Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I agree.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I am supportive of this amendment. I have been notified a record vote is being requested, so I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. ROBERTS. This is a technical amendment. I rise in support of it, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I know of no objection at this point. I yield the remainder of our time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this amendment makes permanent the current Office of Tribal Relations with the Department of Agriculture, and that is very important in terms of outreach for Native American farmers and ranchers. We have no objection, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, we will stop at ``pillaging.''

Mr. ROBERTS. Did we not have a minute apiece?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent our USDA detailee, Patricia Lawrence, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of debate and consideration of this bill.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, you have heard me recount numerous stories on the importance of agriculture in my home State of Kansas. Many of these stories center around the fact that cattle outnumber people by more than two to one, and I often joke that cattle are usually in a better mood. In recent years, the Kansas livestock industry has accounted for nearly 50 percent of all agricultural cash receipts within the State. Mr. Lee Borck, chairman, and Mr. Andrew Murphy, president and chief executive officer, of Innovative Livestock Services have played a key role within the livestock industry. I want to take this opportunity to recognize part of the Innovative Livestock Services operation, Ward Feed Yard, on celebrating 50 years of feeding cattle. Great Bend Feeding and Ward Feed Yard, both part of the Innovative Livestock Services operation, have now been in business for more than 50 years. There is no doubt in the strong heritage, optimistic outlook and positive economic development this cattle feeding company has created in Kansas. Just as the beef industry is a leading segment of the agriculture industry in Kansas, with the leadership of Mr. Borck and Mr. Murphy, Innovative Livestock Services is a true champion within the beef industry. Today I wish to say congratulations to all of those who have helped over the past 50 years and to wish Ward Feed Yard nothing but the best for the next 50 years. Congratulations to all of the partners, employees, customers, community leaders and industry representatives on a job well done.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, this isn't exactly the trail I had hoped we would take to get to a successful conclusion on a farm bill that we need so vitally in farm country, for all the reasons that the distinguished chairwoman has outlined. I need not go over all of those reasons. I will mention that we have a September 30 deadline in which the current farm bill expires. The alternative is to go back to the current farm bill, which we know is outdated, and it has a payment system that is also outdated. The other alternative, if you don't extend the farm bill, is you go to the 1949 act, which is not sustainable. It is not really an alternative. I had hoped we could start considering this. We had three Republican amendments, two Democratic amendments, and also the perfecting amendment. But that is not the trail we are going to go down. Basically, I think about the only thing I can add is that we are not giving up. We can't. We will keep working as hard as we can to accommodate all Members. I know there is a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle about a global agreement. That seems to be a little bit of an exaggeration, more especially for this body. At any rate, that agreement would encompass every Members' concern at least, and we would go back to what the Senate used to be and have everybody offer amendments and debate them and then vote and have a conclusion. That is exactly what we did when we marked up the bill with over 100 amendments in 4\1/2\ hours. That was a record. That is not what we are going to do as of tomorrow. At least there is some degree of movement. I know the Senator from Iowa has several amendments that are extremely important to the future of agriculture program policy. I commend him for his leadership in the past and for being such a successful partner in working things out not only for his State but for the country. We will persevere and we will get this done. I guess we are like John Paul Jones--we have just begun to fight. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the farm bill. Let me point out what the distinguished chairwoman and the distinguished Senator who has just spoken have already pointed out--and it bears repeating; I know it is somewhat repetitive if people have been paying attention to the remarks we have had here prior to this vote--but this is a reform bill at a time in which reforms are demanded. It saves $23.6 billion in mandatory spending. They are real cuts. They are real deficit savings. It accomplishes this by reforming, reducing, and streamlining programs. We eliminate four commodity programs. These programs are very difficult to go through at the FSA office, the Farm Service Agency we have. So when farmers have come in to try to wade through the four commodity programs, they have always been terribly difficult and complex. We streamline the 23 conservation programs into 13 and eliminate duplication. We tighten a major loophole in nutrition programs. We cut 16 rural development authorizations. We cut over 60 authorizations in the research title and streamline programs. In whole, we cut and/or streamline over 100 programs. Show me another committee that has done that on a voluntary basis. There is not any in the House or the Senate. We have had speech after speech after speech after speech--heartfelt speeches--why can't you work together back there in Washington and do what is right for the American people and quit spending money we do not have? We had a supercommittee that worked on this for a considerable amount of time. I do not question anybody's intent who had that tough job. At that time, we offered to the supercommittee a package that could have been done at that particular time. But we did it--``we'' meaning the chairwoman and myself and members of the committee, and staff as well, who worked extremely hard. So there has not been anybody else who has come forward and said: Here is real deficit reduction. That is why we should support the motion to proceed. We have made the tough decisions because that is what you do in rural America--whether it is in Michigan, Kansas, the Dakotas, or Nebraska. Because that is what you do when budgets are tight and you need to get things done. Those in rural America are also why we need to get this bill done. The current law expires September 30. How many things around here are in purgatory? Tax extenders, the tax bill, what we call the tax cliff that we are looking at over here if we do not get things done, the specter of a lameduck Congress--in 3 weeks trying to get things done like that. And you put folks in purgatory where they cannot make any decisions. Well, it would be a disaster in rural America if we do not pass this law before we revert back to the permanent 1949 law. That law in no way reflects current production or domestic and international markets. And I would say, even if we extend the current law, it does not reflect what we need as of today. That law goes back to base acres of 25 years ago. We are talking about planted acres as of today. So basically it would be government-controlled agriculture on steroids, and it would also mean that virtually all programs in the current law would expire. We cannot let that happen. We need certainty. Farmers need certainty. Ranchers need certainty. Bankers need certainty. Everybody up and down every Main Street in rural America needs certainty. Agribusiness needs certainty. We need it because our farmers and ranchers and their bankers need to know what the farm bill and the programs are going to look like. In farming, you have to go to your banker every year to get an operating loan for the coming year. We raise winter wheat in Kansas. We are known for that. Kansas is known as the ``wheat State.'' It will be planted in September. That means farmers will be going to their bankers as early as late July--next month--or early August to get their operating notes for the coming year. Without certainty in the farm bill, it is more difficult to make any economic projection, and it is more difficult for farmers to obtain loans and for bankers and farm credit to provide that credit. That is why we need to get it done now in their behalf. Rural America needs to know the rules of the game. Just as importantly, American taxpayers are demanding government reforms and reduced deficit spending. This bill delivers on both fronts. It is true reform. Let's get this bill done. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to proceed. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the distinguished chairwoman and thank her so much for this team effort that has brought this excellent farm bill to the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, how much time do we have on the Republican side?

Mr. ROBERTS. Eighteen?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan for her very kind remarks. This has been a team effort. She has been a very strong leader to try to put together a bill. I thank her for her very detailed summary, title by title, of the farm bill--something a lot of us probably couldn't do, but at any rate, she has done that, and it is in the Congressional Record. I urge my colleagues to really take a look at what the distinguished chairwoman has said today because she has literally gone down every title in the farm bill. So if anybody has any questions, it is right there, and, as she has indicated, if anybody has questions of either of us, please be in contact with either us or our very able staff. I rise today in strong support of the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012, the farm bill, and I am privileged to stand here today with Chairwoman Stabenow, who led this reform legislation through the Agriculture Committee. It has truly been a bipartisan and a team effort. It represents the final product of numerous hearings and months of discussions as we worked to write a new farm bill during the most difficult budget climate in our Nation's recent history. I am proud to say that we have put together a bipartisan bill that strengthens and preserves the safety net for our farmers and ranchers in rural America, while providing $23.6 billion--$24 billion, as a politician's counting--in deficit reduction under this bill reported by the committee on a bipartisan vote of 16 to 5. Let me repeat that. The Senate Agriculture Committee voluntarily wrote and reported a bill that provides $23.6 billion in deficit reduction. It is a bill that represents real reform. We are the first authorizing committee to produce those kinds of mandatory budget savings, and it was voluntary. We all remember the supercommittee that tried very hard to achieve deficit reduction. The supercommittee was really not that super--not because of those people individually but because of the circumstances. Well, we are a supercommittee. We came up with $23.6 billion. I don't know of anybody over on the House side--perhaps I am wrong, but in the Senate we are the only folks who have really come up with real budget savings. It also represents, as I have indicated and as the chairwoman indicated, real reform. Just listen to this. We have eliminated four commodity programs that caused farmers untold hours of preparation--go down to the Farm Service Agency and talk to the folks down there, who are hard-pressed anyway, and ask: ``Which program do I sign up for? How can I plan down the road?'' We rolled all of these commodity programs into one, while saving approximately $15 billion from the farm safety net programs. That is truly remarkable. Twenty-three conservation programs are streamlined into 13, while saving nearly $6.4 billion. Approximately $4 billion is saved in the nutrition title, while at the same time expanding our efforts to root out fraud and abuse. Sixteen program authorizations are eliminated in the rural development title, eliminating over $1 billion of authorized spending over 10 years on top of the mandatory. Two programs are combined and another two eliminated in specialty crops. Over $200 million less in mandatory money is provided in the energy title compared to the 2008 farm bill. Five programs are eliminated in the forestry title, reducing authorizations by at least $20 million. Over 60 authorizations are eliminated from the research title, reducing authorizations by at least $770 million over 5 years. Again, that is $23.6 billion in tough mandatory savings, at least $1.8 billion in reduced discretionary authorizations, and at least 100 programs or authorizations that have been eliminated. This is a reform bill. No other committee in the House or Senate has voluntarily undertaken programmatic and funding reforms at this level in this budget climate--no other committee. Believe me, it would have been much easier to write a baseline bill with no change in CBO spending projections. We could have fulfilled everyone's request on the committee and in the Senate, but we would not have performed the duty that we were elected to perform and that our constituents expect in this budget climate and that farmers and ranchers expect and their lenders expect and all up and down Main Street throughout rural and smalltown America or, for that matter, any taxpayer or any citizen of the United States. We have reduced spending, and we have reformed programs. That is what they want, and they want us to work together, and that is what we have done. At the same time, it is a bill that strengthens and preserves our farm risk management, conservation, research, and rural community programs. We have strengthened and preserved the Crop Insurance Program--as pointed out by the distinguished chairwoman, the No. 1 priority of virtually every producer who testified before our committee. Why? Because their banker or their lenders say: You have to have crop insurance, and you have to strengthen it, and you have to improve it. In the past, we have been using crop insurance as a bank. No, we are not going to do that anymore given the circumstances our farmers face even today in Kansas as we go through another dry spell, and also in Texas, Oklahoma, and the High Plains. We have streamlined our commodity programs, while reducing the complexity for the producers. We have updated the acreage upon which support is based to reflect more recent cropping patterns. That is a point I wish to discuss just a little bit more. In recent days and weeks, it has seemed there has been just a little bit of confusion here in the Capitol region. It seems that some think we should write a farm safety net program and allocate their funding by commodity group or organization, sort of like a pie chart. If all you did was listen to these groups, you would think we were robbing Peter to pay Paul. I understand that the elimination of direct payments is a big deal to many commodities. If anybody should understand that, it should be me. As a key feature of the 1996 act, I originally authored the program at that time. One of the biggest beneficiaries of the program has been wheat, especially in Kansas. But the taxpayers have been clear in this budget climate: Why should Congress continue and defend a program based on planting acreages established over 25 years ago? That doesn't make any sense. Yes, the elimination of direct payments means the end of many wheat payments in Kansas, but that does not mean Kansas producers will no longer have a farm safety net--quite the contrary. They will have a strong risk management program. It will just be for different crops. Why? Because when base acres were established over 25 years ago, Kansas planted over 2.8 million acres of corn, 4.2 million acres of sorghum, 1.6 million acres of soybeans, and 12.1 million acres of wheat. Now, in the most recent 3-year period, Kansas farmers planted 4.6 million acres of corn, 2.6 million acres of sorghum, 4 million acres of soybeans, and 8.8 million acres of wheat. Why? That is 4.9 million fewer acres of wheat and sorghum and 4.2 million more acres of corn and soybeans. Why did that happen? Why did these acreage shifts in Kansas and all over the country change like that? It occurred because farmers made those decisions, not Washington. Our producers have planted for the domestic and international market, and we have done so in a way that we do not encourage a WTO challenge. The cropping changes are much the same all throughout the Nation, especially among States represented on the Agriculture Committee. Money is shifting among commodities because farmers are farming differently. They are becoming much more diversified throughout the States on this committee and the Nation. It is not shifting because we in Washington are intentionally picking winners and losers. I understand some are frustrated with the decisions and changes we have in this bill. That takes place in any farm bill. Quite honestly, there are things that, if we had the funds available, the chairwoman and I both would have preferred to have done differently. But let's be blunt. This is not the 2002 or 2008 farm bill, and we do not have extra funds available. This is not my first trip to the farm bill rodeo. I have written bills in times of budget surpluses and extra spending, and I have written farm bills in the middle of deficit cutting exercises--seven of them. Make no mistake about it, it is much easier to write a bill when we are adding money to the baseline--a whole heck-of-a-lot easier. Nutrition groups, conservation organizations, our commodity groups, our Members of Congress want to stand by you and take the bows when you are adding money to the programs. But when it comes time to make difficult decisions and do what is right for the country by reducing spending and reforming programs, sometimes they are just not even in the same room. They are hiding in the weeds. American agriculture today is a modern-day miracle. Every American farmer feeds you, Mr. President, and 150 other people. In America today our consumers spend less of their disposable income on food--and their market basket, OK?--than any other Nation in the world. America's farmers and ranchers provide us with the most abundant and affordable and safest food supply on the planet. That is a speech every farm organization and commodity group and farmers and ranchers have heard over and over, but it is a speech that deserves repeating to all my colleagues over and over so they get it. They feed our Nation. Our producers feed our country. They feed the world, a troubled and hungry world. They provide food for the food aid programs that help countries around the world send young girls to school. Sending those girls to school helps feed hope and a belief in our American ideals rather than hatred and radicalism toward our Nation. The American farmer and rancher do provide stability in a chaotic world, and in doing so national security as well. Show me a country that can't sustain itself in terms of food supply, I will show you chaos. Read about the Mideast, Syria, Libya and what is going on over in that part of the world. So the farm program is not only a farm program, it is a program to achieve stability in the world because of the productivity of the American farmer, and our ability to do it is also a national security program. Every year America's farmers produce more on less land using less water and fewer inputs with ever-stronger conservation practices. It is truly a modern-day miracle what the agricultural sector in America does today. I understand some are unhappy with some of the proposals put forward in this bill. It is a farm bill. I wouldn't expect it to be any different. But I can assure you, however, if I thought we were in any way writing a bill that would make it more difficult for my State of Kansas or for the State of Michigan or any American producer to feed this Nation and this world, a bill that eliminated their safety net which destroyed their ability to protect our natural resources while also feeding the most needy in our country, I would not be standing here today supporting it. I would not do that. If I thought it in any way could keep us from feeding 9 billion people--note that, 9 billion people who will walk this Earth in just a couple of short decades--I would oppose this bill. We are going to have to double our agricultural production to help in a humanitarian way and prevent chaos all around the world, 9 billion people. Agriculture is the backbone of the Kansas economy, employing more than one in five Kansans. More than 65,000 farms dot the Kansas landscape with an average land size of 705 acres. These farmers and ranchers do a tremendous job of feeding a troubled and hungry world. In fact, Kansas ranks No. 1 in the Nation in the production of wheat and grain sorghum, second in cattle farms, and third in sunflowers produced. We expect that, being the Sunflower State. Cash receipts from farm marketings were greater than $12 billion, and farm product exports were in excess of $4.8 billion. Farmers and ranchers in my State truly help feed--what we have said again and again--a troubled and hungry world, which is why I am proud of this legislation. We have worked hard to put this together. It may not be the best possible bill, but it is the best bill possible given the circumstances we face. We have performed our duty to taxpayers by cutting deficit spending while at the same time strengthening and preserving the programs so important to agriculture and rural America. Again, we have cut mandatory spending by $23.6 billion. We have reformed, eliminated, and streamlined USDA programs to the tune of more than 100 programs and authorizations eliminated. And we have done it on a voluntary basis because in rural America you make the tough decisions. When the going gets tough, the tough get going, and you do what is right when it needs to be done. When we have done it in a bipartisan fashion, that is the best way to do it. How many times have we heard this: What on Earth is wrong back there? Why can't you join together and work together and do what is right for America and for the people? This is what this committee has done under the leadership of the chairwoman. So I thank the chairwoman for bringing us to this point today, and let's pass this farm bill. It is good for the country, it is good for the world, it is a good bill, and we need to proceed. I hope every Member could vote for the motion to proceed. If they have amendments they are interested in, please come to us. It is like Bob Barker said: Come on down. Come on down and talk to us. If you have a problem with the bill, we will work with you. Just let us know. OK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, be recognized for 10 minutes when he appears on the floor. I thought he would be here by this time but he is not. At the appropriate time, I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I intend to give my full opening comments in regard to the farm bill tomorrow, but I wish to quickly say thank you to the chairwoman for helping to bring us to this point. I thank her for her leadership. It has truly been a bipartisan effort. It has been a team effort. I wish to reiterate what the chairwoman has said. I wish to tell our colleagues this is a true reform bill. I could say that 10 times over for emphasis, but it is a true reform bill. It also reduces and streamlines the Department of Agriculture programs--long overdue. We cut $23 billion in mandatory spending, and it was voluntarily, without any direction from the Budget Committee or anybody else, and it is real money. It is mandatory money. The Super Committee tried to work out a deal, and they weren't so super. They tried hard. I am not trying to criticize a tough deal. We are the only authorizing committee that I know of in the Senate that has voluntarily come forth and said: Here is real deficit reduction in mandatory spending--over $23 billion. It is rather remarkable that people who tend to be critical of agriculture would all of a sudden discover it is the Agriculture Committee, in a bipartisan effort, that has cut real money, real mandatory money. How many times have we heard folks back home say: Why don't you work together? Why can't we all get along? Why can't you reach across the aisle and accomplish something? We did that in our committee, with strong bipartisan support, and we achieved this true spending reduction. We eliminated four of the commodity programs. I just had a colleague come in to visit with me this morning. He said: I looked at this farm bill and I couldn't figure it out. It is so complex I don't know how anybody can figure it out. That is pretty true in farm country too--trying to figure out all of the complexities, and when they go down to the farm service agency, trying to figure out what is in each program and which one they should pick. We eliminated four commodity programs and made it much simpler. We strengthened and improved crop insurance, which is the No. 1 issue we heard about in every hearing we had. We eliminated $6 billion in conservation spending while streamlining 23 programs into 13 to eliminate duplication. When have we heard: When are you going to start to streamline and reduce duplication? We have done that. We cut $4 billion in nutrition programs--a painful cut for some, I understand that. But it is not going to affect anybody's payments so much as it is the $4 billion-- that is 82 percent, by the way, of the agriculture budget is in nutrition. We have eliminated a grand total of more than 100 programs. Get this: We have eliminated a grand total of more than 100 programs--I don't know of any other committee that has done that--and authorizations totaling nearly $2 billion in reduced authorizations alone. So we dealt with not only mandatory spending but also $2 billion in authorizations. This is, as I have said, a reform bill. We need to get this thing passed. We need to get the farm bill passed. The current law expires on September 30 of this year. Failure to pass the bill means we revert to permanent 1949 law that would provide absolute chaos in the countryside. If we don't pass this bill by September 30, then we are back here voting on an extension. Who wants to extend the current farm bill? It is yesterday's farm bill. This is tomorrow's farm bill. We can't go back to 1949, and I do not think we need to be in any business of trying to extend the current act when we have a true reform bill and one that is fiscally sound. The big thing is we need to provide set guidance to our producers and their lenders--our farmers, ranchers, bankers, all up and down Main Street who depend on agriculture, including every rural community and, for that matter, anybody who eats, every consumer. We are talking about the hometown banker and the farm credit agencies so they can know exactly what this farm bill looks like when, as early as this August, they will begin to discuss their operating loans for the coming year. I know we are debating the motion to proceed at this time, but the chairwoman and I and our staffs are available. We are available. If someone has heartburn, we are available. We have the Rolaids; don't worry about it. Our staffs are available. Come to us if a colleague wants to discuss a possible amendment. Come to us and talk to us. We are working together in a bipartisan effort. I urge Members who intend to offer amendments to please come to us and allow us to begin working with them now. We stand ready and willing and, with the help of Members, able. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise in opposition to speak for 1 minute.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I fear this legislation would insert Congress in the scientific process of approving applications that we have entrusted to the FDA. This application has been pending at FDA for over 15 years. We should allow the FDA to complete their scientific review of the product and not interfere with the ongoing reviews. We have a science-based system that allows for complete review. We should allow that process to continue. This amendment sets up a two- tiered, two-agency approval system. That is not good. We know the FDA has already conferred with NOAA regarding the pending application. Basically, Members of the Senate should not put on lab coats and tell the FDA to approve or deny the pending application. We should allow them to act on the statutory authority that is given to them. I reluctantly oppose the amendment of my colleague from Alaska.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the legislation that is actually before us as opposed to the topic before, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act that we are currently debating. In addition to reauthorizing the user-fee agreements, this legislation includes many other important provisions. Members should know what is in this bill and how important these provisions are. There is language to permanently reauthorize pediatric research incentives, programs to incentivize antibiotic research and development, and more transparency and accountability for the FDA and stakeholders, which we hope will help to address drug shortages. That is a big problem not only in urban areas but in the rural health care delivery system in every State. Every Senator ought to be aware of that, and I am sure they are hearing about it. In May I joined with Senators Reed, Murray, and Alexander in introducing the Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act, the BPDCA. I don't think that makes a very good acronym, so I am not even going to try it. Back in 1997 Congress passed the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, which acknowledged the importance of ensuring medications were effective and safe for children by providing an incentive for pharmaceutical companies to invest in pediatric research. In 2003, with the passage of the Pediatric Research Equity Act, Congress required the pharmaceutical companies to engage in these studies. These bills are often referred to as the carrot-and-the-stick approach for pediatric drug development. I prefer carrots to sticks around here, especially mandates, but they have proven over time to work--the carrot-and-the-stick approach. Since the enactment of these laws, approximately 426 drug labels have been revised with important pediatric information, and the number of off-label drugs used in children has declined from 80 to 50 percent. That is certainly good news. In 2007 a complementary initiative to promote the development of pediatric medical devices; that is, the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act, was enacted. This law has resulted in a fivefold increase in the number of small-market medical devices designated for pediatric use. The Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act will permanently extend these worthwhile programs, while providing some real predictability and accountability for pediatric drug and medical device development. The legislation also includes the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now Act that I joined with Senators Blumenthal and Corker in supporting last year. This title contains provisions that aim to boost development of products to treat serious and life-threatening infections--something that is a growing problem in all of our hospitals. It provides meaningful market incentives and reduces--get this--reduces regulatory burdens. Glory be. Here is a bill that actually reduces regulatory burdens to encourage development of new antibiotics. Why? Well, the antibiotic pipeline has slowed to an alarming rate. According to the FDA, the approval of such drugs has decreased by 70 percent since the mid-1980s. This is unacceptable. The development of just one new antibiotic can take upwards of 10 years. We must act now to avoid a potential health care crisis. When I am back in Kansas--and I know when other Senators are back in their States--talking to folks about health care, I often hear about the problem with drug shortages. When a problem exists in an urban setting, simply multiply that 10 times, and that is what we have in our rural areas. This is never more true than on the issue of drug shortages. This is a crisis. As difficult as it is to hear from my hospital administrators and pharmacists in Kansas about the difficulties they are having in getting drugs to fill prescriptions for patients, nothing compares to the patients and the families of patients who can't get their drugs, who can't get their treatment, who are already scared about their future and they can't get their lifesaving medication due to shortages. This is unacceptable. That is why I joined with a number of my colleagues on the HELP Committee to work together to see if we could come to a bipartisan consensus on a way to alleviate at least some of the burden drug shortages create. The legislation now requires reporting on drug shortages, but it also provides some transparency and accountability in the hope that we can get to the root cause of this problem. Not everything in this legislation is what I would have done if I had my choice--that is obvious and probably the case with every Senator and every major bill on which we must make decisions. I am certain many of my colleagues on the HELP Committee are thinking the same thing. However, I think we are all pleased we were able to come to a bipartisan consensus on this legislation and in addressing many of the issues that are affecting Kansans and the rest of Americans. I talked with a fellow last night who said: Why can't you all work together? Why can't you pass something in a bipartisan way? This legislation is a good example of exactly what that gentleman was talking about and what a lot of Americans are concerned about. In that regard, I thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Enzi for all of their work and for all of the work by their staff and our staff over the past years and months in putting together this important piece of legislation. This took a long time. It took a lot of effort. It took a lot of hard work. Their commitment to a bipartisan process and their willingness to communicate with all the members of the HELP Committee has led us through a relatively noncontentious markup, and I hope the same will happen as we consider this legislation on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. It is my understanding I am to be recognized at 2 p.m. for 10 minutes. I understand the majority leader has something to say at about 2:15 in regard to the progress of this bill.