Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today, in support of Senator Paul's filibuster on the nomination of John Owen Brennan, to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I have stated my opposition to Brennan's nomination from the beginning. During my time on the Intelligence Committee and as chairman, I presided over hearings before which Mr. Brennan testified. His inability to give a straight yes or no answer was greater than any other witness I experienced. But his approach is exactly what we see from the Obama administration today. Senator Paul has asked a very simple question to which the President refuses to give a direct answer. The appropriate question is: Will the administration clarify any circumstance when it is acceptable to target and kill American citizens on American soil? Senator Paul is only asking for a clear, unwavering statement that protects Americans' fifth Amendment rights as well as our national security. All Americans await the answer. The Senate's duty is to conduct oversight and ensure our government is protecting its people and the Constitution. In that regard Senator Paul's filibuster has been true to our oversight, obligations and duties; and I congratulate him.

Mr. ROBERTS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, my colleagues, I rise today to introduce a bill that has a long title: Improve Nutrition Program Integrity and Deficit Reduction Act of 2013. Big title, but it is a good bill. Last June, I stood in this body, along with Chairperson Stabenow of the Agriculture Committee, to encourage my colleagues to pass bipartisan reform legislation known as the farm bill. The legislation we put together in the Senate Agriculture Committee would have strengthened and preserved the safety net for our farmers and ranchers while also being responsible to taxpayers by providing billions of dollars for deficit reduction. At the time we were told by the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, that the farm bill passed by the Agriculture Committee, one of the first bills, by the way, that we were able to pass under regular order and in record amount of time, 2\1/2\ days--the CBO estimated at that time the farm bill that was passed by the Agriculture Committee in the Senate would save $24 billion over 10 years, including $4 billion from the nutrition title. However, according to the latest CBO projections, a projection that has reverberated in farm country, released just last Friday, the farm bill we passed last year would now only save $13 billion and no longer represents savings in the nutrition title. We could have done more last year, and we must do more this year to rein in the largest expenditure within the Department of Agriculture budget. No, it does not go to farmers. We are talking about specifically the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, called SNAP, more commonly known as food stamps. In the context of sequestration, SNAP was exempted from any across- the-board cuts, along with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It was in that pasture. A lot of other things were in different pastures, especially national security. However, it is clear there are several areas within the program that could provide significant savings that were, unfortunately, left untouched. The legislation I introduce today, along with Senator Johanns and Senator Thune, builds off of several amendments previously offered in a piecemeal fashion. We have wrapped them all together. Each should be enacted, but combined in this bill they represent over $36 billion in savings. By eliminating loopholes, duplicative programs, unnecessary bonuses, inflation adjustments, and restricting lottery winners from receiving benefits, this legislation will instill and restore integrity to SNAP while still providing benefits to those truly in need. I ought to repeat that this restores integrity to SNAP while still providing benefits to those truly in need. I am not proposing a dramatic change in the policy of nutrition programs. Instead, this legislation enforces the principles of good government and returns SNAP spending to much more responsible levels. While saving over $36 billion, our legislation also makes commonsense and comprehensive reforms to SNAP, the Food Stamp Program, that can and should be enacted immediately. Over one-half of the SNAP food benefits in our country are utilized by households with children, and SNAP can play, and does play, a critical role in helping people put food on the table in times of need. However, at least 17 States, I am sorry to report, 17 States are gaming the system by designing their Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program--the acronym for that is LIHEAP, a very commonly used term with regards to nutrition programs and the energy programs. But these 17 States designed their programs to exploit the Food Stamp Program. This is not right. It is not right. The LIHEAP loophole works like this: A participating State agency annually issues extremely low LIHEAP benefits to qualify otherwise ineligible households for standard utility allowances, which then result in increased monthly food stamp benefits. For example, today a State agency can issue only $1 annually in LIHEAP benefits to increase monthly food stamp benefits on an average of $90 a month. That is $1,080 per year for households that do not otherwise pay out-of-pocket utility bills. That is not right. Last year the Senate farm bill included a provision to tighten the LIHEAP loophole. Even though it would only reduce the loophole, it set the minimum qualifying LIHEAP benefit at $10 annually--not $1, $10. At the time it would have saved taxpayers nearly $450 million every year for a total of $4 billion over a 10-year period. Completely eliminating the LIHEAP loophole, as my legislation does, will save taxpayers $12 billion. Let me be very clear about it. Eliminating the LIHEAP loophole does not affect SNAP eligibility for anyone using the Food Stamp Program. Eliminating the LIHEAP loophole would only decrease SNAP benefits for those who would not otherwise qualify for the higher SNAP benefits, the food stamp benefits. Let me point out another area that must be reformed: States using categorical eligibility for automatic eligibility to provide food stamp benefits. Categorical eligibility is simply known as Cat-El. It was designed to help streamline the administration of SNAP by allowing households to be certified as eligible for the food stamp benefits and be certified without evaluating household assets or gross income, a previous requirement. Now, 42 States, unfortunately--I do not like to report these kinds of things. However, 42 States are exploiting an unintended loophole of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program and simply provided informational brochures and informational 1-800 numbers to maximize the food stamp enrollment and the corresponding increase in Federal food benefits. These States are gaming the system to bring otherwise ineligible SNAP participants into the program. My legislation ties categorical eligibility to cash assistance, thereby eliminating this loophole. That saves taxpayers $11.5 billion, a lot of money. To be clear, this represents a cut to SNAP food benefits. However, this amount represents the amount of benefits to people who would not otherwise be eligible for these benefits were it not for States gaming the system. In an ongoing effort to streamline government programs and reduce redundancy and taxpayer spending, we should also look at the unnecessary spending in Federal employment and training programs. According to a GAO report last year, there are currently 47 such programs that annually cost $18 billion. Let me repeat that. There are 47 programs annually costing $18 billion--Federal employment and training programs. Nobody would object to a Federal employment and training program given the problems we have with our country. But 47, according to a GAO report, $18 billion. Eliminating the duplicative SNAP employment and training programs would save more than $4 billion and would not affect SNAP food benefits. I repeat. This provision of this legislation would not cut the buying power of any food stamp household to put food in their refrigerators and also their kitchen cupboards. What am I talking about? In addition to the base program funding that we are talking about with employment and training help, States have the option of providing their own funding to their State education and training program. Then the Department of Agriculture is required to match that. Currently, four States receive over 80 percent of the total 50-50 match funding. Four States, 80 percent? What about the rest of the States? They include New York, California, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. New York, 36, 37, percent; California, 21 percent; Pennsylvania, about 13 percent; New Jersey, about 10. This optional 50-50 Federal match is uncapped. It can be used by States to provide reimbursement for participant expenses in regard to education and training that are deemed reasonable and necessary. But somebody has to define ``reasonable and necessary.'' The following items have come under ``reasonable and necessary,'' especially in these four States: union dues, test fees, clothing and tools required for the job, relocation expenses, licensing, bonding fees, transportation, childcare, tennis lessons. I made that up. I thought it would catch your attention, Mr. President. No, there are no tennis lessons. There might be, could be. But at least in regards to this reform, let's go to another provision of my legislation. It ends the USDA practice of giving $48 million in awards every year to State agencies for basically doing their job to ensure proper use of the American tax dollar. Currently, bonuses are given to States for ``best program access,'' signing up as many people for food stamps as possible. ``Most improved program access.'' How many more people signed up for SNAP compared to the previous year? So if you sign up more people then you signed up last year, well, you get an award. ``Best application timeliness.'' That is handling applications within the required guidelines, and we are getting a benefit from that. State agencies are rewarded for performing the minimum expectations for stewardship of the Food Stamp Program and also of the American tax dollar. The bonuses are not even required to be used for food stamp administration. A recipient State may choose the funding for any State priority. So we are talking about $48 million. That goes to State agencies of these four Oscar Awards in regard to food stamps, but they can use the funding for anything, for any State priority. Eliminating these unnecessary State bonuses will save taxpayers, over 10 years, $480 million. Another area where my legislation streamlines government programs is through the elimination of the SNAP Nutrition Education Grant Program. A number of existing nutrition education programs are delivered more equitably with a cost-benefit ratio that makes more sense, at least six Federal programs administered by the Department of Agriculture and the National Institutes of Health and Land Grant University Extension Programs. In practice, the SNAP Nutrition Education Program is inequitably distributed with the top four States--here we go again--receiving over 54 percent of the funding. The bottom 33 State agencies receive less than 1 percent of the total funding. That is not right. Additionally our bill ends inflation adjustments for countable resources and for emergency food assistance, saving over $600 million. The legislation also terminates the ongoing stimulus of several years ago enacted by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which provided extra funding to increase monthly SNAP food benefits. Finally, the legislation does prohibit lottery winners--Senator Stabenow insisted on this in the last farm bill and it makes a lot of sense--from receiving SNAP benefits and keeps them from receiving new benefits if they do not meet the financial requirements of SNAP. Overall, by eliminating several duplicative programs, closing loopholes, and ending unnecessary spending, the Improve Nutrition Program Integrity and Deficit Reduction Act will save taxpayers over $36 billion, the latest score by the CBO. I understand the importance of domestic food assistance programs for many hard-working Americans, including many Kansans. I know that. In 1996, when I was chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, there was an effort to send the Food Stamp Program back to the States--and the Governors wanted it. They wanted the money, they didn't want the food stamps. We made an effort under a very historic farm bill at that time not only to save and reform but restore integrity to the Food Stamp Program. We have another opportunity right now. I do understand the importance of domestic food assistance programs for many hard-working Americans and Kansans. My goal is very simple, again restoring integrity to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in a commonsense and comprehensive manner. Enacting this package of reforms will allow the Federal Government to continue to help those who truly need SNAP food benefits and assistance. Again, I thank Senators Thune and Johanns for their assistance in this effort. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact these reforms for the benefit of all Americans.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, my colleagues, I rise today to introduce a bill that has a long title: Improve Nutrition Program Integrity and Deficit Reduction Act of 2013. Big title, but it is a good bill. Last June, I stood in this body, along with Chairperson Stabenow of the Agriculture Committee, to encourage my colleagues to pass bipartisan reform legislation known as the farm bill. The legislation we put together in the Senate Agriculture Committee would have strengthened and preserved the safety net for our farmers and ranchers while also being responsible to taxpayers by providing billions of dollars for deficit reduction. At the time we were told by the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, that the farm bill passed by the Agriculture Committee, one of the first bills, by the way, that we were able to pass under regular order and in record amount of time, 2\1/2\ days--the CBO estimated at that time the farm bill that was passed by the Agriculture Committee in the Senate would save $24 billion over 10 years, including $4 billion from the nutrition title. However, according to the latest CBO projections, a projection that has reverberated in farm country, released just last Friday, the farm bill we passed last year would now only save $13 billion and no longer represents savings in the nutrition title. We could have done more last year, and we must do more this year to rein in the largest expenditure within the Department of Agriculture budget. No, it does not go to farmers. We are talking about specifically the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, called SNAP, more commonly known as food stamps. In the context of sequestration, SNAP was exempted from any across- the-board cuts, along with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It was in that pasture. A lot of other things were in different pastures, especially national security. However, it is clear there are several areas within the program that could provide significant savings that were, unfortunately, left untouched. The legislation I introduce today, along with Senator Johanns and Senator Thune, builds off of several amendments previously offered in a piecemeal fashion. We have wrapped them all together. Each should be enacted, but combined in this bill they represent over $36 billion in savings. By eliminating loopholes, duplicative programs, unnecessary bonuses, inflation adjustments, and restricting lottery winners from receiving benefits, this legislation will instill and restore integrity to SNAP while still providing benefits to those truly in need. I ought to repeat that this restores integrity to SNAP while still providing benefits to those truly in need. I am not proposing a dramatic change in the policy of nutrition programs. Instead, this legislation enforces the principles of good government and returns SNAP spending to much more responsible levels. While saving over $36 billion, our legislation also makes commonsense and comprehensive reforms to SNAP, the Food Stamp Program, that can and should be enacted immediately. Over one-half of the SNAP food benefits in our country are utilized by households with children, and SNAP can play, and does play, a critical role in helping people put food on the table in times of need. However, at least 17 States, I am sorry to report, 17 States are gaming the system by designing their Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program--the acronym for that is LIHEAP, a very commonly used term with regards to nutrition programs and the energy programs. But these 17 States designed their programs to exploit the Food Stamp Program. This is not right. It is not right. The LIHEAP loophole works like this: A participating State agency annually issues extremely low LIHEAP benefits to qualify otherwise ineligible households for standard utility allowances, which then result in increased monthly food stamp benefits. For example, today a State agency can issue only $1 annually in LIHEAP benefits to increase monthly food stamp benefits on an average of $90 a month. That is $1,080 per year for households that do not otherwise pay out-of-pocket utility bills. That is not right. Last year the Senate farm bill included a provision to tighten the LIHEAP loophole. Even though it would only reduce the loophole, it set the minimum qualifying LIHEAP benefit at $10 annually--not $1, $10. At the time it would have saved taxpayers nearly $450 million every year for a total of $4 billion over a 10-year period. Completely eliminating the LIHEAP loophole, as my legislation does, will save taxpayers $12 billion. Let me be very clear about it. Eliminating the LIHEAP loophole does not affect SNAP eligibility for anyone using the Food Stamp Program. Eliminating the LIHEAP loophole would only decrease SNAP benefits for those who would not otherwise qualify for the higher SNAP benefits, the food stamp benefits. Let me point out another area that must be reformed: States using categorical eligibility for automatic eligibility to provide food stamp benefits. Categorical eligibility is simply known as Cat-El. It was designed to help streamline the administration of SNAP by allowing households to be certified as eligible for the food stamp benefits and be certified without evaluating household assets or gross income, a previous requirement. Now, 42 States, unfortunately--I do not like to report these kinds of things. However, 42 States are exploiting an unintended loophole of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program and simply provided informational brochures and informational 1-800 numbers to maximize the food stamp enrollment and the corresponding increase in Federal food benefits. These States are gaming the system to bring otherwise ineligible SNAP participants into the program. My legislation ties categorical eligibility to cash assistance, thereby eliminating this loophole. That saves taxpayers $11.5 billion, a lot of money. To be clear, this represents a cut to SNAP food benefits. However, this amount represents the amount of benefits to people who would not otherwise be eligible for these benefits were it not for States gaming the system. In an ongoing effort to streamline government programs and reduce redundancy and taxpayer spending, we should also look at the unnecessary spending in Federal employment and training programs. According to a GAO report last year, there are currently 47 such programs that annually cost $18 billion. Let me repeat that. There are 47 programs annually costing $18 billion--Federal employment and training programs. Nobody would object to a Federal employment and training program given the problems we have with our country. But 47, according to a GAO report, $18 billion. Eliminating the duplicative SNAP employment and training programs would save more than $4 billion and would not affect SNAP food benefits. I repeat. This provision of this legislation would not cut the buying power of any food stamp household to put food in their refrigerators and also their kitchen cupboards. What am I talking about? In addition to the base program funding that we are talking about with employment and training help, States have the option of providing their own funding to their State education and training program. Then the Department of Agriculture is required to match that. Currently, four States receive over 80 percent of the total 50-50 match funding. Four States, 80 percent? What about the rest of the States? They include New York, California, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. New York, 36, 37, percent; California, 21 percent; Pennsylvania, about 13 percent; New Jersey, about 10. This optional 50-50 Federal match is uncapped. It can be used by States to provide reimbursement for participant expenses in regard to education and training that are deemed reasonable and necessary. But somebody has to define ``reasonable and necessary.'' The following items have come under ``reasonable and necessary,'' especially in these four States: union dues, test fees, clothing and tools required for the job, relocation expenses, licensing, bonding fees, transportation, childcare, tennis lessons. I made that up. I thought it would catch your attention, Mr. President. No, there are no tennis lessons. There might be, could be. But at least in regards to this reform, let's go to another provision of my legislation. It ends the USDA practice of giving $48 million in awards every year to State agencies for basically doing their job to ensure proper use of the American tax dollar. Currently, bonuses are given to States for ``best program access,'' signing up as many people for food stamps as possible. ``Most improved program access.'' How many more people signed up for SNAP compared to the previous year? So if you sign up more people then you signed up last year, well, you get an award. ``Best application timeliness.'' That is handling applications within the required guidelines, and we are getting a benefit from that. State agencies are rewarded for performing the minimum expectations for stewardship of the Food Stamp Program and also of the American tax dollar. The bonuses are not even required to be used for food stamp administration. A recipient State may choose the funding for any State priority. So we are talking about $48 million. That goes to State agencies of these four Oscar Awards in regard to food stamps, but they can use the funding for anything, for any State priority. Eliminating these unnecessary State bonuses will save taxpayers, over 10 years, $480 million. Another area where my legislation streamlines government programs is through the elimination of the SNAP Nutrition Education Grant Program. A number of existing nutrition education programs are delivered more equitably with a cost-benefit ratio that makes more sense, at least six Federal programs administered by the Department of Agriculture and the National Institutes of Health and Land Grant University Extension Programs. In practice, the SNAP Nutrition Education Program is inequitably distributed with the top four States--here we go again--receiving over 54 percent of the funding. The bottom 33 State agencies receive less than 1 percent of the total funding. That is not right. Additionally our bill ends inflation adjustments for countable resources and for emergency food assistance, saving over $600 million. The legislation also terminates the ongoing stimulus of several years ago enacted by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which provided extra funding to increase monthly SNAP food benefits. Finally, the legislation does prohibit lottery winners--Senator Stabenow insisted on this in the last farm bill and it makes a lot of sense--from receiving SNAP benefits and keeps them from receiving new benefits if they do not meet the financial requirements of SNAP. Overall, by eliminating several duplicative programs, closing loopholes, and ending unnecessary spending, the Improve Nutrition Program Integrity and Deficit Reduction Act will save taxpayers over $36 billion, the latest score by the CBO. I understand the importance of domestic food assistance programs for many hard-working Americans, including many Kansans. I know that. In 1996, when I was chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, there was an effort to send the Food Stamp Program back to the States--and the Governors wanted it. They wanted the money, they didn't want the food stamps. We made an effort under a very historic farm bill at that time not only to save and reform but restore integrity to the Food Stamp Program. We have another opportunity right now. I do understand the importance of domestic food assistance programs for many hard-working Americans and Kansans. My goal is very simple, again restoring integrity to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in a commonsense and comprehensive manner. Enacting this package of reforms will allow the Federal Government to continue to help those who truly need SNAP food benefits and assistance. Again, I thank Senators Thune and Johanns for their assistance in this effort. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact these reforms for the benefit of all Americans.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate--along with my distinguished friend and colleague Senator Jerry Moran--the 150th anniversary of Kansas State University--home of the ever-optimistic Wildcats. Since its beginning--even before Kansas joined the union as a free State--all the way up to today, Kansas State University continues to provide a first-rate education for thousands and thousands of students. To quote the K-State alma mater lyrics: ``I know a spot that I love full well.'' I--along with more than 200,000 alumni--am proud to call Kansas State University my alma mater, as did my father and also my son. The year was back in 1858, when Kansas was only a territory--not even a State--that a group of local settlers founded Bluemont Central College. Then, in 1863, only 2 years into statehood, the State legislature and Governor became some of the first to accept the terms and conditions of the Morrill Act, thus creating the land grant system of colleges and universities. On February 16, 1863, the Kansas State Agriculture College, formally known today as Kansas State University, received a land grant charter and became the first operational land grant institution in the United States. Over the past 150 years, Kansas State University has progressed and expanded to accommodate the students and the people living in the State of Kansas--the people it has served so well. Today, Kansas State University is comprised of nine academic colleges ranging from liberal arts to veterinary medicine. The university expanded its campus in Manhattan to include an aviation and technology school in Salina and an innovation campus in Olathe, KS. Also, Kansas State University Research and Extension has a presence in every county in Kansas--all 105. These offices are a source of vital information to every farmer and rancher in our State. We are staying true to our land grant roots. Back in 1863, Kansas State University's first enrollment totaled a mere 14 students. This school year Kansas State University reached a record enrollment of more than 24,000 students. These students hail from all 50 States and over 90 countries. Out of this diverse population, the university has produced industry leaders, heads of States, humanitarians, generals, gifted scientists, and a few public servants. Kansas State University has received national recognition for the exceptional education it provides students year after year. Kansas State continues to have college programs ranked the best in the Nation. The university has been recognized as a leader among public universities in total number of Rhodes, Truman, Marshall, Udall, and Goldwater Scholars. I cannot talk about my alma mater without mentioning Kansas State University's athletic program, especially over the recent years. Since its first football game way back in 1883, dedicated fans have been coming to the sports arenas to support our athletes and our team. This intercollegiate athletic program has complemented the education provided by the university and has been a great source of purple pride for both alumni and Kansas. As Kansas State University looks toward the future, it sets new goals for the institution and for its students. Launched by president Kirk Schulz in 2010, K-State 2025, the university's strategic plan, strives to make Kansas State University a top 50 public research institution within 15 years. Thanks to the work that has been done throughout the past 150 years and the research that continues, I have no doubt Kansas State University is on track to achieve this very important goal. Throughout this week and weekend, students, staff, alumni, and friends of the university will gather in Manhattan, KS--the ``little apple''--to celebrate the history of Kansas State University. On behalf of the Senate, it is my honor to congratulate Kansas State University on its accomplishments over the past 150 years. As the alma mater song says, it is truly ``a spot that I love full well.'' Every man a Wildcat. I yield to my distinguished friend and colleague, Senator Moran.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank my dear friend and colleague more especially for highlighting what K State is all about, and that is family. If one chooses to attend Kansas State, as many do--many come from small town America, and many come from big cities, but I think they are all struck by the family atmosphere. The thing I think is rather remarkable, even in having the privilege of talking to some of K State's football team and some of the athletes, both basketball and football--all sports at K State--I am always able to tell the thousands and thousands of fans from K State who know their history, know where they are coming from, and always support them regardless of the outcome. So K State is a family. K State's legendary coach Bill Snyder, who has achieved miracles on the football field with team after team, always stresses family and togetherness and the proper role of athletics in education. My son David went to K State, and he fell in love with K State. He didn't have much of a choice as far as I was concerned, but he did really enjoy himself at K State. Basically, I am struck by the fact that many of his friends who are graduates--when that day comes when you graduate or when you leave K State, those generations really stick together, and they are friends for life. It is in that vein that I think the Senator's remarks are certainly right on target.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, we have a double privilege here today in that we obviously are celebrating Kansas State University being 150, representing 150 years of outstanding academic service to our people, but also Emporia State University is 150 years old at the same time--a rather remarkable achievement. I know we would like to congratulate Emporia State on its 150th anniversary. Emporia State University is in the beautiful Flint Hills of Kansas, and it is also very dear to my family. My mother attended Emporia State and studied education. She went on to become a teacher. Emporia State is a teacher's university, second to none. But she, in her day and time, spent a lot of time educating Kansas children up in Atchison, KS, and was very much like the other proud and accomplished alumni from Emporia State. If a person wants to know about education, all they would have to do--as well as teacher involvement and teacher progress and some of the very serious challenges we face today in education--is stop by Emporia State. They have many fine programs and nothing but the best in terms of graduates who do such a great job. Throughout the past 150 years, Emporia State has grown to accommodate the needs of the State and the 6,500 students it currently serves. What was once the Kansas State Teaching College, Emporia State has now expanded greatly, offering a wide range of academic programs. In true Kansas fashion, the university has faced challenges head-on from its earliest days. Adversity is not uncommon. In fact, our State motto is ``to the stars through difficulty.'' But the outstanding faculty and staff have persevered on behalf of their students to provide a quality education, and that continues today with teachers who also provide a quality education. We can't do any better than that. It is with great pride as a Kansan and as a son of an Emporia State graduate that I recognize and congratulate Emporia State University on its 150th anniversary. I am more than happy to yield to my friend and colleague, Senator Moran.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in morning business for such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a most remarkable woman. In just a few hours, a celebration of life service will be held at St. Andrew's Church in Kansas City for Adele Hall, described by the Kansas City Star in a front-page headline as ``first lady'' of Kansas City. Adele was in Hawaii with her husband Don Hall, chairman of Hallmark Cards, when she passed away. To say they were a remarkable couple is an understatement. They met when she was 3 years old and Don was 6. Adele said: I don't ever remember falling in love with Don. I just grew up being in love with him. As the Star reported, her priorities were always with her husband and her three children. In addition to her love and caring for her family, Adele Hall had a unique ability to lead, and lead she did. Living a life of caring and contribution, making a difference and demonstrating to all whose lives she touched and made better, she was a wonderful example of honor and respect. Adele's many accomplishments were almost legendary. She would demure from that description with her wonderful smile and give credit to others. It was how she accomplished so much that serves as such a wonderful example and why she was so beloved. The friends of Don and Adele and those with whom she worked describe her best. Henry Bloch, the founder of H&R Block and a lifelong friend, said: If there ever was a first lady of Kansas City, it was Adele. She was honored and respected by everybody. It's a major loss for this community. Irv Hockaday, a former CEO of Hallmark and a friend of Adele and Don's for close to 50 years, said: She was like a magnetic sun . . . whose constant warmth and magnetism just had a pull. And people gravitated to her. To me, her most compelling quality, of many, was her empathy. They say that no one is indispensable. That's true in a way. But she comes about as close to being someone we can never, ever forget or replicate. Irv Hockaday certainly captured Adele, as did Steven Doyal, spokesman for Hallmark Cards: We lost a great human being. Her greatest passion was in the area of children. She believed passionately in the potential of every child. At Children's Mercy Hospital, Adele moved easily from rocking sick babies in the nursery to running board meetings and leading multimillion-dollar fundraising campaigns. One of the best known was with Tom Watson, with whom she established the Children's Mercy Golf Classic. Jack Ovel, the hospital board chairman, said: She was quick to give others credit. She was always telling other people, ``You are the wind beneath my wings.'' Perhaps her most notable collaborative effort was bringing the University of Kansas and Children's Mercy together. Early on she realized what that would mean for residents of Kansas City. Jim Heeter, president of the Greater City Chamber of Commerce, described the news of Adele's passing, which came in the middle of the monthly chamber board meeting: The entire room fell into stunned silence when it was announced. She was known and loved by virtually everyone around our board table. We observed a long moment of silence in her honor and her memory. Mary Shaw ``Shawsie'' Branton, who was her copartner and close friend in one charitable and/or civic event after another said of Adele: I have lost a close friend. She touched all our lives. There was an aura around Adele, `How can I help? What can I do? . . . How can I find a solution?' ``This is a great day of sorrow,'' said Sarah Rowland, chairwoman of the Nelson-Atkins board of trustees. Jane Chu, CEO of the Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts said: Everything she did was about inspiring Kansas City residents. She so believed in these projects because she so believed in this city, she cared about making it a great place to live. One can clearly see by the many comments of Adele's friends and leaders in Kansas City, with regard to their sense of personal loss, expressions of admiration of love and respect for the world of achievements Adele accomplished, there is only one Adele Hall. In my case, Mr. President, I was on the floor of this body last Monday during a series of votes taking place when a cloakroom attendant gave me a message to call my office immediately. I did, and my chief of staff, Jackie Cottrell, came over to the cloakroom and told me of the news of Adele's untimely passing. There are certain people in life where you feel you are privileged just to know them--people who make a difference, really nice people who give you a certain sense of awe, people who are really not aware of their special and unique persona. Adele had that certain something--a unique charisma, comprised of a wonderful smile, charm and grace, but also the determination and ability of a leader. When she came into a room, those present knew things would get done. She always stood ready in friendship and support and love. Unfortunately, given her strength of purpose, she was also the kind of person you might well take for granted. Jackie and I immediately called Annie Presley, a good friend and companion-in-arms with Adele. Annie and I couldn't say too much during that phone call, but I did blurt out, ``Well, it's the end of an era.'' And it is. Adele, in addition to all of her civic and art works, had tremendous influence, serving as an adviser, a friend, and supporter to Presidents, Governors, Senators, Congressional Members, and city leaders. Annie was right by her side in these endeavors. Her passion for politics made both Kansas and Missouri a better place to live. Her advice, her guidance, and support were invaluable to so many. Don and Adele's Kansas home was the setting for countless benefactor receptions. The list represents a Who's Who in politics, from both Presidents Bush, Senators Bob Dole, Kit Bond, Nancy Kassebaum, and, yes, somebody by the name of Pat Roberts. My friendship with Don and Adele began more than 20 years ago. I admit I was a bit nervous the first time I was invited to their home. I arrived early and Adele warmly greeted me, welcomed me in. Don took me into the study, and after some discussion we all ended up listening to the Andrews Sisters--I don't know why--until we were informed it was time to greet the other guests. I think Don and I would have been there a lot longer if Don had his way. We have been great friends ever since. Perhaps the highlight of our efforts together was when First Lady Laura Bush came to Kansas, and together we welcomed her to our great State. Finally, Mr. President, when I talk about Adele's respect and her humility, I am reminded of the story when President Bush came to Wichita on my behalf. The White House staff and security, God bless them, had names on the floor in the reception room, and those who were greeting the President had to stand on the right name. God knows what would have happened if you didn't stand on the right name. Adele stood exactly as instructed on her name, without any hesitation. I did not do that. I didn't follow orders quite as well. I met with the President's vehicle and hurriedly told him our special guests were standing at attention at their appropriate spot, which amused the President greatly. The secret, of course, was that Don and Adele often stayed at the White House as guests of both George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush. When President Bush came in the room, he asked: Adele, are you standing in the right place? She replied quickly: Why, Mr. President--George--I will stand wherever you want me to. That really produced a lot of laughs and prompted a big hug. Mr. President, today's obligations in the Senate prevent me from attending the celebration of life service, but I am there in spirit. To Don, Don Jr. and Jill, David and Laura, Margaret and Keith, and Adele's nine grandchildren, our thoughts and prayers are with you. I feel compelled to say if all of the people in the Kansas City area could be in attendance, those who loved Adele or who have benefited from her many endeavors, the numbers would fill Arrowhead Stadium and then some. Helen Steiner Rice may well have summed up what Adele would be telling us now: When I must leave you for a little while, please go on bravely with a gallant smile. And, for my sake and in my name, live on and do all things the same. Spend not your life in empty days, but fill each waking hour in useful ways. Reach out your hand in comfort and in cheer, and I, in turn, will comfort you and hold you near. Mr. President, the heavens are a little brighter now because they have a shining star in Adele Hall. I yield the floor, and upon careful study I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I want to thank a young Kansan for sharing her thoughts and opinions regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture's implementation of new school meal requirements. Ms. Lindsey Heward wrote to me last fall to express her and fellow Osage City High School students' frustrations with the amount of food they were getting to eat at lunch and their choices for food. She outlined several areas that the USDA could focus on to prevent obesity rather than solely school meal programs. Among her suggestions were to have the USDA encourage families to share meals together, develop budgeting skills for shoppers, and encourage nutritious meal planning. I would like to submit a copy of her letter into the Congressional Record. After hearing from parents, school administrators, and students like Lindsey, I shared the concerns I was receiving with USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack. These comments and concerns were heard by the USDA and the administration ultimately provided additional flexibility in implementing changes to school meals. I am still concerned USDA doesn't fully understand the estimated costs to schools and plate waste. I will continue to monitor the implementation of this rule, and its impact on schools in Kansas as well as the rest of the country. I look forward to working with Secretary Vilsack to continue to improve school nutrition while ensuring our students are adequately fed. I ask that Ms. Lindsey Heward's letter be printed in the Record. The letter follows. Lindsey Heward, Osage City, Kansas, October 15, 2012. Pat Roberts, U.S. Senator for Kansas, Frank Carlson Federal Building, Topeka, KS. Dear Senator Roberts: There is a lot of talk going on in our community of Osage City, Kansas about all of the changes in our school food service program due to the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. When the changes in the nutrition of the available vending machine items in our school took out pop, any type of sugar drinks, candy bars, cookies, most chips, pastries, etc., I could agree with that. A lot of those items aren't going to help a student in their day; it's not going to be what gives them the fuel they need. I didn't have a problem with that because the lunches that we were having always satisfied me for the day, it would actually get me through after school practice until supper time. But now that the school lunch program has been greatly altered, the majority of the students, especially in the high school, are not receiving enough calories to sustain them through school, after school practices, and events. What really frustrates me is that the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 is not correctly addressing the reduction of our nation's obesity rate. What is not being addressed is education of the parents who are the main consumers of the family's grocery items or parents modeling healthy eating habits. As an employee of Jerry's Thriftway, this is something that I witness daily. I especially see the purchasing of unhealthy food choices by welfare recipients when using their Vision cards. For example, this last Saturday, a customer was at my check-out line with a cart of hot dogs, chips, pizza, pop, and a lot of frozen items loaded with preservatives. These items were purchased with funds provided by our tax payers. It is obvious that this parent does not go home to prepare a healthy meal for her children and she certainly doesn't model healthy eating habits. This is something that occurs regularly throughout my six hour shift. No matter what takes place at school, it is not changing the way these parents are providing (through somebody else's money) for their children's meals. I fear that there isn't even a family meal time in those homes, but rather a time to binge on junk food throughout the evenings or on weekends. This is where nutrition needs to change to reduce the obesity in our nation, not by unrealistically restricting our school breakfast and lunch program. Instead of focusing on school meal programs, I strongly feel that it's time to focus on the following: 1. Creating a greater work ethic in all citizens 2. Developing budgeting skills for shoppers 3. Nutritious meal planning 4. Food preparation skills 5. Valuing family togetherness at the dinner table 6. Family physical fitness The family is the basic unit in every community. Let's start with changes in the daily life of families . . . that's the ground level. Once that happens, then we will see true, positive changes in the health of our nation. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on my suggestions of how this change needs to start with each family instead of through the restricted school meal service. Do you have any ideas on how my concerns can be put into action to make real, meaningful change happen? Sincerely yours, Lindsey Heward, Osage City High School Senior.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield back the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Madam President. (The remarks of Mr. Roberts pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 8 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask the Acting President pro tempore if we are in morning business, and I assume we are.

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am rising to submit a resolution making it absolutely clear that Congress, and only Congress, has the authority and responsibility to set the Federal debt limit. I should not even have to submit a resolution such as this, but I feel it is absolutely necessary. Raising the Federal debt limit--the limit we place on government borrowing--as everybody knows, has been a hot topic around Washington. It is a key issue for the start of the 113th Congress. It is another case where if we could just maintain regular order, regular authority to address our problems, that is the best way for us to approach the task of getting our fiscal house in order. I know there is a lot of dispute over what breaching the limit means. There is a lot of talk about that. It is clear a great deal of the public and our financial markets are extremely concerned about the Federal Government's ability to meet its financial obligations once we do hit the limit. The President has asked for a very large increase in the debt ceiling, and some in the administration have called for no limit at all. Others of the administration and in the House are calling for Congress to give up its authority to set the debt limit--rather amazing--thus giving the executive branch unilateral authority to borrow. This is not a good idea. If the Federal Government does not collect enough revenue to pay for all its spending obligations, it must borrow to make up the shortfall. Everybody knows that. We are borrowing now about 42 cents of every $1 we are obligated to spend. This is clearly--I think everybody would agree on either side of the aisle and the public--an unsustainable situation which will only get worse if we do not begin meaningful discussions over our spending priorities, including--including--entitlement spending to strengthen and preserve those programs for future generations. The national debt is growing. Everybody has seen that chart. It is about $16.4 trillion. The total public debt outstanding at the end of the third quarter just passed was $16.07 trillion. That is up from $15.86 trillion reported in June 2012. We are on the wrong path. The Federal debt is now equivalent to at least 73 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product--nearly double the level as a percentage of GDP that we had back in 1990. That is not too long ago. According to some measures, there has been a 60-percent increase in the debt limit since 2009. At the rate we are going, in a few short years we will be spending more to pay interest on the debt than we will on all discretionary programs outside of defense. Even defense now is going through a very difficult time with the sequester and has already been cut about one-half trillion dollars. Let me just say that means no money for education. That means no money for agriculture. That means no money for the environment. That means no money for health care. It all goes to pay off interest on the debt. The Federal debt is the accumulation of this borrowing, including all bills, notes, and bonds issued by the Department of the Treasury. The current statutory debt limit is $16.394 trillion, which was established on January 28 of last year, 2012--about 1 year ago--under the procedures of the Budget Control Act of 2011. According to the Department of the Treasury, as of December 31--just last month--total debt outstanding subject to the limit was only $25 million--million; it used to be a lot of money--below the current limit. Once the amount of outstanding debt reaches the debt limit, the government can no longer issue additional debt to cover the cash shortfalls needed to fund government operations and meet legal obligations. Similar to the power of the purse, Congress's powers over borrowing are firmly rooted in our constitutional traditions. The Founders understood the potential danger of permitting the executive branch to unilaterally incur new public debt. Article I of the Constitution empowers only--only--Congress ``to borrow money on the credit of the United States.'' The debt limit is the means by which Congress--Congress--exercises this critical legislative responsibility. I can remember well that lesson, that lecture, if you will, from Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, the institutional flame of the Senate, who would have repeated that Congress cannot give debt limit authority to the executive, should not, cannot. It is not constitutional. To implement this congressional prerogative, the amount of money the Federal Government is allowed to borrow is subject to a specific statutory limit. From time to time, Congress considers and adopts legislation to change this limit and has done so more than 100 times since the first modern debt limit was set way back in 1939, and we will do so again shortly. We have to. So preserving this role and establishing the debt limit is vital to encourage deficit reduction and to uphold our constitutional tradition of legislative control over borrowing. Not only does the debt limit provide an essential check on executive borrowing, it provides public accountability--everybody is talking about transparency--for Congress's borrowing and debt management practices. We cannot duck that responsibility. We cannot pass this debt limit simply to the Executive and duck our responsibility and the public accountability. In other words, debates over the debt limit, as difficult and as contentious as they are--and they are; I know that--shed the light of day on the overall financial condition of the Federal Government. Precluding these discussions by removing Congress's authority over the debt limit would lead to a less well-informed decisionmaking over fiscal policy. That is probably the understatement of my remarks. It is a nice way to put it. We can do this. In the past, legislation to raise the debt limit has frequently been coupled with legislation to reduce the overall Federal debt and deficit. That is the way we should do it. These extensions, often approved on a bipartisan basis, have been important catalysts for fiscal reform. In this respect, the debt limit is a strong mechanism, a strong tool, a way for Congress to evaluate fiscal policy and to maintain control over such policy. Abdicating this role would fundamentally alter the checks and balances embedded in the Constitution. This is a power that should not be bargained away. The necessary and critical battle to control spending is far from over. I view the debt ceiling debate as a critical means in what has to be an ongoing effort to tighten the government's fiscal belt--if we can just do that. But we cannot settle our national finances by fundamentally altering the constitutional structure and processes governing those finances. We cannot cavalierly give up one of our most important tools in evaluating and reining in the Federal Government's runaway spending. Equally clear, we cannot keep spending what we do not have. We must continue to fight for spending cuts, for debt reduction, and against tax increases and, I might add, the tidal wave of regulations that continue to pour out of Washington. In response to calls to give up this vital congressional authority over debt issuance, I am submitting today a simple resolution. Let's put the Senate on record. The Congress holds the sole authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States and cannot cede this power to the President. I invite everybody to cosponsor this important measure and look forward to passage of this resolution. This should be a bipartisan effort, and it is absolutely necessary.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, let me associate myself with the remarks of Senator Isakson. I thank him and all of my colleagues who have come to the floor to eulogize Senator Danny Inouye. The Senate and our Nation has lost an unsung hero. He was heroic in military valor, receiving the Nation's highest honor, the Medal of Honor. He was heroic as the one chosen to lead with dignity in inquiries seeking the truth during our most challenging times. He was a tireless guardian of our national security and champion to the men and women who put their lives at risk to protect the United States and whose legislative achievements have been simply remarkable. All this from a man who always gave others credit and never sought the spotlight. Yesterday Senator John McCain from Arizona--a hero in his own right-- reflected on the passing of Senator Inouye: Today, the Senate, America, and especially his beloved citizens of Hawaii, lost a unique, brave, and wonderful legislator. He was a man who brought the most unique credentials to this institution--I would argue--of probably anyone who has ever served in this very diverse body. Senator McCain certainly hit the nail on the head. He went on to say: In Hawaii there was a group of young Japanese Americans who decided they wanted to serve their country in uniform. One of the most well-known, famous, and highly decorated units of World War II was the battalion in which Dan Inouye served. Dan Inouye was a proud member of his battalion. In fierce combat, he was gravely wounded on the battlefield and was brought home. He, as we all know, lost his arm as a result of one of the wounds he sustained. Senator McCain went on to point out that he went to the Veterans Hospital in Chicago where a person in the same ward was an American Army second lieutenant who had also been wounded seriously in combat in Italy, 2LT Bob Dole of Kansas. Bob Dole is a man who still represents the very best we have in Kansas, our country, and he did such a great job as leader of this body. Their friendship has lasted to this day. Both men were gravely wounded, both were certainly dedicated to serve their country, and both served with distinction. The friendship and the bonds of friendship that were forged in that hospital between Bob and Dan were unique and also enduring. Yesterday, Senator Danny Akaka also pointed out that his colleague from his native State was a true patriot and American hero in every sense and at this time in Hawaii, the greatest leader. Then Danny Akaka said that it is an incredible understatement to call him an institution. This Chamber will never be the same without him. He also said Danny Inouye leaves behind a list of accomplishments unlikely to ever be paralleled. His lifelong dedication and hard work in the name of his beloved country, the United States of America, influenced every part of his life and set him apart--even in the Senate. Today will be the first day since Hawaii became a State in 1959 that Danny Inouye will not be representing us in the Congress. Every child born in Hawaii will learn of Danny Inouye, a man who changed the islands forever. Senator Akaka then went on to say he was praying for his wife Irene, his son Ken, his daughter-in-law Jessica, his stepdaughter Jennifer, and granddaughter Maggie, who was the apple of his eye. Like so many, with Danny's untimely passing, I have lost a very dear friend. In truth, as an institution, every Senator in the Senate lost a dear friend. We lost one of the last institutional flames of the Senate. Upon reflection, the occasions I have had the privilege to be with Danny also represented my personal career highlights. There were codels with Senator Ted Stevens, affectionately called Uncle Ted. Danny always had T-shirts made that said ``I survived Codel Stevens.'' He took us to Antarctica, North Korea, the Russian Far and wild East, and any number of places of national interest that nobody else would go. As the song says, through the bushes and brambles where a rabbit wouldn't go. Danny was the personification of those who get things done the effective way. He stayed in the background until it was time to take charge and then gave others the credit. I will always remember his sonorous, basso profundo voice advising the North Koreans at one point during a trip to make P'anmunjom and the 38th parallel a tourist site-- not a shooting gallery. In the Russian Far East we traveled to Sakhalin Island, with mountains and raw materials that rivaled Alaska and where locals say there are still saber-toothed tigers north of the island. Danny, while visiting with staff, went into detail about his many travels, with a little fact and fiction mixed in, all with a twinkle in his eye. I also remember while in the city of Khabarovsk in the Russian Far East--we were at a hotel. Of all the hotels in the Russian Far East, this one had to be one of the last on the list. As we went into our rooms, I discovered that my bed was a wooden frame with just straps--no mattress, one blanket, and no pillow. I thought, being a junior member of this codel, this was something they assigned to me. So I went down the hall with my special key in hand and my special ID that was required in that part of the world and knocked on Danny's door. He said: How can I be of service to you, dear friend? I said that I wanted to look at his accommodations, thinking, of course, he would have a bed. There was a wooden bed with the same kind of accommodations--no mattress, straps, and just one blanket. He said: Why are you interested in that bed? I said: Well, I thought being a junior Member that things might be better in your quarters. He got a big kick out of that. He always reminded me of that at various times when I would get a little upset about anything. At any rate, it is not an understatement with regard to his leadership, bipartisanship, integrity, and achievement. It would serve every Member of this Senate to ask: What would Danny Inouye want us to do? In today's Washington Post there was a reference to the keynote speech that Senator Inouye gave in Chicago. It was a period of unrest after the assassinations of Senator Robert Kennedy and Rev. Martin Luther King--troubling times, indeed. Speaking not as a Democrat but as a citizen disturbed by unprecedented violence, Senator Inouye described a ``troubling loss of faith among Americans.'' He went on to say: I do not mean a loss of religious faith, I mean a loss of faith in our country, its purposes, and its institutions. I mean a retreat from the responsibilities of citizenship. Danny called for Americans to rebuild their trust in government--an extraordinary statement from a man whose people had suffered grave injustices at the hands of government. The article went on to say that Senator Inouye's remarks were immediately overshadowed by events at that convention, but his speech was truly remarkable. It was a speech that drew little attention then and is even less remembered now. My colleagues, Danny's speech should be required reading today given the recent tragedies. It was just last week that I was asked to speak on Senator Inouye's behalf at an event concerning the proposed Eisenhower Memorial. It is a joint bipartisan effort that has taken far too long to bring to fruition. In the cloakroom the day before we had one of our many discussions where he grabbed my hand and looked me in the eye and said: You and I probably vote differently 80 percent of the time, but in all of our mutual efforts and all of our travels, I have considered you a brother. I didn't know what to do. I responded with a tear in my eye, and I said: I love you, Danny Inouye. And he said: I love you too. What a wonderful thing to hear from a true American hero in every respect. It has been a privilege and an honor to serve with such a remarkable and truly humble man. I also want to thank his wonderful staff in working with my staff on so many mutual projects. Aloha, my dear friend. I will miss you every day. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to discuss legislation we could actually pass. I am not talking about the fiscal cliff or sequester or anything quite so heavy, but nevertheless very important. It has bipartisan support, sort of, been passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee, passed out of the House of Representatives by over 300 votes, but it has yet to be brought to the Senate floor for debate. That debate could be over within a half hour. The majority leader talks about bipartisan support for legislation and hurdles to bring the bipartisan legislation to the floor. Obviously we have them. But I want to remind the Senate that this bill has already passed the House, as I have said, with broad bipartisan support and, again, with over 300 votes. That does not happen often in the House of Representatives these days. It passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee with bipartisan support. It did not even have to have a hearing. Yet the majority leader has not allowed this bill to come to the floor for a vote. I urge him to do that. I am talking about H.R. 872. What is that? That is the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011. How could anybody be opposed to that? It has been pending before the Senate for 17 months. That is long enough. That is certainly long overdue. This bill was placed on the Senate Calendar on June 21 in 2011. We need to pass this bill. We need to debate it very quickly and pass this bill. It is a short bill but it is very critical to address a court decision that endangers the public health and places additional paperwork burdens on States that are facing very difficult budget times. Let me be clear. This is a pesticide safety bill, pesticides that are used to protect our crops and to protect our public safety. I am not saying, nobody is saying, nobody ever will say, pesticides should never be regulated. I just do not think it needs to be done twice. H.R. 872 does not alter pesticide regulation. Pesticide applications are subject to the terms that are printed on a product label as approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is against the law to apply pesticides in a manner that does not comply with the EPA's approval. Last December, 25 of our colleagues wrote to our majority leader and our Republican leader requesting an open debate on H.R. 872, a bipartisan bill. I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the letter printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS. Despite bipartisan requests for consideration, the bill failed to be considered before regulatory requirements went into effect last year. We are already seeing costs to States, to communities, and to businesses that total up millions of dollars. Regulations now in effect are duplicative--a Senate word, a 35-cent word. That means we do not need it. We already have a bill in place. We already have regulation in place. This regulation requires businesses to undertake what amounts to a paperwork exercise. These requirements can slow responses to real public health crises such as West Nile virus. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report over 5,000 cases of West Nile virus this year and sadly over 230 deaths. That is not right. Pesticide applications are currently and should continue to be regulated under FIFRA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. This bill does what all of our constituents are telling us to do and that is to protect human health and eliminate duplicative, unnecessary regulatory actions. The additional paperwork and permitting processes that States and pesticide applicators must undertake provide no additional environmental protection, zip, zero. It is just additional environmental review. The EPA estimates that approximately 365,000 pesticide applicators will need permits to cover about 5.6 million applications per year. Public health officials, farmers, 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 the protections under the Federal pesticide law were sufficient to protect the environment. Again, estimates suggest this duplicative regulation will require 365,000 individuals--a requirement that will cost $50 million and require 1 million hours per year to implement--just to fill out the paperwork. Bottom line, it will not add any environmental protection. This layer of redtape will place a huge financial burden on the shoulders of cities, of counties, farm families all across the country as well as State governments responsible for enforcement while at the same time facing dire budget situations. Beyond agency enforcement, they will also now be exposed to the threat of litigation under the clean water law's citizen suit provisions. I think you have the real key as to where this bill was headed. Some of you might say there are special exemptions for public health emergencies, but environmental groups are challenging emergency actions taken this summer to address the mosquito-borne illnesses such as eastern equine encephalitis--not something to take an action against if you are faced with one of these kinds of threats. Yet we have not been able to move H.R. 872, to come up for a vote despite clear bipartisan support. It seems to me Congress must act to end this regulatory duplication and clarify that they do not need this additional burden when they are trying to prioritize staffing and resources. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to protect human health and put an end to this very costly regulation. With regard to the bill again, it is 872, passed the House by over 300 votes, bipartisan support in the Agriculture Committee, didn't even have to have a hearing. Let's move this bill. It is something we can do. It makes sense. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, December 8, 2011. Hon. Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Senators Reid and McConnell: We request your leadership in helping to resolve the following issue at the earliest possible opportunity. As you are aware, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently finalized its Pesticide General Permit (PGP) under the Clean Water Act (CWA), pursuant to a ruling by the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in National Cotton Council v. EPA. Under this new permitting system, certain pesticide applicators will be required to meet PGP or other permitting requirements in addition to regulation under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. On March 31, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011, which would address National Cotton Council v. EPA. This legislation then passed the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry on June 21 by voice vote. We are aware that efforts had been made to come to a bipartisan resolution before these new permitting requirements went into effect. However, we believe there is still an opportunity to resolve this matter in a way that will protect the environment while avoiding undue costs on rural communities and municipalities nationwide. Thus, it is our sincere hope that you will allot floor time for the Senate to have a full, open debate on this matter. While we recognize that many important legislative items vie for limited floor time, this is a rare opportunity to demonstrate to the American public that Democrats and Republicans are capable of working together to address important issues. Sincerely, Mike Crapo, Kay Hagan, Richard Burr, Marco Rubio, David Vitter, James Risch, John Boozman, Mike Johanns, Roy Blunt, Rob Portman, Richard Lugar, Mary Landrieu, Kent Conrad, Tom Carper, Chris Coons, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Claire McCaskill, Tim Johnson, Amy Klobuchar, John Hoeven, John Thune, Orrin Hatch, Lamar Alexander, Joe Manchin.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Coast Guard Pay and Personnel Center in Topeka, KS. The Coast Guard's Pay and Personnel Center was first established in 1979 in the greater Washington, DC, area. In 1982 the center permanently moved to the Frank Carlson Federal Building in Topeka. My staff and I have the honor of working with this dedicated team of leaders on a regular basis. The Pay and Personnel Center offers a specific and imperative service to more than 100,000 men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard. Spanning from human resources, to processing, disbursement, and other services, the Pay and Personnel Center has continued to operate without much attention or fanfare but with the goal of providing the compensation and services necessary to keep our Coast Guardians focused, secure, and dedicated. Today, I offer congratulations and accolades to the Pay and Personnel Center on 30 years of hard work and superior service to our men and women in the U.S. Coast Guard. The center is a shining example of the Coast Guard motto, Semper Paratus, Always Ready.