Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the contributions of Business Executives for National Security, BENS. Since 1982, this national organization has been a primary channel through which American business leaders have contributed their special experience and talent to help build a more secure nation. Founded by business tycoon Stanley A. Weiss, BENS operates on the principle that America's national security is everybody's business. BENS is a highly respected nonpartisan organization of senior executives and entrepreneurs dedicated to enhancing our national security by implementing proven practices of the private sector. Working with Congress and the Department of Defense, BENS helps protect the American homeland and build a more efficient and effective military. As the United States continues to confront domestic and international threats, BENS proves more important than ever before. BENS has provided distinguished service to the Nation for over a quarter century. This service includes reforming the business of defense, protecting the homeland, tracking terrorist funding, and banning chemical weapons. BENS helps our Armed Forces by slashing bureaucracy, streamlining operations, and cutting waste, making more funds available for urgent priorities such as military readiness and modernization. BENS is a pioneer in homeland security creating innovative partnerships around the country that civic-minded companies that provide assistance to local and State governments in times of emergency. BENS works with the Department of the Treasury to improve America's ability to locate and suspend suspicious financial activities that fund terrorism. BENS is a strong advocate of the Chemical Weapons Convention to eliminate the chemical weapons stockpile by 2012, reducing the chances such weapons will be used against the United States through a terrorist attack. Mr. President, I ask my distinguished colleagues in the Senate to join me in recognizing BENS and their commitment to national security interests.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, what on Earth is going on here? I am extremely disappointed. No, I am shocked. This isn't shock and awe; this is shock and shock over the Air Force's decision to choose EADS or Airbus over Boeing to make our critical new aerial refueling tanker. This is the Air Force, not Alice in Wonderland. I pay credit and associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, and thank her for reserving this time, for taking a leadership role, along with her colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell. I thank them both for their efforts. We are going to need a bipartisan approach to this to see if we can't get some answers. Simply put, it does not make sense that the Air Force would choose a foreign entity that has no prior tanker experience to build the next generation of refueling aircraft for the men and women of our Air Force. I met with the Air Force yesterday. I appreciate that. It was about an hour and a half meeting. It was not pleasant. We had what we call ``meaningful dialog.'' I am still not satisfied with their conclusion. In fact, I think there are many more questions that must be answered before this bid conclusion should move forward. For example, as the distinguished Senator has pointed out, why can't the Air Force brief Boeing sooner than next week? We already have leaks all over this town as to exactly what happened and the specifics of the RFP and the bid selection and everything else, but Boeing has not had a debriefing. Yesterday the Air Force said it was OK, that Boeing said: Fine, we are OK with a briefing next week on Tuesday. That is not the case. The two competitors were originally told that the briefing would be within 4 to 5 days of the contract announcement. The Air Force is not holding up to that bargain. Why did the secondary cargo mission--i.e., a larger plane--factor so large in the announcement briefing when this was a competition for a tanker? How could an airplane as large as the A330, which burns 24 percent more in fuel than the KC-767, possibly be valued as less costly? How did the Air Force evaluate the risk associated with a foreign government owning and subsidizing the Airbus tanker? Why were the fixed price options discussed at the announcement brief when the life-cycle cost was supposed to be the only measure? Is the Air Force concerned about delays and other issues stemming from the fact that EADS Airbus have never built a tanker with a boom? Will the Air Force need new equipment to deal with the repair of a foreign tanker? Why does the Air Force place cargo space over fuel efficiency and the ability to land and take off from more places? Where is this larger airplane going to land? Is the Air Force prepared to pay way more for the Airbus because of the amount of fuel it takes to fly them and the amount of capital it takes to open a brandnew assembly line in Europe? Is the Air Force aware that they currently do not use all of their available cargo space in the fleet? Is the Air Force aware that the Boeing 767 would provide even greater cargo space than they have now? What about the issues regarding the fact that the EADS Airbus company made the Lakota light utility helicopter? The way it was delivered, it can't even fly on hot days. They are putting air conditioning units in that helicopter. That makes it modified and makes it less maneuverable. Is the Air Force at all concerned with the backlash, described by Senator Murray, all across this country regarding the fact that they did not consider American jobs, much less the WTO dispute with Airbus or government subsidies issue with the EADS proposal? I can tell you, I hope I have been able to express my dismay over the Air Force's choice, but the problems simply don't end there. The Airbus frame will be made in Europe. There is no question about that. The nose will be made in France, the wings in Great Britain, and part of the fuselage in Germany. Bonjour, the Air Force has certainly gone into the wild blue European yonder, and they have never done this before. The Air Force gave no consideration to the fact that Boeing has built a tanker that lasted over 50 years. With every airframe being built in France, we are paying for the French national health care system. What kind of sense does that make? In fact, they gave more credit to Northrup Grumman for making other defense systems as recently as last year than they did Boeing. That is saying something about this competition when you consider Northrup won't even be making most of the plane. Airbus will. Again and again in this competition, the Air Force has not judged the two bids fairly. Not only did they not consider past performance accurately, they also placed a much higher price on the cargo space than they led anyone to believe. As my colleague from Kansas, Congressman Todd Tiahrt, expressed yesterday in the meeting with the Air Force, if they wanted an aircraft as large as the KC-10, they should have put out an RFP for one. But they didn't. They asked for a tanker, and that is what Boeing proposed. Airbus proposed something much different. It is my opinion that the men and women flying those aircraft are going to suffer for it. Make no mistake: Unless something changes, we will be dealing with the ramifications of this bid for the next 80 years. It will take Airbus longer to start up the assembly line than Boeing, and it will take them longer to produce a viable plane. When they finally do, that plane will be just plain too big. I am deeply troubled by this announcement. I expect to see a very detailed documentation on the questions we raised yesterday that were not answered from the Air Force. I also expect them to brief both competitors quickly. The long and short of it is, if this decision holds, it will be at the cost of American jobs, American dollars, if not our national security. I again thank Senator Murray for reserving this time and yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I say to the Senator, you brought something up that I think is very important. As you look at the various countries that form up EADS and Airbus and that will participate in this joint effort, which is subsidized, even though we have a WTO case against them, what happens if these countries do not agree, as the Senator has pointed out, with our appropriate policy in regard to the war against terrorism or any other endeavor? The example I would like to make is: Look at the amount of money these countries, in their gross domestic product, give to defense. The answer is almost zero. Look at the amount of investment they give to NATO, where we are now fighting al-Qaida in Afghanistan. A few countries will fight with us. Note the word I said: ``fight.'' As to other countries that are now receiving this contract, despite the fact they are subsidizing their own product, they are not fighting in Afghanistan. They are not contributing to NATO in a positive way. Some of them are there, but they do not enter into the battle. Now, here we are, with the American taxpayer paying for the security of Europe and Europe really not facing up to the task of funding and participating in NATO to the extent they can. Yet, in regard to our national security with this particular purchase--and if you do not have tankers, you do not have global reach, you cannot go anywhere, you have access denial, and you cannot even fight the war in regard to Afghanistan or any future place. Yet they are absent without leave, they are not even there. So I think my friend has made an excellent point and I thank him for his comments. We are going to join in an effort to see what can be done because this is harmful not only in regards to workers in France, vis-a-vis these workers in America, but it involves our national security. I think my colleague and my friend from Kansas has made an excellent point.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, will my colleague and friend yield for a question?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased that Chairman Harkin has included a proposal of mine in his amendment. Under my proposal, eligible elementary and secondary schools can offer grain products to students. Grains are a critical part of a healthy diet. They are an excellent source of fiber. The 2005 dietary guidelines for Americans recommend that Americans consume three or more (2-ounce) ounce-equivalents of whole grain products per day. A diet that includes higher levels of fiber-containing grain products provides many health benefits, such as reducing the risk of coronary heart disease. This proposal helps improve the diet and health of our children.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer and my friend from Georgia. I see the Senator from Missouri is the Presiding Officer. I wish her well in the Cotton Bowl against Arkansas, as we in Kansas go to the Orange Bowl. I hope she wishes us well. Despite what has been said, I am rising in strong opposition to the Brown amendment which I think, bluntly put--and I will say it the way I think it is--would kill the crop insurance program, especially in certain sections of the country and, as a result, endanger a great many farmers. I have often said it is more important to prevent the passage of bad legislation--counterproductive legislation, if you will--than it is to add more legislation to the books, regardless of the argument. This amendment certainly falls into that category. I am always amazed at the number of people who criticize a program that benefits our farmers and ranchers, some of whom do their speaking with their mouths full. It is truly a paradox of enormous irony: Those who enjoy the safest, most affordable food supply in the world, compliments of America's farmers and ranchers, with good intentions or not, do great harm to the very programs that support our producers in providing the bounty that is the modern miracle of American agriculture. It is time to stop. I understand the support for the programs that this amendment alleges by cutting crop insurance or using crop insurance as a bank. Let me go over those programs. Other than the Conservation Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program is the most popular conservation program in Kansas. Obviously, I am for that program. Obviously, I am for reasonable funding for that program. I have been one of the strongest supporters in the Senate of the McGovern-Dole, or what we call in Kansas the Dole-McGovern, international school lunch program. In fact, I was the Senator who led efforts to get all 100 Senators serving at the time to sign a letter urging them to keep the program under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. I was the House Agriculture Committee chairman who saved the Food Stamp Program when many wanted to block grant it. The Governors wanted the money, but they didn't want to operate the Food Stamp Program. So I have a little blood pressure, if you will, and heartburn when folks try to tell me my producers don't understand or care about these programs. Just the opposite is true. I take offense at saying the funding for these programs should be increased on the backs of our farmers and ranchers which will happen if this amendment passes. I get frustrated when we get amendments that will inflict great harm for the simple fact that some--good intentions aside; I don't question that at all--do not truly understand how a program works, and they don't want to take the time to get their facts straight. We have already increased nutritional spending by $5.5 billion in this bill. We have increased conservation spending by, as the ranking member knows and as anybody who represents farmers and ranchers knows, $4 billion, all the while cutting $6 billion from traditional commodity programs, including $4.7 billion from crop insurance. Haven't we already extracted our pound of assistance and flesh from our farmers and ranchers? Note that I say the crop insurance program directly affects the wherewithal of farmers and ranchers. It is inseparable. I will tell my colleagues why I think the authors of this amendment have their facts wrong, but first I want to make it clear what will happen if this amendment passes. This amendment does propose to increase the amount of quota share that companies must cede to the Government from 5 percent to no less than 15 percent. It could go higher, a lot higher. Quota share, pardon the vocabulary of agriculture program policy, is the percentage of underwriting earnings that a crop insurance company must cede back to the Federal Government. Currently that is 5 percent of earnings. Put another way, it is an additional 5- percent tax companies must pay to the Government prior to expenses being figured. In addition, if this amendment had been in place for the 2007 crop year, it would have also reduced the administrative and operating expense reimbursement to the companies by an additional 30 percent beyond what is already in the committee-passed bill. If we do the proposed changes in underwriting gains in this program, we will be ceding additional reinsurance risk from the private market, and it will go to the risk management agency of the USDA--that is the outfit that runs the crop insurance program--and the U.S. taxpayer. I don't think we want to do that. Additionally, we will make it more expensive for companies to service the program and provide it to producers, so much more expensive and risky that it may well cause some companies to pull out of higher risk or underserved States. That is the big issue. You might want to reform it in ways that will not affect your home State where basically you get a lot of rain but don't have a lot of risk and you don't farm--the seed just comes up--as opposed to high-risk areas. That means we may have States where crop insurance would not be available or, at the very least, there may be fewer options available from which producers can purchase crop insurance. If producers can't get crop insurance, it means they will be back here asking for ad hoc disaster aid. For everybody who votes for this amendment, if it passes, I want you to help me to come back here in regard to ad hoc disaster aid. Kansas is now frozen over with yet another blizzard. Even if we have a permanent disaster package in this bill, which we do, it also means we would be making it harder for many farmers, especially young ones, to get the operating loans and financing they need for their operation. Why would it be harder for them to get financing? It will be harder because most lenders and a good number of landlords require crop insurance as part of their business agreement. So if you take away crop insurance, you hit those young farmers who don't have a lot of equity built up in their operations. On the other hand, I am sure there are those who say: Well, look at the GAO study on crop insurance. It is important to go over why this is a completely flawed study. Personally, if you presented it in the private business world, I think your job might be in danger. First, it takes into account none of the increases in the participation in the program that have occurred since the passage of the Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000, reforms to the crop insurance program that I helped lead in this body, along with our great former Senator Bob Kerrey. We worked hard, and it took us 18 months. We reformed the program. Those efforts have led to increased participation, not only in the plains States but all throughout the country, more especially in the South and for specialty crops and everybody involved in agriculture. As I said, especially in the southern region, represented by our outstanding ranking member, Saxby Chambliss, but also in regions that grow specialty crops or that have been considered underserved by the program in the past. We fixed that. This increased participation increases the ability to make profits for the companies, but it has also led to a significant increase in the amount of risk they are insuring in this program. First, the study was ordered in the House--I am talking about the GAO study--by those who, shall we say, have been less than friendly to the crop insurance program and to our farmers and ranchers. That is probably the understatement of my remarks. Second, the GAO study, I believe, is counterproductive because everyone here knows you can get a GAO study to say whatever you want. I have been committee chairman three times. You ask the questions right, they respond with the answers you want. This GAO study claims that crop insurance companies are making huge amounts of money--we just heard that from previous speakers--and are much more successful than traditional property and casualty insurance companies. The first flaw in this study is that they pretty much compared apples and oranges. When looking at the business relationships between crop insurance and traditional property and casualty companies, they compared a 5-year period for the crop insurance program that represented what happens to be 5 of the lowest crop loss years nationally in the history of the program. At the same time they included a time period for looking at the business numbers of the property and casualty industry that included both the 9/11 attacks and Katrina--in other words, one of the worst 5-year business periods in the history of the traditional property and casualty business. If you take a comparison that shows one of the best 5-year periods in history in terms of insured losses for one sector of the industry and you take one of the worst 5-year periods for another sector of the industry, what do you think the numbers are going to look like? Additionally, this GAO report claims that the companies are making substantial underwriting gains on the premiums they collect which the GAO then assumes is all complete profit. That is one of the arguments that has just been made. Yes, companies do make underwriting gains on a portion of their premium that is collected, if there are not losses. That is the factor that has not been brought up. What the GAO fails to mention is that were a major loss to occur this year--i.e., the 1988 drought, what we have been through in Kansas, or the 1993 flood--the companies would also be responsible for these underwriting losses. In addition, the GAO report makes the assumption that any underwriting gains by the companies are pure profit. This is ridiculous. There are expenses that are paid out of those underwriting gains. The largest of these expenses is for costs to pay private reinsurance companies for the amount of risk they underwrite for the insurance companies. Let me explain this in plain English. It is called ``show me'' in Missouri. All lines of insurance, as the Presiding Officer knows, protect their investments by insuring their own risk with private reinsurers. That is the way it is done. Crop insurance companies do the same thing. If they did not do it, again, the risk management agency of the USDA and U.S. taxpayers would have to act as the reinsurers for the program, thus greatly increasing the risk for additional cost for taxpayers. We don't want to go down that road. So if you subtract this and other expenses to obtain net underwriting gains, which the GAO did not do, the numbers look a heck of a lot different. In addition, the private reinsurance industry has serious concerns with the proposed increase in quota share from 5 percent to a minimum of 15 percent that, again, must be ceded back to the Federal Government. Again, in simple terms, this requirement will force companies to cede an additional minimum of 10 percent of underwriting gains-- prior to expenses even being calculated--back to the Federal Government. Now, the authors of this amendment and the USDA call it a quota share. I simply call it a tax because that is what it is when you force any company to provide an additional 10 percent or more of their earnings to the Federal Government. Private reinsurers know the crop insurance business can be very risky. Yes, you can have several profitable years if you do not have widespread weather problems. But if you have a major crop loss across a broad area of the Nation--and I can tell you that has happened again and again and again. I see Senator Conrad over there on the other side of the aisle. Senator Conrad, for Lord knows how many years, had to undergo all sorts of bad weather, all sorts of weather-related tragedies. He had the famous chart of the famous cow named Bossy, that was, unfortunately, legs up and had undergone a rather tragic experience. I kept saying to the Senator: My Lord, I cannot understand this. You have had floods, you have had blizzards, you have had drought. I even told him one time: You ought to move. That is not an answer. If you have a major crop loss across a broad area of the Nation--more especially in high-risk Plains States, where we do produce, by the way, in Kansas 350 million bushels of wheat every year or 400 million; that is the other side of the thing in regards to what we actually contribute to the country--why then, if you are in the crop insurance business, you could have a substantial loss in the program, and some have. Now, reinsurers worry that the increased quota share, or the tax, will make it harder for companies to meet the expense of this insurance and will make them more susceptible to losses. Thus, some reinsurers may pull out of doing business with the crop insurers. If private reinsurers pull out of crop insurance, then under the terms of the Standard Reinsurance Agreement between the companies and RMA, additional risk will be shifted to the U.S. taxpayer. It is as simple as that. In addition to the quota share, the reduced administrative and operating expense reimbursement--yet another reduction--will increase company costs. The average A&O reimbursement--again, the administrative and operating expense is currently 20 percent. We have several studies that have indicated the actual cost for the companies of administering the program is around 26.5 percent.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding me time. I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Montana. Despite the fact our Nation enjoys but apparently some do not appreciate the fact that production agriculture does provide the best quality food at the lowest price in the history of the world to feed not only America but the world's hungry, we have heard repeated calls for reform--and I know my colleague thinks his amendment falls into that category--of farm programs. While targeted and pertinent reform is certainly needed and this farm bill does take major steps forward in answering those calls, it seems to me we must be cautious of what lurks under the banner of reform. We must be mindful of the unintended consequences of our actions, and nowhere in this bill is that more evident than in the livestock title. I represent a State where cattle outnumber people more than two-to- one. I have always said, usually they are in a better mood, especially with the weather we have been having. Cattle represented 61 percent of the agricultural cash receipts by generating over $6 billion in 2005; obviously more in 2006. I tell you this so you understand when I say the livestock industry is vital to Kansas and, I know, other States that are represented very ably in the Senate and to our national economy and our livelihoods. The underlying bill expands the scope of the Agricultural Fair Practices Act and the Packers and Stockyards Act. But these expansions will have major implications on the industry, and we must proceed with caution. In the livestock hearing held in April, witnesses referenced a study which showed alternative marketing arrangements account for only 38 percent of the transactions in the fed cattle market. The cash market is responsible for 62 percent. Only 4.5 percent of transactions went through forward contracts and 5 percent through packer ownership. More importantly, this study concluded that alternative marketing agreements do benefit all segments of the cattle industry. It is through these marketing agreements that consumers are able to buy specialized products such as Certified Angus or Ranchers Reserve, or all-natural products. Competition issues are nothing new to this body. I agree our producers need to be able to compete in today's markets. I share the concern of the Senator from Montana in this regard. It is the role of the Government to protect producers from unfair practices and monopolies. I understand the calls from some for increased Government involvement. At the same time, we must take careful steps to ensure that in any action we might take, we do not suffer from the law of unintended consequences and risk the significant gains the livestock industry has experienced to meet our consumers' needs. Regardless of the Senator's intent--I don't question that--I am concerned this amendment does that. This amendment takes away a business's ability to make decisions freely. Let me lay out a scenario I think can be fully understood. Let's say you are a producer who has developed a program that produces a higher quality product than I, another producer, and both of us are trying to sell our product to the same packer. If the packer picks you, not me, or any other producer to fill the contract because your product does perform better or meets the demands of the customer, under this amendment, I can bring a lawsuit for that or that other producer can bring a lawsuit against the packer, even though they were making a decision based on sound business principles. The language is as clear as day in this amendment, ``regardless of any alleged business justification.'' Certainly, a packer can defend their cattle buying choices as a business justification. This amendment would allow lawsuits to be filed regardless of this business justification. This amendment will result in all producers being treated the same--sounds good--regardless of how efficient or inefficient their operation may be and regardless of the quality of product they produce. I know it would be easy, maybe nostalgic, maybe something we would want to do as we are sitting around having a cup of coffee, to return to the production days of 20 or 30 years ago. The market has changed dramatically. Production today is more efficient because of consumer demands. In this regard, the consumer is king. They want specialized products. They want all-natural beef. They want Certified Angus. They want U.S. premium beef or many other products that are produced under specified standards that meet a higher quality. Thankfully, the entire livestock industry, from growers to feeders to packers to retailers, has made great strides in recent years to meet the demands of the marketplace. I am concerned this amendment puts all these consumer, market-driven products and investment at risk. This amendment does discourage innovation in the industry. Our producers would receive no premiums for adding value to their products. Why would anyone invest additional resources into their production system if they were not allowed to receive a return on their investment? This amendment, combined with the language in the underlying bill, will spur lawsuit after lawsuit and stifle innovation. This amendment does remove choices from producers and from processors and consumers. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. ROBERTS. I object.

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, let me say to my good friend from Iowa who is shaking the hand of my good friend from Montana that justice and conspiracy are in the eyes of the beholder. I thank him for his feeling for agriculture and his passion for all of agriculture and all that he represents. He is an outstanding champion of agriculture. However, in this particular case, I don't agree. I am going to use an example. Instead of cattle, I am going to use hogs. If producer A contracts with five neighboring producers to supply his contract with packer A, but he decides he only wants to buy from neighbor 1 and 2 because the others are currently having animal health issues, as referenced by my distinguished colleague from Kansas, the others are having these health issues impacting that producer A's performance and pricing. Neighbors 3 and 4 and 5 under this amendment can sue producer A because--yes, they have been injured because they are no longer selling hogs to producer A. So producer A's business defense is that animal disease issues in the barns of neighbors 3, 4, and 5 are producing weak performers, and he made a business decision to not buy from them. The Tester amendment simply takes away that defense. This is hogs, not cattle. So producer A will lose and have to pay damages and attorney's fees. I don't think that is the road we want to go down. Now, 20 years ago the beef industry lost market share. There have been a lot of studies as to why. Many livestock associations, State by State by State, knew they were losing market share while producing what is now defined as a generic commodity. Through innovation and management of genetics, premium products have been developed, and the consumer has responded. I mentioned the variety of products the consumers wish to buy and do buy. To return to this market scenario of 20 years will be a loss to consumers, a loss to producers, and, quite frankly, I am going to warn, there will be a movement to increase imports to meet these demands. If, in fact, this packer cannot get this particular product for a consumer demand and we have a generic commodity and we will not produce that, he will go overseas. He will ask for beef imports. That will be one of the laws of unintended effects. I urge the defeat of the Tester amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator. Yet this amendment proposes taking that reimbursement down even further. These companies are businesses. Like any good business, if you make the risk too high or increase the costs too much, you will leave the business. Now please listen to this: There are only 16 companies now participating in the crop insurance program today--16. When I first had the privilege of serving in the House of Representatives and serving on the Agriculture Committee, 20 years ago, the number was 60. It went from 60 to 16. If this amendment is adopted, I do not know where it is going. Some companies will not serve certain sections of the country. Perhaps it is not as profitable as some might claim? If this amendment is adopted, there may well be entire regions of the country where companies will simply no longer provide this service. If you add additional costs, I think there is a very real risk that the companies will either leave the business completely or at the very least begin to pull out of higher risk States and also those States that are classified as ``underserved'' by the Department of Agriculture. Bottom line: If you are a Senator representing a higher risk State or specialty crops, I would be very nervous about the impact this amendment could have on producers being able to get adequate crop insurance service in your State. For those who think companies would not pull out, I would remind you that under the operating contract the companies sign with the Government, they are not required to sell in all States. They can pick which States they do business in. I know some are going to say: Well, OK, but then why are we doing these A&O expense reimbursements when traditional property and casualty companies do not get them? That is a question with an easy answer. In the traditional property and casualty business, companies are not required to do business with you or me. If they do so choose to do business with us, they get to determine the rates they should be charging on their policies. They get to load expenses into those rates. And they can require us to pay premiums upfront, premiums that can be reinvested and build the economy. Crop insurance is different. Similar to the property and casualty business, crop insurance companies do not have to do business in all States. But once they decide to do business in a State, they have to do business with any producer who wants to work with them. They are not allowed to cherry-pick. Crop insurance companies do not set their rates. They are all calculated and established by the Risk Management Agency. In addition, producers do not pay their premiums upfront. Depending on the crop they raise, and changes in this underlying bill, they will either pay their premiums within 30 days after harvest or by September 30 of each year. So the companies float the cost of doing business until these premiums come in. What if a producer fails to pay their premium? The company is responsible. Now, that is a major concern. Out in western Kansas, where we went through 5 consecutive years of drought, in some places a lot of producers and their lenders have told me if it was not for crop insurance and direct payments, they would not still be in business, especially our young producers and small banks. If you adopt this amendment, you are not punishing the crop insurance companies, you are punishing all the producers and farm families out there who are operating on the margins, while providing this country with the most affordable and safe food supply in the world. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment that I truly believe would kill crop insurance for our young farmers and ranchers. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to allow seven States to more aggressively address the health and safety issues that threaten the citizens in their State, and do so immediately. I commend my fellow Kansas colleague, Congresswoman Nancy Boyda, for introducing similar legislation in the House. Last December, Congress passed amendments to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act in the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 to extend the Abandoned Mines Land Trust Fund for 15 additional years. These amendments established a new distribution formula that works through a 4 year,program that phases in funding. Unfortunately, there are currently seven States that do not meet the active mining threshold to meet the minimum funding threshold. Today, I offer legislation that would allow ``minimum program states'' like Kansas to receive their full funding levels of $3 million starting in the fiscal year 2008, instead of requiring the minimum States to follow the percentage distribution formula. This legislation will assist several other States including Missouri, Iowa, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Alaska, and Maryland. With this funding, States can begin to protect their residents from the dangers of abandoned mines sooner rather than later.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, this amendment threatens to undermine and kill the Crop Insurance Program so vital to farmers and ranchers. The amendment does not take into account the real world expenses of industry, including the list of the private reinsurers which ensures that the taxpayers do not pick up the risk. If we endanger this program, many farmers, especially young farmers, will be in danger because their lenders and their landlords demand they sign up for crop insurance. This is a genuine Kent Conrad chart, the veracity of which is unquestioned. If we look back to 1980, when I first had the privilege of coming to Congress, we had 64 crop insurance companies. We can see what has happened every decade as we further cut investment in crop insurance. We are down to 16. We had a reform with Bob Kerrey in 2000. We expanded it all over the country. If this amendment is adopted, I am telling my colleagues, it isn't going to be 16, it is going to be 5. Don't support this amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to allow seven States to more aggressively address the health and safety issues that threaten the citizens in their State, and do so immediately. I commend my fellow Kansas colleague, Congresswoman Nancy Boyda, for introducing similar legislation in the House. Last December, Congress passed amendments to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act in the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 to extend the Abandoned Mines Land Trust Fund for 15 additional years. These amendments established a new distribution formula that works through a 4 year,program that phases in funding. Unfortunately, there are currently seven States that do not meet the active mining threshold to meet the minimum funding threshold. Today, I offer legislation that would allow ``minimum program states'' like Kansas to receive their full funding levels of $3 million starting in the fiscal year 2008, instead of requiring the minimum States to follow the percentage distribution formula. This legislation will assist several other States including Missouri, Iowa, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Alaska, and Maryland. With this funding, States can begin to protect their residents from the dangers of abandoned mines sooner rather than later.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to protect the residents of Treece, Kansas from the potential danger of remaining in an area that is undergoing a Superfund cleanup. I commend my fellow Kansas colleague, Congresswoman Nancy Boyda, for introducing similar legislation in the House. Treece is located in Cherokee County, Kansas. The Cherokee County site encompasses 115 square miles of former mining area. Mining in this area dates back to the early 1900s and at one time contained the richest lead and zinc ore production in the world. Although the drilling stopped in 1970, the effects of over 60 years of mining can be seen for miles around with mountains of milling left behind. Below these mountains, and surrounding areas, are enormous holes large enough to fit a football stadium, and they continually threaten the everyday safety of the residents of this community. Cherokee County is part of a larger area known as the Tri-State Mining District that encompasses cities in southeastern Kansas, southwestern Missouri and northeastern Oklahoma. Within the Tri-State Mining District are two towns of particular importance, Treece, Kansas and Picher, Oklahoma. While these two towns are separated by a State line they are only a mere two miles away from one another. These two communities share more than a State line; they share a major highway, local stores, and most importantly the concerns of the aftermath of over 60 years of mining on their health, safety and the ultimate survival of their towns. Currently Picher, part of the Tar Creek Superfund site, is undergoing a Federal buyout. The residents of Treece rely heavily on the services provided to them by Picher. Without that support the economic stability and ultimate survival of their town is in danger. Therefore, in order to assist the residents of Treece, I offer this legislation today to authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to make available to the state of Kansas $6,000,000, in 2009. This money will be used for the voluntary purchase of certain properties in Treece and will also allow for the relocation of community residents. This legislation will provide the residents of Treece an opportunity to relocate to another town of their choosing. An opportunity that they may not have without the Environmental Protection Agency's assistance.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, as I said before, some of our critics--and we should have critics. We should have oversight. We are not doing everything right, that is for sure. And farm bills--I tell you, we passed the Rubicon. This is no longer a farm bill. This is a bill that should be titled--I don't know what to put first--but conservation, nutrition, food stamps, rural development. We have a brand new section for specialty crops, which is a good thing in that for too long they have been out of the farm program. I must admit I never had a specialty crop producer come in my office and want to be part of the farm program because, inevitably, you have to put up a lot of rules and regulations, although I understand this one is done by State grant. I do not know whether we are going to have a hodgepodge of different programs for specialty crops. But specialty crops are a very important item. So is that a small farmer. Do not misunderstand me. Small farmers have a niche market. Small farmers are into organic produce. Small farmers take their produce to a place such as Alexandria, which my wife tries to get me up in the morning to go and visit and at least purchase some fresh fruits or vegetables. That is a good thing. But we cannot rely on just those folks or small farmers as opposed to the 15 percent of producers. Of course, the criticism is, they get most of the payments, but they produce most of the food and fiber--85 percent. If you add that up, as I have indicated, that is 20 percent of our GDP. That is $64.5 billion worth in regard to the program crops I mentioned earlier. Yet you would think that everybody just takes them for granted. We are not an endangered species. We may be extinct in terms of the national media. Nobody pays any attention to production agriculture anymore. It is almost as if it is a bad thing to produce food. Go to your grocery store. I am always amazed when we have the opportunity to take foreign visitors to a typical American grocery store. It just knocks their socks off and their eyes pop out in regard to the variety we have there. But much of that produce in that grocery store on behalf of the consumer is produced by production agriculture. That is not a bad thing. That is the whole point I am trying to make. If you say, OK, somehow, if we go back and just limit it in size to a small family farmer, that does not work out on the High Plains. Yet Kansas is known as the wheat State, and we are known as the breadbasket of the world. The High Plains produce 1.5 billion bushels of wheat each year. That is what is at stake, not to mention the young farmers who do this. Well, I am very hopeful that through this process we can improve our agricultural programs to better protect our farmers and ranchers in times of need and to provide assistance to both those domestically and globally, increasing investments and stability in rural America. I know this farm bill tries to do that. In the end, this bill should be about the men and women in the fields and on the ranches working every day to provide the safest, most efficient food and fiber source we have seen in the history of the world. Our farmers and ranchers would never put the seed in the ground if they did not have any faith and optimism that it would grow and they would have a crop. We owe it to them to make sure we make this the best bill possible and do all we can to keep the ``farm'' in the farm bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I would like to speak for 20 or 30 minutes on the farm bill, if I might. I would first like to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Thune, the distinguished ranking member of the committee, Senator Chambliss, and our distinguished chairman, Senator Harkin. Let me point out that Senator Harkin did something very unusual. After handling one bill on the floor of the Senate, he then had the challenge of trying to move the farm bill, which is sometimes about as easy as pushing a rope. But he did it through committee in a day and a half. I think that is a record. I have been through seven farm bills, two technical farm bills that were really farm bills, and I have never seen committee action be expedited in that fashion. So I wish to thank the chairman for that. There were some differences of opinion. Obviously, we always have that. But he handled it very well. So I am in agreement with the chairman and with the ranking member and Senator Thune, and I think almost everybody on the Agriculture Committee, that we would like to see action on this bill. This morning, once again, I had the privilege of being on the ``Farm Show'' in Topeka, KS, America, on good old WIBW. That is where the farm broadcasters always ask you: Where is the farm bill? How is it coming? I said: Well, it is not. We have sort of a briar patch we have gotten ourselves into in regard to something called filling the tree, that is a fancy word around here meaning you cannot climb up the tree and climb out on a limb and drop our acorn or your amendment down to see if it would be considered. On the other side of the fence, let me say Chairman Harkin has done some work, and I think he has done the homework to the extent to show in the last three farm bills not many nongermane amendments ever popped up on the floor in regard to the farm bill. That is a good thing. Now, I am not going to be in a position to try to determine what is germane and what is not, but as I recall, there was only one amendment, I think it was by Senator Kyl on the estate tax, I do think that is obviously germane to farmers and ranchers, but that is obviously a tax measure, but that was perhaps ruled out of order. But hopefully we can get an agreement and say X number of amendments on your side and X number of amendments on our side and then proceed. I would hope we would not have to go to cloture to even debate the farm bill. But farmers, ranchers, their lenders, whether it be in Iowa or whether it be in Georgia or whether it be in the Dakotas or in Kansas, they need answers now. I hope we do not get into a situation where our only option is to simply extend the current bill. Now I am going to get to my prepared remarks. I have some points I would like to make. I will try to make them as short as possible. As I indicated to my colleagues, this is my ninth farm bill, either as a staffer or a Member. If you include the technical corrections I talked about, which sometimes means a complete rewrite of the farm bill, we do not usually say that, we usually say it is a technical correction, I have lost count. Sometimes those technical corrections may seem somewhat covert but on most occasions they are not. Each farm bill debate is unique. Certainly, this one is as well. I would like to start off by saying there is some good news. I wish to thank the manager of this bill for including some important provisions I helped author. Senator Conrad and I have been working on our open fields bill for quite some time. I am glad to see it included. It is clearly a win-win for sportsmen and also sportswomen, as well as farmers and ranchers who take advantage of the program. So that is a good thing. I also appreciate the authors for working with me to address my concerns regarding the rural utility services broadband loan program. The reforms included do represent a very real bipartisan consensus. That was an effort to bring broadband Internet to more Americans. That is in the bill. The committee bill includes crucial and very important language on rural hospitals. Senator Harkin was a leader in that effort, that will make a real difference in many of our rural communities. The rural health care delivery system is always under pressure in keeping what we have. As a member of the Finance Committee I know that as well. We need to strengthen and preserve what we have and then improve it. Finally, I also wish to thank Chairman Harkin and our ranking member, Senator Chambliss, and their staff for creating an agriculture security title in this legislation. This is something we have worked or on for several years. Now, despite the fact that our Nation enjoys but does not apparently appreciate the fact that production agriculture does provide this country and a very troubled and hungry world the very best quality food at the lowest price in the history of the world, we have heard a lot of repeated calls for dramatic reform of our farm programs. Now, while targeted and pertinent reforms in some of our programs are certainly needed, and this bill takes major steps to do that in answering those calls, it seems to me we must be cautious of what lurks under the banner of reform. We must be mindful of the unintended consequences of our actions. Nowhere in this bill is that more evident than in the livestock title. I represent a State where cattle outnumber people more than two to one. Cattle represented 61 percent of the agriculture cash receipts by generating over $6 billion in 2005. That is a lot of money. I tell you this, so you understand that when I say the livestock industry is vital to Kansas and the country and our economy out there on the high plains and also to our livelihoods. Now, competition issues are nothing new to this body. I understand that. I agree that our producers need to be able to compete in today's markets. It is the role of the Government to protect producers from unfair practices and monopolies, and I understand the calls from some for increased Government involvement and oversight. At the same time, we must take careful steps to ensure that in any action we might take, we do not suffer from the law of unintended consequences and risk the significant gains the livestock industry has experienced. It has changed dramatically. During this debate, we have heard from several Members about how farm bill debates rarely fall along party lines and traditionally follow regional interests. This may seem odd to those who have not worked on a farm bill before, but that is the case. Agriculture in one region can mean something different, very different, than agriculture in some other region. These differences do not just include the crops and the commodities that are produced, there are significant differences in practices, farming practices, and input costs, what it costs to have a successful cropping operation and risk; risk, which is a big-time consideration among the different regions. We have low risk in certain States, where I have often said in jest, where they simply put the seed in the ground, they do not farm it, it just comes up, as opposed to other areas where we have high risk, we really have to farm the ground and other areas. As a Senator from a State with higher risk agriculture, and there are many of us representing these States, many of our current farm programs unfortunately have not worked for our constituents. However, some of them do. In recent years, they have represented a lifeline to our hard- pressed producers who needed a lifeline, and it has been their only lifeline. In particular, I am talking about direct payments and crop insurance. I will come back to that and come back to that and come back to that. This is why it is vital that as a Federal Government, we craft farm programs that do not merely benefit one region or one crop but that we draft legislation that is national in scope. So reducing programs that benefit one region to increase programs that benefit another region is a dangerous enterprise. I caution my colleagues against taking this route. If we want a farm bill that represents the entirety of agriculture, we must not play games that pit one sector of agriculture against another. I remember the days of the whole herd buyout back when I was privileged to be a Member of the House of Representatives. That may have been of help--I underscore the word may--to the dairy industry, but it put a lot of livestock producers out of business. I underscored that in my mind and to my colleagues at that time, that we must not get into another situation where one section of agriculture is competing against another and putting them at a disadvantage. We certainly do not need that. For several years now I have been telling everybody who will listen about how the current farm bill does not provide assistance when our producers need it the most. When Mother Nature starts stirring up trouble--and we have seen that in Kansas and other States, either through a drought for, 2, 3, 4 years, or a flood, or a freeze, or tornadoes, I don't know what could come next from Mother Nature--our producers in the field take it on the chin and in the pocketbook. Yields go down; prices jump up. Again, the only programs that do provide them any cover are direct payments and crop insurance. The countercyclical program currently in the farm bill, which when we wrote it we predicted prices would be lower, simply doesn't offer them a payment. So if you lose a crop, the only thing you get again is a direct payment and crop insurance. In regard to crop insurance, during a drought your average production history goes down, and that impacts your crop insurance that will allow you to work with your lender and stay in business. This story isn't new to anybody who farms in what we call the breadbasket of the world. Thankfully this bill does not cut direct payments. I know direct payments may seem like an easy target or a bank, for some, but to those in the fields, our farmers, the direct payment program helps them produce the safest, most abundant food supply in the world. Once again, the standard farm program rationale--I know Chairman Harkin has made these comments, I have made them, everybody connected with the Agriculture Committee and agriculture in general has made these comments--our farm programs are a big reason why we in the United States enjoy a market where we spend only 10 cents of each dollar of our disposable income on food. That is one dime. That frees up 90 cents for the consumer to spend on other things, whether it be housing, health care, education, leisure time activity, whatever. That is the lowest in the history of the world. This speech used to be made by leaders in the House Ag Committee some years ago. Then it was 18 cents, 19, 20. Now it is one dime we spend in regard to food, freeing up 90 cents. Without farm programs, that consumer would have to rely on market disruptions that happen and the fluctuations that happen, they would be at a big disadvantage, especially those disadvantaged and living in the cities. We need to thank our producers for this. But if you look at this farm bill, you will see that only 14 percent now goes to the commodity title. When Senator Conrad was on the floor earlier this week, he informed us that commodity title payments under this bill represent a mere one-quarter of 1 percent of all Federal outlays. In fact, $6 billion comes out of the commodity title to pay for initiatives in other titles. That $6 billion comes out of the pocketbooks of the folks who provide the food and fiber for a troubled and hungry world for other programs. I am not trying to perjure other programs. They are good programs. But we should not take it out of the hides of farmers and ranchers who desperately need help when they lose a crop. The conservation title receives an increase of over $4 billion, appropriate, but it is up $4 billion. A plus-up in nutrition program funding is over $5.5 billion which brings total nutrition title spending to two-thirds of the entire bill. I know there are amendments being considered that will take more out of the commodity program, give more to nutrition programs. I suggest that $5.5 billion in additional funding and two-thirds of the entire bill going to nutrition is appropriate. Let's work through that. Let's get at the Nation's problems of obesity and good health and wellness. That is appropriate. Yet I have no doubt that during the course of this debate, Members will come down to the floor and argue for additional cuts to producers to fund these other programs. I am not saying our conservation and nutrition programs don't need additional funding. I hope I have made that clear. Quite the contrary. I am here today saying this bill already puts enough of that responsibility on the backs of farmers and ranchers. Let's not pile anymore on. Production agriculture needs a voice in this debate. I am happy to stand up for those producers. We have heard it a lot in farm bill debates from critics of any farm bill, 15 percent of producers do produce 85 percent of our Nation's food and fiber. But in the national media and among many of the sideline groups and organizations, these producers, because of the size of their operations, are either described or tattooed as ``rich. `` They say ``How can you not be rich if you are farming 10,000 acres? How could you not be rich if you are farming 5,000 acres, whatever is cost efficient in whatever region of the country you farm in?'' In many instances, they are simply taken for granted or ignored. In some cases, they don't even exist. Look at their contribution. That is the key. Look at their contribution. Kansas is the top wheat and grain sorghum-producing State in the country. Since 1996, Kansas farmers have produced an average of 365 million bushels of wheat each year. If you are taking away programs that help them in dire straits especially crop insurance and direct payments, you are risking that 365 million bushels of wheat each year, which I submit is a vital national asset. In 2007 alone, the plains States--talking about from North Dakota all the way down to Texas--produced more than 1.5 billion bushels of wheat. We don't want to do anything that could injure or set back that kind of production. There is a reason we are known as the breadbasket of the world. If we cut these direct payments and crop insurance which are vital to sustaining this production, who will supply the United States and the world? Who will give ample supplies to the world food program to respond immediately to the humanitarian crises we see daily in the world? What would this do to our prices if we lost these producers? Do we want our grain supply to come from China or Brazil or somewhere else? I traveled through much of western Kansas in August. Much of Kansas suffered heavy losses on its wheat crop this year. Western Kansas for a change was different. Many of those producers had a bumper crop, thank goodness. But I want everybody in the Senate to hear this, for many of them it was their first crop after 5 years of devastating drought. Again, under the auspices or the way this farm bill works or doesn't work, they received no help other than direct payments and crop insurance. Stop after stop on my tour, producers and their lenders, bankers and farm credit, made clear to me one very important fact: Had it not been for direct payments and crop insurance during those 5 years, many of those producers would not have been around to grow that bumper crop this year. We are talking about anywhere from 350 to 400 million bushels of wheat, let alone many other crops. That is why I get concerned when I hear folks talking about cutting direct payments or crop insurance during this debate. It is why I will fight and oppose any such proposals should they come forward trying to use the logic I have described in these remarks. I want to make clear to my colleagues who it is they are impacting the most, if they come forward with amendments and attack these programs. They are not going to be attacking this Senator. They are not going to be attacking some political or some small farm philosophy or some business. They will be attacking the people who feed this country and a troubled and hungry world. I have said that three times because it is true. They will be attacking the farmer who has farmed land for 40 years or more, the land that his or her father, grandfather, and great-grandfather farmed before them. They will be going after the young family, the husband-and-wife team with two or three young children and agriculture degrees from Kansas State, Nebraska, Colorado State, North Dakota State, all of the land-grant universities throughout the high plains, and the list goes on. The young couple who will return to the farm to raise their families because they believe in agriculture, farming, rural communities, and raising their children as part of the family in what is called rural America, what we in Kansas call ``real America.'' They get up at 5:30 in the morning. They often don't quit until 10 at night. They are working hard and maybe farming 2,000 or 3,000 acres. But they are not rich simply because they farm 2,000 or 3,000 acres. They are not rich simply because they are big farmers. This business of trying to means-test farm programs based on the size of an operation simply ignores reality in regard to production and what we produce for this country and the value of that production. It is not the size of the operation. They are still young--I am talking about the farm couple again--so they don't have the liquidity built up in their operations that allows them to survive on their own through droughts that last 2, 3, 4, and, yes, even 5 years. They have kept the dream alive. They stayed in business. They secured the operating loans they needed because they and their bankers knew they could depend on direct payments and also on crop insurance. When you talk about that next generation farmer and where they will come from and who will replace them, that is the issue. These folks are highly educated. They are feeding this country and the world, but they are operating on the margin. The actions we take here have real-world impact. Yes, conservation is important. We are increasing that funding. Yes, nutrition is important, and we are increasing that program $5.5 billion. Yes, renewable energy programs are important, and we need and we are increasing the funding for these programs. But so are all those farmers out there, especially that next generation. To some here in the Senate, that young family farmer farming the 2,000 or 3,000 acres is a big farmer. I don't know what that means. Are we talking about aiming the farm program? I don't know. Senator Chambliss has heard me say this before. I am not sure what that means. If we are going to aim the farm program at only small family farmers? I don't know whether that is somebody 5 foot 3 up in the Northeast part of the country who has maybe 40 acres, maybe has a pond and an orchard. Obviously, the orchard would be organic. They are going to be farming specialty crops now that have a program, over $2 billion worth, probably more by the time we get through. Maybe that person is a small family farmer. I suspect he is sitting on his glider on his wraparound porch. He is only 5 foot 3 so he is a small farmer, and he only has 40 acres. He has a three-legged dog named Lucky and he pats him on his head and reads his Gentleman's Quarterly. He is a retired airline pilot and his wife works downtown as a stockbroker. I have a big farmer. He is 6 foot 3. He and his wife and three youngsters farm 10,000 acres because it is more cost efficient. Maybe some year they don't hit it very big. Maybe 1 out of 2 or 3 years they hit it really big. That production is vital to the food and fiber of this country. So somebody at least has to stand up and say: Wait a minute. What are you trying to do in terms of means testing in regard to size? Now, I used a little cynical or perhaps sarcastic example. I apologize for that. But that is where we are. Not everybody in America can take the time to come to the farm-to-market sales at their local communities. They are good. They are great. They are serving more vegetables, more fruit, more organic produce. I am all for that. But that is not going to make up what this country needs in regards to 20 percent of our GDP and $64.4 billion worth of wheat, corn, sorghum and cotton program crops, and enabling in this country, again, every consumer to spend only one thin dime out of their disposable income dollar for food. Well, I have some good news for you. Yes, they farm a lot of acres out there, these aren't ``big farmers'' or so-called rich farmers, but they are family farmers in every sense of the word, and they are struggling to survive. So consequently, I hope we do not make the mistake again of pitting one region against the other or one kind of cost input situation or one kind of risk situation against the other. We need truly a national program. I hope before we start offering and passing amendments around here-- once we get to that point, if we can get to that point--because we think we can save money or because we have had a questionable GAO report that we think about the impact of our actions in regard to the real world. I commend our chairman, Chairman Harkin. I commend Senator Conrad and Senator Baucus on the Finance Committee and Ranking Members Chambliss and Grassley for moving us forward without cutting any direct payments. Chairman Harkin has gone from managing the Labor-HHS appropriations bill on the floor--that is a tough challenge--to the Ag Committee farm bill markup in a day and a half--that is a record--to now floor consideration of the farm bill in a few short weeks. That is quite a task. Now we find ourselves in a legislative or parliamentary quagmire in what we call filling up the tree. Well, I really think--I don't know, Senator Chambliss--have we agreed to about 10 amendments on each side, 5 amendments on each side. As a matter of fact, we could take our amendments, and they would be in order, and then maybe we could not consider somebody else's. But that is not fair, certainly not in the Senate where everybody tries to amend everything. So certainly we could reach some accommodation here with the leadership and with yourself and Chairman Harkin to say a reasonable number of amendments could be offered--maybe 10, maybe 5, maybe 15. I do not know. But obviously we have a long way to go before this bill is ready to become law. The people who are waiting are the farmers and the ranchers and the bankers and the lenders. We are not going to consider this farm bill, apparently, unless we have a cloture vote. That may be next week. Then we will have other considerations on the floor as of next week. Well, the farmers and the ranchers and their lenders are in the middle of planning decisions, lending decisions. They cannot wait. There is a school of thought: Oh, just extend the current farm bill. The current farm bill does not work well, as I have said, again, in regard to a farmer who has lost his crop. We are sitting here in this legislative briar patch while they wonder what on Earth we are doing back here in regard to trying to pass a farm bill. There are still several things in the House and Senate bills that still need some work.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, certainly I will be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think it is the seventh. But I did not count the technical corrections that, as I have said, for some cases that really represented a rewrite of the farm bill.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss several important tax relief measures that expire this year. As several of my colleagues have noted, these provisions are important to many of our folks back home and have a direct impact on their daily lives and pocketbook. This tax relief has put more money in taxpayers' pockets rather than the government coffers and needs to be extended. I am pleased to introduce legislation to extend two expiring tax relief measures. The first measure ensures that we continue to provide a 7-year depreciation schedule for motorsports complexes. This is an important tax relief provision to hundreds of race facilities across the country, both large and small. In Kansas, more than 30 tracks can benefit from this depreciation schedule. It allows race facilities to make important safety and modernization investments under a depreciation schedule that reflects the ongoing need to maintain these facilities. The largest track in Kansas, the Kansas Speedway, which was just completed in 2001, has been the economic driver in the revitalization of Kansas City, KS. What was once one of the most economically depressed areas in Kansas is now one of the fastest growing. The speedway alone contributed more than $150 million to the local economy in its first year, creating 3,300 new jobs and generating $10 million in property taxes and $26 million in sales taxes. The track has spurred new investment in the area, including a 400- acre retail and entertainment center that has brought in more than 90 businesses and 5,500 jobs. Because of this growth, an additional $750 million in development in the area is underway. The area has become the largest tourist attraction in Kansas, bringing in 12 million visitors per year. As we look at extending tax relief, I hope we will be mindful of the tremendous economic benefit that these facilities generate in our home States. I am also pleased to introduce legislation to extend an important charitable giving provision that we initially passed last year as part of the Pension Protection Act. This provision allows individuals age 70\1/2\ or older, who must begin taking distributions from their individual retirement accounts, to donate those distributions to a charitable organization without incurring tax on the distribution. Individuals many donate up to $100,000. I have heard from many charitable organizations in Kansas that have already seen the benefits of this legislation, including colleges and universities, that tell me that many donors are making good use of this tax relief provision. At the University of Kansas for example, this provision has helped generate 94 gifts totaling more than $2.8 million. The gifts have ranged from $100 to $100,000--the rollover maximum. Smaller colleges are also benefitting. Sterling College, located in central Kansas, has an enrollment of 607 students. Last year the college raised a total of $2 million dollars in unrestricted gifts. More than 10 percent of that amount, $253,000, was raised as a result of this provision. In addition, one donor who had previously given $1,000, increased her gift to over $80,000 as a direct result of the IRA charitable rollover provision. This provision has proven to be an important incentive to encourage small donors to give, and is an important tool for charities to attract new donors. I encourage my colleagues to support an extension of this measure. I would also like to share my support for two other measures that extend expiring tax relief. The first is the deduction for tuition and higher education expenses, introduced by Senator Cornyn. I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation. This deduction is an important benefit for many families who are looking for ways to pay for a college education. It allows a deduction of up to $4,000 for tuition and related expenses. Nearly 49,000 Kansas taxpayers benefitted from this deduction in 2005. Across the country, more than 4.5 million taxpayers claimed the deduction. We have taken a number of steps in Congress to help families manage the cost of a college education. This deduction is another important benefit that we need to extend to aid families paying for college. In addition, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation introduced by Senator Inhofe that extends an important tax incentive for marginal oil and gas wells. Recognizing the value of oil and gas wells decline over time, the tax code allows depletion deductions to recover investments in marginal oil and gas wells. Under one method of depletion deduction--percentage depletion--15 percent of the taxpayer's gross income from an oil- or gas-producing property is allowed as a deduction in each taxable year. The amount deducted generally may not exceed 100 percent of the net income from that property in any year. However, this limitation is suspended for marginal wells prior to January 1, 2008. Extending this provision is critical for marginal wells, which are a key source of domestic oil and gas production and create thousands of jobs. Marginal wells account for 17 percent of the oil produced domestically and about 9 percent of natural gas. There are more than 401,000 marginal oil wells in the U.S. which comprise 80 percent of all of the Nation's oil wells. They produced more than 321 million barrels of oil in 2005. This production prevented the U.S. from spending an additional $16 billion on imported oil. Kansas ranks third among States in the number of marginal wells; and fourth in production from these wells. The number of marginal gas wells has steadily increased over the past 10 years and production has increased accordingly. Over the past 10 years, production from the Nation's 288,000 marginal gas wells has nearly doubled. Kansas has the largest continuous natural gas reservoir in the lower 48 States and ranks eighth in the number of marginal gas wells, and second in production from these wells. As we look to reduce reliance on foreign oil it is important we keep in mind that marginal oil and gas wells are an key source of domestic production. We need to maintain existing tax incentives to encourage these small producers.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Roberts amendment, No. 3365, to fund a small business childcare grant program. The program was authorized earlier this year as part of the supplemental spending bill. It does have wide bipartisan support at this time, as well as last Congress when it was unanimously approved by the HELP Committee as part of the Child Care Community Development Block Grant. This program is different from other childcare initiatives because it specifically targets small businesses and because it encourages them to work together. These small businesses are the lifeblood of many urban and rural communities. These grants will allow the local convenience store or the beauty shop, the auto shop, the implement dealer, the bank, to cooperatively work together to offer their employees quality childcare while they work. Right now, these daycare facilities are simply not available. My program is also different from other grants because it encourages sustainability and ownership over these childcare facilities. With an annual increasing match requirement and a 2012 sunset provision, my program offers a fiscally responsible approach to plugging the lack of childcare for many hard-working American families. I wish to thank Senators Specter, Harkin, Kennedy, Dodd, and Salazar for their support of this program in the supplemental spending bill. I am proud this was a bipartisan effort from the get-go, and I want that to continue. If you support hard-working American families, if you support small business and community development, if you support fiscal responsibility, then simply support this amendment. Let me say I recognize and appreciate the concern of my good friends and colleagues, Senators Coburn and DeMint. They feel this program could be duplicative. I do not think it is because the program targets small businesses and encourages them to cooperate with other entities to develop sustainable childcare facilities. Because of the matching and sunset requirements--50 percent the first year here, 67 percent the second year, and the third year, 75 percent, and then it sunsets--I think we are much more fiscally responsible. There was a suggestion to use TANF funds. These are being held by States in emergency contingency accounts in case of a sudden economic downturn. This would be another allowable use of these funds. That is not the case. This is apples and oranges. This is a fiscally responsible plan on the part of the States and we should encourage that. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to honor those veterans who have served their Nation as quiet heroes. These quiet heroes, otherwise known as Atomic Veterans, were exposed unknowingly to ionizing radiation resulting from atomic testing conducted between 1945-1963. Sacrifice in the service of your country can take many different forms. We see it everyday in our military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. We see it in the hospital beds of Walter Reed and VA hospitals nationwide. It is our duty as Americans, to honor the sacrifice made by our Nation's servicemembers. In the case of the Atomic Veterans, sacrifice was not necessarily something that happened on the battlefield, nor on the navel fleet. The price that many Atomic Veterans paid came due after their years of military service, when enduring mysterious cancers and other medical conditions related to their exposure to ionizing radiation. Their fight continues and the time is long overdue to recognize what, for some, has become the ultimate sacrifice. In recognition of the silent sacrifices made by these American heroes, I am introducing the Atomic Veterans Medal Act. It is the Senate companion to H.R. 3471, offered by my colleague, Congressman Todd Tiahrt, in the House. We owe a debt of gratitude to brave Americans who have worn the uniform. It is my hope that this measure helps to show the respect and honor these Atomic Veterans deserve.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to honor those veterans who have served their Nation as quiet heroes. These quiet heroes, otherwise known as Atomic Veterans, were exposed unknowingly to ionizing radiation resulting from atomic testing conducted between 1945-1963. Sacrifice in the service of your country can take many different forms. We see it everyday in our military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. We see it in the hospital beds of Walter Reed and VA hospitals nationwide. It is our duty as Americans, to honor the sacrifice made by our Nation's servicemembers. In the case of the Atomic Veterans, sacrifice was not necessarily something that happened on the battlefield, nor on the navel fleet. The price that many Atomic Veterans paid came due after their years of military service, when enduring mysterious cancers and other medical conditions related to their exposure to ionizing radiation. Their fight continues and the time is long overdue to recognize what, for some, has become the ultimate sacrifice. In recognition of the silent sacrifices made by these American heroes, I am introducing the Atomic Veterans Medal Act. It is the Senate companion to H.R. 3471, offered by my colleague, Congressman Todd Tiahrt, in the House. We owe a debt of gratitude to brave Americans who have worn the uniform. It is my hope that this measure helps to show the respect and honor these Atomic Veterans deserve.