Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a most remarkable woman. In just a few hours, a celebration of life service will be held at St. Andrew's Church in Kansas City for Adele Hall, described by the Kansas City Star in a front-page headline as ``first lady'' of Kansas City.

Adele was in Hawaii with her husband Don Hall, chairman of Hallmark Cards, when she passed away. To say they were a remarkable couple is an understatement. They met when she was 3 years old and Don was 6. Adele said: I don't ever remember falling in love with Don. I just grew up being in love with him.

As the Star reported, her priorities were always with her husband and her three children. In addition to her love and caring for her family, Adele Hall had a unique ability to lead, and lead she did. Living a life of caring and contribution, making a difference and demonstrating to all whose lives she touched and made better, she was a wonderful example of honor and respect.

Adele's many accomplishments were almost legendary. She would demure from that description with her wonderful smile and give credit to others. It

was how she accomplished so much that serves as such a wonderful example and why she was so beloved.

The friends of Don and Adele and those with whom she worked describe her best. Henry Bloch, the founder of H&R Block and a lifelong friend, said:

If there ever was a first lady of Kansas City, it was

Adele. She was honored and respected by everybody. It's a

major loss for this community.

Irv Hockaday, a former CEO of Hallmark and a friend of Adele and Don's for close to 50 years, said:

She was like a magnetic sun . . . whose constant warmth and

magnetism just had a pull. And people gravitated to her. To

me, her most compelling quality, of many, was her empathy.

They say that no one is indispensable. That's true in a

way. But she comes about as close to being someone we can

never, ever forget or replicate.

Irv Hockaday certainly captured Adele, as did Steven Doyal, spokesman for Hallmark Cards:

We lost a great human being. Her greatest passion was in

the area of children. She believed passionately in the

potential of every child.

At Children's Mercy Hospital, Adele moved easily from rocking sick babies in the nursery to running board meetings and leading multimillion-dollar fundraising campaigns. One of the best known was with Tom Watson, with whom she established the Children's Mercy Golf Classic.

Jack Ovel, the hospital board chairman, said:

She was quick to give others credit. She was always telling

other people, ``You are the wind beneath my wings.''

Perhaps her most notable collaborative effort was bringing the University of Kansas and Children's Mercy together. Early on she realized what that would mean for residents of Kansas City.

Jim Heeter, president of the Greater City Chamber of Commerce, described the news of Adele's passing, which came in the middle of the monthly chamber board meeting:

The entire room fell into stunned silence when it was

announced. She was known and loved by virtually everyone

around our board table. We observed a long moment of silence

in her honor and her memory.

Mary Shaw ``Shawsie'' Branton, who was her copartner and close friend in one charitable and/or civic event after another said of Adele:

I have lost a close friend. She touched all our lives.

There was an aura around Adele, `How can I help? What can I

do? . . . How can I find a solution?'

``This is a great day of sorrow,'' said Sarah Rowland, chairwoman of the Nelson-Atkins board of trustees.

Jane Chu, CEO of the Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts said:

Everything she did was about inspiring Kansas City

residents. She so believed in these projects because she so

believed in this city, she cared about making it a great

place to live.

One can clearly see by the many comments of Adele's friends and leaders in Kansas City, with regard to their sense of personal loss, expressions of admiration of love and respect for the world of achievements Adele accomplished, there is only one Adele Hall.

In my case, Mr. President, I was on the floor of this body last Monday during a series of votes taking place when a cloakroom attendant gave me a message to call my office immediately. I did, and my chief of staff, Jackie Cottrell, came over to the cloakroom and told me of the news of Adele's untimely passing.

There are certain people in life where you feel you are privileged just to know them--people who make a difference, really nice people who give you a certain sense of awe, people who are really not aware of their special and unique persona. Adele had that certain something--a unique charisma, comprised of a wonderful smile, charm and grace, but also the determination and ability of a leader.

When she came into a room, those present knew things would get done. She always stood ready in friendship and support and love. Unfortunately, given her strength of purpose, she was also the kind of person you might well take for granted.

Jackie and I immediately called Annie Presley, a good friend and companion-in-arms with Adele. Annie and I couldn't say too much during that phone call, but I did blurt out, ``Well, it's the end of an era.'' And it is. Adele, in addition to all of her civic and art works, had tremendous influence, serving as an adviser, a friend, and supporter to Presidents, Governors, Senators, Congressional Members, and city leaders. Annie was right by her side in these endeavors. Her passion for politics made both Kansas and Missouri a better place to live. Her advice, her guidance, and support were invaluable to so many. Don and Adele's Kansas home was the setting for countless benefactor receptions. The list represents a Who's Who in politics, from both Presidents Bush, Senators Bob Dole, Kit Bond, Nancy Kassebaum, and, yes, somebody by the name of Pat Roberts.

My friendship with Don and Adele began more than 20 years ago. I admit I was a bit nervous the first time I was invited to their home. I arrived early and Adele warmly greeted me, welcomed me in. Don took me into the study, and after some discussion we all ended up listening to the Andrews Sisters--I don't know why--until we were informed it was time to greet the other guests. I think Don and I would have been there a lot longer if Don had his way. We have been great friends ever since.

Perhaps the highlight of our efforts together was when First Lady Laura Bush came to Kansas, and together we welcomed her to our great State.

Finally, Mr. President, when I talk about Adele's respect and her humility, I am reminded of the story when President Bush came to Wichita on my behalf. The White House staff and security, God bless them, had names on the floor in the reception room, and those who were greeting the President had to stand on the right name. God knows what would have happened if you didn't stand on the right name.

Adele stood exactly as instructed on her name, without any hesitation. I did not do that. I didn't follow orders quite as well. I met with the President's vehicle and hurriedly told him our special guests were standing at attention at their appropriate spot, which amused the President greatly. The secret, of course, was that Don and Adele often stayed at the White House as guests of both George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush.

When President Bush came in the room, he asked: Adele, are you standing in the right place?

She replied quickly: Why, Mr. President--George--I will stand wherever you want me to.

That really produced a lot of laughs and prompted a big hug.

Mr. President, today's obligations in the Senate prevent me from attending the celebration of life service, but I am there in spirit. To Don, Don Jr. and Jill, David and Laura, Margaret and Keith, and Adele's nine grandchildren, our thoughts and prayers are with you.

I feel compelled to say if all of the people in the Kansas City area could be in attendance, those who loved Adele or who have benefited from her many endeavors, the numbers would fill Arrowhead Stadium and then some.

Helen Steiner Rice may well have summed up what Adele would be telling us now:

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.

Mr. President, the heavens are a little brighter now because they have a shining star in Adele Hall.

I yield the floor, and upon careful study I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to thank a young Kansan for sharing her thoughts and opinions regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture's implementation of new school meal requirements.

Ms. Lindsey Heward wrote to me last fall to express her and fellow Osage City High School students' frustrations with the amount of food they were getting to eat at lunch and their choices for food. She outlined several areas that the USDA could focus on to prevent obesity rather than solely school meal programs. Among her suggestions were to have the USDA encourage families to share meals together, develop budgeting skills for shoppers, and encourage nutritious meal planning. I would like to submit a copy of her letter into the Congressional Record.

After hearing from parents, school administrators, and students like Lindsey, I shared the concerns I was receiving with USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack. These comments and concerns were heard by the USDA and the administration ultimately provided additional flexibility in implementing changes to school meals.

I am still concerned USDA doesn't fully understand the estimated costs to schools and plate waste. I will continue to monitor the implementation of this rule, and its impact on schools in Kansas as well as the rest of the country. I look forward to working with Secretary Vilsack to continue to improve school nutrition while ensuring our students are adequately fed.

I ask that Ms. Lindsey Heward's letter be printed in the Record.

The letter follows.

Lindsey Heward,

Osage City, Kansas, October 15, 2012.

Pat Roberts,

U.S. Senator for Kansas, Frank Carlson Federal Building,

Topeka, KS.

Dear Senator Roberts: There is a lot of talk going on in

our community of Osage City, Kansas about all of the changes

in our school food service program due to the Healthy,

Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. When the changes in the

nutrition of the available vending machine items in our

school took out pop, any type of sugar drinks, candy bars,

cookies, most chips, pastries, etc., I could agree with that.

A lot of those items aren't going to help a student in their

day; it's not going to be what gives them the fuel they need.

I didn't have a problem with that because the lunches that we

were having always satisfied me for the day, it would

actually get me through after school practice until supper

time. But now that the school lunch program has been greatly

altered, the majority of the students, especially in the high

school, are not receiving enough calories to sustain them

through school, after school practices, and events.

What really frustrates me is that the Healthy, Hunger-Free

Kids Act of 2010 is not correctly addressing the reduction of

our nation's obesity rate. What is not being addressed is

education of the parents who are the main consumers of the

family's grocery items or parents modeling healthy eating

habits. As an employee of Jerry's Thriftway, this is

something that I witness daily. I especially see the

purchasing of unhealthy food choices by welfare recipients

when using their Vision cards. For example, this last

Saturday, a customer was at my check-out line with a cart of

hot dogs, chips, pizza, pop, and a lot of frozen items loaded

with preservatives. These items were purchased with funds

provided by our tax payers. It is obvious that this parent

does not go home to prepare a healthy meal for her children

and she certainly doesn't model healthy eating habits. This

is something that occurs regularly throughout my six hour

shift. No matter what takes place at school, it is not

changing the way these parents are providing (through

somebody else's money) for their children's meals. I fear

that there isn't even a family meal time in those homes, but

rather a time to binge on junk food throughout the evenings

or on weekends. This is where nutrition needs to change to

reduce the obesity in our nation, not by unrealistically

restricting our school breakfast and lunch program.

Instead of focusing on school meal programs, I strongly

feel that it's time to focus on the following:

1. Creating a greater work ethic in all citizens

2. Developing budgeting skills for shoppers

3. Nutritious meal planning

4. Food preparation skills

5. Valuing family togetherness at the dinner table

6. Family physical fitness

The family is the basic unit in every community. Let's

start with changes in the daily life of families . . . that's

the ground level. Once that happens, then we will see true,

positive changes in the health of our nation.

I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on my suggestions

of how this change needs to start with each family instead of

through the restricted school meal service. Do you have any

ideas on how my concerns can be put into action to make real,

meaningful change happen?

Sincerely yours,

Lindsey Heward,

Osage City High School Senior.

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

I ask the Acting President pro tempore if we are in morning business, and I assume we are.

Thank you, Madam President.

(The remarks of Mr. Roberts pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 8 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

I yield back the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am rising to submit a resolution making it absolutely clear that Congress, and only Congress, has the authority and responsibility to set the Federal debt limit. I should not even have to submit a resolution such as this, but I feel it is absolutely necessary.

Raising the Federal debt limit--the limit we place on government borrowing--as everybody knows, has been a hot topic around Washington. It is a key issue for the start of the 113th Congress. It is another case where if we could just maintain regular order, regular authority to address our problems, that is the best way for us to approach the task of getting our fiscal house in order.

I know there is a lot of dispute over what breaching the limit means. There is a lot of talk about that. It is clear a great deal of the public and our financial markets are extremely concerned about the Federal Government's ability to meet its financial obligations once we do hit the limit.

The President has asked for a very large increase in the debt ceiling, and some in the administration have called for no limit at all. Others of the administration and in the House are calling for Congress to give up its authority to set the debt limit--rather amazing--thus giving the executive branch unilateral authority to borrow. This is not a good idea.

If the Federal Government does not collect enough revenue to pay for all its spending obligations, it must borrow to make up the shortfall. Everybody knows that. We are borrowing now about 42 cents of every $1 we are obligated to spend.

This is clearly--I think everybody would agree on either side of the aisle and the public--an unsustainable situation which will only get worse if we do not begin meaningful discussions over our spending priorities, including--including--entitlement spending to strengthen and preserve those programs for future generations.

The national debt is growing. Everybody has seen that chart. It is about $16.4 trillion. The total public debt outstanding at the end of the third quarter just passed was $16.07 trillion. That is up from $15.86 trillion reported in June 2012. We are on the wrong path.

The Federal debt is now equivalent to at least 73 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product--nearly double the level as a percentage of GDP that we had back in 1990. That is not too long ago.

According to some measures, there has been a 60-percent increase in the debt limit since 2009. At the rate we are going, in a few short years we will be spending more to pay interest on the debt than we will on all discretionary programs outside of defense. Even defense now is going through a very difficult time with the sequester and has already been cut about one-half trillion dollars.

Let me just say that means no money for education. That means no money for agriculture. That means no money for the environment. That means no money for health care. It all goes to pay off interest on the debt.

The Federal debt is the accumulation of this borrowing, including all bills, notes, and bonds issued by the Department of the Treasury.

The current statutory debt limit is $16.394 trillion, which was established on January 28 of last year, 2012--about 1 year ago--under the procedures of the Budget Control Act of 2011.

According to the Department of the Treasury, as of December 31--just last month--total debt outstanding subject to the limit was only $25 million--million; it used to be a lot of money--below the current limit.

Once the amount of outstanding debt reaches the debt limit, the government can no longer issue additional debt to cover the cash shortfalls needed to fund government operations and meet legal obligations.

Similar to the power of the purse, Congress's powers over borrowing are firmly rooted in our constitutional traditions. The Founders understood the potential danger of permitting the executive branch to unilaterally incur new public debt. Article I of the Constitution empowers only--only--Congress ``to borrow money on the credit of the United States.''

The debt limit is the means by which Congress--Congress--exercises this critical legislative responsibility.

I can remember well that lesson, that lecture, if you will, from Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, the institutional flame of the Senate, who would have repeated that Congress cannot give debt limit authority to the executive, should not, cannot. It is not constitutional.

To implement this congressional prerogative, the amount of money the Federal Government is allowed to borrow is subject to a specific statutory limit.

From time to time, Congress considers and adopts legislation to change this limit and has done so more than 100 times since the first modern debt limit was set way back in 1939, and we will do so again shortly. We have to.

So preserving this role and establishing the debt limit is vital to encourage deficit reduction and to uphold our constitutional tradition of legislative control over borrowing. Not only does the debt limit provide an essential check on executive borrowing, it provides public accountability--everybody is talking about transparency--for Congress's borrowing and debt management practices. We cannot duck that responsibility. We cannot pass this debt limit simply to the Executive and duck our responsibility and the public accountability.

In other words, debates over the debt limit, as difficult and as contentious as they are--and they are; I know that--shed the light of day on the overall financial condition of the Federal Government. Precluding these discussions by removing Congress's authority over the debt limit would lead to a less well-informed decisionmaking over fiscal policy. That is probably the understatement of my remarks. It is a nice way to put it.

We can do this. In the past, legislation to raise the debt limit has frequently been coupled with legislation to reduce the overall Federal debt and deficit. That is the way we should do it. These extensions, often approved on a bipartisan basis, have been important catalysts for fiscal reform. In this respect, the debt limit is a strong mechanism, a strong tool, a way for Congress to evaluate fiscal policy and to maintain control over such policy.

Abdicating this role would fundamentally alter the checks and balances embedded in the Constitution. This is a power that should not be bargained away.

The necessary and critical battle to control spending is far from over. I view the debt ceiling debate as a critical means in what has to be an ongoing effort to tighten the government's fiscal belt--if we can just do that. But we cannot settle our national finances by fundamentally altering the constitutional structure and processes governing those finances. We cannot cavalierly give up one of our most important tools in evaluating and reining in the Federal Government's runaway spending.

Equally clear, we cannot keep spending what we do not have. We must continue to fight for spending cuts, for debt reduction, and against tax increases and, I might add, the tidal wave of regulations that continue to pour out of Washington.

In response to calls to give up this vital congressional authority over debt issuance, I am submitting today a simple resolution. Let's put the Senate on record. The Congress holds the sole authority to borrow money on the credit

of the United States and cannot cede this power to the President.

I invite everybody to cosponsor this important measure and look forward to passage of this resolution. This should be a bipartisan effort, and it is absolutely necessary.

Mr. President, let me associate myself with the remarks of Senator Isakson. I thank him and all of my colleagues who have come to the floor to eulogize Senator Danny Inouye. The Senate and our Nation has lost an unsung hero. He was heroic in military valor, receiving the Nation's highest honor, the Medal of Honor. He was heroic as the one chosen to lead with dignity in inquiries seeking the truth during our most challenging times. He was a tireless guardian of our national security and champion to the men and women who put their lives at risk to protect the United States and whose legislative achievements have been simply remarkable. All this from a man who always gave others credit and never sought the spotlight.

Yesterday Senator John McCain from Arizona--a hero in his own right-- reflected on the passing of Senator Inouye: Today, the Senate, America, and especially his beloved citizens of Hawaii, lost a unique, brave, and wonderful legislator. He was a man who brought the most unique credentials to this institution--I would argue--of probably anyone who has ever served in this very diverse body.

Senator McCain certainly hit the nail on the head.

He went on to say: In Hawaii there was a group of young Japanese Americans who decided they wanted to serve their country in uniform. One of the most well-known, famous, and highly decorated units of World War II was the battalion in which Dan Inouye served.

Dan Inouye was a proud member of his battalion. In fierce combat, he was gravely wounded on the battlefield and was brought home. He, as we all know, lost his arm as a result of one of the wounds he sustained.

Senator McCain went on to point out that he went to the Veterans Hospital in Chicago where a person in the same ward was an American Army second lieutenant who had also been wounded seriously in combat in Italy, 2LT Bob Dole of Kansas. Bob Dole is a man who still represents the very best we have in Kansas, our country, and he did such a great job as leader of this body. Their friendship has lasted to this day.

Both men were gravely wounded, both were certainly dedicated to serve their country, and both served with distinction. The friendship and the bonds of friendship that were forged in that hospital between Bob and Dan were unique and also enduring.

Yesterday, Senator Danny Akaka also pointed out that his colleague from his native State was a true patriot and American hero in every sense and at this time in Hawaii, the greatest leader.

Then Danny Akaka said that it is an incredible understatement to call him an institution. This Chamber will never be the same without him. He also said Danny Inouye leaves behind a list of accomplishments unlikely to ever be paralleled. His lifelong dedication and hard work in the name of his beloved country, the United States of America, influenced every part of his life and set him apart--even in the Senate.

Today will be the first day since Hawaii became a State in 1959 that Danny Inouye will not be representing us in the Congress. Every child born in Hawaii will learn of Danny Inouye, a man who changed the islands forever.

Senator Akaka then went on to say he was praying for his wife Irene, his son Ken, his daughter-in-law Jessica, his stepdaughter Jennifer, and granddaughter Maggie, who was the apple of his eye.

Like so many, with Danny's untimely passing, I have lost a very dear friend. In truth, as an institution, every Senator in the Senate lost a dear friend. We lost one of the last institutional flames of the Senate.

Upon reflection, the occasions I have had the privilege to be with Danny also represented my personal career highlights. There were codels with Senator Ted Stevens, affectionately called Uncle Ted. Danny always had T-shirts made that said ``I survived Codel Stevens.'' He took us to Antarctica, North Korea, the Russian Far and wild East, and any number of places of national interest that nobody else would go. As the song says, through the bushes and brambles where a rabbit wouldn't go.

Danny was the personification of those who get things done the effective way. He stayed in the background until it was time to take charge and then gave others the credit. I will always remember his sonorous, basso profundo voice advising the North Koreans at one point during a trip to make P'anmunjom and the 38th parallel a tourist site-- not a shooting gallery.

In the Russian Far East we traveled to Sakhalin Island, with mountains and raw materials that rivaled Alaska and where locals say there are still saber-toothed tigers north of the island. Danny, while visiting with staff, went into detail about his many travels, with a little fact and fiction mixed in, all with a twinkle in his eye.

I also remember while in the city of Khabarovsk in the Russian Far East--we were at a hotel. Of all the hotels in the Russian Far East, this one had to be one of the last on the list.

As we went into our rooms, I discovered that my bed was a wooden frame with just straps--no mattress, one blanket, and no pillow. I thought, being a junior member of this codel, this was something they assigned to me. So I went down the hall with my special key in hand and my special ID that was required in that part of the world and knocked on Danny's door. He said: How can I be of service to you, dear friend?

I said that I wanted to look at his accommodations, thinking, of course, he would have a bed. There was a wooden bed with the same kind of accommodations--no mattress, straps, and just one blanket. He said: Why are you interested in that bed?

I said: Well, I thought being a junior Member that things might be better in your quarters.

He got a big kick out of that. He always reminded me of that at various times when I would get a little upset about anything.

At any rate, it is not an understatement with regard to his leadership, bipartisanship, integrity, and achievement. It would serve every Member of this Senate to ask: What would Danny Inouye want us to do?

In today's Washington Post there was a reference to the keynote speech that Senator Inouye gave in Chicago. It was a period of unrest after the assassinations of Senator Robert Kennedy and Rev. Martin Luther King--troubling times, indeed. Speaking not as a Democrat but as a citizen disturbed by unprecedented violence, Senator Inouye described a ``troubling loss of faith among Americans.''

He went on to say: I do not mean a loss of religious faith, I mean a loss of faith in our country, its purposes, and its institutions. I mean a retreat from the responsibilities of citizenship.

Danny called for Americans to rebuild their trust in government--an extraordinary statement from a man whose people had suffered grave injustices at the hands of government.

The article went on to say that Senator Inouye's remarks were immediately overshadowed by events at that convention, but his speech was truly remarkable. It was a speech that drew

little attention then and is even less remembered now.

My colleagues, Danny's speech should be required reading today given the recent tragedies. It was just last week that I was asked to speak on Senator Inouye's behalf at an event concerning the proposed Eisenhower Memorial. It is a joint bipartisan effort that has taken far too long to bring to fruition. In the cloakroom the day before we had one of our many discussions where he grabbed my hand and looked me in the eye and said: You and I probably vote differently 80 percent of the time, but in all of our mutual efforts and all of our travels, I have considered you a brother.

I didn't know what to do. I responded with a tear in my eye, and I said: I love you, Danny Inouye.

And he said: I love you too.

What a wonderful thing to hear from a true American hero in every respect. It has been a privilege and an honor to serve with such a remarkable and truly humble man.

I also want to thank his wonderful staff in working with my staff on so many mutual projects.

Aloha, my dear friend. I will miss you every day.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to discuss legislation we could actually pass. I am not talking about the fiscal cliff or sequester or anything quite so heavy, but nevertheless very important. It has bipartisan support, sort of, been passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee, passed out of the House of Representatives by over 300 votes, but it has yet to be brought to the Senate floor for debate. That debate could be over within a half hour.

The majority leader talks about bipartisan support for legislation and hurdles to bring the bipartisan legislation to the floor. Obviously we have them. But I want to remind the Senate that this bill has already passed the House, as I have said, with broad bipartisan support and, again, with over 300 votes. That does not happen often in the House of Representatives these days. It passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee with bipartisan support. It did not even have to have a hearing. Yet the majority leader has not allowed this bill to come to the floor for a vote. I urge him to do that.

I am talking about H.R. 872. What is that? That is the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011. How could anybody be opposed to that? It has been pending before the Senate for 17 months. That is long enough. That is certainly long overdue. This bill was placed on the Senate Calendar on June 21 in 2011. We need to pass this bill. We

need to debate it very quickly and pass this bill. It is a short bill but it is very critical to address a court decision that endangers the public health and places additional paperwork burdens on States that are facing very difficult budget times.

Let me be clear. This is a pesticide safety bill, pesticides that are used to protect our crops and to protect our public safety. I am not saying, nobody is saying, nobody ever will say, pesticides should never be regulated. I just do not think it needs to be done twice. H.R. 872 does not alter pesticide regulation. Pesticide applications are subject to the terms that are printed on a product label as approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is against the law to apply pesticides in a manner that does not comply with the EPA's approval.

Last December, 25 of our colleagues wrote to our majority leader and our Republican leader requesting an open debate on H.R. 872, a bipartisan bill. I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the letter printed in the Record.

Despite bipartisan requests for consideration, the bill failed to be considered before regulatory requirements went into effect last year. We are already seeing costs to States, to communities, and to businesses that total up millions of dollars. Regulations now in effect are duplicative--a Senate word, a 35-cent word. That means we do not need it. We already have a bill in place. We already have regulation in place. This regulation requires businesses to undertake what amounts to a paperwork exercise. These requirements can slow responses to real public health crises such as West Nile virus.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report over 5,000 cases of West Nile virus this year and sadly over 230 deaths. That is not right. Pesticide applications are currently and should continue to be regulated under FIFRA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. This bill does what all of our constituents are telling us to do and that is to protect human health and eliminate duplicative, unnecessary regulatory actions.

The additional paperwork and permitting processes that States and pesticide applicators must undertake provide no additional environmental protection, zip, zero. It is just additional environmental review. The EPA estimates that approximately 365,000 pesticide applicators will need permits to cover about 5.6 million applications per year. Public health officials, farmers, other pesticide applicators under this regulatory impact would not be facing these requirements if the administration had chosen to vigorously defend its longstanding policy that the protections under the Federal pesticide law were sufficient to protect the environment.

Again, estimates suggest this duplicative regulation will require 365,000 individuals--a requirement that will cost $50 million and require 1 million hours per year to implement--just to fill out the paperwork. Bottom line, it will not add any environmental protection. This layer of redtape will place a huge financial burden on the shoulders of cities, of counties, farm families all across the country as well as State governments responsible for enforcement while at the same time facing dire budget situations.

Beyond agency enforcement, they will also now be exposed to the threat of litigation under the clean water law's citizen suit provisions. I think you have the real key as to where this bill was headed. Some of you might say there are special exemptions for public health emergencies, but environmental groups are challenging emergency actions taken this summer to address the mosquito-borne illnesses such as eastern equine encephalitis--not something to take an action against if you are faced with one of these kinds of threats. Yet we have not been able to move H.R. 872, to come up for a vote despite clear bipartisan support.

It seems to me Congress must act to end this regulatory duplication and clarify that they do not need this additional burden when they are trying to prioritize staffing and resources.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to protect human health and put an end to this very costly regulation. With regard to the bill again, it is 872, passed the House by over 300 votes, bipartisan support in the Agriculture Committee, didn't even have to have a hearing. Let's move this bill. It is something we can do. It makes sense.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, December 8, 2011.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Senate Majority Leader, The Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Senate Minority Leader, The Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Reid and McConnell: We request your

leadership in helping to resolve the following issue at the

earliest possible opportunity.

As you are aware, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

recently finalized its Pesticide General Permit (PGP) under

the Clean Water Act (CWA), pursuant to a ruling by the Court

of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in National Cotton Council v.

EPA. Under this new permitting system, certain pesticide

applicators will be required to meet PGP or other permitting

requirements in addition to regulation under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.

On March 31, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 872,

the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011, which would

address National Cotton Council v. EPA. This legislation then

passed the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and

Forestry on June 21 by voice vote.

We are aware that efforts had been made to come to a

bipartisan resolution before these new permitting

requirements went into effect. However, we believe there is

still an opportunity to resolve this matter in a way that

will protect the environment while avoiding undue costs on

rural communities and municipalities nationwide. Thus, it is

our sincere hope that you will allot floor time for the

Senate to have a full, open debate on this matter.

While we recognize that many important legislative items

vie for limited floor time, this is a rare opportunity to

demonstrate to the American public that Democrats and

Republicans are capable of working together to address

important issues.

Sincerely,

Mike Crapo, Kay Hagan, Richard Burr, Marco Rubio, David

Vitter, James Risch, John Boozman, Mike Johanns, Roy

Blunt, Rob Portman, Richard Lugar, Mary Landrieu, Kent

Conrad, Tom Carper, Chris Coons, Ben Nelson, Max

Baucus, Claire McCaskill, Tim Johnson, Amy Klobuchar,

John Hoeven, John Thune, Orrin Hatch, Lamar Alexander,

Joe Manchin.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Coast Guard Pay and Personnel Center in Topeka, KS. The Coast Guard's Pay and Personnel Center was first established in 1979 in the greater Washington, DC, area. In 1982 the center permanently moved to the Frank Carlson Federal Building in Topeka. My staff and I have the honor of working with this dedicated team of leaders on a regular basis.

The Pay and Personnel Center offers a specific and imperative service to more than 100,000 men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard. Spanning from human resources, to processing, disbursement, and other services, the Pay and Personnel Center has continued to operate without much attention or fanfare but with the goal of providing the compensation and services necessary to keep our Coast Guardians focused, secure, and dedicated.

Today, I offer congratulations and accolades to the Pay and Personnel Center on 30 years of hard work and superior service to our men and women in the U.S. Coast Guard. The center is a shining example of the Coast Guard motto, Semper Paratus, Always Ready.

Mr. President, I rise to urge the Senate to fully investigate the circumstances regarding the attack upon our U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the torture and killing of our Ambassador, the deaths of three American patriots and the following attacks and deaths involving marines in Afghanistan.

Americans are watching a conflagration of an estimated one-half million jihadists in over 30 countries, burning portraits of our President, American flags, and threatening attacks upon our consulates and embassies while shouting ``Death to America.'' No, Mr. President and my colleagues, the war against terrorism is not over. We find out now, 10 days later, that al-Qaida was involved in the planned attack in Benghazi, and dangerous protests continue in Pakistan and throughout the Muslim world.

This morning, the Commandant of our Marine Corps informed the Capitol Hill marines there are 153 marine units at the ready to protect U.S. consulates and embassies at the direction of the State Department. They should be deployed, and he believes the current danger may well last decades.

The sobering truth hurts. Was there actionable intelligence prior to this attack? If there was not, why not, especially given recent intelligence reports, press reports and testimony by Matthew Olsen, National Counterterrorism Center Director.

We are on a merry-go-round of excuses with this administration. There is no strong horse or weak horse. It is a merry-go-round that has to stop.

Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the Lowell Milken Center's 2012 National Projects Kick-off. Located in Fort Scott, KS, the Lowell Milken Center discovers, develops, and communicates the stories of unsung heroes who have made a profound and positive difference on the course of history. The Lowell Milken Center was opened in 2007 as an international nonprofit organization focused on creating a better future by developing projects that teach respect and understanding. This approach has been built upon student-driven, project-based learning so that Americans and people around the world may learn that each of us has the responsibility and the power to take actions to improve the lives of others.

During its 6 years of operation, the center has hosted over 15,000 visitors and reached over 550,000 students in 5,000 schools by telling inspiring stories of unsung heroes to influence change in behaviors and attitudes. In May, I had the pleasure of visiting the Lowell Milken Center. During my visit, I was able to meet the center's visionary and founder Norm Conard and its program director Megan Felt. Both are outstanding Kansans who have helped shape the way we approach history and learning. Ms. Felt has been honored nationally and internationally for her projects with students, and she is the founder of the internationally acclaimed work, ``Life in a Jar: The Irena Sendler Project.''

Irena Sendler was a devout Catholic who helped save the lives of 2,500 children during the Holocaust in Poland. She smuggled children out of a Warsaw ghetto and placed them with families not threatened by the Nazis. Toward the end of the war, she was arrested, severely beaten, and almost died for her actions to save these children.

In 1999, three high school students from Uniontown, KS, uncovered the remarkable story of Irena Sendler after Uniontown High School teacher Norm Conard tasked his students to compete in a National History Day contest. The students investigated an article published in 1994 mentioning Sendler and uncovered a heroic story that had gone virtually unreported. The students eventually met their hero and began exchanging letters.

This relationship inspired the students to write a play about Sendler's life and work. ``Life in a Jar: The Irena Sendler Project'' continues to be performed in Uniontown, KS, and has been preformed across the U.S. and in Europe. Fortunately, this project brought Sendler much overdue national attention in Poland, and in 2007 Sendler was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. In 2008, Irena Sendler passed away at age 98.

The Lowell Milken Center continues to pursue those often missed in history books and to promote cross-cultural understanding in the world. It is an honor to represent the Lowell Milken Center in the United States Senate, and I commend their efforts to promote the unsung heroes who changed the world through the 2012 National Projects Kick- off.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my distinguished friend and colleague, Senator Lieberman, for his leadership and for urging Members of Congress to bring amendments down that are germane on very serious national security issues. So I again thank him for his comments and his leadership.

Honor Flight Network

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a distinguished group of World War II veterans from Kansas who are now visiting their Nation's Capital this week as part of the Honor Flight Network.

The Honor Flight Network is an organization with the main mission to give veterans the opportunity to visit their memorials on the National Mall, free of cost to the veteran. The veterans who participate are many times unsung heroes of World War II, and in many cases their remembrances and their stories are shared for the first time and become public for the first time for families and hometowns. In many cases, young people traveling with these veterans hear the stories and can put the stories of these famous battles that protected our country in their local newspapers and in their school newspapers. It is history--it is history shared, lessons learned, and certainly renewed thanks to the ``greatest generation.''

Many of these veterans are in their eighties and nineties. There are fewer than 20,000 World War II veterans in Kansas. As time marches on, that number only decreases. Nationwide, the VA estimates that approximately 740 members of the ``greatest generation'' pass each day. So I am especially pleased that this Tuesday a group of 28 veterans will fly in to our Nation's Capital from Kansas to see their World War II memorial, and other memorials, and allow us the privilege to pay homage to their heroism. With five regional hubs in Kansas, there is a steady stream of veteran groups making their way to our Nation's Capital. The leaders of these groups include Brian Spencer and Bill Patterson leading the Honor Flight Kansas Student Edition from Lyndon, KS; Adrianne McDaniel and Peggy Hill, who lead the Jackson Heights Honor Flight; Beverly Mortimer and Denise Cyr head up the North Central Kansas Honor Flight out of Concordia, KS; Mike Kastle and Jeff True guide the Southern Coffey County High School Honor Flight out of Leroy, KS; and finally, the leaders of this group coming in on Tuesday are Mike VanCampen and Lowell Downey.

These hub leaders and the many volunteers deserve our recognition for the hours of work, organization, and fundraising that go into planning these trips. Thank you for what you do and for setting such a fine example in remembering and honoring the sacrifices made by those who stood in defense of our country in World War II.

Kansans and all Americans should know that this program--as a matter of fact, the World War II Memorial itself would not even exist without our former Senate majority leader, the senior Senator from Kansas and a World War II veteran himself, Bob Dole. Bob was instrumental in bringing the World War II Memorial to the National Mall. And even now Bob meets personally with Honor Flight groups who make their way out to see their memorial. When veterans learn that Bob Dole is at the World War II memorial, there is a crush of veterans like a flock of chickens going to the mother hen. I am not sure Bob Dole will appreciate that allegory, but at least I think that indicates everybody comes to hear him and thank him for his efforts.

Finally, I wish to recognize each member of this Honor Flight trip from Kansas visiting their memorial, and I ask unanimous consent that their names be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I rise to share my concerns over the proposed changes in the estate and gift tax provisions of the current Tax Code that will be considered within hours on the floor.

Similar to much of the Tax Code, the estate and gift tax provisions are terribly complex, costly to comply with, and have very serious negative consequences. These negative consequences disproportionately harm farmers and ranchers and worry their lenders.

Visiting with farmers and stockmen today--livestock producers--one had better stand back. They are upset, they are frustrated, they are angry, they are concerned, and they are worried.

All across farm country, we are suffering from a severe drought-- which is a real emergency, historic in scope and damage, particularly for our livestock industry. Congress should respond. At the same time, they are facing a farm bill that is in limbo, regulations that defy any commonsense cost-benefit yardstick, and no farmer or their lender can plan in this environment. In farm country, there is no certainty.

But just to split the shingle, now we have proposed changes to the current estate tax--the infamous death tax--all based on a select few in Washington deciding who is wealthy, what is a fair share people should pay in a tax and how they should pay that tax, playing again with the politics of envy and class warfare. I think we ought to quit this business. The classic example is that under current law, the Federal estate tax is set at 35 percent on estates over $5 million.

If nothing is changed, on January 1, 2013--or if Senators vote for a particular version of the two tax bills we are going to be considering in just about 1\1/2\ hours--if nothing is changed, the estate tax exemption will drop from $5 million to $1 million and the estate tax rate will jump from 35 percent to 55 percent.

If we do not act to extend the current death tax structure--I would like to eliminate it; I would like to repeal it but at least extend it--the Joint Committee on Taxation reports that over 10 years, the number of small businesses subject to the death tax will increase from about 1,800 folks to 23,700, and the number of farming estates subject to the death tax would increase from about 900 farmers and ranchers to 25,200. That is more than 20 times additional farming estates that would be hit with this massive death tax hike, a 2,000-percent increase.

It is not just farmers and ranchers who would be affected. Nine times more small businesses would be hit with this massive death tax--a 900- percent increase. Twelve times more taxable estates would be hit--a 1,200-percent increase. While I support permanently repealing the death tax, if we cannot achieve that goal, how we structure this tax in particular has immediate real-world implications for folks in Kansas and across the country.

The looming 2013 change to the estate tax law would be a huge disservice to agriculture because it is a land-based, capital-intensive industry with few options for paying estate taxes when they come due.

The current state of our economy, coupled with the uncertain nature of estate tax liabilities, makes it tremendously difficult for family- owned farms and ranches to make any sound business decisions. They are on the sidelines of our economy. They are not on the economic playing field. Again, there is no certainty.

Obviously, raising the estate tax burden will strike a blow to farm and ranch operations trying to transition from one generation to the next. A $1 million exemption sounds like a lot. To some people in this Chamber--and obviously to some people within this administration--at $1 million a person is rich, they are wealthy, with no consideration as to what the personal situation is for that individual, but somebody just determining what a fair share is and then taking from that individual and redistributing to those whom they think deserve it.

But a $1 million exemption is not high enough to protect a typical farm or ranch able to support a family. When coupled with a top rate of 55 percent, that is going to be especially difficult, if not impossible, for farms and ranches and businesses to pass on their wherewithal to the next generation.

Yet our Nation's estate tax policy is in direct conflict with the desire to preserve and protect our Nation's family-owned farms and ranches. Individuals, family partnerships, and family corporations own 98 percent of our Nation's 2 million farms and ranches. When estate taxes on an agriculture business exceed cash or other liquid assets, many surviving family partners will be forced to sell land, buildings or equipment needed to keep their businesses operating.

With 85 percent of farm and ranch assets illiquid, producers have few options when it comes to generating cash to pay the estate tax. Recent increases in agricultural land values--on average, 25 percent from 2010 to 2011--have greatly expanded the number of farms and ranches that now top the estate tax exemption. How on Earth can farmers, ranchers, and small businesses even plan for this?

In order to keep farm or ranch businesses operating after the death of the owner, families must plan for the estate tax. But under the majority party bill we will vote on shortly, many more farmers and ranchers will face increased filing, paperwork, and other hassles in planning for succession, not to mention lawyers, CPAs, and estate planners. In fact, if we don't extend the current estate tax, estates required to file paperwork with the IRS rise from about 8,600 to 107,500. That is a lot of time and cost that could be avoided.

The planning costs associated with this tax are not only a drain on business resources but also take money away from the day-to-day operations and investing in the business. Even with planning, uncertain tax law combined with changing land values and family situations make it impossible to guarantee that an estate plan will protect the family farm or ranch. This not only can cripple a farm or ranch operation, but it hurts all throughout our rural communities, up and down Main Street, every business that agriculture supports.

The death tax is one of the worst offenders in bringing real complexity to the Tax Code, and I believe it is one of the most distortive provisions in our system.

Some believe and will point out that the estate tax is an instrument of social justice; that it is designed to limit wealth accumulation and to spread that wealth around, something I think that is contrary to what this country is all about.

Why do you work? You work hard to make a difference, and you work hard because you enjoy the work and hopefully you get paid for it--and, hopefully you get paid for it enough that you can at least have enough wherewithal so your kids and their kids can continue that kind of endeavor if they so choose. But some people say we want to spread that wealth around.

Even if someone holds what I consider a socialistic view--a tough word; it is a pejorative, I know, but I think that applies here--the estate tax, which distorts no end of economic decisions, isn't the most efficient method to redistribute wealth. If you are a wealth redistributor, if you will, in this body, clearly taxpayers facing the death tax respond to the tax by cutting back on investments, consuming more of the capital and other assets that could be passed on to build businesses.

So the disincentives the death tax creates in the end lead to lower growth, fewer jobs, and less savings. How do we redistribute that? There is nothing to redistribute. In a troubled economy, this forced outcome does not make sense.

Being able to plan for the future is critical. The current uncertainty leads to the repeated provisions of wills and trusts, which burdens taxpayers and advisers alike. I don't care what farm organization I am talking to, what commodity group, what small business group, wherever I go in my State of Kansas--and I think it is the same in regard to other States that Members are privileged to represent-- over and over, I have been asked again what Congress will do with these provisions: What should a rancher do? How can they pass farms on to their children?

I have even been asked, for planning purposes--I am not making this up--if this is a good year to die. That is astounding, if not outrageous. It may be a good year to die because this egregious change is going nowhere.

These two bills we are considering in just a few moments are not going anywhere. We will vote in a little while, but they are both subject to a point of order--not having originated in the House, they will be blue-slipped. That is a fancy word, a parliamentary word, saying they are going nowhere because bills on taxes have to originate in the House. Talk about a real income redistribution--a nothing burger. That is what we are considering. But it is indicative of what is being considered in this Chamber and indicative of what we have to take care of in true tax reform.

Folks in Kansas should not have to make such important decisions on a tax law that is changing all the time. We need to repeal or permanently reset the death tax. If this tax cannot be repealed, it needs to be set in stone--hopefully, not a gravestone--and at a rate and in a manner that provides certainty.

While it is important to permanently eliminate this very punitive tax, until this can be accomplished, Congress should at least extend the current $5 million exemption, indexing it to reflect land values and continuing the spousal transfer and maintaining the top 35-percent tax rate.

We pay taxes all of our lives. It just doesn't make sense to be taxed again when we die.

I suggest the absence of a quorum, although I note that my colleague from Illinois is perhaps ready to speak. I will be happy to yield back any time I have.

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

I ask to be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to congratulate the University of Kansas on its prestigious designation as a National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

I do regret I can't be at the KU ceremony today to mark this designation by the NCI because of anticipated votes in the Senate, but I am certainly there in spirit.

This designation of `` cancer center'' is such an important development for my state and others in our region because it means that many Kansans and their families who have faced frightening diagnoses-- and trying treatments--will no longer have to seek cures all the way down to Texas or up to Minnesota.

They can, and will be able to, stay closer to home and their support systems. Simply put, it's great news for Kansas cancer patients in the region.

I am personally gratified by this designation because it represents more than a decade of work with so many outstanding partners. It has truly been a team effort to achieve this important Federal designation.

When I was first elected to this body in 1996, I created a blue ribbon committee of Kansas leaders in government, academia and the private sector to advise me on the State's science and technology needs. The goal was to make us more competitive in a global marketplace increasingly reliant on research and technology and to provide economic opportunity to stop out-migration of our best and brightest young people.

The Roberts advisory committee set out to implement policies and secure Federal investments to further the research goals of Kansas State University in plant and animal science, Wichita State University in composite and aviation research and the University of Kansas in life science research.

I personally took this goal to the Kansas legislature in 2001 and again in 2002 encouraging my colleagues in the Kansas State legislature to help promote State investment in research infrastructure--to be part of it.

At the time, I spoke about how the statistics showed that Kansas was lagging behind other States in the race for Federal and private research dollars.

In response, the Kansas legislature more than stepped up to the plate with special thanks to leaders like Representative Kenny Wilk, Senator Kent Glasscock, Representative Nick Jordan and Senator Dave Kerr.

The legislature voted in favor of bonding authority--and we constructed and invested in buildings at the KU Cancer Center and the Biosecurity Research Institute at K-State. Likewise, Wichita State's work in composite research is now revolutionizing industries from aircraft to health care. And about this same time, Stowers Biomedical Research Institute came into existence, which provided a key private source of research excellence.

Our Kansas motto is ``To the stars through difficulty.'' Well, in short, the stars aligned.

KU's then-Chancellor Bob Hemenway and I sought out other opportunities to help raise KU's research profile.

In 2004, we invited then-NIH Director Elias Zerhouni to KU for a tour and discussion about KU Medical Center's research facilities.

Dr. Zerhouni recognized--as many Federal research directors do--that there is great promise in research conducted at Kansas universities.

Chancellor Hemenway and I worked in concert to design congressionally directed programs to supplement KU's internal NIH cancer research successes. This included those won by Dr. Jeff Aube, who leads one of four NIH drug discovery centers.

Furthermore, this coordinated effort with Chancellor Hemenway and his leadership team also provided KU with the flexibility to recruit new cancer research faculty who brought considerable expertise and NCI cancer research programs to KU.

In 2006, with the critical mission of the National Cancer Institute in mind, from my post on the Senate Health Committee, we fought to reauthorize funding for National Institutes of Health which oversee the National Cancer Institute.

This reform bill reaffirmed the various centers of NIH including the Cancer Institutes and reauthorized their funding.

In fact, this was a continuation of Congressional efforts from 1999, when we were successful at doubling NIH funding over 5 years, at a time when many wanted to divert Federal funds to other research.

My then-partner in the Senate, Sam Brownback, now our State's Governor, and I worked together to advance this push.

In 2009, Senator Brownback and I secured $5.5 billion in Federal investments for the University of Kansas to purchase equipment needed to further its cancer research. Sam's leadership, both then and now, is immeasurable.

Over those 10 years, there were many other excellent team members supporting this effort who should be recognized. I apologize I will not be able to name everyone who played such a big and important role.

First, Dr. Howard Mossberg, dean emeritus of the KU School of Pharmacy. He was the force behind the regular meetings of our Science and Technology Advisory Committee. Howard, who lives in Lawrence, home of KU, did this work for free because he recognized the opportunity to use the advisory committee to provide us with key facts to support our research and technology initiatives. KU, in fact, hosted many of our advisory committee meetings down through the years. I truly appreciate that.

Riding shotgun back in Kansas on this effort has been my tireless staff member Harold Stones. Harold provided the hard work of collecting and then distilling and providing to everyone concerned the valuable contributions among our technology leaders for more than a decade, helping me turn them into policy and progress.

Credit must also go to former KU research directors Dr. Bob Barnhill and Dr. Michael Welch. They were instrumental in my research about the KU Cancer Center. Jim Roberts, who sadly passed away from cancer himself, was a valuable KU adviser to me, as is Steve Warren today.

I have appreciated getting to know Dr. Roy Jensen, who leads the KU Cancer Center. I know Roy will continue to stay in close touch with me and the entire Kansas delegation about the KU Cancer Center as it continues to progress. Our work is ongoing. It is not done.

I would also be remiss not to mention the contributions of my former legislative director, Mr. Keith Yehle. Keith was the point person for KU to contact, whether it was about the KU Cancer Center, the advancements in special education or the Hoglund Brain Imaging Center, where we also secured $1.8 million in Federal investment for renovation and equipment. Keith went on to work at KU for Chancellor Hemenway to help him and our current Chancellor Gray-Little navigate the corridors of Capitol Hill.

My former chief of staff Leroy Towns, former deputy legislative director Jennifer Swenson, and my current

senior health care policy adviser Jennifer Boyer round out the list of the Roberts team who spent countless hours working on behalf of the University of Kansas--whether it is the cancer center designation or any other of KU's initiatives.

Let me stress that my current colleagues in Congress, Senator Jerry Moran, Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins, and Congressman Kevin Yoder, have each carved out important initiatives to promote this designation and have helped make this day possible. This partnership will continue for

Very quickly, we all wear coats and ties in this body. This amendment would put us in lab coats. Don't wear a lab coat. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Madam President, when you go back home or if you conduct a press conference or if you have any contact with anybody about what we are doing here in Washington, the No. 1 question is: Why can't you all get along? Why can't you quit pointing fingers of blame? Why can't you end the rhetoric? Why can't you work together? Why can't you get something done?

We knew we had something special when we had a farm bill and the current farm bill was going to expire and you would go back to a farm bill that nobody wanted, or the 1949 act, which is ridiculous, and that we had to move. Farmers and ranchers and their lenders and everybody concerned with agribusiness knew we had to have a farm bill.

We went to work and we got a 16-to-5 vote out of committee, it was bipartisan, and we did it in 4\1/2\ hours. That set a record. I don't know of any time where in an Agriculture Committee, House or Senate, that it has been moved in 4\1/2\ hours.

Now 2\1/2\ days, with 73 amendments, opening it up to everybody regardless of circumstance, regardless if they voted for the bill or not? That is what we have accomplished--2\1/2\ days, 73 amendments. It is what can happen if we break the logjam of partisanship and work together to get something done. A tremendous amount of credit goes to the leadership of the Senator from Michigan. I feel very privileged to have worked with her and to work with her staff. They have been like Musketeers, every night, every morning, meeting: What can we do; how can we fix this?

It has worked. So after 2\1/2\ days and 73 amendments I thank you all for your patience. If anybody did not get an amendment, I am terribly sorry, I don't know how I missed you; consequently, on that side as well.

Let me say again, $23 billion provided in deficit reduction through reduced mandatory spending. The chairwoman is right, this is probably the only time on the Senate floor we will actually have a reduction in Federal spending and make our deficit contribution.

This is a good bill. Is it the best possible bill? No, it is the best bill possible. We should move it and we should vote for it. I urge you to vote for it.

I yield.

Mr. President, I ask to be recognized to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I wish to talk about the farm bill. As we can see from an open Senate, I think we have done our work, and we have been successful. Most of what we can say on this bill has already been said.

After final passage, I simply wish to reiterate what the chairwoman has said, what I have said all along: This is a reform bill. We cut $23 billion in mandatory spending. These are real cuts, no gimmicks. We have eliminated four commodity programs--four commodity programs. We have streamlined conservation programs from 23 to 13. We have eliminated numerous other authorizations.

In total, approximately 100 authorizations for spending and appropriations are eliminated. This is real reform. I also wish to take a quick moment to thank all the staff who have worked so hard on this legislation, especially the committee staff on both the majority and the minority sides.

I especially wish to thank the legislative magician, if I may call him that--expert--David Schiappa and his staff. They are no longer here, but they guided us through some difficult times, as he always does--as they always do.

I would like to take a few moments to recognize the members of my staff who worked on this bill. For me, this is a very special occasion. We are only as good as our staff. I have been blessed with the very best, and I have been a bucket toter. That is what a staff member is. When someone totes buckets, they try not to spill anything.

Sometimes they are successful and other times they may trip and fall. Other times it is just the way it is. I was administrative assistant to Senator Frank Carlson, the only man in Kansas to serve us as a Member of Congress, as a Governor, and a Senator, prior to our current Governor, Sam Brownback.

I was the administrative assistant for Congressman Keith Sebelius, who was on the House Agriculture Committee, and learned an awful lot about agriculture with Keith as we went through those days. Obviously, if someone is from Kansas, they are a legislative assistant or a bucket toter or whatever description you want for Bob Dole forever.

These people, as far as I am concerned, are not only my staff, they are my family. They have persevered. Anne Hazlett, my chief counsel, in my opinion, is the best chief counsel in the Senate, one of the top legislative drafters in the Senate, former director of the Indiana State Department of Agriculture under Gov. Mitch Daniels. When she is at my door, I know I am going to be told no on something.

I actually had better listen to her.

Eric Steiner. Eric has charged me with cruel and unusual punishment for putting him in the charge of dairy policy. After the 1996 farm bill and all that--and the 2002 and 2008 farm bills--I said I don't do dairy anymore. Then, in came Eric. He also became a dad for the first time earlier this year as we worked on this bill--talk about working 24/7 and giving up your family.

Keira Franz is a former Bob Dole staffer. Bob still tells her what to do so she can tell me what he says I am supposed to be doing.

Autumn Veazey, our southern bell and specialty crop guru, has also had the pleasure of getting to know places such as Dodge City and the inside of a meat processing plant--something that should be required of every agriculture assistant. Don't ask her.

Gregg Doud. Here is a real Kansas cowboy and one of the top agriculture trade experts in Washington, and he still wears his boots.

Tara Smith, our commodities and crop insurance expert, helps me navigate the minefields of both. Thank you so much, Tara. You have been wonderful.

Janae Brady keeps our staff--and, most importantly, my staff-- director organized.

Andrew Vlasity, a great young man and a tremendous writer, has helped create a research title for the future.

Max Fisher, our No. 1 crunching guru, also became a dad for the third time as we worked on this bill.

Chris Hicks, our other legal counsel, is a former Senate-confirmed general counsel at the Department of Agriculture and provides the wisdom of that position as we work on complicated matters.

Patty Lawrence is our Department of Agriculture detailee on conservation issues and the ultimate professional.

Also, in my personal office: Ryan Flickner, a young Kansas farm lad who will soon return to Kansas to get married and become my deputy State director.

Wane Stoskopf is another Kansas farm boy who is taking Ryan's position, and Emily Haug.

Also, my communications director, Sarah Little--dear Sarah is never short of work when it comes to cleaning up what I have said and should not have said.

My State agriculture representative is Mel Thompson. I used to work with Mel. He was a legislative assistant and I was administrative assistant with Keith Sebelius. We went through two farm bills. There is no better person to have eyes and ears on the ground than Mel Thompson.

Then, there are Joel and Mike, the ``two musketeers,'' who saw me every morning, every afternoon, and every evening. I have a tendency to wander, to reflect on past farm bill stories, and to occasionally give ranks. These are not particularly helpful in regard to moving legislation forward, and so Joel and Mike would say: Sir--at least they said ``sir''--Sir, keep your eye on the ball. Stay focused. Where there is a will, there is a way. If you rank, if you wander, you will be lost in the midst of the desert farm bill purgatory. Don't be lost in the desert farm bill purgatory. Stay focused.

I tried. I think we succeeded, for the most part.

The chairwoman also has a great staff. Everybody likes to brag on their staffs, and I know she will mention many of them. I especially thank her staff director, Chris Adamo, and chief counsel, Jonathan Coppess, for their outstanding work on this legislation. They have been professional throughout. I don't know what you guys are going to do now that we are not breaking into your office in the mornings, afternoons, and evenings to see your smiling faces--and then we wonder why you are not smiling. Thank you for a top job.

I also thank all those in Senate legislative counsel and the Congressional Budget Office who helped us get to this point today. They all worked behind the scenes, but we could not be here today without them.

I view my staff as family. I thank my family over here for their tremendous work in achieving what I think is a great farm bill and for doing something to restore the Senate back to the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am not going to speak in opposition, but I do ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join with me to oppose the amendment.

The amendment would provide government loans for brick-and-mortar projects, including food refrigeration capacity. We are talking about refrigerators--big refrigerators. At a time when we are working to streamline current programs and reduce the size of government, I am concerned we would be expanding the size to serve a new pool of applicants competing for very limited resources at the Department of

Agriculture. In this regard, the gleaners would be taken to the cleaners.

I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for a division vote.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment of my friend and colleague.

The battle cry for conservation compliance requirements to be attached to crop insurance seems, strangely, to assume that conservation compliance is somehow eliminated in commodity programs in this new bill. This is not true. Conservation compliance is attached to the new farm revenue program in title I of the bill. Conservation compliance is also attached to the marketing loan program.

To duplicate the same requirements in crop insurance is wasteful of government resources, taxpayer dollars, and will cause a lot more paperwork. When your farmers find out you are wasting taxpayer dollars and are in charge of a duplicative effort and making them fill out more paperwork, you will have to hide in your office for 4 weeks. Do not hide in your office for 4 weeks. Vote no.

Mr. President, I will support the yeas and nays and stand with the chairwoman and Senator Thune.

Mr. President, on behalf of Chairwoman Stabenow, myself, Senator Thune, and every farm organization and commodity group in America, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It will impact every single producer in the program, not those that exceed this arbitrary limit or ``rich producers.'' The rest will pay higher premiums when they are out of the program because that is what happens with an insurance pool.

I have no doubt, just as sure as I am standing here and the Senator from Oklahoma is sitting there and contemplating this, that under this amendment we will soon return to the days of low crop insurance participation, multibillion-dollar ad hoc disaster programs, just as in the 1990s--$36 billion over 10 years, $11 billion in 1 year. These are a disaster to plan, to legislate, and to implement.

If you are for these ad hoc disaster programs, you better hide for at least 6 weeks in your office. We just passed two where you are hiding for 2 and 4. Now you are going to have to hide in your office for 6 weeks. Don't hide in your office for 6 weeks. Vote no.