Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership, as best they can, going into greater detail on the mutual effort to avoid a government shutdown. I know all Members are vitally interested in this, as is the American public. I do happen to agree--probably no surprise-- with the Republican leader in his description of the situation, especially in regard to our national security, which I think is exceedingly important. I have asked for this time now to discuss a related subject. Some may think it is not related but I think it is. It is related to a government--or an economic shutdown, if you will, on many businesses throughout the country, that is already occurring. This is something we hear about from time to time from various industries or businesses or occupations--almost everybody up and down Main Street. I would describe it as a shutdown by regulation or almost strangulation by regulation. That is what I wish to talk about for a moment. I come to the floor to highlight another area where regulation is having a negative effect on business in my State and all across the country. To date, I have spoken about the impact of regulations on health care and on agriculture and on energy. Today I am here to talk about the regulation of our financial sector. I want to emphasize I am talking about the impact of regulation on our community banks, those banks in each of our towns, often home owned and operated. Our community banks share the common concern I have heard from businesses in all industries all across my State. The volume and pace of regulations that are coming out of Washington are unmanageable and they add to the costs and divert resources that would otherwise be used to grow their businesses or serve their customers or help the economy in its recovery. As I have noted in previous remarks, I was very encouraged that President Obama signed an Executive order. I credit him for that. He directed the administration to review, to modify, to streamline, expand, or repeal those significant regulatory actions that he called duplicative and unnecessary, overly burdensome, or that which would have had significant impact on Americans. He even, in an offhand remark, said some of these regulations are actually stupid. I agree with the President and I gave him credit for that. I was originally encouraged by the President's commitment to a new regulatory strategy. But after reviewing the Executive order I was left with some concerns. Here is why. The Executive order states: In applying these principles, each agency is directed to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. Nobody could possibly disagree with that. It is a good statement. Where appropriate and permitted by law, each agency may consider (and discuss qualitatively)-- I am not sure if I understand that in very clear language, but at least I have been trying to figure that out, along with a lot of the people who are on the receiving end of regulations. Then this is the part which I defy anybody to comprehend. ``values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness and distributive impacts.'' As the Wall Street Journal captured in their response to the President's editorial, ``these amorphous concepts are not measurable at all.'' How on Earth do you make such a determination? This language is, in fact, if anybody could understand it, a very large loophole. Coupled with an exception for the independent agencies such as the FDIC and the EPA, and the subagencies and other regulatory agencies, it has the potential to result in no changes at all. Here you have an Executive order but you also have an Executive order that has a lot of loopholes in it. That is why I have introduced legislation to put teeth into this Executive order. My bill is called the Regulatory Responsibility For Our Economy Act, and it strengthens and codifies the President's order. Like the Executive order, my legislation ensures that the regulators review, modify, streamline, expand, or repeal the regulatory actions that are duplicative, unnecessary, overly burdensome, or would have significant impact on Americans. But it requires that Federal regulations put forth do consider the economic burden on American businesses, ensure stakeholder input during the regulatory process, and promote innovation. Today, 46 Members of this body have signed on as cosponsors. That is a testament to the concerns that my colleagues are hearing from their constituents about how the unrelenting tide of regulations now coming from Washington is harming their businesses and our economy. It could be described, actually, as another government shutdown, as I have indicated, by strangulation. Today I want to call attention to the impact of regulations on the financial services sector, in particular the impact on our community banks. I might add, in discussing this before on agriculture, energy, and health care, we talked to the stakeholders involved in Kansas, the people who are actually involved. It is their suggestions I am repeating and that I have tried to encompass in my legislation. The financial services sector of our economy is already the focus of substantial regulation. I think everybody understands that. We all support commonsense financial regulations. However, it is important that financial regulations do not become undue burdens, especially on our community banks that are the backbone of Main Street and finance the economic growth in our communities. While I appreciate that many of the agencies with responsibility for regulating the industry are independent of the executive branch, I am hopeful that these agencies are receptive to the President's effort. While the economic crisis focused attention on the financial services industry leading to the passage of the Dodd-Frank bill, our Nation's community banks that are already shouldering an undue regulatory burden will now bear a greater burden when the hundreds of regulations from this law are implemented. Our Nation's community banks are often small businesses. On average a community bank has 37 employees and approximately $154 million in loans and other assets. The majority of banks in Kansas have an average of fewer than 14 employees. However, they currently comply with 1,700 pages of consumer regulations alone. That is incredible. They must also comply with hundreds of additional pages of regulations regarding lending practices and other banking operations. According to a summary of the Dodd-Frank act by Davis Polk, this legislation mandates that 11 different agencies now create at least 243 more regulations; issue 67 one-time reports or studies and 22 new periodic reports. Many of these new rules are required to be issued in the next year or two, and financial regulatory agencies have the discretion to issue additional rules on top of those and those required under Dodd-Frank. This is incredible if not unbelievable. Regulators have already issued more than 1,400 pages of regulatory proposals. Up to 5,000 pages of regulations are expected. Many will be proposed by a new bureaucracy that is created in the Dodd-Frank act, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Remember that name. The acronym is CFPB, and it will undoubtedly suffocate a lot of businesses. It will have broad authority to monitor, regulate, and direct the activity of banks. These actions will create additional and significant compliance costs that will impact the ability of every bank to serve its community. These actions have real costs to banks. According to recent testimony before the House Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, the CBO Director--the Congressional Budget Office Director--Douglas Elmendorf, said the Dodd-Frank act is expected to impose nearly $27 billion in new private sector fees, assessments, and premiums. This amount includes more than $14 billion in new fees on banks. Guess where that money is going to end up in regards to consumer costs. Our community bankers and their customers are worried about the impact of these new requirements. That has to be the understatement of my remarks. They are frustrated, they are angry, they are upset. Now, while not every regulation will apply to the community banks, they tell me the rapid pace and volume of new regulations being put forth are placing a strain on many banks' compliance capabilities and are adding significantly to their operating costs. Many banks tell me they are reevaluating whether they can afford to offer some products and services such as mortgage lending. Yes, you have that right. If you live in a small community, and you go to your local bank and you would like to get a loan in regards to financing a mortgage, sorry, they may be out of the business. It is important to understand that banks do not oppose commonsense regulations. They are necessary to ensure that banks are doing their jobs and that consumers receive the proper information and disclosures that are beneficial to them. The problem is that unlike bigger financial institutions, our community banks do not have a large staff of attorneys or compliance officers to help them navigate wave after wave of these new regulations. By one estimate, for the typical small bank, more than one out of every four dollars--one out of four--of operating expenses is used to pay for the cost of complying with government regulations. With Dodd- Frank we can only expect that cost to go higher. One community banker tells me they have five compliance officers out of a staff of less than 100 employees. In speaking with compliance officers, they tell me regulations that are being put forth to implement a range of new requirements are being written too quickly, without sufficient specifics and guidance for banks to implement as intended. They point to regulations that are duplicative or contradictory but which they must comply with, even if the banker or consumer does not view the regulation as having any value or benefit to the consumer--I might add, even if they can understand it. Such compliance efforts cost time and money and it is vital that Federal regulators consider the total impact of all regulations, not merely each regulation in isolation, and work to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on an already heavily regulated industry. With these concerns in mind, I would like to call attention to several regulations that highlight the impact of an overly burdensome regulatory environment. I encourage regulators to join the President's effort to pursue solutions to regulations that make it difficult for our community banks to serve their customers, support businesses in their communities, and help grow our economy. The Dodd-Frank act requires the Federal Reserve to issue a rule for debit interchange fees. Basically, interchange fees are swipe fees that a merchant bank pays to a customer's bank when the customer uses their debit card. In December I joined a bipartisan group of Senators in writing to Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke expressing our concerns with the interchange provision and to encourage the Federal Reserve to ensure that our consumer interests are protected in rate standards that are set. Our letter outlines ``concerns with the consequences of replacing a market-based system for debit card acceptance with a government- controlled system,'' as well as concerns that the provision will make small banks and credit union debit cards more expensive for merchants to accept than those cards issued by larger banks, and it would likely put them at a disadvantage compared to the large banks that issue those other cards. In addition, the rule does not consider all of the costs incurred by a bank in actually providing the service, such as all the costs for fraud control and prevention, network processing fees, card production, and issuance costs, and fixed costs, including capital investments. These are all significant costs for many banks and will be one of the factors they will have to look at when considering whether they even continue to offer any debit card service. During debate on the debit interchange amendment, supporters presented it as a proconsumer provision, maintaining that the reduction in interchange fees would be passed on to the consumer. Yet there is nothing, nothing in this Dodd-Frank act that requires retailers to pass on any savings from debit interchange fees to their customers. On the contrary, the debit interchange rule will likely result in higher bank fees, a loss of reward programs, or banks may ultimately, as I have said, decide not to offer debit cards to their customers. Some steps are already being considered. Higher fees or limited choices as a result of such government price controls does not benefit any consumer. That is why legislation I am supporting calls for the Federal Reserve and other Federal financial regulators to slow down and fully study this issue, carefully evaluate the 11,000 comments that were received on this proposed rule. I am particularly concerned about the estimated costs of the debit interchange rule for our community banks, which is not insignificant. Supporters of the interchange rule say our community banks will not be impacted. Well, I beg to differ. Consider what I am hearing from the community banks in my State of Kansas. One community banker in a town of just 1,000, whose bank began offering debit cards a few years ago, tells me the interchange proposal will cost his bank $19,000 a year. Two other banks that serve multiple rural communities will see increased costs per year of more than $46,000 and $100,000, respectively. Other banks, including banks in my State, estimate the cost to be in the millions. Ultimately, the loss of income for banks will mean less capital available to lend to borrowers. I also want to mention the concerns I am hearing about the patchwork of mortgage disclosure requirements. Taken together, existing regulations and anticipated regulations as a result of Dodd-Frank may well have the effect of making it more difficult and costly to provide mortgages to qualified borrowers, reduce lending capacity, and may push some lenders to simply stop offering mortgages. One example is the SAFE Act. It creates a nationwide mortgaging licensing system and registry for mortgage loan originators. This registry is intended for use by regulators to identify mortgage brokers or lenders who seek to work in a State after being banned from working in a different State. That sounds all right. However, each mortgage loan originator will be required to register with a national registry, obtain a unique identification number, and submit fingerprints for the FBI to conduct a criminal background check. So if you are in the business of trying to be a mortgage loan originator, you are going to get fingerprinted. Our community bankers tell me their cost to meet the new requirements is roughly $1,000 to $2,000 per loan officer. I know that might not seem like a lot of money to Washington regulators, but it is a tidy sum in rural America. The cost of compliance will take time and money away from the business of lending and may ultimately be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for a mortgage loan. That is what will happen. Finally, I want to mention the recent guidance on the overdraft payment programs put forth by the FDIC. At some point most of us have had experience with overdraft programs, perhaps when we forgot to balance our checkbook. In the guidance, the FDIC stated: The guidance focuses on automated overdraft programs and encourages banks to offer less costly alternatives if, for example, a borrower overdraws his or her account on more than six occasions where a fee is charged in a rolling 12- month period. Additionally, to avoid reputational and other risks, the FDIC expects institutions to institute appropriate daily limits on customer costs and ensure that transactions are not processed in a manner designed to maximize the cost to consumers. So while banks offer overdraft protection programs now and take other steps to aid customers in avoiding overdrafts, many are concerned that this guidance put forth by the FDIC is overly prescriptive and goes further than amendments on overdrafts put forth by the Federal Reserve. Further, banks note that the guidance seems to contradict the intent of the President's Executive order that requires agencies to propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its cost, recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify. Banks are concerned that the FDIC guidance is based on outdated information and that the impact of the Federal Reserve's rules on overdraft programs should be reviewed before moving forward with additional guidance in this area. So while the FDIC is not subject to the Executive order, I certainly hope they would adopt the spirit of the order. In addition, when a customer has a pattern of excessive use of automated overdraft programs, the FDIC states that ``(banks) should contact their customers about a more appropriate and lower-cost alternative that better suits their needs.'' I can remember a bank scandal back in the House of Representatives. If only that bank would have had this protection from the FDIC, none of that scandal would have ever happened. The FDIC recently provided additional clarification on this guidance that provides some flexibility about how banks reach out to customers and permits them to contact customers by mail as well as in person and by telephone. However, the requirement that banks contact customers who incur six overdrafts in a rolling 12-month period remains a broad overreach of the FDIC's authority, putting the burden on the banks rather than the customer who ultimately bears the responsibility for ensuring that they have sufficient funds in their account to cover their transactions. In fact, one study shows that 77 percent of customers paid no overdraft fees in the previous 12 months. That same study also showed that for those 21 percent of customers who paid an overdraft fee, 69 percent say they were glad the payment was covered. Another survey found that 94 percent of those surveyed said they would want a transaction to be covered by their banks even if it resulted in an overdraft fee. This guidance seems to be a clear example of where an agency is overreaching, with little evidence of the need for or effectiveness of such additional guidance. In closing, I thank, again, Obama for taking the step in the right direction to review Federal regulations that place undue burdens or our Nation's economic growth and recovery. I hope financial regulators will join in this effort to examine rules and regulations that pose significant barriers to our small community banks and their ability to serve their customers and contribute to the growth of their communities. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I am going to speak for approximately 4 minutes during morning business. I had originally intended on 15, but I am going to do that tomorrow on another subject. If I could be recognized for 4 minutes, that is my intention.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I know it is pretty serious business talking about a government shutdown and things of this nature that affect all Americans. I certainly hope we can reach some accommodation. I wish to do a little bragging on behalf of my home State. We are pretty proud of our basketball heritage in Kansas, but I note that we have not received national recognition to the extent I think we should in regards to the recent accomplishment I wish to highlight. I rise to congratulate the Wichita State University Shockers. The Shockers won the 2011 Men's National Invitation Tournament in the Big Apple, the championship in New York City. In claiming the championship trophy, Wichita State set the school record with 29 victories in the season. Wichita State advanced to the NIT championship with four straight wins in the tournament. They beat the University of Nebraska in the first round, Virginia Tech in the second round, the College of Charleston in the quarter finals, Washington State University in the semifinal, and, finally, the University of Alabama in the championship game. All of these schools have good basketball teams, and Wichita State came out on top. Graham Hatch was named the NIT's most outstanding player and a member of the All-Tournament Team, while Garret Stutz was named to the All- Tournament Team as well. Wichita State and head coach Gregg Marshall were not only successful on the court but in the classroom as well. Earlier this year, Coach Hatch and Garrett Stutz were named to the 2011 Missouri Valley Conference Scholar Athlete first and honorable mention teams, respectively. I congratulate the Wichita State University Shockers, their head coach Gregg Marshall, the athletic director Eric Sexton, a good friend of mine, and Wichita State University president Don Beggs. Don, you are back again, and you certainly did us proud. Specifically, I congratulate each member of the team for an exemplary season: Gabe Blair, Derek Brown, J.T. Durley, Aaron Ellis, Jerome Hamilton, Graham Hatch, Trey Jones, David Kyles, Toure Murry, Ehimen Orukpe, Joe Ragland, Tyler Richardson, Ben Smith, Garrett Stutz, Randall Vautravers, Josh Walker, and Demitric Williams. If I mispronounced any name, I am terribly sorry. They did not do anything wrong with the tournament in terms of winning the NIT. Congratulations to all Shockers basketball fans. The coach has made the decision to stay at Wichita State. Good news for Kansas. Good news for Wichita State, an exemplary action on the part of the coach after a very successful team effort and winning the NIT and then staying at Wichita State University. Good news for Kansas, good news for Wichita State, and good news all the way around. By the way, we will not shut down the team. They are going to keep on fighting. I think the signal there was not four quarters and let's go play hard, but the 4 minutes are up. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to address a health care concern that impacts all of us--access to health care. When you or your loved one is sick--the most important thing on earth is to fight for the very best medical care possible. And when the diagnosis is cancer--a disease far too many of our friends and family have faced--it becomes all the more important and all the more time sensitive. Unfortunately, in some cases, access to care--as well as the life- saving drugs needed to treat a variety of forms of this disease--are being negatively impacted by the current reimbursement structure for Medicare Part B drugs and biologicals. In layman's terms, it's one more hurdle that doctors have to fight for their patients. That is why I am introducing today legislation that would end the hurdle. My bill would exclude customary prompt pay discounts from the manufacturer's average sales price for purposes of Medicare Part B drugs and biologicals. In Hillsboro, Kansas we have already seen cancer clinics begin to close as a direct result of the current reimbursement structure which limits patient access to care that they desperately need. Currently the prompt pay discounts artificially reduce Medicare Part B drug reimbursement rates for community oncology clinics, jeopardizing the viability of these providers. The closing of the clinic in Hillsboro can be directly attributed to this reimbursement structure. Additionally, prompt pay discounts also reduce the payment rates of private payers that use Average Sales Price. My legislation is a step forward in addressing problems with Medicare reimbursement for cancer drugs. Primary Healthcare Distributors, PHDs, act as a middle man between providers and drug and product manufacturers. Most healthcare providers must receive daily deliveries of products from many different manufacturers. PHDs streamline the system and provide efficiencies by aggregating the ordering and shipping logistics. Some 80 percent of prescription medicines in the U.S. are stored, managed and delivered by PHDs. These PHDs receive prompt pay discounts from drug manufacturers in recognition of the efficiencies they provide. However, these efficiencies are threatened by the Medicare Modernization Act's, MMA's, inappropriate inclusion of these prompt pay discounts in the calculation of the Average Sales Price for Medicare Part B drugs, those administered in a doctor's office. The inclusion of these discounts ultimately reduces reimbursements to providers, who are not the actual beneficiaries of the discounts. It provides a perverse incentive for manufacturers to go around the PHD to offer prompt pay discounts directly to the providers, thereby eliminating the efficiencies of the current system and potentially creating another burden for providers. Congress has recognized the importance of excluding prompt pay discounts from providers' payment formulas in the Medicaid program. This bill would extend that exclusion to Medicare Part B. I believe that the policy is right; that is why today I, along with Senator Stabenow, am introducing legislation to amend Part B of Title XVII of the Social Security Act to exclude customary prompt pay discounts from manufacturers to wholesalers from the average sales price for drugs and biologicals under Medicare. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to address a health care concern that impacts all of us--access to health care. When you or your loved one is sick--the most important thing on earth is to fight for the very best medical care possible. And when the diagnosis is cancer--a disease far too many of our friends and family have faced--it becomes all the more important and all the more time sensitive. Unfortunately, in some cases, access to care--as well as the life- saving drugs needed to treat a variety of forms of this disease--are being negatively impacted by the current reimbursement structure for Medicare Part B drugs and biologicals. In layman's terms, it's one more hurdle that doctors have to fight for their patients. That is why I am introducing today legislation that would end the hurdle. My bill would exclude customary prompt pay discounts from the manufacturer's average sales price for purposes of Medicare Part B drugs and biologicals. In Hillsboro, Kansas we have already seen cancer clinics begin to close as a direct result of the current reimbursement structure which limits patient access to care that they desperately need. Currently the prompt pay discounts artificially reduce Medicare Part B drug reimbursement rates for community oncology clinics, jeopardizing the viability of these providers. The closing of the clinic in Hillsboro can be directly attributed to this reimbursement structure. Additionally, prompt pay discounts also reduce the payment rates of private payers that use Average Sales Price. My legislation is a step forward in addressing problems with Medicare reimbursement for cancer drugs. Primary Healthcare Distributors, PHDs, act as a middle man between providers and drug and product manufacturers. Most healthcare providers must receive daily deliveries of products from many different manufacturers. PHDs streamline the system and provide efficiencies by aggregating the ordering and shipping logistics. Some 80 percent of prescription medicines in the U.S. are stored, managed and delivered by PHDs. These PHDs receive prompt pay discounts from drug manufacturers in recognition of the efficiencies they provide. However, these efficiencies are threatened by the Medicare Modernization Act's, MMA's, inappropriate inclusion of these prompt pay discounts in the calculation of the Average Sales Price for Medicare Part B drugs, those administered in a doctor's office. The inclusion of these discounts ultimately reduces reimbursements to providers, who are not the actual beneficiaries of the discounts. It provides a perverse incentive for manufacturers to go around the PHD to offer prompt pay discounts directly to the providers, thereby eliminating the efficiencies of the current system and potentially creating another burden for providers. Congress has recognized the importance of excluding prompt pay discounts from providers' payment formulas in the Medicaid program. This bill would extend that exclusion to Medicare Part B. I believe that the policy is right; that is why today I, along with Senator Stabenow, am introducing legislation to amend Part B of Title XVII of the Social Security Act to exclude customary prompt pay discounts from manufacturers to wholesalers from the average sales price for drugs and biologicals under Medicare. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation introduced by Senator Wyden, of which I am an original cosponsor, the `Hospice Evaluation and Legitimate Payment Act.' The HELP Act. The HELP Act does what the title says it does and takes initial steps in helping our hospices in Kansas and across the Nation continue to give the valuable care that patients and families need. It is impossible to describe the value of hospice services to the patients and families for whom they provide selfless and compassionate care. Over the next 10 years hospice is facing drastic reductions in their reimbursements, negatively impacting at least 1.3 million patients and families, which is the number served by hospice programs in recent years. The HELP Act sets realistic requirements for a face-to-face encounter. The Accountable Care Act included a requirement that a hospice physician or nurse practitioner should have a face-to-face encounter with hospice patients before their 180-day recertification and for each 60-day recertification period after that date, has caused a significant burden on our hospice communities, especially those in rural areas. The limits on who can conduct the face-to-face encounter and the timeline for compliance do not reflect the operational realities of hospice programs, especially for small and rural hospices. The HELP Act would allow Nurse Practitioners, Clinical Nurse Specialists and Physician's Assistants to conduct the face-to-face encounter, and that hospice programs be afforded 7 days after the election of services to fulfill the requirement. The HELP Act would require the Secretary to establish a payment reform demonstration program to test any prospective payment revisions to hospice, and would include an evaluation period for data analysis; increase the frequency of hospice surveys to every 3 years; and would amend the new face-to-face encounter statutory framework to reflect operational realities for hospice programs, and the needs of the patients and families they serve. Under this legislation the new payment methodologies for hospice must first be piloted through a 2-year, 15-site demonstration program to allow for any recommended payment reform schemes to be tested across a representative sample of the hospice community and to assess their impact on beneficiary access to hospice services. The HELP Act also requires more frequent hospice surveys. A recent Office of the Inspector General's, OIG, report noted that CMS was remiss in its supervisory responsibilities by not regularly reviewing the operational and clinical delivery processes of the hospice community. OIG has recommended on numerous occasions that ``CMS should conduct more frequent certification surveys of hospices as a way to enforce the requirements.'' Accrediting organizations, such as the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, JCAHO, have set an industry standard of certification every 3 years for hospices. The HELP Act requires an initial survey for those seeking certification to be followed by a standard survey every 3 years. While there is more work that needs to be done to address payment reductions for hospice providers, the HELP Act takes some initial steps to addressing these problems. I am grateful to my colleague Senator Wyden for introducing this legislation and I am happy to lend my support. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to review and consider supporting this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation introduced by Senator Wyden, of which I am an original cosponsor, the `Hospice Evaluation and Legitimate Payment Act.' The HELP Act. The HELP Act does what the title says it does and takes initial steps in helping our hospices in Kansas and across the Nation continue to give the valuable care that patients and families need. It is impossible to describe the value of hospice services to the patients and families for whom they provide selfless and compassionate care. Over the next 10 years hospice is facing drastic reductions in their reimbursements, negatively impacting at least 1.3 million patients and families, which is the number served by hospice programs in recent years. The HELP Act sets realistic requirements for a face-to-face encounter. The Accountable Care Act included a requirement that a hospice physician or nurse practitioner should have a face-to-face encounter with hospice patients before their 180-day recertification and for each 60-day recertification period after that date, has caused a significant burden on our hospice communities, especially those in rural areas. The limits on who can conduct the face-to-face encounter and the timeline for compliance do not reflect the operational realities of hospice programs, especially for small and rural hospices. The HELP Act would allow Nurse Practitioners, Clinical Nurse Specialists and Physician's Assistants to conduct the face-to-face encounter, and that hospice programs be afforded 7 days after the election of services to fulfill the requirement. The HELP Act would require the Secretary to establish a payment reform demonstration program to test any prospective payment revisions to hospice, and would include an evaluation period for data analysis; increase the frequency of hospice surveys to every 3 years; and would amend the new face-to-face encounter statutory framework to reflect operational realities for hospice programs, and the needs of the patients and families they serve. Under this legislation the new payment methodologies for hospice must first be piloted through a 2-year, 15-site demonstration program to allow for any recommended payment reform schemes to be tested across a representative sample of the hospice community and to assess their impact on beneficiary access to hospice services. The HELP Act also requires more frequent hospice surveys. A recent Office of the Inspector General's, OIG, report noted that CMS was remiss in its supervisory responsibilities by not regularly reviewing the operational and clinical delivery processes of the hospice community. OIG has recommended on numerous occasions that ``CMS should conduct more frequent certification surveys of hospices as a way to enforce the requirements.'' Accrediting organizations, such as the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, JCAHO, have set an industry standard of certification every 3 years for hospices. The HELP Act requires an initial survey for those seeking certification to be followed by a standard survey every 3 years. While there is more work that needs to be done to address payment reductions for hospice providers, the HELP Act takes some initial steps to addressing these problems. I am grateful to my colleague Senator Wyden for introducing this legislation and I am happy to lend my support. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to review and consider supporting this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. In my letter to the President today, I have encouraged the administration to limit the use of this shortened regulatory process and take every available opportunity to get feedback from those who would be most affected by these regulations--that just makes sense--and allow for ample time to review and consider that feedback prior to implementing the future regulatory priorities. We are going to have better regulations if, in fact, you ask folks: Is this going to work? Maybe tweak it, maybe repeal it. Who knows. The President himself said that. In addition, I have encouraged the administration to review any comments received on these regulations that have already been issued for any concerns that indicate a potential to further our economic problems and crises. In closing, I invite my friends on both sides of the aisle to sign on as a cosponsor of my legislation, realizing the immense opportunities it creates for meaningful review and possible revocation of regulations counter to our Nation's growth. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS. I will be delighted to.

Mr. ROBERTS. As I have already discussed on the Senate floor, an Executive order was issued by the President on January 18. It was a good order. I applauded that order. It committed all Federal agencies to review regulations and then to try to remove any that placed unreasonable burdens on our Nation's businesses and/or impact the ability of our economy to grow, to recover. I agree that, in light of our current economic crisis, establishing a regulatory environment that promotes growth and job creation should be the No. 1 priority for this Congress and the administration. I applaud what the President said when he issued the Executive order--that there are some regulations that are duplicative, costly, and unnecessary and, as he said, downright dumb. There was loud applause in farm country, manufacturing, health care, education--you name it. However, after reviewing the Executive order, I remind my colleagues that I was left-- and I hope if you read it you are left--with some larger concerns. Specifically, the order left open a number of very large loopholes. It was an Executive order without teeth. When I was in Kansas over this last work period, I talked to virtually all of our Kansas patients, providers, and advocates about the President's Executive order and my legislation, which is called the Regulatory Reform for Our Economy Act. I held a stakeholder roundtable in Topeka. I held a roundtable in our State capitol, in order to get feedback from patients and provider groups on their thoughts related to health care reform. I was not surprised to hear that every representative at that meeting had a concern with regulations, but the sheer volume of regulatory concerns as seen by my staff and myself was truly extraordinary. I was already aware of regulations, such as those put forth by the Department of Health and Human Services, along with the Department of Labor and Treasury, that have resulted in the child-only insurance market effectively disappearing in 20 States. Which I believe is the result of overregulation or overrequirements. I have already sent letters to the administration detailing my concerns with regulations, such as--stick with me now--first, the 2011 Medicare physician fee schedule final rule, which requires that laboratory requisition forms are signed by the ordering physician. This rule could have potentially serious implications on patient care and business practice. Second, on November 17, 2010, CMS, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, issued a final rule which, as required by the new health care law--the acronym for that is PPACA--conditions payment for home health and hospice services based upon a face-to-face encounter between patients and their physicians or certain nonphysician practitioners prior to certification for home health or hospice services. On top of about a $11 billion cut to hospice, which is rather incredible, this is resulting in burdensome requirements for our rural home health and hospice patients. For those who need this help the most, this is truly hard to understand. Third, the antiswitching rule in Medicare's competitive bidding program--the acronym is CBP; there is an acronym for everything--for durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies. Specifically, that proposal to enforce the rule in subsequent rounds of the competitive bidding program, but not round one, may compromise beneficiary access to appropriate diabetes testing supplies and leave beneficiaries vulnerable to pressure from suppliers to switch testing systems. I am going to try to get rid of the gobbledygook and say that during the initial round of competitive bidding for medical equipment, some of the suppliers didn't even know there was an initial round of competitive bidding. In Kansas City, there were 424 suppliers, and 20 submitted bids this time around. We delayed it to this year because it was so onerous. Then this year came around and CMS selected 20. What happened to the other 404? What happened to the people who depended on pharmacists and home health care providers for that walker, that crutch, or whatever they need--or oxygen tank, for that matter? We are left with huge holes in the home health care industry and a need for providing DME equipment. I was surprised to hear that every representative at this stakeholder meeting--and all representative groups were invited, including hospital administrators, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and hospice folks. I believe it was the first time they met at the same time. I was surprised to hear that every representative at this stakeholder meeting to discuss the impacts of health care reform had concerns with regulations, some of which are buried in the volumes of regulations being put out every day, and many that defy comprehension. When discussing the President's Executive order and regulations with my constituents and those representing the patient and provider community, the No. 1 concern I heard was a fear not just of the current regulations, which they are trying to keep up with, but of future regulations. While there is considerable concern with the burden of regulations that have already been issued, I heard time and again that there is an even greater concern with the uncertainty of future regulations, especially those implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA, and their potential to have further and greater impact on jobs and the economy and health care--even greater than the impacts we discussed during the health care reform debate. At the stakeholder meeting we had meaningful dialog about that. This is akin to a second health care reform earthquake. If you are a health care provider, hang on. Additionally, I have heard that the combination of the regulations being issued to implement the PPACA statute has resulted in an increase in premiums--to repeat that, an increase in premiums, not cost savings--for individuals and businesses, which, as you know, results in increased costs and very tough choices. Related to this, I am concerned by reports that I am hearing that staff within the administration have signaled that regulations being issued to implement the PPACA statute already comply with the President's Executive order and would not need to be included in a review. Does that mean all the health care regulations pouring out of CMS are not going to be subject to the President's Executive order? What is that? This is one of the biggest worries we have throughout the country regarding health care, and the President issues an Executive order and says let's take a look. Do the costs outweigh the benefits? Are they duplicative, unnecessary, or just plain dumb? Those are his words. CMS is exempted? Health care is exempted? That is unreal. I believe otherwise, and this belief is being verified by personal stories from Kansans. In my letter to the President today, I strongly encouraged him to review all of the regulations that have been issued, past, present, and future, while considering their impact on the economy and jobs. Sure, it would be a tough job. It is time, with the ``Katrina'' of regulations pouring out of the various agencies in Washington. Understanding this, last month, I, along with Senators Barrasso and Coats, and with the support of 38 Senate colleagues--have introduced the Regulatory Responsibility for Our Economy Act, S. 358. I urge my colleagues on the other side, who I am going to engage in the next week. We will go face to face and I will try to convince you. My bill moves to codify and strengthen President Obama's January 18 Executive order that directs agencies within the administration to review, modify, streamline, expand, or repeal those significant regulatory actions that are, in the President's words, duplicative, unnecessary, overly burdensome, or would have significant economic impacts on Americans. I have given President Obama credit for saying that, but I don't give him credit for including the loopholes. While I agree in principle with the President that we need to take a serious look at both current and proposed Federal regulations, I don't think his Executive order actually does what it purports to do. I have some loopholes listed. In Dodge City, where I come from, coming close to the truth is coming pretty close, but it still ain't the truth. I think this is where this fits. The Executive order states--and I want everybody in the Senate, if you are listening, or if your staff is listening, provide this to your member. Figure this out: In applying these principles, each agency is directed to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. That is a good thing. Where appropriate and permitted by law, each agency may consider (and discuss qualitatively)-- and this is the part where I had the most concern, and I hope somebody can explain it. values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts. What is that? ``But,'' as the Wall Street Journal captured so eloquently in their response to President Obama's editorial, ``these amorphous concepts are not measurable at all.'' They are not. On the surface, I feel this language has the potential to be a very large loophole--probably is already. I believe this is the loophole being used to exempt the PPACA regulations from this review. That is unfortunate. In fact, upon reading and rereading it, it could be better described as gobbledygook. As a matter of fact, it got my gobbledygook award of the month this past month. My legislation would close the loopholes in President Obama's Executive order and would close other existing loopholes, including those the administration has been using--or the Secretaries for the various agencies have been using--to bypass valuable stakeholder input on regulations. In fact, I hear often that patients and providers believe they do not have a voice in the regulatory process. More specifically, I hear that a number of regulations are currently being issued through a shortened process which allows limited or no input from those most affected by the regulations prior to their implementation--that is wrong--and they may result in an even greater confusion and burden which then results in greater costs and economic impact, especially if changes are necessary based on later comments that the administration does receive. It is my understanding the PPACA rules that have been issued as interim final rules and, therefore, with limited input--and they will probably become final--are the national provider identifier, Web portal requirements, Early Retiree Reinsurance Program, coverage of children to age 26. Underserved rural communities, grandfathered health plans, preexisting condition exclusions, preventive services, internal claims/ appeals and external review processes, Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan Program, amendment to grandfathered health plans rule, and medical lost ratio requirements. That is a bunch of them--all regulations through a shortened process. While there may have been instances in which a shortened process was necessary or appropriate, this lengthy list is why passage of my legislation is so critically important. I ask the Presiding Officer if I have exceeded my time. If I have, I would like 2 additional minutes to close.

Mr. ROBERTS. May I have 2 additional minutes, and I will close.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to once again speak out against what I consider to be and many others consider to be a regulatory assault on our Nation's economy. I have previously discussed my concerns with regulations having a negative impact on our agriculture community. That was last week. Earlier this week, I spoke about what I consider to be the egregious regulations that are being promulgated by the EPA, or what Senator Grassley calls the ``end of production agriculture agency.'' Today, I rise to talk about health care regulations that patients and providers have brought to my attention. I have listed a number of these regulations in a letter I sent earlier today to President Obama. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. It is my understanding that at 2:15 morning business expires. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business and that I am recognized for 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 15 minutes. I will try to make it short. If it goes on any longer, I will ask unanimous consent for additional time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Alabama for laying out exactly what we face when we have a vote tomorrow in regard to the future of the United States and whether we restore common sense to Federal spending and prevent the chaotic situation he so aptly described, not only in terms of our immediate future but for our children and our grandchildren. That says it all in regard to we had a townhall meeting--Senator Jerry Moran, Congressman Kevin Yoder, and myself in Johnson County, KS. In that meeting, the first question out--it was 100 to 250 people who were so excited: When are you going to get control of this spending? They worry not just about themselves but their kids and grandkids. As usual, we are going to have to dub the Senator from Alabama the watchdog of the Senate, but he so eloquently described what we face. I thank him for it.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. We--myself, staff, others, a lot of people I have met with in Kansas, regardless what economic sector we are talking about, whether it is energy, which I wish to talk about today, whether it is agriculture, which we talked about last week, health care is coming, and then we are going to talk about the financial sector--we have talked about the President's initiative, his Executive order in which the President said rightly--and I applauded that statement that we have so many regulations pouring out of Washington and so many regulations on the books, we do not have a cost-benefit yardstick--that is my favorite term for it--to say: Does the cost exceed the benefit? Does it make sense? The President himself said there are many that are duplicative and very costly and basically are stupid. That is exactly what the President said. I said ``egregious.'' That is the Senate word. The President said ``stupid.'' I think everybody understands that. He issued an Executive order, and he said to all the Federal agencies: Please, take a look at the regulations that are on the books and all the regulations that are coming out of your agency and see if you can make sense out of it and try to separate out the ones that are duplicative, costly, and, yes, stupid and the ones that are not and we can make some progress. I applauded the President's effort. The problem is, it is an Executive order that has no teeth. There are three exemptions--and I will get into that in my prepared remarks, but basically the independent agencies are excluded. There are a bunch of them. There is language in the bill that says, if you are doing it for the public good, the Secretary can say: Oh, well, that does not apply to us. How many Secretaries around here--for that matter czars. I guess they are in the room. I don't know what they do. If there is a czar sitting there talking to schedule C appointees and says: Do you think our regulations serve the public good, of course, they think that. They would not have promulgated them or issued them or thought them up to begin with if they did not think it was for the public good. So they are exempt. Then, we have a wonderful paragraph that I defy anybody to understand. They can also use that in regard to dodging around the President's Executive order. The President issued an Executive order, said some very good things to the American public, but it does not have any teeth. I have a bill. We have 30 cosponsors. The bill says: Mr. President, you are right with your Executive order. We codify his order, but we take out the exemptions. What a day that would produce--or a year, for that matter--for all Federal agencies, if they truly had to adhere to the President's Executive order. I hope we get more cosponsors and we could actually consider it and actually pass it on the floor of the Senate. We have several areas of our economy that are affected in a most egregious way by all these regulations. I talked about agriculture last week. We are talking about energy today. Health care is coming, and the financial institutions will be coming after that. Even as the price of crude continues to climb above $100 this administration continues to promote domestic energy policies that are making it more expensive for Americans to put gas in their cars, heat their homes, power their businesses. Just yesterday in a townhall meeting in Johnson County in Kansas, I heard complaints about the rising gas prices and our dependence on foreign oil and the need to develop our own domestic resources--all those resources. But this vital goal is now extremely difficult on the administration's own policies, again affecting not only energy but agriculture and our financial institutions and health care. I call them the four horsemen of regulatory strangulation. That may be a little harsh, but I don't think it is. As I said, last week, I came to the floor and highlighted a multitude of new overly burdensome and, in many situations, absurd EPA regulations that will have a significant negative effect on the ability of our farmers and our ranchers to produce the food and the crops necessary to compete in a global market and to feed a troubled and hungry world. Take a look at the coverage in regard to Libya and the news blip we saw on television where somebody was shouting and protesting and one of our newspeople stuck a microphone in front of his face and said: Are you trying to promote democracy? He said: No, I just want a loaf of bread. I will say to you that a hungry nation is a nation that does not have any possibility of economic opportunity. Well, unfortunately, as we all know, the EPA's reach goes well beyond the agricultural industry. Its regulations are moving to make the energy we rely on every day more expensive to produce, and many times without providing any appreciable benefits to the environment. Nobody wants to do anything that would endanger the public health. But I think we can take a good look at some of these regulations in regards to any appreciable benefits to the environment and find they are few and far between. Since fiscal year 2010, 10 new regulations promulgated by the EPA have accounted for over $23 billion in new costs to the American taxpayer, costs which are even more painful for Americans as our Nation continues to struggle with an almost 9-percent unemployment rate. Unfortunately, with the number of proposed regulations currently before our domestic energy producers, if we do not take action--we meaning the Congress--2011 and beyond will be even costlier. For example, EPA has proposed to amend the current national ambient quality standards for ozone to a range of 60 to 70 parts per billion. This is a range so stringent that recent analysis estimates hundreds of thousands of jobs would be at risk because of the inability of cities and counties to meet these attainment levels. The EPA itself has estimated this new regulation would cost between $19 billion and $90 billion to fully implement. I am talking about the 60 to 70 parts per billion standard. It provides no rationale as to what new scientific data justifies updating a standard set as recently as 2008. This proposed regulation is in addition to the recently enacted greenhouse gas regulations requiring application of the best available control technology. Who decides that? That is the Kansas Department of Health and Environment with the EPA looking over their shoulder, and it is the application of best available control technology for stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions. This regulation currently only affects those stationary sources of energy emitting 75,000 or more tons of carbon per year and which are already subject to the prevention of significant deterioration--they call that PSD--permitting requirements for nongreenhouse gases--or GHGS. Future implementation of this rule could negatively impact millions of small businesses, farms, hospitals, and community organizations with costs of over $75 billion a year. So we are talking billions and billions and billions in regards to these regulations. According to the Affordable Power Alliance, a civil rights organization, by the year 2030, greenhouse gas regulations--trying to control them--specifically targeting our domestic energy producers will result in the loss of 2.5 million jobs--2.5 million jobs--and a reduction of household income of $1,200 a year. Keep in mind, these are impacts that will have the greatest negative impact on poor households, low-income households, that spend a greater percentage of their monthly income on utilities and groceries-- necessities made more expensive to produce and purchase with rising energy prices. In the area of energy recycling, EPA officials are preparing to release a final ruling on regulation of coal combustion byproducts--the acronym for which is CCBs--which I hope avoids any classification of this product as a hazardous waste. CCBs are, of course, an unavoidable residual of burning coal to create energy, which I wish to add is the most cost-effective form of energy available still, and is responsible for providing over 70 percent of the energy to my State's taxpayers--70 percent. Classification of this byproduct as a hazardous waste will restrict further beneficial use of CCBs in a multitude of industries, including agriculture, Portland cement, home construction, and without providing definitive benefits to the environment. In my home State of Kansas, representatives speaking on behalf of a number of Kansas energy producers estimated costs to industry of over $300 billion over the next 5 years to comply with a multitude of proposed EPA regulations dealing with air, water, and CCB management. Three hundred billion dollars. That is unreasonable, and is probably the mildest thing I can say. These are real numbers that will doubtlessly drive up the cost of energy Kansans rely on to heat their homes and drive our Nation's agricultural industry. Unfortunately, the negative impacts resulting from the multitude of new, overly burdensome EPA regulations don't stop with agriculture and energy. Beyond affecting the way people power their homes and businesses, the administration has even moved to regulate what cars Americans can drive. This was made evident by the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's decision last year to begin mandating greater fuel economy and emissions standards for all passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. Recent analysis has estimated this new regulation will cost the already struggling automobile industry upwards of $10.8 billion to comply, and consumers up to about $1,000 per vehicle in higher purchasing prices. They just pass the costs on. So if you want to buy a new pickup down the road, it will be $1,000 more. While EPA has garnered much of the attention in my State for its efforts to make energy more expensive, from a national perspective, the Department of the Interior shares similar responsibility for pursuing policies that not only make energy more expensive but also make our country more reliant on foreign, and oftentimes unfriendly, sources of energy. For example, under the current administration, the Department of the Interior has canceled 77 oil development leases in Utah that were located within a larger formation covering three States that the Bureau of Land Management has estimated contains around 800 billion barrels of oil, more than three times the proven reserves in Saudi Arabia. Why? Why would we revoke these leases? That question has to be asked and answered. We are speaking of 800 billion barrels of oil. No, they can't go do that. This, of course, is in addition to the gulf of Mexico deepwater drilling moratorium imposed last summer which has had a lasting negative effect on the gulf coast economy. The President said yes, you can go ahead and drill, but the safety regulations are such that a lot of companies that were drilling have left or are leaving. However, foreign competition is drilling in the same place. That doesn't make sense. Beyond the regulatory burdens, it is also essential we focus on removing redundant programs within the various Federal agencies. Listen up. Every upset taxpayer should know this and, more importantly, demand action from this Congress. Last month, the administration's own Government Accountability Office--the famous or infamous GAO--released a report highlighting hundreds of duplicative programs currently on the books that cost American taxpayers billions of dollars every year. You get into double digits when you are counting the number of programs all of us want to depend on and all of us think are important, but they are duplicative. They are doing the same thing. As I say, it is costing American taxpayers billions of dollars every year. While separate from regulatory oversight, this study further amplifies the importance that we take a serious look at our Federal agencies and put in place appropriate oversight, review, and revocation where needed. It is for these reasons that I believe Congress must move forward with solutions that remove overly burdensome regulations and create an environment that doesn't hinder energy production and use of those resources that make the most economic sense while still protecting, yes, our clean water, clean air, and do what we can in regards to CO2 emissions. Understanding this, last month, I, along with 30 other Senators, introduced the bill I was talking about--the Regulatory Responsibility for our Economy Act. The bill moves to codify and strengthen the President's January 18 Executive order that directs agencies within the administration to review, modify, streamline, expand or repeal those significant regulatory actions that are duplicative, unnecessarily overly burdensome, or would have significant economic impacts on Americans. Those are the President's words right there. I agree with them. I applaud the President for saying that. While I agree in principle with President Obama that we need to take a serious look at both current and proposed Federal regulations, I don't believe his Executive order actually does what it purports to do. There are too many loopholes and no teeth. Specifically, my bill moves to hold accountable independent agencies which are exempt under his Executive order, such as the FDIC, the SEC, and the EPA that are not covered under President Obama's Executive order. The EPA came up and said: We are doing the public good. Then they followed that crazy paragraph I will read in a minute and said: We are okay. We are not issuing any regulations that hurt anybody. I just attended the Commodity Classic, made up of all farm organizations, all commodity groups out in Great Bend, KS, and the No. 1 issue: regulations. Why on Earth are you putting out all these regulations that are about to put us out of business? You go right down the line and any group, any association, any business all throughout America are saying: Pat, what are you doing strangling us with all these regulations? What are you guys doing? My response is: I am not a ``you guys,'' I am an ``us guy,'' and I am trying to do something about it. Specifically, my bill moves to hold accountable these independent agencies. It also removes from the Executive order highly subjective language that directs each agency to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible, and--here comes the paragraph I defy you, Mr. President, and I defy any of our highly skilled and educated people on the dais, I defy this nice young lady taking down my words the best she can, or anybody listening to this to understand--each agency may consider and discuss qualitatively--this is the way they look at a regulation to determine whether they are going to issue that regulation or not--values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts. That statement is amorphous. It is synonymous with amorphous. I defy anybody to try to determine what that means, except what you want it to mean. So that statement now wins the gobbledygook award of the month. I think I am going to come down here every month and award a gobbledygook statement in the regulatory field that is about to drown us all as the gobbledygook statement of the month--and that sure hits it. It doesn't take a legislative scholar to understand that this language creates a loophole large enough to drive a grain truck through and renders the order meaningless. That is why passage of my regulation is so critically important. I invite my friends on both sides of the aisle to please sign on as a cosponsor of my legislation, realizing the immense opportunities it creates for meaningful review and possible revocation of regulations counter to our Nation's growth, along with the GAO report outlining specific duplication of Federal programs, a report that defies PowerPoints or charts--couldn't do it; a maze of too many programs trying to do the same thing. If we don't do this, we are going to cost the business community of America and all Americans billions of dollars and get nothing in return in regard to environmental benefits. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to speak out against what I consider to be a regulatory assault on our Nation's energy sector. That is pretty strong language, but I intend it to be. I listed a number of these proposed regulations in a letter I sent earlier today to President Obama. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair. Executive Order on Regulations Mr. President, I rise today to speak again about President Obama's January 18 Executive order that directed all Federal agencies within the administration to review or repeal those significant regulatory actions that are duplicative, overly burdensome, or would have a significant economic impact on ordinary Americans. The President went on to say--I am paraphrasing from his words--they are costly, they are duplicative, in many cases they aren't necessary, we need to review them, and in some cases, actually, they are stupid. That is a direct quote from the President. I am paraphrasing, but he did say the word ``stupid.'' Probably ``stupid'' would be the word, or maybe ``egregious'' or ``fed up'' that almost any group or any organization back home would use when you visit with them. I know Senators, on their past break or our work period, if you will, probably spoke to a lot of groups. I will tell you what happened to me. I would walk into a group--any organization, be it farmers, ranchers, educators, health care, whatever--and they would say: Pat, what on Earth are you doing back there, passing all these regulations, a wave of regulations that do not make common sense and do not fit the yardstick, if you will, of cost and benefit? We can't even wake up any morning without some new regulation popping up across the desk, and we just don't have the people to do this. You are about to put us out of business. The first thing I say is, I am not a ``you guy,'' I am an ``us guy.'' And I am very much aware of these regulations. We have to do something about it. I brought up the fact the President himself recognized these problems. But I have to say that while I applauded this decision by the President, I noted there were some loopholes in his Executive order, and they are roughly these--if I could sort of summarize them: No. 1, if you are doing something for the public good--and, obviously, the secretary of any agency is going to say: Sure, we are doing something for the public good--well, then, you are exempt. That is a pretty big loophole to drive the truck through. Secondly, it was if you are an independent agency. Well, let's try the IRS. I think more people than most would say: Yes, we have some regulatory problems with the IRS. Several more, and I won't go into those. Then you have this paragraph, which I am going to read, that agencies can apply to their decision as to whether they are going to review the regulations they have on the books and regulations coming down the pike. They can apply this to see if they are exempt, and this is within the Executive order. In applying these principles, each agency is directed to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. I can't imagine anybody being opposed to that. Where appropriate and permitted by law, each agency may consider and discuss qualitatively values that are difficult or impossible to quantify-- I don't know how you do that-- including equity, human dignity, fairness and distributive impacts. That is about as amorphous as any language that I could possibly put together. If any secretary, or anybody in any agency who promulgates all the regulations they think they are forced to under some congressional act or perhaps an Executive order they are trying to issue applies this language, of course, they are exempt. So there are loopholes, again, that you can drive trucks through in regards to the fact that this Executive order is basically not going to be adhered to because everybody will stand up and say: We are exempt. We are doing public good. We are doing this language--whatever that means. So while I applaud the decision by the President, I decided last week I would introduce legislation to strengthen and codify his Executive order. All that means is, when I say we codify it, we say: OK, the Executive order stands but, sorry, no exemptions. What a day that would bring to Washington, with all the Federal agencies saying: Whoa, stop. We are going to take a look at all the regulations we have out there now, and we are going to take a look at all the ones we are promulgating--which are hundreds of them. And, I might just note, there were 44 major regulatory decisions that cost the American business community $27 billion just last year, according to one study. We are finding more and more people coming to Washington who have an agenda in regards to these regulations, but the folks out there who are being impacted seem to be overlooked. I have 30, 32, 35 cosponsors on this bill. I asked on both sides of the aisle for cosponsors. I think it is a good bill. It would be a brandnew day in Washington if every Federal agency had to stop and say: Whoa, wait a minute. Let's apply a cost-benefit yardstick. The Executive order sort of goes into what that would mean. They have one individual who is supposed to be doing all of this, so they could report to him, although that would be quite a load. My goodness, if all the Federal agencies stopped their regulatory process, there would be a cheer out in the hinterland in regards to every business I can think of. Well, as the administration moves forward with this review, I am going to have something to say in several areas: health care, energy, and financing, to people who are lending agencies and the effect of the regulatory reform. But today I want to talk about agriculture. Today I want to talk about the EPA and what is going on in regards to what I think is regulatory overkill for sure. I am privileged to be the ranking Republican and to serve with the Senator from Michigan, our chairwoman of the committee, Senator Stabenow. Basically, as the administration moves forward with its review, I recommend the President and his advisers pay particularly close attention to the activities of three specific agencies when they are determining which proposed regulations will place the greatest burden on agriculture--a key component of our Nation's economy and the ability to feed this country and a troubled and hungry world--the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Since fiscal year 2010, 10 new regulations promulgated--that is a fancy word in Washington which means issued--by the EPA have accounted for over $23 billion in new cost to the American taxpayer. Now, that is outrageous, and they are just getting started. The EPA has several new proposals, many of which will have immediate negative impacts on the ability of America's farmers and ranchers to continue to produce enough food to feed our communities, our States, our country, and, yes, the world. Think of how valuable that is as we look down the road with about a 9.3 billion increase in population compared to 6 billion today. We are going to have to double agriculture production, and I will talk about that a little later. Why on Earth would we want to do anything to the farmer and rancher whose job it is to do that? That is beyond me. I will highlight two such proposals that many producers have brought to my attention. I just addressed the Commodity Classic in Kansas, in Great Bend, of about 200 farmers. Guess what their No. 1 concern was. Overregulation, regulation that could put them out of business. They are concerned about the farm bill and they are concerned about lending and they are concerned about debt. But first, in only 7 short weeks, the EPA will require farmers-- who are applying pesticide to kill pests so they can save the crop--to obtain a permit under the Clean Water Act, even though that activity is already highly regulated under the Federal pesticide law. The President said we don't need regulations that are duplicative. We don't need two agencies having a different agreement on one regulation. We probably don't even need that regulation because we have very strong regulations under the FIFRA act that we have right now. Farmers and other pesticide applicators, under this regulatory impact, would not be facing these requirements if the administration had chosen to vigorously defend its longstanding policy that protections under the Federal pesticide law were sufficient to protect the environment. Excuse me, Mr. President. That was probably a phone call from some farmer listening to this and saying: Go ahead and give them you know what, Pat. Unfortunately, the administration chose a different path and now estimates suggest this duplicative regulation will require 365,000 individuals to get a Clean Water Act permit--365,000 individuals--a requirement that will cost $50 million and require 1 million hours per year to implement. Bottom line, it will not add any environmental protection. This layer of redtape will place a huge financial burden on the shoulders of farm families all across the country, as well as State governments responsible for enforcement while at the same time facing dire budget situations. Last month, John Salazar, a former Member of the House of Representatives and newly appointed Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture stated in his testimony before the House: It is no secret that States across the country face dire budget situations and many have had to close State parks, cancel transportation projects and cut funding to higher education. It is very difficult to justify diverting even more resources to manage paperwork for a permit that is duplicative of other regulatory programs and has no appreciable environmental benefits. However, if Colorado's estimates are reflective of the situation in other States, the true cost to States will quickly outstrip EPA's estimates. More than 365,000 individuals, $50 million, and 1 million hours per year to implement on the backs of our farmers and ranchers. Mr. President, these expenses are not just limited to the cost of compliance and enforcement. The April 9 effective date is near. There is still significant confusion and uncertainty about what pesticide applications will fall under these new regulations. This means farmers and other pesticide applicators may very well find themselves subject to massive penalties. On top of the fact that they shouldn't be filling out the paperwork in the first place, if they do not, they could be held responsible for massive penalties for minor paperwork violations to the tune of--get this--$37,500 per day per violation. Unbelievable. Beyond agency enforcement, they will also now be exposed to the threat of litigation under the clean water law's citizen suit provisions. With the volatile nature of agricultural markets and increased demand, these sort of risks and resulting costs are something that producers and the hungry mouths who depend on them simply cannot afford. Next, EPA is undertaking an effort to control particulate matter-- this is a favorite of mine--otherwise known as dust. They call it rural fugitive dust. This is a dust-off of the old 1970s effort to control rural fugitive dust. I remember that. Somebody must have pulled it from the file. This is part of the EPA's review of the PM standard under the Clean Air Act. The agency is currently considering the most stringent regulations on farm dust that have ever been proposed. I finally reached the person who, when they first proposed this, was in charge of promoting it, or she was going to promulgate these regulations on rural fugitive dust. Before I could get a word in--I finally reached the person in charge; it took me 3 days--finally, before I could get a word in, she said: Did you realize--at that point I was a Congressman, and she said: Do you realize, Mr. Roberts, you have a lot of dust in your part of the country? I said: I think I know that. That is why we had the Great Plains Conservation Program. Each farmer has to have a conservation program if they are going to apply or for it to be applicable to the farm bill. We have a Conservation Reserve Program. We are doing everything we can to control dust, rest assured. Nobody likes that. I said: What would you have us do to comply with rural fugitive dust rules? She said: You know the grain trucks at harvest go up and down gravel roads, and they cause a lot of dust. No kidding. I said: What would you have us do? She said: Why don't you send out water trucks at 10 o'clock in the morning and 2 in the afternoon to every community in Kansas that has those gravel roads where you harvest wheat. I said: Great idea. That would be marvelous. Maybe we could get a grant. Today, that would be a stimulus grant to small communities in regard to rural areas where we are doing the wheat harvest to, No. 1, buy the trucks and, No. 2, find the water. That is just how ridiculous this is with rural fugitive dust. To put it simply, this defies common sense, whether it is cattle kicking up dust in a feedlot in Dodge City, KS, or Larned, KS, or anywhere in Kansas during harvest on a hot afternoon on the high plains in June. Dust is a naturally occurring event. Standards beyond the current limit would be impossible to meet, particularly in the western portion of the Nation where rainfall is often scarce. I don't even know why I am taking this seriously in regard to that kind of regulation. In a bipartisan June letter, 23 Members of this body wrote a letter to express these concerns to Administrator Jackson stating: Considering the Administration's focus on rural America and rural economic development, a proposal such as this could have a negative effect on those very goals . . . Common sense requires the EPA to acknowledge that the wind blows and so does dust. As we think about EPA's actions impacting agriculture, it is critical to recognize that no one cares more about maintaining a clean environment than the American farmer and rancher. Producers across the country manage their operations responsibly because of their desire to keep farming and to one day pass along that ranch or field to their sons, daughters and grandchildren if they can. They know firsthand that clean air and water and healthy soil go hand-in-hand with a healthy economy. Our producers deserve respect and appreciation from the EPA, not costly and redundant and yes, even ridiculous regulation. Shifting departments now, the Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration--GIPSA--released a proposed rule that would dramatically increase the redtape governing the business relationships surrounding production and marketing of livestock in the United States. The rule was initially proposed last summer without the benefit of a meaningful cost-benefit analysis-- something we have been trying to get and something the administration should have included. However, the proposal has since received significant criticism from ranchers, industry and members of Congress alike and is now being further evaluated by USDA officials. As written, the proposal would dramatically reduce consumer choice and increase costs. The proposal exposes packers to liability for use of alternative marketing arrangements and other innovative procurement methods, thereby ultimately depressing the prices received for America's most efficient and successful producers while potentially reducing the quality available to consumers. Further, the proposed rule would actually increase concentration in the sector as businesses are forced to change their current organizational structure--exacerbating the very issue the rule is allegedly designed to address. For example, in Kansas, we have a highly successful rancher-owned company made up of individual producers who own both cattle and shares in the company's processing infrastructure. Under this proposal, many of the individual members of the company may now be prohibited from selling cattle directly to other processors, creating the need for a middleman that would then lower the price the producer actually receives. If implemented, the GIPSA rule poses a substantial threat to the continued viability of the domestic livestock sector. In Kansas, this industry contributes over $9.5 billion to our economy. With an economic footprint of this magnitude, the GIPSA regulation is a burden that Kansas and many other rural States and many of the livestock producers simply cannot afford. Another agency falling through the President's Executive order loophole is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC is charged with developing dozens of new regulations impacting participants up and down the swaps and futures chain. Shouldn't these regulations be held to the same standard of cost- effectiveness and undue burden as others? Yes--but no. I talked to Chairman Gensler in my office just a couple of days ago. He is a very nice man, very pleasant. He believes very strongly that the CFTC is exempt from the President's Executive order because the President said it was exempt. I indicated that I didn't think so, especially since the CFTC is presently pushing 40-plus rules out the door in 1 year with little or no priority. We were told the intent of Dodd-Frank was to reduce systemic risk in the financial marketplace. However, several of CFTC's proposals appear to increase risk management costs on those who do not pose a systemic threat. The CFTC must be mindful that increased costs through high margin and capital requirements on certain segments of the marketplace may decrease a user's ability to use appropriate risk management tools. A rigorous cost-benefit analysis is tailor-made for the CFTC's current situation: dozens of economically significant rules; the potential to negatively impact risk management costs of American businesses; and a simple question needing to be answered--do the benefits of this proposed regulation--we are talking about anywhere from 40 to 60 now--in the form of lower systemic risk in our financial system outweigh the increased costs on businesses? Let me say something. In talking with Chairman Gensler--again, I really appreciate him coming by the office and talking. It became obvious to me that with all these regulations, maybe the first one ought to be a definition regulation. What is a swap? Who is a dealer? It has not been done yet. So we are going to propose 39 more regulations and we have not even defined whom the regulations will affect and what the subject matter is that they are going to regulate. That is really unbelievable. We are going to have a hearing tomorrow in the Senate Agriculture Committee. Chairman Gensler will attend and give his testimony. We are going to be very welcoming to him in regard to the committee, but that is something I am going to ask him. Why on Earth are you going ahead with 40 regulations and you can't even define whom you are going to regulate or what you are going to regulate? There is no definition. That, to me, is pretty bad. You have the cart before the horse there. In closing, I wish to make two points. First, in many rural areas of Kansas and the rest of the country, agriculture is the cornerstone of the economy. Second, in the coming decades we will be even more reliant on America's farmers and ranchers to feed an ever-growing world population. I said that before. We must truly commit to a real and robust--here is a good Senate word--robust review and revocation of any and all unduly burdensome regulations that could inhibit American agriculture's ability to produce the safest, most abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber supply in the world. What are we talking about? We are talking about 9.3 billion people. What are we talking about? The ability for our agriculture--for everybody in agriculture to double our production, all the farmers and ranchers. Why on Earth would we want this whole business of regulatory impact--most of which is highly questionable, none of which fits the President's Executive order to take a look at the cost-benefit--why on Earth would we do this to the very person whose job it is to feed this country and the hungry world? Look at the Mideast--in turmoil. I remember one interview on TV where somebody stuck a microphone in and asked one of the protesters in Libya: What are you protesting for? Democracy? He said: No, a loaf of bread. Where people are hungry and malnourished, you have no economic opportunity. Where you have people who are hungry, they will go and join extremist groups, even on over into terrorism groups. I had the privilege of being the chairman of the Intelligence Committee here in the Senate. That was one of the big considerations we had in whole areas of the world where people do not have the ability to feed themselves, where they are in a food-deficient area. It really poses problems for the future of that part of the world. Yet here we ask our farmers and ranchers to double our ag production in a couple of decades. I don't know how we are going to do this with this regulatory nightmare. Let's hope we wake up soon. I hope everybody will take a look at my bill to codify the President's Executive order--I give him credit for doing that--but not with all these loopholes that are going to drive us nuts out there in rural, smalltown America. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for approximately 20 minutes, and I probably will not use all of that time and will yield back.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I understand the time for morning business has come and gone, but I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 20 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I recently introduced a bill called the Regulatory Responsibility for Our Economy Act of 2011--it is S. 358-- and I would urge my colleagues who would like to, after hearing my remarks, to cosponsor this. I realize the bill is a mouthful--the Regulatory Responsibility for Our Economy Act--but I think it is appropriate. This bill would strengthen and codify President Obama's Executive order from January 18. In that Executive order, the President made a commitment to review, to modify, to streamline, to expand or repeal-- that is a lot of things, to review, modify, streamline, expand, and repeal--those regulatory actions that are duplicative, unnecessary, overly burdensome, or would have significant economic impacts on Americans. So the Regulatory Responsibility for Our Economy Act of 2011 would ensure just that. My legislation would require that all regulations put forth by the current and future administrations--regardless of the President-- consider the economic burden on American businesses, ensure stakeholder input--i.e., the people who are affected--during the regulatory process, and promote innovation. Back on January 18, the President signed an Executive order to do precisely that, we thought. It was for ``improving regulation and regulatory review.'' But the President also released a factsheet on the intent for his regulatory strategy. It was in detail. Per the factsheet, ``In this Executive Order, the President requires Federal agencies to design cost-effective, evidence-based regulations that are compatible with economic growth, job creation, and competitiveness.'' My legislation would ensure that would actually happen. In addition, the President published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal detailing the administration's commitment to reviewing regulations. As part of this op-ed, the President stated: We have preserved freedom of commerce while applying those rules and regulations necessary to protect the public against threats to our health and safety and to safeguard people in business from abuse. But he also noted that--and this is the key: Sometimes those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business--burdens that have stifled innovation and had a chilling effect on growth and jobs. I must say I absolutely agree with the President. I was extremely pleased when he came out with the Executive order on January 16. And as I travel across my home State, I have heard Kansan after Kansan, regardless of the business, regardless of where they are on Main Street, who find themselves weighed down by the burden of too many regulations. As a matter of fact, I think if any Member of this Senate would like to get a standing ovation from even a group of five at a coffee shop or at a meeting of any organization that is business- oriented or just folks, you can talk about the debt, you can talk about spending, you can talk about other issues, but the one that really grabs them is this business of overregulation. This has been going on for too many years--too many decades. As a matter of fact, you can come into a meeting, and you will probably get the question--even the distinguished President pro tempore, the Senator from New York, would get the question, though probably a little nicer than I would get it, and certainly the other Senator from New York, who is now leaving the Chamber--the question usually comes as: Pat, what on Earth are you doing back there, saddling us with paperwork and regulations that are costly, burdensome, and that we don't even know about? All of a sudden, on a Wednesday morning we wake up and we face this regulatory dictate. It is counterproductive, and the cost outweighs the benefit. What is going on back there? What are you guys doing? My response: Well, let's stop there for just a minute. I am not a ``you guy,'' I am an ``us guy.'' Clear back in the days when I was in the House of Representatives and I had the privilege of serving in that body, we were all trying to do something about unnecessary and burdensome regulations. So I have had a longstanding concern with the regulatory process, and that is the one issue that is a tinderbox issue. It is one where you really get an immediate response, with people saying: Amen. Somebody needs to do something about that. And they were so pleased with the President when he came out with the Executive order, saying: Hey, I am going to do something about this. As of January 3, 2011, less than 6 months after the Dodd-Frank act was signed into law, regulators have issued over 1,000 pages of regulatory proposals and 360 pages of final rules. Talk about asking Senators whether they have read a bill, I know that nobody in the Senate has read over the 1,000 pages of regulatory proposals and 360 pages of final rules on the regulatory reform act. And many more pages of regulations--upwards of 5,000--are expected. Regulations such as those put forth by the Department of Health and Human Services, along with the Departments of Labor and Treasury, have resulted in the child-only insurance market effectively disappearing in 20 States because of the regulations. The idea was to provide just the opposite but in 20 States today, that is not the case. The Environmental Protection Agency began implementing its greenhouse gas regulations on stationary sources of energy that emit 75,000 or more tons of CO2 a year, which, on its surface, aims to only regulate those largest emitters, such as powerplants and oil refineries, but it is only a matter of time--it is only a matter of time--before stricter regulations are handed down that will impact every corner of commerce. Let me just say that the EPA--knowing, of course, that Congress said no to cap and trade--is trying very hard to go around the Congress to try to put forth these regulations into compliance with the law. Last year, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration--and everything has to have an acronym in Washington, but the one for that is called GIPSA--published a proposed rule that would change longstanding rules governing the production and marketing of livestock. This is an agriculture thing. This proposed rule goes far beyond what was intended in the last farm bill. In fact, a number of items in the proposed rule were defeated here on the Senate floor, and yet they were put in the proposed rule. A number of private economic studies show the loss of gross domestic product is in excess of $1 billion--much more costly than the $100 million threshold required for an economic analysis to be completed. Unfortunately, an economic analysis is yet to be completed. So I was encouraged, Madam President. I was a happy camper there for a little bit by President Obama's commitment to a new regulatory strategy. But the devil is in the details, and with staff help, after reviewing the Executive order, I must say I was left with some larger concerns. I was upset. The Executive order states: In applying these principles, each agency is directed to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. Wonderful. We will have a cost-benefit yardstick applied to all of the regulations pouring out of all the agencies in Washington. The distinguished Speaker of the House said the other day that we had 200,000 more Federal employees in Washington than we did 2 years ago. I can assure you they are not twiddling their thumbs. They are issuing regulations, and they tend to be agenda-oriented, not really getting down to sound science or determining the unanticipated effects of their regulations. Picking up again on what the President said: Where appropriate and permitted by law, each agency may consider and discuss qualitatively values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts. The partridge in the pear tree was left out. Let me read this again. Where appropriate and permitted by law, each agency-- As they go through the regulations to determine which are counterproductive to this economy, costing billions in regard to manufacturing and businesses and harming our economy where it should not be harmed, they say, OK, but, but, but-- Where appropriate and permitted by law, each agency may consider-- And this is the part where we ought to really take a look at it-- values that are difficult or impossible to quantify-- How are you going to do that? How are you going to quantify values that are difficult or impossible-- including equity-- Everybody is for that-- human dignity-- I don't know anyone who is against that-- fairness, and distributive impacts. Now, try to figure that out if you are working in a Federal agency and you are trying to issue a regulation. If that isn't a loophole large enough to drive a truck through, I don't know what is. As the Wall Street Journal captured so eloquently in their response to President Obama's editorial, ``These amorphous concepts are not measurable at all.'' You can't do it. You can't measure them. On the surface, I think this language has the potential to be a very large loophole. This, coupled with an exception for independent agencies such as the FDIC, the SEC, or the EPA, has the potential to result in no changes at all. So we issue an Executive order saying: Let's take a tough look at the regulations that are so terribly counterproductive, and we may end up with nothing, more especially without the independent agencies. Note I said the FDIC. Note I said the SEC. Read Dodd-Frank, read financial regulatory reform. Read the reach into the small community banks and what they are going to have to put up with and hire a bunch of bad news bears--employees--to figure out and tell the rest of the employees how on Earth they are going to comply with these new regulations. And my favorite, the EPA, which had the temerity and the unmitigated gall, after this loophole came out, to say: Well, none of our regulations even apply. Our regulations are just fine. I got news for the EPA. The chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee, Deborah Stabenow, and I have agreed to hold a hearing on this to determine just exactly where we are, and where we are is not good. My legislation would close the loophole in President Obama's Executive order and would close other existing loopholes, including those that the administration has been using to bypass valuable stakeholder input on regulations. Again, there is that word-- ``stakeholder.'' That is a Senate word. Those are the people who are getting smacked right up alongside the face in regard to the regulations they do not even know adhere to their business or what they are about. The President has also agreed--and here is the key word or phrase: Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on businesses--burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs. The President went on to say, ``At other times, we have failed to meet our basic responsibility to protect the public interest leading to disastrous consequences,'' precisely what I am trying to demonstrate here. My legislation would assure a review of these regulations to assure fewer burdensome and economically irresponsible regulatory actions on struggling businesses in the United States. President Obama's Executive order ``requires the Federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our safety, our health and environment while promoting economic growth.'' So does my legislation. ``And it orders a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive.'' That is what the President's Executive order does, and so does my legislation. The President said, ``It's a review that will help bring order to regulations that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result of tinkering by administrations and legislators of both parties and the influence of special interests in Washington over decades.'' The President was right. My legislation would do this but would add some teeth to the commitment--sharp teeth--by cutting out the loopholes, the very loophole I read. I am not going to read it again. I defy anybody to tell me what it means or how anybody could use that kind of language in determining the cost-benefit of any regulation. The President has made it his ``mission to root out regulations that conflict,''--and I am quoting here--``that are not worth the cost or are just plain dumb.'' That is pretty clear, if the President says these regulations are just plain dumb. I said ``counterproductive.'' That is the Senate word. He said ``dumb.'' That is the Dodge City word and I think Dodge City would agree. I think my legislation is something the administration can support. So while the President believes his Executive order ``makes clear, we are seeking more affordable, less intrusive means to achieve the same ends--giving careful consideration to benefits and costs,'' and that it ``means writing rules with more input from experts, businesses and ordinary citizens,'' there were a number of loopholes in the Executive order I am happy to address with the administration in my legislation. My bill would keep the President accountable for another promise to Americans, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, the details of which I am happy to share with my colleagues. I hope we get a great number of colleagues to help us codify the Executive order, put some teeth in it, make it work, and get at regulatory reform as opposed to being disingenuous. I think that is exactly what has happened in regard to this, what turned out to be a very noble effort, but the end result had so many loopholes in it as to be completely ineffective. I yield any time I may have.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.