Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the marking of an historic event. 150 years ago--on May 15, 1862--President Abraham Lincoln signed into law an Act establishing what our Department of Agriculture is today. Agriculture has come a long way in 150 years. Through science, innovation, ingenuity and plain old hard work, America's farmers have gone from producing enough food for their individual families to producing enough to meet the needs of 150 people per farmer--that's what I call the miracle of modern agriculture. Some may have a romanticized view of agriculture production 150 years ago and pine for a return to the days of the past. But let me assure you, those were hard days. And if today's farmers and ranchers only produced the same yield and quality of food as the farmers and ranchers of yesteryear, we'd be in a world of hurt. Today's farmers and ranchers produce the safest, most abundant and affordable food and fiber supply in the world--all while facing increased input costs and tightening regulations. As if these challenges weren't enough, our producers face a challenge of worldwide significance. As the global population tops 9 billion in the next several decades, agriculture production must more than double to meet the expected demand for food and nutrition. In addition to the sheer population expansion, global food demand will shift toward higher value proteins and commodities as economies develop and prosper. For example, in 1985 the average person in China consumed roughly 44 pounds of meat. This increased to 90 pounds per person in a short 15 years. That number is expected to double again by 2030. That's no small task. It will take advancements in technology, efficiency and in some cases simply getting government and regulatory roadblocks out of the way. Doubling agriculture production will only occur through production techniques that combine the use of important conservation practices with the use of improved seed varieties that increase drought and disease resistance while increasing yields. The importance of agriculture's mission cannot be overstated. It is also a matter of national security. A well fed world is a much safer and stable place than a hungry world. Full bellies lead to stability, economic growth and peace. Hungry bellies lead to discontent, instability, and extremism. The more nations we can help to feed and bring economic prosperity, the more stable the world as a whole will become. Now I don't know if 150 years ago President Lincoln knew how important the role of agriculture would become to global stability or what USDA's role would be in answering these challenges. But this anniversary provides us a unique opportunity to thank our producers for their efforts in bringing agriculture this far, and to let them know that we stand beside them in meeting the challenges ahead. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, last Friday was the second anniversary of the new health care law. This week we have been reminding the American public to take a hard look at what is in it, and, more importantly, why I don't want to observe this anniversary again. Examples such as the Medicare reimbursement formula that allows Massachusetts to set Statewide hospital reimbursement rates for providers equal to the cushy wages paid to providers at a 15-bed hospital on the island of Nantucket that caters to the East coast elite. This robs 19 other States of money for their reimbursements because it all comes from the same pot. In short, there aren't enough clams at this bake to go around, certainly not to Kansas after Massachusetts is finished. Or the Health and Human Services' rule that required qualified health plans to offer contraception benefits. As my colleagues know, religious institutions that hold moral objections to specific services expressed widespread concern with the rule. In response, Senator Blunt offered, and I cosponsored, S. 1467, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. This act would allow a health plan to decline coverage of specific items and services that are contrary to the religious beliefs of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan without penalty and remain in compliance with the requirements under the new Health Care Law. And what about the regulations that have caused insurance plans in 39 States to stop offering child-only plans, and parents in at least 17 States that are no longer able to purchase ANY child-only plans? Keep in mind, there are no private insurance alternatives for these families until the new health care law is fully implemented in 2014. There is also the prohibition on what can be reimbursed from a Health Savings Account or HSA. I joined Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins in introducing a bipartisan bill to repeal this provision to restore the choice and flexibility people had in managing their health care expenses by buying over-the-counter medications. Even more alarming is the act of granting waivers to more than 1,700 labor unions and others from participating in the new law. At issue are the mandates involving annual coverage forcing many employers not to offer coverage at all. So instead labor unions and others are getting waivers. Where is your waiver? Why can't all Kansans get a waiver?? At the time, Speaker Pelosi famously said we had to pass the bill to find out what is in it. Well, we have read it, and my concerns which I voiced throughout the very limited debate remain the same: the health care reform law is bad for Americans. The health care reform law. Regulates every Americans' health coverage, by penalizing anyone without a Government-approved health plan. The law penalizes American businesses that do not provide Government- approved health plans. It forces more Americans into Medicaid--a broken, bankrupt Government entitlement program. It puts the Federal Government in charge of your health insurance. By one count, the law creates over 159 new boards, offices, and panels in the Federal Government to make decisions about your health care. The law gives the Obama administration Secretary of Health and Human Services more than 1,700 new or expanded powers--to exert control over the lives and personal health care decisions of Americans; creates an unworkable new long-term insurance program that will go broke, leading to skyrocketing premiums or a taxpayer bailout; levies more than $550 billion dollars of taxes, fees, and penalties related to health care on American families and employers; and spends tens of billions of taxpayer dollars just to implement the massive new law. The law micromanages how patients can spend their own tax-free health care dollars. As of March 12, 2012, the total number of pages of regulations the administration has released related to the health spending law is 12,307, which is an increase of over 4,700 pages in the last year. In addition to the formal regulations, the administration is also issuing hundreds of pages of subregulatory guidance in the form of ``bulletins'' to avoid having to describe how much these regulations will cost. A significant portion of the regulations issued thus far have been interim final rules, which give the regulations the force of law prior to any public comment. I have listed a number of these regulations in a letter I sent to President Obama. I did get a reply from Secretary Sebelius a few months later, but it never did address the concerns I had tried to bring to their attention. She did, however, note that they listen to all stakeholders before implementing new rules. Unfortunately, that isn't what I've been hearing. While I travel around Kansas I try to talk to as many of our Kansas patients, providers and advocates as possible. Without fail, regulations and their effect on our health care system, how they affect health care costs, and the result they have on job loss come up. I held a stakeholder roundtable in Topeka to get feedback from patients and providers on their thoughts related to health care reform. I was not surprised to hear that every representative at that meeting had a concern with regulations, but the sheer volume was truly extraordinary. I was surprised to hear every representative at this stakeholder meeting discuss the impacts of health care reform and, more importantly, their concerns with regulations, some of which are buried in the volumes of regulations being put out every day and many that defy comprehension. When discussing the health care reform and regulations with my constituents and those representing the patient and provider community, the No. 1 concern that I heard was a fear of what else is coming down the road? What will the impact of future regulations be? The current burden of regulations pales in comparison to the uncertainty of future regulations. Future regulations from implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA, will have an even greater impact on jobs and the economy. This is like the second health care reform earthquake. If you are a health care provider, hang on. Additionally, the combination of the regulations being issued to implement the PPACA statute has resulted in an increase in premiums for individuals and businesses, which, as you know, results in increased costs and tough choices. Providers feel that the significant costs associated with implementing the health reform law are either inaccurate or not taken into consideration. In fact, I often hear that patients and providers feel that they do not have a voice in the regulatory process. More specifically, a number of regulations are currently being issued through a shortened process. This shortened process allows limited or no input from those most affected by the regulations, prior to their implementation, and result in an even greater confusion. And from confusion we get higher costs. It is my understanding that 20 of the 51 rules issued to implement the health reform law have been issued as interim final rules and therefore with limited input. While there may have been instances in which a shortened process was necessary or appropriate, this lengthy list is absurd. In my letter to the President, I listed some 34 regulations that my Kansas constituents noted had the most significant impact. I encouraged the administration to limit the use of this regulatory process and take every available opportunity to get feedback from those who would be most affected by these regulations and allow for ample time to review and consider that feedback prior to implementing future regulatory priorities. Time and time again, I have heard no more regulations will be issued in the shortened process, and yet the interim rules continued to be issued. I have heard that stakeholder comments will be thoroughly reviewed and considered, but the actions by the administration don't seem to prove this. I have heard that economic impacts will be carefully considered, and yet the studies indicate otherwise. If history truly does repeat itself, I don't have much hope of that.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I wish to discuss what everybody else is discussing these days--I say discussing or maybe even cussing--and that is gas prices and, more to the point, some unfortunate finger-pointing that I think is going on in regards to our energy policies and why we see the increase we are seeing at the gas pump and the role of speculation in regards to the futures market and the energy environment we are now living in that is so challenging. I have the privilege of being the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and I feel it is very important to address some of the claims being made by a number of my friends--some across the aisle-- this week with regard to speculation in the commodities market. From the rural farmer to the urban commuter, Americans everywhere are, obviously, deeply impacted by high gas prices. That is the biggest and most often negative sign we see when we drive anywhere: Whoops, we see all of a sudden that the gas price has shot up 10 cents. Unfortunately, I do not think posturing or finger-pointing does anything to minimize the pain felt at the pumps. Similar to the annual planting and harvesting seasons in Kansas, a yearly occurrence happens in Washington, DC, for certain Members of Congress to blame the commodity markets every time a particular commodity reaches an uncomfortable price level. If we see a big price jump, we, obviously, want to blame the commodity markets. It is easy to do. We saw it in the 1970s when we had gas lines during the Carter administration, the 1980s, the 1990s. It is the same old talking points. We could have the speech in the file. Just pull out the file, cross out the date, and start making these points. But let me talk about some economic facts, if I might. The populist rhetoric fails to acknowledge that everyone's money is the same color in the futures market. For every buyer, there is a seller and for every seller there is a buyer. The historical problem for futures markets and the hedgers who use them is, oftentimes, particularly in the deferred month contracts, there is not the liquidity or an adequate number of market participants to take the other side of a trade to allow the hedgers to manage their deferred price risk. Market participants who actually provide this liquidity provide a valuable tool that allows producers and consumers of products to lock in their inventories well in advance, which can lead to lower costs to producers and certainly better prices for consumers. If long speculation and the liquidity it provides is artificially driven from the market, the potential short-term advantage of lower prices could lead to shortages in production, higher demand, and even higher prices for both energy and agricultural commodities. My point in this dissertation on futures markets 101 is to emphasize that speculation is not manipulation. Speculation is trading to make a profit from anticipated price changes--either higher or lower. Manipulation, on the other hand, is intentionally acting to cause artificial price changes. As explained by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the independent regulatory arbiter of excessive speculation, speculation is excessive when it causes any sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in the price of a commodity. In fact, the CFTC currently has the authority to regulate against price manipulation. So if we want to go to the people who are in charge to make sure there is not any manipulation, we already have the regulatory body and they are doing exactly that and it has had this authority since its creation by Congress in 1974. Furthermore, we have experts at the clearinghouses, at the National Futures Association, and at the CFTC whose job it is to watch these markets minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day, to assure everybody that the discovery of prices between buyers and sellers is occurring openly and transparently. Yet when prices just so happen to move above what somebody in this body might think is reasonable or an uncomfortable level, we have a tendency to blame the participants in the market rather than the multitude of factors and economic variables these market participants react to each minute the market is trading. Let's examine some of these real factors that are affecting our energy prices. First off, there is tremendous increased demand outside the United States; particularly, in Asia, China. It has caused the price of oil to rise rather dramatically. Even with the increased production in Canada, the United States, and Brazil, declines in the North Sea, Mexico, Sudan, and Libya have impacted the global supply. Second, our U.S. refining capacity has decreased as a result of stricter environmental regulations, where they get their crude from. Both have lowered the supply of gasoline enough to prop up prices. We see reports in the press every day about one refinery making it big and other refineries are having a lot of difficulty. Third, restricted domestic energy development on Federal lands has disrupted our futures projections. Fourth, fear over Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions is leading to increased demand for gasoline, as people try to stock up in anticipation of any supply disruption that would be based on the possibility of a conflict in the Middle East. Lastly, I would simply point out that blaming speculators ignores the inflationary aspects of the monetary policies of several central banks around the globe. It does not take a speculator to know that when the U.S. Treasury prints more money, it drives down the value of the dollar and drives up the price of raw materials and commodities, such as oil, priced in dollars. Yet despite these facts, we have too many who keep seeking a solution for a problem that simply isn't there. What have the regulatory bodies found in their investigations as we look for somebody to blame? There have already been studies and investigations into whether excessive speculation is manipulation and they are manipulating prices. Let's take a look at what they found. Last year, a Federal Trade Commission report on manipulation of gas prices determined that none of the complaints investigated violated any FTC rules. A similar study by the CFTC stated that its preliminary analysis ``does not support the proposition that speculative activity has systematically driven changes in oil prices.'' Last but not least, the administration's own Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force set out to investigate illegal speculation in the energy markets. To date, it has found none. The effects of high gas prices on our economic growth and on each individual business and family are certainly well understood. We should be finding effective solutions to fix a failed Federal energy policy rather than trying to place the blame where it does not exist. These solutions do not stop at increased domestic oil and gas production. They include implementation of workable environmental regulations. Unfortunately, the multitude of regulations under this administration is anything but workable. They are like a Katrina flooding virtually every part of the economic sector. That is all I hear about when I go home to Kansas. There are a lot of things that are on people's minds, but regulation is No. 1, and I don't care what sector of the economy we are talking about. There is a very real fear in my State that the new clean air regulations we are hearing about targeting coal-fired powerplants could disrupt our power grid. In a State that relies on coal for 75 percent of our power, this is simply unacceptable. Yes, let's continue moving toward cleaner forms of energy--certainly we want to do that--but in a way that will not compromise the ability for Kansans or any citizen of any State to access affordable energy. This includes impending Federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing, which will continue to play a huge role in my State's energy economy. In closing, on a larger topic of domestic energy companies, I think it is unfortunate for elected officials to come to the floor--or for that matter make a speech anywhere--and single out specific industries or private U.S. citizens, for that matter, that employ millions of Americans and blame them for our energy woes. I think we are better than that. Let's remember that attacking their profits is an easy target. It is not going to hurt the few top-level executives at these companies, but it will hurt middle-income Americans and retirees who make up over 90 percent of the ownership of so-called Big Oil or so-called big anything, and rely on their IRAs, pension funds, and mutual funds for their very livelihood. These are not privately held companies, so let's remember who actually owns the companies. It is our constituents, that is who it is. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. No. 1, I want to give the Senator a lot of credit for leading this colloquy in regard to where we are 2 years from the passage. It is hard to say what it is. Now it is ACA, the Affordable Care Act; it used to be PPACA, the acronym, which I thought was very appropriate. Of course if you politicize it, it is called ObamaCare. I don't mean to do that in this debate. But I do thank the Senator for focusing on jobs and costs. I thank Senator Kyl for a CBO truth. He ought to start a new program like the old show ``Truth Or Consequences.'' Senator Kyl pointed out the consequences. He pointed out the consequences, when you ask the CBO for a score when you are going to try to pass the bill, they will give you exactly what you want, but the truth is down the road it costs an awful lot more. There is one person you left out in terms of the CBO telling the truth and that is Richard Foster, who is the Actuary down at the Department of Health and Human Services. That man ought to get a Purple Heart, a Medal of Honor--not a Medal of Honor, just give him a Purple Heart and maybe a Bronze Star for action in the war zone and then maybe a Medal of Freedom later. Senator Sessions, who is our resident bulldog on the budget, hit it on the second counting. I thank him for that. That is a half trillion dollars. The other half of that is that it is a half trillion that goes to all these exchanges and the rules and regulations in setting up the Affordable Health Care Act. Basically, it denies Medicare reimbursement to all sorts of folks--doctors, nurses, hospices, pharmacists, ambulance drivers, hospital administrators--on and on. We had a health care summit in Topeka, KS, and 34 regulations popped out of the woodwork. We could have had 164 but we sent the 34 in to the Secretary of HHS. Then he went out to Hays, KS. That is really out there in the rural health care system. We had seven different regulations. I hope later when we have a colloquy on regulations we can certainly insert those into the Record. Senator Boozman, who is a physician, gave a standpoint of what happens in regard to rationing. Let met get Senator Boozman's attention for a minute. Do you know who enforces this thing, at the end of the year if you do not sign up, if you do not put on your tax return, which I assume it will be, in terms of what kind of coverage you have? It is the IRS. The IRS is going to be the enforcement entity in regard to whether you have a provider. If you do not, you get fined. Stop and think a minute about what is going on, and all the waivers that have been going on in terms of who is enforcing this. Your friendly Internal Revenue Service--what--reinforcer? I have a lot of feeling about this. I took the floor today to discuss something called promises made and promises not kept. I tell the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, of all the words that come back to bite you, this one has. That is the famous statement prior to passage of the health care reform law by the President: ``If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.'' I will give him credit, he may have believed it then. But as we pointed out with Senator Kyl, Senator Sessions, Senator Boozman, Senator Johnson--that is not the case. I didn't believe it then and I said so. Neither did Senator Sessions. Neither did Senator Kyl. Those two are here now, taking a good look at it. They don't believe it either. Why? It is pretty simple. Employers and health care providers told me that when the majority of the provisions of the health care reform law would take effect, it would be more affordable for an employer to simply stop offering their employee coverage and pay a penalty rather than face the predictable increase in premiums and to continue to offer any coverage. Now these predictions have turned into facts. A new study just released by McKinsey & Co., a consulting company, predicts large numbers of workers will be shifted into the health exchanges in 2014. That is a shift that folks should be worried about--exactly what you are talking about, Senator Johnson. Literally thousands of regulations and waivers are pouring out of the Department of Health and Human Services; in fact, to date, 12,307 pages of additional regulations to restrict personal freedom and micromanage the private market. To make matters worse, there is the predictable worry that the exchanges would be better described as much like Medicaid HMOs. That is the kind of service we can expect to get and that threatens access, choice of doctors, and not to mention the rationing regime that will be the marching order of the day. I will have a lot to say about that in the colloquy in the next several days. At the time the President made his promise, the CBO estimated that, as Senator Kyl pointed out, only about 7 percent of employees covered by employer-sponsored insurance would make the switch, or be forced to switch, to taxpayer-subsidized exchanges. Now I tell the Senator, study after study is releasing facts and figures that find the health care reform law will cause many or even most employers to quit offering their current health insurance. In a survey by benefits consultants at Lockton, when asked about the cost of notifying employees of changes required by or resulting from health care reform law, they said each notification will cost $1 to $3 per employee. Talk about cost. This would raise costs by tens of thousands of dollars or more for some firms and nearly one in five firms is considering terminating coverage outright, thanks to the law. With each study the numbers go up. The McKinsey survey found that 45 to 50 percent of employers say they ``will definitely or probably'' pursue alternatives to their existing health care plans. Even more alarming, some 30 percent of employers will simply stop offering any coverage. Those are the facts. There are more to come. I am going on too long here, I understand that. I simply say again I thank my colleagues. Contrary to this administration's seeming belief, there is no such thing as free health care. Somebody does pay. In this case the American taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill for workers whose employer-sponsored coverage has been dropped due to health care reform. There is another quote I wish to mention. It should be the subject of another colloquy. There is absolutely no rationing in this bill, it is just scare talk. Want to bet? There is nothing that hurts the truth more than stretching it. With PPACA or ACA or ObamaCare, jobs and costs will be stressed beyond the limit. I truly thank the Senator for sponsoring this colloquy.

Mr. ROBERTS. The Senator asked me about IPAB. It is not an iPad or an iPhone or whatever. I am sure Apple has nothing to do with it. Well, the administration, in response to a lot of concern about rationing, wrote an op-ed and sent it to many different publications and said, ``[T]he claims that the board will ration care are simply false.'' At the time, I repeated my concerns over and over again. Senator Kyl will remember those days in the Finance Committee. I think everybody left when I started my rant. And the health care reform law's potential to ration care--I made speech after speech--is not only IPAB; there is the CMS Innovation Center, the new authority granted to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and finally IPAB, and that is not a toothpaste. At the time, the American public was told over and over that these provisions of the health care reform law would not result in the rationing of care, loss of access, or reduced quality. But once again the Medicare Actuary, Richard Foster--bravest man in the government-- and many others have noted that the kinds of payment reductions contemplated by IPAB will amount to a de facto rationing by reducing access to care. The Actuary has stated that the payment reductions in the law could ``jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries''--senior beneficiaries. He also predicted that the IPAB reductions in particular would be difficult to achieve in practice because of the access-related harm to seniors that would result. That is IPAB for you.

Mr. ROBERTS. That is correct. For every proposal like that, thank goodness there has been a reaction by the public and the medical profession and everybody else to say: Wait a minute, this doesn't make any sense. Again, it is an agenda-oriented board or commission or whatever that comes under the banner of rationing. I have a wonderful chart I will show to you in the next colloquy in regard to the four rations--and one was just mentioned--and then ask me about IPAB. They are a little benign. I am going to have to change the caricatures. They are like the four horsemen of the apocalypse in regard to the health care system of the United States. As you look at each one of them and what they are doing, they are rationing care. They are rationing care.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I would like to ask support for my amendment that would approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. It would expand oil and gas exploration on Federal lands and would extend certain tax provisions that are utilized by a number of individuals and businesses throughout the country. The base of my amendment includes most but not all of the expired energy tax incentives addressed in the amendment that will be offered by my friends on the other side of the aisle. But there is a clear difference in that my amendment addresses the supply side of the equation and avoids extending some of the costly energy provisions that were created under the failed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; i.e., the stimulus. While I support many of the tax provisions included in the Democrats' counterproposal, the majority amendment fails to address the No. 1 issue facing Americans of every walk of life, from farmers to manufacturers, to teachers, which is the rising cost of gasoline. My amendment does just that, and it implements the important first steps toward increasing domestic supplies of conventional energy that our country will rely on for decades to come. My amendment would cut redtape, open more Federal land for oil and gas exploration and drilling; it would approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, while also extending renewable tax provisions that benefit domestic energy production, businesses, and individuals alike. It also restores expired individual and business tax relief provisions.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I would like to associate myself with the comments made by my colleague from Minnesota and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Amendment No. 1617, the Klobuchar, Roberts, Ben Nelson, McCaskill, Johanns, and Lugar amendment to clarify Hours of Service--HOS--exemption for Ag transportation. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act expressly states: Regulations prescribed by the Secretary regarding maximum driving and on-duty time for drivers used by motor carriers shall not apply during planting and harvest periods, as determined by each State, to drivers transporting agricultural commodities or farm supplies for agricultural purposes in a State if such transportation is limited to an area within a 100 air mile radius from the source of the commodities or the distribution point for the farm supplies. We believe this statute alone, not to mention clear Congressional intent demonstrated in previous sessions, clearly allows the transportation of all farm supplies from any distribution point to a local farm retailer or to the ultimate consumer--in other words, from source to retail, source to farm, and retail to farm. Unfortunately, in 2009 the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration--FMCSA--began to misinterpret both the statute and Congressional intent. Currently, FMCSA only allows for the transportation of a single farm supply--anhydrous ammonia--from any distribution point to a local farm retailer or to the ultimate consumer. While anhydrous ammonia is perhaps the most widely used farm supply to be transported under the AgHOS regulations, many other critical farm supplies have been excluded because of the agency's interpretation. This severely hinders the flexibility our farmers need during planting and harvesting seasons. FMCSA, through several waivers granted over the past two years, has recognized the need for an exemption to their motor carrier regulations. Therefore, our amendment will reinforce what we believe is existing law by clarifying that a driver transporting farm supplies from source to retail, source to farm, and retail to farm is included in the Ag Hours of Service exemption. This amendment is a commonsense approach to simply clarify what is already existing law and will provide our Nation's farmers with the flexibility they need to feed an ever-growing Nation and world. I yield the floor and, again, strongly encourage my friends to vote in favor of this commonsense amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. ROBERTS. It also restores expired individual and business tax relief provisions and, most of all, it promotes economic growth. Lastly, my amendment does all this without adding to the deficit, which, considering our more than $15 trillion debt, is something our future generations certainly can appreciate. I thank my colleagues if they would support this very commonsense, progrowth amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 1826.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise today to ask for support for my amendment to promote progrowth energy and tax policy, and especially consistency for the remainder of this year. My amendment addresses a significant tax policy concern. Within the Tax Code there is a long list of provisions simply known as tax extenders. Some might ask why I am offering an amendment on tax extenders to a bill dealing with the Federal highway program. In a nutshell, here is why: These provisions are used by millions of families, individuals, and business taxpayers. But these provisions expired over 2 months ago, causing utter chaos in regard to--well, really, what it caused was the lawyer-CPA full employment act. At present, the Senate leadership has no plans to consider these expired tax provisions. That is not right. The base of this amendment includes most if not all of the expired energy tax incentives addressed in the amendment offered by my friends on the other side of the aisle. It is your amendment. In my amendment, however, we increase these energy production incentives. With spiking gas prices hammering families and businesses, this is precisely, it seems to me, the time to have a policy which will increase our supply of energy. To begin with, addressing the oil supply issues, my amendment would cut redtape and open more Federal land for more oil and gas exploration and drilling. We are all painfully aware of the President's rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline application. My amendment gives our Canadian neighbors the green light to send energy our way. Let me now briefly describe the amendment. This amendment extends popular and much needed tax relief ranging from tax deductions for families sending kids to college to the adoption tax credit. By supporting my amendment today, we can provide much needed tax relief and certainty to millions of families and businesses for the remainder of this year. I highlight this point because uncertainty in business and personal financial planning is something I think all of us hear about daily when we go back home and then come back here. Let's take a look at the deductibility of college tuition. This is a benefit for families who send their kids to college. By definition, this benefit goes to middle- income families. A lot of these folks are not low-income, so their kids do not qualify for Pell grants, but they are not high-income either. A lot of these folks are paying significant Federal, State, and local taxes and they get no help in defraying the high cost of their kids' college education. This tax deduction would make this consistent just for this year. This helps families by increasing access to higher education. This deduction ran out last year, and if we don't act these families will continue to face a tax increase. Another very important expired provision is the deductibility of State and local sales taxes. Over 10.3 million Americans are paying more in taxes because this provision has expired. On the business side, my amendment would address expiring business provisions, including the research and development tax credit and tax incentives for leasehold improvements and restaurant depreciation. It also extends enhanced small business expensing. Many small businesses use this benefit to buy equipment on an efficient aftertax basis. It is good for small business. It is good for small business workers. It is good for our Nation's economic growth. The amendment closes a tax loophole that ensures that taxpayers claiming the refundable child tax credit provide proper identification on their tax returns. Finally, this amendment includes a special deficit reduction trust fund. The trust fund would contain the savings from the energy production incentives, the refundable child tax credit provision, and an extension of the existing Federal employee pay freeze. In summary, this amendment does not add to the deficit. It contains robust energy production incentives and restores expired individual and business tax relief provisions. Most of all, it promotes economic growth and provides much needed consistency as these tax extenders simply do not exist at the present time, and only for this year. Everybody knows in 2013 we have the obligation and responsibility to dig into a tax reform plan that will certainly serve to put our Nation in much better shape in regard to tax policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today, as many of my colleagues have done, to speak in favor of the final passage of the conference report to accompany the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Improvement Act. I don't know what the acronym to that is. It is a long name but it is a very comprehensive bill, and a very good bill. I especially want to thank Senator Hutchison and my good friend from West Virginia Senator Rockefeller and their dedicated staff for the countless hours they have dedicated over the past 5 years to produce legislation that will provide the Federal Aviation Administration with the tools necessary to begin finally to support the 21st century national airspace system. It is not often you have a staff and two Members dedicated for 5 years to finally come up with a good bill. It has been tough sledding, but they have gotten it done. The aviation industry remains one of the most important economic sectors in my home State of Kansas. Passage of this 4-year reauthorization is absolutely necessary for giving aviation companies necessary funding and the regulatory certainty to move forward with a number of important initiatives. It is not very often in today's world you talk about regulatory certainty. This bill will do that. Specifically, the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act includes provisions to implement a state-of-the-art satellite-based navigation system to provide operators and users of our national airspace the ability to seamlessly guide and locate traffic throughout our Nation and around the world. It also authorizes critical funding for the Essential Air Service Program which provides Kansas and other rural States the ability to provide air service to smaller communities and the citizens and businesses whose livelihoods rely on the ability to travel longer distances in a short amount of time. As a Member of the House--as a matter of fact, even prior to that as a staffer to a Member of the House--I was part of the effort that established the first Essential Air Service, so I have a long-time interest in this. I again thank Senators for doing their very best to preserve this program. More important, this legislation reflects a bipartisan effort to ensure the continued health of the general aviation industry. This industry contributes over $150 billion to the national economy each year. It has created over 1.3 million jobs--if anybody wants to hear about job creation, this is the outfit that does it--across a broad range of disciplines, and allows companies the ability to access facilities all across the globe. This is where I want to particularly thank Chairman Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison as well as my colleagues on the Finance Committee who were tasked with finding the necessary funding streams to pay for the annual $15.9 billion tag this legislation does authorize. Notably, this legislation does not include language imposing disproportionate and onerous user fees on the general aviation industry. This is contrary to what has happened in the past. This has been a general agreement now. Rather, this legislation preserves the current fuel tax levels, an efficient and effective funding mechanism that accurately reflects general aviation's use of the system. If anybody down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is listening, I hope they would adopt the same attitude as we have been able to reach in a bipartisan way, and not pick on any particular industry--or use their name or acronym for their name about six or seven times in three paragraphs of recent speeches. Last, this legislation would not undermine steps taken at the Department of Transportation to protect private citizens from having their movements tracked by anyone with easily accessible flight tracking technology. I look forward to joining my colleagues later this afternoon in passing this important measure, a great, comprehensive bill that will support more than a million jobs and help spur further economic growth and development in our Nation's aviation sector. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of the U.S. Marine Corps as it celebrates 236 years of sacrifice and service to this great Nation. In the spirit of a true marine, ooo-rah and happy birthday. This week, it is fitting that our great and deliberate body, the Senate, passed a bill to honor and revere the Montford Point marines, the first African Americans to serve in our Corps. Last night, the Senate passed legislation to award the Montford Point marines the Congressional Gold Medal. I can think of no better way to honor these gentleman, most of whom are now in their nineties, for being a part of our Nation's history during a difficult time, both abroad and at home. In 1942, the U.S. Marine Corps opened its doors for African Americans to play a role in combat. Unfortunately, these men were not trained where marines before them had done so. Instead, from 1942 to 1949, the Corps trained Black marines at Montford Point Camp in North Carolina. Like true marines, even with segregated training, these men fought shoulder to shoulder next to every marine in World War II. Their actions were significant during our campaign in the Pacific. Their service to the Corps is now a significant thread in its history. The Marine Corps extols the virtues of courage, intelligence, integrity, and leadership. I am proud that the spirit of the Corps resonated in every one of these marines, even in a time of great inequality. In theater, a marine is a marine. We are brothers, regardless of color or creed. The duty every marine pledges to mission and man is equal. It is what makes our Corps the great fighting force that continues today. I applaud our Commandant, General Amos. Without his commitment to this initiative honoring the Montford Point marines, we may not have passed the bill so easily. I am very proud of my Corps, humbled by all the men and women who continue to join our Armed Forces, and to the Senate for finally recognizing these incredible veterans in the appropriate way. I am as proud of the Marine Corps today as ever. The Corps has dutifully accomplished exactly what the President and this Nation have asked of them over the past decade. Marines have turned the tide in Iraq and continue to wage ahead in Afghanistan. Marines continue to steer the course of how to succeed in land campaigns and remain always faithful, both to mission and fellow marine. Today, we celebrate the Marine Corps. Tomorrow, we celebrate all our warfighters, those men and women in uniform who have committed their time, and put their lives in harm's way, for the defense of the United States. Thank you to all those who have served. God bless all those currently deployed around the world. Semper Fi.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, you have heard me speak many times about the importance of agriculture to my home State. It is a critical industry in Kansas and forms the backbone of our economy. Within the field of agriculture are many dedicated and talented leaders who serve and have served Kansans with distinction. I have had the privilege to know and work with many of them over the years, but there is one in particular I would like to highlight today. Edie Dahlsten currently serves as the vice president of the Kansas Farm Bureau. For nearly a decade, Edie has served in this role with distinction and this November she will retire at the end of her term. The Farm Bureau is truly a grassroots organization that begins with a single farmer, who joins together with his neighbors to form an organization that represents their way of life. Edie and Larry Dahlsten have been engaged in every aspect of that organization, beginning with their service on the McPherson County Farm Bureau Board near their home in central Kansas.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I do not think the Senate is in order. This is a very important amendment. I have a bill on this amendment which is the same thing. I would ask for order.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the chairwoman for yielding. The Senator from Oklahoma has a good intent, but he is adding in a payment limit on top of two others. It is going to be difficult to implement and administrate from the Department of Agriculture's standpoint. The Senator from Michigan is exactly right. He is limiting programs for which there probably will not be any programs. I suggest we do this during the reauthorization of the farm bill, and then I would encourage the Senator to come at that particular time and figure out what is in the farm bill and what is not, what payment limitation is appropriate and what is not.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to raise significant concerns with the pending modified amendment offered by my good friend and colleague, Senator David Vitter. His amendment allows for the importation of prescription drugs from Canada. I am going to reiterate some of the same concerns that are voiced every time we discuss drug importation. Let me also say that I think we all want more inexpensive drugs for our constituents. We all want broader access to drugs and therapies. That is a given. I know that is precisely the intent of my colleague. However, we want to ensure our constituents are safe when they are taking these drugs no matter what the expense--not only that, but Americans expect to be kept safe. I must raise concerns that nothing in the Vitter amendment ensures the safety of drugs that would be imported from Canada. That is the lone country that is involved in regard to his pending amendment. Some say only the FDA-approved drugs would be imported and only safe drugs will be imported. But the reality is that the last four Secretaries of Health and Human Services--from Shalala, to Thompson, to Leavitt, and now Sebelius--have been unable to guarantee that these imported drugs are safe, not from Canada and not from any other country. While my friend from Louisiana claims he has narrowed the scope of his amendment, the modified Vitter amendment remains so broad in scope that it could potentially tie the hands of the FDA in limiting counterfeit drugs reaching the United States, which is something we desperately do not want. The FDA has found on several occasions that drugs promoted and sold as Canadian actually come from many other countries with very little oversight on safety and efficacy. Finally, a New York Times investigation found that counterfeit drugs were sold through Canadian Internet pharmacies. It is easy to conclude that because these drugs were sourced from many other countries, it would be impossible to guarantee their safety. The bottom line is the FDA cannot--not a little, not a lot; absolutely cannot--ensure that any drug coming from outside the United States is safe or effective. Until we can ensure that the drugs our constituents are taking are effective and, most importantly, safe, I must oppose the Vitter amendment today or whenever it is brought up and would encourage my colleagues to join me. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank very much the distinguished chairwoman for yielding. We are talking about amendment No. 791, the pending amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn. I must oppose the Coburn amendment which will severely diminish the farm safety net for America's farmers and ranchers. I know that is not the intent of his amendment as he sees it but, unfortunately, that would be the practical effect, as the chairwoman has indicated. The setting of adjusted gross income caps or what we call AGI caps is a policy issue that should be handled by the authorizing committee, not during the appropriations process. More specifically, this issue is a farm bill issue, if you will, and it is currently being considered in the context of the Joint Debt Committee process--the supercommittee. The chairwoman has described in detail our efforts, both the House principals and the chairwoman and myself, in submitting to the Joint Debt Committee our suggestions on how we can meet our deficit reduction responsibilities. As people consider this amendment, I think it is important to remember that the 2008 farm bill, as the chairwoman has indicated, included the most comprehensive and far-reaching reform to farm program eligibility requirements in 20 years. That included reform to the AGI caps to which the Coburn amendment refers. It is also important for my colleagues to understand that the adjusted gross income for a farmer is not pure profit. Personal expenses and the servicing of debt must still be covered. Given the capital-intensive nature of farming and the cost of inputs such as land and machinery, servicing debt alone can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Supporters of these limits also tend to talk about how few farmers would be impacted by these caps. However, the advocates also only tend to look at those farmers who file Schedule F tax forms. This rather simplistic approach fails to reflect the fact that most operations that could be directly impacted by the AGI caps that they are recommending do not file Schedule F tax returns because of how they have chosen to organize their farming operation. Therefore, most advocates of these caps seriously underestimate the number of producers and the share of acres or production that would be left without a safety net. To make matters worse, because this limit would be implemented using the appropriations legislation instead of authorizing legislation, it would not repeal the already existing AGI limits of $750,000 per on- farm income and $500,000 for off-farm income. In other words, this amendment would simply add another layer--another cap--another layer of bureaucracy to the already existing structure, further complicating USDA's work on this issue at a time when resources are extremely limited and when we are going to be in the process of writing a new farm bill, not to mention meeting our deficit obligations to the supercommittee. Therefore, I encourage my colleagues to oppose the Coburn amendment and allow the agriculture committees the opportunity to address this issue in the appropriate venue. I yield the floor. Careful observation by this Member would indicate that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I had the distinct privilege to participate in a ceremony recently in Topeka, KS, to honor our dear friend and longest serving Republican leader here in this Chamber, Senator Bob Dole. Kansas Governor Sam Brownback conceived of the Kansas Walk of Honor, located right outside the Kansas Capitol, to commemorate and honor important Kansans. It is only fitting that the plaque that bears Bob Dole's name is the first to christen the Walk of Honor. Senator Dole's contributions and history is interwoven in the hallowed halls of the Senate. With that rich history, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record his comments, along with mine, from the Walk of Honor event.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I will be happy to yield.