Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I commemorate the life of Robert F. Ellsworth--a dear friend and mentor to myself, loving husband to his wife Eleanor, and leader to many. In his service throughout his life as a lawyer, officer, Congressman, Presidential aide, and Ambassador, Bob met challenges as opportunities and transformed ideas into reality. His memorial service was held at St. Francis Episcopal Church in Potomac on Saturday, June 11. Along with my own statement, I ask that the following statements from that day be printed in the Record.

Statement From Senator Pat Roberts

It is both an honor and a privilege to offer just a few

brief thoughts as we friends celebrate the unique and special

life of our friend Bob Ellsworth.

Many people would define happiness in many different ways.

However, a good definition of happiness would be Eleanor in

that she brought so much happiness into Bob's life and, for

that matter, to everyone privileged to meet and know her.

Eleanor, our prayers and thoughts are with you. I really

don't think anyone can capture or fully describe Bob

Ellsworth, but here is my take:

First, he was a friend of the Roberts family dating back to

my Dad and such a loyal friend. Second, throughout his

wonderful and most notable career, Bob was just plain nice; a

true gentleman. The late congressman Bill Emerson of

Missouri, who worked as a staffer for Congressman Bob

Ellsworth, said he was the best and most unique boss he ever

had. Bill often said, ``Bob Ellsworth would come around and

ask us if we were happy with our jobs. I first thought I was

going to be fired but soon realized he really cared about his

staff and wanted them to feel useful and if they thought they

were making a difference.'' As a Senator, I try to follow his

example with my staff today. But, seriously, who does that

today?

Third, he was not only my friend but mentor as well. He

made wonderful things happen for me and gave me so many

opportunities: serving on the German-American International

Exchange just as the wall came down and putting up with a

freshman Senator and later on the Commission on America's

National Interests with the Who's Who of America's foreign

and national security policy makers. This time, with Bob's

help, I think I actually made a difference. And, he was a

mentor and advisor to so many and like so many of his stature

and knowledge, he seldom offered advice and counsel without

first being asked. Bob Dole and I asked a lot and I know Bob

regrets deeply he cannot be in attendance.

I affectionately called Bob Ellsworth the Phantom with the

light bulbs. He would always call, drop in suddenly, like the

Phantom and then give me a rapid fire summary of what others

of like mind were thinking and what he thought. During his

dissertation and wonderful visit, light bulbs would go off in

my head always with the thought, ``Why didn't I think of

that?''

I really think Bob Ellsworth was a genius who somehow let

you believe you really came up with his latest insight. Being

an over the top Kansas State University enthusiast, genius

may be the proper description but we mere Kansas State

graduates simply said he was ``pretty damn smart.''

I will miss my friend and mentor as will so many. We shall

not see the likes of Bob Ellsworth again. I thank the Dear

Lord for allowing me to know, learn from and truly enjoy Bob

Ellsworth during this space and time.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bipartisan bill, the Restoring Access to Medication Act of 2011. This bill would repeal the portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which requires individuals to have a prescription to spend the money they have saved in their Flexible Spending Accounts.

Flexible Spending Accounts, FSAs, Health Savings Accounts, HSAs, and other medical savings arrangements provide plan participants with an affordable, convenient and accessible means to manage their health care expenses.

More than 35 million Americans participate in FSAs and more than 10 million Americans participate in a HSA. These accounts allow plan participants to set aside their own dollars on a pre-tax basis to pay for health care expenses, giving individuals control over health care decisions and how to pay for that care.

A key benefit of these plans prior to enactment of the Patient Protection

and Affordable Care Act, PPACA, was the ability for participants to use the dollars they set aside in these plans to pay for the cost of over- the-counter medications.

However, under PPACA, plan participants may no longer use funds from these accounts to purchase over-the-counter medications, unless they have a prescription for the medication.

This prohibition takes away choice from individuals about how to manage their health care expenses and adds yet another burden to physicians, as some plan participants will seek a prescription for over-the-counter medications. And, worst of all, it injects increased costs into our health care system.

Rather than promoting cost-effectiveness and accessibility, this provision instead directs participants to potentially more costly, less convenient, and more time-consuming alternatives. Further, it injects unnecessary confusion and complexity into a system that was previously straightforward and easy for consumers to utilize.

This bill repeals Sec. 9003 of the PPACA and restores the ability of plan participants to use the funds in their FSA, HRA, HSA or Archers MSA to purchase OTC medications, allowing them to better manage the cost of their health care expenses.

A family physician from Leawood, Kansas told me, ``I am pleased that legislation is being introduced to reverse this policy. Many of my patients face undue burdens purchasing needed medications that are essential to their health maintenance and overall wellbeing. Reversal of this policy will allow my patients to continue to purchase the numerous beneficial over-the-counter products that are so important in our daily lives and will eliminate a substantial administrative burden on my practice.''

In Kansas, and throughout the U.S., a broad coalition of groups support this legislation, including the U.S. Chamber, NFIB, pharmacist groups, drug store organizations and consumer groups.

I would invite my colleagues to join me in this effort by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bipartisan bill, the Restoring Access to Medication Act of 2011. This bill would repeal the portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which requires individuals to have a prescription to spend the money they have saved in their Flexible Spending Accounts.

Flexible Spending Accounts, FSAs, Health Savings Accounts, HSAs, and other medical savings arrangements provide plan participants with an affordable, convenient and accessible means to manage their health care expenses.

More than 35 million Americans participate in FSAs and more than 10 million Americans participate in a HSA. These accounts allow plan participants to set aside their own dollars on a pre-tax basis to pay for health care expenses, giving individuals control over health care decisions and how to pay for that care.

A key benefit of these plans prior to enactment of the Patient Protection

and Affordable Care Act, PPACA, was the ability for participants to use the dollars they set aside in these plans to pay for the cost of over- the-counter medications.

However, under PPACA, plan participants may no longer use funds from these accounts to purchase over-the-counter medications, unless they have a prescription for the medication.

This prohibition takes away choice from individuals about how to manage their health care expenses and adds yet another burden to physicians, as some plan participants will seek a prescription for over-the-counter medications. And, worst of all, it injects increased costs into our health care system.

Rather than promoting cost-effectiveness and accessibility, this provision instead directs participants to potentially more costly, less convenient, and more time-consuming alternatives. Further, it injects unnecessary confusion and complexity into a system that was previously straightforward and easy for consumers to utilize.

This bill repeals Sec. 9003 of the PPACA and restores the ability of plan participants to use the funds in their FSA, HRA, HSA or Archers MSA to purchase OTC medications, allowing them to better manage the cost of their health care expenses.

A family physician from Leawood, Kansas told me, ``I am pleased that legislation is being introduced to reverse this policy. Many of my patients face undue burdens purchasing needed medications that are essential to their health maintenance and overall wellbeing. Reversal of this policy will allow my patients to continue to purchase the numerous beneficial over-the-counter products that are so important in our daily lives and will eliminate a substantial administrative burden on my practice.''

In Kansas, and throughout the U.S., a broad coalition of groups support this legislation, including the U.S. Chamber, NFIB, pharmacist groups, drug store organizations and consumer groups.

I would invite my colleagues to join me in this effort by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a milestone that has been reached by an important cooperative association responsible for the marketing and distribution of dairy products from 450 California family-owned dairies.

Challenge opened for business under the name of Challenge Cream & Butter Association 100 years ago with four employees and a wagon. That first day, Challenge sold 12 pounds of butter. Today, Challenge Butter is the largest butter brand in the West, and Challenge Dairy is the leading dairy foodservice provider in California, with eight distribution centers spanning the State in Lodi, San Leandro, Monterey, Fresno, Santa Maria, Ventura, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Challenge directly employs over 175 hard-working California citizens and has aided thousands of California dairy farmers in their success over the years. Today, more than 450 dairies are part of Challenge's cooperative, putting tens of millions of dollars into California's economy annually.

Challenge's success is made up of dedicated California dairy farmers and employees who have ensured the quality of all products produced from each of its creameries. Early on, dairymen realized marketing was and remains to be key in successfully spreading the word about the quality of their products, which was why Challenge was conceived.

The benefits of farmer cooperation were so effective that the status of every single dairyman was materially improved, just from their existence. A leader in quality improvement, Challenge established the standards all other dairy organizations followed. Thus, Challenge has figuratively held a protective umbrella over farm endeavors, for the good of the farmers and the Nation, for more than a century.

By refusing to sell any item that didn't meet the highest standards, Challenge built a reputation for quality. That reputation has grown as Challenge led the way in the dairy industry with product and manufacturing innovations such as the aluminum butter churn, the first successful metal butter churn in the world.

Now a wholly owned subsidiary of California Dairies, Inc. CDI, California's largest dairy provider and the second largest in the country, Challenge has grown to represent more than 450 dairy farmers and markets nearly half of CDI's butter supply. CDI has six manufacturing facilities that are located throughout the central valley and directly employs over 740 people.

Challenge has operated through two World Wars and the Great Depression in addition to a number of other obstacles. Through it all, the company adapted and persevered to continue fulfilling the people's need for quality dairy products and support the dairy farmers behind producing products. We believe Challenge embodies the determination and the spirit of the people of California.

Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of the legislation that has been introduced by my friend and our Republican leader, Senator McConnell, that would take our country in the direction of greater domestic energy production, and certainly robust job creation, as opposed to taxing--or trying to--the very people who provide our energy.

Madam President, as every American knows, few issues today are more critical to the American taxpayer than the price of energy. Whether it is powering our homes or fueling farm equipment or filling up our cars at the pump, the price of energy directly impacts the cost of goods and operating expenses for our American producers.

Now, while there is a multitude of variables that impact the cost of gasoline, it is important we don't overlook the main factor in impacting prices at the pump--and one more time, for my colleagues across the aisle, that is the global supply and demand of crude.

With roughly 70 percent of the price of gasoline and diesel contingent on the price of crude, it should be easy to understand that any fluctuations in global supply and demand is the most important factor determining what consumers pay at the pump. Considering in my State alone the oil and gas industry supports over 119,000 jobs and annually contributes $14 billion to the Kansas economy, it is not hard to understand that much of our concerns regarding the U.S. economy and rising unemployment could be addressed--could be addressed--if we stopped hindering the ability of American energy businesses to grow and to produce.

I am sure most Americans wonder why Washington is even considering a policy that is counter to an industry solely capable--solely capable-- and responsible for this type of job creation. Sadly, this is exactly the proposal floated by some of my colleagues and friends in Congress and by the President.

In the President's 2012 budget proposal, he proposed almost $90 billion worth of tax increases on the oil and gas industry--taxes the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has stated could make oil and natural gas more expensive for U.S. consumers and likely increase foreign dependence. Well, that didn't work in regards to the budget, so they are back. Complementing the President's troublesome budget proposal last week, a number of my colleagues introduced legislation singling out U.S.-owned integrated oil and gas companies by removing tax expenditures these companies rely on to hire more American workers, developing greater amounts of needed energy, and--hello--to support the millions of American investors whose IRAs and pension funds invest significantly in energy stocks.

What is even worse, at least six of my colleagues across the aisle are on record admitting this legislation will do nothing to reduce prices at the pump. It is sort of a ``gotcha'' piece of legislation. So to address American concerns about rising gas prices, my friends across the aisle have introduced

legislation they readily know will not ease the price at the pump. This doesn't make any sense. In addition to the fact the Democratic energy bill will not help reduce gas prices, I want to further highlight the negative impacts it would have on American investors. This is important.

Probably the biggest distortion repeated in the media and by some of my friends here on Capitol Hill is the notion that a few select corporate executives are the sole benefactors of record high profits enjoyed by these energy companies. It makes good politics today to beat up on these people and that is what happened in regard to the Finance Committee--a lot of press there--when in reality it is the millions of middle-class American investors whose retirement plans benefit greatly from healthy profits. Because these companies are publicly traded, they are owned largely by individuals and institutional investors responsible for managing the mutual funds and IRA and pension plans for millions of Americans whose future economic security depends on the success of these companies.

For example, in Kansas alone there are over 18,000 shareholders of ExxonMobil--that is 18,000 of my constituents--who will be hurt, angry, frustrated when they find out that legislation that targets citizens, investors who actually own these companies, could be passed.

Beyond individual shareholders, many teachers, State government employees, rely on strong returns on their investments in these companies. One example is the New Jersey Public Employee Pension Fund. Its holdings of U.S.-based integrated oil and gas companies make over 4 percent of its total portfolio.

Realizing the likelihood of a strong return on their investment, it is no wonder why so many public employee pension funds throughout the country invest heavily in energy companies. The good news is that the energy tax increase proposal was defeated last night, as its passage would have done absolutely nothing toward reducing energy prices or helping the economic security of millions of middle-class American investors. Unfortunately, the problems facing true economic growth and energy security do not end with misguided tax policy. In addition to making it more costly to produce domestic energy, the administration is working to close off some of our Nation's most abundant sources.

For example, under the current administration, the Department of the Interior canceled seven oil development leases in Utah that were located within the larger formation covering three States that the Bureau of Land Management has estimated contains around 800 billion barrels of oil--more than three times the proven reserves in Saudi Arabia. This of course is in addition to the Gulf of Mexico deep water drilling moratorium imposed last summer which has had a lasting negative effect on gulf coast economies. I know the President said we are going to permit these and they can drill, but somehow or other you never get the permit finalized.

In closing, I want to reiterate my point about the underlying economic factors which, like it or not, despite the politics, are not the driving forces behind the price of gas at the pump. As global demand rises, prices will also rise. As global demand is potentially disrupted, as we see in the Middle East today, then market instability follows. If we can allow greater access to our own domestic resources and provide industry the necessary tools to expand--which is exactly what Leader McConnell's energy bill would do--then we will be able to put more Americans back to work and add to the global supply of crude which, over time, undoubtedly will help stabilize prices.

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

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

Madam President, I rise to congratulate Joe Richardson on his pending retirement. Joe exemplifies the meaning of public servant. I have served as chairman and ranking member of the House Committee on Agriculture, and today I serve as the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. All along the way, Joe has served the Congressional Research Service and thereby the Congress with excellence and distinction over the course of 40 years. His focus has included the nutrition assistance programs, almost from their inception. From programs ranging from SNAP, WIC, school meals, and faith-based initiatives, Joe is a recognized expert, a prolific writer, and unparalleled in his field.

A nonpartisan professional, Joe has been an invaluable resource for Members and staff and has regularly been relied upon to navigate the complexities of statutes, rules, and regulations, and the myriad of forms public assistance has taken over the last several decades. From farm bills to child nutrition reauthorizations and related legislation in-between, he has been a compendium of information on the ideas generated, efforts attempted, reforms enacted, and the effects and changes to society our laws have made. He is a tribute to his profession, and our Nation is a better place to live for all Americans as a direct result of his efforts.

I and my staff have greatly appreciated Joe's counsel. Whenever called upon, Joe would answer, be it during regular business hours, late into the night, or early the next morning, always helpful, and always forthright. I appreciate the dedication demonstrated by public servant Joe Richardson. Thank you Joe, you will be missed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 12 minutes.

Mr. President, still at this late date, I want to remain optimistic that we will reach a final deal on Federal spending. At least the dueling press conferences are continuing as I speak. I hope the negotiations are continuing by someone somewhere. Hope springs eternal. Under the banner of hope and change, I would hope the majority leader would change his mind and at the very least bring the House- passed measure to the floor for a vote to fund the military through the end of the fiscal year and avert a shutdown of the federal government, and make a significant reduction in spending. Anything less is irresponsible.

Kansans are now calling my office. They have been all day, all week, all year. Their message is clear. It is time to stop spending money we don't have. The House-passed measure is but a small step in this direction and would keep the government from shutting down, a goal I think everybody would like to see happen.

Let's clarify the facts. The national debt is over $14 trillion and growing daily. Some now say it is $14.6 trillion. We are fast approaching the debt ceiling and another very serious decision. I know the majority leadership remembers the last time the debt ceiling was raised. It was four times in the last 2 years.

By the way, the majority spent twice as much in 2 years as was spent the last 4 years of the previous administration. If this continues, then by the year 2014 interest payments on the debt alone will be greater than all discretionary spending outside of defense. The debate or fuss about which programs must not be cut will not be debated on the floor of this distinguished body because they will all be cut. There won't be any money. The money will go to pay interest on the debt.

The House of Representatives is doing what its majority pledged to do, what it was elected to do--reduce Washington spending.

As a logical consequence--and it should not be a surprise to any member of the majority of this body or the minority in the other--the House passed a bill to bring government spending back down to 2008 levels. That is what they said they would do, and that is what they are doing.

In March the majority in this Chamber rejected these modest cuts in spending, and we have been operating under a series of short-term continuing resolutions ever since. All of us know that government by CR is no way to govern. The leadership of the previous Congress failed to pass a budget last year, failed to pass even a single appropriations bill. We are still dealing with that abdication of responsibility.

But we are where we are. The House passed another measure to keep the Federal Government open for another week, funded our military men and women and their families for the next 6 months, and cut government spending by $12 billion while we negotiate a long-term solution. Hopefully, we could continue to negotiate a long-term solution.

I know tempers are frayed. What is bothersome is that the leadership refuses to bring this measure to a vote. They have the votes to defeat it. They also refuse to put forth an alternative proposal to cut spending. It is one thing to blame the majority in the other body and say you simply can't support it. If that is the case, bring it to the floor. Let's vote on it, and let's see what kind of an alternative the leadership here offers.

The media is referring to this impasse as a shutdown of the Federal Government, but we need to be careful before we call this a government shutdown. The people of Kansas and all of America are rightly outraged that funding for our troops and their families is at risk, funding for most customer service support at the VA is at risk, and that funding for a wide range of economic development and agriculture programs is at risk. But that is not true with regard to one segment of our government. Just as the Army sings ``as these caissons keep rolling along,'' so does the perpetual motion machine of Federal regulation. The Federal regulation machine is such that even a government shutdown can't stop it.

Earlier this week, I came to the floor to talk about the concerns I am hearing from our community bankers in Kansas. According to a summary of the Dodd-Frank act by Davis Polk, the act mandates that 11 different agencies create at least 243 more regulations, issue 67 one-time reports or studies, and 22 new periodic reports. Financial regulators have already issued more than 1,400 pages of regulatory proposals, and 5,000 pages of regulations are expected. These will create additional and significant compliance costs that will impact the ability of every bank to serve its community. They come on top of existing regulation, including 1,700 pages of consumer regulations and hundreds of pages of regulations regarding lending practices and operations that banks are already required to comply with, and they do in good faith.

Some folks might think--and naturally so--if the government is shut down, regulators won't be on the job either. Wrong. Apparently nothing, absolutely nothing can or will stop regulators from regulating. In the case of some financial regulators, agencies not funded by taxpayer dollars, they will be on the job, and we can anticipate that the burdensome regulations will continue.

Well, what about implementing the costly and controversial health care reform bill? Will a government shutdown slow this hugely unpopular program chock-full of regulations? Well, the answer, of course, is no.

In the Secretary's contingency plans for HHS, under a list of what will remain open during this shutdown, she believes that ``operations of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight''--its a mouthful, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, the regulating agency under the Department of Health and Human Services that is working to issue regulations to implement health care reform-- ``could continue as funding was provided through the Affordable Care Act.''

Well, this is just another example of full steam ahead with ObamaCare, just

like during the health care reform debate. The regulatory overreach that has become a hallmark of this administration is not stopped by even a shutdown of the Federal Government. For example, regulations like the one issued just recently, days ago, by the Department of Health and Human Services on something called accountable care organizations, also known as ACOs--ACOs used to be HMOs; didn't like HMOs too much, so we have something like HMOs, but now we call them ACOs--turned 6 pages of ObamaCare into 429 pages of regulations--429 pages in just 1 regulation. These new regulations empower Dr. Berwick, the man in charge, and CMS, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to make decisions about how medical care will be delivered in this country.

So a government shutdown or not, under a cowering business community, the incredible Federal regulation machine goes on like a giant creature from a video game, belching fire, smoke, fines, and regulations. Nothing, not even a shutdown of the Federal Government, can slay the regulating dragon.

This debate should not be about party politics. It should not even be about regulation, except I discovered the regulation is going on despite the government shutdown, which I think is most unusual, to say the least. This is really about reducing spending and finally trying to tighten our Federal belt. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. I said that by 2014 all discretionary funds would be used to pay off the interest on the national debt.

The House has now passed a bill to keep our military families whole and the government running at 2008 levels while we try to work out a long-term solution. A Federal shutdown does not benefit anyone except regulators who under a shutdown will continue to regulate, now unchecked.

I urge the majority leader to at least bring the House-passed bill to the floor for a vote. I thank all the people who have worked so terribly hard on the negotiations. I hope they are successful, even though ``tempus is fugiting''--time is running out.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, it is my understanding I was granted 20 minutes under the leader's time. If that is the case, I would like assurance.

Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership, as best they can, going into greater detail on the mutual effort to avoid a government shutdown. I know all Members are vitally interested in this, as is the American public. I do happen to agree--probably no surprise-- with the Republican leader in his description of the situation, especially in regard to our national security, which I think is exceedingly important.

I have asked for this time now to discuss a related subject. Some may think it is not related but I think it is. It is related to a government--or an economic shutdown, if you will, on many businesses throughout the country, that is already occurring. This is something we hear about from time to time from various industries or businesses or occupations--almost everybody up and down Main Street. I would describe it as a shutdown by regulation or almost strangulation by regulation. That is what I wish to talk about for a moment.

I come to the floor to highlight another area where regulation is having a negative effect on business in my State and all across the country. To date, I have spoken about the impact of regulations on health care and on agriculture and on energy. Today I am here to talk about the regulation of our financial sector. I want to emphasize I am talking about the impact of regulation on our community banks, those banks in each of our towns, often home owned and operated.

Our community banks share the common concern I have heard from businesses in all industries all across my State. The volume and pace of regulations that are coming out of Washington are unmanageable and they add to the costs and divert resources that would otherwise be used to grow their businesses or serve their customers or help the economy in its recovery.

As I have noted in previous remarks, I was very encouraged that President Obama signed an Executive order. I credit him for that. He directed the administration to review, to modify, to streamline, expand, or repeal those significant regulatory actions that he called duplicative and unnecessary, overly burdensome, or that which would have had significant impact on Americans. He even, in an offhand remark, said some of these regulations are actually stupid. I agree with the President and I gave him credit for that.

I was originally encouraged by the President's commitment to a new regulatory strategy. But after reviewing the Executive order I was left with some concerns. Here is why. The Executive order states:

In applying these principles, each agency is directed to

use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated

present and future benefits and costs as accurately as

possible.

Nobody could possibly disagree with that. It is a good statement.

Where appropriate and permitted by law, each agency may

consider (and discuss qualitatively)--

I am not sure if I understand that in very clear language, but at least I have been trying to figure that out, along with a lot of the people who are on the receiving end of regulations. Then this is the part which I defy anybody to comprehend. ``values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness and distributive impacts.''

As the Wall Street Journal captured in their response to the President's editorial, ``these amorphous concepts are

not measurable at all.'' How on Earth do you make such a determination? This language is, in fact, if anybody could understand it, a very large loophole. Coupled with an exception for the independent agencies such as the FDIC and the EPA, and the subagencies and other regulatory agencies, it has the potential to result in no changes at all.

Here you have an Executive order but you also have an Executive order that has a lot of loopholes in it. That is why I have introduced legislation to put teeth into this Executive order. My bill is called the Regulatory Responsibility For Our Economy Act, and it strengthens and codifies the President's order. Like the Executive order, my legislation ensures that the regulators review, modify, streamline, expand, or repeal the regulatory actions that are duplicative, unnecessary, overly burdensome, or would have significant impact on Americans. But it requires that Federal regulations put forth do consider the economic burden on American businesses, ensure stakeholder input during the regulatory process, and promote innovation.

Today, 46 Members of this body have signed on as cosponsors. That is a testament to the concerns that my colleagues are hearing from their constituents about how the unrelenting tide of regulations now coming from Washington is harming their businesses and our economy. It could be described, actually, as another government shutdown, as I have indicated, by strangulation.

Today I want to call attention to the impact of regulations on the financial services sector, in particular the impact on our community banks. I might add, in discussing this before on agriculture, energy, and health care, we talked to the stakeholders involved in Kansas, the people who are actually involved. It is their suggestions I am repeating and that I have tried to encompass in my legislation.

The financial services sector of our economy is already the focus of substantial regulation. I think everybody understands that. We all support commonsense financial regulations. However, it is important that financial regulations do not become undue burdens, especially on our community banks that are the backbone of Main Street and finance the economic growth in our communities. While I appreciate that many of the agencies with responsibility for regulating the industry are independent of the executive branch, I am hopeful that these agencies are receptive to the President's effort.

While the economic crisis focused attention on the financial services industry leading to the passage of the Dodd-Frank bill, our Nation's community banks that are already shouldering an undue regulatory burden will now bear a greater burden when the hundreds of regulations from this law are implemented. Our Nation's community banks are often small businesses. On average a community bank has 37 employees and approximately $154 million in loans and other assets. The majority of banks in Kansas have an average of fewer than 14 employees. However, they currently comply with 1,700 pages of consumer regulations alone. That is incredible. They must also comply with hundreds of additional pages of regulations regarding lending practices and other banking operations.

According to a summary of the Dodd-Frank act by Davis Polk, this legislation mandates that 11 different agencies now create at least 243 more regulations; issue 67 one-time reports or studies and 22 new periodic reports. Many of these new rules are required to be issued in the next year or two, and financial regulatory agencies have the discretion to issue additional rules on top of those and those required under Dodd-Frank.

This is incredible if not unbelievable. Regulators have already issued more than 1,400 pages of regulatory proposals. Up to 5,000 pages of regulations are expected.

Many will be proposed by a new bureaucracy that is created in the Dodd-Frank act, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Remember that name. The acronym is CFPB, and it will undoubtedly suffocate a lot of businesses. It will have broad authority to monitor, regulate, and direct the activity of banks. These actions will create additional and significant compliance costs that will impact the ability of every bank to serve its community. These actions have real costs to banks.

According to recent testimony before the House Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, the CBO Director--the Congressional Budget Office Director--Douglas Elmendorf, said the Dodd-Frank act is expected to impose nearly $27 billion in new private sector fees, assessments, and premiums. This amount includes more than $14 billion in new fees on banks. Guess where that money is going to end up in regards to consumer costs. Our community bankers and their customers are worried about the impact of these new requirements. That has to be the understatement of my remarks. They are frustrated, they are angry, they are upset.

Now, while not every regulation will apply to the community banks, they tell me the rapid pace and volume of new regulations being put forth are placing a strain on many banks' compliance capabilities and are adding significantly to their operating costs. Many banks tell me they are reevaluating whether they can afford to offer some products and services such as mortgage lending. Yes, you have that right. If you live in a small community, and you go to your local bank and you would like to get a loan in regards to financing a mortgage, sorry, they may be out of the business.

It is important to understand that banks do not oppose commonsense regulations. They are necessary to ensure that banks are doing their jobs and that consumers receive the proper information and disclosures that are beneficial to them. The problem is that unlike bigger financial institutions, our community banks do not have a large staff of attorneys or compliance officers to help them navigate wave after wave of these new regulations.

By one estimate, for the typical small bank, more than one out of every four dollars--one out of four--of operating expenses is used to pay for the cost of complying with government regulations. With Dodd- Frank we can only expect that cost to go higher.

One community banker tells me they have five compliance officers out of a staff of less than 100 employees. In speaking with compliance officers, they tell me regulations that are being put forth to implement a range of new requirements are being written too quickly, without sufficient specifics and guidance for banks to implement as intended.

They point to regulations that are duplicative or contradictory but which they must comply with, even if the banker or consumer does not view the regulation as having any value or benefit to the consumer--I might add, even if they can understand it.

Such compliance efforts cost time and money and it is vital that Federal regulators consider the total impact of all regulations, not merely each regulation in isolation, and work to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on an already heavily regulated industry.

With these concerns in mind, I would like to call attention to several regulations that highlight the impact of an overly burdensome regulatory environment. I encourage regulators to join the President's effort to pursue solutions to regulations that make it difficult for our community banks to serve their customers, support businesses in their communities, and help grow our economy.

The Dodd-Frank act requires the Federal Reserve to issue a rule for debit interchange fees. Basically, interchange fees are swipe fees that a merchant bank pays to a customer's bank when the customer uses their debit card. In December I joined a bipartisan group of Senators in writing to Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke expressing our concerns with the interchange provision and to encourage the Federal Reserve to ensure that our consumer interests are protected in rate standards that are set.

Our letter outlines ``concerns with the consequences of replacing a market-based system for debit card acceptance with a government- controlled system,'' as well as concerns that the provision will make small banks and credit union debit cards more expensive for merchants to accept than those cards issued by larger banks, and it would likely put them at a disadvantage compared to the large banks that issue those other cards.

In addition, the rule does not consider all of the costs incurred by a bank in actually providing the service,

such as all the costs for fraud control and prevention, network processing fees, card production, and issuance costs, and fixed costs, including capital investments. These are all significant costs for many banks and will be one of the factors they will have to look at when considering whether they even continue to offer any debit card service.

During debate on the debit interchange amendment, supporters presented it as a proconsumer provision, maintaining that the reduction in interchange fees would be passed on to the consumer. Yet there is nothing, nothing in this Dodd-Frank act that requires retailers to pass on any savings from debit interchange fees to their customers. On the contrary, the debit interchange rule will likely result in higher bank fees, a loss of reward programs, or banks may ultimately, as I have said, decide not to offer debit cards to their customers. Some steps are already being considered.

Higher fees or limited choices as a result of such government price controls does not benefit any consumer. That is why legislation I am supporting calls for the Federal Reserve and other Federal financial regulators to slow down and fully study this issue, carefully evaluate the 11,000 comments that were received on this proposed rule.

I am particularly concerned about the estimated costs of the debit interchange rule for our community banks, which is not insignificant. Supporters of the interchange rule say our community banks will not be impacted. Well, I beg to differ.

Consider what I am hearing from the community banks in my State of Kansas. One community banker in a town of just 1,000, whose bank began offering debit cards a few years ago, tells me the interchange proposal will cost his bank $19,000 a year. Two other banks that serve multiple rural communities will see increased costs per year of more than $46,000 and $100,000, respectively. Other banks, including banks in my State, estimate the cost to be in the millions. Ultimately, the loss of income for banks will mean less capital available to lend to borrowers.

I also want to mention the concerns I am hearing about the patchwork of mortgage disclosure requirements. Taken together, existing regulations and anticipated regulations as a result of Dodd-Frank may well have the effect of making it more difficult and costly to provide mortgages to qualified borrowers, reduce lending capacity, and may push some lenders to simply stop offering mortgages.

One example is the SAFE Act. It creates a nationwide mortgaging licensing system and registry for mortgage loan originators. This registry is intended for use by regulators to identify mortgage brokers or lenders who seek to work in a State after being banned from working in a different State. That sounds all right. However, each mortgage loan originator will be required to register with a national registry, obtain a unique identification number, and submit fingerprints for the FBI to conduct a criminal background check.

So if you are in the business of trying to be a mortgage loan originator, you are going to get fingerprinted. Our community bankers tell me their cost to meet the new requirements is roughly $1,000 to $2,000 per loan officer. I know that might not seem like a lot of money to Washington regulators, but it is a tidy sum in rural America.

The cost of compliance will take time and money away from the business of lending and may ultimately be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for a mortgage loan. That is what will happen.

Finally, I want to mention the recent guidance on the overdraft payment programs put forth by the FDIC. At some point most of us have had experience with overdraft programs, perhaps when we forgot to balance our checkbook. In the guidance, the FDIC stated:

The guidance focuses on automated overdraft programs and

encourages banks to offer less costly alternatives if, for

example, a borrower overdraws his or her account on more

than six occasions where a fee is charged in a rolling 12-

month period. Additionally, to avoid reputational and

other risks, the FDIC expects institutions to institute

appropriate daily limits on customer costs and ensure that

transactions are not processed in a manner designed to

maximize the cost to consumers.

So while banks offer overdraft protection programs now and take other steps to aid customers in avoiding overdrafts, many are concerned that this guidance put forth by the FDIC is overly prescriptive and goes further than amendments on overdrafts put forth by the Federal Reserve.

Further, banks note that the guidance seems to contradict the intent of the President's Executive order that requires agencies to propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its cost, recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify. Banks are concerned that the FDIC guidance is based on outdated information and that the impact of the Federal Reserve's rules on overdraft programs should be reviewed before moving forward with additional guidance in this area.

So while the FDIC is not subject to the Executive order, I certainly hope they would adopt the spirit of the order. In addition, when a customer has a pattern of excessive use of automated overdraft programs, the FDIC states that ``(banks) should contact their customers about a more appropriate and lower-cost alternative that better suits their needs.''

I can remember a bank scandal back in the House of Representatives. If only that bank would have had this protection from the FDIC, none of that scandal would have ever happened.

The FDIC recently provided additional clarification on this guidance that provides some flexibility about how banks reach out to customers and permits them to contact customers by mail as well as in person and by telephone. However, the requirement that banks contact customers who incur six overdrafts in a rolling 12-month period remains a broad overreach of the FDIC's authority, putting the burden on the banks rather than the customer who ultimately bears the responsibility for ensuring that they have sufficient funds in their account to cover their transactions.

In fact, one study shows that 77 percent of customers paid no overdraft fees in the previous 12 months. That same study also showed that for those 21 percent of customers who paid an overdraft fee, 69 percent say they were glad the payment was covered.

Another survey found that 94 percent of those surveyed said they would want a transaction to be covered by their banks even if it resulted in an overdraft fee. This guidance seems to be a clear example of where an agency is overreaching, with little evidence of the need for or effectiveness of such additional guidance.

In closing, I thank, again, Obama for taking the step in the right direction to review Federal regulations that place undue burdens or our Nation's economic growth and recovery. I hope financial regulators will join in this effort to examine rules and regulations that pose significant barriers to our small community banks and their ability to serve their customers and contribute to the growth of their communities.

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

Madam President, I am going to speak for approximately 4 minutes during morning business. I had originally intended on 15, but I am going to do that tomorrow on another subject. If I could be recognized for 4 minutes, that is my intention.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I know it is pretty serious business talking about a government shutdown and things of this nature that affect all Americans. I certainly hope we can reach some accommodation. I wish to do a little bragging on behalf of my home State.

We are pretty proud of our basketball heritage in Kansas, but I note that we have not received national recognition to the extent I think we should in regards to the recent accomplishment I wish to highlight.

I rise to congratulate the Wichita State University Shockers. The Shockers won the 2011 Men's National Invitation Tournament in the Big Apple, the championship in New York City. In claiming the championship trophy, Wichita State set the school record with 29 victories in the season. Wichita State advanced to the NIT championship with four straight wins in the tournament. They beat the University of Nebraska in the first round, Virginia Tech in the second round, the College of Charleston in the quarter finals, Washington State University in the semifinal, and, finally, the University of Alabama in the championship game. All of these schools have good basketball teams, and Wichita State came out on top.

Graham Hatch was named the NIT's most outstanding player and a member of the All-Tournament Team, while Garret Stutz was named to the All- Tournament Team as well.

Wichita State and head coach Gregg Marshall were not only successful on the court but in the classroom as well. Earlier this year, Coach Hatch and Garrett Stutz were named to the 2011 Missouri Valley Conference Scholar Athlete first and honorable mention teams, respectively. I congratulate the Wichita State University Shockers, their head coach Gregg Marshall, the athletic director Eric Sexton, a good friend of mine, and Wichita State University president Don Beggs. Don, you are back again, and you certainly did us proud.

Specifically, I congratulate each member of the team for an exemplary season: Gabe Blair, Derek Brown, J.T. Durley, Aaron Ellis, Jerome Hamilton, Graham Hatch, Trey Jones, David Kyles, Toure Murry, Ehimen Orukpe, Joe Ragland, Tyler Richardson, Ben Smith, Garrett Stutz, Randall Vautravers, Josh Walker, and Demitric Williams.

If I mispronounced any name, I am terribly sorry. They did not do anything wrong with the tournament in terms of winning the NIT. Congratulations to all Shockers basketball fans. The coach has made the decision to stay at Wichita State. Good news for Kansas. Good news for Wichita State, an exemplary action on the part of the coach after a very successful team effort and winning the NIT and then staying at Wichita State University. Good news for Kansas, good news for Wichita State, and good news all the way around.

By the way, we will not shut down the team. They are going to keep on fighting.

I think the signal there was not four quarters and let's go play hard, but the 4 minutes are up.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to address a health care concern that impacts all of us--access to health care.

When you or your loved one is sick--the most important thing on earth is

to fight for the very best medical care possible. And when the diagnosis is cancer--a disease far too many of our friends and family have faced--it becomes all the more important and all the more time sensitive.

Unfortunately, in some cases, access to care--as well as the life- saving drugs needed to treat a variety of forms of this disease--are being negatively impacted by the current reimbursement structure for Medicare Part B drugs and biologicals. In layman's terms, it's one more hurdle that doctors have to fight for their patients.

That is why I am introducing today legislation that would end the hurdle. My bill would exclude customary prompt pay discounts from the manufacturer's average sales price for purposes of Medicare Part B drugs and biologicals.

In Hillsboro, Kansas we have already seen cancer clinics begin to close as a direct result of the current reimbursement structure which limits patient access to care that they desperately need. Currently the prompt pay discounts artificially reduce Medicare Part B drug reimbursement rates for community oncology clinics, jeopardizing the viability of these providers. The closing of the clinic in Hillsboro can be directly attributed to this reimbursement structure. Additionally, prompt pay discounts also reduce the payment rates of private payers that use Average Sales Price. My legislation is a step forward in addressing problems with Medicare reimbursement for cancer drugs.

Primary Healthcare Distributors, PHDs, act as a middle man between providers and drug and product manufacturers. Most healthcare providers must receive daily deliveries of products from many different manufacturers. PHDs streamline the system and provide efficiencies by aggregating the ordering and shipping logistics. Some 80 percent of prescription medicines in the U.S. are stored, managed and delivered by PHDs. These PHDs receive prompt pay discounts from drug manufacturers in recognition of the efficiencies they provide.

However, these efficiencies are threatened by the Medicare Modernization Act's, MMA's, inappropriate inclusion of these prompt pay discounts in the calculation of the Average Sales Price for Medicare Part B drugs, those administered in a doctor's office. The inclusion of these discounts ultimately reduces reimbursements to providers, who are not the actual beneficiaries of the discounts. It provides a perverse incentive for manufacturers to go around the PHD to offer prompt pay discounts directly to the providers, thereby eliminating the efficiencies of the current system and potentially creating another burden for providers.

Congress has recognized the importance of excluding prompt pay discounts from providers' payment formulas in the Medicaid program. This bill would extend that exclusion to Medicare Part B.

I believe that the policy is right; that is why today I, along with Senator Stabenow, am introducing legislation to amend Part B of Title XVII of the Social Security Act to exclude customary prompt pay discounts from manufacturers to wholesalers from the average sales price for drugs and biologicals under Medicare.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to address a health care concern that impacts all of us--access to health care.

When you or your loved one is sick--the most important thing on earth is

to fight for the very best medical care possible. And when the diagnosis is cancer--a disease far too many of our friends and family have faced--it becomes all the more important and all the more time sensitive.

Unfortunately, in some cases, access to care--as well as the life- saving drugs needed to treat a variety of forms of this disease--are being negatively impacted by the current reimbursement structure for Medicare Part B drugs and biologicals. In layman's terms, it's one more hurdle that doctors have to fight for their patients.

That is why I am introducing today legislation that would end the hurdle. My bill would exclude customary prompt pay discounts from the manufacturer's average sales price for purposes of Medicare Part B drugs and biologicals.

In Hillsboro, Kansas we have already seen cancer clinics begin to close as a direct result of the current reimbursement structure which limits patient access to care that they desperately need. Currently the prompt pay discounts artificially reduce Medicare Part B drug reimbursement rates for community oncology clinics, jeopardizing the viability of these providers. The closing of the clinic in Hillsboro can be directly attributed to this reimbursement structure. Additionally, prompt pay discounts also reduce the payment rates of private payers that use Average Sales Price. My legislation is a step forward in addressing problems with Medicare reimbursement for cancer drugs.

Primary Healthcare Distributors, PHDs, act as a middle man between providers and drug and product manufacturers. Most healthcare providers must receive daily deliveries of products from many different manufacturers. PHDs streamline the system and provide efficiencies by aggregating the ordering and shipping logistics. Some 80 percent of prescription medicines in the U.S. are stored, managed and delivered by PHDs. These PHDs receive prompt pay discounts from drug manufacturers in recognition of the efficiencies they provide.

However, these efficiencies are threatened by the Medicare Modernization Act's, MMA's, inappropriate inclusion of these prompt pay discounts in the calculation of the Average Sales Price for Medicare Part B drugs, those administered in a doctor's office. The inclusion of these discounts ultimately reduces reimbursements to providers, who are not the actual beneficiaries of the discounts. It provides a perverse incentive for manufacturers to go around the PHD to offer prompt pay discounts directly to the providers, thereby eliminating the efficiencies of the current system and potentially creating another burden for providers.

Congress has recognized the importance of excluding prompt pay discounts from providers' payment formulas in the Medicaid program. This bill would extend that exclusion to Medicare Part B.

I believe that the policy is right; that is why today I, along with Senator Stabenow, am introducing legislation to amend Part B of Title XVII of the Social Security Act to exclude customary prompt pay discounts from manufacturers to wholesalers from the average sales price for drugs and biologicals under Medicare.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation introduced by Senator Wyden, of which I am an original cosponsor, the `Hospice Evaluation and Legitimate Payment Act.' The HELP Act.

The HELP Act does what the title says it does and takes initial steps in helping our hospices in Kansas and across the Nation continue to give the valuable care that patients and families need.

It is impossible to describe the value of hospice services to the patients and families for whom they provide selfless and compassionate care. Over the next 10 years hospice is facing drastic reductions in their reimbursements, negatively impacting at least 1.3 million patients and families, which is the number served by hospice programs in recent years.

The HELP Act sets realistic requirements for a face-to-face encounter. The Accountable Care Act included a requirement that a hospice physician or nurse practitioner should have a face-to-face encounter with hospice patients before their 180-day recertification and for each 60-day recertification period after that date, has caused a significant burden on our hospice communities, especially those in rural areas. The limits on who can conduct the face-to-face encounter and the timeline for compliance do not reflect the operational realities of hospice programs, especially for small and rural hospices. The HELP Act would allow Nurse Practitioners, Clinical Nurse Specialists and Physician's Assistants to conduct the face-to-face encounter, and that hospice programs be afforded 7 days after the election of services to fulfill the requirement.

The HELP Act would require the Secretary to establish a payment reform demonstration program to test any prospective payment revisions to hospice, and would include an evaluation period for data analysis; increase the frequency of hospice surveys to every 3 years; and would amend the new face-to-face encounter statutory framework to reflect operational realities for hospice programs, and the needs of the patients and families they serve.

Under this legislation the new payment methodologies for hospice must first be piloted through a 2-year, 15-site demonstration program to allow for any recommended payment reform schemes to be tested across a representative sample of the hospice community and to assess their impact on beneficiary access to hospice services.

The HELP Act also requires more frequent hospice surveys. A recent Office of the Inspector General's, OIG, report noted that CMS was remiss in its supervisory responsibilities by not regularly reviewing the operational and clinical delivery processes of the hospice community. OIG has recommended on numerous occasions that ``CMS should conduct more frequent certification surveys of hospices as a way to enforce the requirements.'' Accrediting organizations, such as the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, JCAHO, have set an industry standard of certification every 3 years for hospices. The HELP Act requires an initial survey for those seeking certification to be followed by a standard survey every 3 years.

While there is more work that needs to be done to address payment reductions for hospice providers, the HELP Act takes some initial steps to addressing these problems. I am grateful to my colleague Senator Wyden for introducing this legislation and I am happy to lend my support. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to review and consider supporting this very important piece of legislation.