Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, we have no objection to the Senator's request.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer and the expert staff we have working for us. I rise today to offer an amendment that I truly believe will have a positive effect on the quality of life for many hard-working American families. Access to childcare is essential to the quality of life of families trying to balance both work and family. Earlier this year, S. 228, my small business childcare grant program, was incorporated into and passed as part of the supplemental spending bill. I thank Senators Kennedy and Dodd for working with me to secure this authorization. This truly was a bipartisan effort. My amendment today provides the funding for this program so that we can make a difference for American families. Unfortunately, our small businesses generally do not have the resources required to start up and support a childcare center. The small business childcare grant program provides flexible short-term funding to encourage small businesses to work together or with other local organizations to provide childcare services for their employees. Small businesses will be eligible for grants up to $500,000 for startup costs and for training, for scholarships, and other related activities. Grants will be given to States on a competitive basis with the grant amount to be determined by the population of the State. Priority will be given to grantees who work with other small businesses, large businesses, nonprofit agencies, local governments, or other appropriate entities to provide childcare in an underserved geographical area of the State. The grantees will be required to match Federal funds to encourage self-sustaining facilities well into the future--50 percent for the first year, 67 percent for the second year, 75 percent for the third year. The Secretary is required to report to Congress in 2-year and 4- year intervals on the effectiveness of the program, and the program will sunset in 2012. It seems to me this is a fiscally responsible approach to increasing access to childcare. The matching requirement, paired with the program and the sunset, will ensure that Federal funds are used in an efficient and targeted manner. This program has been authorized at $50 million over 5 years. My amendment appropriates only $5 million for fiscal year 2008. I urge support for this amendment to help ease the burden on working families by encouraging the development of small business childcare programs.

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I call up the Roberts amendment No. 3365.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise today in support of an amendment to the 2008 Defense Appropriations Act. This amendment is in the interest of Kansas and our national security. I request up to $1 million be made available for Materials Integrity Management Research for Air Force Systems, MILTEC. This project aims to develop advanced wireless sensors to be optimally placed for aircraft structure health monitoring. The processed data will provide diagnostic and prognostic information that can be further used to assist in critical mission planning. MILTEC is currently operating through Wichita State University in Wichita, KS. I have no personal, familiar, or political connection to these projects. Amendment No. 3128

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I asked for 20 minutes. I thought the leader was going to come down and propose a unanimous consent request to lock in time. He agreed to provide me 20 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask to be recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise today to express my support for the SCHIP compromise bill. I believe this agreement represents a good balance and continues the historic bipartisan support for this program. On Tuesday, the House passed this bill with wide bipartisan support, and I expect the Senate to do the same. I also rise today, Madam President, to ask and to strongly recommend that the administration rethink the threat to veto this important legislation. Simply put, this bill should not be vetoed. Here in Washington, we often talk about the programs that directly affect our constituents back home. The State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP is the acronym, is truly one of those programs. SCHIP has long enjoyed bipartisan support, and I am glad we have come to a strong bipartisan agreement on a program that is critical for our low-income children. In Kansas, our SCHIP is called HealthWave, and it supports over 35,000 Kansas children. It is a critical tool for our hard-working families who would otherwise struggle to provide health care for their children. Renewing this program has been a top priority of mine for the 110th Congress. While our Kansas HealthWave Program has made great strides in providing health care to low-income children, unfortunately we still have 50,000 uninsured children in Kansas--50,000. There are 35,000 now covered by the program but 50,000 who are not covered. Many of these children are currently eligible for SCHIP but are not enrolled because of the lack of resources in the program. We can clearly do better. The bill before us would provide the necessary resources to Kansas and other States in order to reach these low-income children and finally provide them with the health care coverage they need. Unfortunately, instead of talking about achieving rare bipartisan progress for these hard-working families and their children, this bill and this debate has turned into a political showdown. And, unfortunately, low-income children will be the ones to ultimately pay the price. I am very disappointed that before the administration even received the final language their minds were apparently made up, and a line was drawn in the sand opposing this compromise. Again, this was even before the final language was in their hands. And, to my knowledge, there has been little, if any, willingness to come to the negotiating table to find the solution. I think this is unfortunate, and I think this is irresponsible. The administration is now threatening to veto this bill because of ``excessive spending'' and their belief this bill is a step toward federalization of health care. Now, I agree with those concerns. I agree with those concerns. I am not for excessive spending, and I strongly oppose the federalization of health care. And if the administration's concerns with this bill were accurate, I would support a veto. But, bluntly put, they are not. I do not believe the bill we are debating represents irresponsible spending. Instead, this bill provides necessary funding to States to cover children who should already be covered under the program. And I know there are some who believe this bill is too expensive, but there are also others who believe this bill doesn't go far enough. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle wanted a $50 billion to $75 billion expansion of SCHIP. Many in my caucus would have preferred a $5 billion increase. As a result, we had to try to find middle ground, and we did just that. What we are debating today is something that is often hard to come by these days in Washington. It is called a bipartisan, bicameral compromise. Now, the agreement provides $35 billion in new funding for SCHIP and targets the program back to its original focus--low-income children. Let me repeat that. This bill targets the program back to its original focus--low-income children. We should all understand that despite the partisan bickering and the rhetoric that has poisoned the Halls of both the House and Senate, bipartisanship and compromise are absolutely necessary to achieve--to achieve--good policy. And I know President Bush understands this. In fact, the administration has been successful in working with my friends on the other side of the aisle on many issues during these two terms to achieve good legislation. One good example is the historic tax relief we were able to achieve. Obviously, that final compromise required give and take from both sides of the aisle, and this tax relief is now putting money back into the pocketbooks of our constituents back home. I was a conferee on the No Child Left Behind legislation and know how closely the administration and Senator Kennedy and Congressman Miller and others had to work to find any common ground. That bill was certainly a great testament to bipartisanship, and we are trying to fix some of the problems in that bill on a bipartisan basis. The SCHIP bill is yet another example of hard work to come together and find common ground. Of course, I am not pleased with everything in the bill, and I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same. However, this bill represents a good bipartisan compromise, with the ultimate goal of providing health care coverage to low-income children. The alternative that is proposed by the administration is threatening a veto and insisting upon a larger health care reform debate. I appreciate the administration's passion and persistence on having a broader health care debate. However, holding a children's health insurance bill hostage is not the right way to achieve this goal. I support the goals of reforming the Tax Code to promote the purchase of private health insurance. Let me repeat that, Madam President. I support the goals of reforming the Tax Code to promote the purchase of private health insurance. But I have yet to see a plan from the administration that can actually pass the Congress. In fact, I have yet to see an actual plan from the administration. I have yet to see bullet points from the administration. I have yet to see any plan that can be articulated in some fashion to sell to the American public or to the Members of this body. We don't even have an acronym for this plan. My word, you can't do anything around here without an acronym. The administration has also raised concerns that this bill is a march toward the federalization of health care. I would argue that is simply not true. I would never support a bill to federalize health care. I remember that battle a decade ago. There is no way I want to go down that road again. I think it is important to point out what I think is a paradox of enormous irony in regard to the claim that this bill is a step toward the federalization of health care. In reality, this administration has approved waivers--approved waivers--to cover adults under a children's health care insurance program. Let me repeat that. Under this administration's watch, we now have 14 States covering adults under the Children's Health Insurance Program. Now, this administration and others expressed grave concern that SCHIP is the next step to universal health care. Yet this very same administration is approving waivers to cover adults under a children's health program. And, unfortunately, a number of these States are covering more adults through their SCHIP program than they do children, even while high rates of uninsured children still remain. This is not fair. This is not right. It is wrong. I don't mean to pick on other States, but let's take a look at a few examples. New Jersey now covers individuals up to 350 percent of the Federal poverty level and spends over 40 percent of its SCHIP funds on adults. This is even while over 100,000 low-income children in the State remain uninsured. This isn't right. Earlier this year, Congress had to pass a stopgap funding measure to plug 14 State SCHIP shortfalls. Of the 14 States that got this emergency funding, five--five--cover adults. One of these States was Illinois, which spends over 50 percent of its SCHIP funds on adults. Wisconsin covers more adults than children under SCHIP--75 percent to be exact. And the administration just approved an extension of their waiver to cover adults. Minnesota covers more adults on their SCHIP program than they do children. The same is true for Michigan, and the same is true for Arizona. Now, I am not trying to pick on these States. I can go on and on because, again, there are currently 14 that cover adults on a program that was meant for children. And how are these States able to cover adults under the Children's Health Insurance Program? Again, through waivers approved by this administration. This is certainly not fair to States such as Kansas that have been playing by the rules and targeting our programs to low-income children. I am beginning to wonder if we have the wrong name for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. I don't think it was intended to be the adult health care insurance program. The greatest paradox of enormous irony, however, is that this bill actually stops the waivers this administration has been so generously granting to States to cover adults by not allowing more adult waivers to be approved. Let me say that again. The greatest paradox of enormous irony is that this bill actually stops the waivers this administration has been so generously granting the States to cover adults by not allowing more adult waivers to be approved. This means future administrations that may want to use SCHIP as a means to expand government health care to adults will be prevented by law from doing so. As a result, this bill ensures that the Children's Health Insurance Program remains just that--a program for low-income children. This bill also phases out childless adults currently being covered with SCHIP funds and lowers the Federal matching rate for States that currently have waivers to cover parents and now must meet certain benchmarks in covering low-income children. As a result, this bill brings excessive spending on adult populations in check. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that spending on adults would be over $1 billion higher under current law over the next 5 years than it would be under this compromise. This bill is more fiscally responsible than the administration's approach or an extension of this program by $1 billion. Most importantly, this bill ensures that we are putting kids first and returns the program to its original purpose--providing health care coverage to low-income children. Now, on the income eligibility front, the administration unfortunately is claiming this bill does things that the bill simply does not do. It is sort of an ``SCHIP In Wonderland.'' For example, the President claimed in a speech last week that this bill expands SCHIP coverage to families making over $80,000 a year. I just have to ask the speech writer for the President, are you reading the same bill I am reading? Are you reading the same bill that we are discussing on the floor of the Senate? You can twist the facts, but facts are stubborn things, Madam President. In fact, this bill reduces the matching payment incentives that States have had for so long to cover individuals at higher income levels. In addition, by the year 2010, this bill--this bill--denies Federal matching payments to States that cover children above 300 percent of the poverty level if the State cannot meet a certain target in covering low-income children in either public or private insurance plans. And let me emphasize private insurance plans. I think it is important to remind the administration that a State can only cover children above 200 percent of the poverty level if the administration approves the State's application or waiver. I repeat: A State can only cover children above 200 percent of the poverty level if the administration or any administration approves that State's application or waiver. This is current law and this bill does not change that. More importantly, this bill actually provides incentives and bonus payments for States to cover children under 200 percent of the poverty level in order to truly put the focus of this program back on low- income children. The bill also addresses the importance of including the private market in the SCHIP program. Let me repeat that for all those who want a private approach in regard to private markets, in regard to insurance: The bill addresses the importance of including the private market in the SCHIP program. In fact, the American Health Insurance Plans, also known as AHIP--that is their acronym--on Monday announced their support for this compromise bill. AHIP is the national trade organization which represents over 1,300 private health insurance companies. The compromise makes it easier for States to provide premium assistance for children to get health care coverage through the private market--that is the goal of the administration and that should be our goal as well--rather than relying on SCHIP. That is in this bill. This is an important choice for families who would prefer a private choice in health care. This bill also requires the GAO and the Institute of Medicine to produce analyses in the most accurate and reliable way to measure the rate of public and private insurance coverage and on best practices for States in addressing the issue of something called ``crowdout.'' That means children switching from private health insurance to SCHIP. So we have a study to determine exactly how we fix that. In the ultimate paradox of enormous irony, it seems the administration is threatening to veto a bill which does exactly what they want us to do in focusing SCHIP on low-income children and making sure the program does not become the vehicle for universal health care. This bill gets adults off the program. It targets it to low-income children. It ensures appropriate steps are taken to discourage crowdout and it encourages private market participation. I am proud to support this important bill, and I hope those who have concerns can instead focus on the positive benefits this bill will bring our low-income children and their hard-working families. I especially thank our chairman, Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Grassley, Senator Hatch, all of our House colleagues for their tireless work on getting this bill together. At the start of these negotiations I made a commitment to work with my colleagues to find a bipartisan solution to renew this important program. I am holding to that commitment today and am pleased to support this bill. I also state to the administration I will lend my support to override the President's veto if he chooses to wield his veto pen. However, I hope--I hope--I hope the President heeds our advice and makes the right decision for our children by signing this bill into law. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to ensure that noncustodial parents pay child support, instead of fleeing off to hide from their responsibilities. I commend my fellow Kansas colleagues, Congressman Dennis Moore and Congressman Jerry Moran, for introducing similar legislation in the House. The problem is this: noncustodial parents could potentially avoid paying their responsible share of child support by leaving the country. State child support enforcement agencies must certify cases to the State Department for passport denial if the child support debt is over $2,500. The loophole that emerges is for those deadbeat parents who already have a passport. Under current implementation of the law, the next opportunity for enforcement is at the renewal of the passport, which could be several years down the road. The legislation I offer today closes that loophole, and simply instructs the State Department to revoke, in addition to denying, a noncustodial parent's passport once the individual's child support debt exceeds $2,500. Studies show that the receipt of child support is a key factor that keeps a child and single parent family from living in or near poverty. Beyond the financial security that steady child support provides, there is a greater likelihood that noncustodial parents are personally involved in their child's life. If a parent shows responsibility financially, there is a bigger chance that he or she is involved emotionally. The impact of a noncustodial parent's involvement in his child's life, in many cases, results in better grades and fewer behavioral problems. In Kansas alone, there are currently 131,000 child support cases open, including those receiving public assistance, and those above that income bracket. Last year, the Kansas Child Support Enforcement Program collected $156 million in child support. Now, you might ask: What percentage of the population will this help? I would concede that, although this may not impact a high percentage of those children and families receiving child support, the impact on an individual family is very significant. According to my state's limited records on this issue, approximately 50 passport applications and renewals are denied on a yearly basis. That figure does not include those passports that should be revoked. The Kansas Child Support Enforcement Program estimates that the number of deadbeat parents affected would increase to 250. The security afforded by the steady stream of child support could be the lone determinant of a family living in poverty or existing on adequate financial ground. I encourage my colleagues to add their support to this important fix. We must ensure that the tools provided to the states have the teeth necessary to discourage deadbeat parents from running out on their financial responsibilities.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to ensure that noncustodial parents pay child support, instead of fleeing off to hide from their responsibilities. I commend my fellow Kansas colleagues, Congressman Dennis Moore and Congressman Jerry Moran, for introducing similar legislation in the House. The problem is this: noncustodial parents could potentially avoid paying their responsible share of child support by leaving the country. State child support enforcement agencies must certify cases to the State Department for passport denial if the child support debt is over $2,500. The loophole that emerges is for those deadbeat parents who already have a passport. Under current implementation of the law, the next opportunity for enforcement is at the renewal of the passport, which could be several years down the road. The legislation I offer today closes that loophole, and simply instructs the State Department to revoke, in addition to denying, a noncustodial parent's passport once the individual's child support debt exceeds $2,500. Studies show that the receipt of child support is a key factor that keeps a child and single parent family from living in or near poverty. Beyond the financial security that steady child support provides, there is a greater likelihood that noncustodial parents are personally involved in their child's life. If a parent shows responsibility financially, there is a bigger chance that he or she is involved emotionally. The impact of a noncustodial parent's involvement in his child's life, in many cases, results in better grades and fewer behavioral problems. In Kansas alone, there are currently 131,000 child support cases open, including those receiving public assistance, and those above that income bracket. Last year, the Kansas Child Support Enforcement Program collected $156 million in child support. Now, you might ask: What percentage of the population will this help? I would concede that, although this may not impact a high percentage of those children and families receiving child support, the impact on an individual family is very significant. According to my state's limited records on this issue, approximately 50 passport applications and renewals are denied on a yearly basis. That figure does not include those passports that should be revoked. The Kansas Child Support Enforcement Program estimates that the number of deadbeat parents affected would increase to 250. The security afforded by the steady stream of child support could be the lone determinant of a family living in poverty or existing on adequate financial ground. I encourage my colleagues to add their support to this important fix. We must ensure that the tools provided to the states have the teeth necessary to discourage deadbeat parents from running out on their financial responsibilities.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I rise for the purpose of introducing important legislation for the moral and fiscal posture of our great Nation: the Employer Work Incentive Act for Individuals with Severe Disabilities of 2007. While there are obvious differences of opinion on the state of the U.S. economy, the U.S. workforce is experiencing relatively low unemployment rates. The average hourly wage and payroll employment levels are at an all-time high. As our economy has experienced a slow and steady rise, there is one sector of the population who has been left behind. The unemployment rate for the severely disabled is higher than it has ever been. Despite previous efforts to increase employment opportunities for this population, the rate of unemployment has risen to 70 percent, that means increasing the amount of citizens relying on Social Security disability insurance. In 1982, the amount of payments distributed through Social Security disability insurance was $15.8 billion. In 2004, that number climbed to $80.6 billion. According to a forecast by the Social Security trustees, the old age and survivors insurance trust fund will last until 2044, while the disability trust fund will be exhausted in 2029. The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted in 1990 as a means of leveling the playing field for citizens with disabilities. And while it has provided necessary reforms in employment practices, this legislation has had little to no effect on the rate of unemployment experienced by individuals with severe disabilities. Even government-run programs such as the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act or Randolph Shepard Act, have done little to improve this high unemployment rate. As our brave men and women serving in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan return, this problem will be compounded. Many of our troops have been disabled in the cause of protecting this country, and it is incumbent upon us to ensure that there are opportunities for them in the workforce so that they can regain a semblance of their lives back. It is time for a change in the way we think about employing individuals with severe disabilities. The goal should be to create job opportunities for the severely disabled in the national workforce, not just in government operated programs. The Employer Work Incentive Act for Individuals with Severe Disabilities, a bipartisan bill authored by Senator Kennedy and myself, creates these opportunities while reducing dependence on Social Security disability insurance. This legislation gives government contract procurement advantages to those companies who employ significant percentages of individuals with disabilities in their workforce. Our goal is to employ at least 1 percent of individuals with severe disabilities, or 94,000 people. In doing this, we have the opportunity to save approximately $45 billion in Social Security disability insurance over the next 10 years. I know firsthand how important individuals with severe disabilities are to our workforce. In my home State of Kansas, persons like my good friend, Pat Terick, play an important role in local business. His agency, the Cerebral Palsy Research Foundation of Kansas, has long advocated the importance of creating job opportunities for the severely disabled. This advocacy group, located in Wichita, is dedicated to showing companies the advantages of hiring individuals with disabilities. Our bill will be a powerful incentive for businesses to enhance their workforce. I would like to thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership in helping to craft this bipartisan legislation. Special thanks to my longtime friend and to a great Kansan and American, Senator Bob Dole, cochair of the One Percent Coalition. With Bob's remarkable devotion to disability advocacy, it comes as no surprise that he is leading the effort to increase job opportunities for those individuals with severe disabilities. It is time for a change in the way we think about employing individuals with severe disabilities. We must create job opportunities for the severely disabled in the national workforce, not just in government-operated programs. With the support of my colleagues, this legislation will do just that.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I rise for the purpose of introducing important legislation for the moral and fiscal posture of our great Nation: the Employer Work Incentive Act for Individuals with Severe Disabilities of 2007. While there are obvious differences of opinion on the state of the U.S. economy, the U.S. workforce is experiencing relatively low unemployment rates. The average hourly wage and payroll employment levels are at an all-time high. As our economy has experienced a slow and steady rise, there is one sector of the population who has been left behind. The unemployment rate for the severely disabled is higher than it has ever been. Despite previous efforts to increase employment opportunities for this population, the rate of unemployment has risen to 70 percent, that means increasing the amount of citizens relying on Social Security disability insurance. In 1982, the amount of payments distributed through Social Security disability insurance was $15.8 billion. In 2004, that number climbed to $80.6 billion. According to a forecast by the Social Security trustees, the old age and survivors insurance trust fund will last until 2044, while the disability trust fund will be exhausted in 2029. The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted in 1990 as a means of leveling the playing field for citizens with disabilities. And while it has provided necessary reforms in employment practices, this legislation has had little to no effect on the rate of unemployment experienced by individuals with severe disabilities. Even government-run programs such as the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act or Randolph Shepard Act, have done little to improve this high unemployment rate. As our brave men and women serving in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan return, this problem will be compounded. Many of our troops have been disabled in the cause of protecting this country, and it is incumbent upon us to ensure that there are opportunities for them in the workforce so that they can regain a semblance of their lives back. It is time for a change in the way we think about employing individuals with severe disabilities. The goal should be to create job opportunities for the severely disabled in the national workforce, not just in government operated programs. The Employer Work Incentive Act for Individuals with Severe Disabilities, a bipartisan bill authored by Senator Kennedy and myself, creates these opportunities while reducing dependence on Social Security disability insurance. This legislation gives government contract procurement advantages to those companies who employ significant percentages of individuals with disabilities in their workforce. Our goal is to employ at least 1 percent of individuals with severe disabilities, or 94,000 people. In doing this, we have the opportunity to save approximately $45 billion in Social Security disability insurance over the next 10 years. I know firsthand how important individuals with severe disabilities are to our workforce. In my home State of Kansas, persons like my good friend, Pat Terick, play an important role in local business. His agency, the Cerebral Palsy Research Foundation of Kansas, has long advocated the importance of creating job opportunities for the severely disabled. This advocacy group, located in Wichita, is dedicated to showing companies the advantages of hiring individuals with disabilities. Our bill will be a powerful incentive for businesses to enhance their workforce. I would like to thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership in helping to craft this bipartisan legislation. Special thanks to my longtime friend and to a great Kansan and American, Senator Bob Dole, cochair of the One Percent Coalition. With Bob's remarkable devotion to disability advocacy, it comes as no surprise that he is leading the effort to increase job opportunities for those individuals with severe disabilities. It is time for a change in the way we think about employing individuals with severe disabilities. We must create job opportunities for the severely disabled in the national workforce, not just in government-operated programs. With the support of my colleagues, this legislation will do just that.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, who is himself a strong champion for rural health care, and thank him very much for those personal remarks that are shared by every Member of this Senate. I thank my colleague.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I am very proud and honored to cosponsor legislation along with my colleagues, Senators Conrad, Harkin, and several Members of the Senate Rural Health Care Caucus, to honor Senator Craig Thomas. The bill is the Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act. As we all know, last week the Senate lost a steady hand and man who has done much for his State of Wyoming. Craig was dependable in the finest sense of the word. He was the epitome of what I believe a Senator should be. On a personal note, he was not only a colleague but a dear friend, and I will cherish that always. He was also a fellow marine. In this case, Semper Fidelis, ``always faithful,'' is always appropriate. If anyone faced trouble in their life, the one person they would want by their side riding shotgun would be Craig Thomas. The people of Wyoming and all of Craig's colleagues knew that he fought for rural America and always put the needs of his State above all else. On the health care front, Craig was truly a champion for strengthening our rural health care delivery system and provided much needed relief to our hospitals and other providers in our rural areas. He served for 10 years as the cochair of the Senate Rural Health Care Caucus. He actually took the reins over as cochair after my fellow Kansan, Senator Bob Dole, retired from the Senate. As I know personally, certainly, it is hard to follow in the footsteps of Senator Dole. But Craig Thomas did this with great ease and with great pride. His steady leadership put the caucus on the map, and he made great strides in showing all of our colleagues the true needs of rural health care. I know the members of the caucus will miss him and his leadership greatly. One of the biggest accomplishments for Craig in the Rural Health Care Caucus was passage of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which provided a big boost to our rural hospitals and our providers. Never before have I seen such recognition and support for our colleagues from all geographical areas--large, small, urban, rural--for including these badly needed rural health care provisions. However, you would never know that it was Craig Thomas's hard behind- the-scenes work that caused these rural health care provisions to be included in the Medicare bill. Craig Thomas was more concerned with getting the work done rather than taking any credit. So instead of taking individual credit for his hard work and dedication on the Medicare bill, Craig simply applauded the entire Senate Rural Health Care Caucus and patted everybody else on the back--so typical of Craig. However, Craig knew that while the passage of the Medicare bill was a giant step for rural health, we still have much more work to do to ensure our rural health care system can continue to survive. That is why we are proud and honored to carry on his legacy by introducing the Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act. Craig and his staff have worked extremely hard over the last 6 months, getting this bill together, working with other members of the Rural Health Care Caucus to identify their top priorities. I thank his health staffer, Erin Tuggle, for being such a champion alongside of Craig. I know my staff worked extremely closely with Erin, as many others in the Senate staff have done. I have a great amount of respect for her hard work. Erin, we are proud of you and we thank you for everything you have done on behalf of rural health care. We had actually planned to introduce this legislation last week with Craig leading the charge, but now Senators Conrad, Harkin, and I and the other members of the Rural Health Care Caucus will do our best to lead in his absence. I have made a personal commitment to making sure we get this bill done and ultimately provide the much needed relief to our rural communities. The Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act recognizes that rural health care providers have very different needs than their urban counterparts and that health care is not one size fits all. The Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act of 2007, makes changes to Medicare regulations for rural hospitals and providers recognizing the difficulty in achieving the same economies of scale as large urban facilities. This legislation equalizes Medicare disproportionate share hospital payments to bring rural hospitals in line with urban facilities. This bill provides additional assistance for small, rural hospitals who have a low volume of patients. Often, these hospitals have trouble making ends meet under the Medicare payment system. The Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act also provides a capital infrastructure loan program to make loans available to help rural facilities improve crumbling buildings and infrastructure. In addition, rural providers can apply to receive planning grants to help assess capital and infrastructure needs. The bill extends to January 1, 2010, two incentive programs aimed at improving the quality of care by attracting health care providers to health professional shortage areas. The first is the Medicare Incentive Payment Program, which provides 10 percent bonus payments to physicians practicing in shortage areas. The second is the physician fee schedule work geographic adjustment, which brings rural doctors' Medicare fee schedules for wages more in line with urban doctors'. This bill also recognizes that other providers play a great role in the rural health delivery system. Our bill increases the payment cap for rural health clinics to keep them in line with community health centers, provides a 5-percent add-on payment for rural home health services and provides a 5-percent add-on payment for ground ambulance services in rural areas. One of the provisions in the bill Senator Thomas particularly championed is a provision to allow marriage and family therapists and licensed professional counselors to bill Medicare for their services and be paid the rate of social workers. Currently, the Medicare Program only permits psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and clinical nurse specialists to bill Medicare for mental health services provided to seniors. However, most rural counties do not have a psychiatrist or a psychologist. Marriage and family therapists and licensed professional counselors are much more likely to practice in a rural setting and are often the only mental health professionals available. Finally, this bill uses technology to improve home health services and quality for care by creating a pilot program providing incentives for home health agencies to purchase and utilize home monitoring and communications technologies and facilitates telehealth services across State lines. Mr. President, today I am proud and honored to co-author this bill on behalf of Craig Thomas. We all miss him greatly as a personal friend, confidant, and strong supporter. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife Susan, his sons Patrick and Greg, and his daughter Lexie. With this legislation, Craig is still with us.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent that I may be recognized for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I join my colleagues in paying tribute to our friend and colleague, Senator Craig Thomas. I always said if I got into a tough situation--using the allegory, a gunfight on Front Street in my hometown of Dodge City, KS--I would want Craig Thomas by my side. I also knew that he would be there. In that regard, it was only 2 weeks ago that he and Susan, his wife, corralled a group of supporters for me and we talked about his personal battle. He was confident. As Senator Dorgan has indicated, he looked good. And we joked with him of no longer being a member of the folliclely challenged caucus. His turn for the worse and sudden passing comes as a great shock to all of us. We served together in the House where, as in this body, he was always a voice of reason, a man of trust, decency, and commitment. Just this morning he was described by a fellow colleague as a ``lovely man,'' a description that does not quite jibe with Craig, a rough-hewn rancher with a gentle, quiet Wyoming demeanor, but it is a term that is true to the man. I do not know of anyone who did not like or respect Craig Thomas. In this day of rough and tumble public service and the Congress overflowing, it seems, in a cauldron of partisan discontent, Craig transcended all of that. In the end, the only thing any of us who have the privilege of public trust has going for us is our word. Craig Thomas set the gold standard in keeping his word and our trust and our admiration. The Senate, Wyoming, and our Nation have lost a steady hand and a man who did much for his special State. He was dependable in the finest sense of the word. He never sought the center ring or the spotlight; that was not his style. He was the epitome of a workhorse, not a show horse. I remember and I treasure our times together, especially when I first came to the Senate. We both agreed the length of a conversation does not tell anything about the size of the intellect. We also agreed that no matter who says what, you should not believe it if it does not make sense. Craig made sense. He did not need decorated words to make his meaning clear. He spoke Wyoming, and Kansas for that matter. Craig would take the floor during morning business, and in his calm, reasonable manner then discuss an issue of the day. And you sort of had to sit on the edge of your seat and lean forward, and as they say in his beloved Marine Corps, listen up. He talked softly, he talked low, he talked slowly, and he said a whole lot without saying too much. To some of us in this body he was, and is, a fellow marine. In this case, Semper Fidelis, always faithful, is most appropriate. As I said, if anyone faced trouble in their life, the one person you would want by your side would be Craig Thomas. I shall miss him greatly as a personal friend, confidant, and supporter. Both of the offices I have occupied in the Senate were previously occupied by Craig. I just thought if they were good enough for Craig, I would fit right in. There is a short book by Bix Bender called, ``A Cowboy's Guide to Life.'' In it, he describes the code of the West and urges men of this common background to write it in hearts, to stand by the code, and that it would stand by you. Ask no more and give no less than honesty, courage, loyalty, generosity, and fairness. Madam President, Craig Thomas embodied that code. Now, while our minds are full of sorrow and our hearts certainly heavy with his loss, Craig would not want that. In this regard, the words of Helen Steiner Rice come to mind as our thoughts and prayers are with his supporter, friend, and his wife Susan; his sons, Patrick and Greg; and his daughter Lexie. When I must leave you for a little while, Please go on bravely with a gallant smile And for my sake and in my name, Live on and do all things the same. Spend not your life in empty days, But fill each waking hour in useful ways. Reach out your hand in comfort and in cheer, And I in turn will comfort you and hold you near. Bless Craig Thomas. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise today to speak about rural America, and the need to ensure that this cornerstone of our way of life has the same access and availability to modern technology that many Americans take for granted. Specifically, I am referring to the availability of high-speed Internet, also known as broadband. Broadband Internet is essential to rural development. It does for rural areas today what interstate highways did in the 20th century, and railroads did in the 19 century. It is key to attracting new businesses to rural areas, and helping our existing rural businesses grow and become more competitive. Unfortunately, rural America continues to lag behind its urban and suburban counterparts when it comes to the availability of this essential resource. It is not that rural folks do not want broadband, but only that they do not have as much access. In the 2002 farm bill, Congress created a loan and loan guarantee program to help build broadband out to rural areas that lacked this crucial service. The Rural Utilities Service, RUS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, was charged with the responsibility of administering the broadband loan program and using it to promote access in unserved, rural areas. Unfortunately, the agency's implementation and administration of this program strayed from the rural focus Congress intended. Instead of targeting our rural areas, huge sums of money have been used to provide broadband in urban areas, suburban developments, and towns that already have service. Instances of waste and abuse have been clearly illustrated by the USDA inspector general, in hearings held by both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, and in prominent news reports. There is wide, bipartisan agreement on what is wrong with this program. I believe that there should also be wide, bipartisan agreement on how to move forward. While a number of legislative and regulatory fixes have been suggested here in Congress and by the RUS, none so far have been comprehensive enough to surmount the challenges of deploying broadband in rural America. I have been proud to reach out to my friend and colleague, Senator Salazar of Colorado, on the Senate Agriculture Committee to work toward a solution. It is the Committee on Agriculture that has jurisdiction over this program, and it is from this committee that a way forward must be found. Together, myself and the distinguished junior Senator from Colorado, have worked toward a consensus driven, comprehensive approach to promoting broadband in rural America. On Monday of this week, we introduced legislation to accomplish this goal, the Rural Broadband Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation will provide the secretary with additional guidance to direct broadband loans to those truly in need by clarifying where, when, and to whom loans can be made. It ties approval of loans to a requirement of nonduplication of service, making this legislation significantly more robust and less ambiguous than the current statute. The issue of duplication of service, more than any other issue, has been the subject of criticism of the RUS. When RUS makes loans in areas that already have broadband service, it has a twofold negative affect. First, it undermines the market. Often, rural towns may enjoy broadband availability. Small, independent providers that are already present in rural towns have their subscribers pulled out from under them by a competitor who, because they have an RUS loan, have an unfair advantage with which to offer lower rates. This can threaten the very existence of some locally owned, independent broadband providers that invested in rural towns without an RUS loan. Second, when loans are going to areas that already have service, it means that truly unserved, rural areas for which this program was created continue to be neglected. Indeed, it is the outlying, sparsely populated areas that are in need of broadband service. These are the areas broadband loans should be made to serve--not overbuilding towns where the service is already present. This is unacceptable. That is why this legislation which I am introducing on behalf of myself and my colleague from Colorado will attach to the definition of eligible rural community, a clearly defined requirement of nonduplication of broadband service. Reforming and improving the broadband loan program means doing more than just addressing this one aspect for which it has been criticized. It also means eliminating unnecessary and unprecedented limitations on what borrowers are eligible to participate. In particular, I am referring to the conspicuous 2 percent telephone subscriber line limit. This limitation acts as a disincentive for growth; unnecessarily penalizes larger, but still rural-focused phone companies; and ignores the reality that more and more households are abandoning land line subscriptions in favor of wireless communication. The bottom line is that limiting what providers can participate in the program does nothing to expedite broadband deployment in rural areas. This legislation also streamlines the application and post- application requirements. For many small and independent providers with limited staff, it can be discouraging to look at a 38-page application guide to a 57-page application. What's more, those who go through this arduous process may wait for a seemingly indefinite period of time for a yes or no to whether their application is approved. To address these matters, the act directs the Secretary to complete application processing within 180 days and allows parent companies and their wholly owned subsidiaries to file a single, consolidated application and post application audit report. The bill further streamlines the application process by eliminating various other duplicative and burdensome application requirements, and directs the agency to hire whatever additional administrative, legal, and field staff are necessary to meet these requirements. The act also contains powerful incentives to increase the feasibility of loans. First, it allows limited access to towns where broadband may be available, but in circumstances when doing so is necessary to building broadband out to the sparsely populated and outlying areas that have no service at all. I do want to stress, however, that this is not a loop-hole that will lead back to the problems of duplication and overbuild. The majority of households to be served by the project financed with an RUS loan must be without access to broadband. Additionally, the act creates better transparency and requires incumbent providers to be properly notified when an RUS applicant plans on doing so. Second, the act ensures that collateral requirements are commensurate to the risk of the loan. Third, instead of requiring an inflexible 20 percent equity requirement, the act provides more flexibility for small and start up companies by requiring only 10 percent equity, and allowing the agency to waive this requirement so long as the applicant can prove that it will be able to pay back the principal of the loan plus interest. This legislation also codifies an innovative grant program based on the successes illustrated in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Broadband deployment in rural areas will work better once we know where it already is. To do this, grants will be made available to help fund partnerships between state governments and the private sector to map where broadband is available in rural areas, and conduct outreach to areas where it is still unavailable. I and my colleague, Senator Salazar, have always shared a concern for our rural citizens. I am proud to work with my neighbor to the west on this issue, and I look forward to working with my other colleagues on the Senate Agriculture Committee as we begin work on the 2007 farm bill.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today the Senate voted to approve S. 1082, the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act. I am very pleased the Senate took this action and I now look forward to its consideration in the House. Unfortunately, I was not present to vote for the bill, but I would like the record to reflect that I had planned to vote in favor of this legislation. Just last weekend, Kansas experienced a horrible disaster when a tornado devastated an entire community and took the lives of several Kansans. Late last Friday evening, the town of Greensburg, KS, was literally wiped off the map by an enormous tornado. As a result of this and storms associated with the system, 12 Kansans are confirmed dead, and all of the 1500 residents of Greensburg have been displaced. What we have experienced in Greensburg is unlike any other event in recent Kansas history. The hospital is gone, the schools are gone, every church is gone, virtually every business in the community is gone, including all of Main Street. Estimates are that fully 95 percent of the structures in the town are damaged or destroyed. Because of this devastation, I invited President Bush to come to Greensburg, KS, and view the damage from this unspeakable disaster. Today, President Bush is in Greensburg, and I, along with other members of the Kansas congressional delegation, are showing him the devastation this community has experienced, so I could not be present to vote for S. 1082. However, I want my colleagues to know that I support this legislation and would have voted in favor of the bill if I were present. I believe S. 1082 will give FDA the tools to ensure drug safety and will renew some very important prescription drug and medical device programs. I am also pleased the bill includes an amendment I sponsored with Senators Harkin, Burr, and Coburn to improve the drug advertisement provisions in the underlying bill. This amendment was accepted unanimously by the Senate. Our amendment addresses the first amendment concerns with the advertising provisions in the original bill and gives the FDA the tools they need to protect the public from false or misleading prescription drug advertisements. We believe this amendment is a more commonsense approach to dealing with prescription drug advertisements and ensures the public will get truthful and accurate information about new prescription drugs. I especially want to thank Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Enzi, and Senator Harkin for their leadership and hard work on this issue. I also thank Senators Burr and Coburn for their cooperation and cosponsorship of my amendment. This amendment represents the result of our efforts to achieve an outcome that is acceptable to all of us. The agreement that was accepted today is a fair compromise that addresses the concerns of all of the Members involved

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if that is where we are.

Mr. ROBERTS. If I could plead with the Senator for 5 minutes?

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. ROBERTS. I could not hear the amount of time I might be permitted.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Enzi and all of my colleagues for accepting my amendment to improve the drug advertisement provisions included in S. 1082, the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act. My amendment, replaces the drug advertisement provisions in the underlying bill with what I believe is a more commonsense approach to dealing with prescription drug advertisements. During the markup of this bill in the HELP Committee a few weeks ago, the chairman and Ranking Member Enzi committed to working with me to address my concerns on this issue. This amendment represents the result of our efforts to achieve an outcome that is acceptable to all of us. I also want to thank Senators Harkin, Burr, and Coburn for their leadership on this issue and for cosponsoring my amendment. Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Enzi, I want to say that I truly appreciate the hard work you both have done in putting together this bill. I know you and your staff have put in many long months of work to get us to this point. I specifically want to thank David Bowen of Chairman Kennedy's staff and Amy Muhlberg of Senator Enzi's staff for working so closely with me and my office on finding a resolution on the drug advertising issue. David and Amy, I appreciate your commitment and professionalism in helping us to achieve this compromise. While I strongly support the goals of this legislation to ensure drug safety and to renew some very important prescription drug and medical device programs, I have serious concerns with provisions in the underlying bill regarding drug advertising. I believe these provisions would infringe on our first amendment rights to free speech. Of most concern to me is a provision in the underlying bill to give the Secretary the discretion to institute a 2-year ban on advertising for new drugs and related restrictions on drug advertising. As a former editor and reporter for several newspapers, I feel that these provisions violate the first amendment and would do nothing to address concerns that have been expressed with drug advertising. Instead, we would have a situation where the Secretary would become the editor for all prescription drug advertisements and could ban drug advertising for up to 2 years. This would certainly put us on a slippery slope to restricting advertisements in other industries, and I don't think that is a responsible approach. The freedom that is guaranteed to us under the first amendment demands that we carefully consider any proposal that would impose a ban or other limitation on speech. The first amendment says, ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . .'' For more than three decades, this protection has been extended to speech in the form of advertising, or commercial speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has set down an explicit four-part test--known as the Central Hudson test--to determine if a speech restriction violates the first amendment. I believe the advertising provisions in the underlying bill fail the key parts of that test and my view is supported by constitutional experts, including the American Civil Liberties Union--ACLU, the Washington Legal Foundation and several other constitutional experts. However, I understand that there are strong concerns with drug advertising. I agree that we have a legitimate interest in ensuring these advertisements are not false or misleading. This is why my amendment takes a reasonable and commonsense approach to deal with drug advertisements. My amendment stresses the importance of assuring that advertising is accurate and balanced and recognizes that companies should be held accountable if their ads are false or misleading. My amendment strikes the 2-year moratorium on advertising in the underlying bill and instead allows the Secretary to assess civil monetary penalties--up to $150,000 for the first violation and $300,000 for subsequent violations--on drug companies that produce false or misleading ads. This will ensure that patients will know truthful and accurate information about new prescription medications in a timely manner, rather than having to wait until 2 years after their arrival in the marketplace. My amendment also allows the Secretary to require the disclosure of a serious risk or date of approval of the drug in the advertisement if he or she believes the ad would be false or misleading without the disclosures. My amendment requires that major statements about a drug's side effects, contraindications and effectiveness in television or radio ads be presented in a clear and conspicuous manner so as not to mislead the public. My amendment also does not change the current language in the underlying bill which allows the Secretary to review direct-to-consumer ads before a drug company disseminates these ads to the public. This will allow the FDA to comment and provide constructive feedback to companies to ensure their ads are appropriate and not misleading. Many companies are already submitting their ads to the FDA for review. Truthful and accurate prescription drug ads do provide a benefit to the public. Research has shown that people are more likely to go to the doctor, ask thoughtful questions and discuss sensitive health issues with their doctors as a result of DTC ads. My amendment ensures these positive aspects of advertising will continue, but also gives the FDA the tools they need to protect the public from false or misleading prescription drug ads. The agreement that was accepted today is a fair compromise that addresses the concerns of all of the Members involved. Again, I thank the chairman and Ranking Member Enzi for their efforts to work on this important issue, and I thank all of my colleagues for accepting my amendment. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Webb as a cosponsor of the Drug Safety Act.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont for allowing me to speak.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. My colleagues, last Friday evening the town of Greensburg, KS, was literally wiped off the map by an enormous, mile- and-a-half, level 5 tornado. As a result of this and storms associated with the system, 12 Kansans are confirmed dead--and I fear that number may still rise--and all of the 1,500 residents of Greensburg have been displaced. What we have experienced in Greensburg is unlike any other event in recent Kansas history. The hospital is gone. The schools are gone. Every church is gone. Virtually every business in the community is gone, including all of Main Street. Estimates are that fully 95 percent of the structures in the town are damaged and destroyed. But this is not all. Even as cleanup is starting, more storms continue to pound our State. Flooding and strong storms continue to compound the problem. Too often, while government does not communicate and work well as partners in times of need and emergency, sometimes we could double that for Congress. However, this weekend my fellow Kansas Congressman and the Governor of Kansas and I all toured the devastated town of Greensburg. We were accompanied by our State's top-notch emergency officials. I spoke extensively with all levels of FEMA, in an effort to make sure they had everything they needed to move into place, and I talked to President Bush to give him a personal update from a McDonald's in Pratt, KS. Let me tell you, there is nothing quite like speaking to the President of the United States from a phonebooth in a local McDonald's to let the surrounding residents know their Government does mean business. The President has been very supportive. We have been notified by the White House that he will be making a trip to Kansas to personally view the damage and visit with the people of Greensburg. The credit for this not only falls on Federal shoulders but those of our National Guard, all of the first responders, Red Cross, and many volunteers who, along with President Bush and the FEMA team and our State officials, are now working 24/7 to make it possible for the residents of Greensburg to rebuild and return home. I stood here this winter, following a blizzard that buried much of western Kansas, and proclaimed the resiliency of Kansans, our willingness to help each other and our sheer determination when faced with great odds. That determination is being tested again, but I have no doubt in the coming days and weeks and months that the story of Greensburg will progress from one of horrible tragedy to one of optimism and hope for the future as we help one another rebuild, one brick at a time. It may be possible, indeed likely, that as we move forward, we may need additional emergency assistance or legislation from Congress to assist the residents of the town that no longer exists. I put our Senate leadership and all our colleagues on notice today that we will likely be coming to you with any requests for assistance to rebuild this Kansas community.