anything about it. Virtually every Republican has taken a pledge that this would be a tax increase to shut down this kind of tax dodge. That is not right.

When we look at the longer term deficit and debt problem--I have tried to be clear--what we need to do is a two-step approach. The first step, we need more economic growth. We need things to support this economic recovery. We need more investment certainly in infrastructure where we are falling badly behind. But we also need a comprehensive long-term plan to get us back on track, to face up to these deficits and debt. What is the best way to do that? Here is what the American people say: We need a balanced approach.

Some people say cut spending. That is where 17 percent of the American people are. Some say increase taxes. That is where 8 percent of the American people are. But 62 percent of the American people say we have to do some of both. We have to cut spending. We have to raise revenue. We ought to have a balanced plan.

So that is what the American people are telling us. Interestingly enough, that is what the President's fiscal commission concluded, the Bowles-Simpson Commission. I was a member of it. There were 18 members, and 11 supported the recommendations of the commission--5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 1 Independent. That is as bipartisan as you can get. We took that balanced approach.

We reformed the revenue system to have a more fair tax system and shut down abusive tax havens and loopholes but also had further savings on the spending side of the equation.

On this chart is an overview of the budget plan I developed based on the fiscal commission's plan: $5.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years; lowers deficit to 1.4 percent of GDP in 2022, which is around 10 percent of GDP; stabilizes gross debt by 2015; reduces discretionary spending to 4.8 percent of GDP by 2022, which has already been done; builds on health care reform savings; calls for Social Security reform, with the savings to be used only to extend the life of Social Security itself.

Social Security was not part of the deficit reduction plan because Social Security has not been a contributor to building the deficit and debt. We also know Social Security is in trouble. Its solvency is in question. We recommended that any changes to Social Security be purely for the purpose of extending the life of Social Security itself given the incredibly important role it plays in our country.

We also included fundamental tax reform to raise revenue and to go after these tax havens, these abusive tax shelters, and, yes, to ask the wealthiest among us, some of whom--not all--have gotten away with paying very little, to pay their fair share.

This is what would happen to the deficit as a percentage of GDP under that plan. You can see on this chart that it would be reduced dramatically--from 7.6 percent of GDP this year to 1.4 percent of GDP by 2021, really dramatic reductions as a percentage of GDP by 2016. This chart is what would happen to the debt. Instead of it continuing to grow to more than 119 percent of GDP by 2022, that debt would be at 93 percent of GDP by 2022. In the near term, debt would go up some more, absolutely, because we have to deal with this economic weakness, but over the full 10 years of the plan, the debt would be brought under control and be brought down somewhat.

Those are the elements of the plan. I say to my colleagues that we have to find a way to come together. It is important to the country that we do. I am

retiring at the end of this year, but I hope we can find a way to reform the tax system and make it more fair, reform entitlements in recognition that the baby boom generation is upon us. They are going to retire, and they are putting stress on these programs. These programs are critically important to life in America--certainly the lives of our senior citizens. And we are going to have to do more about the discretionary accounts because, as I have indicated, they have already been hit repeatedly, and we are headed for a share of our budget going to the discretionary accounts that are a record low. I personally don't believe going back and cutting them more, beyond what has already been done in the Budget Control Act passed last year, is a winning strategy.

I think this is an important and defining moment in this country's history. These are problems that are real. Certainly, to the millions of people who are without a job, we have an absolute obligation to do everything we can to strengthen this economy. We also have an absolute obligation to take on this debt threat because that hangs over the country as well.

We can do this. We have done it before. In the Clinton administration, we got back to balanced budgets and strong economic growth, with the creation of more than 20 million jobs, and a country that was prospering and doing better than any competitor on the face of the globe. We can do it. I believe we will.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 27, 2012, at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 27, 2012, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 27, 2012, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 27, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session on June 27, 2012. The Committee will meet in room SD-124 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, beginning at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 27, 2012, at 3 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I rise today to answer allegations made by the Washington Post in a front-page story in yesterday's edition. Here is the story: ``High-level Talks, then Changes to Holdings.''

First, I want to say I have great respect for the Washington Post. In many ways, the Post is a national treasure. But even great newspapers make mistakes, and in yesterday's story they made assumptions that are simply wrong.

The story said my wife and I shifted savings in her retirement accounts from mutual funds to lower risk money market accounts on August 14, 2007. That is true. They showed we made those changes a day after a call from Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to me. That is also true. But their suggestion the two are related is absolutely false.

They have made the same error in logic we studied in college. The case and faulty logic involved an observer who noted people were fainting and street pavement was melting. That led the observer to conclude that melting pavement caused people to faint. Of course, that was wrong. It was 106 degrees outside. The proper conclusion was that heat was causing the pavement to melt and people to faint. That error in logic was about causality, and that is precisely the error the Washington Post made in their story with respect to me.

What the Washington Post missed in their graphic--and to be fair to them, they largely had the correct context in the story. If you read the whole story, it was fairly balanced. What was not

balanced was the graphics that accompanied that story.

Let me show the graphic. This is from the Washington Post of yesterday.

Here is a picture of me. Quite a nice picture. I appreciate that. It says:

Senator Conrad, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,

was in contact with Paulson about the Nation's economy during

the crisis.

That is true. They then show a timeline with only two points on the timeline. They show that on August 13 Secretary Paulson called me at 4:30, and they show the next day, August 14, that my wife and I shifted from her retirement accounts money from mutual funds to lower risk money market funds. That is true.

What they have not shown on the timeline is what was happening in the previous days. So let's go back to the Friday before. Here is what happened on the Friday before.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 200 points within minutes of the opening bell and closed the day down nearly 400 points. That is not on the timeline of the Washington Post. If they were going to be fair-- and I don't begrudge them writing the story. I think if I were the editor I would certainly have written the story too. It certainly has appeal. Here are Members of Congress talking to people in influential positions and then changing their holdings. But to be fair, they have to provide the context within which those decisions were made.

The context within which my wife and I made our decisions were pretty clear. The Friday before, the market dropped nearly 400 points.

What the Washington Post also didn't put in their timeline is their headline on that Friday. ``Credit Crunch in U.S. Upends Global Markets.'' In that story the Friday before, they showed in the weeks leading up to our decision to diversify our investments in my wife's retirement account the market had dropped in 2 days more than 500 points, leading up then to the Friday where the markets dropped almost 400 points.

The Washington Post in their story also didn't put on the timeline what the headlines were in their own paper on the weekend leading up to our decision to make these changes.

This is just one of the headlines: ``Looking for Footing on Shaky Ground,'' talking about the turmoil we saw globally. The truth is that what made my wife and me decide over the weekend to shift some of her retirement accounts from mutual funds to less risky money market accounts was what was happening in the markets themselves. That is what led us to make these decisions.

The Paulson call was not about markets. Notes from my staff indicate Secretary Paulson was calling a number of members about the importance of raising the debt ceiling. The Secretary of Treasury was not calling me to give me stock market tips. He wasn't talking to me about the stock market. He was talking to me about the need for a debt limit increase.

I wish to say clearly and unequivocally, to my friends at the Washington Post and anybody who read the story, the call from Secretary Paulson had nothing--nothing--do with my wife's and my decision over the weekend to shift some of her assets into less risky money market accounts. Those decisions had everything to do with what was happening in the marketplace itself, which was widely reported, even on the pages of the Washington Post. What was happening in the markets was readily available to every investor. We were not shifting my wife's retirement accounts based on some secret inside information.

The Washington Post headline: ``Credit Crunch in U.S. Upends Global Markets.'' The stock market in 2 days, and the weeks leading up, dropped 500 points. On the Friday before the decisions we made over the weekend, the market dropped almost 400 points in 1 day. The Washington Post had a big story showing the Dow Jones industrial average dropped 200 points within minutes of opening and dropped almost 400 points for the day. Why didn't they put that in the timeline if they wanted to be fair? I didn't ask them not to run the story. I asked them to put in the context within which the decisions were made. Be fair.

The fact is there is nothing Mr. Paulson could have said to me about market risk that would have been more persuasive than the drop of almost 400 points in the market the previous Friday. That, along with the 500-point drop that had occurred several weeks before, provided all the motivation my wife and I needed to make a decision to move some of her retirement assets to lower risked investments.

To the Washington Post: I respect you. I have had a very good relationship with you for a long period of time. But your story was unfair to my family, it was unfair to me, and fundamentally it was unfair to your readers because the graphics you supplied with the story failed to provide a full or fair timeline and the full context that led to our decision. In fairness, if you read the whole story, much of the context is there. But the graphics--which, of course, is what most people are drawn to--have none of the context and don't have a timeline that in any way is fair.

Finally, I just wish to say, I am retiring. This is not going to affect me for the future. But the notion that Members of Congress should just stick with whatever investment decisions they made when they began investing or be accused of trading on insider information is, to me, absurd. Our trades should be public knowledge, and they are. How did the Washington Post know about these trades? Because my wife and I reported each and every one of them in our financial disclosure.

So trades of Members should be public--absolutely--and they are. The Washington Post and others should monitor for evidence of insider trading, and they do. But they should also provide context to their readers so they can fairly judge if any of us have taken action with our investments that are dishonorable. I have not, and that is the truth.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it has been nearly a year since the city of Minot and surrounding communities were devastated by a historic flood along the Souris River in North Dakota.

As we recognize this anniversary, we are reminded of the devastation it brought to thousands of families throughout the Souris River Basin, the extraordinary leadership of local officials, the valiant efforts of residents and businesses, the outpouring of support, and the perseverance and determination of the region to rebuild.

On June 22, 2011, the sirens sounded in Minot signaling the mandatory evacuation of nearly a quarter of the city's residents. A wall of water was coming at us, and we knew the existing levees would be overtopped. Work continued around the clock on temporary, secondary levees to protect as much of the city as possible, but we knew thousands of homes would be impacted by floodwaters. On June 23, the river overtopped the levees in Minot, spilling into neighborhoods and businesses. When the river finally peaked, it had surpassed the record set in 1881 by more than 3.5 feet and crested more than 12.5 feet above flood stage. While the flood damaged homes, businesses, schools, parks, the zoo, and many other things, it did not dampen the spirit of those in Minot and the surrounding communities or their resolve to rebuild.

In those days leading up to and following the flood, many Federal agencies were on the ground assisting the region with response and recovery. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency were there from the beginning, and both are still there today helping residents recover and repairing levees. Many other Federal agencies also provided critical support throughout the disaster. For that, we are forever grateful.

I also want to thank my colleagues for the disaster assistance provided through the Community Development Block Grant Program, the Economic Development Administration, and Emergency Relief to respond to this and other disasters in 2011. This funding is providing important resources for the region and a key part of its foundation for recovery.

The city of Minot and surrounding communities, including Burlington, Velva, and Sawyer, have come a long way since those dark days last year. While the recovery will continue for some time, I am so proud of the spirit and can-do attitude of all in the basin as they rebuild their communities.

Officials and residents will gather together this weekend to celebrate a ``Weekend of Hope: Return to Oak Park.'' It will be a time for reflection on how far the region has come and to focus on the region's continuing recovery. Hope is guiding the region's recovery and ensuring that Minot, Burlington, and the other communities will be back better and stronger than ever.

Mr. President, I am pleased to honor an active community in North Dakota that will soon commemorate its 125th anniversary. From June 29 through July 1, the residents of Fullerton will be celebrating their community's history and founding.

The history of Fullerton is closely connected to early American history. Fullerton was founded in 1887 on land donated by Mr. Edwin F. Sweet, an investor from Michigan. Sweet, who later served as a U.S. Congressman and Assistant U.S. Secretary of Commerce for President Wilson and President Harding, named the town after his wife's family, the Fullers. The Fuller family ancestry includes Dr. Samuel Fuller, who arrived in America on the Mayflower as a physician for the Plymouth Colony. Edwin and his wife Sophia named their first son after one of their ancestors, Charles Carroll, an original signer of the Declaration of Independence.

Fullerton's most famous landmark, the Carroll House, has a wonderful history and has been a focal point of the community from the time its doors opened in 1889. Built by Edwin Sweet and named after Edwin and Sophia's first son Carroll Fuller Sweet, the hotel's ballroom was the meeting spot for all town social gatherings, including concerts, gala balls, and church meetings. Through the years, the Carroll House has undergone extensive renovations and is now recognized as a national historic landmark. Visitors from all over the country stay at the Carroll House, and the hotel continues to host town events, like ice cream socials and silent auctions.

Fullerton is a fun and friendly community. The residents take great pride in their dining, recreation, hotel, and park facilities, in addition to their agricultural background. To celebrate the 125th anniversary, the community is holding an all-school reunion. Other planned activities for the weekend include the memorial tree planting ceremony, an all-community reunion banquet, a community choir concert, an apple pie contest, and a parade.

I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Fullerton, ND, and its residents on their 125th anniversary and in wishing them a warm future.

Mr. President, I am pleased to honor St. Pius Verein, a social and fraternal organization in North Dakota that will soon celebrate its 100th anniversary. On June 23 and 24 of this year, the community of Schefield will host a celebration to recognize St. Pius Verein's history and founding.

The town of Schefield started with the establishment of the St. Pius Catholic Church, which was built in 1910. The town's name is said to be derived from ``schoenfeld,'' the German word for beautiful field. In 1912, St. Pius Verein was founded by German settlers from Russia. The organization was first started as a way to unite the community. Members especially enjoyed singing and playing instruments together. Today, St. Pius Verein has 440 members. All members pay dues and contribute to a survivor benefit program that pays a benefit to families that experience a loss. St. Pius Verein holds monthly meetings, in addition to an annual picnic held on St. Pius Day. Schefield takes great pride in the history of St. Pius Verein, and the community is expecting an enjoyable gathering.

To celebrate the 100-year anniversary of St. Pius Verein, Schefield residents and visitors will participate in many fun-filled activities. Over the span of 2 days, the celebrants will enjoy children's games, a town dance, a citywide mass at St. Pius Verein Hall, a parade, an antique tractor pull, and an old-time jam session. DVDs will also be sold that describe the proud history of the town. Although many St. Pius Verein members no longer live in Schefield, the town is expecting big numbers for the celebration.

Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating St. Pius

Verein and the Schefield residents on the organization's 100th anniversary and in wishing them a bright future.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss the amendment that is pending to kill the Sugar Program in the United States. My colleagues should know that the domestic sugar industry employs 140,000 people in this country. If there were ever a jobs- killer amendment, it is the amendment that is going to be offered to kill the U.S. Sugar Program.

In advancing that amendment, a series of claims have been made about the U.S. Sugar Program that I believe are false. First of all, it is said that the Sugar Program has a high cost for taxpayers. That is false. It is said that it keeps sugar prices artificially high. That is false. It is said that the Sugar Program drives the confectionary industry out of the United States. That is false. It is said that the Sugar Program impedes imports into the United States. That is false. It is also said that consumers will benefit from eliminating the Sugar Program. I believe that is false as well.

Let's take each of these arguments in turn. First is that it has a high taxpayer cost. Here is the cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office, of the Sugar Program for 2013 to 2022. The cost is zero. It is hard to get lower than zero. Maybe the square root of zero would be lower. But those who say there is a high cost to taxpayers are just wrong. It is false.

The second claim is that it keeps sugar prices artificially high-- false again. This chart shows the average retail sugar price in major countries around the world. Here is the United States way down here, 59 cents. The global average is 67 cents. The developed country average is 73 cents. We are below the global average, and we are below the average of developed countries. So the claim that it keeps sugar prices high is false again.

The third claim is that the Sugar Program drives the confectionary industry out of the United States. Wrong again. Here is what is happening to the U.S. chocolate and nonchocolate confectionery production in the United States since 2004. Do you see the trend line? It is up. More production not less production.

These are facts, and facts are stubborn things. Let's go to the fourth claim, that this Sugar Program impedes imports. This is maybe the biggest whopper of all. Here are the facts: The United States, in the period from 2008 2009 through 2010 2011, is the biggest importer of sugar in the world. So this program is impeding imports into the United States? If it is, it is not doing a very good job of it because the United States is No. 1 in imports of sugar in the world.

Before we get to the final assertion, let's look at what other countries, poor countries that produce sugar are saying to us about our Sugar Program. The argument made on the Senate floor is we are hurting poor countries with our Sugar Program. Maybe we ought to listen to what those poor countries say. Here is their organization, the International Sugar Trade Coalition, that represents sugar producers in 17 developing nations in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. Here is what they say:

The U.S. sugar policy contained in the Farm Bill passed by

the Senate Agriculture Committee is important to sugar

producers in developing nations because it provides a

guaranteed level of access to the United States sugar market

at fair, predictable prices. Attempts to weaken this policy

through amendments on the Senate floor would not only harm

U.S. farmers but also poor growers from developing countries

where sugar is a key economic driver.

These are the poor countries that produce sugar who are saying to us: Keep your Sugar Program because not only does it benefit you, but it benefits us.

Let me go further in their letter:

Ending the sugar program would reward only a handful of

large food companies and agricultural superpowers like

Brazil, while punishing some of the world's poorest

economies.

It goes on to say:

This was what happened when the European Union radically

altered its sugar policy, and thereby lowered standards of

living in places like Guyana, Fiji and Mauritius where there

is no agricultural alternative to sugarcane. Sadly, Saint

Kitts and Nevis had to stop sugar production altogether after

300 years as a result of the EU's reforms.

Let's not make that same mistake.

Finally, on this notion that consumers are going to benefit by eliminating the Sugar Program--really? Let's look at the facts. The green line is the trendline on retail sugar prices. That trendline since 2010 is going up.

Here is what the wholesale price of sugar has been--flat. Do you see the disconnection? Wholesale prices flat, retail prices up. The fact is that sugar is such a small part of the cost of finished products that it has almost no bearing whatsoever on retail prices of a candy bar, the box of cereal, or any of the other things that sugar goes into.

The record is so clear on the facts that I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment being offered to kill the U.S. Sugar Program, to kill 140,000 good jobs in this country, to kill $19 billion of economic activity in this country. It would be a profound mistake not only for us but for the poor countries in the world that produce sugar, that are calling on us to keep our Sugar Program because not only is it important to U.S. farmers, it is important to their farmers as well.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 10 minutes be provided to Senator Udall of Colorado and then 5 minutes for Senator Gillibrand of New York.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to say that the Senator has provided brilliant leadership on this legislation. I am in my 26th year here. I have never seen a chairwoman so personally and directly engaged to make legislation happen in an extraordinarily difficult and challenging environment.

When the history of this legislation is written, Senator Stabenow, the chairwoman of our committee, will be in the front rank of those who made this happen. I want to express my gratitude to her on behalf of farm and ranch families all across America for the extraordinary leadership she has provided.

Farm policy has many critics, and they perpetuate a myth about the farm bill: that it only benefits a handful of wealthy farm and ranch families. The truth is much different. The critics, who often look down their noses at hard-working farm families who feed this country, do not seem to understand the competition farmers face in the international arena and what an extraordinary success this farm policy has been.

The simple fact is, our agricultural policy benefits every consumer in America. As a share of disposable income, Americans have the cheapest food in the history of the world. Americans spend less than 10 percent of their disposable income on food, which is far less than any other country. As the Senator, the chairwoman of the committee, Ms. Stabenow, says very clearly, this is not only good for consumers, this is a jobs bill. Sixteen million people in this country have jobs because of an agricultural policy that has been a stunning success.

It is also a bill that helps us compete around the rest of the world. The 2008 farm bill has been a tremendous success by any measure--record farm income, record exports, record job creation. That is the history of the 2008 bill. It has contributed to the strong economic performance of American agriculture. As you may recall, it passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority and it was paid for. It was paid for. We actually reduced a little bit of the deficit with that legislation.

That strong safety net created by the 2008 bill has enabled American farmers to continue to produce food for our Nation, even while facing tremendous market and weather risks.

Critics of farm policy also imply that the farm bill is busting the budget. That is simply false. Farm bill spending is only a tiny sliver of the overall Federal budget. Total outlays for the new farm bill are about 2 percent of total Federal spending; and of the farm bill spending, only about 14 percent--14 percent--goes to commodity and crop insurance programs. The vast majority of the spending in this bill goes for nutrition. Mr. President, 79 percent of the spending in this bill goes for nutrition programs. Only 14 percent goes for what could traditionally be considered farm programs. The farm provisions constitute less than one-third of 1 percent of total Federal spending. That is a bargain for American consumers and taxpayers.

The truth is, our producers face stiff international competition. In 2010, our major competitors--the Europeans--outspent us almost 4 to 1 in providing support for their farmers and ranchers. And the EU is not the only culprit. Brazil, Argentina, China, and others are gaining unfair market advantages through hidden subsidies such as currency manipulation, market access restrictions, and input subsidies that the WTO is incapable of disciplining.

The reality is that farming is a risky business. Not only do farmers and ranchers have to deal with unfair global competition, they also have to face

natural disasters and unpredictable price fluctuations.

The Senate Agriculture Committee, working together in a bipartisan way, will contribute over $23 billion to deficit reduction. That is twice as much as the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission recommended-- twice the savings that the Simpson-Bowles commission recommended. In so doing, the committee has provided more than its fair share of fixing this country's deficit and debt problems. If the rest of the committees of Congress did what this committee has done under the leadership of Senator Stabenow, there would be no deficit and debt problem. That is a fact.

This is also a reform bill. This is the strongest reform bill that has gone through a committee of Congress in the history of farm legislation, and the chairwoman and ranking member can be incredibly proud of the leadership they have provided.

This legislation streamlines conservation programs, reducing the number of programs, and making them simpler to understand and administer. It reauthorizes important nutrition programs for 5 years, helping millions of Americans.

I also want to thank Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin and the eight other sponsors on the Ag Committee for joining me in an amendment to continue funding for key rural energy programs. We are spending almost $1 billion a day importing foreign energy. How much better off would we be as a Nation if that money stayed here in the United States, instead of looking to the Middle East, if we could look to the Midwest for our energy supplies? This legislation will help move us in that direction.

In addition, I want to thank Senator Baucus and Senator Hoeven for working with me to pass an amendment that will improve the bill for farmers in our part of the country. I am also pleased the new farm bill will continue the livestock disaster programs that are so important to our ranchers when feed losses or livestock deaths occur due to disaster-related conditions.

This legislation is the product of countless hours of deliberation, and to reach this point was no easy task. However, I still have some concerns about this legislation.

I am concerned that the new Agriculture Risk Coverage, or ARC, program will not do enough if agriculture prices collapse again, as they have done so many times in the past.

For those of you who do not believe that crop prices can fall again, I will tell you that I have heard that argument before. In 1996, many said that we had reached a new plateau of high prices, so Congress put in place the freedom to farm legislation that removed price supports. Two years later, Congress had to pass the largest farm disaster program in history because prices had crashed and farmers were going under. I will continue to work to ensure that we improve these provisions before the final passage of this bill so that we do not find ourselves in that situation again.

It is vital that we pass a farm bill, and it is just as vital that we make sure these programs continue to work for American producers and consumers.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

I thank the chairwoman and I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the men and women of our United States Air Force on the 60th anniversary of the B 52 Stratofortress strategic bomber.

On April 15, 1952, 60 years ago, America's first B 52 lifted off on its maiden flight. This year also marks 50 years since the last B 52, tail number 61 040, rolled off the assembly line in Wichita, KS, and was delivered to Minot Air Force Base in the great state of North Dakota. Through its unwavering service during and after the Cold War, the B 52 has shown itself as a time-tested and proven solution for the long-range strike and nuclear deterrence missions and become an iconic symbol around the world of America's dedication to ``peace through strength.'' Half a century after this jet was developed and fielded to guarantee nuclear deterrence of the Soviet Union, it played a critical role in military operations after September 11. No other airframe in the history of the Nation has done more to keep this country strong and safe than the B 52.

The Boeing Company originally built 744 B 52s. As the global environment evolved, many of these have since been retired. Nonetheless, 74 aircraft remain in the fleet--more than any other bomber. I sponsored legislation, later signed into law, which requires the B 52 fleet to be maintained at no less than 74 aircraft and preserves the fleet through 2018. With appropriate funding, we expect the remaining 74 B 52s to serve the Nation honorably until 2045.

The fact that the B 52 is still serving the United States today is a testament to the innovation and dedication of the men and women all around this Nation who designed, built, maintained, supported and employed the B 52 for over 50 years. In fact, these aircraft have been so thoroughly and effectively upgraded and modernized that they are projected to continue to play a critical role defending our country for the foreseeable future and beyond.

During this time of ever-tighter budgets, the B 52 is more important than ever, because it is the most cost effective bomber in our inventory. Or, as the military would say, the B 52 provides great ``economy of force,'' which means the B 52 brings a tremendous amount of ``bang'' for the taxpayer's dollar. B 52 modernization must be a top priority to ensure that ``the best bomb truck for the buck'' and its airmen can continue to meet emerging strategic challenges now and well into the future.

The longevity, cost-effectiveness, and adaptability of the B 52 are a testament to the quality of its design and procurement. In many ways, the B 52 is the last great success story of American bomber design and procurement. As the development of the new Long Range Strike Bomber moves forward, we must demand the same innovative thought and dedication that led to the development of the B 52 in the 1950s. Our new bomber must be cost-effective, reliable, and versatile. And it must be produced on schedule, on budget and in quantity. Anything less would be mismanagement we cannot afford, either fiscally or strategically.

2012 has been coined the ``Year of the B 52.'' This year, more than ever, we celebrate the American innovation and dedication that produced this time-tested and tireless workhorse for the Nation. We also celebrate and give our whole-hearted thanks to the men and women who keep these great aircraft flying and keep our Nation safe.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a thriving community in North Dakota that will soon be celebrating its 125th anniversary. On June 15 through June 17 of this year, the residents of Edgeley will be celebrating their community's history and founding.

Replacing the pioneer settlement of Saint George, the city of Edgeley has had a rich history. Edgeley is named after the birthplace of Englishman Richard Sykes, who was a significant developer and true believer in the potential of Edgeley and the surrounding area. In 1881, Mr. Sykes traveled from England to explore increasing his land holdings in America. Not surprisingly, he settled on the rich soil and beautiful country of Wells, Stutsman, LaMoure, and Morton counties in North Dakota.

Edgeley is home to many bustling small businesses and farmers who grow wheat, corn, soybeans, sunflowers, barley, oats, potatoes, and all manner of small grains, in addition to raising cattle and other types of livestock. North Dakota's first wind farm was built 8 miles west of Edgeley, providing 1.5 megawatts of sustainable electricity to many residents of the State.

Sponsored by the Edgeley Lions Club, the city is celebrating its 125th anniversary this summer. Among the events planned are a pageant, kids games on Main Street, a 5k run-walk, a golf tournament, two parades, and a commemorative gun raffle. Residents are also eagerly awaiting the grand opening of the new swimming pool.

I ask the United States Senate to join me in congratulating Edgeley, ND, and its residents on their 125th anniversary and in wishing them a warm future.