Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent that Members have until 2 p.m. today in order to introduce legislation and submit statements for the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask consent the Senate stand in recess from the hour of 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will begin debate on the juvenile justice bill at 9:30. Amendments are expected to that legislation, and therefore rollcall votes can be expected during tomorrow afternoon's session of the Senate. As always, Members will be notified accordingly as any votes are ordered with respect to this legislation. Members who intend to offer amendments to the juvenile justice bill are encouraged to work with the chairman and the ranking member to schedule a time to come to the floor to debate those amendments.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the Promoting Health in Rural Areas Act of 1999. Health care today is at a crossroads. Rural communities face significant challenges in their efforts to recruit and retain health care providers. Hospitals and other health care facilities are facing increasing pressure from Medicare reductions. In 1997, Congress passed significant changes to the Medicare program in an effort to preserve the program for future generations. A new Congressional Budget Report says we are exceeding our expectations. In fact, since the beginning of the fiscal year in October, Medicare spending was $2.6 billion less than the amount spent in the similar period last year. While this is good news for the fiscal integrity of the Medicare program, I am concerned about the unintended effects these reductions are having on the beneficiaries who depend on Medicare for health care services. It doesn't do much good to ``save'' the program if providers can no longer afford to deliver the services and beneficiaries are no longer able to access these services. A new review by Ernst & Young reports that total hospital Medicare margins are expected to decline from 4.3 percent in fiscal year 1997 to only 0.1 percent in this fiscal year and remain below three percent through 2002. Even more shocking is that total hospital margins for small, rural hospitals are expected to fall from 4.3 percent in fiscal year 1998 to negative 5.6 percent by fiscal year 2002, an amazing decline of 233 percent. Kansas hospitals are expected to lose over $530 million. I simply don't think our rural health system can survive any more reductions. The Promoting Health in Rural Areas Act of 1999 will help to improve access, increase choice, and improve the quality of care provided in rural America. Health care providers in rural areas generally serve a large number of Medicare patients. However, Medicare reimbursement to rural providers is not adequate to cover the costs of these services. This measure takes steps to ensure fair Medicare and Medicaid payments to rural providers by targeting those hospitals with special designations in rural areas. Provisions are included to increase payments and improve the Sole Community Hospital, Medicare Dependent Hospital, and Critical Access Hospital programs. In addition, these special facilities are exempt from a new outpatient reimbursement system that is being developed by the Health Care Financing Administration. The Promoting Health in Rural Areas Act of 1999 also strengthens health professional recruitment programs and gives communities a chance to begin recruitment efforts before a crisis hits. Under current law, a community must effectively lose a physician before they qualify for recruitment assistance as a shortage area. This measure also takes steps to encourage the use of telehealth, a critical piece of the rural health infrastructure. Under current law, HCFA limits reimbursement to four groups of services. This bill will expand reimbursement to include any services currently covered by Medicare in a rural area. In addition, the bill authorizes a new grant/ loan program for telemedicine activities in rural areas. Compromise is a way of life for rural Americans. Rural residents have fewer choices of physicians or hospitals. Rural providers must settle for fewer medical colleagues to rely on for consultation and support. However, rural communities can no longer compromise. The regulatory burden is too much. Payments are too low. There simply isn't any more ``fat'' in the system. Mr. President, I fear this is only the tip of the iceberg. As payment changes continue to be implemented and HCFA continues to issue new regulations and paperwork burdens, rural communities are going to suffer the most. In fact, many may not survive. We are already losing home health agencies at an alarming rate. Are hospitals the next to go? I am committed to efforts to preserve access to health care services for all Kansans. We can do this if we simply focus on practical reforms that take into account the realities of practicing medicine in rural states like Kansas. We can guarantee access to quality health care services if we make changes now. We can't afford to wait. I urge my colleagues to join me today in supporting this legislation and look forward to working together to enact common sense solutions--before it's too late.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the Promoting Health in Rural Areas Act of 1999. Health care today is at a crossroads. Rural communities face significant challenges in their efforts to recruit and retain health care providers. Hospitals and other health care facilities are facing increasing pressure from Medicare reductions. In 1997, Congress passed significant changes to the Medicare program in an effort to preserve the program for future generations. A new Congressional Budget Report says we are exceeding our expectations. In fact, since the beginning of the fiscal year in October, Medicare spending was $2.6 billion less than the amount spent in the similar period last year. While this is good news for the fiscal integrity of the Medicare program, I am concerned about the unintended effects these reductions are having on the beneficiaries who depend on Medicare for health care services. It doesn't do much good to ``save'' the program if providers can no longer afford to deliver the services and beneficiaries are no longer able to access these services. A new review by Ernst & Young reports that total hospital Medicare margins are expected to decline from 4.3 percent in fiscal year 1997 to only 0.1 percent in this fiscal year and remain below three percent through 2002. Even more shocking is that total hospital margins for small, rural hospitals are expected to fall from 4.3 percent in fiscal year 1998 to negative 5.6 percent by fiscal year 2002, an amazing decline of 233 percent. Kansas hospitals are expected to lose over $530 million. I simply don't think our rural health system can survive any more reductions. The Promoting Health in Rural Areas Act of 1999 will help to improve access, increase choice, and improve the quality of care provided in rural America. Health care providers in rural areas generally serve a large number of Medicare patients. However, Medicare reimbursement to rural providers is not adequate to cover the costs of these services. This measure takes steps to ensure fair Medicare and Medicaid payments to rural providers by targeting those hospitals with special designations in rural areas. Provisions are included to increase payments and improve the Sole Community Hospital, Medicare Dependent Hospital, and Critical Access Hospital programs. In addition, these special facilities are exempt from a new outpatient reimbursement system that is being developed by the Health Care Financing Administration. The Promoting Health in Rural Areas Act of 1999 also strengthens health professional recruitment programs and gives communities a chance to begin recruitment efforts before a crisis hits. Under current law, a community must effectively lose a physician before they qualify for recruitment assistance as a shortage area. This measure also takes steps to encourage the use of telehealth, a critical piece of the rural health infrastructure. Under current law, HCFA limits reimbursement to four groups of services. This bill will expand reimbursement to include any services currently covered by Medicare in a rural area. In addition, the bill authorizes a new grant/ loan program for telemedicine activities in rural areas. Compromise is a way of life for rural Americans. Rural residents have fewer choices of physicians or hospitals. Rural providers must settle for fewer medical colleagues to rely on for consultation and support. However, rural communities can no longer compromise. The regulatory burden is too much. Payments are too low. There simply isn't any more ``fat'' in the system. Mr. President, I fear this is only the tip of the iceberg. As payment changes continue to be implemented and HCFA continues to issue new regulations and paperwork burdens, rural communities are going to suffer the most. In fact, many may not survive. We are already losing home health agencies at an alarming rate. Are hospitals the next to go? I am committed to efforts to preserve access to health care services for all Kansans. We can do this if we simply focus on practical reforms that take into account the realities of practicing medicine in rural states like Kansas. We can guarantee access to quality health care services if we make changes now. We can't afford to wait. I urge my colleagues to join me today in supporting this legislation and look forward to working together to enact common sense solutions--before it's too late.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, acting as Senator Nickles' designee, I ask unanimous consent to proceed to speak about Kosovo for up to 30 minutes.

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the American people should realize and understand that in his press conference just 2 days ago, President Clinton talked about the justification for United States-led airstrikes against Serbian troops in Kosovo and that today we are apparently within hours--within hours--of going to war. He acknowledged that our U.S. pilots would be put at risk. And last week, the Pentagon's top military commanders also warned those of us on the Senate Armed Services Committee that there could be U.S. casualties if NATO launches airstrikes in an effort to pressure President Milosevic to accept the peace agreement that has been drafted by the U.S. and its allies and apparently signed by the Kosovar Albanians. General Michael Ryan, the Air Force Chief of Staff, said this: There is a distinct possibility we will lose aircraft in trying to penetrate those defenses. Our Marine Corps Commandant Charles Krulak said: It is going to be tremendously dangerous. Serbian air defenses are mobile, the terrain is very tough and the weather cannot be underestimated. General Krulak also said there were some bottom-line questions that still need to be answered: What is the end game? What happens if the Serbs do not come to the table after the first airstrike? How long will the strikes go on? Will our allies stay with us? General Dennis Reimer, the Army Chief of Staff, also discussed the probability--and I emphasize the word ``probability''--of sending 4,000 U.S. troops as part of the NATO peacekeeping force. He said: The current commitment on the ground remains a still- elusive peacekeeping argument. However, our troops earmarked for that are prepared. General Reimer agreed with the chairman of the committee, Senator John Warner, who warned of the massing of Serbian troops on the border of Kosovo preparing for extensive ground operations. Mr. President, my colleagues and the American public should understand, notwithstanding yet another round of last-minute diplomatic efforts by the administration's special envoy and the architect of U.S. policy in the Balkans, Richard Holbrooke, who is meeting with Mr. Milosevic as of today, the United States is preparing to go to war against the sovereign country of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and this air attack is very likely to be followed by U.S. ground troops. As former Senator Bob Dole said on ``Meet the Press'' yesterday, it is time for the U.S. to fish or cut bait in the Balkans. Compounding the situation is the fact that the Russian Prime Minister, Mr. Primakov, a staunch opponent of airstrikes and an ally of Milosevic, will be in Washington tomorrow, and I think his visit really presents a unique problem. An attack during Primakov's visit would certainly not help repair frayed U.S. and Russian relations. However, he is not due to leave until Friday. In a real paradox, by meeting with Mr. Primakov this week and delaying the attack, the administration may well give Mr. Milosevic additional time to launch an offensive, an offensive, by the way, which is also happening now. General Wesley Clark, the NATO commander, has warned time and again that if no accord is reached, the Serb forces will resume fighting on a very large scale, and that is happening. As the debate showed in the House of Representatives several weeks ago, and as the debate also continues in this body as of today and tomorrow, many in the Congress are concerned and frustrated and torn. Some support airstrikes and some do not. Some support ground troops; more do not. But we all agree, I think, that the Congress and the American people certainly deserve a better explanation of the administration's policy in the Balkans. It is not that we have not asked the administration for clarification. Last July, I offered an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that required the President to come before the American people and the Congress before he committed the U.S. to a military involvement in Kosovo. The amendment was not prejudicial. It simply required the President to make the case as to why intervention in Kosovo was in our vital national security interest. The language contained in section 8115 of Public Law 105-262--and it is the law of the land--unambiguously states that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available under the act may be obligated or expended for any additional deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States unless and until the President, in consultation with the leadership of the Congress, transmits to Congress a report that includes the following: No. 1: certification that the presence of those forces to be deployed is necessary to the national security interests of the United States; No. 2: the reasons why the deployment is in the national security interest; No. 3: the number of military personnel to be deployed; No. 4: the mission and objectives of forces to be deployed; No. 5: the expected time schedule for accomplishing the objectives of the deployment; No. 6: the exit strategy; No. 7: the costs; And lastly, No. 8: the anticipated effects on the morale, the retention and the effectiveness of United States forces. Mr. President, although our United States pilots are about to take part in an air attack that will put them in harm's way, to be followed by some 4,000 ground troops, that report--that report--required by law--has not been submitted to the Congress. Last week, in the briefing that was conducted by Secretary of State Albright, National Security Council Chairman Berger, and Secretary of Defense Cohen, I again asked if the report would be forthcoming. I asked if the latest briefing--requested, by the way, by our Majority Leader Lott--served in lieu of the report. The response of Mr. Berger was unclear to me, but in past conversations in previous briefings he said the administration should and could answer all the questions involved, and that the report would be made ``at the appropriate time.'' With the attack imminent, it would seem now is the appropriate time. As a matter of fact, with all due respect to the administration, submitting such a report would not be difficult and it would be helpful. If the administration thinks--and they apparently think--that this is the case, that threats of military action may alter the behavior of the Serbs, of Milosevic, what clearer signal of intent to forcibly stop the violence against the Albanians than the President of the United States laying out the issues to Congress and the American people? Perhaps we can do the administration a favor today. In answering these questions, required by public law, let us simply take public statements from the President and his Cabinet officers, as well as statements made in briefings to the Congress that have been reported in the public press. As a Member of both the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, I want to emphasize there should not and cannot be any disclosure of military details of any proposed action, the timing of the action or the types or selection of various weapon platforms. Let's take the reporting requirements--1, 2, and then 4. They ask the President to describe why deploying to Kosovo is in the national security interest of the United States as well as what specific objectives our forces will have once on the ground in the province. They are of particular importance because it will be these goals for which our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines will be risking their lives. Let me put it another way. Should a father, a mother, a husband or a wife--or any family member--have to ask, ``For what did my son or daughter, husband or wife, mom or dad die for?'' the answers to these questions will have to suffice. Questions Nos. 1 and 2: Certify the presence of forces to be deployed is necessary to the national security interests of the United States and the reasons why the deployment is in the national security interest. Here is the answer that I am suggesting to the Clinton administration. President Clinton, taken from President Clinton's press conference last Friday: It could be in the report. I am quoting the President: A part of my responsibility is to try to leave to my successors, and to our country in the 21st century, an environment in Europe that is stable, humane and secure. It will be a big part of America's future. The President went on to say: As we prepare to act, we need to remember the lessons learned in the Balkans. We should remember the horror of the war in Bosnia, the sounds of sniper fire aimed at children, the faces of young men behind barbed wire, the despairing voices of those who thought nothing could be done. It took precious time to achieve allied unity there, but when we did, our firmness ended all that. Bosnia is now at peace. I continue to quote the President: Make no mistake, if we and our allies do not have the will to act, there will be more massacres. In dealing with aggressors in the Balkans, hesitation is a license to kill. But, action and resolve can stop armies and save lives. And then the President goes on to specifically talk about why he thinks this is in our national interest. And it should be made part of the report, if he would simply submit it to the congressional leadership. He said: We must also understand our stake in peace in the Balkans and in Kosovo. This is a humanitarian crisis, but it is much more. This is a conflict with no boundaries. It threatens our national interests. If it continues, it will push refugees across borders, and draw in neighboring countries. It will undermine the credibility of NATO, on which stability in Europe and our own credibility depend. It will likely reignite the historical animosities, including those that can embrace Albania, Macedonia, Greece, even Turkey. These divisions still have the potential to make the next century a truly violent one for that part of the world that straddles Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Unquestionably, there are risks in military action, if that becomes necessary. U.S. and other NATO pilots will be put in harm's way. The Serbs have a strong air defense system. But, we must weigh those risks against the risks of inaction. If we don't act, the war will spread. If it spreads, we will not be able to contain it without far greater risk and cost. I believe the real challenge of our foreign policy today is to deal with problems before they do permanent harm to our vital interests. That is what we must do in Kosovo. Finally, the President said this: One of the things that I wanted to do when I became president is to take advantage of this moment in history to build an alliance with Europe for the 21st century, with a European undivided, strong, secure, prosperous and at peace. That is why I have supported the unification of Europe financially, politically, economically. That is why I've supported the expansion of NATO and a redefinition of its missions. Here is another answer that the administration could include in the report to the Congress as justification for an attack on Serbia and whether or not this is in our vital national interest. Secretary of State Albright: This is taken from press accounts of congressional briefings. Six reasons: No. 1: the Balkans represent a bridge between Europe and the Middle East and therefore are of strategic interest. No. 2: unless we stop this conflict, it will spin into Albania, Macedonia, Greece and Turkey. The First World War started there. Another could again. No. 3: we have a humanitarian obligation to stop massacres and refugee flight. No. 4: what we do in Kosovo has a direct bearing on what has been achieved in Bosnia. No. 5: what we do in Kosovo represents our leadership role in NATO, the credibility of NATO; both relevant to the future of NATO into the next century. And lastly, No. 6: it is in our national interest to oppose Serb aggression. One more answer: Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, February 25, 1999: First, we have a clear interest in protecting stability in a key part of Europe and our investment in Bosnia. If we don't stop the conflict in Kosovo, it could draw in Albania and Macedonia, potentially threaten our NATO allies in Greece and Turkey and thereby divide the alliance. Second, We have an important interest in averting another humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo. Continued conflict also would create new opportunities for international terrorists, drug smugglers and criminals. Third, America has a clear interest in ending years of Serb repression by strengthening democracy, upholding the rule of law including the valuable contribution of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and protecting human rights. Finally, persisting conflict in Kosovo would undermine NATO's credibility as the guarantor of peace and stability in the Balkans and U.S. credibility as one of the leaders of

Mr. ROBERTS. In part he stated: Among foes such as Milosevic, Clinton's credibility diminishes with each unbacked threat, each inflated claim of success for pinprick bombings, each recall of military force even once dispatched. Diminished credibility means, in the long run, a greater likelihood that force will have to be used. Now all these chickens--the diminished credibility abroad, the skepticism at home, above all the unwillingness to fashion a strategy--are coming [home] to roost in Kosovo. Clinton has threatened to bomb Milosevic yet again. Maybe this time he means it. [I think he does.] But then what? Clinton also has promised that U.S. troops will not be sent into a ``non- permissive'' environment. They will enter Kosovo, in other words, only when Milosevic welcomes them in. ``These are incompatible objectives.'' [He is quoting my colleague and my friend from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith, who said in an interview--and, by the way, Senator Smith is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe] [he] is no isolationists; he has said he would support a dispatch of U.S. troops to Kosovo under the right circumstances. But he worries that [there is] no credible plan. Perhaps a round of U.S. bombing will compel Milosevic to call off his war against Kosovo civilians, sign a peace treaty and admit NATO troops. But what if it doesn't? What if Milosevic responds, instead, with a bloody crackdown in Pristina and villages throughout the province? That is happening as I speak. Clinton, to assuage his fretful military commanders--who have good reason to fret--has already promised not to follow air power with troops. But air power can't solve every problem. If NATO bombs, [Senator] Smith said, it should no longer pretend to be neutral. ``The problem is Milosevic,'' he said. ``If you go along that path, go to win.'' I certainly associate myself with the comments of Senator Smith. Is Clinton [is this Congress and are the American public] prepared to see it through? On Friday, he made a case for bombing [and the intervention] but did not explain what might come next, nor why those next steps would be worth the risk to U.S. life and treasure. Time enough tomorrow, or maybe the day after. That was the conclusion of the editorial. I have questions, but I am not going to take too much time to go over all the questions I have as a result of the statements that have been made. But in regard to Kosovo, what is the end state? What do we want to see in Kosovo once we are done doing whatever it is we plan to do? If we don't want to support the independence and secession of the Kosovars, why are we serving as their air force? How do we know we have ever attained our aims? What are the measures of merit? How long might it take? We have talked about an exit strategy. I think we should focus on strategy; that is, on what we are trying to achieve, through what means, and how do we know we are done? I don't accept the argument in regard to NATO credibility, or that NATO credibility is on the line, as an answer to why we should go there. NATO's credibility is sky high. Just ask all the nations who want to get in. How is bombing conducive to peaceful conflict resolution? Have we ever been able to bomb a country into submission so that they would agree with our point of view? What if initial strikes don't attain the desired effect? How far are we willing to go to compel the Serbs to bend to our will? What are the risks? Why send peacekeepers when there is no peace to be kept and neither side wants to compromise? It seems that is the case. Why are we seeking to compel a sovereign nation--by the way, Yugoslavia was a founding member of the U.N.--to cede its territorial sovereignty to a guerrilla movement? What message does this send to other secessionists worldwide? How do you explain supporting Yeltsin in fighting to keep Chechnya within the Russian Federation, at a cost of about 50,000 casualties-- indeed, comparing the Russian action to the American Civil War and, by implication, Yeltsin to Lincoln--and bombing the Serbs for trying to keep their country together? That is a point of view. Which of the many Kosovar factions are we supporting? How much top- down control and professional discipline do we expect from all sides involved? The mission order for Bosnia, which has been referred to as a good case study for Kosovo, was, ``Attack across the Sava River,'' and we went in with overwhelming force, which we then scaled down as the threat receded. We are doing it the other way regarding Kosovo. Why aren't we following that model? Remember the strategic insight of an 18-year-old Marine in Beirut: ``If we are here to fight, we are too few; if we are here to die, we are too many.'' All of these questions I have mentioned--some of which I share with a great deal of support from others--I think certainly should be debated, should certainly come to the floor. That has not been the case. I do hope the administration will submit their report soon. I hope they don't submit the report after the President has given the order and the troops are there, for at that time every Member of the Senate and House will certainly want to support our troops. I worry about this, Mr. President. We are going to war. The President has spoken to the issue, other Cabinet officials have spoken to the issue, but many questions remain. I yield the floor. Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 4 p.m. this afternoon. The first 2 hours have been reserved for general statements, with time controlled by Senators Nickles and Durbin. The remaining 2 hours are equally divided between the majority and minority leaders, with the understanding that the time will be used for statements in relation to the situation in Kosovo. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill. The majority leader has announced there will be no rollcall votes during today's session. However, Members are encouraged to come to the floor to offer and debate amendments today to the supplemental bill with any votes ordered postponed until tomorrow. Members are reminded that a cloture petition was filed on Friday to the Lott second-degree amendment relating to Kosovo, with that vote occurring at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday. I thank my colleagues for their attention and yield the floor. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill of critical importance to the natural gas industry in Kansas. Natural gas production is an important industry in Kansas, paying good wages to hard working Kansans and taxes to support county and state tax rolls. Kansas is a national leader in natural gas production, and we pipe our product all over the nation. It is an affordable, abundant and clean energy source. This bill will ensure that we can continue to produce this natural resource in Kansas. This issue is complex, full of legalities and arcane federal policy. But I believe the crux of the matter will reverberate throughout the Congress. The problem before us arises out of the system of federal price controls on natural gas. In 1974, natural gas producers were given permission to exceed the national ceiling rates for gas by the cost of any state or federal tax on production. In Kansas, one such tax was the ad valorem tax. In 1974, the Federal Power Commission issued Opinion 699-D, finding that the Kansas ad valorem tax was a production tax eligible for recovery. Kansas gas producers, like producers in other states, were allowed to exceed the national rates by the costs of a local production tax. In 1978, Congress passed the Natural Gas Policy Act. That statute continued the practice of price controls on natural gas, but also codified prior practices that allowed natural gas producers to exceed price ceilings by the costs of production taxes. The newly created Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the federal body charged with implementing federal policies in this field, continued the practice of allowing Kansas producers to recover the costs of the Kansas ad valorem tax. Business continued as it had since 1974. This practice of adding on the Kansas ad valorem tax was challenged in 1983. The FERC responded with opinions in 1986 and again in 1987, stating that it is ``clear, beyond question,'' that the Kansas ad valorem tax is a tax on production and therefore, under law, eligible for recovery. Kansas producers had clear authority to recover the costs of the ad valorem tax. What happened next is inexplicable. In 1988, the prior FERC decisions on the Kansas ad valorem tax were challenged in court. The D.C. Circuit Court remanded the issue to the FERC. In 1993, five years later, the FERC did the unthinkable. They overturned all their previous rulings in this matter and required Kansas natural gas producers to refund, plus interest, all ad valorem tax monies collected above the gas price ceilings from 1988 forward. The FERC wisely chose 1988 as the collection date based on the D.C. Circuit's decision date. Unfortunately, upon challenge in 1996, the D.C. Circuit extended the refund period to 1983. The result is an estimated $340 million liability due by every producer operating between the years 1983 and 1988. What has occurred is an atrocious miscarriage of justice. Kansas natural gas producers, who in their business practices relied on the rules and followed the orders of the FERC, were subsequently told they had been breaking federal law since 1974, or for 19 years. They were then retroactively found to be liable for all of the collected tax funds back to 1983. In layman's terms, these producers are being held liable for following the orders of the FERC. The FERC did not carry out its duties in a vacuum. Section 110 of the Natural Gas Policy Act clearly stated that production taxes could be added to the price of gas, even if the add-on exceeded national price ceilings. The NGPA report language went so far as to spell out what kind of taxes are production taxes, stating ``The term ``State severance tax'' is intended to be construed broadly. It includes any tax imposed upon mineral or natural resource production including an ad valorem tax. . .'' It is evident to me, and I hope to anyone reading this, that Congress included the words ``ad valorem'' tax for an explicit reason--because Congress intended that ad valorem taxes were to be included in the list of taxes eligible for recovery. I have all of these documents in my possession, and would be pleased to provide any of this information to my colleagues. Mr. President, we must remedy this situation. Before us are the citizens of Kansas, the natural gas producers, who for 19 years dutifully ran their businesses in compliance with federal law, and strictly followed the edicts of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. They had a right, indeed a responsibility, to rely on the FERC's orders. Today, they are being punished for following these very orders. The FERC's incompetence has caused these honest citizens to be treated as criminals. However, it is the incompetence of the FERC that is criminal. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation from the last Congress. This bill would repeal the most unjust aspect of this order. Requiring producers to refund these recovered taxes is bad enough. However, assessing an interest penalty on this refund order extends beyond the bounds of decency and fairness. The interest portion represents roughly two-thirds of the estimated $340 million cost to Kansas producers. While the FERC had the opportunity to waive the interest portion, they refused to do so. This legislation is made necessary by the FERC's refusal to take any actions to mitigate this harsh, retroactive and unjust decision. Mr. President, I will do everything in my power to push this issue through to resolution. I will continue my efforts to encourage the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to hold hearings on this issue, so they may hear firsthand of the events that lead us where we find ourselves today. I want Congress to hear from the citizens of my state, the young and the old, those in business and those retired, those who have money, and those living on a fixed income, all of whom the FERC has ordered must pay refunds often ranging into the tens of thousands of dollars. I also believe it is time for Congress to review the independence and power delegated to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. They are unaccountable for their actions, unwilling to accept responsibility and unmoved by the pleas of the stakeholders in this process. Congress entrusted oversight and administration of federal gas policy to the FERC. In this case, the FERC has failed to properly administer the law, and has exercised its authority in an egregious and inequitable manner inconsistent with congressional intent. Congress has a clear responsibility to intervene in this case. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues to reintroduce legislation to help meet the child care challenges facing families in Kansas and around the nation. Child care, in the home when possible and outside the home when parents work, goes right to the heart of keeping families strong. Unfortunately, just being able to afford child care is a major issue for most families. Some child care can cost as much as college tuition and consume up to 40 percent of a family's income. Finding quality care is another challenge. Welfare reforms have cut Kansas welfare rolls in half since 1996. As more and more of these families come off the rolls, child care needs grow. About half of the 11,000 families that have left welfare rolls in Kansas have young children. In order to continue the successful transition from welfare to work, parents, especially single parents, must have access to affordable, quality child care. Only parents can and should decide what child care arrangements work best for their children. This includes the decision to stay at home. The Caring for Children Act includes provisions to allow a parent who is able to stay at home and care for a child to receive a tax credit to help cover expenses. This credit applies during the first three years of a child's life and amounts to about $900 per year. The Caring for Children Act takes steps to assist small businesses that want to provide child care. I am pleased that this bill includes a short-term flexible grant program to encourage these businesses to work together to provide child care services. This program, which provides $60 million to the states, allows those closer to home to make decisions necessary to improve child care in communities. This funding provides the start-up assistance necessary to create self-sustaining child care programs. I have pledged to work to improve child care. I will continue this effort. I look forward to working with my colleagues to expand child care options and protect our nation's most valuable resource, our children.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues to reintroduce legislation to help meet the child care challenges facing families in Kansas and around the nation. Child care, in the home when possible and outside the home when parents work, goes right to the heart of keeping families strong. Unfortunately, just being able to afford child care is a major issue for most families. Some child care can cost as much as college tuition and consume up to 40 percent of a family's income. Finding quality care is another challenge. Welfare reforms have cut Kansas welfare rolls in half since 1996. As more and more of these families come off the rolls, child care needs grow. About half of the 11,000 families that have left welfare rolls in Kansas have young children. In order to continue the successful transition from welfare to work, parents, especially single parents, must have access to affordable, quality child care. Only parents can and should decide what child care arrangements work best for their children. This includes the decision to stay at home. The Caring for Children Act includes provisions to allow a parent who is able to stay at home and care for a child to receive a tax credit to help cover expenses. This credit applies during the first three years of a child's life and amounts to about $900 per year. The Caring for Children Act takes steps to assist small businesses that want to provide child care. I am pleased that this bill includes a short-term flexible grant program to encourage these businesses to work together to provide child care services. This program, which provides $60 million to the states, allows those closer to home to make decisions necessary to improve child care in communities. This funding provides the start-up assistance necessary to create self-sustaining child care programs. I have pledged to work to improve child care. I will continue this effort. I look forward to working with my colleagues to expand child care options and protect our nation's most valuable resource, our children.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, if I may respond to my distinguished friend, the whole goal of this is to provide the farmer and rancher with the risk management tools to enable that decisionmaking to be made by the individual producer as opposed to those of us in Washington who respond, as I indicated before, it seems like almost even numbered years to the plight of those who are experiencing disasters. We think this program or this reform will certainly represent a lot more consistencies. Yes, it will cost money, but if you add up the average $1.5 billion that we have paid in disaster programs, not to mention the $6 billion emergency bill as of last year, of course that is reflective of the loss of export demand we have seen because of the economic problems all over the world. But I certainly agree with my colleague and my cosponsor. Mr. President, I have several unanimous consent requests, I tell my colleague, if I may offer them at this point. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Craig, Burns, Hagel, Daschle, Conrad, and Baucus be added as original cosponsors on the bill just introduced by Senator Kerrey and myself.

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the floor. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that any Senator wishing to be added to this legislation as an original cosponsor be allowed to do so prior to the close of business today.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, Senator Kerrey, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, under the previous order has asked for 20 minutes. We are to share that time. I ask unanimous consent I may be now recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Roberts and Mr. Kerrey pertaining to the introduction of S. 529 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. AKAKA addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague, Mr. Kerrey of Nebraska, to introduce a bill that we call the Crop Insurance for the 21st Century Act. We believe this bill represents an important step in improving the Federal Crop Insurance Program, and in creating greater access to the risk management tools that our farmers and ranchers simply must have. Senator Kerrey and I, and many others who are privileged to represent the agriculture community, have long discussed the need to address reforms to the Crop Insurance Program. However, the necessary demands from the agriculture community and the Congress to successfully reform this program, in my personal opinion at least, did not reach a crescendo until last fall when we approved something called the omnibus appropriations bill, and that contained approximately $6 billion in disaster assistance for our farmers and ranchers. I am sure, while Republicans and Democrats and individual agricultural groups were unable to agree on the necessary size and scope of the disaster package, one thing became abundantly clear to all involved--if we had a Crop Insurance Program that worked, without question, the situation would not have been so serious. This has been a longstanding effort. I can remember well, back in 1978, when I was a staff member in the House of Representatives to my predecessor, that was when the Crop Insurance Program was first established. It has been 20 years, and we still have an obligation to reform the program and make sure that it works for all regions, all farmers, all commodities. In response to the demands for the improved risk management tools, Senator Kerrey and I committed to pursuing major crop insurance reforms in this Congress. To aid us in this task, last November we contacted all of the major farm organizations and all of the commodity groups, all of the crop insurance companies, all of the agricultural lending groups, and requested their guidance on these issues. We were listening. We wanted to find out their advice in regard to what do we need to pay attention to, what is the most serious issue that we need to address in the Crop Insurance Program. We received feedback from over 20 of these major organizations. These comments we received served as a guidepost in developing this legislation. And, while the comments received were wide ranging, there was near consensus in several areas. These included as follows: First, the need for increased levels of coverage at affordable prices to all producers. Second, we need expanded availability of revenue-based insurance products. Third, program changes to address the needs of producers suffering multiple crop failures. Fourth, structural changes to the Risk Management Agency--the acronym for that is RMA, and that is what I will call it from now on, but it is the Risk Management Agency--that will allow for increased access to new and improved crop insurance policies. Senator Kerry and I took these comments to heart, and the legislation we are introducing today has been developed in large part by really trying to work to incorporate these comments into legislative language. Our bill inverts this existing subsidy structure. Currently, many producers do not purchase the highest levels of coverage because the greatest level of Government assistance simply occurs at the lowest levels of coverage. This often makes the higher levels of coverage simply unaffordable. It causes many producers to have insufficient coverage, which eventually leads to calls for the ad hoc disaster bills that are so expensive. We cannot continue to pass a disaster package every year. I tell the Presiding Officer, we were just discussing this in a previous meeting, it costs the Federal Government about $1.5 billion on average in regard to the disaster bills. They seem to occur on even numbered years. I think the Presiding Officer knows what I am talking about. We cannot afford that. Therefore, under our legislation, the highest level of subsidy will occur at the 75/100 coverage levels. While the inversion of subsidies will be the most important change for many producers, we have included several changes that we believe will benefit America's farmers and ranchers. These include, first, the average production history--that is called APH in the crop insurance acronym world--APH adjustments for producers that have no production history because they are beginning farmers or they are farming new land or they are rotating crops. Let me add, at this juncture, that is exceedingly important, because under the farm bill that how exists, farmers have a lot more flexibility, and when they move to a new crop, obviously, they ought to be able to simply insure that crop. Second, mandating APH adjustments for producers suffering from crop losses in multiple years. Third, requiring the RMA to work to undertake a pilot project to develop new rating structures for undeserved areas of the country, and particularly the southern part of the United States, with the intention it will eventually become a permanent change in the program. Here is a suggestion or a part of the bill that will be of interest to Senator Thomas--removing the prohibition on coverages for livestock. I just indicated that we had a good visit this morning about this very subject. The livestock sector is going through a very difficult time in our country today. We need to address this problem with regard to insurance and how it would dovetail into the livestock industry and give our stockmen and our ranchers some protection. In addition, the legislation provides for major changes in the structure of the RMA, the FCIC, that will allow for accelerated product approval and the development of improved crop insurance policies. Many people understand the Risk Management Agency serves as a regulator over the crop insurance industry. What many do not know is that this same outfit, the RMA, also serves as a developer for products that are then sold in direct competition with privately developed products. Thus, the RMA serves as a competitor with the industry it is supposed to regulate. I am aware of no other private industry that faces these same hurdles. Senator Kerrey and I believe it is time to change this culture that has often served as a roadblock to producer access to new and improved products. Our legislation will, first, change the structure of the FCIC board of directors to bring reinsurance and expertise in the agriculture economy to the board. Second, make the FCIC the overseer of the RMA. Third, allow the RMA to continue to develop policies for specialty crops and underserved areas. Fourth, to create an Office of Private Sector Partnership to serve as a liaison between private sector companies and the FCIC board of directors. Fifth, to leave the final approval or disapproval of all policies in the hands of the board. And, finally, allow companies to charge a minimal fee on each policy when one company decides to sell another company's product. Hopefully, Mr. President, this will allow the companies to recover the research and development costs and will encourage the creation of new policies. While these steps will not be the answer to solving all of the problems in the Crop Insurance Program, we believe they will be an important step. Each year our producers put the seed in the ground with great faith and optimism and believe that, with a little faith and a little luck and the good Lord willing and the creeks not rising, they will produce a crop. But the task is not easy. Between the multiple risks of drought and flood and fire and hail and blizzard and disease and insects and also a little market interference in regard to the Federal Government, it often seems the deck is stacked against them. If producers do survive these risks, they are often still at the mercy of weakened exports, and Asian flu or the global contagion, as we call it, caused by a global financial crisis and inadequate access to foreign markets. I will be the first to admit that reforming this program cannot come without budgetary costs. At the same time, I can think of no other industry that faces the number of multiple risks that must be addressed on an annual basis by those in production agriculture. Congress must not and cannot be forced to pass these ad hoc disaster bills every year. We must give our producers the risk management tools that they need. I believe this legislation is an important first step, and I ask our colleagues to join Senator Kerrey and myself in this difficult but absolutely vital task. I yield the remainder of my time to my good friend and colleague, the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, if I may respond to my distinguished friend, the whole goal of this is to provide the farmer and rancher with the risk management tools to enable that decisionmaking to be made by the individual producer as opposed to those of us in Washington who respond, as I indicated before, it seems like almost even numbered years to the plight of those who are experiencing disasters. We think this program or this reform will certainly represent a lot more consistencies. Yes, it will cost money, but if you add up the average $1.5 billion that we have paid in disaster programs, not to mention the $6 billion emergency bill as of last year, of course that is reflective of the loss of export demand we have seen because of the economic problems all over the world. But I certainly agree with my colleague and my cosponsor. Mr. President, I have several unanimous consent requests, I tell my colleague, if I may offer them at this point. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Craig, Burns, Hagel, Daschle, Conrad, and Baucus be added as original cosponsors on the bill just introduced by Senator Kerrey and myself.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that any Senator wishing to be added to this legislation as an original cosponsor be allowed to do so prior to the close of business today.

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the floor. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.