Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. So the SCHIP legislation ensures one new child for the cost of two. That doesn't seem like a very good deal. But here is what I want to get to. Is this correct, in the view of the Senator from Arizona. You are an insurance company--BlueCross BlueShield in Kansas, for that matter, Arizona, or John Deere from Iowa--I know they provide this kind of insurance for low-income families. What happens to them when SCHIP expands and crowds them out? And another thing, I'm assuming that providers get less in terms of reimbursement from SCHIP than they do from private insurance. So if I am a provider--and this story has been told in Medicaid, it has been told in Medicare, and now it is going to be told in SCHIP--and I get paid less, some providers are going to say: Adios. I am sorry, I am not going to see you. Basically, we had that with Medicare Part D and pharmacists, where they were only reimbursed up to 70 percent, and some of them say: I am not going to do this anymore. Now we are doing it with SCHIP because we are crowding out the private insurance companies. If you are a private insurance company, if you are John Deere of Iowa, and all of a sudden somebody comes along and takes away this number of youngsters from the coverage, how are you going to exist?

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 75.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Arizona yield for a question?

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, first, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Collins as a cosponsor of this amendment, which is already cosponsored by Senator Hatch.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment to refocus this bill and to more accurately reflect our priorities in regard to low-income children. After all, that is what this bill is supposed to be all about. The SCHIP program was established in title XXI of the Social Security Act. We had one goal, and that goal was to cover targeted low-income children. A targeted low-income child is defined as one who is under the age of 19 with no health insurance, whose family makes too much money to qualify them for Medicaid but not enough to be able to afford to buy them health insurance. The statute is very clear about who SCHIP is intended to cover. Low- income children should be our priority. That is the intent of the program. That is what the authors of the program had in mind when it was first passed in 1997. In Kansas, we take this priority very seriously. Our SCHIP is called HealthWave, and it covers children under the age of 19 whose families' incomes are up to 200 percent of the Federal poverty line. That is about $44,000 per year for a family of four. In 2007, we were able to cover nearly 40,000 children through HealthWave, but an estimated 32,000 low-income kids still remain uninsured. So my colleagues can imagine my surprise and frustration when I learned that some States were not following the intent of SCHIP. This was under the previous administration. That administration had granted, I think, something like 14 waivers to States that violated, in my mind, the intent of this program. So instead of prioritizing low-income children, they were, instead, exploiting loopholes and waivers granted by the previous administration to cover high-income kids and even adults--adults being covered by a program intended for low-income children. It shows us what can happen to a program. In the 2007 SCHIP reauthorization bill, which I and other Republicans supported--and, I might add, at no small political cost--we worked hard to close some of those loopholes and to refocus our priorities toward low-income kids. Now, this new bill, H.R. 2, cancels all of our good work. I wish to ask my colleagues a question about H.R. 2: Do you know, and do the folks back home whom you represent know, that this bill allows youngsters from families with incomes of $128,000 in some States to be eligible for SCHIP--$128,000? If that is low-income children--I don't know what the allegory is. I will think of it. I will come back to it. So consider this: Under H.R. 2, the State of New York will be allowed to cover children from families with incomes up to 400 percent of the Federal poverty line. Now, start right there. That is $88,200 for a family of four. In other States, 200 percent, maybe 250 percent; in New York, 400 percent. When I asked the Senator from New York how on Earth I could go back to Kansas taxpayers and say why are you paying taxes--or why am I paying taxes, on the part of the constituent for SCHIP for low-income kids, and yet you are providing it to a State where they are having the income level at 88,200? The answer I got back is that when you are poor in New York you are poorer than you are in Kansas. My response to that is, they might want to move. In addition, a State can use something called--now get this. This is bureaucratic talk. This is--I don't know what kind of talk this is. It is gobbledygook. A State can use something called an income disregard. So we can use this income disregard which the expert panel at our Finance Committee markup admitted could exclude as much as $40,000 of additional income. So in New York, a family of four making $128,000 per year could be eligible to receive SCHIP. In the last SCHIP bill, we closed this loophole. We put a hard cap on income at 300 percent of poverty, still higher than some of us like, to target those low-income kids. It is a lot easier to raise that level, find those kids, and add them to the rolls than go after the low-income kids and give them the insurance the program was intended to do. We came up with a compromise I thought was worth the extra coverage for Kansas youngsters. In addition, we disallowed the practice of block income disregards. The current bill reverses that policy. How can I explain this to my Kansas families making $40,000 a year? What does this say about our priorities? We just considered an $825 billion economic stimulus bill in the Finance Committee late last night, 9:30, with amendment after amendment after amendment after amendment after amendment. It pretty well wore us out. All were defeated except one by a party-line vote. Now we are talking about an additional $33 billion to provide health insurance to kids in families with incomes close to $130,000. I repeat, with incomes close to $130,000. That does not make any sense. I have one more question for my colleagues, Mr. President. Are they aware that H.R. 2 could result in bonus payments being made to States for expanding their Medicaid Programs to cover kids from families making over $128,000 a year? Let me explain how this works. In order to increase the enrollment of the lowest income kids into Medicaid, which is a good cause, we establish a bonus payment program for States that go out and identify and enroll these young people. However, some States, using their existing Medicaid flexibility, have added a new layer of Medicaid eligibility on top of their maximum SCHIP income eligibility level. They mixed the two. This Medicaid group is made up entirely of people with incomes that are above the maximum SCHIP income levels, which we have seen under H.R. 2 could be over $128,000. We call this phenomenon in some circles the Medicaid-SCHIP sandwich. It is an extra sandwich. It is frosting on the cake, and the cake is $128,000. It will unintentionally result in States being eligible for bonus payments for expanding their Medicaid enrollments to cover very high income kids. It would be a nice thing to do if we could afford it, but we cannot. Obviously, this is a gross abuse of congressional intent. Increasing the coverage of low-income children is and should be our priority with these bonus payments. No more sandwiches to add on to SCHIP. Even so, I still believe SCHIP is a program that is worth keeping and putting the SCHIP program back where it belongs--on low-income children. SCHIP is not supposed to be the Adult Health Insurance Program. It is not the Rich Kid's Free Health Care Program. It is not the Pathway to Government-Run Health Care for All Program. This program is supposed to be targeting, again, low-income children. So let's make sure we take care of them first. Let's get our priorities right. The amendment I am offering will close some of the loopholes I described in H.R. 2 that corrupt the intent of this program and skew our priorities. Let me say something I do not have in my prepared remarks, and it refers to a good conversation I had with the former leader of the Senate, Senator Tom Daschle, who is now the designee to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. That is a job I would not want, and I told him that when he came to the office and we had a nice chat. He asked me: Pat, what could we do, like the President wants to do, to reach out across the aisle, pass something bipartisan where everybody could agree that we could do it, do it quickly, and say: There, we have done something, instead of the back-and-forth politics like last night when we had, what, 40 amendments--I don't know, 30, 40, 50 amendments, straight party-line votes. This is not the road we want to take. I said: Tom, why don't we take SCHIP that was passed in the last Congress. It was vetoed by President Bush, but we had large majorities. It could be passed again, same bill. That did not happen. SCHIP popped out of the woodwork. The SCHIP horse came out of the chute, and it was a different rodeo. Underneath that saddle were four burrs. In the SCHIP program, there is a crowdout provision in regard to private insurance. That is the problem we have today. There is the problem of inserting immigration into this bill, which is a very passionate issue. We should not do that either. There are other things wrong with the bill. This is not the bill we intended, we passed, everybody voted--not everybody voted for it; some on our side, everybody over there--and we passed it. It was the same thing in the House. We could have done it again, the same bill, but the bill is changed. And, I might add, I don't like the way it was done. This is not the way this place is supposed to run. This is not the way the Senate is supposed to run. We should have regular order. We should have committee jurisdiction. We should have hearings. We could have passed that other SCHIP bill we passed in the last session of Congress. It did not happen. All of a sudden we had a new bill. I went to our ranking member, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. I said: What happened? I went to the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator from Montana, and I asked Senator Baucus: Max, I don't understand this. We usually meet as Republicans; we meet as Democrats. We get together and the Finance Committee is usually bipartisan and then we come up with something and figure out if we cannot do a bipartisan bill, we should not do it. This is a brandnew ball game. This is not what the President said yesterday when he met with Republicans and said: I want to work with you. This is not what the President said when he said: I am going to reach out; I need your suggestions. This is a cramdown. This is a thing where we had SCHIP, and then, boom, here we are. We have SCHIP, a different bill. I cannot now vote for it. I voted for the last one, but I am not going to vote for this one because of the problems it has. This is not the way to do business. I feel very badly I advised Tom Daschle who, obviously, advised the transition team who may have advised the President to start off with SCHIP. Now we have SCHIP and it is not SCHIP; it is sandwich plus and plus and plus, most especially for New York and New Jersey. I have been picking on New York. I might as well pick on New Jersey. The amendment I am offering will close some of the loopholes of H.R. 2 that corrupt the intent of the program and skew priorities. My amendment strikes section 114 of H.R. 2 and replaces it with language that prevents any State from receiving Federal SCHIP funds to cover kids, young people, children, not adults, from families with incomes which are the lower of $65,000 or the State median income for a family of four. Why do I do that? Because I want to target the program to the low- income kids. You raise all of these caps and all of these income disregards--income disregards; I love those two words, ``income disregards.'' Does that make any sense? That is not an oxymoron; it is something that does not make any sense. Income disregard. We are going to disregard this income--your house, your car, I don't know, maybe your dog. It would have to be a pure-bred dog. At any rate, this is ridiculous. You raise it and you spend money on those folks, if you can find them. They are sure going to come to the waterhole. But you need not do that and fine the low-income kids who desperately need it. They desperately need it in Kansas and desperately need it in every State. Again, we cover families with incomes which are the lower of $65,000 the State median income for a family of four. In addition, my amendment addresses the Medicaid-SCHIP sandwich-- SCHIP funding for bonus payments for higher income Medicaid kids. To be sure, even if this amendment is accepted, a lot of my concerns with this bill will remain, although this would be a giant step forward. I am also concerned--this is another one of the burrs under the saddle of the SCHIP horse that came out from the chute looking entirely different from the old SCHIP horse which was about to finish first in the race. I am very concerned about the removal of the crowdout provision that had been included in both SCHIP 1 and 2 of last year. What am I talking about? My concerns are confirmed by the CBO's estimate that over 2 million out of the 6 million new children who will be covered by SCHIP or Medicaid under this new bill already have insurance in the private market. So here we have 6 million youngsters, 2 million of whom are already covered by private insurance. That is the very definition of crowdout, and it needs to be addressed. What is going to happen to the insurance company that covers these kids? Of course, we are trying to find the low-income kids. But we find out that 2 million--actually it is more than that--are covered by insurance. Do you think that insurance company is going to cover them? Of course not. They are going to get the free Federal program. And what does that do to the insurance company that is covering them now? It means they will probably say: I think we are not going to go into that business anymore. That could leave a lot of other people without insurance. So it is crowding out private insurance, and that needs to be addressed. I am also upset that this debate over children's health insurance has largely been hijacked by an amendment which inserted one of the most passionate and divisive issues of the past decade into the bill. I am obviously talking about immigration. That has been debated on the floor before. That is the immigration issue. I am very disappointed it was injected into this debate. Finally, I reiterate my discouragement with the partisan character of this new bill. I think I have indicated that. It is an insult to myself and to my Republican colleagues who worked so very hard to convince our own caucus in the Senate--very difficult--and over in the House to reach across the aisle to work on a bipartisan basis on an issue of huge importance to the children and families of this country. All of that time in good faith. Again, the horse came out of the chute. Wrong horse. Wasted now. It is unfortunate and sets a very negative tone for future health care reform discussions in the 111th Congress. I said when we started the debate on this bill, and I appealed to the chairman who is a very fair man, a great chairman who works closely with Senator Grassley--either one, it doesn't make a difference who is chairman; we work in a bipartisan way--this tears at the fabric and the comity of the Finance Committee, the very committee that is in charge of the economic stimulus that affects every American. If we are going to do this, simply ram it down our throats, burrs under the saddle and everything, or fish hooks or whatever you want to call it, that is a very bad precedent. Now, all that being said, I hope my colleagues will support my amendment. I hope we can recapture some of that bipartisan spirit that accompanied the previous SCHIP bill just in the last session. And I hope we can again--that we can again, Madam President--place our priority on covering low-income children. I yield the floor. Madam President, it appears to me that a quorum is not present. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I would ask the distinguished Senator from Arizona, it is my understanding section 116, the anticrowdout section from the previous bill--meaning SCHIP II which passed both the House and the Senate by big majorities last year, and was recommended by some of us as the first bill that should come up this year so we could demonstrate bipartisan support, thinking, of course, the anticrowdout legislation would be in it. It is my understanding that section 116 was left out of the SCHIP bill that we are considering today. Section 116 required that all States submit a State plan amendment detailing how each State will implement best practices to limit crowdout--the very problem the Senator has been talking about. It also required the Government Accountability Office to issue a report describing the best practices by States in addressing the issue of SCHIP crowdout. Finally, it required the Secretary of HHS to ensure that States which include higher income populations in their SCHIP program to cover a target rate of low-income children, or these States would not receive any Federal payment. This is the very thing we are talking about here whereby under H.R. 2, two States are allowed to expand eligibility up to 400 percent of poverty--that is $88,200--and then you allow income disregards on top of that--that is a marvelous term: ``income disregard''--which allow you to subtract $10,000 for your car; $10,000 for your house; $10,000 for your food, clothing, whatever; up to $40,000 on top of $88,200--how on Earth am I going to explain to a Kansas taxpayer, an Arizona taxpayer, any taxpayer that you are giving a program intended for low-income kids to children of people earning $128,000? At any rate: Section 116 required that states that included these higher income populations in their SCHIP programs cover a target rate of low-income children, or these States would not receive any Federal payment for such higher income children. That was section 116. What happened to that?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Arizona yield for another question?

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple, I say to all those milling about. My amendment strikes section 114 of H.R. 2 and replaces it with language that prevents any State from receiving Federal SCHIP funds to cover kids from families with incomes which are the lower of $65,000 or the State median income for a family of four. It also addresses the Medicaid-SCHIP sandwich by preventing States from receiving SCHIP funding or bonus payments for any higher income Medicaid kids. We now have States that can cover kids with family incomes up to $128,000. I do not think that is right. Let me tell the chairman he is absolutely wrong if he says median income is too low. It is median family income, as determined by the Secretary, look at page 2 of my amendment. But how on Earth can we explain to people that we are giving money to a $128,000 income family of four when this is supposed to be for low-income kids? You are ruining SCHIP.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today, I wish to offer my 2 cents on the latest version of the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act, or as most Kansans call it, the auto bailout. As is often the case, the national debate over this issue has become more about perception than reality. And, unfortunately, this bill seems to take aim at the perception of the problem rather than the actual problem. If this body truly wanted to help auto manufacturers and their dealers and their suppliers, we would force not only the management of these companies to make tough choices but all involved, including their creditors and labor. And, Mr. President, we in Congress would need to make tougher decisions as well. Unfortunately, this bill offers the perception that concrete restructuring plans will be made for the companies to receive assistance, but reality is that this bill lacks the real teeth to enforce the type of restructuring that so many believe is necessary to put this industry back on its feet. If Congress were serious about turning the auto industry onto a path of profitability and stability, we would also need to look at our own actions that contributed to their current predicament. This was articulated quite well in a Wall Street Journal piece yesterday. In recent years, Ford, GM, and Chrysler made money supplying vehicles that consumers wanted, and in doing so made a profit for the companies. These vehicles were pickups and SUVs that met consumer needs. However, we in Congress decided that manufacturers shouldn't build many of these vehicles. We told the manufacturers that they should build the smaller, less profitable, more fuel efficient cars that many Americans don't want. If you come out to my home town of Dodge City, you won't see many hybrids or little two-door cars that get 30 miles per gallon. No, you will see Ford F-150s, Dodge Rams, and Chevy Silverados because my constituents need pickups for their daily lives. It is pretty hard to check your field and feed your cattle in a Prius. But that is the direction the Federal Government has pushed these automakers and continues to do so in this bill. We have pushed them away from the vehicles that turned a profit and created a perception of an alternate consumer demand. Another section of this bill that takes aim at perception rather than reality targets business aviation. The perception this bill creates is that business aircraft are some sort of excess expenditure. Because of the inconsiderate actions of three auto executives, this bill wants to condemn the entire business aviation industry. Well, as a Senator from the State with more general aviation production than anywhere else in the world, I cannot let that claim stand unchallenged. General aviation contributes more than $150 billion to the U.S. economy each year and employs over 1.2 million people right here in the U.S. Thirty-eight percent of the aircraft built here are exported, meaning the GA industry is one of the few remaining industries in the U.S. with a positive trade balance. Yet this bill takes the policy position that business aviation is unnecessary. If the intent of this bill is to punish the big three auto companies, then let's really go after them. Let's prohibit them from flying first class. You tell me what is wrong with flying coach. That is how I fly. Or maybe we should just prohibit them from flying at all. But that is not what this bill wants to do. As I have said, this bill only takes aim at the perception of the problem. It completely neglects the fact that companies, large and small, use business aircraft as a way to save time and money. Furthermore, small towns across the country depend upon the revenue generated by local airports serving business aircraft. The difficulties of the economy are not felt solely by the auto companies. Over the last 6 weeks or so, nearly 1,800 aviation workers have been laid off in Wichita, KS, alone. These layoffs and a downturn in new orders affects their suppliers and parts manufacturers as well. If these 14 lines of text condemning business aviation become the new benchmark for future legislation, then the U.S. Congress will have put an American industry that leads the global marketplace at unprecedented risk. I understand the situation our automotive industry is facing. I don't want to see layoffs or dealerships close or suppliers to have to cut production. But the reality is, whether Congress passes this $14 billion bailout or not, these things will likely happen. The question we elected officials must answer is whether or not taxpayers will see a return on their investment. Unfortunately, the bill before us today does not provide such assurances. I am hopeful that we can continue working towards a bill that provides the necessary reform to ensure stability for the automakers and at the same time protects hard-working taxpayers.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, first impressions are always important. I think many times they are completely false. I was a Member of the House when I first met Ted Stevens. It was at a retreat our party was having, and I sat there wondering what on Earth makes this man tick. Here was the most obstreperous if not outrageous person expressing his opinion, despite any other person who had an objection, who insisted on making his point. I went away from that meeting and said: That Ted Stevens fellow is one of the most unique people I have ever met. I would just as soon not meet him again. Then I found out that he was running for leadership of the Republican party in this distinguished body against my friend and colleague, mentor, hero, Bob Dole, and came within one vote. There is a story there, but we will not get into that. And so that was the history as I regarded Ted Stevens. I came to the Senate, had the privilege of being elected to the Senate in 1996. I was standing right over there. All of a sudden there was Ted Stevens standing in front of me. That was sort of a frightening experience for a new Senator. But he came up and he jabbed his finger on my chest--Ted, you will not remember this--and he said, ``I know who you are.'' I said, ``Well, I sure as hell know who you are.'' He said, ``You allegedly know something about agriculture. Bob Dole told me about you, said you were a stand-up guy.'' I said, ``Thank you. That is a real compliment.'' He said, ``You serve on Armed Services and Intelligence?'' I said, ``Yes, sir, I do.'' He said, ``How would you like to go to the Russian Far East with me?'' I thought to myself: Why on Earth would I want to go to the Russian Far East? He said, ``We are going to go to Habarodfk. I can assure you, Habarodfk is not one of the places that you would want to go to if you had free time to go anywhere.'' And he said, ``Then we are going to go to Vladivostok. We are going to meet with the admiral of the Russian navy. He is closer to Alaska than he is to Moscow. I know him.'' I thought, this is a man who has unusual relationships with people all around the world. ``And then we are going to go to South Korea to meet one of the many presidents that come and go in South Korea to indicate our strong support. But then we are going to be the first delegation allowed into North Korea.'' Well, that got my attention. He said, ``That is why I would like to have you come along, because if we could arrange a third-party grain sale''--and I guess this is not classified anymore, but at any rate-- ``arrange a third-party grain sale, and using agriculture as a tool for peace, there are things we can do in North Korea to at least establish a relationship.'' This man has tried to do that all around the world with our adversaries. People talk about that a lot, that he actually just does it. He does not make any press releases about it, does not talk about it much. So I said, ``Well, sure, I will sign up.'' And he said, ``I understand that you are a journalist.'' I said, ``Yep, that is an unemployed newsman.'' And he said, ``You could be the scribe in regard to this CODEL.'' I might say that any CODEL you went on with Ted Stevens, you always had a T-shirt saying: ``I survived CODEL Stevens'' because you would go to the South Pole, you would go to other places, but you didn't go to the water holes where apparently the business executives of our financial institutions go now to think about things. In any case, we went to Habarovsk where I had a little discussion with Senator Inouye about where we were staying, our accommodations, and got to know Danny very well. We went to Vladivostok. We talked to that admiral who felt closer to Ted Stevens than he did the Russian Government at that particular time. We went to Sakhalin Island. There are tremendous oil reserves there. He was trying to work out some kind of arrangement where American oil companies could come in and take advantage of all of the oil reserves. We had to work our way through the saber-toothed tigers; I am not making that up. Then we went to South Korea because you have to go to South Korea if you are going to go to North Korea. That is just required. Then we went into North Korea. Darnedest experience I have ever had in my life. It was a situation where that is a theocracy. It is a robotic theocracy. If there is a trudging contest in the Olympics, the North Koreans will win without any question. It was the first delegation allowed into North Korea. Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens met with the North Koreans. It was Senator Cochran who insisted on going to a farm. I say that with a smile. We did that. I will just say from an agricultural standpoint, it was just a field with nothing there except a 1938 Case tractor with a camouflage net over it. That sort of tells you where they are: not a Third World country but, as I said, a theocracy. But back to the story. It was about 11 or 12 midnight. This was a very unusual trip. We left everything on the plane, and we stayed at an alleged VIP headquarters. There wasn't any heat. I won't go into all that. At any rate, this discussion had gone on and on and on, and there was an interpreter with the two people with whom we were meeting. We had hoped to meet with Kim Jong-il. That was not possible. So he sent two of his puppets down there to meet with us. They were just going back and forth with propaganda and we were serious. We had permission from the Treasury to waive certain requirements so we could arrange for a third party grain sale to assist North Korea which goes through a famine every harvesting year. In response, we could ask for other things. So you had two World War II veterans who told these two individuals: We are World War II veterans. We want to make Pammunjon a tourist attraction. We want to make real progress about that. Finally, Ted had it up to here. He said: Knock off the BS. I know you understand English. Just take the interpreter out of it and let's get to the bottom line. The bottom line was that they couldn't do anything. They were there to learn what we were about. They really couldn't make any decisions. That was a real lost opportunity at that particular time. I will never forget his leadership. At any rate, I would just like to say on another CODEL, I don't even know which one it was, we landed at 11 and we got to the hotel about midnight. This man is a great connoisseur of military movies, military history, almost any other movie. He is a great devotee of that great documentary ``Band of Brothers.'' So we were playing ``Band of Brothers'' to virtually staff and to all present. And this is at 12:30 at night. We had reached episode 5; we were going to episode 6. So there we all were. And, of course, it was playing and playing. I looked around. All the staff were asleep. Loyal, they were still there, but they were asleep. Then all the Members who were still there, because you didn't leave in regards to the Stevens entourage and whatever performance he decided that we should see, so consequently, I was having a hard time keeping my eyelids open. I looked over at him and his eyes were closed. I thought, the great man has his eyes closed. Everybody else is asleep. So I will get up, the scribe of the CODEL, and look around and gently turn off the television and then I can gently wake him up and say: ``Ted, it is pretty late, 1 o'clock. We all ought to go to bed.'' As I reached for the button to turn off the power, he said: ``This next part is the best part.'' He wasn't watching it; he was listening because he had seen it about three times. Well, needless to say, we saw episode 6 in its entirety. Thank the Lord, we didn't go into episode 7. We would have been there all night. Let me just say, I was present for the ceremonies in Alaska when Ted was named the Alaskan of the Century. How can a sitting Senator or a sitting Member of Congress or anybody get citizen approval or approval from his State or accolades from his State at that particular time. But he was Alaskan of the Century. His name was everywhere. I told him the Anchorage Daily News should have been the ``Ted Stevens News.'' But I had the unique privilege of roasting this man, which I enjoyed thoroughly, and then got pretty serious toward the end. At any rate, he flew in on a World War II plane. He had his combat jacket. He came in with Catherine and took his place on two very posh chairs. And I quoted again that saying he has said, and it has been said today by the Senator himself and by others: ``The hell with politics; let's do what is good for Alaska.'' I will add: And the country and our national defense and for every man and woman in uniform; they owe this man a great debt. That is a true thing that he has done in terms of his service. I am a journalist. I am an old newspaper guy. My great-grandfather founded the second oldest newspaper in the State of Kansas, John Wesley Roberts. He was an abolitionist. I have printer's ink in my blood. The only thing I would say to my fellow colleagues who have now left the galleries because the show is over, or at least up to this point, I would only say to my colleagues that I don't know who sang the song, ``You Don't Know Me.'' Maybe that was Patsy Cline; maybe it was somebody else. I will have to Google it. But at any rate, you don't know him. You really don't know him. This is a man with a very gruff exterior, but he is a teddy bear when you really get to know him. I know that because that is exactly what my daughter labeled him when she worked part-time for him some years ago. As a matter of fact, she called him the mad penguin. She never called him that to his face. I don't know if you knew that or not, Ted. But that was the label. So under this great, gruff facade--i.e., the mad penguin--there is a compassionate, caring, wise and, yes, a man with a very good sense of humor which I enjoyed immensely. When you come to this body and you come to public service, you know that you risk your ideas, your thoughts, your hopes, and your dreams before the crowd. Sometimes the crowd says yes, and you have friends who will stand behind you when you are taking the bows. Then when something happens in your life, when it is most unfortunate--and my family has experienced this as well--you wonder where your friends are who will stand beside you when you are taking the boos as opposed to the bows. I want to tell you that being the Alaskan of the Century and the Alaskan or the Senator who has done so much for the country and my State of Kansas, I stand next to you, Ted, and as many have said: You are a dear friend. I love you. God bless.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my gratitude for the Senate's confirmation of Eric F. Melgren as Federal District Judge for the District of Kansas. It is important that we deliver solid judges to our court system. With that said, I believe Eric Melgren is qualified for this important responsibility. Since 2002, he has been serving as U.S. attorney for the District of Kansas. Between 2002 and 2003, the District of Kansas had a fourteen percent increase in the number of criminal cases filed in U.S. District and State courts. Eric's nomination will be of great benefit to the District of Kansas. Due to an increase in caseload, a temporary judgeship was created in the District of Kansas in 1990. Since the temporary judgeship was created, we have seen an increase in the caseload for the District of Kansas. Currently, Kansas has five active Federal district judges. With Eric's confirmation, we will now have six active judges. However, one of these judgeships is temporary and set to expire on November 21 of this year. If the temporary judgeship would have expired before the Senate confirmed Eric and another judge took senior status this year, the District of Kansas would only have four active judges. Therefore, with the increase in caseload, it was vital that we confirmed Eric before the expiration of this temporary judgeship. Again, thank you for confirming the nomination of Eric Melgren. He is a man of integrity and sound judgement. Eric's passion for the law will be of great benefit to the State of Kansas and the rest of the Nation.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues to help explain the need--the crucial need--for comprehensive action on the Nation's most pressing domestic issue, as explained so eloquently by Senator Domenici. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for his leadership and his service in the Senate. This is a national issue. But I wish to focus on an individual because this affects individual people and families as well as it being a national and domestic energy issue. Never was the energy crisis made so clear to me than when I met with John Grau, a Kansan who runs a cattle operation--or did before a tornado--near Soldier, KS. I visited with John at what used to be his home, until a June 11 tornado reduced it to a basement, opened to the sky except for a fruit closet, of all things, with the fruit jars still there. What a miraculous thing. He and his wife had taken shelter and-- also a miracle--they had survived, thank the Lord. Despite everything he had been through and everything he would face as he would begin to recover from his losses--we were standing there, looking at what used to be his ranch and what used to be his home--he wanted to talk about gas prices. He said: I am going to be all right, after the storms. I can make it back. Look at the 200 friends here helping me. But Congress has to do something, he said, because the high cost of gas was a crucial hardship for his employees, his neighbors, his friends, and his future. Now, I have been retelling this story because it is important for those engaged in the debate to understand how high prices are affecting real people and that we need real answers and we need them now. Now, when I hear those on the other side of the aisle criticize our proposals on the basis that it will take several years for new oil and gas to hit the market, I am reminded that over the last two decades this body has held over 20 votes on energy production. That is 20-plus votes on deep sea, oil shale or Alaska production that have been blocked by my colleagues. The only thing that has changed in this surreal argument is energy prices and gas prices have continued to increase to a crisis level proportion. Twenty years of policy that increased our reliance on foreign oil is enough. That is why the American public is calling for us to change course and to do it now. They know we cannot tax or regulate our way out of high energy prices. We must enact a long-term, comprehensive strategy that steers the Nation in the right direction so we are not at the mercy of foreign interests. This is also a matter of national security. We do not want to be dependent on people with names such as Ahmadinejad and Putin and Chavez. It is not only about John Grau. As I have said, it is a matter of national security. But John Grau is the individual who is being hurt, similar to so many millions of Americans today. The answer is pretty simple: Adopt policies that lessen demand on energy and create more energy here at home, from sources we can depend on. We need action on this strategy, and we need it now. The Gas Price Reduction Act takes these necessary steps. The bill would tap as much as 14 billion barrels of oil along the Atlantic and the Pacific. The legislation would also open three times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia through Western State oil shale exploration. Now, some of my colleagues want to paint this side of the aisle as advocating for drilling only. It is obvious they have not read our proposals. Yes, we--and the majority of Americans--support increased domestic production. But we also support reduced consumption and increased transparency, oversight and efforts by the CFTC regarding the futures markets. Our policy position does not stop at ``find more.'' Our message--and the message from my constituents--is: Find more and use less. Our bill encourages alternative sources of energy, including plug-in electric vehicles through the development of better batteries to maximize electricity range and use less gas. Our bill is the latest in a number of actions we have taken to reduce demand on foreign oil and increase production of clean energy here at home. In 2005, we passed the Energy Policy Act that developed incentives for ethanol production. In 2007, we passed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which improved vehicle fuel economy by increasing CAFE standards and provided incentives to develop cellulosic ethanol, the next generation in ethanol production. I might add, in regards to the CAFE standards, it was also with the cooperation of the automobile industry, for the first time. Limiting our efforts to only address concerns about speculation ignores the root cause of higher prices, and that is production. The President lifted the ban on offshore exploration. All that is left is for Congress to act. Again, clearly, the next step is action on a long-term comprehensive energy solution for the Nation which would increase the supply of affordable, clean domestic energy. We can start by passing the Gas Price Reduction Act. However, the alternative on the floor--the bill we are debating--is the majority leader's speculation bill, and it has been proposed basically on the floor. It did not go through the committee process. The President's working group, working on the very same problems, has strong concerns with this bill. The Interagency Task Force on Commodity Markets' preliminary report just came out and also shows that supply and demand is the driving factor in energy price increases. Another final report will hopefully be out in September. Now, concern for the unintended consequences of this so-called speculation bill is precisely why we must engage in an open and fair debate where ideas and all pertinent proposals are discussed and should be voted upon. The American people deserve no less. However, that is not happening. That is not happening, and that is an egregious error. Our constituents expect and deserve more from their Senators. They need solutions--real solutions, comprehensive solutions--and they need them now. I harken back to my comments in regard to Kansas cattleman John Grau looking over his home and ranch, completely destroyed by a tornado. He said it best: I can make it back, Pat, but Congress has to take real action. We should--we should and eventually we will--find more and use less. I completely agree with John Grau. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about energy prices, as have many of my colleagues, and their impact on my constituents and, for that matter, the constituents of all of us nationwide. Over the last 2 weeks, the leadership of this body has decided to bring two bills to the floor that would have tremendous effects on the pocketbooks of the American people. Unfortunately, after you take a hard look at these bills, you find out that neither bill would really reduce the price of energy. In fact, both would increase prices. But I want to take time to highlight the impacts of the climate change legislation, albeit somewhat late in the debate, and to make a few commonsense points or observations. At a time when Americans are suffering from high fuel prices and high energy costs, and when fertilizer prices have increased by their largest amount in the history of fertilizer prices, it is not in America's best interest for the Senate to compound the problem. But that is precisely what the climate change bill would do. By capping the amounts of carbon emitted by coal-fired plants and natural gas processing facilities and energy-intensive manufacturing facilities, this legislation is flawed. It passes the costs of meeting these requirements down to the consumer. Kansans will be particularly hard hit. Experts at the American Council for Capital Formation--again, the American Council for Capital Formation, and I urge all of my colleagues to pay attention to this organization--State by State they can tell you what will happen. They predict that Kansas will lose 36,900 jobs over about a decade or two, and that is equal to 2.5 percent of the total workforce, if we enact this bill. Kansans would also lose $7,283 in disposable income each year because of this legislation. You say how? Certainly higher utility rates, higher gas prices, and all manufacturing and farm equipment costs due to the increase of the cost of inputs. A combine now out in western Kansas, if you go to the dealer, will cost you, if you have the top rate combine, $350,000. Goodness knows what it would cost after this bill was passed and on down the road. Anyone filling up with gasoline in the State of Kansas can expect to pay 140 percent more for each gallon of gas. Yesterday the lowest rate in the State was Emporia, KS, home of William Allen White and the Emporia Gazette, very famous in Kansas history. In Emporia it was $3.70 per gallon. This bill would raise that to $5.18. This doesn't make any sense. Let me repeat that. It would raise the cost of gas for Kansans by 140 percent. We have had a $1.71 increase in the average price of gas since the majority took over in the Congress. My goodness, we don't need to be going over $5. I know there was a lot of rhetoric at that time that we were going to fix that, hopefully in a bipartisan way, but obviously that has not occurred. Heating and cooling an apartment, a home, or an office building will cost 153 percent more in Kansas. Lawrence, KS, has some of the lowest electricity rates in America. However, the average household spending $200 on electric bills for the month will now pay $306--$306. This proposed legislation will have a particularly unfair impact on America's heartland. Under this legislation, the Great Plains, the Midwest, and southern States pay more compared to those living on the west coast or in the Northeast. I am sure that is true in Arkansas, the State the distinguished Presiding Officer represents so well in this body. It should also be noted that the Great Plains, the Midwest, and the South are home to some of the most fertile and highest producing areas of cash crops in the world. Now, why would I mention that? This is the land that grows the crops necessary to feed not only the United States and the American consumer but a troubled and hungry world. As a matter of fact, our producers back in Kansas are servicing their combines now, as I speak, and getting ready to begin wheat harvest, to fertilize their corn crop and meet with their bankers to discuss how on Earth they can pay for it, and how much money is needed to purchase fertilizer and seed for next year's crop. Our Nation enjoys but unfortunately does not appreciate--if you pay much attention to the national media--the modern-day miracle known as U.S. agriculture, or maybe we should call it production agriculture. This modern miracle provides the cheapest and the highest quality food supply in the world, and the most inexpensive, even with the rise in food prices and farm prices we have seen. This miracle is possible because of better breeding techniques combined with the availability of manmade fertilizers. These fertilizers increase the yields per acre and help keep the world from going hungry. Rather than thanking our producers, this bill tells them basically they are not important. Rather than increasing domestic natural gas production, which is roughly 90 percent of the cost to produce synthetic nitrogen, this bill forces natural gas facilities to regulate the amount of emissions they emit. A recent Doane agriculture study shows this legislation will add $6 billion to $12 billion to total crop production costs. If it is enacted, it is likely to cost a Kansas wheat farmer an additional $31.87 per acre. That same producer would see his sorghum cost increase $43.56 per acre, corn $78.80 per acre, and soybeans $20.41 per acre. (Ms. CANTWELL assumed the Chair.) I want to be clear. Throughout the climate change debate, I have supported the role agriculture can play in a voluntary system or, for that matter, any manufacturer that does business in Kansas wishes to play to certainly decrease the amount of CO2 emissions we emit into the atmosphere. In fact, I introduced legislation some years ago and was able to secure funding for a carbon sequestration research program at Kansas State University. What is that? That is carbon in the ground, good; carbon in the air, bad. If you can sequester carbon in your normal cropping practices, you are being very helpful in regard to CO2 emissions and carbon in the air. This legislation was reauthorized in the 2008 farm bill, which is now the law, or will be the law when we finally finish voting on it. Unfortunately, the legislation before us now, the climate change bill, provides little incentive for agriculture to play a role in any climate change debate. This legislation leaves the decision as to which agricultural practices are eligible for the offset market to the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA is also designated to prepare the operation and qualification methodology for agricultural offsets. All right, that is fine. But the USDA already has the expertise, the background, and the ability to assist our producers, our farmers, and ranchers with best management practices. That should reside with the USDA, but it is not. In this bill, it is with the EPA. I might add that the partnership between the USDA and the farmers and ranchers measures quite a bit higher in regard to acceptability in farm country than the EPA, which sometimes--sometimes--and they have a role to play--tends to think of regulations as their fondest responsibility. The legislation requires agricultural projects to be completed and reduction verified before the EPA decides whether to approve the offset allowance. This gives no assurance to which, if any, agricultural projects will be accepted. So you have a climate change bill that basically rules out agriculture, and that makes no sense at all. The Wall Street Journal calls this legislation, the climate change legislation, the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax. That is quite a statement. This bill will hit Kansans where it matters most, in their pocketbooks. I cannot support legislation that will exponentially increase the cost of their food, their electric, and their fuel bills, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-conceived idea. I want to indicate to the Presiding Officer that I received letters of concern in opposition from the following: the Kansas Farm Bureau, the Frontier Farm Credit folks, the National Sorghum Producers, the Kansas Soybean Association, the Kansas Independent Oil and Gas Association, the Air Transport Association, the National Business Aviation Association, the Kansas City Power and Light, Weststar Energy, and Kansas Electric Cooperatives. I commend the Fertilizer Institute and the Doane Advisory Services for the analysis they completed on the relationship between energy prices and crop reduction costs. I also thank Troy Dumler, an agricultural economist at Kansas State University, for analysis on Kansas crop production costs. I yield back the remainder of my time. Unanimous-Consent Agreement--S. 3101

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I wish today to recognize the Naval Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps, NJROTC, of Shawnee Mission North High School in Overland Park, KS, for their outstanding performance in the 2008 NJROTC Nationals competition. For 3 consecutive years, the Shawnee Mission North NJROTC, under the leadership and guidance of Chief Warrant Officer 4 Dennis C. Grayless, USMC (Ret) and Chief Petty Officer Christopher W. Neven, USN (Ret), has qualified to compete in the prestigious NJROTC National Academic, Athletic and Drill Championship hosted by the Navy League of the United States at the Pensacola Naval Air Station, Pensacola, FL. The NJROTC Nationals, or ``Navy Nationals'' as it is affectionately referred to by the participants, is the most comprehensive test of overall JROTC training and performance in existence today. The Nation's finest NJROTC units from each of the 11 Navy Areas participate in this two-day academic, athletic, and drill competition. There is no competition in JROTC that provides a more comprehensive test of program quality. Earlier this year, the Shawnee Mission North team was recognized as the Area 9 Most Outstanding Unit after sweeping the NJROTC Area 9 Championship Drill Team Competition. The team placed first in armed exhibition, unarmed exhibition, armed regulation, unarmed regulation, push-ups, curl-ups/sit-ups and in the 16 x 100 shuttle relay. While they placed second in the competition for Color Guard, 8 x 200 oval relay, academics, and personnel inspection. As 2008 Area 9 Regional Champion, the team qualified to return to the Navy Nationals for the third consecutive year. At the 2008 national competition, the Shawnee Mission North team placed first in the Nation in the Armed Regulation Drill and finished seventh in the overall competition. Cadet Dylan Warnick received individual honors by finishing third in the Nation in the male curl-up/ sit-up competition by completing 320 cadenced curl-ups/sit-ups in 5 minutes. Cadet Bethany Krzesinski received individual honors by finishing sixth in the Nation in the female curl-up/sit up competition by completing 268 cadenced curl-ups/sit-ups in 5 minutes. While Cadet Michael Hoffman received individual honors by tying for fifth in the Nation in the male push-up competition by completing 114 cadenced push- ups in 5 minutes. As reflected in the success achieved by the Shawnee Mission North NJROTC unit, it is apparent the breadth and depth of commitment, dedication, hard work, resolve and motivation each member of this team possesses. The Shawnee Mission North NJROTC unit has been recognized as a Naval Honor Unit (1992-1999), a Naval Distinguished Unit (2000, 2007, 2008), recipient of the Unit Achievement Award (2003), a Chief of Naval Education and Training Unit (1988, 1989), the 2007 National Academic, Athletic and Drill Champions, and the 2008 Area 9 Most Outstanding Unit. Five of its graduating cadets have enlisted into the U.S. Armed Forces; one has been awarded an NROTC scholarship to attend Purdue University; and two cadets from the junior class have been accepted into the 2008 summer semester at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD. Mr. President, I ask my distinguished colleagues in the Senate to join me in recognizing and congratulating the Shawnee Mission North Naval Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps 2008 National Championship Team: Sara Atwood, Michael Barr, Jessie Biggs, Andrew Boyce, Amiee Busch, Robert Byrd, Matthew Carlyon, Bryan Chapple, Faith Cole, Amanda Fuller, Tyler Gearin, Darrell Hayes, Joshua Hoffman, Michael Hoffman, Alisyn Katsantones, Stacey Kennedy, Bethany Krzesinski, Lauren Lawson, Megan Lawson, Shelby McIntosh, Justin Manford, Kyle Middaugh, Timothy Oehlert, Philip Park, Brandon Patrick, Aaron Patterson, Jeremy Payne, Jersey Payne, Devin Root, Niklas Rueter, Djourdan Stephens, Aliana Swiercinsky, Brandon Ware, Dylan Warnick, Gregory Wynn, and Rachel Yearsley.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the hour is late. Obviously, the galleries are very nervous and full of people who wish to go home. The aggie press covering this momentous event is tired, writing furiously, as I was. And the chairman of the committee, we are trying his patience as he has been sitting here all these hours listening to members of his committee discuss the farm bill. I thank the chairman for his perseverance. I thank the distinguished ranking member, Senator Chambliss, who, I understand, like Elvis, has left the building, but his presence is still here. So I shall try to be brief. I rise today to speak on the farm bill conference agreement and, most importantly, to stand up and support production agriculture. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Arkansas who gave a very good speech on the value of production agriculture. Apparently our Nation enjoys, but too many times simply does not appreciate, whether it be the national media or some in this Congress or whether it be observers of agriculture program policy, the modern-day miracle known as U.S. agriculture. That used to be a staple of all agriculture speeches. I think we need to repeat it--the modern miracle that provides the cheapest and highest quality food supply in the world. We have heard claims throughout the debate that since commodity prices are high, we don't need farm programs. That has been in the print of many a newspaper and the subject of several topics within the national media, on television, radio. Those who would make these claims do not understand agriculture or the challenges our farmers and ranchers face. I doubt seriously if they have ever set foot on any farm ground. Prices were high in the past and, as quickly as they rose, they fell. We could very well see history repeat itself. This is precisely why we need a farm bill to begin with, a farm bill that provides an adequate safety net so producers can compete in the global marketplace, producers especially in high-risk States such as Kansas, who contribute so much, 350 million bushels of wheat a year, maybe 400 million, and many other grain products, a big beef State. These producers may barely scrape by for 2, 3, 4, and even 5 years due to inclement weather. High-risk agriculture is what we call it. But the benefits are great. Then 1 year they make it big. When they do, they are able to pay down some debt and maybe upgrade the equipment they have been using for 15 years or they can take their wife and kids on the first vacation they have been able to afford in years to take time to enjoy. Yet as soon as they get a little bit of breathing room, unfortunately, some in the media and other critics claim our producers are taking advantage of taxpayers, and they are getting rich, especially farms that farm a lot of acres. It seems to me now that we have a new criteria. If you are a large farmer, meaning if you farm a large number of acres, you are automatically rich, which is simply not the case. What other business do you know of that can sustain such prolonged periods of loss only to hold out for 1 year of reprieve? That is why we need a safety net in our farm programs. That is it in a nutshell, to help producers weather the storms of instability in the marketplace. It is the deficiency in the safety net protections for wheat and sorghum, our producers of sorghum and wheat in this conference agreement, that does give me pause. That certainly doesn't come as any surprise to any member of the committee who has taken the time to listen to this member. As a Senator from a State with high-risk agriculture, many of our current farm programs simply don't work for my farmers when they have no crop to harvest. This is especially true of target prices and loan rates. However, two programs have worked. In recent years direct payments, which should be called safety net payments and crop insurance, have been a lifeline for Kansas farmers and their lenders. Yet title I of this agreement increases target prices and loan rates, the same programs that do not help producers when disaster strikes and they have no crop to harvest, while at the same time cutting the safety net payments or what is called a direct payment and crop insurance. Back in 2002, we discovered that the countercyclical program, when we were considering that bill and I made the same speech on the floor at that particular time, would not have provided assistance in 9 of the previous 17 years in Kansas. That is over half the time. My question was, why support a farm bill that does not help your State, one of the biggest producing States in over half the number of years as we went back the 17 years? And those 9 years represented some of our toughest years in regard to weather in that period. Since that time, because of a prolonged drought and late-season freezes, the countercyclical and the loan programs have simply failed to provide assistance to Kansas producers, even when they didn't get a crop. Direct payments or safety net payments and crop insurance did provide the support. Unfortunately, these key programs are treated as a bank in the conference report. Even though both the House and Senate passed bills that kept this direct payment completely intact, the conference report reduces this producer support in years 2009, 2010, and 2011. Some of my colleagues here and in the House have stated publicly they would like to see the direct payment ended altogether and rely on the countercyclical program. Again, it simply has not worked in most of the years that it has been in effect on behalf of my State of Kansas. These statements did create an atmosphere in which moving forward was difficult and at times very frustrating. Thankfully, we were able to protect salvage farmers who were getting ready to head into the fields and harvest their 2008 winter wheat crop. I am pleased the conferees worked with me and with others to ensure that our producers would not face cuts to these direct payments in 2008. Long ago these producers signed operating notes with their lenders for this crop year. They should not have the rules of the game changed now. I am pleased we prevented that from happening. Historically we had kept the crop insurance legislation separate from the farm bill, but that changed in 2002. Unfortunately, it does continue in this bill. I think it should be a separate bill. I remember all the hard work Senator Bob Kerrey and I worked on in regard to that bill. It was separate then. Perhaps we can do that down the road. Last time around we took $2 billion out of crop insurance. I warned at that time that that was a dangerous road to take. This time the crop insurance program offers close to $6 billion for the benefit of other programs in the bill. So we are taking from crop insurance, using it as a bank for other programs. This is going to have an effect on producers and providers, and don't let anybody tell you differently. While these cuts may not unravel the program in low-risk States, they are dangerously close to doing so in high-risk States. You know very well I am talking about doing an excellent job of representing Colorado, the neighboring State, to the west. I am also concerned our producers will have to pay their premiums earlier, beginning in 2011. This means they may have to secure credit to cover the payment. I am hopeful that since we have a few years before this takes effect, we can get it fixed before it does hit farmers on their balance sheets. Notwithstanding my concerns for the commodity and the crop insurance sections of this bill, let me emphasize that there are strong, positive provisions in this conference report that will go a long way to benefit not only Kansas but the entire Nation. I thank Finance Committee Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley and their staffs for fighting so hard to ensure that the tax title of the Senate bill remained in the conference report. I am honored to serve on the Finance Committee under their leadership, just as I am honored to serve on the Agriculture Committee. They often take hits from all corners around here because of their efforts to work together. But it is because of their bipartisanship that we have been able to show the American people that we can work together to get things done in Washington. They have fashioned an agricultural tax relief package that provides targeted tax relief for farmers and ranchers. It encourages significant investments in conservation, it decreases our reliance on foreign energy, and it invests in our rural communities. Of particular importance to many of us is a provision that does correct an inequity in the Tax Code that harms retired and disabled farmers when they receive the Conservation Reserve Program payments. I and many others on both sides of the aisle have worked for years to get this fixed. We also help agricultural businesses manage the growing costs of securing agricultural pesticides and fertilizers. While important to farmers and agricultural businesses, these can also be used for illegal purposes. They have in the past, including the manufacture of explosives, and other drugs very harmful, more especially to young people. Those of us in the heartland who remember the attack on Oklahoma City in 1995 know this risk all too well. Having served on the Intelligence Committee, I know all too well about this risk. Also included in this title is important tax assistance for a community called Greensburg, KS. Ten days go, we marked the 1-year anniversary of the EF-5 tornado--a mile and a half wide--an EF-5 tornado that literally wiped the town off the Kansas prairie. I have seen tornado damage. Serving in the Armed Services, I have seen tornado damage. I have never seen anything like this, destroying literally 95 percent of this community of 1,500 people. The grade school, high school, city hall, hospital, water tower, fire station, every church, and all but three businesses in the town were completely destroyed. Lives were lost in this storm. In the aftermath of this devastation, Senator Brownback and I put together a very modest and temporary tax relief bill to help residents and small businesses pick up the pieces and rebuild Greensburg. This tax relief mirrors many of the same provisions Congress approved to help those affected by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. Some in the House actually questioned why this legislation was necessary and why it belonged on a farm bill. It belonged in the farm bill because this is a rural development and rural revitalization issue. The provisions in the package will help residents rebuild the 1,000 homes that were damaged or destroyed and will help the 113 small businesses in Greensburg to rebuild and grow their businesses. This tax legislation represents exactly what our Government should do to help in times of extreme need, and it belongs in this bill. Frankly, the House should have passed it a year ago, as the Senate did originally on May 25, 2007. The tax title of this conference report is a solid win for rural America, and it is a major reason why I will support this legislation-- despite my concerns with the commodity title and crop insurance, which I have already gone over. I also thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee and the ranking member, Senator Chambliss, for working with me to address my concerns with regard to the Rural Utilities Service's broadband loan program. The reforms included here represent a rare bipartisan and consensus-driven effort to bring broadband Internet to more Americans. As has been noted by others, the conference report makes significant investments in conservation programs that are popular in Kansas, such as EQIP and the Open Fields program that Senator Conrad and I have been working on for years. I am also pleased to see the investments made in nutrition policy, specifically the provisions which encourage our schoolchildren to eat more whole grain foods. Whole grain products are an excellent source of fiber and provide nutrients that help reduce the risk of heart disease. Finally, the bill includes two sections that are extremely important to Kansas. First, through the livestock title of this bill, we have ensured that competition is protected in the marketplace and that producers will continue to be able to market their livestock as they see fit. I am also pleased the livestock title allows for the implementation of the COOL program, the country-of-origin labeling program, in a way that does not require additional burdensome paperwork on our producers in the beef industry. The beef industry is nearly a $6-billion-a-year industry in Kansas. The livestock title of the bill helps us ensure it will continue to be an important part of our State's economy. The research title of this bill also includes an important provision to allow DHS to continue plans to build a new National Bio and AgroDefense Facility, NBAF. The research that will be conducted at this facility will be crucial in protecting our livestock and commodity industries, human health, and the overall health of our Nation's economy. I thank the chairman and ranking member for helping to ensure this provision was included in the conference report. So, Mr. President, as I have said before, this is not the best possible bill. But it may be--and I think is--the best bill possible under extremely difficult circumstances. Certainly the chairman understands that. While I am not pleased with the way our Kansas wheat and sorghum producers are treated in this bill, I am worried that no farm bill or revisiting the farm bill in the next year or two may lead to an even less desirable outcome. You have heard of ``The Last Picture Show.'' This may be ``The Last Farm Bill.'' The fact is that we do have important provisions in this bill. We also have producers who, in a few short days or weeks, will be in the fields harvesting their 2008 winter wheat crops. They need--no, they deserve the predictability and stability of a long-term bill. It is time to let them know the rules of the game. I wish, Mr. Chairman, we could seek unanimous consent simply to pass the bill tonight and thereby relieve the President of any decision he might have to make in terms of a possible veto, even though the vote in the House was certainly overwhelming on behalf of the bill. With that, I thank my chairman for his patience. I thank you, Mr. President, for your patience. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank my friend and colleague from Oklahoma. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the bipartisan agreement reached by the Senate Finance and Commerce Committees on the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration Airport and Airway Trust Fund. In my view this agreement represents the true meaning of the word ``compromise'' and shows what is possible when we really roll up our sleeves and go to work. I have been working on this bill for 2 years. Reauthorizing the FAA and the Airport and Airway Trust Fund is not only a top national priority, but it is a top priority for my State of Kansas as well. Kansas and aviation have a long history together. Aircraft pioneers such as Lloyd Stearman, who happened to sell his company to Walter Boeing, Walter Beech, Clyde Cessna, E.M. Laird, Amelia Earhart, William Lear, and many others, all have close ties to Kansas. It was a team of Kansans that really created the first commercially produced airplane in the United States. It was called the Laird Swallow. This plane took flight in April of 1920, just 88 years and a few weeks ago. My, how far we have come. Today, about 40,000 employees in Wichita and the surrounding counties make their living building planes, manufacturing parts, and servicing aviation. The aviation industry directly and indirectly supports over 140,000 jobs in Kansas--140,000 jobs--and will soon contribute roughly $9 billion annually to our State's economy. That is not only significant, that is amazing. Kansas is home to nearly 3,200 aviation and manufacturing businesses, including Cessna, Hawker-Beechcraft, Bombardier-Learjet, Boeing, Spirit AeroSystems, Garmin, and Honeywell, just to name a few. However, aviation is not simply an economic engine in Kansas, it is part of our history, our way of life, and, most importantly, part of our future. It is an example of our entrepreneurial spirit. In late October of 2006, at my invitation, newly appointed Department of Transportation Secretary Mary Peters traveled to Kansas to see firsthand what the aviation industry means to our State. Congressman Todd Tiahrt and I joined the Secretary on a tour of Cessna's headquarters and manufacturing facility in Wichita to show the importance of general aviation--general aviation--to the Kansas economy. Cessna actually traces its roots back to Clyde Cessna who built his first plane in Rago, KS, in 1911. The Secretary and I then traveled to Olathe, KS, to visit the Kansas City air traffic control center. There we spoke with the controllers and the trainees about their work, listened in as they actually directed traffic through the Kansas City airspace, making it possible for people to fly in safety. During our visit, the Secretary heard firsthand from industry leaders about the importance of updating our air traffic control system, and that the current tax mechanisms provide the most appropriate avenue to raise the necessary funds to upgrade into what they call NextGen technology--next generation technology. This key message was delivered to me and the Secretary personally, and I have been delivering that same message to my colleagues since this debate began some time ago. It is no secret that I care passionately about this issue and how general aviation is treated, and to make sure they are treated fairly. With my State's close connection to the history of this industry, obviously, you can see why. Kansas manufactures--this may be unbelievable to some--Kansas manufactures roughly 70 percent of the world's general aviation aircraft--70 percent. Throughout this debate, general aviation has been called to increase its contribution to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund to help pay for the modernization of our air traffic control system. All along the way, general aviation has stepped to the plate and agreed to help pay for the necessary increases to move our aviation infrastructure into next generation technology. I cannot recall a time when an industry has come to me and said: We want to help. We are willing to support an increase in our taxes to actually do so. But that is exactly what the general aviation community did. Their only request has been that they be able to pay through the current efficient and effective tax structure of the fuel tax. That was their only request. The agreement finally reached between the Finance and Commerce Committees respects this request and allows general aviation to be part of the modernization solution without creating a new bureaucracy or additional redtape. The agreement would allow AvGas to remain at its current rate, but would increase the Jet A fuel tax from 21.8 cents to 36 cents per gallon on general aviation flights. Now, this raises an additional $250 million dedicated to updating the air traffic control technology that will increase safety and decrease congestion--something that is in the headlines every day. At the same time, our commercial airlines and passengers are held harmless from tax increases, given the challenges they face today. I am pleased this agreement recognizes the value of both the commercial aviation and general aviation to our Nation's transportation system. I realize there have been strong feelings on both sides of this debate. My goals, as we drafted this bill, were very clear: One, ensure that our air traffic control system is updated and remains safe for all passengers and aircraft; and, two, protect the general aviation community and Kansas jobs, which would have been threatened by something called a user fee. Today, I am pleased to say we have succeeded on both counts. This legislation represents the best of bipartisan compromise in a real effort to make our skies safer. I am proud to be part of this compromise, as are the 40,000 workers employed in Kansas in aviation manufacturing. Kansas has a long history of being the world's leader in aviation achievements. This agreement guarantees that Kansas and our great general aviation industry will remain leaders in the sky. Kansas is-- always has been--and remains the air capital of the world under this agreement. I thank my colleagues for helping us reach an agreement that will maintain our world standing. Also included in this agreement is a fix to the projected funding deficit in the highway trust fund for 2009. This 1-year patch will keep necessary transportation construction projects on schedule and help our State transportation departments meet their financial obligations. I am hopeful the Senate will continue to work in the spirit of bipartisanship on the bill so we can quickly move to a conference committee and eventually have a bill signed into law before the current program expires. We must do this. American travelers and businesses and pilots deserve the predictability and stability that comes with passing this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I believe Senator Casey wishes to address the Senate. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, first, I wish to associate myself with the thoughtful and special remarks of Senator Inhofe, a member of the Armed Services Committee. He is a champion of our young men and women in uniform. I thank him for his comments on behalf of another brave patriot who paid the ultimate sacrifice and his tribute to one of America's heroes from Oklahoma. Thank you, Senator, for the job you do, thank you for your tribute to this young man's life and sacrifice. (The remarks of Mr. Roberts are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it is my privilege today to submit S. Res. 505, along with Mr. Brownback. It is my hope it will be considered hot-lined on both sides and passed later this afternoon. This resolution is a commendation resolution on behalf of the University of Kansas Men's Basketball Team for winning the 2008 National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, Division I, basketball championship as of last night. This might be a little unique in that I am a graduate of Kansas State University, home of the ever-optimistic and fighting Wildcats. Sometimes we are rivals. In this particular case, all of Kansas, including every K State fan, stands in salute of the Jayhawks. It is clearly ``Rock Chalk, Jayhawk'' time in Kansas. Mr. President, I will skip to the bottom line of the resolution, where it says: Whereas, the families of the players, students, alumni, and faculty of the University of Kansas, and all the supporters of the University of Kansas, are to be congratulated for their commitment to, and pride in, the basketball program at the university: Now, therefore be it resolved the Senate commends the University of Kansas men's basketball team for winning the 2008 NCAA Division I Basketball Championship. The Secretary of the Senate will transmit enrolled copies of this resolution to the University of Kansas so they can display it; the chancellor of the university, Bob Hemenway, a great friend; the athletic director of the university, Lew Perkins; and the head coach of the team, Bill Self, who should remain at the University of Kansas. Those remarks were not prepared, but that is my advice. For those of you who did not see the game last night--and it started at 9 p.m. and I know most Senators are probably asleep at 9 o'clock at night--trailing 60 to 51, with 2:12 seconds left in regulation, Kansas closed the second half with a 12-3 run, capped off by a Mario Chalmers' three-point basket, with 2.1 seconds remaining to force overtime. Kansas then outscored Memphis 12 to 5 in overtime to claim its third national championship. As General Petraeus is here testifying before four committees in regard to national security and the war with Iraq, and when this Senate is considering a housing bill and stimulus package to help the economy, let us hope the example of the University of Kansas men's basketball team, in regard to their perseverance and dedication, will enable us to achieve our goals as well. If you listen hard, from the mountains from which our acting Presiding Officer is so familiar, from Montana and further west, on to the high plains, to the Midwest, across the Appalachians, and clear to the east coast and our Nation's capital--if you listen hard, you can hear that chant, ``Rock Chalk, Jayhawk, KU-U-U.'' If we listen hard, maybe we can work together, follow their example of perseverance and unbelievable heroics to win the NCAA championship. Thus, sayeth this champion of Kansas State athletics on behalf of the University of Kansas and their basketball team.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Landrieu amendment be modified to include my amendment No. 4422.

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

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I wish to be recorded ``yea'' on DeMint amendment No. 4328. It was my intent to vote yea. I did vote nay. That was a mistake. This would not change the vote, as it was 40 to 58.