Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I share the Senator's views, and I am very hopeful this will not be the last trade agreement we see. I, again, thank him for his comments and his work. Madam President, some of my remarks will be duplicative of those of Senator Hatch and those of the Senator from Florida, as I have indicated, but on behalf of our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers, service providers, I rise today to add my voice to the chorus of strong support for passing the pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and Korea. I will be candid with you. I am not trying to be a ``bad news bear'' here, but I was not all convinced this day would ever come. But after learning that the President was sending the trade agreements to Congress, I think the word I thought of in my head was ``finally,'' maybe five ``finallys,'' because it has been 5 years that the U.S. trade agenda has been put on hold and frankly was hostage to demands by certain environmental groups, labor groups, and a rewrite of the trade adjustment assistance. But yesterday under the perseverance of the chairman, Senator Baucus, and others on the committee, finally the Senate Finance Committee did pass the trade agreements. We had a markup. It was amidst protesters. It was not a unique situation, but one that the chairman handled very deftly. I call to the attention of Members in regard to their interests in the trade agreements, if they have any possible concerns, read the remarks by Senator Hatch and by the chairman, by Senator Crapo, Senator Wyden, and Senator Kerry--more especially Senator Wyden. He got a little static from the audience, undeservedly. The good news is, the pending trade agreements add up to $13 billion in additional exports and estimated 250,000 jobs. A few big picture highlights: Right now, Korea imposes on average a 54-percent tariff for ag products. Upon implementation, two-thirds of current tariffs are immediately eliminated, with most zeroing out after a decade. For beef producers--and that is a big thing for Kansas--that means the 40-percent tariff on beef products will be phased out over 15 years. Around 75 percent of the ag and non-ag exports entering Colombia will be duty free upon implementation of the agreement. Duties on many other tariff lines will be phased out over a 5- to 10-year period. For Panama, while reducing import duties is important, the expansion of the Panama Canal is not only an important project for U.S. bidders, it is geographically key for international commerce and transportation and security for the region. But from the agricultural perspective, just for the aggies, the three pending trade agreements represent $2.5 billion upon full implementation; in regard to exports, more than 22,000 jobs. The Kansas Farm Bureau estimates the three agreements in total are expected to increase direct exports by $130 million for Kansas agricultural producers and an additional 1,150 jobs. Finally, these trade agreements will help put American workers and exporters on a level playing field with our competitors and hopefully-- a tough job--regain lost market share. Let me emphasize that in the case of two of these agreements, Panama and Colombia, under normal conditions their exports already have duty- free access to the U.S. market. The pending agreements merely create a two-way trade and allow U.S. exporters the same treatment we already grant their countries. It makes one wonder what all the fuss was about. The 5-year fuss and delay hurt us, not them. That is the point I think everybody should finally discern. Yet for 5 years, 3 years under this administration, the goalposts continued to shift and action was delayed indefinitely--2 years under the previous administration, basically with objections by the House of Representatives. As a consequence, U.S. producers and exporters lost market share to our competitors. Let me give an example. Over the past 2 years, U.S. wheat producers have already lost market share to Argentina, which receives preferential trade treatment based on a regional trade agreement. In just 2 years, the U.S. share of the Colombian wheat market dropped by 30 percent. Including corn and soybeans, the lost market share jumps to 57 percent. In addition, the largest food processor in Colombia--Nutresa-- announced shortly after the Canada-Colombia trade agreement went into effect that they were sourcing all of their wheat purchases from Canada, accounting for half of all wheat imports. Previously, U.S. wheat growers were the largest suppliers of wheat in Colombia. In July, the Korea-European Union trade agreement--not U.S. agreement, European Union agreement--went into effect, and within the first month, according to Korean Customs, European Union exports are up 34 percent. That is market share going to the European Union, not the United States. Notably, aerospace equipment increased a whopping 1,693 percent. We can see where that is going. Kansas is a major player in the aviation sector. We exported $2.7 billion in transportation equipment last year. Considering the European Union agreement, we can see what happens with lost market share. Finally, with regard to the United States and future trade and trade in general, the United States must be trusted to stand by its word. Trust in our word in trade means everything. The dithering on these trade agreements has not been lost on our trading partners or the world at large. It is just not economic growth and job creation we have gambled with. All the back and forth and increased demands on our part calls into question our integrity. Is the United States a dependable partner and ally? As the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am quite familiar with who is a friend to the United States and who is not. In the 31 countries and 10 territories that make up the U.S. Southern Command, there is a growing sense of anti-Americanism. Venezuela's President, Hugo Chavez, is a perfect example. A decade ago, Colombia was essentially a failed state suffering from a war waged between the guerilla groups and the paramilitary groups, the FARC and the ELN. Much has changed over 10 years under the leadership of then-President Uribe and continued by President Santos-- an amazing job. U.S. support during this time has helped establish a firm relationship and form a key ally in an increasingly hostile area. So strengthening our economic relationship just makes sense. The unjustified delay on our part is not only embarrassing, it has potentially damaged our credibility, in my view. As Kansans and the rest of our Nation continue the slow and bumpy climb out of these tough economic times, we must do all we can to foster economic growth. Opening foreign markets to U.S. goods, services, and agriculture is an obvious and long overdue part of the solution. But we can't stop with passing these three trade agreements, pat ourselves on the back, and call it a day. I assure my colleagues that our foreign competitors are not stopping. In fact, it has been reported that there are approximately 100 trade agreements being negotiated right now, give or take, that do not include the United States--100. We, the United States, are negotiating one, initiated in the waning days of the Bush administration--the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. The TPP provides critical access to the ever-growing Asia-Pacific region and has the potential to include other countries later in the future. While negotiations continue, there will soon come a point when talks will stall because the U.S. negotiators' hands are tied without the protection of trade promotion authority or fast track, as some refer to it. Without TPA, negotiating countries will have little reason to negotiate much less make any difficult concessions until they know the United States is serious. Fast track provides the substance to these talks. So why is TPA not a priority? I am concerned that as the administration quietly defers on seeking trade promotion authority, negotiators will be unable to negotiate, and trade will take a back seat once again. The signal may well be--and I hope this is not true-- that these trade agreements will be the last under the current administration. Now, let me get off the ``Bad News Bears'' stuff and the stubborn facts and the 5-year delay. Let me give credit to the President for finally--yes, finally--sending these trade agreements to Congress. But let's not become pacified with the long overdue action. In order to stay competitive with our foreign partners, we need to stay in the game. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. ROBERTS. Marvelous. Before the Senator from Florida leaves, let me say, from the banks of the Indian River to the prairies of Kansas and Dodge City, I know many people do not quite grasp the fact that there are a lot of cowboys in Florida. Obviously we have a lot of cowboys in Dodge City. From the wheat we want to export to Colombia, despite their trade agreements with other countries, and you want to export citrus, beef--the same kind of thing--it just shows you from Kansas to Florida, we have similar interests. I thank the Senator for his comments and for his comments yesterday in the markup in the Finance Committee, and for his support. A lot of my remarks will be duplicative of his. That shows you, in regard to Florida and Kansas, we have a very strong mutual interest.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I thank my colleague and dear friend from Nebraska for the question. In the end, the biggest consequence for inaction that is now facing our Nation, our biggest challenge, is jobs. In regards to his question, the three pending trade agreements add up to $13 billion in additional exports and an estimated 250,000 jobs. From the agricultural perspective, the three pending trade agreements represent $2.5 billion, if they are ever implemented. The estimates are that the three agreements in total are expected to increase direct exports by $129.5 million just for Kansas farmers and ranchers and an additional 1,150 jobs for our State. For folks on the farm, these export markets are absolutely critical. Approximately one- third of our crop production is exported. For wheat, that number jumps to one-half. The administration's prolonged delay is causing U.S. businesses and producers to simply lose market share. We are losing out. Other countries are not waiting. They are enacting trade agreements without the United States. Let me give a very good example. The Colombia-Canada trade agreement went into force on August 15 of this year. Already, Nutresa, the largest food processor in Colombia, has announced it will source all of its wheat from Canada to take advantage of the lower duties the Canadian wheat will receive from the trade agreement. Nutresa's wheat demand alone represents 50 percent of all wheat imports to that country. Our Kansas Farm Bureau estimates that Kansas farmers stand to lose $21 million from lost wheat sales alone and $38 million from all agricultural exports just by doing nothing on the trade agreement. Soon after the United States negotiated the trade agreement with Korea, the European Union followed suit. In July, the Korea-European Union trade agreement went into effect. According to Korean customs, within the first 29 days of July, I say to my friend, the European exports were up 34 percent. Get this one: Notably, aerospace equipment increased by a whopping 1,693 percent. That is astounding. Kansas is a major player in the aviation sector, exporting $2.7 billion in transportation equipment last year. As the aviation capital of the world, Wichita's aviation companies and 17,000 workers have much to lose in trying to compete against the European Union. It is long overdue time for the President to put some action behind his words. Send the three trade agreements to Congress immediately. I am going to make a statement that I regret to say. Trade assistance notwithstanding, I am very sad to say that I do not believe we are going to see any trade agreement this year or the next. I hope my prediction is not correct. This is ridiculous. Every third foggy night, the President makes a speech and says: We need these trade agreements. We are losing market share. Well, I don't see the trade agreements. These are not the trade agreements. Maybe somebody can find them here on the floor or in the House. Maybe they are somewhere. But I think they are in the White House, and until we get the politics out of this and the President sends the trade agreements here, what on Earth is he doing saying we should be passing these trade agreements? We don't have the bill. Send us the bill, Mr. President. As the administration delays moving forward on these export agreements with Korea, Panama, and Colombia, what is happening to American exports to these important markets? Senator Portman is an expert on this issue. There is not anybody in this Senate who is more of an expert on trade. If you apply the administration's own metrics, how many jobs will be created--I am not talking about lost but will be created by these pending agreements?

Mr. ROBERTS. The Senator has been there and done the negotiating. He knows these trade agreements not only apply to our exports but our national security. What has this continued delay done--what does it do to the credibility of the people who are actually negotiating, our trade representatives?

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield for one quick question?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Long-Term Care Hospital Improvement Act of 2011, with the support of my colleague Mr. Nelson of Florida. This legislation develops new federal standards and certification criteria for Long Term Acute Care Hospitals, LTCHs. We are also joined by Senators Crapo, Wyden, Toomey and Heller, in introducing this bill. We hope to get the support of many more of our colleagues. This legislation has the support of the major hospital associations, including the American Hospital Association, AHA, the Federation of American Hospitals, FAH, and the Acute Long Term Hospital Association, ALTHA. As many of you know, Long-Term Acute Care Hospitals, referred to as LTCHs, specialize in treating medically complex patients who need longer than usual hospital stays, on average 25 days. By comparison, the average stay for a patient in a general acute hospital is only 5-6 days. LTCHs, like rehabilitation hospitals and nursing homes, often care for patients who are discharged from a general hospital. Because of that, LTCHs are sometimes referred to as post-acute care providers. However, LTCHs are fully licensed and certified as acute care hospitals. There are approximately 425 LTCHs in the nation, compared to approximately 12,000 nursing homes and 1,400 rehabilitation hospitals. LTCH patients are very ill, with many suffering from complex respiratory issues, including those who are ventilator dependent, or other complex medical issues. LTCHs account for about of Medicare spending. The bill that I am introducing today implements a comprehensive set of federal criteria that will supplement existing Medicare classification criteria for LTCHs. These criteria are designed to ensure that LTCHs are treating high acuity patients who need extended hospital stays. Analysis by the Moran Company estimates that these criteria could generate approximately $374 million over 5 years and $2.7 billion over 10 years. The bill is expected to result in a net savings of $500 million over 10 years. I plan to work with CBO to confirm that estimate. This legislation will generate savings for the Medicare program; promote patients being cared for in the most appropriate setting; and, protect access to LTCH care for medically acute beneficiaries who need extended stays due to their complex condition. This is not a new concept and the American Hospital Association has been working on this issue for years. In August 2010, the AHA initiated a workgroup representing a cross section of the nation' LTCHs and larger general hospital systems including Geisinger Medical System, Pennsylvania, and Partners HealthCare System, Inc., Boston. The goals of the AHA workgroup were to develop policy recommendations for uniform LTCH patient and facility criteria; distinguish LTCH hospitals from general acute hospitals and all post-acute settings; assess fiscal impact, with goal of showing overall Medicare savings; develop consensus among AHA's LTCH members; and achieve relief from the LTCH ``25 percent Rule.'' We believe that we have accomplished these goals with my legislation. Additionally, for a body that just voted on a debt ceiling increase, this bill has the potential to achieve significant savings. I hope that my colleagues will agree with me and that this legislation is something that they can support. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the Long-Term Care Hospital Improvement Act of 2011.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Long-Term Care Hospital Improvement Act of 2011, with the support of my colleague Mr. Nelson of Florida. This legislation develops new federal standards and certification criteria for Long Term Acute Care Hospitals, LTCHs. We are also joined by Senators Crapo, Wyden, Toomey and Heller, in introducing this bill. We hope to get the support of many more of our colleagues. This legislation has the support of the major hospital associations, including the American Hospital Association, AHA, the Federation of American Hospitals, FAH, and the Acute Long Term Hospital Association, ALTHA. As many of you know, Long-Term Acute Care Hospitals, referred to as LTCHs, specialize in treating medically complex patients who need longer than usual hospital stays, on average 25 days. By comparison, the average stay for a patient in a general acute hospital is only 5-6 days. LTCHs, like rehabilitation hospitals and nursing homes, often care for patients who are discharged from a general hospital. Because of that, LTCHs are sometimes referred to as post-acute care providers. However, LTCHs are fully licensed and certified as acute care hospitals. There are approximately 425 LTCHs in the nation, compared to approximately 12,000 nursing homes and 1,400 rehabilitation hospitals. LTCH patients are very ill, with many suffering from complex respiratory issues, including those who are ventilator dependent, or other complex medical issues. LTCHs account for about of Medicare spending. The bill that I am introducing today implements a comprehensive set of federal criteria that will supplement existing Medicare classification criteria for LTCHs. These criteria are designed to ensure that LTCHs are treating high acuity patients who need extended hospital stays. Analysis by the Moran Company estimates that these criteria could generate approximately $374 million over 5 years and $2.7 billion over 10 years. The bill is expected to result in a net savings of $500 million over 10 years. I plan to work with CBO to confirm that estimate. This legislation will generate savings for the Medicare program; promote patients being cared for in the most appropriate setting; and, protect access to LTCH care for medically acute beneficiaries who need extended stays due to their complex condition. This is not a new concept and the American Hospital Association has been working on this issue for years. In August 2010, the AHA initiated a workgroup representing a cross section of the nation' LTCHs and larger general hospital systems including Geisinger Medical System, Pennsylvania, and Partners HealthCare System, Inc., Boston. The goals of the AHA workgroup were to develop policy recommendations for uniform LTCH patient and facility criteria; distinguish LTCH hospitals from general acute hospitals and all post-acute settings; assess fiscal impact, with goal of showing overall Medicare savings; develop consensus among AHA's LTCH members; and achieve relief from the LTCH ``25 percent Rule.'' We believe that we have accomplished these goals with my legislation. Additionally, for a body that just voted on a debt ceiling increase, this bill has the potential to achieve significant savings. I hope that my colleagues will agree with me and that this legislation is something that they can support. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the Long-Term Care Hospital Improvement Act of 2011.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to take a few moments this morning to wander from regular order to recognize a long- time staffer and public servant who will be retiring next Friday. August 5 will be Dave Johnson's last day as a Republican staffer on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. It will also be the end of a 23-year career in public service--most of that right here on this committee. Dave has served me as ranking member since March. He previously served as both the chief Republican counsel and deputy staff director of this committee. His service includes working for Chairman Lugar from 1987 to 1991 and again from 1994 to 2003. He then served Chairman Cochran from 2003 to 2005 and Chairman Chambliss from 2005 to 2007. And from 2007 to 2008 he served then-Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns as a deputy chief of staff at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He then moved to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission where he served until we convinced him to come back and help us get up and running this past spring. Dave's record speaks for itself. But I am not sure some understand just how valuable his service has been to this Committee and agriculture and nutrition policy. As those who know Dave can tell you, his first love has been nutrition policy. He has worked on numerous child nutrition bills and the nutrition title of no less than four farm bills, by my count. I also know that if you sit down and visit with him, he'd probably tell you that one of his proudest moments was the work he did on the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. Dave has always been a straight shooter. He gives you the answers you need to hear. But one of his greatest strengths is reminding you of the things you haven't considered and need to think about. He has been a tremendous mentor to young staff on both sides of the aisle and he was often the first stop many of them made when looking for advice on how to learn the ropes of the committee. Finally, Dave's attention to detail and proofing proposed legislation is legendary. If you are scrubbing a bill and making sure it is done right, his is the set of eyes you want on it. A member of my staff was once told by a former member of the Senate Parliamentarian's office that a farm bill Dave had helped write and scrub was ``among the best written bills we've ever seen come through the Senate.'' That pretty much sums up Dave's service to this committee. Dave, as a former bucket-toter myself, thank you for your years of service to our country, the Senate, the members of this Committee and our constituents. You have been a true public servant and we all wish you only the best as you head home to Indiana. Job well done.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the President. In making these remarks, I wish to emphasize that I am not trying to be presumptuous or disrespectful in any way to the Office of the Presidency or to the President personally. I wish to make that very clear. It is just that I am trying to think of an allegory to try to get my point across, and it seemed to me this might be the way to do it. We have our national unemployment rate at its highest level all year. We have the debt ceiling rapidly approaching the crisis everybody is talking about, and one would think we could do everything we could to support those industries very critical for job creation and economic development. There is one industry I am referring to in particular; that is, general aviation, and I was trying to think, how could I get my point across. Since we had Speaker Boehner, Leader McConnell, and the distinguished majority leader Senator Reid conducting the very best they can to get a solution, perhaps the President, although his time is very valuable, could talk to somebody such as me, a ranking member of a committee, very worried about what is happening with our country, very worried about what we can do to get this debt ceiling fixed and we can get a long-term solution with regard to our entitlement programs. Perhaps he could actually invite me down maybe later--a lot later, certainly no cameras--in regard to a little basketball game of horse because everybody knows the President is a very good basketball player, as a matter of fact an extremely good basketball player. I am not going to make that claim, but there was a day on blind-side picks and a few other things I could do. But I would emphasize to the President, bouncing the ball to him just on a bounce pass, and say: Your ball, Mr. President. The ball is in your court. I would like to emphasize, while we are playing, that basically he shouldn't be more concerned with increasing the debt ceiling past the 2012 elections than working on a long-term solution for solving the crisis. That would just be a suggestion. He would probably go to the left corner and sink a three about that time. I would want to emphasize to the President that he is singling out and he seems to be fixated on one specific industry that affects me and other specific industries as well, and I don't know how we pick and choose who should pay more taxes, who should pay more in terms of sacrifice, in terms of picking and choosing industries. But at any rate, I would tell the President when I had the ball--I would probably be dribbling a lot or trying to, if he wasn't playing tough defense--and I would say: Mr. President, since negotiations started last month on raising the debt limit, you have, on multiple occasions over and over again, singled out the general aviation industry as an example of big business that serves only the wealthy and should contribute more to lowering the deficit. The only problem with this claim is it is not real, it is not factual, it is not correct. Consequently, I don't know whether it is in his head or maybe the writers who write that valuable information for him that general aviation only serves millionaires and billionaires. Then, after I shot and missed it, I would say: Your ball again, Mr. President. I would say as he was trying to drive around me, rather successfully: The truth is, these aircraft actually serve as an essential business tool for a multitude of businesses of all shapes, all sizes, farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, business men and women, to access multiple offices and facilities that are spread across this great Nation. These folks are not fat cats. I would like the President to understand that managers and sales teams and technical experts, those are the people we are talking about who are in that corporate aircraft to be sure, but it is general aviation that serves the general public's welfare. They are often required to visit numerous offices in a short amount of time in regions of the United States that aren't served by large airports. By that time, the President has scored a couple layups and two more jump shots and I have yet to hit a shot. But I will persevere. I would say to him as we were playing there on the court: Mr. President, in fact, 90 percent of our country's airports aren't even accessible by commercial aircraft--certainly, the Presiding Officer knows that--and I think they represent just those plain folks you have been talking about, just the folks who are in the middle, just the folks who are having a tough time, just the folks who have been laid off. Then we have a paradox of enormous irony where, in the stimulus bill, there was a tax incentive for general aviation that helped some of those folks get those jobs back and it is that which you are attacking, which is your own suggestion or at least that of the majority in the Senate. General aviation employs 1.2 million workers and annually contributes $150 billion to the U.S. economy. That is a mouthful. By that time, the President has probably stolen the ball and scored another layup. Playing horse, we have five. I would probably ask him to play 10 or spot me 10. Just last year, I would point out to the President, general aviation delivered 1,334 aircraft valued at over $7.9 billion, over half attributed to exports, and that is what the President wants to achieve in his trade policy. I would tell him: Sir, your goal is doubling U.S. exports over the next 5 years. You don't do it by calling general aviation fat cats and singling out that industry for political blame. Let's talk about tough times and tough going. Similar to every other business sector, general aviation has struggled during the recession. At that particular time, I would claim the President fouled me with a sharp elbow and I would take a free shot and I would say: Wait a minute. Unfortunately, this has resulted in layoffs among many high- skilled, high-paying jobs in this industry, and that is a two-shot foul, by the way, so I have a little time. I would say: To help offset these job losses and incentivize the purchase of these aircraft, Democratic Members included a provision in the infamous stimulus bill to accelerate the depreciation schedules for a wide range of capital investments. In Kansas, for Cessna Aircraft, accelerated depreciation was a key factor for Cessna and its suppliers being able to retain 1,000 jobs. Jobs held by folks whom I would tell the President are not fat cats. Again, they are just folks. They are doing the job to produce a product in the United States that we are very proud of, and we certainly don't want them to go to Mexico or to go to Canada. Some have already left. So it came as a pretty big shock that you, Mr. President--and I am still on my second shot on the free shot. He is now asking me to quit talking and start shooting. But I would say: It comes as a pretty big shock to those workers that yourself and the Democratic Members in both Chambers would direct an attack on this industry. This is true. I don't know how many Members of the Senate--not too many but, my word, I don't know how many Members of the House have heard that--corporate jet. Corporate jet. It has a ring to it, I guess. But at any rate, why would you repeal a tax provision that has contributed to job creation at a time of severe economic downturn; in fact, the one you actually suggested. But there is more. There is more, Mr. President. Your ball. On top of this, budget negotiators are considering implementing user fees on general aviation as a way to generate revenue. We have been down that road. Let me be very clear. If user fees on general aviation are implemented, we could very well see the beginning of the end of this very critical industry. With all that is going on--and I hate to remind you of this. By the way, I just scored a hook shot, Mr. President. It wasn't very pretty, but it rolled in. So it is about eight to one, something like that. At any rate, I am coming back. When you mention corporate jets six times in two paragraphs in one speech and that is repeated on the various pundit shows on TV over and over again as a fat cat industry, that is most unfortunate. I think we need to get serious about spending. I have thought so for some time, and I think every Member here does as well. We have our different ideas on how to do it. But I also believe it makes sense to consider those provisions that would actually have a measurable impact on reducing our more than $14 trillion national debt. I would ask as I bounce the ball back to the President and he heads for that left-hand shot in the corner again and I am hustling to try to keep up, I would ask: Do you have any idea, if you just taxed all general aviation, what that would amount to? Just changing these schedules, these depreciation schedules for corporate jets; i.e., general aviation only contributes $3 billion over 10 years. We borrow around $40 billion every 10 days. Repealing this tax provision would close our national budget deficit for 1 hour--1 hour--1 hour in terms of a measurable effect. Yet we still pick on general aviation, calling them all fat cats. Sadly, this isn't the first time we have seen this happen; that the Congress of the United States, a different President has singled out general aviation. In the 1990 budget deal, the majority created a new luxury excise tax that applied to boats and aircraft. The tax was repealed in 1993. Because, as the Democratic-controlled Senate Finance Committee report explained, during the recent recession the boat and aircraft industries have suffered job losses, increased unemployment. I guess those are plain folks, they qualify, not fat cats. It said: The committee believes it is appropriate to eliminate the burden these taxes impose in the interests of fostering economic recovery in those and related industries. That is a lot of words, especially when you are out playing horse in weather that is pretty hot. Today--maybe it is better today so maybe it would be a better deal. I couldn't agree more with that. We have been down this road before. I think it is unfortunate. Last, before I watch him make his last shot and I go down to the T, at least on the court I hope I would have made my argument to the President that singling out general aviation as ``fat cats'' is simply not accurate, it is class warfare. That is a little tough. Maybe I wouldn't say that on the court, maybe sort of nudge him a little bit when I got underneath the bucket. At any rate, it is going to take courage to put this country's fiscal house back in order. There is no question about that. But it is absolutely essential for us to do it in a responsible manner and not by scapegoating, not by singling out important sectors of industry that have long played a vital role in the economic development of both my home State of Kansas and our country as a whole. I would simply say: Your ball, your game, Mr. President, but let's not single out general aviation anymore. It might have been the case if he were on a corporate jet with Kobe Bryant or somebody, maybe a Hollywood actor, maybe going to a fundraiser, maybe he got it in his head everybody who has a corporate jet, i.e., general aviation, as opposed to going from Kansas to North Dakota to check on some farm ground, that that is the case. I hope that is not the case anymore. That is the end of the ball game but it is not the end of the debate. I hope we have a debate without singling out an industry. That is unfair and not accurate. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, since the founding of our Nation, people the world over have looked to us as a beacon of light because of our freedoms. Others have watched the great American experiment with a perverse hope that it falls. We can only fail if we fail ourselves, if we fail to balance the budget and bring down the debt. America has always proven itself. We will meet any challenge and confront any enemy. The enemy before us is our own fiscal irresponsibility. It is time to stop talking. It is time to start doing. It is time for the President to come up with a specific plan, and in meeting with Republicans and Democrats in the House and the same in the Senate, let's do our duty. In some of the toughest early debates in our country, Americans were fortunate to have steady leadership in keeping a hand on the wheel. I hope Members of this Chamber and the current President of the United States can look to character, to leadership, to love of our country to guide us through these very trying times. Every generation confronts a unique set of challenges. The challenge we face today is the $14.3 trillion debt--and growing. I am so hopeful we can close ranks and confront this enemy. We owe the American people and our forebears no less than victory in this fight. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. I see. If I hit 10 minutes, I might ask unanimous consent for an additional 5, and seeing the smile on the Presiding Officer's face, perhaps he will be conducive to that request. I also wish to associate my remarks with the distinguished Senator from Texas. Every generation confronts challenges. The greatest generation declared victory over fascism and imperialism. The next generation faced down an enormous competition between the United States and its way of life based on free markets, private ownership, and free expression on one hand; and the Soviet Union and its way of life based on central planning, collectivization and police state control on the other. Again, victory belonged to America and the free world. A new generation in America has now come of age since the Soviet system collapsed. It is a generation that too often, in my opinion, takes for granted the hardship and sacrifice of our forebears. It is this generation that must confront the crippling $14.3 trillion debt-- and climbing. We have met the enemy and he ``is'' us. The enemy today is our unsustainable debt, as has been pointed out by speaker after speaker on both sides of the aisle. I am privileged to represent the people of Kansas and the people of Kansas are rightfully angry over the endless posturing and all the rhetoric and all the fingerpointing regarding yet another increase in the national debt. That is right, another increase in the debt limit. Here we are again trying to reach agreement. I wish the President and the House leadership well in their current talks. I wish the Senate was engaged. We certainly don't need to kick the can down the road any farther. We are faced with one issue; that is, to rein in spending. Let me point out that in 2 years, the debt limit was raised nearly as many times as it was in 8 years under the previous administration. It should come as no surprise that the American people in general, and those in Kansas in particular, reject these current spend-thrift policies. I, from the first, decided it was time to stand up to spending, deficits, and debt. I am talking about the time when we were considering TARP, and we went through that very difficult time when many in the administration--the previous administration--indicated if you did not vote for TARP you were taking a very dangerous road. I must confess, I have written a lot of speeches down through the years of public service I have been privileged to have. It is that old line of somehow or other we have to set our fiscal house in order not only for us but for our kids and grandkids. How many times do we have to say that? How many times do we have to give the speech? I decided no more during the TARP consideration. I voted no. I remember the time when the administration folks came in to visit with me to convince me to vote yes. I said: Can you explain to me what a credit default swap is? I had not really heard that term before. They could not. They said they did not have enough time to do that. I just decided to vote no. I opposed TARP. I opposed the bailouts. I opposed the stimulus. I opposed Dodd-Frank. I opposed ObamaCare. And I oppose any increase in the debt limit without real, tangible cuts in discretionary spending and meaningful, structural reform to mandatory spending. I do not challenge the intent of people who promoted all of these things, but the result has been an incredible increase in our national debt. Remember the line: Did you read the bill?--that was the question people got when they went back home, faced up to the folks back home, especially with the health care bill. All of a sudden people became aware of the regulations and all the problems--now we have a hurricane of regulations pouring out of the Department of Health and Human Services. Now the question from folks back home is: Have you read the regulations? If we add up the costs of regulations, for goodness' sakes, clear back in 2008 alone it was $1.78 trillion in cost to the American public. Figure that in regards to the debate about the national debt. That was back in 2008. Think what it is today. It is probably twice that amount. So, consequently, we really have a problem. Now, since last November the President has spoken to this issue. As a matter of fact, he has spoken rather continuously at the White House and campaign rallies. The problem is, there is no specific plan. I know Republicans in the House are getting a lot of criticism for their plan. At least they have a plan. The cut, cap, and balance plan has received, as I said, a lot of criticism, but at least it is there. On the other side of the aisle we just do not find anything. There is no specific plan at all. We call that in Dodge City: Big hat, no cattle. The President's first opportunity to put words into action came in February when the White House submitted its budget request: $3.73 trillion. It was estimated to add another $1 trillion to the debt. Obviously, that did not work. That proposal was defeated 97 to 0 in the Senate. Not too many bills get defeated 97 to 0. Then, all of a sudden, now, we got into the tax situation. Maybe if we just got involved in a little more revenue enhancement--that is what we call it here; it is called taxes back home. Taxing is not the problem; the problem is spending money we do not have. In May, the President's budget was, as I said, defeated. And rightly so. So here we are, more than halfway through the calendar year, 2 months away from the end of the fiscal year, and still no budget from this body--over 800 days. Meanwhile, we have met the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, and it is climbing. Rather than make meaningful cuts and meaningful reforms--specific reforms--the White House and some in the Senate want to increase the debt ceiling again. Again, we have met the enemy, and he is us. Mr. President, $14.3 trillion--it is a sum so large that it is difficult to understand. Kansans with whom I visit and who call my office express shock we have allowed it to get to this point. How did we get to this point? Then, if, in fact, we kick the can down the road, what does it mean in regards to--as the Senator from Iowa pointed out-- the faith and optimism in our country? What does the future hold for a country that acts this way? Paying down the debt should be bipartisan. What would Presidents Truman and Eisenhower say of a $14.3 trillion debt? I think they would be pretty harsh. Both Presidents had pretty tough quotes in regards to fiscal responsibility. What we need in this Chamber, what we need in Washington is a very strong dose of common sense and a sense of purpose, as evidenced by previous Presidents when they put leadership first. Here are the facts. They are stubborn things. They are clear. We borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend. A lot of people hear that. That is climbing. It is going to be 41 cents pretty quickly. There is a lot of talk about tax breaks for corporate jets. Boy, am I tired of that. I am tired of this class warfare stuff in regards to saying: If we just apply taxes to a certain, small segment of the economy, or maybe a big segment like oil and gas--the bad guys, the fat cats--boy, if we get them, we can sure solve the problem. Let's take corporate jets, which I would emphasize represents general aviation. It is called general aviation because the general public uses it. It is not all Hollywood stars. It is not all rich people using these so-called corporate jets. General aviation--it is the people who have to get from here to there because for 90 percent of our airports, a commercial flight does not land there. What if you have a plant? What if you are a manufacturer? What if you are a farmer? What if you are a rancher and you have to visit several places in the country at one time, say, 5, 6, 7, 8, maybe 30? That is what general aviation is all about. As a matter of fact, in the stimulus, the President recommended an extension of this same tax depreciation schedule. Now he is blaming the fat cats in regards to taking advantage of corporate jets. That is nuts. What the left hand giveth, the left hand taketh away in regards to this class warfare rhetoric. We make these jets in Wichita. They are great airplanes, and they service the general public for the public good. According to Charles Krauthammer, the renowned columnist, if we collect the corporate jet tax every year for the next 5,000 years, we would cover only 1 year of the debt the President has run up--1 year. The general aviation industry will persevere, but we have come through some tough times. We are coming in on a wing and a prayer--that old World War II song that is almost revered. So we will persevere. But can't we end this class warfare business? My Lord, the President talked about it six times in two paragraphs. As I say, again, that is the same industry he tried to help in the stimulus. Here is another fact: Every cent of taxpayer money is used to pay for entitlement programs and interest payments on the national debt. All discretionary spending is borrowed. That is where we are headed; that is where we are at. On average, we accumulate $4 billion in debt each day. It would cost each citizen $46,000 to pay the debt off. That means a family with a husband, wife, and two kids would owe $184,000. That is rather startling to Kansas families. They do not have that kind of money. I know perhaps some would say that is apples and oranges with the function of government and the function of families, but it is a good illustration. We have gone over 800 days--I think it is 810 now--without a budget in the Senate of the United States. During that time, this country has spent $7.3 trillion. We have spent $439 billion in interest on the money we have borrowed. We do not have regular order. If Robert C. Byrd were here today and sitting in that chair, he would be appalled. He would be making a speech in louder terms than I am, with short sentences, and he would point out we are not doing our duty. It used to be that we would have a budget. Then we would have appropriations bills. Then we would have the committees of jurisdiction meet those budget demands, meet that number. Then we would debate it on the Senate floor. Members would have an opportunity to bring amendments. That is how we worked. We do not work that way anymore. There is no regular order anymore. What we do is bring up huge bills such as Dodd-Frank and the health care bill, usually written in private, and then we vote on it. Then the American public says: Have you read the bill? Then they say: Have you read the regulations? We have to restore regular order and restore the Senate back to the Senate. People are fearful. The American public is fearful today. They have a real, conscientious worry that America is not the same as it used to be. Why is that? Because I think the American dream is that every American youngster can climb on the ladder of success as fast and as high as he or she can, with nothing government made or manmade in their way. Regardless, they may stumble, hit their chin on a couple of rungs, but, by golly, they get back up and they go right up again. Not anymore. We have, apparently, a national agenda to level everybody with everybody else. It is called social justice. Nothing wrong with social justice except if it is an agenda to affect everybody. We now have the President of the United States deciding who is rich. It does not make any difference if a person does not make anything 1 year and makes $250,000 the next year; he is rich--despite his or her circumstances, family circumstances, or anything. We have the national government, the Federal Government deciding everything: light bulbs, what you eat, rural fugitive dust. When a grain truck goes down a gravel road in Kansas we have the EPA worried about it. No kidding. We have navigable farm ponds now, farm ponds declared navigable waters. No self-respecting duck would even land there. We have regulation after regulation after regulation. I cannot talk to any manufacturer, any business, anyone in Kansas where I have the privilege of speaking without somebody raising their hand and saying: Pat, what on Earth are you doing back there passing all these regulations that really don't make any sense and are about to put me out of business? My reply to them: I am not a ``you'' guy; I am an ``us'' guy; and I am sure trying to do something about that. I do have a bill on that, by the way, and I encourage my colleagues across the aisle to look at it. I will be talking to you personally. These are all serious issues, but the most serious matter is the national debt. At the rate we are going, in a few short years we will spend more paying interest on the debt than on all discretionary spending outside defense. Mike Mullen has said this is the biggest threat to our national security: $14.3 trillion. He is right. His comments echo the calls I receive every day from Kansans. There is a lot of rhetoric going on now, and I understand that. Perhaps I have added to it. If I have offended somebody, I apologize. But let's all take a deep breath, if we can. Debate and posturing is nothing new in this body. In American history, in the earliest days of our Republic, it was between Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists on one side and Thomas Jefferson and his allies on the other. The enmity between these men was so obvious through vitriolic rhetoric. Much of the mudslinging that occurred then would be considered out of bounds by today's standards of political discourse. Well, as the debate raged on between the early parties over the drafting of the Constitution, it seemed possible that the great American experiment would be over before it even began. Edmund Randolph wrote to George Washington, who at that time had retired to private life, and begged him to ``rescue America from the impending ruin.'' Washington rose to the occasion the way a leader does. He did it for his country, for his fellow Americans. He showed leadership because it was the right thing to do. In the end, a compromise was reached--yes, it was a compromise--to have the Constitution as drafted by the Federalists but with the Bill of Rights included as drafted by the Jeffersonians. Later, after being elected our Nation's first President, Washington was dismayed over the continuous bickering between Hamilton and Jefferson--not so much different than we are doing today--over a wide range of issues: how to interpret the Constitution, the powers of Congress, the relationship between the States and the Federal Government, and the public debt--even then. Sound familiar? Well, amidst the feuding, George Washington wrote to Jefferson and said this: How unfortunate, and how much is it to be regretted then, that whilst we are encompassed on all sides with avowed enemies and insidious friends, that internal dissension should be harrowing and tearing our vitals. That is pretty tough. That is the bottle we ought to drink from every morning and stop to think about it.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it is my understanding I am recognized for 15 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I commemorate the life of Robert F. Ellsworth--a dear friend and mentor to myself, loving husband to his wife Eleanor, and leader to many. In his service throughout his life as a lawyer, officer, Congressman, Presidential aide, and Ambassador, Bob met challenges as opportunities and transformed ideas into reality. His memorial service was held at St. Francis Episcopal Church in Potomac on Saturday, June 11. Along with my own statement, I ask that the following statements from that day be printed in the Record. Statement From Senator Pat Roberts It is both an honor and a privilege to offer just a few brief thoughts as we friends celebrate the unique and special life of our friend Bob Ellsworth. Many people would define happiness in many different ways. However, a good definition of happiness would be Eleanor in that she brought so much happiness into Bob's life and, for that matter, to everyone privileged to meet and know her. Eleanor, our prayers and thoughts are with you. I really don't think anyone can capture or fully describe Bob Ellsworth, but here is my take: First, he was a friend of the Roberts family dating back to my Dad and such a loyal friend. Second, throughout his wonderful and most notable career, Bob was just plain nice; a true gentleman. The late congressman Bill Emerson of Missouri, who worked as a staffer for Congressman Bob Ellsworth, said he was the best and most unique boss he ever had. Bill often said, ``Bob Ellsworth would come around and ask us if we were happy with our jobs. I first thought I was going to be fired but soon realized he really cared about his staff and wanted them to feel useful and if they thought they were making a difference.'' As a Senator, I try to follow his example with my staff today. But, seriously, who does that today? Third, he was not only my friend but mentor as well. He made wonderful things happen for me and gave me so many opportunities: serving on the German-American International Exchange just as the wall came down and putting up with a freshman Senator and later on the Commission on America's National Interests with the Who's Who of America's foreign and national security policy makers. This time, with Bob's help, I think I actually made a difference. And, he was a mentor and advisor to so many and like so many of his stature and knowledge, he seldom offered advice and counsel without first being asked. Bob Dole and I asked a lot and I know Bob regrets deeply he cannot be in attendance. I affectionately called Bob Ellsworth the Phantom with the light bulbs. He would always call, drop in suddenly, like the Phantom and then give me a rapid fire summary of what others of like mind were thinking and what he thought. During his dissertation and wonderful visit, light bulbs would go off in my head always with the thought, ``Why didn't I think of that?'' I really think Bob Ellsworth was a genius who somehow let you believe you really came up with his latest insight. Being an over the top Kansas State University enthusiast, genius may be the proper description but we mere Kansas State graduates simply said he was ``pretty damn smart.'' I will miss my friend and mentor as will so many. We shall not see the likes of Bob Ellsworth again. I thank the Dear Lord for allowing me to know, learn from and truly enjoy Bob Ellsworth during this space and time.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bipartisan bill, the Restoring Access to Medication Act of 2011. This bill would repeal the portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which requires individuals to have a prescription to spend the money they have saved in their Flexible Spending Accounts. Flexible Spending Accounts, FSAs, Health Savings Accounts, HSAs, and other medical savings arrangements provide plan participants with an affordable, convenient and accessible means to manage their health care expenses. More than 35 million Americans participate in FSAs and more than 10 million Americans participate in a HSA. These accounts allow plan participants to set aside their own dollars on a pre-tax basis to pay for health care expenses, giving individuals control over health care decisions and how to pay for that care. A key benefit of these plans prior to enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA, was the ability for participants to use the dollars they set aside in these plans to pay for the cost of over- the-counter medications. However, under PPACA, plan participants may no longer use funds from these accounts to purchase over-the-counter medications, unless they have a prescription for the medication. This prohibition takes away choice from individuals about how to manage their health care expenses and adds yet another burden to physicians, as some plan participants will seek a prescription for over-the-counter medications. And, worst of all, it injects increased costs into our health care system. Rather than promoting cost-effectiveness and accessibility, this provision instead directs participants to potentially more costly, less convenient, and more time-consuming alternatives. Further, it injects unnecessary confusion and complexity into a system that was previously straightforward and easy for consumers to utilize. This bill repeals Sec. 9003 of the PPACA and restores the ability of plan participants to use the funds in their FSA, HRA, HSA or Archers MSA to purchase OTC medications, allowing them to better manage the cost of their health care expenses. A family physician from Leawood, Kansas told me, ``I am pleased that legislation is being introduced to reverse this policy. Many of my patients face undue burdens purchasing needed medications that are essential to their health maintenance and overall wellbeing. Reversal of this policy will allow my patients to continue to purchase the numerous beneficial over-the-counter products that are so important in our daily lives and will eliminate a substantial administrative burden on my practice.'' In Kansas, and throughout the U.S., a broad coalition of groups support this legislation, including the U.S. Chamber, NFIB, pharmacist groups, drug store organizations and consumer groups. I would invite my colleagues to join me in this effort by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bipartisan bill, the Restoring Access to Medication Act of 2011. This bill would repeal the portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which requires individuals to have a prescription to spend the money they have saved in their Flexible Spending Accounts. Flexible Spending Accounts, FSAs, Health Savings Accounts, HSAs, and other medical savings arrangements provide plan participants with an affordable, convenient and accessible means to manage their health care expenses. More than 35 million Americans participate in FSAs and more than 10 million Americans participate in a HSA. These accounts allow plan participants to set aside their own dollars on a pre-tax basis to pay for health care expenses, giving individuals control over health care decisions and how to pay for that care. A key benefit of these plans prior to enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA, was the ability for participants to use the dollars they set aside in these plans to pay for the cost of over- the-counter medications. However, under PPACA, plan participants may no longer use funds from these accounts to purchase over-the-counter medications, unless they have a prescription for the medication. This prohibition takes away choice from individuals about how to manage their health care expenses and adds yet another burden to physicians, as some plan participants will seek a prescription for over-the-counter medications. And, worst of all, it injects increased costs into our health care system. Rather than promoting cost-effectiveness and accessibility, this provision instead directs participants to potentially more costly, less convenient, and more time-consuming alternatives. Further, it injects unnecessary confusion and complexity into a system that was previously straightforward and easy for consumers to utilize. This bill repeals Sec. 9003 of the PPACA and restores the ability of plan participants to use the funds in their FSA, HRA, HSA or Archers MSA to purchase OTC medications, allowing them to better manage the cost of their health care expenses. A family physician from Leawood, Kansas told me, ``I am pleased that legislation is being introduced to reverse this policy. Many of my patients face undue burdens purchasing needed medications that are essential to their health maintenance and overall wellbeing. Reversal of this policy will allow my patients to continue to purchase the numerous beneficial over-the-counter products that are so important in our daily lives and will eliminate a substantial administrative burden on my practice.'' In Kansas, and throughout the U.S., a broad coalition of groups support this legislation, including the U.S. Chamber, NFIB, pharmacist groups, drug store organizations and consumer groups. I would invite my colleagues to join me in this effort by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a milestone that has been reached by an important cooperative association responsible for the marketing and distribution of dairy products from 450 California family-owned dairies. Challenge opened for business under the name of Challenge Cream & Butter Association 100 years ago with four employees and a wagon. That first day, Challenge sold 12 pounds of butter. Today, Challenge Butter is the largest butter brand in the West, and Challenge Dairy is the leading dairy foodservice provider in California, with eight distribution centers spanning the State in Lodi, San Leandro, Monterey, Fresno, Santa Maria, Ventura, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Challenge directly employs over 175 hard-working California citizens and has aided thousands of California dairy farmers in their success over the years. Today, more than 450 dairies are part of Challenge's cooperative, putting tens of millions of dollars into California's economy annually. Challenge's success is made up of dedicated California dairy farmers and employees who have ensured the quality of all products produced from each of its creameries. Early on, dairymen realized marketing was and remains to be key in successfully spreading the word about the quality of their products, which was why Challenge was conceived. The benefits of farmer cooperation were so effective that the status of every single dairyman was materially improved, just from their existence. A leader in quality improvement, Challenge established the standards all other dairy organizations followed. Thus, Challenge has figuratively held a protective umbrella over farm endeavors, for the good of the farmers and the Nation, for more than a century. By refusing to sell any item that didn't meet the highest standards, Challenge built a reputation for quality. That reputation has grown as Challenge led the way in the dairy industry with product and manufacturing innovations such as the aluminum butter churn, the first successful metal butter churn in the world. Now a wholly owned subsidiary of California Dairies, Inc. CDI, California's largest dairy provider and the second largest in the country, Challenge has grown to represent more than 450 dairy farmers and markets nearly half of CDI's butter supply. CDI has six manufacturing facilities that are located throughout the central valley and directly employs over 740 people. Challenge has operated through two World Wars and the Great Depression in addition to a number of other obstacles. Through it all, the company adapted and persevered to continue fulfilling the people's need for quality dairy products and support the dairy farmers behind producing products. We believe Challenge embodies the determination and the spirit of the people of California.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of the legislation that has been introduced by my friend and our Republican leader, Senator McConnell, that would take our country in the direction of greater domestic energy production, and certainly robust job creation, as opposed to taxing--or trying to--the very people who provide our energy. Madam President, as every American knows, few issues today are more critical to the American taxpayer than the price of energy. Whether it is powering our homes or fueling farm equipment or filling up our cars at the pump, the price of energy directly impacts the cost of goods and operating expenses for our American producers. Now, while there is a multitude of variables that impact the cost of gasoline, it is important we don't overlook the main factor in impacting prices at the pump--and one more time, for my colleagues across the aisle, that is the global supply and demand of crude. With roughly 70 percent of the price of gasoline and diesel contingent on the price of crude, it should be easy to understand that any fluctuations in global supply and demand is the most important factor determining what consumers pay at the pump. Considering in my State alone the oil and gas industry supports over 119,000 jobs and annually contributes $14 billion to the Kansas economy, it is not hard to understand that much of our concerns regarding the U.S. economy and rising unemployment could be addressed--could be addressed--if we stopped hindering the ability of American energy businesses to grow and to produce. I am sure most Americans wonder why Washington is even considering a policy that is counter to an industry solely capable--solely capable-- and responsible for this type of job creation. Sadly, this is exactly the proposal floated by some of my colleagues and friends in Congress and by the President. In the President's 2012 budget proposal, he proposed almost $90 billion worth of tax increases on the oil and gas industry--taxes the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has stated could make oil and natural gas more expensive for U.S. consumers and likely increase foreign dependence. Well, that didn't work in regards to the budget, so they are back. Complementing the President's troublesome budget proposal last week, a number of my colleagues introduced legislation singling out U.S.-owned integrated oil and gas companies by removing tax expenditures these companies rely on to hire more American workers, developing greater amounts of needed energy, and--hello--to support the millions of American investors whose IRAs and pension funds invest significantly in energy stocks. What is even worse, at least six of my colleagues across the aisle are on record admitting this legislation will do nothing to reduce prices at the pump. It is sort of a ``gotcha'' piece of legislation. So to address American concerns about rising gas prices, my friends across the aisle have introduced legislation they readily know will not ease the price at the pump. This doesn't make any sense. In addition to the fact the Democratic energy bill will not help reduce gas prices, I want to further highlight the negative impacts it would have on American investors. This is important. Probably the biggest distortion repeated in the media and by some of my friends here on Capitol Hill is the notion that a few select corporate executives are the sole benefactors of record high profits enjoyed by these energy companies. It makes good politics today to beat up on these people and that is what happened in regard to the Finance Committee--a lot of press there--when in reality it is the millions of middle-class American investors whose retirement plans benefit greatly from healthy profits. Because these companies are publicly traded, they are owned largely by individuals and institutional investors responsible for managing the mutual funds and IRA and pension plans for millions of Americans whose future economic security depends on the success of these companies. For example, in Kansas alone there are over 18,000 shareholders of ExxonMobil--that is 18,000 of my constituents--who will be hurt, angry, frustrated when they find out that legislation that targets citizens, investors who actually own these companies, could be passed. Beyond individual shareholders, many teachers, State government employees, rely on strong returns on their investments in these companies. One example is the New Jersey Public Employee Pension Fund. Its holdings of U.S.-based integrated oil and gas companies make over 4 percent of its total portfolio. Realizing the likelihood of a strong return on their investment, it is no wonder why so many public employee pension funds throughout the country invest heavily in energy companies. The good news is that the energy tax increase proposal was defeated last night, as its passage would have done absolutely nothing toward reducing energy prices or helping the economic security of millions of middle-class American investors. Unfortunately, the problems facing true economic growth and energy security do not end with misguided tax policy. In addition to making it more costly to produce domestic energy, the administration is working to close off some of our Nation's most abundant sources. For example, under the current administration, the Department of the Interior canceled seven oil development leases in Utah that were located within the larger formation covering three States that the Bureau of Land Management has estimated contains around 800 billion barrels of oil--more than three times the proven reserves in Saudi Arabia. This of course is in addition to the Gulf of Mexico deep water drilling moratorium imposed last summer which has had a lasting negative effect on gulf coast economies. I know the President said we are going to permit these and they can drill, but somehow or other you never get the permit finalized. In closing, I want to reiterate my point about the underlying economic factors which, like it or not, despite the politics, are not the driving forces behind the price of gas at the pump. As global demand rises, prices will also rise. As global demand is potentially disrupted, as we see in the Middle East today, then market instability follows. If we can allow greater access to our own domestic resources and provide industry the necessary tools to expand--which is exactly what Leader McConnell's energy bill would do--then we will be able to put more Americans back to work and add to the global supply of crude which, over time, undoubtedly will help stabilize prices. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise to congratulate Joe Richardson on his pending retirement. Joe exemplifies the meaning of public servant. I have served as chairman and ranking member of the House Committee on Agriculture, and today I serve as the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. All along the way, Joe has served the Congressional Research Service and thereby the Congress with excellence and distinction over the course of 40 years. His focus has included the nutrition assistance programs, almost from their inception. From programs ranging from SNAP, WIC, school meals, and faith-based initiatives, Joe is a recognized expert, a prolific writer, and unparalleled in his field. A nonpartisan professional, Joe has been an invaluable resource for Members and staff and has regularly been relied upon to navigate the complexities of statutes, rules, and regulations, and the myriad of forms public assistance has taken over the last several decades. From farm bills to child nutrition reauthorizations and related legislation in-between, he has been a compendium of information on the ideas generated, efforts attempted, reforms enacted, and the effects and changes to society our laws have made. He is a tribute to his profession, and our Nation is a better place to live for all Americans as a direct result of his efforts. I and my staff have greatly appreciated Joe's counsel. Whenever called upon, Joe would answer, be it during regular business hours, late into the night, or early the next morning, always helpful, and always forthright. I appreciate the dedication demonstrated by public servant Joe Richardson. Thank you Joe, you will be missed.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 12 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, still at this late date, I want to remain optimistic that we will reach a final deal on Federal spending. At least the dueling press conferences are continuing as I speak. I hope the negotiations are continuing by someone somewhere. Hope springs eternal. Under the banner of hope and change, I would hope the majority leader would change his mind and at the very least bring the House- passed measure to the floor for a vote to fund the military through the end of the fiscal year and avert a shutdown of the federal government, and make a significant reduction in spending. Anything less is irresponsible. Kansans are now calling my office. They have been all day, all week, all year. Their message is clear. It is time to stop spending money we don't have. The House-passed measure is but a small step in this direction and would keep the government from shutting down, a goal I think everybody would like to see happen. Let's clarify the facts. The national debt is over $14 trillion and growing daily. Some now say it is $14.6 trillion. We are fast approaching the debt ceiling and another very serious decision. I know the majority leadership remembers the last time the debt ceiling was raised. It was four times in the last 2 years. By the way, the majority spent twice as much in 2 years as was spent the last 4 years of the previous administration. If this continues, then by the year 2014 interest payments on the debt alone will be greater than all discretionary spending outside of defense. The debate or fuss about which programs must not be cut will not be debated on the floor of this distinguished body because they will all be cut. There won't be any money. The money will go to pay interest on the debt. The House of Representatives is doing what its majority pledged to do, what it was elected to do--reduce Washington spending. As a logical consequence--and it should not be a surprise to any member of the majority of this body or the minority in the other--the House passed a bill to bring government spending back down to 2008 levels. That is what they said they would do, and that is what they are doing. In March the majority in this Chamber rejected these modest cuts in spending, and we have been operating under a series of short-term continuing resolutions ever since. All of us know that government by CR is no way to govern. The leadership of the previous Congress failed to pass a budget last year, failed to pass even a single appropriations bill. We are still dealing with that abdication of responsibility. But we are where we are. The House passed another measure to keep the Federal Government open for another week, funded our military men and women and their families for the next 6 months, and cut government spending by $12 billion while we negotiate a long-term solution. Hopefully, we could continue to negotiate a long-term solution. I know tempers are frayed. What is bothersome is that the leadership refuses to bring this measure to a vote. They have the votes to defeat it. They also refuse to put forth an alternative proposal to cut spending. It is one thing to blame the majority in the other body and say you simply can't support it. If that is the case, bring it to the floor. Let's vote on it, and let's see what kind of an alternative the leadership here offers. The media is referring to this impasse as a shutdown of the Federal Government, but we need to be careful before we call this a government shutdown. The people of Kansas and all of America are rightly outraged that funding for our troops and their families is at risk, funding for most customer service support at the VA is at risk, and that funding for a wide range of economic development and agriculture programs is at risk. But that is not true with regard to one segment of our government. Just as the Army sings ``as these caissons keep rolling along,'' so does the perpetual motion machine of Federal regulation. The Federal regulation machine is such that even a government shutdown can't stop it. Earlier this week, I came to the floor to talk about the concerns I am hearing from our community bankers in Kansas. According to a summary of the Dodd-Frank act by Davis Polk, the act mandates that 11 different agencies create at least 243 more regulations, issue 67 one-time reports or studies, and 22 new periodic reports. Financial regulators have already issued more than 1,400 pages of regulatory proposals, and 5,000 pages of regulations are expected. These will create additional and significant compliance costs that will impact the ability of every bank to serve its community. They come on top of existing regulation, including 1,700 pages of consumer regulations and hundreds of pages of regulations regarding lending practices and operations that banks are already required to comply with, and they do in good faith. Some folks might think--and naturally so--if the government is shut down, regulators won't be on the job either. Wrong. Apparently nothing, absolutely nothing can or will stop regulators from regulating. In the case of some financial regulators, agencies not funded by taxpayer dollars, they will be on the job, and we can anticipate that the burdensome regulations will continue. Well, what about implementing the costly and controversial health care reform bill? Will a government shutdown slow this hugely unpopular program chock-full of regulations? Well, the answer, of course, is no. In the Secretary's contingency plans for HHS, under a list of what will remain open during this shutdown, she believes that ``operations of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight''--its a mouthful, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, the regulating agency under the Department of Health and Human Services that is working to issue regulations to implement health care reform-- ``could continue as funding was provided through the Affordable Care Act.'' Well, this is just another example of full steam ahead with ObamaCare, just like during the health care reform debate. The regulatory overreach that has become a hallmark of this administration is not stopped by even a shutdown of the Federal Government. For example, regulations like the one issued just recently, days ago, by the Department of Health and Human Services on something called accountable care organizations, also known as ACOs--ACOs used to be HMOs; didn't like HMOs too much, so we have something like HMOs, but now we call them ACOs--turned 6 pages of ObamaCare into 429 pages of regulations--429 pages in just 1 regulation. These new regulations empower Dr. Berwick, the man in charge, and CMS, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to make decisions about how medical care will be delivered in this country. So a government shutdown or not, under a cowering business community, the incredible Federal regulation machine goes on like a giant creature from a video game, belching fire, smoke, fines, and regulations. Nothing, not even a shutdown of the Federal Government, can slay the regulating dragon. This debate should not be about party politics. It should not even be about regulation, except I discovered the regulation is going on despite the government shutdown, which I think is most unusual, to say the least. This is really about reducing spending and finally trying to tighten our Federal belt. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. I said that by 2014 all discretionary funds would be used to pay off the interest on the national debt. The House has now passed a bill to keep our military families whole and the government running at 2008 levels while we try to work out a long-term solution. A Federal shutdown does not benefit anyone except regulators who under a shutdown will continue to regulate, now unchecked. I urge the majority leader to at least bring the House-passed bill to the floor for a vote. I thank all the people who have worked so terribly hard on the negotiations. I hope they are successful, even though ``tempus is fugiting''--time is running out. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it is my understanding I was granted 20 minutes under the leader's time. If that is the case, I would like assurance.