Floor Statements

This is a technical amendment. I rise in support of it, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, this amendment makes permanent the current Office of Tribal Relations with the Department of Agriculture, and that is very important in terms of outreach for Native American farmers and ranchers.

We have no objection, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I know of no objection at this point. I yield the remainder of our time.

Yes, that is correct.

I agree.

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. I do so reluctantly with my colleague on the committee. But the committee bill contains no mandatory funding in the rural development title. This amendment would take savings achieved in the bill from 23.4--used to be 26.3--now we are down to 23.4. That would take it down to 23.2 and redirect $150 million mandatory spending into a few rural development programs.

Nothing against them, but if we are going to achieve savings in this bill, we have to hold the line. I reluctantly oppose the amendment.

Madam President, I am supportive of this amendment.

I have been notified a record vote is being requested, so I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield back the remainder of our time.

Thank you, Madam President. A recorded vote has been requested, so I ask for the yeas and nays.

It is not only commodity programs, I say to my chairwoman. This would also affect all of our conservation programs, crop insurance, rural development programs, research, dairy, and livestock. I doubt if Larry Flynt has anything to do with any of those.

Mr. President, we yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, we have a request on our side for a recorded vote. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment. This amendment would shield over 82 percent of farm bill spending from deficit reduction and prevent the bill from addressing a serious breach in nutrition program integrity.

Let me be clear. Tightening the LIHEAP loophole does not affect SNAP eligibility for anyone using SNAP.

To add insult to this injury, this amendment then pillages money from crop insurance----

Did we not have a minute apiece?

Well, we will stop at ``pillaging.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent our USDA detailee, Patricia Lawrence, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of debate and consideration of this bill.

Mr. President, you have heard me recount numerous stories on the importance of agriculture in my home State of Kansas. Many of these stories center around the fact that cattle outnumber people by more than two to one, and I often joke that cattle are usually in a better mood. In recent years, the Kansas livestock industry has accounted for nearly 50 percent of all agricultural cash receipts within the State.

Mr. Lee Borck, chairman, and Mr. Andrew Murphy, president and chief executive officer, of Innovative Livestock Services have played a key role within the livestock industry. I want to take this opportunity to recognize part of the Innovative Livestock Services operation, Ward Feed Yard, on celebrating 50 years of feeding cattle. Great Bend Feeding and Ward Feed Yard, both part of the Innovative Livestock Services operation, have now been in business for more than 50 years. There is no doubt in the strong heritage, optimistic outlook and positive economic development this cattle feeding company has created in Kansas. Just as the beef industry is a leading segment of the agriculture industry in Kansas, with the leadership of Mr. Borck and Mr. Murphy, Innovative

Livestock Services is a true champion within the beef industry.

Today I wish to say congratulations to all of those who have helped over the past 50 years and to wish Ward Feed Yard nothing but the best for the next 50 years. Congratulations to all of the partners, employees, customers, community leaders and industry representatives on a job well done.

Madam President, this isn't exactly the trail I had hoped we would take to get to a successful conclusion on a farm bill that we need so vitally in farm country, for all the reasons that the distinguished chairwoman has outlined. I need not go over all of those reasons. I will mention that we have a September 30 deadline in which the current farm bill expires. The alternative is to go back to the current farm bill, which we know is outdated, and it has a payment system that is also outdated.

The other alternative, if you don't extend the farm bill, is you go to the 1949 act, which is not sustainable. It is not really an alternative. I had hoped we could start considering this. We had three Republican amendments, two Democratic amendments, and also the perfecting amendment. But that is not the trail we are going to go down.

Basically, I think about the only thing I can add is that we are not giving up. We can't. We will keep working as hard as we can to accommodate all Members. I know there is a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle about a global agreement. That seems to be a little bit of an exaggeration, more especially for this body. At any rate, that agreement would encompass every Members' concern at least, and we would go back to what the Senate used to be and have everybody offer amendments and debate them and then vote and have a conclusion. That is exactly what we did when we marked up the bill with over 100 amendments in 4\1/2\ hours. That was a record. That is not what we are going to do as of tomorrow. At least there is some degree of movement.

I know the Senator from Iowa has several amendments that are extremely important to the future of agriculture program policy. I commend him for his leadership in the past and for being such a successful partner in working things out not only for his State but for the country.

We will persevere and we will get this done. I guess we are like John Paul Jones--we have just begun to fight.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, how much time do we have on the Republican side?

Eighteen?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the farm bill. Let me point out what the distinguished chairwoman and the distinguished Senator who has just spoken have already pointed out--and it bears repeating; I know it is somewhat repetitive if people have been paying attention to the remarks we have had here prior to this vote--but this is a reform bill at a time in which reforms are demanded. It saves $23.6 billion in mandatory spending. They are real cuts. They are real deficit savings. It accomplishes this by reforming, reducing, and streamlining programs.

We eliminate four commodity programs. These programs are very difficult to go through at the FSA office, the Farm Service Agency we have. So when farmers have come in to try to wade through the four commodity programs, they have always been terribly difficult and complex.

We streamline the 23 conservation programs into 13 and eliminate duplication. We tighten a major loophole in nutrition programs. We cut 16 rural development authorizations. We cut over 60 authorizations in the research title and streamline programs.

In whole, we cut and/or streamline over 100 programs. Show me another committee that has done that on a voluntary basis. There is not any in the House or the Senate.

We have had speech after speech after speech after speech--heartfelt speeches--why can't you work together back there in Washington and do what is right for the American people and quit spending money we do not have? We had a supercommittee that worked on this for a considerable amount of time. I do not question anybody's intent who had that tough job. At that time, we offered to the supercommittee a package that could have been done at that particular time. But we did it--``we'' meaning the chairwoman and myself and members of the committee, and staff as well, who worked extremely hard.

So there has not been anybody else who has come forward and said: Here is real deficit reduction. That is why we should support the motion to proceed. We have made the tough decisions because that is what you do in rural America--whether it is in Michigan, Kansas, the Dakotas, or Nebraska. Because that is what you do when budgets are tight and you need to get things done.

Those in rural America are also why we need to get this bill done. The current law expires September 30. How many things around here are in purgatory? Tax extenders, the tax bill, what we call the tax cliff that we are looking at over here if we do not get things done, the specter of a lameduck Congress--in 3 weeks trying to get things done like that. And you put folks in purgatory where they cannot make any decisions.

Well, it would be a disaster in rural America if we do not pass this law before we revert back to the permanent 1949 law. That law in no way reflects current production or domestic and international markets. And I would say, even if we extend the current law, it does not reflect what we need as of today. That law goes back to base acres of 25 years ago. We are talking about planted acres as of today. So basically it would be government-controlled agriculture on steroids, and it would also mean that virtually all programs in the current law would expire.

We cannot let that happen. We need certainty. Farmers need certainty. Ranchers need certainty. Bankers need certainty. Everybody up and down every Main Street in rural America needs certainty. Agribusiness needs certainty. We need it because our farmers and ranchers and their bankers need to know what the farm bill and the programs are going to look like.

In farming, you have to go to your banker every year to get an operating loan for the coming year. We raise winter wheat in Kansas. We are known for that. Kansas is known as the ``wheat State.'' It will be planted in September. That means farmers will be going to their bankers as early as late July--next month--or early August to get their operating notes for the coming year. Without certainty in the farm bill, it is more difficult to make any economic projection, and it is more difficult for farmers to obtain loans and for bankers and farm credit to provide that credit. That is why we need to get it done now in their behalf. Rural America needs to know the rules of the game.

Just as importantly, American taxpayers are demanding government reforms and reduced deficit spending. This bill delivers on both fronts. It is true reform.

Let's get this bill done. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to proceed.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the distinguished chairwoman and thank her so much for this team effort that has brought this excellent farm bill to the floor.

Mr. President, first, I would like to thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan for her very kind remarks. This has been a team effort. She has been a very strong leader to try to put together a bill. I thank her for her very detailed summary, title by title, of the farm bill--something a lot of us probably couldn't do, but at any rate, she has done that, and it is in the Congressional Record. I urge my colleagues to really take a look at what the distinguished chairwoman has said today because she has literally gone down every title in the farm bill. So if anybody has any questions, it is right there, and, as she has indicated, if anybody has questions of either of us, please be in contact with either us or our very able staff.

I rise today in strong support of the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012, the farm bill, and I am privileged to stand here today with Chairwoman Stabenow, who led this reform legislation through the Agriculture

Committee. It has truly been a bipartisan and a team effort. It represents the final product of numerous hearings and months of discussions as we worked to write a new farm bill during the most difficult budget climate in our Nation's recent history.

I am proud to say that we have put together a bipartisan bill that strengthens and preserves the safety net for our farmers and ranchers in rural America, while providing $23.6 billion--$24 billion, as a politician's counting--in deficit reduction under this bill reported by the committee on a bipartisan vote of 16 to 5.

Let me repeat that. The Senate Agriculture Committee voluntarily wrote and reported a bill that provides $23.6 billion in deficit reduction. It is a bill that represents real reform. We are the first authorizing committee to produce those kinds of mandatory budget savings, and it was voluntary.

We all remember the supercommittee that tried very hard to achieve deficit reduction. The supercommittee was really not that super--not because of those people individually but because of the circumstances. Well, we are a supercommittee. We came up with $23.6 billion. I don't know of anybody over on the House side--perhaps I am wrong, but in the Senate we are the only folks who have really come up with real budget savings.

It also represents, as I have indicated and as the chairwoman indicated, real reform. Just listen to this. We have eliminated four commodity programs that caused farmers untold hours of preparation--go down to the Farm Service Agency and talk to the folks down there, who are hard-pressed anyway, and ask: ``Which program do I sign up for? How can I plan down the road?'' We rolled all of these commodity programs into one, while saving approximately $15 billion from the farm safety net programs. That is truly remarkable.

Twenty-three conservation programs are streamlined into 13, while saving nearly $6.4 billion. Approximately $4 billion is saved in the nutrition title, while at the same time expanding our efforts to root out fraud and abuse. Sixteen program authorizations are eliminated in the rural development title, eliminating over $1 billion of authorized spending over 10 years on top of the mandatory. Two programs are combined and another two eliminated in specialty crops. Over $200 million less in mandatory money is provided in the energy title compared to the 2008 farm bill. Five programs are eliminated in the forestry title, reducing authorizations by at least $20 million. Over 60 authorizations are eliminated from the research title, reducing authorizations by at least $770 million over 5 years. Again, that is $23.6 billion in tough mandatory savings, at least $1.8 billion in reduced discretionary authorizations, and at least 100 programs or authorizations that have been eliminated.

This is a reform bill. No other committee in the House or Senate has voluntarily undertaken programmatic and funding reforms at this level in this budget climate--no other committee. Believe me, it would have been much easier to write a baseline bill with no change in CBO spending projections. We could have fulfilled everyone's request on the committee and in the Senate, but we would not have performed the duty that we were elected to perform and that our constituents expect in this budget climate and that farmers and ranchers expect and their lenders expect and all up and down Main Street throughout rural and smalltown America or, for that matter, any taxpayer or any citizen of the United States. We have reduced spending, and we have reformed programs. That is what they want, and they want us to work together, and that is what we have done. At the same time, it is a bill that strengthens and preserves our farm risk management, conservation, research, and rural community programs.

We have strengthened and preserved the Crop Insurance Program--as pointed out by the distinguished chairwoman, the No. 1 priority of virtually every producer who testified before our committee. Why? Because their banker or their lenders say: You have to have crop insurance, and you have to strengthen it, and you have to improve it. In the past, we have been using crop insurance as a bank. No, we are not going to do that anymore given the circumstances our farmers face even today in Kansas as we go through another dry spell, and also in Texas, Oklahoma, and the High Plains.

We have streamlined our commodity programs, while reducing the complexity for the producers. We have updated the acreage upon which support is based to reflect more recent cropping patterns. That is a point I wish to discuss just a little bit more.

In recent days and weeks, it has seemed there has been just a little bit of confusion here in the Capitol region. It seems that some think we should write a farm safety net program and allocate their funding by commodity group or organization, sort of like a pie chart. If all you did was listen to these groups, you would think we were robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I understand that the elimination of direct payments is a big deal to many commodities. If anybody should understand that, it should be me. As a key feature of the 1996 act, I originally authored the program at that time. One of the biggest beneficiaries of the program has been wheat, especially in Kansas. But the taxpayers have been clear in this budget climate: Why should Congress continue and defend a program based on planting acreages established over 25 years ago? That doesn't make any sense.

Yes, the elimination of direct payments means the end of many wheat payments in Kansas, but that does not mean Kansas producers will no longer have a farm safety net--quite the contrary. They will have a strong risk management program. It will just be for different crops. Why? Because when base acres were established over 25 years ago, Kansas planted over 2.8 million acres of corn, 4.2 million acres of sorghum, 1.6 million acres of soybeans, and 12.1 million acres of wheat.

Now, in the most recent 3-year period, Kansas farmers planted 4.6 million acres of corn, 2.6 million acres of sorghum, 4 million acres of soybeans, and 8.8 million acres of wheat. Why? That is 4.9 million fewer acres of wheat and sorghum and 4.2 million more acres of corn and soybeans.

Why did that happen? Why did these acreage shifts in Kansas and all over the country change like that? It occurred because farmers made those decisions, not Washington. Our producers have planted for the domestic and international market, and we have done so in a way that we do not encourage a WTO challenge. The cropping changes are much the same all throughout the Nation, especially among States represented on the Agriculture Committee.

Money is shifting among commodities because farmers are farming differently. They are becoming much more diversified throughout the States on this committee and the Nation. It is not shifting because we in Washington are intentionally picking winners and losers.

I understand some are frustrated with the decisions and changes we have in this bill. That takes place in any farm bill. Quite honestly, there are things that, if we had the funds available, the chairwoman and I both would have preferred to have done differently. But let's be blunt. This is not the 2002 or 2008 farm bill, and we do not have extra funds available.

This is not my first trip to the farm bill rodeo. I have written bills in times of budget surpluses and extra spending, and I have written farm bills in the middle of deficit cutting exercises--seven of them. Make no mistake about it, it is much easier to write a bill when we are adding money to the baseline--a whole heck-of-a-lot easier.

Nutrition groups, conservation organizations, our commodity groups, our Members of Congress want to stand by you and take the bows when you are adding money to the programs. But when it comes time to make difficult decisions and do what is right for the country by reducing spending and reforming programs, sometimes they are just not even in the same room. They are hiding in the weeds.

American agriculture today is a modern-day miracle. Every American farmer feeds you, Mr. President, and 150 other people. In America today our consumers spend less of their disposable income on food--and their market basket, OK?--than any other Nation in the world. America's farmers and ranchers provide us with the most

abundant and affordable and safest food supply on the planet. That is a speech every farm organization and commodity group and farmers and ranchers have heard over and over, but it is a speech that deserves repeating to all my colleagues over and over so they get it.

They feed our Nation. Our producers feed our country. They feed the world, a troubled and hungry world. They provide food for the food aid programs that help countries around the world send young girls to school. Sending those girls to school helps feed hope and a belief in our American ideals rather than hatred and radicalism toward our Nation. The American farmer and rancher do provide stability in a chaotic world, and in doing so national security as well.

Show me a country that can't sustain itself in terms of food supply, I will show you chaos. Read about the Mideast, Syria, Libya and what is going on over in that part of the world. So the farm program is not only a farm program, it is a program to achieve stability in the world because of the productivity of the American farmer, and our ability to do it is also a national security program.

Every year America's farmers produce more on less land using less water and fewer inputs with ever-stronger conservation practices. It is truly a modern-day miracle what the agricultural sector in America does today.

I understand some are unhappy with some of the proposals put forward in this bill. It is a farm bill. I wouldn't expect it to be any different. But I can assure you, however, if I thought we were in any way writing a bill that would make it more difficult for my State of Kansas or for the State of Michigan or any American producer to feed this Nation and this world, a bill that eliminated their safety net which destroyed their ability to protect our natural resources while also feeding the most needy in our country, I would not be standing here today supporting it. I would not do that.

If I thought it in any way could keep us from feeding 9 billion people--note that, 9 billion people who will walk this Earth in just a couple of short decades--I would oppose this bill. We are going to have to double our agricultural production to help in a humanitarian way and prevent chaos all around the world, 9 billion people.

Agriculture is the backbone of the Kansas economy, employing more than one in five Kansans. More than 65,000 farms dot the Kansas landscape with an average land size of 705 acres. These farmers and ranchers do a tremendous job of feeding a troubled and hungry world. In fact, Kansas ranks No. 1 in the Nation in the production of wheat and grain sorghum, second in cattle farms, and third in sunflowers produced. We expect that, being the Sunflower State. Cash receipts from farm marketings were greater than $12 billion, and farm product exports were in excess of $4.8 billion.

Farmers and ranchers in my State truly help feed--what we have said again and again--a troubled and hungry world, which is why I am proud of this legislation. We have worked hard to put this together. It may not be the best possible bill, but it is the best bill possible given the circumstances we face. We have performed our duty to taxpayers by cutting deficit spending while at the same time strengthening and preserving the programs so important to agriculture and rural America.

Again, we have cut mandatory spending by $23.6 billion. We have reformed, eliminated, and streamlined USDA programs to the tune of more than 100 programs and authorizations eliminated. And we have done it on a voluntary basis because in rural America you make the tough decisions. When the going gets tough, the tough get going, and you do what is right when it needs to be done. When we have done it in a bipartisan fashion, that is the best way to do it.

How many times have we heard this: What on Earth is wrong back there? Why can't you join together and work together and do what is right for America and for the people? This is what this committee has done under the leadership of the chairwoman.

So I thank the chairwoman for bringing us to this point today, and let's pass this farm bill. It is good for the country, it is good for the world, it is a good bill, and we need to proceed.

I hope every Member could vote for the motion to proceed. If they have amendments they are interested in, please come to us. It is like Bob Barker said: Come on down. Come on down and talk to us. If you have a problem with the bill, we will work with you. Just let us know. OK.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, be recognized for 10 minutes when he appears on the floor. I thought he would be here by this time but he is not. At the appropriate time, I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I intend to give my full opening comments in regard to the farm bill tomorrow, but I wish to quickly say thank you to the chairwoman for helping to bring us to this point. I thank her for her leadership. It has truly been a bipartisan effort. It has been a team effort.

I wish to reiterate what the chairwoman has said. I wish to tell our colleagues this is a true reform bill. I could say that 10 times over for emphasis, but it is a true reform bill. It also reduces and streamlines the Department of Agriculture programs--long overdue. We cut $23 billion in mandatory spending, and it was voluntarily, without any direction from the Budget Committee or anybody else, and it is real money. It is mandatory money.

The Super Committee tried to work out a deal, and they weren't so super. They tried hard. I am not trying to criticize a tough deal. We are the only authorizing committee that I know of in the Senate that has voluntarily come forth and said: Here is real deficit reduction in mandatory spending--over $23 billion. It is rather remarkable that people who tend to be critical of agriculture would all of a sudden discover it is the Agriculture Committee, in a bipartisan effort, that has cut real money, real mandatory money.

How many times have we heard folks back home say: Why don't you work together? Why can't we all get along? Why can't you reach across the aisle and accomplish something? We did that in our committee, with strong bipartisan support, and we achieved this true spending reduction. We eliminated four of the commodity programs.

I just had a colleague come in to visit with me this morning. He said: I looked at this farm bill and I couldn't figure it out. It is so complex I don't know how anybody can figure it out. That is pretty true in farm country too--trying to figure out all of the complexities, and when they go down to the farm service agency, trying to figure out what is in each program and which one they should pick. We eliminated four commodity programs and made it much simpler. We strengthened and improved crop insurance, which is the No. 1 issue we heard about in every hearing we had. We eliminated $6 billion in conservation spending while streamlining 23 programs into 13 to eliminate duplication. When have we heard: When are you going to start to streamline and reduce duplication? We have done that. We cut $4 billion in nutrition programs--a painful cut for some, I understand that. But it is not going to affect anybody's payments so much as it is the $4 billion-- that is 82 percent, by the way, of the agriculture budget is in nutrition.

We have eliminated a grand total of more than 100 programs. Get this: We have eliminated a grand total of more than 100 programs--I don't know of any other committee that has done that--and authorizations totaling nearly $2 billion in reduced authorizations alone. So we dealt with not only mandatory spending but also $2 billion in authorizations.

This is, as I have said, a reform bill. We need to get this thing passed. We need to get the farm bill passed. The current law expires on September 30 of this year. Failure to pass the bill means we revert to permanent 1949 law that would provide absolute chaos in the countryside. If we don't pass this bill by September 30, then we are back here voting on an extension. Who wants to extend the current farm bill? It is yesterday's farm bill. This is tomorrow's farm bill. We can't go back to 1949, and I do not think we need to be in any business of trying to extend the current act when we have a true reform bill and one that is fiscally sound.

The big thing is we need to provide set guidance to our producers and their lenders--our farmers, ranchers, bankers, all up and down Main Street who depend on agriculture, including every rural community and, for that matter, anybody who eats, every consumer. We are talking about the hometown banker and the farm credit agencies so they can know exactly what this farm bill looks like when, as early as this August, they will begin to discuss their operating loans for the coming year.

I know we are debating the motion to proceed at this time, but the chairwoman and I and our staffs are available. We are available. If someone has heartburn, we are available. We have the Rolaids; don't worry about it. Our staffs are available. Come to us if a colleague wants to discuss a possible amendment. Come to us and talk to us. We are working together in a bipartisan effort. I urge Members who intend to offer amendments to please come to us and allow us to begin working with them now. We stand ready and willing and, with the help of Members, able.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in opposition to speak for 1 minute.

Madam President, I fear this legislation would insert Congress in the scientific process of approving applications that we have entrusted to the FDA. This application has been pending at FDA for over 15 years. We should allow the FDA to complete their scientific review of the product and not interfere with the ongoing reviews.

We have a science-based system that allows for complete review. We should allow that process to continue. This amendment sets up a two- tiered, two-agency approval system. That is not good. We know the FDA has already conferred with NOAA regarding the pending application.

Basically, Members of the Senate should not put on lab coats and tell the FDA to approve or deny the pending application. We should allow them to act on the statutory authority that is given to them. I reluctantly oppose the amendment of my colleague from Alaska.

It is my understanding I am to be recognized at 2 p.m. for 10 minutes. I understand the majority leader has something to say at about 2:15 in regard to the progress of this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the legislation that is actually before us as opposed to the topic before, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act that we are currently debating. In addition to reauthorizing the user-fee agreements, this legislation includes many other important provisions. Members should know what is in this bill and how important these provisions are.

There is language to permanently reauthorize pediatric research incentives, programs to incentivize antibiotic research and development, and more transparency and accountability for the FDA and stakeholders, which we hope will help to address drug shortages. That is a big problem not only in urban areas but in the rural health care delivery system in every State. Every Senator ought to be aware of that, and I am sure they are hearing about it.

In May I joined with Senators Reed, Murray, and Alexander in introducing the Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act, the BPDCA. I don't think that makes a very good acronym, so I am not even going to try it. Back in 1997 Congress passed the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, which acknowledged the importance of ensuring medications were effective and safe for children by providing an incentive for pharmaceutical companies to invest in pediatric research. In 2003, with the passage of the Pediatric Research Equity Act, Congress required the pharmaceutical companies to engage in these studies.

These bills are often referred to as the carrot-and-the-stick approach for pediatric drug development. I prefer carrots to sticks around here, especially mandates, but they have proven over time to work--the carrot-and-the-stick approach. Since the enactment of these laws, approximately 426 drug labels have been revised with important pediatric information, and the number of off-label drugs used in children has declined from 80 to 50 percent. That is certainly good news.

In 2007 a complementary initiative to promote the development of pediatric medical devices; that is, the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act, was enacted. This law has resulted in a fivefold increase in the number of small-market medical devices designated for pediatric use.

The Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act will permanently extend these worthwhile programs, while providing some real predictability and accountability for pediatric drug and medical device development.

The legislation also includes the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now Act that I joined with Senators Blumenthal and Corker in supporting last year. This title contains provisions that aim to boost development of products to treat serious and life-threatening infections--something that is a growing problem in all of our hospitals. It provides meaningful market incentives and reduces--get this--reduces regulatory burdens. Glory be. Here is a bill that actually reduces regulatory burdens to encourage development of new antibiotics. Why? Well, the antibiotic pipeline has slowed to an alarming rate. According to the FDA, the approval of such drugs has decreased by 70 percent since the mid-1980s. This is unacceptable. The development of just one new antibiotic can take upwards of 10 years. We must act now to avoid a potential health care crisis.

When I am back in Kansas--and I know when other Senators are back in their States--talking to folks about health care, I often hear about the problem with drug shortages. When a problem exists in an urban setting, simply multiply that 10 times, and that is what we have in our rural areas. This is never more true than on the issue of drug shortages. This is a crisis. As difficult as it is to hear from my hospital administrators and pharmacists in Kansas about the difficulties they are having in getting drugs to fill prescriptions for patients, nothing compares to the patients and the families of patients who can't get their drugs, who can't get their treatment, who are already scared about their future and they can't get their lifesaving medication due to shortages. This is unacceptable. That is why I joined with a number of my colleagues on the HELP Committee to work together to see if we could come to a bipartisan consensus on a way to alleviate at least some of the burden drug shortages create. The legislation now requires reporting on drug shortages, but it also provides some transparency and accountability in the hope that we can get to the root cause of this problem.

Not everything in this legislation is what I would have done if I had my choice--that is obvious and probably the case with every Senator and every major bill on which we must make decisions. I am certain many of my colleagues on the HELP Committee are thinking the same thing. However, I think we are all pleased we were able to come to a bipartisan consensus on this legislation and in addressing many of the issues that are affecting Kansans and the rest of Americans.

I talked with a fellow last night who said: Why can't you all work together? Why can't you pass something in a bipartisan way?

This legislation is a good example of exactly what that gentleman was talking about and what a lot of Americans are concerned about. In that regard, I thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Enzi for all of their work and for all of the work by their staff and our staff over the past years and months in putting together this important piece of legislation. This took a long time. It took a lot of effort. It took a lot of hard work. Their commitment to a bipartisan process and their willingness to communicate with all

the members of the HELP Committee has led us through a relatively noncontentious markup, and I hope the same will happen as we consider this legislation on the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the marking of an historic event. 150 years ago--on May 15, 1862--President Abraham Lincoln signed into law an Act establishing what our Department of Agriculture is today.

Agriculture has come a long way in 150 years. Through science, innovation, ingenuity and plain old hard work, America's farmers have gone from producing enough food for their individual families to producing enough to meet the needs of 150 people per farmer--that's what I call the miracle of modern agriculture.

Some may have a romanticized view of agriculture production 150 years ago and pine for a return to the days of the past. But let me assure you, those were hard days. And if today's farmers and ranchers only produced the same yield and quality of food as the farmers and ranchers of yesteryear, we'd be in a world of hurt.

Today's farmers and ranchers produce the safest, most abundant and affordable food and fiber supply in the world--all while facing increased input costs and tightening regulations.

As if these challenges weren't enough, our producers face a challenge of worldwide significance. As the global population tops 9 billion in the next several decades, agriculture production must more than double to meet the expected demand for food and nutrition.

In addition to the sheer population expansion, global food demand will shift toward higher value proteins and commodities as economies develop and prosper. For example, in 1985 the average person in China consumed roughly 44 pounds of meat. This increased to 90 pounds per person in a short 15 years. That number is expected to double again by 2030.

That's no small task. It will take advancements in technology, efficiency and in some cases simply getting government and regulatory roadblocks out of the way. Doubling agriculture production will only occur through production techniques that combine the use of important conservation practices with the use of improved seed varieties that increase drought and disease resistance while increasing yields.

The importance of agriculture's mission cannot be overstated. It is also a matter of national security. A well fed world is a much safer and stable place than a hungry world. Full bellies lead to stability, economic growth and peace. Hungry bellies lead to discontent, instability, and extremism.

The more nations we can help to feed and bring economic prosperity, the more stable the world as a whole will become.

Now I don't know if 150 years ago President Lincoln knew how important the role of agriculture would become to global stability or what USDA's role would be in answering these challenges. But this anniversary provides us a unique opportunity to thank our producers for their efforts in bringing agriculture this far, and to let them know that we stand beside them in meeting the challenges ahead.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I wish to discuss what everybody else is discussing these days--I say discussing or maybe even cussing--and that is gas prices and, more to the point, some unfortunate finger-pointing that I think is going on in regards to our energy policies and why we see the increase we are seeing at the gas pump and the role of speculation in regards to the futures market and the energy environment we are now living in that is so challenging.

I have the privilege of being the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and I feel it is very important to address some of the claims being made by a number of my friends--some across the aisle-- this week with regard to speculation in the commodities market.

From the rural farmer to the urban commuter, Americans everywhere are, obviously, deeply impacted by high gas prices. That is the biggest and most often negative sign we see when we drive anywhere: Whoops, we see all of a sudden that the gas price has shot up 10 cents. Unfortunately, I do not think posturing or finger-pointing does anything to minimize the pain felt at the pumps.

Similar to the annual planting and harvesting seasons in Kansas, a yearly occurrence happens in Washington, DC, for certain Members of Congress to blame the commodity markets every time a particular commodity reaches an uncomfortable price level. If we see a big price jump, we, obviously, want to blame the commodity markets. It is easy to do. We saw it in the 1970s when we had gas lines during the Carter administration, the 1980s, the 1990s. It is the same old talking points. We could have the speech in the file. Just pull out the file, cross out the date, and start making these points.

But let me talk about some economic facts, if I might. The populist rhetoric fails to acknowledge that everyone's money is the same color in the futures market. For every buyer, there is a seller and for every seller there is a buyer.

The historical problem for futures markets and the hedgers who use them is, oftentimes, particularly in the deferred month contracts, there is not the liquidity or an adequate number of market participants to take the other side of a trade to allow the hedgers to manage their deferred price risk.

Market participants who actually provide this liquidity provide a valuable tool that allows producers and

consumers of products to lock in their inventories well in advance, which can lead to lower costs to producers and certainly better prices for consumers.

If long speculation and the liquidity it provides is artificially driven from the market, the potential short-term advantage of lower prices could lead to shortages in production, higher demand, and even higher prices for both energy and agricultural commodities.

My point in this dissertation on futures markets 101 is to emphasize that speculation is not manipulation. Speculation is trading to make a profit from anticipated price changes--either higher or lower. Manipulation, on the other hand, is intentionally acting to cause artificial price changes.

As explained by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the independent regulatory arbiter of excessive speculation, speculation is excessive when it causes any sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in the price of a commodity.

In fact, the CFTC currently has the authority to regulate against price manipulation. So if we want to go to the people who are in charge to make sure there is not any manipulation, we already have the regulatory body and they are doing exactly that and it has had this authority since its creation by Congress in 1974.

Furthermore, we have experts at the clearinghouses, at the National Futures Association, and at the CFTC whose job it is to watch these markets minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day, to assure everybody that the discovery of prices between buyers and sellers is occurring openly and transparently.

Yet when prices just so happen to move above what somebody in this body might think is reasonable or an uncomfortable level, we have a tendency to blame the participants in the market rather than the multitude of factors and economic variables these market participants react to each minute the market is trading.

Let's examine some of these real factors that are affecting our energy prices.

First off, there is tremendous increased demand outside the United States; particularly, in Asia, China. It has caused the price of oil to rise rather dramatically. Even with the increased production in Canada, the United States, and Brazil, declines in the North Sea, Mexico, Sudan, and Libya have impacted the global supply.

Second, our U.S. refining capacity has decreased as a result of stricter environmental regulations, where they get their crude from. Both have lowered the supply of gasoline enough to prop up prices. We see reports in the press every day about one refinery making it big and other refineries are having a lot of difficulty.

Third, restricted domestic energy development on Federal lands has disrupted our futures projections.

Fourth, fear over Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions is leading to increased demand for gasoline, as people try to stock up in anticipation of any supply disruption that would be based on the possibility of a conflict in the Middle East.

Lastly, I would simply point out that blaming speculators ignores the inflationary aspects of the monetary policies of several central banks around the globe. It does not take a speculator to know that when the U.S. Treasury prints more money, it drives down the value of the dollar and drives up the price of raw materials and commodities, such as oil, priced in dollars. Yet despite these facts, we have too many who keep seeking a solution for a problem that simply isn't there.

What have the regulatory bodies found in their investigations as we look for somebody to blame? There have already been studies and investigations into whether excessive speculation is manipulation and they are manipulating prices. Let's take a look at what they found.

Last year, a Federal Trade Commission report on manipulation of gas prices determined that none of the complaints investigated violated any FTC rules.

A similar study by the CFTC stated that its preliminary analysis ``does not support the proposition that speculative activity has systematically driven changes in oil prices.''

Last but not least, the administration's own Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force set out to investigate illegal speculation in the energy markets. To date, it has found none.

The effects of high gas prices on our economic growth and on each individual business and family are certainly well understood. We should be finding effective solutions to fix a failed Federal energy policy rather than trying to place the blame where it does not exist.

These solutions do not stop at increased domestic oil and gas production. They include implementation of workable environmental regulations. Unfortunately, the multitude of regulations under this administration is anything but workable.

They are like a Katrina flooding virtually every part of the economic sector. That is all I hear about when I go home to Kansas. There are a lot of things that are on people's minds, but regulation is No. 1, and I don't care what sector of the economy we are talking about. There is a very real fear in my State that the new clean air regulations we are hearing about targeting coal-fired powerplants could disrupt our power grid. In a State that relies on coal for 75 percent of our power, this is simply unacceptable.

Yes, let's continue moving toward cleaner forms of energy--certainly we want to do that--but in a way that will not compromise the ability for Kansans or any citizen of any State to access affordable energy. This includes impending Federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing, which will continue to play a huge role in my State's energy economy.

In closing, on a larger topic of domestic energy companies, I think it is unfortunate for elected officials to come to the floor--or for that matter make a speech anywhere--and single out specific industries or private U.S. citizens, for that matter, that employ millions of Americans and blame them for our energy woes. I think we are better than that.

Let's remember that attacking their profits is an easy target. It is not going to hurt the few top-level executives at these companies, but it will hurt middle-income Americans and retirees who make up over 90 percent of the ownership of so-called Big Oil or so-called big anything, and rely on their IRAs, pension funds, and mutual funds for their very livelihood. These are not privately held companies, so let's remember who actually owns the companies. It is our constituents, that is who it is.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last Friday was the second anniversary of the new health care law. This week we have been reminding the American public to take a hard look at what is in it, and, more importantly, why I don't want to observe this anniversary again.

Examples such as the Medicare reimbursement formula that allows Massachusetts to set Statewide hospital reimbursement rates for providers equal to the cushy wages paid to providers at a 15-bed hospital on the island of Nantucket that caters to the East coast elite.

This robs 19 other States of money for their reimbursements because it all comes from the same pot. In short, there aren't enough clams at this bake to go around, certainly not to Kansas after Massachusetts is finished.

Or the Health and Human Services' rule that required qualified health plans to offer contraception benefits. As my colleagues know, religious institutions that hold moral objections to specific services expressed widespread concern with the rule.

In response, Senator Blunt offered, and I cosponsored, S. 1467, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. This act would allow a health plan to decline coverage of specific items and services that are contrary to the religious beliefs of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan without penalty and remain in compliance with the requirements under the new Health Care Law.

And what about the regulations that have caused insurance plans in 39 States to stop offering child-only plans, and parents in at least 17 States that are no longer able to purchase ANY child-only plans? Keep in mind, there are no private insurance alternatives for these families until the new health care law is fully implemented in 2014.

There is also the prohibition on what can be reimbursed from a Health Savings Account or HSA. I joined Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins in introducing a bipartisan bill to repeal this provision to restore the choice and flexibility people had in managing their health care expenses by buying over-the-counter medications.

Even more alarming is the act of granting waivers to more than 1,700 labor unions and others from participating in the new law. At issue are the mandates involving annual coverage forcing many employers not to offer coverage at all. So instead labor unions and others are getting waivers. Where is your waiver? Why can't all Kansans get a waiver??

At the time, Speaker Pelosi famously said we had to pass the bill to find out what is in it. Well, we have read it, and my concerns which I voiced throughout the very limited debate remain the same: the health care reform law is bad for Americans.

The health care reform law. Regulates every Americans' health coverage, by penalizing anyone without a Government-approved health plan.

The law penalizes American businesses that do not provide Government- approved health plans.

It forces more Americans into Medicaid--a broken, bankrupt Government entitlement program.

It puts the Federal Government in charge of your health insurance.

By one count, the law creates over 159 new boards, offices, and panels in the Federal Government to make decisions about your health care.

The law gives the Obama administration Secretary of Health and Human Services more than 1,700 new or expanded powers--to exert control over the lives and personal health care decisions of Americans; creates an unworkable new long-term insurance program that will go broke, leading to skyrocketing premiums or a taxpayer bailout; levies more than $550 billion dollars of taxes, fees, and penalties related to health care on American families and employers; and spends tens of billions of taxpayer dollars just to implement the massive new law.

The law micromanages how patients can spend their own tax-free health care dollars.

As of March 12, 2012, the total number of pages of regulations the administration has released related to the health spending law is 12,307, which is an increase of over 4,700 pages in the last year.

In addition to the formal regulations, the administration is also issuing hundreds of pages of subregulatory guidance in the form of ``bulletins'' to avoid having to describe how much these regulations will cost.

A significant portion of the regulations issued thus far have been interim final rules, which give the regulations the force of law prior to any public comment.

I have listed a number of these regulations in a letter I sent to President Obama. I did get a reply from Secretary Sebelius a few months later, but it never did address the concerns I had tried to bring to their attention. She did, however, note that they listen to all stakeholders before implementing new rules. Unfortunately, that isn't what I've been hearing.

While I travel around Kansas I try to talk to as many of our Kansas patients, providers and advocates as possible. Without fail, regulations and their effect on our health care system, how they affect health care costs, and the result they have on job loss come up.

I held a stakeholder roundtable in Topeka to get feedback from patients and providers on their thoughts related to health care reform. I was not surprised to hear that every representative at that meeting had a concern with regulations, but the sheer volume was truly extraordinary.

I was surprised to hear every representative at this stakeholder meeting discuss the impacts of health care reform and, more importantly, their concerns with regulations, some of which are buried in the volumes of regulations being put out every day and many that defy comprehension.

When discussing the health care reform and regulations with my constituents and those representing the patient and provider community, the No. 1 concern that I heard was a fear of what else is coming down the road? What will the impact of future regulations be?

The current burden of regulations pales in comparison to the uncertainty of future regulations. Future regulations from implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA, will have an even greater impact on jobs and the economy. This is like the second health care reform earthquake. If you are a health care provider, hang on.

Additionally, the combination of the regulations being issued to implement the PPACA statute has resulted in an increase in premiums for individuals and businesses, which, as you know, results in increased costs and tough choices.

Providers feel that the significant costs associated with implementing the health reform law are either inaccurate or not taken into consideration. In fact, I often hear that patients and providers feel that they do not have a voice in the regulatory process.

More specifically, a number of regulations are currently being issued through a shortened process. This shortened process allows limited or no input from those most affected by the regulations, prior to their implementation, and result in an even greater confusion. And from confusion we get higher costs.

It is my understanding that 20 of the 51 rules issued to implement the health reform law have been issued as interim final rules and therefore with limited input. While there may have been instances in which a shortened process was necessary or appropriate, this lengthy list is absurd.

In my letter to the President, I listed some 34 regulations that my Kansas constituents noted had the most significant impact. I encouraged the administration to limit the use of this regulatory process and take every available opportunity to get feedback from those who would be most affected by these regulations and allow for ample time to review and consider that feedback prior to implementing future regulatory priorities.

Time and time again, I have heard no more regulations will be issued in the shortened process, and yet the interim rules continued to be issued. I have heard that stakeholder comments will be thoroughly reviewed and considered, but the actions by the administration don't seem to prove this. I have heard that economic impacts will be carefully considered, and yet the studies indicate otherwise.

If history truly does repeat itself, I don't have much hope of that.

No. 1, I want to give the Senator a lot of credit for leading this colloquy in regard to where we are 2 years from the passage. It is hard to say what it is. Now it is ACA, the Affordable Care Act; it used to be PPACA, the acronym, which I thought was very appropriate. Of course if you politicize it, it is called ObamaCare. I don't mean to do that in this debate. But I do thank the Senator for focusing on jobs and costs.

I thank Senator Kyl for a CBO truth. He ought to start a new program like the old show ``Truth Or Consequences.'' Senator Kyl pointed out the consequences. He pointed out the consequences, when you ask the CBO for a score when you are going to try to pass the bill, they will give you exactly what you want, but the truth is down the road it costs an awful lot more.

There is one person you left out in terms of the CBO telling the truth and that is Richard Foster, who is the Actuary down at the Department of Health and Human Services. That man ought to get a Purple Heart, a Medal of Honor--not a Medal of Honor, just give him a Purple Heart and maybe a Bronze Star for action in the war zone and then maybe a Medal of Freedom later.

Senator Sessions, who is our resident bulldog on the budget, hit it on the second counting. I thank him for that. That is a half trillion dollars. The other half of that is that it is a half trillion that goes to all these exchanges and the rules and regulations in setting up the Affordable Health Care Act. Basically, it denies Medicare reimbursement to all sorts of folks--doctors, nurses, hospices, pharmacists, ambulance drivers, hospital administrators--on and on. We had a health care summit in Topeka, KS, and 34 regulations popped out of the woodwork. We could have had 164 but we sent the 34 in to the Secretary of HHS. Then he went out to Hays, KS. That is really out there in the rural health care system. We had seven different regulations. I hope later when we have a colloquy on regulations we can certainly insert those into the Record.

Senator Boozman, who is a physician, gave a standpoint of what happens in regard to rationing.

Let met get Senator Boozman's attention for a minute. Do you know who enforces this thing, at the end of the year if you do not sign up, if you do not put on your tax return, which I assume it will be, in terms of what kind of coverage you have? It is the IRS. The IRS is going to be the enforcement entity in regard to whether you have a provider. If you do not, you get fined.

Stop and think a minute about what is going on, and all the waivers that have been going on in terms of who is enforcing this. Your friendly Internal Revenue Service--what--reinforcer? I have a lot of feeling about this.

I took the floor today to discuss something called promises made and promises not kept. I tell the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, of all the words that come back to bite you, this one has. That is the famous statement prior to passage of the health care reform law by the President: ``If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.'' I will give him credit, he may have believed it then. But as we pointed out with Senator Kyl, Senator Sessions, Senator Boozman, Senator Johnson--that is not the case. I didn't believe it then and I said so. Neither did Senator Sessions. Neither did Senator Kyl. Those two are here now, taking a good look at it. They don't believe it either.

Why? It is pretty simple. Employers and health care providers told me that when the majority of the provisions of the health care reform law would take effect, it would be more affordable for an employer to simply stop offering their employee coverage and pay a penalty rather than face the predictable increase in premiums and to continue to offer any coverage.

Now these predictions have turned into facts. A new study just released by McKinsey & Co., a consulting company, predicts large numbers of workers will be shifted into the health exchanges in 2014. That is a shift that folks should be worried about--exactly what you are talking about, Senator Johnson. Literally thousands of regulations and waivers are pouring out of the Department of Health and Human Services; in fact, to date, 12,307 pages of additional regulations to restrict personal freedom and micromanage the private market.

To make matters worse, there is the predictable worry that the exchanges would be better described as much like Medicaid HMOs. That is the kind of service we can expect to get and that threatens access, choice of doctors, and not to mention the rationing regime that will be the marching order of the day. I will have a lot to say about that in the colloquy in the next several days.

At the time the President made his promise, the CBO estimated that, as Senator Kyl pointed out, only about 7 percent of employees covered by employer-sponsored insurance would make the switch, or be forced to switch, to taxpayer-subsidized exchanges. Now I tell the Senator, study after study is releasing facts and figures that find the health care reform law will cause many or even most employers to quit offering their current health insurance.

In a survey by benefits consultants at Lockton, when asked about the cost of notifying employees of changes required by or resulting from health care reform law, they said each notification will cost $1 to $3 per employee. Talk about cost. This would raise costs by tens of thousands of dollars or more for some firms and nearly one in five firms is considering terminating coverage outright, thanks to the law.

With each study the numbers go up. The McKinsey survey found that 45 to 50 percent of employers say they ``will definitely or probably'' pursue alternatives to their existing health care plans. Even more alarming, some 30 percent of employers will simply stop offering any coverage. Those are the facts. There are more to come.

I am going on too long here, I understand that. I simply say again I thank my colleagues. Contrary to this administration's seeming belief, there is no such thing as free health care. Somebody does pay. In this case the American taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill for workers whose employer-sponsored coverage has been dropped due to health care reform.

There is another quote I wish to mention. It should be the subject of another colloquy. There is absolutely no rationing in this bill, it is just scare talk. Want to bet? There is nothing that hurts the truth more than stretching it. With PPACA or ACA or

ObamaCare, jobs and costs will be stressed beyond the limit.

I truly thank the Senator for sponsoring this colloquy.

The Senator asked me about IPAB. It is not an iPad or an iPhone or whatever. I am sure Apple has nothing to do with it.

Well, the administration, in response to a lot of concern about rationing, wrote an op-ed and sent it to many different publications and said, ``[T]he claims that the board will ration care are simply false.'' At the time, I repeated my concerns over and over again. Senator Kyl will remember those days in the Finance Committee. I think everybody left when I started my rant. And the health care reform law's potential to ration care--I made speech after speech--is not only IPAB; there is the CMS Innovation Center, the new authority granted to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and finally IPAB, and that is not a toothpaste.

At the time, the American public was told over and over that these provisions of the health care reform law would not result in the rationing of care, loss of access, or reduced quality. But once again the Medicare Actuary, Richard Foster--bravest man in the government-- and many others have noted that the kinds of payment reductions contemplated by IPAB will amount to a de facto rationing by reducing access to care. The Actuary has stated that the payment reductions in the law could ``jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries''--senior beneficiaries. He also predicted that the IPAB reductions in particular would be difficult to achieve in practice because of the access-related harm to seniors that would result. That is IPAB for you.

That is correct. For every proposal like that, thank goodness there has been a reaction by the public and the medical profession and everybody else to say: Wait a minute, this doesn't make any sense. Again, it is an agenda-oriented board or commission or whatever that comes under the banner of rationing.

I have a wonderful chart I will show to you in the next colloquy in regard to the four rations--and one was just mentioned--and then ask me about IPAB. They are a little benign. I am going to have to change the caricatures. They are like the four horsemen of the apocalypse in regard to the health care system of the United States. As you look at each one of them and what they are doing, they are rationing care. They are rationing care.

Mr. President, I would like to ask support for my amendment that would approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. It would expand oil and gas exploration on Federal lands and would extend certain tax provisions that are utilized by a number of individuals and businesses throughout the country.

The base of my amendment includes most but not all of the expired energy tax incentives addressed in the amendment that will be offered by my friends on the other side of the aisle. But there is a clear difference in that my amendment addresses the supply side of the equation and avoids extending some of the costly energy provisions that were created under the failed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; i.e., the stimulus.

While I support many of the tax provisions included in the Democrats' counterproposal, the majority amendment fails to address the No. 1 issue facing Americans of every walk of life, from farmers to manufacturers, to teachers, which is the rising cost of gasoline. My amendment does just that, and it implements the important first steps toward increasing domestic supplies of conventional energy that our country will rely on for decades to come.

My amendment would cut redtape, open more Federal land for oil and gas exploration and drilling; it would approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, while also extending renewable tax provisions that benefit domestic energy production, businesses, and individuals alike. It also restores expired individual and business tax relief provisions.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

It also restores expired individual and business tax relief provisions and, most of all, it promotes economic growth.

Lastly, my amendment does all this without adding to the deficit, which, considering our more than $15 trillion debt, is something our future generations certainly can appreciate.

I thank my colleagues if they would support this very commonsense, progrowth amendment.

Madam President, I would like to associate myself with the comments made by my colleague from Minnesota and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Amendment No. 1617, the Klobuchar, Roberts, Ben Nelson, McCaskill, Johanns, and Lugar amendment to clarify Hours of Service--HOS--exemption for Ag transportation.

The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act expressly states:

Regulations prescribed by the Secretary regarding maximum

driving and on-duty time for drivers used by motor carriers

shall not apply during planting and harvest periods, as

determined by each State, to drivers transporting

agricultural commodities or farm supplies for agricultural

purposes in a State if such transportation is limited to an

area within a 100 air mile radius from the source of the

commodities or the distribution point for the farm supplies.

We believe this statute alone, not to mention clear Congressional intent demonstrated in previous sessions, clearly allows the transportation of all farm supplies from any distribution point to a local farm retailer or to the ultimate consumer--in other words, from source to retail, source to farm, and retail to farm.

Unfortunately, in 2009 the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration--FMCSA--began to misinterpret both the statute and Congressional intent.

Currently, FMCSA only allows for the transportation of a single farm supply--anhydrous ammonia--from any distribution point to a local farm retailer or to the ultimate consumer. While anhydrous ammonia is perhaps the most widely used farm supply to be transported under the AgHOS regulations, many other critical farm supplies have been excluded because of the agency's interpretation. This severely hinders the flexibility our farmers need during planting and harvesting seasons.

FMCSA, through several waivers granted over the past two years, has recognized the need for an exemption to their motor carrier regulations.

Therefore, our amendment will reinforce what we believe is existing law by clarifying that a driver transporting farm supplies from source to retail, source to farm, and retail to farm is included in the Ag Hours of Service exemption.

This amendment is a commonsense approach to simply clarify what is already existing law and will provide our Nation's farmers with the flexibility they need to feed an ever-growing Nation and world.

I yield the floor and, again, strongly encourage my friends to vote in favor of this commonsense amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 1826.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I rise today to ask for support for my amendment to promote progrowth energy and tax policy, and especially consistency for the remainder of this year.

My amendment addresses a significant tax policy concern. Within the Tax Code there is a long list of provisions simply known as tax extenders. Some might ask why I am offering an amendment on tax extenders to a bill dealing with the Federal highway program. In a nutshell, here is why: These provisions are used by millions of families, individuals, and business taxpayers. But these provisions expired over 2 months ago, causing utter chaos in regard to--well, really, what it caused was the lawyer-CPA full employment act. At present, the Senate leadership has no plans to consider these expired tax provisions. That is not right.

The base of this amendment includes most if not all of the expired energy tax incentives addressed in the amendment offered by my friends on the other side of the aisle. It is your amendment. In my amendment, however, we increase these energy production incentives. With spiking gas prices hammering families and businesses, this is precisely, it seems to me, the time to have a policy which will increase our supply of energy.

To begin with, addressing the oil supply issues, my amendment would cut redtape and open more Federal land for more oil and gas exploration and drilling. We are all painfully aware of the President's rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline application. My amendment gives our Canadian neighbors the green light to send energy our way.

Let me now briefly describe the amendment. This amendment extends popular and much needed tax relief ranging from tax deductions for families sending kids to college to the adoption tax credit. By supporting my amendment today, we can provide much needed tax relief and certainty to millions of families and businesses for the remainder of this year.

I highlight this point because uncertainty in business and personal financial planning is something I think all of us hear about daily when we go back home and then come back here. Let's take a look at the deductibility of college tuition. This is a benefit for families who send their kids to college. By definition, this benefit goes to middle- income families. A lot of these folks are not low-income, so their kids do not qualify for Pell grants, but they are not high-income either. A lot of these folks are paying significant Federal, State, and local taxes and they get no help in defraying the high cost of their kids' college education. This tax deduction would make this consistent just for this year. This helps

families by increasing access to higher education. This deduction ran out last year, and if we don't act these families will continue to face a tax increase.

Another very important expired provision is the deductibility of State and local sales taxes. Over 10.3 million Americans are paying more in taxes because this provision has expired.

On the business side, my amendment would address expiring business provisions, including the research and development tax credit and tax incentives for leasehold improvements and restaurant depreciation. It also extends enhanced small business expensing. Many small businesses use this benefit to buy equipment on an efficient aftertax basis. It is good for small business. It is good for small business workers. It is good for our Nation's economic growth.

The amendment closes a tax loophole that ensures that taxpayers claiming the refundable child tax credit provide proper identification on their tax returns.

Finally, this amendment includes a special deficit reduction trust fund. The trust fund would contain the savings from the energy production incentives, the refundable child tax credit provision, and an extension of the existing Federal employee pay freeze.

In summary, this amendment does not add to the deficit. It contains robust energy production incentives and restores expired individual and business tax relief provisions. Most of all, it promotes economic growth and provides much needed consistency as these tax extenders simply do not exist at the present time, and only for this year. Everybody knows in 2013 we have the obligation and responsibility to dig into a tax reform plan that will certainly serve to put our Nation in much better shape in regard to tax policy.

I yield the floor.