Floor Statements

Before the distinguished Senator from New Jersey leaves, I wish to thank him for his diligence and advocacy on behalf of a distinguished American. I can say, as chair of the agriculture committee, without the work of Cesar Chavez, without those who toiled in the fields picking the fruits and vegetables and providing the backbone of the agricultural workforce, we would not have an agricultural economy in many places in this country.

To say on the date of his birth that we recognize Cesar Chavez is something that is straightforward and ought to be happening and should have happened 8 years ago.

Community Mental Health Care

Mr. President, today marks the culmination of a long fight to improve community mental health care in our country. Last Thursday the House of Representatives passed the Protecting Access to Medicare Act, which includes a demonstration project based on the Excellence in Mental Health Act that my friend and partner from Missouri Roy Blunt and I authored.

I wish to recognize Senator Maria Cantwell, who is one of our cosponsors who is on the floor, for her wonderful, passionate support and voice helping us get this done. I wish to thank our House sponsors. This is a House-Senate Republican-Democratic initiative. Who says we cannot work together when we want to get things done?

Congresswoman Matsui, a Democrat from Hawaii; Congressman Lance, a Republican from New Jersey, were our sponsors. We also had significant partnership and advocacy from Congressman Tim Murphy, a leader in mental health in the Congress, a Republican from Pennsylvania.

I wish to thank Susan Collins who, as a Senator from Maine, has been a passionate advocate as well and Senator Jack Reed, who has worked with me for years on this legislation. He and I were partners for a long time to get this done. I wish to thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the House, Chairman Camp, and Chairman Upton for working with us, both from my home State of Michigan--for working and partnering with us.

I wish to thank the Speaker and Majority Leader Reid, who put together a proposal, not what most of us would have liked to have seen in terms of permanently fixing this issue of the SGR or Medicare reimbursement for physicians, but even in looking at a fix for just 1 year, they came together and supported our vision for positively moving forward on a demonstration project to increase community mental health services.

Certainly, last but not least, I wish to thank Senator Ron Wyden, who has been there since day one and now as chairman of the Finance Committee has been unequivocal in his passionate support for what we are doing. I wish to thank Chairman Wyden for his leadership and support.

Our legislation is a landmark step forward for community mental health funding, one of the most significant advances we have seen in decades. This bill will improve the lives of people all across the country by providing funding to create 24-hour emergency psychiatric services and higher standards and funding for community care.

We authored this bill because mental illness touches all of our families in some way, one out of four Americans. For me, it was my father who suffered from bipolar disorder and was not diagnosed for at least 10 years when I was growing up. I saw the impact on my dad, the most loving, wonderful father someone could have, on my mom, on my brothers, our whole family, as we struggled to figure out what was going on and get him the help and support he needed.

When he finally was accurately diagnosed and received the right treatment and support, got the right tools to manage this disease, he was able to go back to work and live a happy and rewarding life for the rest of his life. Similar to my dad, too many people who need treatment do not get it, including one-third of all people living with mood disorders and more than half of those with severe mental diseases.

That is because in this country we treat mental health and physical health differently. If you have diabetes, you monitor your sugar levels, you take insulin to manage your disease. You go on with your life as you are managing your disease. If you are bipolar, meaning you have a chemical imbalance in the brain, you may receive zero treatment, maybe lose your job or worse your family, maybe end up in jail or on the streets.

Diabetes and bipolar disorders are both chemical imbalances in different

parts of the body. Both deserve treatment. People deserve to be able to get effective treatment for both. Both are treatable--both are treatable. The same is true for schizophrenia and many other behavioral diseases. There is hope when people get help.

There is treatment available and from that the ability to manage diseases, as we do for so many physical diseases that people have. This bill which we just passed in the Senate will make it more likely to happen that people can get the treatment and support they need. This bill makes great improvements in the way we treat mental health care as well. It will expand access, make sure people get treatment at a higher quality level, because just as we do with federally qualified health centers, we are now creating federally qualified behavioral health clinics.

If you meet higher standards, you get higher reimbursements and therefore more services available. This legislation authorizes eight States to be designated to receive enhanced funding for community mental health services, based on meeting high-quality standards for services, as I said before, for the designation of federally qualified behavioral health clinics.

This is voluntary. States will compete to be designated as one of the eight demonstration States. I expect many States and communities across the country to be working together to do that. I fully expect this demonstration project will save lives and save money to communities in every State that is housing people in jails who should be getting the treatment they need in the community in order to manage their diseases and live productive lives.

It has taken a long time to get here. The fight began 50 years ago, when President John F. Kennedy called on Congress to create a new type of health care facility that would improve the quality of mental health care in the community--in the community--and reduce stigma. He pushed Congress to take action on mental health care because he had a vision to bring mental health treatment out of institutions and into communities across America.

Following his lead, Congress sent him the Community Mental Health Act. It was the last bill he signed before he was murdered in Dallas. It is one of the most important bills that he signed. Senator Blunt and I spoke on the Senate floor last fall to commemorate the 50th anniversary of that bill's signing because it marked a major change in the way we treat mental health.

Unfortunately, over the past few decades, instead of increasing funding for mental health services, we have seen cut after cut after cut. We are seeing the consequences. Inpatient facilities all across the country have closed their doors, but they have not been replaced by services in the community. Too often we are turning the emergency room or worse to jails or prisons as our primary mental health treatment facilities.

As Cook County, IL, Sheriff Tom Dart testified in the House of Representatives just last week, ``The unfortunate and undeniable conclusion is, that because of dramatic and sustained cuts in mental health funding, we have criminalized mental illness in this country.''

The ER and the jails are not the place to treat mental illness. We can do better than that in this country. We have now taken a major step to do that. Our families deserve better. That is why our former colleagues Senator Pete Domenici and Senator Paul Wellstone, a dear friend to so many of us and whom we miss dearly, and later another dear friend, Senator Ted Kennedy, whom we also miss dearly, a towering figure on so many issues, joined together with Senator Kennedy's son, Representative Patrick Kennedy, and wrote the bipartisan Mental Health Parity and Addiction Act. They wanted to make sure we had parity in how insurance companies treat mental and physical health. That bill became law finally in 2008. It was a huge step forward.

I was proud to offer mental health parity in the Affordable Care Act, which was the next big step forward. Today we voted on the final step in mental health parity in the community, the ability to get funding for quality mental health care services the same way we fund quality community health services.

I have met and heard from so many people who personally felt the effects of mental illness and who wanted us to pass this bill so they and others could get the treatment they need.

One of those people who joined us--in fact, today at a press conference, flew in from Michigan--is Malkia Newman, who lived for over 30 years with undiagnosed bipolar disorder. She finally got the treatment she needed through the Oakland County Community Mental Health Authority in the Detroit suburbs.

She recovered, is now managing her illness, and is the board chair of the very same mental health board community she turned to for help so she can help others. Her message to Congress is: ``Please pass this bill so everyone can get the mental health help they need.''

Not everyone is as lucky as Malkia, though. There are many who still need our help, which is why what we have done today is so important.

Today, one in four returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan is in some need of some form of mental health care treatment. I recently heard from Marcia in Dearborn about her friend.

She said:

My friend bravely served two tours in Iraq for this

country. Before he left for war, he was so outgoing and all

he wanted was to put a smile on everyone's face. He had the

biggest heart of anyone I know.

But when he came home from war with PTSD, her friend was in trouble.

Marcia writes:

What is done for these men and women when they come home?

They go to war, they see things no one should ever see and do

things no one should ever do, and they're expected to return

home and live normally?

Her friend killed himself after suffering from PTSD for 8 years. Marcia's friend is only 1 of the 22 veterans who take their own lives every single day in America. This is where our bill comes in. This bipartisan bill expands access to mental health care, working with outpatient VA clinics, working with community mental health centers, and federally qualified mental health centers, all working together. I thank so much the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans for being with us every step of the way, advocating, all of the veterans organizations that have been so supportive. This bill will create a broad range of mental health services, such as 24-hour crisis psychiatric services in communities that are selected, integrated preventive screenings, integrated treatment for mental illness and substance abuse, and expanded peer support and counseling for families and patients alike.

It allows community mental health centers to finally be reimbursed the same as physical health providers. We are finally saying that as a country we are going to treat illnesses from the neck up, the same way we treat illnesses from the neck down.

Instead of merely talking about mental health in the wake of tragedies such as the Navy Yard in Washington last fall that took 13 lives or the tragedy at Sandy Hook, we have taken action this evening.

Mental health isn't a partisan issue. Senators Domenici and Wellstone understood it just as Senator Blunt, Senator Cantwell, Senator Collins, and I understand.

Senator Wellstone isn't here to see the progress we have made, but he once said:

Politics is not about power. Politics is not about money.

Politics is not about winning for the sake of winning.

Politics is about the improvement of people's lives.

That is exactly what we are doing, improving people's lives and creating hope and opportunity for people to get the help they need to live long, successful lives.

I thank all of our colleagues for working together to get this done. It will be something, as we move forward, of which we can all be proud.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

We are 5 days away from the deadline to begin enrolling for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act--5 days for folks who don't have insurance now or want to see if they can find a better deal under their local marketplace or Federal marketplace under the Affordable Care Act.

We have heard the stories about the trouble with the Web site last October, but there are so many stories we haven't heard of people successfully signing up now for health care coverage. Those are the stories we want to talk about, in terms of the millions of people who are finding, in fact, for the first time they can have peace of mind, knowing they can find affordable health insurance and not only from a cost standpoint.

Every woman who is able to get insurance now knows she is not going to be rated differently and have higher costs from the insurance company just because she is a woman--being a woman previously was somehow a preexisting condition--or if she is wanting to have a baby, she knows she can have her maternity care covered, which was not true for millions of women. In fact, going to the private marketplace prior to health care reform, about 60 percent of the insurance policies didn't cover something as important and basic as maternity care, unbelievably. So we are talking about people who are getting covered and people who have peace of mind, knowing they have affordable coverage and they can't get dropped if they get sick.

In fact, now going forward, if anyone has a policy, they cannot get dropped just because they get sick. Anyone who has cancer or diabetes-- children with juvenile diabetes or heart disease--all of the various concerns and chronic diseases people have, knows they can find insurance; that they will not be blocked from getting medical care and health insurance because of a preexisting condition.

So far over 5 million people have already enrolled in private health insurance plans through the new marketplaces, including over 144,000 in my home State of Michigan, people who are finally in a position where they have peace of mind at night, knowing they have health insurance for themselves and their families if somebody gets sick. If they need preventive care, they are not going to have out-of-pocket costs to get the cancer screening, the mammogram, and other preventive care.

In Michigan 144,000 individuals have signed up for health care, which is nearly 16,000 more people than was actually predicted at this point in time, because people want and need affordable health care. This is not a frill. We cannot control whether somebody in the family gets sick. Now there are things we can do to do our best to stay healthy, but we never know when something is going to happen, no matter our age or our circumstance. We all understand. We all want to make sure our children are covered, whether they are 3 years old or 30 years old. We want to make sure our moms and dads are covered, and we want to make sure we have coverage as a small business owner, that there is access to affordable coverage. People are signing up because this is personal for them and for their families.

I wish to share success stories of three of my constituents today. The first story is about LaNika, a 34-year-old volleyball coach from Flint, MI, who lived without health insurance for years while she focused on developing her career path. She didn't think she needed health insurance because she was healthy. One day she had an accident. She was playing volleyball, and she and another woman collided, leaving her with a concussion. We all know head injuries are serious. So she had no choice but to go to the emergency room without having health insurance.

By the way, we all know that people who go to the emergency room without health insurance get treated, as they should, and then everybody with insurance--this is the way we have done it for decades-- everybody with insurance sees their rates go up to pay for folks going into the emergency room, getting care in the most expensive way possible, which is going to the emergency room for care, rather than seeing a doctor.

In this particular case LaNika said this was her aha moment. After going to the ER, LaNika logged on to healthcare.gov to see if she could get covered. She entered her information, she compared plans, and she selected the best plan for her. She ended up selecting a silver plan from Michigan's largest health insurance company for less than $100 a month because of her income level.

The whole process, she said, took an hour. She said that getting her insurance card was like a breath of fresh air because she knew that if disaster struck again she would be covered. Peace of mind, as they say in the commercials, is priceless. Now she can go see a doctor without worrying about a bill she cannot afford to pay.

Another constituent, Jim, from Shelby, MI, shared his story too. He had seen all the bad press, he said, on the Affordable Care Act on TV and social media and thought it wasn't worth it to sign up. He planned to sign his family up for COBRA coverage because he had worked and was going to sign up for COBRA to keep his former employer's coverage going but found out that wasn't an option. He decided to give healthcare.gov a try. After filling out his basic information, he saw how low his costs for good coverage would be and he signed up his family. Because he had such a positive experience, he began sharing it on Facebook so other people could see how easy it was to get covered. A recent post of his read: ``There are only a few days left to sign up. Don't let this opportunity pass without taking a look,'' which is our message today. Don't let this opportunity pass without taking a look.

Another constituent, Bryan, from Okemos called my East Lansing office because he was upset that his health plan had been canceled. The replacement plan he was offered by his insurer wasn't affordable. He let us know how upset he was. He then asked what he was supposed to do.

We suggested he go to healthcare.gov to see if he could find a more affordable option that would meet his needs. He said he didn't have a computer. So we gave him the 1-800 number to call. He was skeptical, of course, that he would find a good plan. He expected to have to wait on the phone for hours to talk to somebody, but we encouraged him to give it a try.

He called the office back shortly with some good news. He had called the 1-800 number and someone answered right away. They were very friendly and helpful, he said. They helped Bryan find a plan that had better coverage than his old plan. On top of that, it was $60 per month cheaper than his old plan, and he was able to add dental coverage too. He apologized for his first call.

We certainly understand that when people get those kinds of notices that the insurance they have has been canceled, of course everyone responds with panic and being upset with what is going on, what is going to happen to me. But the good news is that he was able to call the 1-800 number and, in fact, find better coverage that was lower priced and he is now also covered for important dental care. He said he is extremely happy with the Affordable Care Act.

LaNika's, Jim's, and Ryan's stories aren't unique. They are very typical. Despite all of the hype and all of the efforts that have gone on, they are very typical. It is important that people get beyond all the politics of health care, which for the life of me I don't know why we are not all working together to make sure people have the health care they need and the information they need--for all the politics that have come before, for people to get beyond that and just find out for themselves if it will work. Hopefully, it will and they will have the same kind of results that LaNika and Jim and Ryan had.

To everyone in America who doesn't have health insurance right now and needs to sign up but hasn't yet, there is less than 1 week to begin the process. Once you have begun, I want to make sure you complete it.

I appreciate the President's willingness to allow more people time to complete that process because health care is an essential in life that literally can be about life or death for a person or their family. I would suggest that folks not get left behind but get covered as LaNika, Jim, and Bryan did. It is quick, it will give you peace of mind, and we are hopeful you will find it to be something that is very good for you and your family.

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

Madam President, one of the true bright spots in our economy right now has been, and continues to be, manufacturing. Manufacturing jobs have been on the rise. We have over 12 million Americans who are now employed with good-paying jobs in the manufacturing sector. Many of them are in my own great State of Michigan.

This renaissance in the kind of good-paying jobs that built the middle class of this country is being powered in a significant way by American natural gas. More than $100 billion in investments, in more than 120 different manufacturing projects, is being fueled by abundant, affordable American natural gas. Thanks to American natural gas, the people in our country have a great new opportunity to go to work, have a good-paying job, and support their families.

Our country is truly blessed with this natural resource. It is critical that we continue to put our American natural gas to work so we can create American jobs, which is why I am confused and concerned by those who are rushing to send this American resource overseas without a careful review of the impact this will have on the costs to our manufacturers, our jobs, and our families.

I am not opposed to exporting some of our natural gas as part of a balanced, well-thought-out plan. A rush to approve every export facility request immediately is not wise. It is not wise for our economy or our people when we know that increased natural gas is needed here at home.

People need jobs in America. We have about 10 million people out of work. We have an awful lot of people who need a job. Good-paying jobs in manufacturing

can and will be part of their future if we manage our natural gas resources the right way. It is critical for America that we get this right. We need to export our products, not our jobs, and that is the debate I believe we should be having.

Low-cost natural gas is critical to our Nation's ability to create manufacturing jobs. It is critical. If we start exporting too much of our natural gas without monitoring or evaluating the impact over time, we may be giving up a real advantage we have right now for creating jobs and bringing jobs home from other countries.

What do we hear from a lot of businesses that are making decisions to bring jobs home? They talk about low-energy costs. We don't want to give that up as an advantage for America as we compete in a global economy. Also, if increased exports raise prices to the same level as global oil prices--and obviously some folks would like to see that happen for their own interests--American families will be hit with even higher energy costs at home, and that doesn't make any sense either. Exporting more American natural gas simply doesn't add up.

A study last month by Charles River Associates found that using our own low-cost natural gas to increase American manufacturing is twice as valuable to our economy and creates eight times as many jobs as sending this important American resource overseas. Let me say that again: Using our own low-cost natural gas to increase American manufacturing output is twice as valuable to our American economy and creates eight times as many jobs as exporting this important American resource overseas.

I am particularly dismayed that some people are using the very serious crisis in Ukraine as an excuse to rush through new projects to export our natural gas.

Last week I met with members of the Ukrainian community in Detroit. They are deeply concerned about what is happening. This is personal for them. They have family and friends in Ukraine. This crisis should not be used by those in the oil and gas industry to rush through actions that may be good for them in the long run. It certainly will not be good for some people in the short run. Anything that is approved now will take way too long before it has any impact in Ukraine. Raising prices may be good for some in the long run, but it will not be good for American manufacturers. It is not good if the whole idea is to create American jobs here at home, and it is not good for middle-class families.

I want to be very clear: I am extremely concerned about what is happening in Ukraine. We must stand with the people of Ukraine and our allies in Europe against the outrageous actions of Russia and President Putin. This crisis is very serious and requires a serious response by the Senate. I know colleagues on both sides of the aisle care deeply about this issue. I hope and I assume we will pass a package to help Ukraine as soon as possible.

Again, this crisis should not be used as an excuse to shortcut the permit process or the thoughtful evaluation that I know the Department of Energy is committed to doing to make sure we get this right. This crisis should not be used to rush through new natural gas export facilities that may undercut our effort to create good-paying jobs here at home.

The Department of Energy has already agreed to permit six liquefied natural gas LNG export facilities that will export over 9 billion cubic feet of LNG every day--and that is not counting the other 30 applications that have been approved for export to countries we have free trade agreements with. I am not suggesting that should not have been done; I have not opposed that. But we better be careful on how we move forward and how we evaluate the impact on our economy.

As we all know, LNG export facilities take years to build. We could approve permits for 100 new LNG facilities tomorrow, and unfortunately it would do nothing to address the crisis in Ukraine and potential supply disruptions to our other important allies in Western Europe.

Here is what I am most concerned about: We all know that gas prices are decided by the global marketplace. Prices are high in Asia right now. We don't have the existing infrastructure to get natural gas to Ukraine. The gas in the export facilities that are rushed through are very likely to go to Asia--very likely to go to China.

Should American natural gas be used to lower prices and create jobs in China or in other parts of Asia or should we be using low-cost natural gas to create jobs right here at home? I hope we can all agree on the answer to that question.

Rushing through more natural gas export facilities, unfortunately, would not help Ukraine. However, it could have a negative effect on our own economy in the long run. Increasing exports would reduce our supply here at home and raise consumer prices, and we all know how devastating that would be for our families. Higher prices for natural gas means it will cost more to cook your dinner, heat your home, and power your small business.

The recent propane shortages and dramatic price spikes we saw in States across the country should raise a red flag for everybody. We simply cannot afford to export too much natural gas too fast without truly understanding the impact on our own jobs and families. Plus, sending so much of our natural gas abroad will neutralize the competitive advantage we have right now for cheap and abundant fuel. We have an advantage right now, and we need to keep that advantage.

My concern is that we would be giving the big oil companies a boost because there would be higher prices for natural gas which would keep oil as a viable alternative because there would not be the advantage of natural gas anymore if we go to the global marketplace and all the prices go up.

In the end, the people of Ukraine and our allies who need our help would not be receiving it. Our own manufacturers, businesses, and families would not be receiving it. Instead, it would be going to the oil companies.

Shame on us if we squander the opportunities that low-cost, abundant natural gas resources offer our country. I believe we need to be smart in how we manage our resources.

Again, I am not opposed to exports. It is a question of a balance. It is a question of thinking it through in a thoughtful way and having an American plan where we are balancing out part exports, part keeping natural gas here at home, and making sure our manufacturers have the edge in a global economy because they have lower cost energy. We need to make sure we are bringing jobs back from overseas because of lower cost energy. We need to make sure our families have low-cost fuel and other energy assistance.

We need to be smart at this point in time about our resources. We have the opportunity, I believe, to find the right balance that allows us to both benefit from some exports and benefit from the resources by creating jobs here at home. Our manufacturers are families, the middle class of this country, the folks trying to hold on, folks trying to get into the middle class who know manufacturing jobs are a part of the way of doing that. They are counting on us. Our economy is counting on the fact that we will be smart about the way we make decisions about our natural resources. Right now with natural gas we have the opportunity not only for the States that have it to do well by exploration and extraction but by leveraging that as we look at the opportunities for manufacturing; leveraging our own resources, which we are told will give us eight times more in benefit in terms of jobs than just having our natural resources in America exported around the globe and the prices floating up to the higher prices of oil.

I thank the Chair. We are going to have a lot of discussion and debate on this issue going forward. I look forward to that. I think this is an opportunity for us to have an American plan on manufacturing, with American low-cost energy, to be able to jump-start our economy moving forward.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, as everyone else, I congratulate our leader on this issue and on so many issues, including having the right kind of appropriations process to invest the dollars that Americans work hard to earn, to make sure they are invested in ways that help families, children, and to help the middle class to be able to succeed in this country.

I thank Senator Mikulski, the senior Senator from Maryland. Her work on this issue, the child care and development block grant, has been extraordinary and bipartisan, as is all of her work. She is laser focused on creating opportunities for children and families to succeed.

I think all of, certainly, the women who are speaking today and hopefully all of our colleagues understand that quality, affordable childcare is not a frill. I realize the Presiding Officer has wonderful children as well and understands this is a necessity.

We care for our children. We want to make sure we are able to work, put a roof over their heads, food on the table, to be able to buy their school clothes and get them what they need, to be able to pay for college, and to be able to do all the things we want to do for ourselves, our children, and our families. The costs of childcare are part of that equation, being able to do those things for our families that we need to do.

The average cost of childcare for 2 children is $14,872 a year. I have heard from my friend and colleague from New York that it was higher in New York. I am sure it is higher in many places. But, on average, across the country, families are having to come up with almost $15,000 a year which equals, if they are working minimum wage, a 40- hour workweek, working full time for a year. Think about that. If someone is in a minimum-wage job--and hopefully we are going to change that by raising the minimum wage--trying to make it and they work for 1 year, that is the average childcare cost for two children. That is why this investment in children and families is so important. This is the highest household expense for many families.

In most States 1 year of daycare is more expensive than 1 year of tuition at a public university. We are all talking to parents. They are all worried about saving for college. With three small grandchildren, I think how can I help be part of that process of saving for college. Yet 1 year of daycare is more expensive than 1 year of tuition at a public university. This is too much for many of our families to afford. Very difficult choices are being made, choices that families are agonizing over.

This is especially unaffordable for so many hard-working families who are trying to climb the ladder of opportunity, trying to get into the middle class or maybe holding on by their fingertips and trying to stay in the middle class. That is why we have child care and development block grants to be able to help families afford a necessity and something that is critical for our society, which is having safe, affordable, quality childcare for our children.

This is a critically important program signed into law by President George H. W. Bush that 1.6 million children every month rely on; 1.6 million children in our country and their parents rely on this every month.

States use this funding to help low-income families gain access to quality, affordable childcare and afterschool programs. These families are trying to make ends meet and make sure their children have the opportunities they need to be successful. I want to stress that this funding goes to parents who are working--are working--are training for work or are enrolled in school.

I believe the reason we have strong bipartisan support is people understand how critical it is to hard-working families. This is an investment in our families. It is an investment in America's moms and dads. Sixty-five percent of moms work outside the home. In fact, if they go back to work, they are earning, in Michigan, only 74 cents on every dollar. They don't get a discount on their childcare, just because women are only getting three-quarters of a salary. Somehow, they are still paying the full price, but this is particularly critical for women across America.

This program helps millions of families, as I indicated, especially moms--especially moms getting back to work without having to worry about whether their children are going to be safe. Talk about peace of mind, this is peace-of-mind legislation for moms and dads to make sure their children will have a quality place, affordable place, and a safe place to be while they are working to earn a living for their families.

It has now been 24 years since this law was signed by President Bush, 18 years since it was last reauthorized. It is time to update it to reflect the changing conditions and challenges for our families.

This bipartisan reauthorization addresses issues facing families who need childcare. It improves program quality, making sure funds go to families in need; ensures children and childcare get the things they need to succeed: good nutrition, which is so critical for

their growth, physical activity, well-being by developing guidelines and incorporating health and wellness training for professional development; making sure children's needs are addressed when children have disabilities. It is very important for them and their families, making sure all childcare providers are properly trained to care for children and have been screened. That means first aid, CPR, how to prevent sudden infant death syndrome, child abuse, and undergoing a background check.

The bottom line is this is a bill that we need to pass. I am grateful and appreciative of the bipartisan support that has gotten us to this point, and the 45 national organizations that support it, including the Afterschool Alliance, the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, the National Association for Family Child Care, Teach for America, United Way Worldwide, and so many others.

I am pleased to join with all of my colleagues and urge them that we pass this bill as quickly as possible.

Again, congratulations to our leader, the senior Senator from Maryland, who has gotten us to this point. I know we will get it all the way through the process.

I yield the floor.

There are currently 89 judicial vacancies in Federal courts across the country, including four on the eastern court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Two of these are considered emergency vacancies because they have been vacant for over 19 months. With so many vacancies the case backlog isn't getting any smaller. It is a real problem.

The good news is that today we have the opportunity to vote to move forward on four excellent nominees to fill vacancies in the courts.

Our Michigan nominees are highly qualified and represent some of the best legal minds we have. Two of the nominees are sitting judges, one nominee is a U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan, and the other nominee is currently in private practice at one of Michigan's top law firms.

Throughout the confirmation process, they have all proven to be thoughtful and prudent stewards of the law. So not only are they excellent nominees, but they are ready to go to work.

The first nominee is Judith Levy. She has served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan since 2000. She was a cum laude graduate at the University of Michigan Law School. She has received numerous awards for her legal work.

Ms. Levy clerked for the Honorable Bernard Friedman, the former chief judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. He was, in fact, a Reagan appointee.

She is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy created more than 18 months ago.

Ms. Levy is an excellent nominee. The people of Michigan deserve to have her on the bench, and she will serve with great distinction for all of us.

Second, we have Judge Laurie Michelson. Judge Michelson has served as a U.S. magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Michigan since 2011.

Prior to her appointment to the bench, she spent nearly 18 years in private practice where she specialized in media law, intellectual property, and white collar criminal defense.

She earned her law degree from Northwestern University in 1992. She served as a law clerk for Judge Cornelia Kennedy on the U.S. court of appeals. Judge Kennedy, as you may recall, was selected by President Reagan for his short list of Supreme Court candidates to replace Justice Potter Stewart.

Judge Michelson is an excellent nominee, and again the people of Michigan deserve to have her on the bench, and she will serve with distinction.

Next we have Judge Linda Parker. Judge Linda Parker has served as a judge on the Third Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan since 2009. Judge Parker has served in State and for the Federal Government for over a decade. Before that, she worked in private practice as well.

She earned her law degree from George Washington University and began her career as a law clerk in the District of Columbia Superior Court.

She has been recognized for her commitment to the community through pro bono legal work and as a board member of an organization that provides assistance to underserved academically gifted children.

Judge Parker is also an excellent nominee, and the people of Michigan look forward to her service.

Next is Matthew Leitman. Mr. Leitman is a principal at the Law Firm of Miller Canfield in Troy, MI, where he handles complex commercial litigation, criminal defense, and appellate matters before both State and Federal courts.

Prior to joining Miller Canfield in 2004, he spent 10 years in private practice.

He earned his law degree magna cum laude in 1993 from Harvard Law School and began his career as a clerk to Justice Charles Levin on the Michigan Supreme Court.

Mr. Leitman's nomination will also fill a judicial emergency vacancy which has been open for nearly 2 years.

Mr. Leitman is also an excellent nominee, and the people of Michigan, again, deserve his service on the bench. We look forward to his service and to the service of all four of those nominees that we will be voting on today.

We have four excellent nominees for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. They are thoughtful, they are prudent, and they are ready to get to work.

I encourage and ask that all of my colleagues join together today in a strong bipartisan vote to be able to move these nominations forward and bring them to the floor tomorrow morning for the final vote.

We are very pleased with the President's nominees and with their qualifications. We are very confident of their service to the courts and to the people of Michigan.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

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

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Connecticut for his passion and his wonderful advocacy for people who just want to know they have health care for themselves and their families, which is pretty basic. I thank Senator Murphy for his vigilance, for speaking out and being here and talking about what is at stake.

There is an ad on TV which says something like: New car, $30,000; new house, $150,000; peace of mind, priceless. What we are talking about in terms of access to affordable health care, getting what you are paying for, knowing you can't get dropped just because you get sick, knowing your child with juvenile diabetes can get care even though it would be viewed as a preexisting condition, is peace of mind.

I can't imagine how scary it must be to sit in a doctor's office and have a doctor come in and say: You have cancer. You have leukemia. You have breast cancer. This is happening to people every single day, and there are many thoughts going through their minds at that time. At some point they will turn to the doctor and want to talk about: What kind of treatment do I need? Is it going to be covered? How do I get it? What is going to happen?

One in every eight women in America will develop invasive breast cancer during their lives. It is not a statistic. These are real women, such as my sister-in-law, such as many other people I know. They are our daughters, our sisters, our mothers. Men as well are being given diagnoses of breast cancer--our friends. They now have the peace of mind of knowing they are going to be able to get the care they need at an affordable price and they can't be dropped. There is no cap on how long they are going to be able to get treatment, and that is priceless.

I will share a true story about a cancer survivor whose life has been changed thanks to the Affordable Care Act. Her name is Chris G.

Chris found a lump in her breast. Every woman can imagine the thoughts which must have gone through Chris's mind. The fear must have been unimaginable. It was even worse for Chris because her husband lost his job and they didn't have insurance--the worst of all possible situations. Because she didn't have insurance, she couldn't see a doctor to get the tests she needed. Chris didn't ignore her lump. You can't ignore something like that. It is on your mind every single minute of every single day. But at that moment she didn't feel she could do anything about it because without insurance, if Chris went to a doctor, her breast cancer of course would count as a preexisting condition and then she would never be able to get insurance.

But now, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, Chris and millions of women like her can get the affordable insurance they need, and marketplaces where insurance companies now have to compete for her business give their best price for her business. These are good policies which cover treatment women need to beat cancer and survive. But before the Affordable Care Act, cancer would haunt these women for the rest of their lives as insurance companies labeled their survival a preexisting condition--no more.

Thanks to the ACA, millions of cancer survivors similar to Chris have peace of mind--priceless. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, millions of women have access to mammograms and other preventive services. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, millions of women similar to Chris will never have to worry about annual or lifetime limits on their coverage, not being told: OK, cancer. You have eight visits. That is it. I hope it works. That is it. No more.

In fact, the ACA flips that around. It says cancer patients such as Chris will never be asked to spend more than a set amount of money in total on their treatment. Once they hit that number, the insurance company has to pick up the rest of the cost of the treatments. For women fighting cancer, this law is a lifesaver.

There are 7,000 women in my State of Michigan alone who will be newly diagnosed with breast cancer this year. This is why it is so important for women to get covered, to sign up before March 31, so they can have the health care they need this year. This is literally a lifesaving day on March 31.

Once you are covered, you get no-cost preventive services. So you can go in, get the checkup, get the mammogram, get other cancer screenings, and not have out-of-pocket costs. You get again the peace of mind of knowing you are not going to go broke because of health care. Even if you get diagnosed with cancer, it is not: Do I get the treatments I need for breast cancer or do I have a home for my family? Do I go bankrupt or do I try to survive through treatments? Those are not the choices available to women and families anymore, and there is access to your doctor instead of using the emergency room.

One of the fallacies of health care reform is this idea of somehow we ignore when people get sick and somehow we don't pay for it. Yet we all know people who don't have insurance use emergency rooms. I think it is interesting to note there is a proposal, in Georgia, where the Governor has said: The way to fix the problem with emergency rooms is to say you don't have to treat people. That is one way to do it, to say we are not going to treat people who are sick, who are in a car accident or have a heart attack.

The other way is through the Affordable Care Act, where we say: Instead of people using emergency rooms without insurance and then shifting all the costs onto everybody with insurance--which is what happens now--we pay for it. We all pay for it. Instead of that happening, we will set up a way for people to take personal responsibility for their health care and create a way to make it as affordable and competitive as possible. Then people will be able to go to their doctor instead of the emergency room and be able to get the treatment they need on an ongoing basis.

As women such as Chris can attest, cancer sneaks up on you. You can't predict it. You can't avoid it. This is not one of those events where you can

say just buck it up and don't get cancer. We don't want those costs, so just don't get sick.

We all know how ridiculous that is. Yet in some ways this is sort of what we keep hearing in some fashion.

The reality is you can't predict it. You can't avoid it. The only thing you can do is survive it, which millions of women are now doing who have access to the treatments and health care they need. This is why this new health care reform law is so important.

It is two things. It is health insurance reform, making sure those of us who have insurance are getting what we are paying for--as we have said before, can't get dropped, don't put artificial limits on the number of treatments. So it is insurance reform, so you are getting what you are paying for--what you thought you were paying for. It is also creating a way for more affordable insurance by creating a marketplace where insurance companies then have to bid for your business and provide you the best bed possible. We have competition to bring the costs down. I know for Chris, I know for women in my own family, and I know for people across Michigan, the peace of mind that comes with that is, in fact, priceless.

The debate on the other side is about taking that all away--not making it better, not fixing it. Medicare over the year has been improved. Medicaid has been improved. Social Security has been improved. Everything that is worth doing gets started and then has to be worked on to get improved. We are committed to doing that. But there are 50 votes now happening in the House to take it all away and to go back to saying good luck. If you are a woman, good luck. By the way, being a woman is probably viewed as being a preexisting condition. Trying to find insurance? Good luck. Good luck trying to get what you need from the insurance companies. Peace of mind is worth fighting for, and that is what the Affordable Care Act is all about.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his advocacy for seniors, children, families, and small businesses to have access to affordable and quality health insurance. He has been a powerful voice on this issue.

I also congratulate his State of Connecticut and the Governor of Connecticut for all of their hard work. I know they are doing a great job on their insurance pool--the health care exchange which is providing more affordable health insurance for the citizens in Connecticut.

I thank the Senator for his leadership.

I also rise today to talk about the fact that millions of American families today have access to more affordable health care. Seniors, children, small businesses, and others are getting the opportunity to have the health care they are paying for and know they can get the health care they need even if they have a preexisting condition because of the Affordable Care Act.

I will take a few moments to talk about what this means for our senior citizens--for people on Medicare. Obviously, Medicare is a great American success story and something that I strongly support, as do my colleagues who are speaking today.

As part of health care reform, we wanted to strengthen Medicare for the future. We protect the guaranteed benefits under Medicare. We have shored up the program so that the trust fund is now solvent until 2026 and will be so going forward as other savings occur over the long run. It is working because of some very tangible work we have done to put more money in the pockets of our senior citizens and to create the opportunity for them to have access to affordable health care.

I often think about the letters and emails I have received from people in Michigan prior to our passing health care reform and the kinds of stories that people told me all the time before we strengthened Medicare.

I will read one letter from a senior citizen from Warren, MI, who wrote to me a letter prior to health care reform talking about the gap in coverage in prescription drugs. Under Medicare Part-D, you are covered to a certain point, and then there is a gap and you get no help. Then if your prescription drug costs are very high, it kicks in again. Some people call that the doughnut hole. It is a gap in coverage.

A senior from Warren told me this:

I cannot afford all of my costly drugs so I have to stop

taking one of them (the least risky one) and have to scrounge

free samples from my doctor's office for another while paying

high retail prices for the other two.

That was before we passed health reform. Now on average in our country, seniors have $1,200 more in their pocket since we passed health care reform which helps them with their prescription drug costs. Why? Because we are closing that gap. That gap is going to go away. There is going to be no more cliff, no more doughnut hole, and no more gap in coverage. Right now seniors across the country are saving, on average, $1,200, which is more money back in their pocket.

When we think about it in big terms, there are more than 7.3 million seniors and people with disabilities who are on Medicare who found themselves in that gap in coverage, and the health care reform law--in the big picture--has saved them about $9 billion--on average $1,200 for an individual, but all total so far about $9 billion. That is $9 billion more available to seniors, which puts money back in their pocket--to do what? Well, to pay the rent, to pay the electric bill. In a State such as Michigan, to pay the high heating bills because of the winter we have been having; to put gas in the car. Maybe it is to do something fun with the grandkids and pay for that birthday present. Maybe it is doing something else that is needed. Whatever it is, the idea is the average person who is retired and on Medicare has over $1,000 back in their pocket now because of health reform and what we have been able to do to strengthen Medicare. It is a great thing.

The problem is that is what Republicans want to take away. That is what they want to take away. That is what will be taken away if it is repealed; if one of the over 40 different repeal votes were actually to happen, and what the House of Representatives has already done.

Let me share another letter from Mary Ann from Rockford who wrote last fall to say she is sick of the efforts to repeal health care reform. She says:

The Affordable Care Act has already helped millions of

seniors like myself. From free preventive services to lower-

cost prescription drugs, we're saving money.

We are saving money.

Let me talk about another area where seniors are saving money, and that is the annual checkup. We always want folks to have the annual checkup. That checkup used to have copays and deductibles. Today, under Medicare, because of health reform, when a senior walks into a doctor's office, how much are they paying for that annual checkup? Zero. Zero, because of health reform. We don't want any seniors to feel they can't get that checkup, they can't get the mammogram they need, they can't get that lovely colonoscopy we all look forward to getting. We don't want our seniors to feel they can't get any other kinds of preventive care or cancer screens or flu shots, or whatever it is, because of the copays or deductibles. Today the cost of that checkup for preventive services is zero. If health reform is repealed, that is repealed. That is what folks who want repeal are doing; it is what they want to take away.

So I join with my colleagues who feel strongly that we need to make sure we are keeping in place those positives that are making a real difference in the lives of senior citizens, of children, of families. If there are areas going forward that need to be fixed, we need to fix them, and we will. But we certainly do not want to go back to the days when seniors are spending $1,200 more out of their pocket for their medicine, on average, or when they are paying for the cost of an annual checkup that is absolutely critical they get for their

life going forward. I am proud to stand with colleagues saying let's talk together about how we make sure things work going forward, but let's not go back to the time when all of these important services and protections were not in place.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry Subcommittee assignments.

Mr. President, before my colleague, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, leaves the floor, I say thank you to him for his passion and advocacy. The legislation he spoke of this morning is incredibly important. I say to Senator Sanders, if I am not yet on that bill, I need to be and will be. Please sign me up.

It is absolutely true we need to do more than just make speeches. We need to put our commitment, our resources, and keep our promises to our veterans. That is what this bill does, and we thank the Senator very much.

We also, Mr. President, have a bill in front of us that is about our veterans. This bill is about our veterans, and the question is on a ``yes'' or ``no'' on this final bill. If we support our veterans, we vote yes. If we do not support our veterans, if we want to play political games with it, find some other excuse not to support veterans, then you vote no. It is very simple. To keep our promise, vote yes. If you do not care about keeping our promise, vote no.

We had a vote last night in the Senate to end the filibuster. I think it was embarrassing we had to have the vote. I thank our friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Arkansas Mr. Pryor for putting this bill forward, along with a number of colleagues. But we should not even have had to have a vote to end a filibuster to move forward on this bill. This is something that everyone should want to do as quickly as possible. It should not be controversial.

Unfortunately, instead of moving it forward and getting this done, we are seeing Republican colleagues who are arguing about amendments, amazingly, that would increase taxes on families in order to ``pay for'' helping our veterans.

Now, I think every veteran in America should find this absolutely outrageous. I know I do. These men and women have sacrificed for our Nation. Some did not come home. Some came home without an arm or a leg or a closed head injury. They have paid in full for this bill. ``Paid in Full'' is what we stamp on this piece of legislation.

I am proud to represent nearly 700,000 veterans who are living in Michigan--veterans and their families. That is my pay-for for this bill. They have paid in full to make sure they get their veterans benefits, their pensions, the health care we promised them.

I would like to read just a very few of the names of people in Michigan who are the pay-for I offer today on the floor of the Senate:

Richard Belisle from Saint Joseph, MI, who retired from the Coast Guard after 21 years of service--twenty-one years of service--has paid in full for this bill.

Bill Garlinghouse of Holland spent 22 years in the Navy--I am partial to the Navy; my dad was in the Navy--and then 5 years working for the Navy as a civilian. With twenty-two years in the Navy; 5 years working for the Navy as a civilian, he has paid in full for this bill.

Richard Eversole of Sumner spent 22 years in the Air Force and retired as a master sergeant. Richard has paid in full for this bill.

Frank Bell from Kalamazoo retired 10 years ago as a senior master sergeant in the U.S. Air Force. He is 51 years old, so he will see his pension cut by 1 percent every year for the next 11 years.

This needs to be fixed now--no games, no debating about amendments-- yes or no on making sure Frank Bell gets his full pension because he has paid in full for this bill.

David Lord of Cheboygan retired from the Navy after 20 years of service. Again, he has paid in full.

John Frollo of Saint Charles spent 20 years in the Navy before retiring in 2006.

Joseph Boogren of Gwinn, MI, spent 32 years--32 years--in the Navy. He served in Iraq and Afghanistan. He flew 177 combat missions defending our country, putting himself in harm's way on behalf of all of us. I believe Joseph Boogren has paid in full for his pension and the other benefits we have promised him and his family.

Debbie Rasmussen from Sheridan, MI, wrote in on behalf of her military family. Debbie and her husband are both Navy veterans, and their son Matt is an Active Duty sailor with over 15 years of service, including service in Afghanistan. They believe--and I believe--the Rasmussens have paid in full for this benefit.

Karen Ruedisueli is the wife of an Active Duty Army major currently stationed at the Pentagon. Kurt and Karen have been a military family for 12 years. The Ruedisuelis have paid in full.

I could go on and on with so many similar letters. Every service is represented in these letters because veterans from every part of our armed services would be hurt by what has been put in place.

We know this needs to be addressed and needs to be fixed. We have all said that--that this needs to be fixed, we need to honor the commitment we have made to the men and women who have served us, and continue to serve us. This bill will restore the cost-of-living adjustments for all military retirees.

We need to act now so our veterans have the certainty and the peace of mind they need to move forward with their lives. We should not be involved in wrangling, in folks trying to find political advantage, and take political hostages, score points in some way. We need to just get this done--no amendments, no jockeying here, just vote for this bill and get this done.

This bill is about keeping our promise to the men and women who have served us and continue to serve us. A ``yes'' vote says we have your back. A ``yes'' vote says we honor and support you. A ``no'' vote or other votes that confuse the situation and play political games are really votes that turn your back on our veterans. Very simply, vote yes to get this done--no distractions, no extraneous issues. No matter how people feel about other things, bringing them into this is not right. It is not fair. This is about yes for veterans or no for veterans.

I hope we will all stand together and understand the ``paid for'' are the people who have served in our States and continue to serve us today. They have paid in full. We need to vote yes and get this done.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 11, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 11, 2014, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Prospects for Democratic Reconciliation and Workers' Rights in Bangladesh.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 11, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 11, 2014, at 9 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 11, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

I want to thank the Senator from Maine. This legislation addresses many aspects of agriculture including dairy. During our deliberations we heard clearly from various dairy stakeholders who argued that the class III and class IV milk product pricing systems are outdated and not responsive to the needs of producers or consumers.

Yes, the USDA has the economists and experts that can analyze various alternatives to the current system of pricing milk--and if the system is not working well for most of the players in the dairy industry, especially the farmers, the Department should make changes. A public, thoughtful and thorough discussion of those alternatives needs to take place, guided by nonbiased people who are focused on the goal of creating the best policy.

Yes, I believe that not only does the Secretary have the authority to act upon a petition, but as was said earlier, the USDA has the ability to conduct a thoroughly researched prehearing procedure to consider alternative pricing formulas for class III and class IV milk products and that would be welcomed by the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Yes, that is correct; the Dairy Industry Advisory Committee has recommended such action. Further, I believe that a study of pricing alternatives, followed by a rigorous prehearing process, would cut to the heart of the issue. This would not only clear the air on many of the disagreements that plagued the farm bill debates but might even reduce the reliance on temporary stopgap government supports through better financial connections for all sectors of the dairy industry with the consumer value of dairy products.

I am happy to assist dairy farmers in their efforts and will contact the Secretary to ask that he take action on a prehearing request.

Mr. President, I am proud of what we were able to accomplish in the nutrition title of the Farm Bill. It achieves important reforms in SNAP, but also protects food assistance for families, many of whom never dreamed that they would need help putting food on their table. We are adopting important reforms to clarify the law or rules in a few places where members had legitimate concerns. At the same time, and perhaps more importantly, we are rejecting many draconian proposals that would have caused serious harm to program participants by slashing benefits or kicking families off of SNAP, undermining the primary purpose and the basic framework of the program.

Let's start by reviewing some of the improvements we made to SNAP to address concerns around minor eligibility issues.

In Michigan, we discovered two lottery winners were continuing to receive benefits after winning a million dollars. In a program with 46 million participants, this really is an example of a very rare problem. Nevertheless, we want to make absolutely clear in federal law that individuals who win the lottery are not eligible for SNAP. So we tightened rules in a way to ensure that not even one lottery winner can get SNAP. But we also wanted to make sure that this prohibition does not result in a burdensome new requirement to ask all applicants and participants if they had recently won the lottery.

The provision requires that State SNAP agencies and local lotteries and gaming commissions set up data-sharing to ensure that the SNAP agency is informed when individuals win substantial sums of money. A SNAP agency can then take action to contact the winning participant and review their eligibility in light of these major winnings. I'm pleased that we managed to find a way to address this problem without imposing new requirements on the millions of struggling low income households who participate in this program. There is no need to put questions about the lottery or gambling on the application form, and we expect USDA to ensure that won't happen. In other words, this change allows us to use our data and technology to prevent this extremely rare event from happening again without putting new burdens on participants.

States will apply regular income and asset tests apply to lottery winners--if someone has winnings that make them ineligible, they can be disqualified from SNAP. But if that person paid off debts or was able to finally afford costly home repair or health care and now had income that made them eligible, they have every right to receive SNAP benefits.

Another area of eligibility that follows the same principle on implementation is eligibility for ex-offenders felons who are fleeing criminal justice. Current SNAP law prohibits people with criminal records who are fleeing from law enforcement or violating the terms of their parole from participating in SNAP. Because criminal law

is a complicated mix of federal and State statutes and definitions, members wanted to make very clear that people committing odious crimes would be ineligible for SNAP if they were fleeing or violating their parole. This does not apply to any convicted criminal who satisfies his or her debt to society by serving out the sentence and complying with any court order. So, it's a narrow group of people that we're highlighting. For that reason, we do not expect any changes to the SNAP application and eligibility process. Applicants are already asked about their fleeing felon status, so we expect that additional inquiries about applicants' criminal records will not be necessary.

We did include one provision that will result in a cut to SNAP benefits for some households. Some States have been providing as little as $1 in heating assistance for the sole purpose of qualifying recipients for higher benefit. While I agree that SNAP benefits are often insufficient to cover a family's food needs over the course of a month, the very structure of SNAP is meant to award benefits based on how much money a family has available to purchase food. Providing $1 in heating assistance skews benefits away from this income and expense based system. So the change we made means a SNAP recipient now must receive $20 in heating assistance to qualify for the Standard Utility Allowance. If you do not receive at least $20 in low income heating assistance, you will need to produce a utility bill. This is intended to make the energy assistance a real contribution to the actual expenses of a poor household. Congress never intended to permit households that don't have heating or cooling costs because they are included in rent or covered by the landlord to get a deduction as if they did have expenses. The law is ambiguous on this point, so this bill would clarify the issue.

When we decided to make this change, I insisted that we do it in a way that did not harm any household that had actual heating or cooling costs, including costs passed on by a landlord or shared with another family. That means we expect USDA to make three things a priority when overseeing State implementation of this change. One priority is that anyone currently getting this $1 in energy assistance must be given a chance to show whether they have energy costs of any kind. I think many of these households will have these costs and qualify for the deduction that raises their benefits. That's how the current program works in the majority of States that do not offer this minimal energy assistance. States must give households a chance to document actual costs. I expect USDA to provide guidance to States to ensure that reflects many different living scenarios that low-income households experience are taken into account when implementing this change.

The second priority for USDA is to make clear that this change should have no effect on anyone currently receive a more typical LIHEAP payment. We continue to support the connection between SNAP and LIHEAP and do not expect these changes to cause problems for the majority of people who rely on and receive LIHEAP, or are applying and are likely to receive it, in getting the SNAP utility deduction. I know this puts the burden on States to make sure their application process and benefit calculations are performed in a way that allows them to determine everyone eligible for the deduction based on receiving energy assistance. We expect households to be given the opportunity to attest to their participation in LIHEAP. Many States offer that option to households now, and we do not intend to change that. We expect that a State SNAP agency could certify that its State State does not provide LIHEAP payments of less than $20 per year. This would mean there is no need for households to provide information about the amount of LIHEAP they receive or the method or frequency of those payments. We expect the Secretary to monitor this change closely and help States come up with the least burdensome implementation options available. Because CBO did not assume any savings from reduced benefits in States that have not implemented this practice, we expect the Secretary to implement this change in a way that is consistent with the intent to not impact those States.

Although we did provide States the flexibility to phase in the provision for most participating households, I remain concerned that the timetable for implementation of these changes is short. For new applicants and households, the provision is effective just 30 days after enactment. Under SNAP regulations, States will be protected from being cited for errors during the first few months after enactment. However, low-income households do not have the same administrative protection. It is possible that they could receive higher benefits as a result of the State not being able to convert its systems quickly enough. I urge the Secretary to work with States to waive any household liability that results from receiving slightly higher benefits because States were unable to implement the provision in a timely manner.

Let me turn now to a significant outcome in the nutrition title. I am particularly pleased with the reforms that we have proposed to SNAP's employment and training program. A key element of that effort is a new demonstration project to test innovative strategies to help build individuals' skills and employability. The majority of adults enrolled in SNAP who can work do. Even more work just before or just after their participation in SNAP. Nevertheless, all of the conferees had a shared goal of exploring whether there were ways that SNAP could more affirmatively support SNAP participants' desire to work and improve their and their families' situation. We agreed to look for ways to help adults get the training, support and encouragement to find suitable employment. Of course, we had to do this in an environment with very constrained resources.

We worked on a package of ideas that would make better use of existing federal resources, provide modest new sums of money for SNAP employment and training and provided funding to test innovative new approaches. We wanted to be sure that by the time of the next reauthorization we would have a better sense of what kinds of services States were offering, what was producing results for families, and that USDA would have more capacity to oversee an employment and training effort.

The bill provides $200 million to for up to 10 State pilot projects that will test new strategies to support individuals to return to work, enhance their skills to improve their earnings, and address households' barriers to work. The pilot will operate within SNAP's employment and training program framework, but we have also expanded the types of activities that can be offered. Now States will have the option to include activities offered through the State's cash assistance as well as supportive services that are allowed under SNAP. States can use the funding to cover the mandated supportive services, such as child care, for participants in the pilot. Moreover they can test whether supportive services such as child care or transitional housing are appropriate interventions on their own. After all, a mother with safe, stable high quality child care is far more likely to be able to look for and maintain employment than one without such help. Similarly an individual with a place to live is far more likely to find and keep employment than someone without housing.

It was important to me to include unsubsidized employment as an allowable activity because that's ultimately what we want all job training participants to find. This required some careful consideration. Private employment is a different kind of activity than a class or program run and monitored by the State. States, very understandably, will have very limited ability to oversee private employment situations. So we wanted to ensure that the kinds of protections that exist in the private labor market, such as workplace protection laws, health and safety standards and wage and hour protections also apply to any private employment programs under SNAP employment and training programs. We also made clear that placements into unsubsidized employment cannot displace an existing worker at the employment site. That has long been the rule under other types of SNAP employment and training programs, and we expect the same here. I expect that USDA will issue comprehensive standards that incorporate all existing SNAP protections as well as the appropriate private employee protections such as the Fair

Labor Standards Act into the requirements for offering unsubsidized employment. Despite that responsibility, I hope USDA shares my excitement that including unsubsidized employment as an education and training activity is an unprecedented opportunity to support low-income individuals as they enter or rejoin the workforce.

I specifically focus on one challenge in offering unsubsidized work. The pilot projects will allow States to apply SNAP's sanction policy to any individual who is assigned a work activity, but willfully refuses, without good cause, to take an action that he or she could safely take. In the traditional education and training setting, it is usually-- though not always--relatively straightforward to determine whether an individual has complied. Did the person participate in the required activity? If not, did the person have good cause, like sickness, not to do so? But in the unsubsidized work placement, it may be difficult to make the correct assessment when an individual does not meet the work requirement. The private employer may have reduced work hours or transferred the individual into a position for which they are clearly not qualified. Such action does not speak to the individual's willingness to work. Because of the inherent challenges in determining compliance with unsubsidized work activities, the pilot program requires clear evidence that an individual willfully refused to take a safe and proper action without good cause before the State can subject him or her to sanctions. I also encourage the Secretary to issue guidance about the very limited circumstances under which a person who is working could be sanctioned for losing his or her job. When someone who is working loses the job for reasons beyond their control, we want to ensure they are not doubly punished by losing SNAP benefits as well.

The only way we will know if the pilot projects are succeeding is if we have a high quality, longitudinal evaluation. So any State applying to conduct a pilot must also participate in a comprehensive evaluation to determine what works and what doesn't. We want to measure actual outcomes--employment and changes in earnings, as well as documented improvements in a participant's skills, training and experience, since successfully completing a job training program is not a guarantee of immediate employment. We also want to better understand how to ensure that the assessment of each job training participant helps match the individual with the training or support best suited for their needs. After all, if a job training volunteer really just needs help with child care or transportation in order to accept a job offer, we don't want that person assigned to job search or workfare. Assessment is already a requirement under federal rules. Gaining more insight into how a good assessment and assignment system can improve participant outcomes may be one of the most cost-effective lessons we can hope to gain from this effort.

This is an area where I want to thank my fellow conferees for all of their hard work. We came to the conference with very different ideas about what the issues facing the program and clients are, and what SNAP's approach towards promoting work out to be. We spent a tremendous amount of time educating ourselves about the issues, the opportunities and the risks of various approaches. I believe we ended up with a stronger program that encourages work without penalizing those who are willing to work but unable to find a job in this economy. The pilot program represents a true compromise and an important step forward in helping low-income Americans succeed in the labor market.

In addition to the pilot projects, the bill requires States to begin measuring actual individual-based outcomes from participating in job training. We directed USDA to compile and analyze this information so we can learn what kinds of services work best to provide SNAP participants with the skills and experience they need to find employment. Because matching an individual's employment needs to an appropriate program or service is critical to positive employment outcomes, this review should include a focus on the individualized assessment that is required of SNAP work registrants. As I mentioned earlier, this is an aspect of employment and training that is already required. Understanding individuals' needs and abilities is crucial to matching them to a job training or work program where they can succeed. That is the first important step in making future improvement in the program. We were very clear that successful outcomes can mean more than a full-time job placement. We expect that the State outcome data reflect this by including measures of improved employability, like educational attainment, credentials and work experience. We also expect USDA's analysis to acknowledge the reality that getting suitable employment may take more than the completion of a job training course. This admittedly increases the attention both USDA and the States must place on their education and training programs, but it will give us invaluable information about how best to meet the needs of SNAP participants.

Another area of the legislation where we made some important investments is enhancing USDA's efforts to combat fraud. The agency has done a remarkable job of identifying and preventing fraud and trafficking; even as household and retailer participation grew drastically, fraud remained at a historic low percentage. So we targeted every small area we could to improve the integrity of the program.

We've increased funding for USDA to address retailer fraud through data mining and expand State and federal partnerships to combat retailer fraud. Historically, States have pursued household fraud and USDA has dealt with retailer fraud. But, in some cases, the fraudulent activity involves both types of parties, so we're creating pilot projects to see how collaboration can help stretch resources. While States have done a good job with their responsibility to prevent and prosecute fraud, some States have developed troubling techniques that pressure innocent low-income households to admit wrongdoing. When USDA selects States to partner with, we intend that they prioritize States that have a record of addressing fraud through investigations, hearings and actual third-party findings of fraud. We urge USDA to take a close look at States that have a high number of disqualifications that come from client confessions in the absence of investigations. States that are ready to take on new responsibilities under the pilot must be those that ensure their disqualifications are in fact a result of documented fraud.

Another provision deals with a rare, but important, participant integrity issue. SNAP benefits are paid on a debit card we call Electronic Benefit Transfer or EBT cards. Clients use these at the grocery store to buy food just like any other consumer. Clients who lose their card can request replacements. That's an important customer service feature which ensures needy households don't lose the assistance they need. However, some households requesting multiple replacements may raise red flags. Multiple care replacements might be an indication that the household needs help in how to use the debit card. In other cases, multiple replacements could be an indication that an individual in the household is trying to sell the card.

The farm bill requires the household to provide an explanation when they request an excessive number of replacements in a given year. In order for this to be helpful in fighting fraud, rather than become a burden on innocent households that struggle to keep their cards, we added a set of protections that USDA must implement. After consultation with the Department, we expect they would consider it excessive if a household requested more than four replacement cards per year. USDA's own analysis indicates that fraud is only an issue when the requests are that frequent. Second, the provision requires that households be given the flexibility in how they want to provide their explanation. In particular, States may not require households to go to the local SNAP office or to be interviewed about their card loss. The goal was to avoid undue burdens on households, including those who are working, are homebound, or who may not have the means to travel to a SNAP office. This provision also does not empower the State to withhold household benefits based on the household's explanation. If the State questions the validity of the household's reason, we

encourage the State to pursue a fraud investigation. SNAP has processes in place already for program violations and we expect these processes to be followed. This provision does not expand or alter that authority.

Finally, it is important to emphasize that this process is not just a way to identify potential fraud; it's also a way to identify households that need help in using the benefits they are eligible for. There are many perfectly legitimate reasons to need a new card, and we intended that this integrity measure not entrap households that have done nothing wrong. That's why we require USDA to include specific protections for the homeless, people with disabilities and victims of crime. My colleague, Senator Harkin, has led the way in championing the needs of people with disabilities and making clear that federal programs have an obligation to provide such individuals accommodation. We expect this provision to result in States' intensifying their efforts to identify and assist individuals who would benefit from more assistance.

SNAP retailers operate within a rapidly changing food retail environment. We've seen fundamental changes in the way food is sold since the last farm bill, so the conferees sought to make some changes in the way SNAP benefits can be redeemed. This farm bill will direct USDA to conduct pilots to test both mobile technologies, like smart phone apps, and online technologies. These pilots offer an exciting opportunity for farmers markets and other small retailers who find the point-of-sale EBT equipment to be too expensive or cumbersome. They also provide access to SNAP recipients that may have real physical or geographical challenges in getting to the store. But one of the risks of embracing new technology is that bad actors will find a way to defraud the program. So we included a set of protections, for both recipients and retailers, and expect USDA to carefully monitor the pilot programs for evidence of fraud. This may require USDA to develop standards of transparence and recordkeeping for mobile technologies that differ from those used in traditional brick-and-mortar stores. Most online retailers charge a fee for the delivery of food. For low- income SNAP participants, fees like that can really cut into their food budget. We were clear that SNAP benefits cannot be used to pay for any delivery fee or premium, and we required that the cost of food be the same as the in-the-store price, but we cannot prevent retailers from charging for delivery. So we urge USDA to pay special attention to these fees and be willing to deny participation to entities that cannot ensure that fees will be minimal. We also want USDA to assess whether fees undermine the ability of a household to afford an adequate diet with SNAP benefits.

Since we are moving towards adapting SNAP to emerging retail trends, I'd like to note what we did not do in this bill. First, we have not removed the requirement that SNAP households be treated the same as other customers. Whatever steps States and USDA take to modernize benefit redemption methods cannot result in overt identification of SNAP households, such as SNAP-only lanes in grocery stores.

Because technology continues to evolve, we included several provisions that have to do with ``data matches.'' Data matching is where the SNAP agency or eligibility worker can check information about SNAP participants' household circumstances with third party data bases. When done well, this is a cost effective means to test the veracity of client statements as well as to catch information that client may fail to provide the program. If done poorly, data matching can result in lots of confusing data matches that do not actually improve verification. We don't want States to undertake data matching for data matching's sake. The point is to empower States with good information at the right time to inform effective eligibility processing.

First, we include a provision to add federal standards for data exchanges to SNAP so that SNAP can more easily share data with other programs. This is a commonsense provision that will ensure that across the various State and federal programs, our systems can ``talk'' with one another other. SNAP law and the privacy act protects client's personal privacy and this authority does not change that obligation.

Second, we required States to use the Department of Health and Human Services' National Directory of New Hires (NDNH). This database primarily is for State child support agencies to learn information about the employment of noncustodial parents who live or work in other States and States currently have the option to use it for SNAP. By requiring its use at the time a household is certified for SNAP, we believe it can help States determine eligibility and the correct level of benefits. We do not, however, dictate how States must use the data.

Third, the bill codifies the existing State practice of verifying immigration status by using the Citizenship and Immigration Services database for immigrants' status through the federal Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements program. Currently in SNAP, States have the option to use SAVE and nearly every State currently does. The Food and Nutrition Act references SAVE and another database, the Income Eligibility Verification Systems, or IEVS, in the same place in the Social Security Act. I want to make clear that we are only mandating States use SAVE. We did not intend to change anything about how States use IEVS--use of that database would continue to be optional for States. Longstanding SNAP policy has required rigorous verification procedures, and IEVS is one of many ways to get information to ensure correct eligibility decisions.

We want States to have a plan for using the data available to them. The goal is not to require data matches that States know to be unhelpful, or where they determine it is not cost-effective to do so. Moreover, we are not pressing States to run afoul of simplified reporting and check these databases between reviews. In our last two farm bills, we took great pains to reduce needless paperwork burdens on States and households between certifications. These changes are not meant to override the framework of simplified reporting. Instead, States will use third-party data to make periodic reviews as accurate as efficiently possible while always providing participants the ability to challenge data matches they believe to be inaccurate.

The nutrition title also takes steps to ensure that federal funds used to inform Americans about the SNAP cannot be used in inappropriate ways. To be clear, USDA has done a fine and necessary job getting information about SNAP to low-income households that struggle to put food on the table. The program cannot be effective if those who may need it are unaware of its existence or believe they are not eligible. Moreover, outreach and program promotional materials can be helpful to improving program integrity. Applicants and clients who are informed about their responsibilities and educated about what the application process entails will be better prepared to complete the application and renew process. That's likely to increase program accuracy, reduce fraud and enhance overall efficiencies.

It's important that we provide low-income households with accurate information about the program, just as we do with Social Security or Medicare benefits. That's the only way that individuals can make the right choice for them about whether or not to apply. In this bill, Congress continues to support this kind of information sharing, while clarifying that aggressive recruitment, including recruitment outside of the United States, is not permissible. Recruitment is trying to persuade or convince someone who has made an informed decision not to apply to change his or her mind. That hasn't been a permissible activity, and the bill simply codifies that practice. Providing and producing positive information about the program and the benefits of applying or assisting households to navigate the complicated application process would still be permitted. We expect the agency will continue to provide necessary information while ensuring that education funds are used appropriately.

As I said at the start, this bill is not perfect. I much prefer to be discussing more ways we could better ensure SNAP benefits were adequate to help families have enough healthy food throughout the month. However, I continue to believe this farm bill protects SNAP, which is the best defense we have against hunger in our communities. We have continued the long tradition in the Agriculture Committee of

bipartisan support for the program. This was not an easy task, given how far apart the House and Senate were just a few months ago. This farm bill is an important step in dealing with the most important food and agricultural issues facing the nation today. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I understand we will recessing for lunch in a moment, but there are some very important people I would like to thank today. I wish to take this moment before we have the final vote to do so. I know, listening to other colleagues, as we come to major pieces of legislation, at the end they talk about the importance of their staff. I have come to realize just how powerful those words are. I have been blessed with an incredibly talented, hard-working staff. They are the reason we are here today talking about the Agricultural Act of 2014. Every single one of them should be very proud of their contribution, as I am proud of them.

This certainly starts with our staff director Chris Adamo. We have been on speed dial for so long, I am sure I will be doing that probably out of habit from now on, day and night. I appreciate his incredible leadership, tenacity, talent, and hard work. Chris deserves a tremendous amount of credit for leading us with his team. I thank him.

I also thank Joe Schultz, who is our chief economist. No matter what the problem, he seemed to make the numbers add up, whether it is the commodity title, crop insurance, or dairy. When at the very end it became very clear that after 3 years of hard work and passing a dairy policy, it wouldn't get the support of the House Republicans and we were going to have to rewrite it in a week and a half--which was no small thing--Joe continued to give us the right kind of advice. I am proud to say that we started with a commitment to have $23 billion in deficit reduction, counting our sequestration and spending cuts, and we have ended with $23 billion in deficit reduction and spending reductions in agriculture. Joe has been a huge reason why we have been able to get there.

I thank Jonathan Cordone, who is our chief counsel. He made sure we were right on the process and worked specifically on issues such as trust funds with many colleges and around the complex areas to help them to be able to meet the issues of their States. There were important issues, such as payment reforms and a number of legal issues. He has been an incredibly valuable and important member.

Russ Benham is our counsel on regulatory issues. Some of the trust fund issues we had to address related to regulatory issues and forestry issues. We are very proud that in this bill there is an agriculture advisory committee to the EPA, moving forward on rules. It is extremely significant to have the voice of agriculture involved with the EPA in a formal way. In this and so many other areas, Russ has been very instrumental.

To our conservation team, Tina May is amazing. She is going back to the USDA next week to help lead the implementation, which gives me confidence that this is really going to be done as we intended. Tina May's brilliance in strategy, negotiation, and commitment on these issues is unmatched. Her team is Kevin Norton and Hanna AbouElSeoud. The area of conservation is really landmark in reforms, protecting our land, water, conservation compliance, and setting real standards around strong conservation practices and in forestry as well. These are important areas that we have addressed in forestry and international food aid--America's opportunity to fulfill our values around the world and create more flexibility for us to help feed a hungry world.

Karla Thieman is also on speed dial. The very last phone calls I was making and emails before we wrote and finalized the conference report were with Karla and Chris. Our energy title is about jobs and about energy efficiency. I am so proud of what we were able to do; a landmark energy title; livestock disaster assistance, all of the areas that support livestock and, again, dairy. Karla was our lead on dairy. I think we may have finally stopped waking up in the middle of the night, dreaming about dairy policy. I am not sure, but we are getting there.

Cory Claussen led our efforts on farm credit and beginning farmers. I am so proud we have added our veterans to the support there. I thank him so much.

Brandon McBride--rural development, jobs, and quality of life in rural America. Brandon led our effort to make sure we were strengthening tools for businesses and local units of government and all of those who count on rural development; also research, a new research foundation and partnership, a real commitment to research in a way we have not seen before. I thank Brandon for leading that effort.

Of course, on nutrition, fruits and vegetables, Jacqlyn Schneider and Katie Naessens led an extremely complicated area. Jacqlyn had to negotiate some very difficult areas. I am proud to say that we rejected every harmful policy in the House bill. Because of Jacqlyn and Katie's efforts, we have a strengthened commitment to organics and farmers markets, fresh fruit and vegetables for our children's schools, and so many other areas in which we are beginning to change the paradigm about local food systems and strengthening opportunities for local markets for our farmers.

Grant Colvin has worked so hard on commodities as well as livestock and trade and, of course, exports. They are so very important to us. It is an area of real strength and jobs for our country. I thank Grant for all of his expertise.

As staff assistants, Alexis Stanczuk and Kyle Varner helped the entire team every step of the way. They have been there to help us on every single project, every single effort we needed help with. I thank Alexis and Kyle.

Jessie Williams and Nicole Hertenstein are clerks. Their entire team basically kept the whole thing together. They made sure we were doing the right thing on point. I thank Jessie, Nicole, and their team as well.

Finally, I would like to thank my personal staff.

Bill Sweeney, my chief of staff, has been with me in a multitude of different capacities--from telling the story on the floor with our charts to making sure we had a coordinated team between the Agriculture Committee staff and all of the talented people on my personal staff, as well as wonderful strategy advice. Bill, as my chief of staff, I am proud to say, has been invaluable in this process.

Matt VanKuiken, my legislative director, worked as a team every single step of the way.

Our press team, when we looked at telling the story of the new farm bill approach, Cullen Schwarz, Ben Becker, Alex Barriger, Will Eberle, and Matt Williams--they were telling this story and getting the facts out every step of the way.

My State team, led by my State director Teresa Plachetka, Kali Fox, Mary Judnich, Brandon Fewins, Korey Hall, Jeremy Hosking, and Adrian Walker--they made sure Michigan's voice was heard in every part of this bill, a tremendous amount of hard work. This bill is better, certainly, for Michigan as a result of all their efforts.

Kasey Gillette in Senator Reid's office worked as our partner on everything.

Gary Myrick, Trish Engle, Tim Mitchell, and all of our floor staff--I thank them for all of their patience as we have passed this once, passed this twice, and finally we are going to pass the conference report this afternoon.

I also thank legislative counsel Michelle Johnson-Wieder and Gary Endicott.

I thank Senator Cochran's staff of T.A. Hawks and James Glick for their partnership and excellent work.

Finally, I thank Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack and the USDA. The technical expertise we have received on every single section has been absolutely invaluable. When it came to the final days on dairy, the Secretary played a very critical role in helping us get the compromise that will allow us to meet the goals and address farmers all over the country.

Last but not least, I thank the Congressional Budget Office, which we called on day and night. We appreciate their efforts.

I appreciate the patience of the Presiding Officer, who allowed me to speak at this time to make sure we had a chance to say thank you to a lot of folks who deserve, as usual, a tremendous amount of credit for getting this done. They are the folks behind the scenes who have made this happen. I am very proud of each and every one of them.

Madam President, we have heard a lot from colleagues the last 2 days about just how important this farm bill is, and that is because there is so much more in this bill than what we would call a farm bill. It is really 12 different pieces of legislation, from farm to research, to fruits and vegetables, to energy across the board all put together in something we call the farm bill.

This is, most importantly, a major bipartisan jobs bill that makes sure the 16 million people who work in agriculture--from Michigan to Mississippi, to Minnesota, to Oklahoma, and everywhere in between--have the support they need.

This is an exports bill that will help expand opportunities for American agricultural exports, one of the few areas where our Nation maintains a healthy, robust trade surplus.

This is a research bill that will make a permanent long-term commitment through a new public-private foundation and other investments that will allow us to find solutions to pests and diseases and focus on innovations for the future.

This is an energy bill that will help create the next generation of biofuel to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and will help farmers and rural small business owners generate their own power to improve energy efficiency and lower their costs for their businesses.

This is an economic development bill that will help rural businesses and communities get broadband Internet access so they can find new customers and compete and connect around the country and around the world.

This is a conservation bill that helps farmers and ranchers protect our precious land and water resources. This is our country's largest investment in conservation on private lands that we make as Americans. Most of our land is privately owned. It includes a historic new agreement between commodity and conservation groups that ties conservation compliance with crop insurance so we are being the best possible stewards of our land.

This bill will save taxpayers money and conserve our lands and waters for years to come by preserving millions of acres of wildlife habitat, which in turn has helped rebuild populations of ducks and quail and pheasants, among others. That is why the bill has the strong support of the National Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy, Pheasants Forever, and the World Wildlife Fund, which are only a handful of the more than 250 conservation groups that have endorsed this farm bill.

This is a nutrition bill that makes sure families have a safety net, just as we do for farmers. The savings in food assistance comes solely through addressing fraud and misuse while maintaining and protecting critical benefits for those who need help, most often temporarily, putting food on the table for their families while they get back on their feet after having lost their job.

It strengthens the integrity and accountability of SNAP, making sure every single dollar goes to families in need while they get back on their feet. It gives our children more healthy food options in schools and will help bring more healthy, locally grown food into our communities.

This is a deficit reduction bill that will save taxpayers $23 billion. All together we have cut spending, a portion of it accounts through sequestration, the rest in additional spending in this bill, where we have voluntarily--as I have often said--voluntarily agreed to cut spending in our own area of jurisdiction. By the way, that $23 billion is more than double the amount of agricultural cuts recommended by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission.

This is a reform bill that contains the greatest reforms to agricultural programs in decades. We have finally ended direct payment subsidies which are given to farmers even in good times. Instead, we move to a responsible risk-management approach that only gives farmers assistance when they experience a loss. This farm bill is focused on the future, not the past. This bill is taking a critical step toward changing the paradigm of agriculture and the broad range of agricultural production in this country.

This bill has the support of over 370 groups and counting from all parts of the country and ideological backgrounds. That is because as we wrote this bill we worked hard to find common ground to develop a bill that works for every kind of agricultural production in every region of our country. We worked hard and together--and I want to thank my ranking member, the distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi, for his leadership and partnership in this effort--we have included valuable input from both sides of the aisle and from the House and the Senate. I wish to thank all of our colleagues for their ideas, for their willingness to put partisanship aside and work together. This is an example of how we can get work done, and I hope it is just one step of a productive year moving forward.

Thanks to all that work, we have arrived at a farm bill that works for all of America--for families and farmers, for consumers, for those who care so deeply about protecting our lands and our water. This bill will strengthen agriculture for years to come. It is time to pass it. It is time to get it to the President for signature.

Every single Senator in this Chamber has constituents who work and benefit from agriculture, and certainly just coming from lunch today we should each be thanking a farmer for the safest, most affordable food supply in the world.

After 491 days without a farm bill, our constituents need us to get this done. I urge colleagues to join in a bipartisan way, as we have throughout this process, to vote yes on this farm bill and to give our farmers, our ranchers, and the rest of the 16 million people who work in agriculture the farm bill they deserve.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I realize we will be having the vote at 2:35, so let me just take one more moment to stress how important it is that we recognize this was an effort in good faith between the House and the Senate and Republicans and Democrats.

I too wish to join with my ranking member Senator Cochran in thanking the chairman in the House Frank Lucas. He and ranking member Collin Peterson were true partners with us as we moved through this process.

We actually started about 2\1/2\ years ago when the supercommittee on deficit reduction at that time asked each committee to come up with a way to reduce the deficit, to cut spending in their area of jurisdiction. We decided to do it a little differently. Chairman Lucas and I talked and we decided the four of us would get together and actually come up with a House-Senate, Democratic-Republican recommendation that would be solidly supported by all sides. So it was a prenegotiation on the farm bill that we were going to be doing in the next year.

So in July, August of 2011, we sat down and started going through ways we could save dollars. We all agreed direct payment subsidies could no longer be justified and needed to be eliminated. We also knew it was important to have a safety net for our farmers, and disaster assistance for our ranchers and farmers as well, and that we needed to help them manage their risk. We came up with an approach which took part of the dollars we cut and put it back into strengthening risk management tools, such as crop insurance--which is just like any other insurance: you pay a premium, you get a bill--not a check--and you don't get any kind of help unless you have a loss.

But we also took a look at other areas of the farm bill. We found there were 23 different conservation programs. Every time somebody had a good idea, we added a new program. We thought, let's go back and really take a look at this. If we were starting from scratch, how would we put together all these important programs and do it in a way that is more user friendly for farmers and ranchers and organizations that work on land and water preservation. So we went from 23 to 13 programs and put them in 4 different buckets, or subject areas, and we saved money.

Then we looked at every part of the farm bill. I asked our staff not to talk about programs but principles: What should we be doing? What should the farm bill be doing for agriculture, for farmers, ranchers, families, consumers, rural communities, job creators? Let's not protect programs. Let's look broadly at principles.

So we did that, and we ended up eliminating about 100 different authorization programs, consolidating, cutting down on duplication, doing what I think Americans are asking us to do in every part of the Federal Government.

We then turned around to set priorities about where to invest, because it is not just cutting for cutting's sake, it is trying to make things work better, be more effective, and save precious dollars, but at the same time investing in the future--investing in that which will strengthen agriculture, create jobs, strengthen rural communities, and new opportunities for the broad array of production, what consumers are asking for in organics, local food systems, and so on.

So we basically put together a plan that started with the deficit reduction process, the supercommittee, and we made a recommendation of $23 billion in cuts and deficit reduction. We all know that the broader deficit reduction process did not proceed, but we decided to keep the commitment to that $23 billion, and so we have. We have moved forward. Part of the cuts now that we have put into place have been accounted for by the Budget Office as part of sequestration. Most have not. But when we add it all up, it is still $23 billion that we started with back in 2011, when the four of us together decided to sit down and listen to each other, understand each other, find common ground, and make some tough decisions about how we could do things better in the area of agriculture and the farm bill.

As we come to a close, I again thank colleagues who have given such valuable input and been involved every step of the way. I hope everyone will feel a sense of pride that this is something we have done together--that people expect us to do together, which is do our job, to make decisions and to govern, and to operate in a way which allows us to listen to each other, find common ground, and get our work done.

Madam President, I yield back all remaining time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2014, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2014, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Negotiations on Iran's Nuclear Program''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2014, at 3 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2014, at 10:15 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Privacy in the Digital Age: Preventing Data Breaches and Combating Cybercrime.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2014, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Fraud and Abuse in Army Recruiting Contracts.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate office building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Examination of the Safety and Security of Drinking Water Supplies Following the Central West Virginia Drinking Water Crisis.''

Mr. President, first, as we begin the final debate and vote on the farm bill conference report, I thank our majority leader for supporting this effort every step of the way. Every time I have gone to him and said, Mr. Leader, we need to have time for some particular procedural vote or to move it along, he has been there. So I thank him very much for moving this conference report so quickly.

I also thank Senator Cochran and our entire committee. When Senator Cochran is here later today, I will speak more about the wonderful partnership we have had. The senior Senator from North Dakota will be speaking after me. I thank, Senator Hoeven for being an invaluable partner through this entire process. It has been a tremendous pleasure working with the senior Senator, and he has made a real impact. I am very appreciative.

As my colleagues know, the last farm bill expired 490 days ago. It is time to get it done. It is time to pass this tomorrow and to give it to the President for his signature.

This is not your father's farm bill. This farm bill is focused on the future, not the past. We worked long and hard to make sure that policies worked for every region of the country, for all of the different kinds of agricultural production we do in our country--from traditional row crops, to specialty crops like fruits and vegetables, to livestock, to organics, to local food systems.

For the past 2\1/2\ years, we have been working in a bipartisan way with colleagues in the Senate and in the House, and I appreciate our partnership with the chairman and ranking member in the House to craft a farm bill that reflects the future in American agriculture and the healthy food choices that consumers are asking for in the marketplace.

As we begin this final debate, I want to focus for a few minutes on some of what people might not be focused on in this bill. Later today I am going to speak about the bill and each of its parts.

There are just five things I wanted to highlight as we begin this debate.

First, conservation. The farm bill is actually our country's largest investment in land and water conservation on private lands, which are the majority of our American lands. That means we are restoring and preserving wildlife habitat and open spaces. We help farmers reduce runoff to help keep rivers and streams clean and teeming with fish. This bill includes a historic new agreement that ties conservation compliance to crop insurance.

This bill helps prevent plowing of native grasses through a provision called Sod Saver that will save taxpayers money and preserve sensitive habitat for years to come.

Second, energy jobs. This farm bill has major investments in American energy independence. I am very proud to say this conference report contains the full $880 million investment we passed in the Senate for renewable and clean energy. It includes my Grow it Here, Make it Here initiative to support innovative biobase manufacturing that takes crops grown on our farms, uses it to replace petroleum and other chemicals, and transforms them into consumer products.

It contains the Rural Energy for America Program, known as REAP, to help farmers install on-farm renewable energy and energy efficiency systems to lower their energy usage. This bill supports the development of the next generation of biofuels, including new technologies using food and agricultural waste.

Third, healthy foods. One of the incentivized programs in this bill, among others, is a successful program in Michigan called Double Up Food Bucks, which essentially doubles food assistance when a family is shopping for produce at a farmers' market. Speaking of which, we have quadrupled support for farmers' markets--four times more help than the previous farm bill. That means farmers have more choices to find fresh, locally grown foods, and it means farmers have more opportunities to sell those products and grow our rural economies.

Fourth, research. Crops and livestock are affected by pests and diseases, and

if we are going to continue to be the world's leader in food production, we need to invest in order to fight back.

Unfortunately, for years we have had to cut funding for critical research, and that has been a great concern of mine and of all of our committee. This farm bill includes an innovative solution to that problem. It creates a new agricultural research foundation modeled after health research foundations to bring private and public dollars together to support our scientists all across the country who are working to fight pests, find cures for crop diseases, and focus on food safety and innovation.

Finally, reform. This farm bill contains the greatest reforms to agricultural programs in decades. We have finally ended direct payment subsidies, which are given to farmers in good times and bad. Instead, we shift to a responsible, risk management approach that only gives farmers assistance when they experience a loss.

The bill also ends farm payments to millionaires, addresses a loophole that allows people who aren't farming to get payments, and tightens payment limits with a cap on payments that, for the first time, includes all commodity title programs, including limits on marketing loans. We looked at every part of the farm bill for reform and savings. It is safe to say we are the only area of the Federal Government that has voluntarily cut spending in our own area of jurisdiction. Counting sequestration cuts, we made a commitment to achieve $23 billion in deficit reduction, and we have.

I have spoken about five reasons to support the farm bill. There are many more. This farm bill reflects a major step forward in creating a new paradigm for the future and a real victory for farmers, families, and all Americans who care about protecting our soil and water resources, increasing American energy independence, and the quality of life of rural communities across our country.

With that, at this time, so that other colleagues may speak, I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. President, before the Senator from Montana leaves the floor, I wish to thank him for his wise counsel throughout the process of writing the farm bill. It is nice to have a farmer in the Senate who can give practical ideas and reactions. This is somebody who has been out there fighting for the farmer, small farmers, to be able to make sure they have the same shot to be successful as the big producers.

I thank Senator Tester not only for his support, but he has a very key voice in supporting farmers and ranchers across the country. I very much appreciate his counsel as we bring this effort to conclusion.

I ask unanimous consent that the time during quorum calls be equally divided.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, first of all, I thank our majority leader again, as I did earlier today, for his help in bringing this conference report to the Senate as quickly as possible and for his willingness every step of the way to work with us. I thank my partner in the Senate, Senator Cochran from Mississippi, for his wonderful leadership.

At this point in time I will turn to him and allow him to make his statement before proceeding with mine. I want to say to Senator Cochran and to all of those in Mississippi who are lucky to have him as their Senator fighting for them what a pleasure it has been to partner with him and his really excellent staff, and to have the opportunity to come here today with a strong bipartisan product that represents the agricultural and food interests of all parts of our country.

I yield to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.

Again, I wish to say what a pleasure it has been to work with the distinguished Senator from Mississippi and also with the chairman in the House, Congressman Lucas, and the ranking member, Congressman Peterson.

This really has been an example of the House and the Senate working in a bipartisan way. We are about to take the final steps now in passing the 2014 farm bill. We have actually passed this twice in the Senate. Each time we have gotten large bipartisan majorities because of the fact that we have worked together.

The final conference report that we have before us is one of which I believe we can all be proud. I hope my colleagues will support it and send it to the President for his signature.

We all know this has been a long time in coming--in fact, frankly, way too long. Our farmers and ranchers have waited way too long.

This bill has seen a long and winding road, but in the process we have worked together. We have not quit. We have worked across the aisle. The final bill has the support of over 370 different groups, and they represent those from all over the country and all over the ideological spectrum. That is because we wrote this bill when we were working hard to find common ground.

We listened to each other, we respected each other, and we developed a bill that works for every kind of agricultural production in every region of our country, for families, and for consumers across the country.

We have 16 million people who work in America because of agriculture--16 million people. Many of them work in Michigan. Many of them work in Mississippi, California, New England, Virginia, North Dakota, and in every other State in this great country. They grow different crops in different climates, and they have different needs. That certainly is one of the challenges, always, for a farm bill, particularly when we are talking about a farm bill that reforms programs. Those 16 million people were on our minds every single minute as we wrote this bill, and that is why we have such a strong coalition supporting this farm bill.

This is a farm bill for the future with a whole new focus on responsible risk management, healthy, locally-grown foods, strong conservation practices, clean energy, and research. In fact, it is a bit of a misnomer to call it a farm bill. It is 12 different bills, all of them impressive and worthy of colleagues' votes, and they all are put together in what we call the farm bill.

I want to take a moment to talk about these different pieces and all of the great policies that we have been working on for 2\1/2\ years.

The first title, the commodity title, if we were going to split off the commodity title of the farm bill and give it a name of its own, we would probably call it the farm bill. That pretty well describes the commodity title. Maybe that is why--even though the commodity title of the farm bill is, in fact, smaller in terms of spending this year than it has been before--the farm bill has held onto its name all of these years.

Once upon a time the commodity title was the be-all and end-all. The first farm bill was written during the Great Depression, when the entire agricultural system in the country broke down. Farmers left food to rot in the fields because crop prices were so low. It would bankrupt them to spend the money to harvest and to ship their products to market.

At the same time, people were so desperate for food that some of the most iconic images of the Great Depression are long, crowded bread lines that stretched for blocks and blocks. We have come a long way since the Great Depression, and our agricultural farm policies are very different than they once were. That is why this farm bill focuses on the future of agriculture in this country. This is not your father's farm bill.

In 1996 Congress passed a law called Freedom to Farm that eliminated the last vestiges of those production controls. To give farmers time to get used to the new system, that bill created a system of direct payment subsidies, which were supposed to be temporary.

But it didn't quite work out that way. Those payments continued, farm bill after farm bill, even when it was quite clear they were no longer defensible. The checks kept coming in good years and in bad. In some cases the checks went to people who weren't even farming.

In the budget climate of today, we just cannot afford those business- as-usual policies of the past. It was one of my top goals, as we wrote this bill, to end direct payments once and for all, and that is exactly what we have done together in this farm bill.

We also went through this bill page-by-page and made major reforms. We streamlined programs. We have cut red tape. We have eliminated waste. The first thing in this bill, on page 1, line 1, is repealing direct payments.

This is not your father's farm bill. This is a critical step in changing the paradigm of agricultural policy. Instead of direct payment subsidies, we are shifting the focus of the farm bill to responsible risk management. Farming is a risky business. In fact, I can't think of a more risky business than farming in this country. We saw this in South Dakota last fall when a freak blizzard wiped out tens of thousands of cattle and devastated ranchers. We saw this the year before when record-setting droughts wiped out crops across America's heartland. We saw it in Michigan where the combination of an early thaw and a late freeze almost destroyed our entire cherry crop and our apple crop.

No other industry is as dependent on the whims of Mother Nature or on the wild swings of the market as agriculture. That is why we have a farm bill. We have a stake, and we should be proud we have the safest, most affordable food supply in the world because we partner with farmers. That is why risk management is our No. 1 goal in this bill.

In fact, it is what farmers have been asking for. They want the ability and, more importantly, the responsibility of managing their own risk. Of course, in a country as big and diverse as ours, the risks faced by farmers in Michigan are very different from the risks faced by farmers in Mississippi or Oklahoma or Minnesota. That is the key principle that guided us when we wrote the bill to make sure it worked for all different kinds of crops throughout the country.

As farmers are managing their risk, we are giving them the choice to participate in an Agricultural Risk Coverage Program--that we are calling ARC--which will help them cover losses they incur at the individual farm level or county level or they can participate in a Price Loss Coverage Program which will trigger if prices drop below a reference price.

Both of these programs will use historically-based acres decoupled from production to minimize any influence from the program on farmers' decisions on what or where to plant. We don't want them planting to the government program.

In addition, in order to qualify for either of these programs, farmers must agree to comply with conservation and wetlands requirements. They are so important.

We are reforming the system to stop subsidy payments to millionaires, and we have imposed a new, overall cap--a first-time overall cap--of $125,000, for the first time covering both crop support and marketing loans, all parts of the commodity title.

This is the overall commodity title cap passed by the Senate, even though underneath the cap there were differences. We are requesting the USDA to close what is called the management loophole by updating its definition of ``management'' and giving the Secretary, for the first time, the authority to put limits on the numbers of managers on a farm that can qualify for payments.

By ending direct payments once and for all--by asking farmers to take responsibility for managing their own risk, and by partnering with them so that they can do it, and by capping farm payments and stopping payments to millionaires--we are putting in place the most significant reforms in agricultural policy in decades. This is a bill our colleagues can be proud to vote for.

In hearing some of the opposition, people are debating the old farm bills and not understanding what we have done.

Every farmer we have talked to in writing this bill said that crop insurance was their top priority. So we strengthened crop insurance and gave more crops access to this kind of insurance.

With this bill, we are taking significant steps to change the paradigm of farmer programs. With crop insurance, farmers don't get a check, they get a bill. They may pay tens of thousands of dollars in premiums and never get a check in a year because it is a good year and there is no disaster, just like any other kind of insurance.

This bill also includes a very important permanent livestock disaster assistance program for ranchers who lose livestock due to severe weather, disease or other acts of nature. In the past, Congress had to pass ad hoc disaster assistance for livestock producers, adding to the cost and the complexity of the program. These have been some very tough years for ranchers. In fact, livestock herds are down to their lowest level since 1951--imagine that--because of what we have seen.

That is why this bill, for the first time, has a permanent, funding baseline, and a system that will ensure our ranchers don't go bankrupt because of a freak blizzard in October or a scorching drought that wipes out a rancher's feed supply. This disaster assistance is applied retroactively to October 1, 2011, and makes the program permanent.

One of the worst agricultural disasters happened in 2009 to our American dairy farmers. That is why we worked

very hard in this bill to strengthen the dairy safety net by replacing the existing dairy supports with two new programs. The dairy margin insurance program, another insurance program, protects producer margins equal to the difference between the all-milk price and a national feed cost. We are taking special care to make sure that these insurance premiums are affordable for small and medium-sized dairy farms, making sure, especially, that we focus on any farm with fewer than 200 cows.

The Dairy Product Purchase Program, which is new and is a part of this, gives the Department of Agriculture the flexibility to purchase dairy products, milk, and other products when margins fall below $4. Those dairy products will be donated for the first time to families in need, through public and private organizations, including food banks, homeless shelters, and soup kitchens. This was a hard-fought compromise on dairy. I have to say my preference would have been what we passed twice in the Senate as a strong dairy policy. But given the resistance of the Speaker and the leadership in the House and the need to be able to find something we could move forward on and pass that would work for dairy farmers, we worked very hard to find a way to move forward to get the votes and support and make sure we were helping farm operations in every region of the country. We know the pressures on the New England area farmers are very different from the pressures on our own producers in Michigan or in the Midwest or on the west coast, and we have worked hard to find something that works.

While title I of the farm bill reforms programs so farmers are taking responsibility for their own risk, title II of the farm bill is about risk management for the whole country. This is the conservation bill in this farm bill. In all the discussions in the farm bill, it too often gets overlooked. In fact, it is our Nation's largest and most enduring investment in conservation on private lands, which are the majority of our lands in America.

This farm bill includes a historic agreement between supporters of traditional commodities and environmental and conservation groups to link conservation compliance to crop insurance--critically important as we eliminate direct payments and ask farmers to manage their risk through crop insurance. We do not want to create unintended consequences of risk for our lands and our water resources.

At the start of this farm bill process, commodity groups and conservation groups were on very different sides on this issue, but they sat down together, they listened, and they found common ground. It turned out their differences weren't as great as they thought they were. In fact, no one has a bigger stake in protecting our land and our water than our farmers. With a little compromise and a lot of hard work, which is the story of this entire bill, they brought us a plan that conserves soil and water resources for generations to come and protects the safety net for farmers to rely on.

This has been called the greatest advancement in conservation in three decades. I wish to underscore for my colleagues that this is an important and historic agreement, and I thank everyone who has been involved in the hard work of putting it together.

We have also created a new sodsaver provision to prevent farmers from plowing up native prairie lands, saving money for taxpayers and saving absolutely critical wildlife habitat. We need to manage land to prevent erosion. That is how we avoid having another dust bowl during droughts. It is equally important to continue preserving wetlands that help prevent flooding and create important wildlife habitats for ducks and birds and other waterfowl.

What else does the conservation title do? It directly preserves millions of acres of wildlife habitat, which in turn has helped to rebuild populations of duck, quail, and pheasants, among others. That is why the bill has the strong support of the National Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, Quail Forever, Pheasants Forever, the Audubon Society, World Food Program USA, and the World Wildlife Fund, which are only a handful of the more than 250 conservation groups that have endorsed this bill.

To strengthen conservation, we went through every program and focused on making it more flexible, easier to use, and we were able to take 23 different programs, cut it down to 13, and put it into 4 different areas with a lot of flexibility that also allowed us to save dollars in this bill.

The first is working lands, giving farmers the tools they need to be the best stewards of their natural resources. The centerpiece of this function is called EQIP--the Environmental Quality Incentives Program-- one of the most important conservation programs out there for farmers. EQIP gives technical and financial assistance to farmers, ranchers, and private forest owners to help them conserve soil and water.

Working lands conservation also includes the Conservation Stewardship Program, which encourages higher levels of conservation and the adoption of new conservation technologies. We continued the conservation innovation grants and the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program, which allows landowners to get value-added benefits from their land by opening them to hunting and fishing and bird watching. We made these programs even more flexible and added a focus on wildlife habitat, making them easier for farmers to use.

The second area, the Conservation Reserve Program, recovers highly erodible land from production to benefit soil and water quality as well as wildlife habitat. Despite record droughts over the last few years-- droughts that in many ways were worse than during the Dust Bowl--the soil stayed on the ground. We haven't had a Dust Bowl. The soil has stayed on the ground. CRP was a big part of that, protecting not only the soil but air quality as well.

We also continued an important incentive program to help older farmers transition their land to beginning farmers.

One of the parts of the conservation title that I am most proud of is a new focus on regional partnerships. This will have a big impact on my own Great Lakes--that we in the Great Lakes area love so much--as well as the Chesapeake Bay and other critical areas where there are large- scale regional conservation challenges. We consolidated several programs into one, which will offer competitive, merit-braced grants to regional partnerships made up of conservation groups, universities, farmers, ranchers, and other private landowners to support improved soil health, water quality and quantity and habitat for wildlife.

The final area includes conservation easements, which lets landowners voluntarily enter into agreements to preserve wetlands and farmlands and protect them against development and sprawl. We consolidated and streamlined existing easement programs to protect important land for generations to come.

The farm bill is also an export bill. In fact, agriculture is one of the few areas where our Nation maintains a healthy trade surplus. That is why this farm bill continues efforts to expand opportunities for American exports, including the Market Access Program, to promote U.S. agricultural products in overseas markets and develop programs to open new markets for American agricultural products.

The farm bill is also a humanitarian bill that speaks to the best about us and our American values. Around the world millions of people get their only meals as a result of the generosity of the American people through the Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole program.

I saw this last year firsthand in Haiti, where schools would open bags stamped with the American flag and provide a modest meal to students every day--very likely their only meal that day. I met one little boy who saved part of his lunch to take it home in his bag to his parents so they could have something to eat that night.

In fact, in the life of this program, more than 3 billion--billion-- people in over 150 countries have gotten a meal thanks to the generosity of the American people and the American farmer.

The farm bill makes major reforms to our food aid program, speeding up emergency food aid response and giving flexibility to organizations on the ground to supply local food to people in need. These reforms mean that because of this farm bill we will feed another 500,000 people around the world. That is

why this bill has earned the endorsement of many humanitarian and religious groups, including Feed the Children, the ONE Campaign, CARE USA, Church World Service, Catholic Relief Services, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the United Methodist Church, and the American Jewish World Service, among many others.

Of course, we know hunger and poverty strike families all around the globe, including right here at home. I believe in the richest country in the world it is a disgrace for any child to go to bed hungry at night or go to school hungry in the morning. Crop insurance is disaster assistance for farmers who have been hit by a natural disaster. The nutrition title of the farm bill is disaster assistance for families who have been hit by an economic disaster. Most families who need food assistance only need it for a few months, and the vast majority of people receiving food help are children, the elderly, and the disabled, including our disabled veterans.

When the House of Representatives passed their nutrition bill, they included many provisions that would have seriously hurt Americans, such as many in Michigan who have paid taxes all their lives, lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and are mortified they need help to put food on the table for their families while they are getting back on their feet. This conference report rejects every single one of those harmful provisions. Instead, this final conference report before us strengthens the integrity and accountability of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--or SNAP--ensuring every dollar is spent responsibly so those who need help can get it.

The bill stops lottery winners from being able to get SNAP benefits and stops the use of SNAP funds at liquor stores. It also includes an important provision that addresses what the Washington Post called ``a black eye on the program.'' We have streamlined eligibility requirements to cut down on wasteful duplication, but a number of States discovered a way to use that streamlining to give some families additional SNAP benefits by counting utility bills they do not have. By sending out as little as $1 in home heating assistance, States have been able to qualify families for a utility deduction, even if they do not pay any utility bills.

I salute those who want to help people get additional funds. I would have very much supported adding additional help in this bill, but this cannot be justified--what is being done here. We addressed this loophole and protected the entire program for 47 million people.

Here is what we have done and here is what it means to someone on SNAP. If you receive $20 or more a year in low-income heating assistance--if you receive $20 a year in low-income heating assistance--nothing changes for you. If you receive less than $20 a year, you will need to go back to the old system of producing an actual utility bill in order to receive credit for a utility bill.

That is the sum total of where we have received and garnered the savings in this bill as it relates to closing loopholes. This is about strengthening the integrity of this program to ensure that food assistance is there for families who have fallen on hard times.

The farm bill also includes a number of pilot programs to help people find work or receive job training so they do not need food assistance. The Secretary of Agriculture can approve these pilots, which include funding for child care and transportation to make sure individuals are able to succeed.

The bill increases funding for food banks, continues an important effort that provides supplemental food for seniors as well as the senior farmers market program.

I am pleased this bill has the support of the AARP and others who understand the importance of senior nutrition.

The farm bill continues efforts to serve fresh fruit and vegetable snacks in schools, and includes a new national pilot based on something we do in Michigan called double Up Food Bucks. It essentially doubles the SNAP benefits for families when they shop for fresh produce at farmers markets.

I also wish to mention the healthy food financing initiative, which addresses the very serious problem of lack of access to grocery stores in low-income neighborhoods. There are many places in Michigan where this is a very serious issue. This financing initiative will help families put healthy food on the table while creating jobs in neighborhoods across the country.

It is also important to stress that the Congressional Budget Office projects that this farm bill, in addition to addressing fraud and abuse, will spend $11.5 billion less on food assistance the right way-- by the economy improving and people going back to work. So when we look at the fact that the numbers are going down, it is because of the economy improving. Frankly, this is where we need to be focusing our efforts, on supporting businesses to create jobs, and part of the way to do that is by passing this jobs bill called the farm bill.

The farm bill is also a credit bill, increasing access to resources which help farmers, especially the beginning and veteran farmers, own and operate farms. This results in jobs. This title will make more qualified farmers, of all sizes, eligible for USDA farm loans and gives more flexibility to the USDA so they can better reach new types of farming, including local and regional producers.

With 16 million people working in agriculture across the country, the farm bill is a jobs bill--and nowhere is that more evident than in America's rural communities. The rural development title of the farm bill authorizes programs which are absolutely essential to small towns and rural communities and those who work in those communities.

We are continuing the important work of rural economic development and rural broadband. Just as rural electrification brought opportunities to families across the country in the last century, rural broadband opens doors for increased commerce and interconnectedness for the 21st century.

Ninety percent of community water systems serve 10,000 people or less. We provide mandatory funding to address the backlog of rural water applications at USDA so rural communities have a safe supply of drinking water.

For the first time we prioritize and reserve funding for rural development applications submitted by communities working together on long-term, sustainable community and economic development plans because these regional strategies will be more effective at the local level, and we want to provide as much flexibility as possible. The farm bill's rural development title is about entrepreneurship and the lasting strength of small towns across America in which it invests.

As I mentioned earlier today, we are creating an innovative new Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research in this bill--modeled after what we do with medical research--to tackle the difficult fight against pests and diseases, and it increases opportunities through innovation to create jobs. For too many years, agricultural research has suffered because of budget cuts over and over. This new research foundation will bring together public and private funds to maintain a steady stream of funding for this important research. We provide $200 million in seed money, and it can be matched by $200 million from the private sector in an ongoing commitment.

In addition to the new research foundation, we have a major new focus on food and agricultural research throughout this bill. We have a major focus on the specialty crops research initiative to find solutions to pests and diseases that affect fruit and vegetable crops, and we have efforts in this title to support beginning farmers and ranchers as well. We are also continuing successful research and extension efforts, including work done by our premier land grant universities--such as my alma mater, Michigan State University.

As to the forestry title, healthy forests mean clean air, fresh water, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. Coupled with the tools we have in the conservation title, the forestry title of the farm bill helps foresters maintain the health of our private forest lands.

We are strengthening our efforts to fight invasive pests that have destroyed many thousands of trees, particularly in the West. We worked hard to ensure that private landowners can continue to effectively manage their operations.

As I mentioned earlier this afternoon, the farm bill is an energy bill. I

am extremely pleased that during negotiations with the House we kept the full funding from the Senate's energy title.

Our rural communities have been at the forefront of the effort to achieve American energy independence. We are strengthening these efforts through the highly successful Rural Energy for America Program, which helps farmers and rural small business owners generate their own power or improve energy efficiency to lower their utility bills. Thousands of farms across the country have lowered their input costs thanks to the REAP program.

We are continuing our commitment to the development of the next generation of advanced biofuels. Scientific advancements are allowing us to develop ethanol with food and agricultural waste products. With this farm bill, we will see even more biorefineries come online, producing homegrown fuels which bring competition and lower prices for consumers at the pump.

This farm bill also supports our growing biobased economy with my new grow it here, make it here initiative. Biobased products are manufactured items made from all kinds of plant materials that replace petroleum and other chemicals. These products are everywhere, from the cups in the Senate cafeteria--which are made by a Michigan company, by the way--to cleaning products, industrial lubricants, and even the foam in the seats of cars which, if it is a new American-made car, will be based on soy oil foam rather than petroleum oil. Biobased manufacturing creates jobs, strengthens our economy, and reduces our use of fossil fuels.

As I have said before, this is a farm bill focused on the future, and nowhere is that more evident than in the specialty crops title. This is essentially the produce aisle of the farm bill. Specialty crops include fruits, vegetables, nuts, and nursery crops. We are strengthening the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, expanding specialty crop research, expanding crop insurance to include specialty crops, and continuing the highly successful fresh fruits and vegetables SNAP program in our schools.

We don't want to just grow more fruits and vegetables, we need to be able to get them to consumers. That is why this farm bill more than quadruples support for farmers markets. We are also strengthening local food hubs, which bring farmers together with local supermarkets, restaurants, and schools to supply locally grown healthy foods.

The farm bill also recognizes an incredibly fast-growing segment of agriculture--organics. We continue our efforts to support farmers to get certified as organic, expand crop insurance options to organic farmers, and provide funding for continued organic research.

This bill truly reflects the diversity of crops we grow in America, and nowhere is that more evident than in the specialty crops and organics title.

In every part of this farm bill we worked on streamlining and consolidating programs. In fact, we ended over 100 different programs and authorizations in this process. I said to my staff at the very beginning: Don't think about programs. Think about principles--what should we be doing in agriculture and food policy, not what programs do we want to protect. That is how we have moved forward throughout this entire process.

There is one thing we did add and I am very pleased with; that is, a new veterans agriculture liaison at USDA to work with our men and women in uniform who are coming home and want to get involved in agriculture. We know the majority of our men and women are coming home to small towns, such as where I grew up in northern Michigan, and rural communities, and we want to support them so they can be successful if they choose to go into agriculture.

This is a new kind of farm bill, designed to meet new challenges of a changing world. We are also making major reforms, eliminating unnecessary, unjustified programs to cut government spending and to increase the integrity of farm programs.

This farm bill reflects critical steps in changing the paradigm, where we are ending subsidies and giving farmers the tools they need to manage their own risks. We support them, but in doing that, as we know, when we have insurance products--and that is what we are looking at throughout this bill, whether it is a new insurance-type approach for cotton or dairy or for our traditional commodities. With any other kind of insurance, you pay the premium, pay the premium, and pay the premium but don't get any help unless there is a loss, a disaster. This is a fundamental shift in this farm bill, helping our farmers to manage risk in a fiscally responsible way.

I think my distinguished ranking member would admit it was a lot of work. After all of this work, to my knowledge, we offer the Senate the only effort where a group of people within their jurisdiction of authority have voluntarily cut spending to reduce the deficit. If we couple the sequestration cuts of approximately $6 billion and the cuts in this bill to agriculture, we are coming to the Senate and offering a bill of reform, cutting programs, cutting duplication, cutting spending that actually creates $23 billion in deficit reduction. I am proud of that. This truly is not your father's farm bill.

We are about to vote to bring debate on this conference report to a close. But before we do, I once again thank my ranking member, the senior Senator from Mississippi, who has been a friend and a partner throughout this entire process. I have enjoyed very much having the opportunity to work with Senator Cochran and his very competent staff. I learned along the way that we have a great love of music in piano playing and the blues--which sometimes we were singing during this process. But it has been my great honor to work with him and our House colleagues as we have worked to bring this forward.

My ranking member had a different perspective than I had, and we have written this bill together. I have learned a lot about the perspective of Mississippi and the South, and I hope I have shared the perspective of Michigan and the North--and the East and the West--as we have listened to our colleagues. I urge our colleagues to support this conference report.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, first I thank my friend and colleague from Washington for her passionate advocacy, and I join with her and other colleagues today in supporting the unanimous consent request to pass immediately the Tax Extenders Act. There is no reason not to get this done, as colleagues have said--absolutely none.

We are in a situation where there are critical tax policies that will directly affect families. Middle-class families across the country are going to be hit by a number of different policies. Small businesses, large businesses, and a number of different entities will be affected if we don't get this passed.

I would like to specifically talk about an urgent priority I have been offering, which we have been able to shepherd through a number of different times, which needs to get done as a part of this package or by itself, however we want to do it. We need to make sure struggling homeowners across the country--and in terms of all of the economy as well--are able to continue using tax policy to protect them from not only being hit with a mortgage problem that puts them underwater and struggling to keep their homes but an extra tax bill on top of it that makes absolutely no sense.

Let me explain that. At the end of the year, a law I offered back in 2007 to protect homeowners against unforeseen and unfair tax bills is set to expire. Before this law, when a portion of a distressed homeowner's mortgage was canceled--either in a loan workout with a bank, a short sale, or even a foreclosure in some instances--the IRS treated the canceled debt as taxable income. Think about that: You are already struggling with your home. You could lose your home. Or maybe you are able to refinance in some way, work with the bank, get a short sale, and then on top of that get a tax bill for whatever the value was of what you were able to work out. It makes absolutely no sense. It is, frankly, outrageous.

The IRS was telling homeowners that money they had already lost on their home was income, so we have essentially been correcting that since 2007 through a tax change. The IRS before that was taxing families on what is considered phantom income at the worst possible time for the family.

With the onslaught of the housing crisis, Congress recognized how critical it was to protect struggling homeowners from paying this kind of tax on mortgage debt relief. In 2007, we provided tax relief for homeowners by excluding mortgage forgiveness from their income for tax purposes. It made sense then, it makes sense now. It expires at the end of the year.

We came together on a bipartisan basis. We said to millions of working families, middle-class families struggling to keep a roof over their head for their families that: If you are struggling with an underwater mortgage, the IRS shouldn't kick you while you are down. You can seek relief without having to worry about incurring a massive tax bill.

This provision has aided millions of families and helped enable the housing market to begin to recover. However, in too many areas of the country and for far too many homeowners, the housing crisis is far from over. Nearly 6.5 million homeowners are still underwater in their mortgages. They owe more than their homes are worth. That includes 250,000 hard-working families in Michigan. Nearly 13 percent of homeowners nationally are underwater. Again, 18 percent are in Michigan--above the national average.

It is critical that we extend this provision, and it is very important it be done before the end of the year. It needs to be done ahead of time so homeowners know what the IRS rules are going to be in 2014, as they are literally making decisions today, tomorrow, the next day, over Christmas. They need to know. If we don't act, homeowners who are offered relief from their lenders or are thinking about a short sale won't know if they will be hit with a major tax bill as a result, and that will affect decisions being made.

On average, underwater homeowners owe $53,000 more on their mortgage than the market value of their homes. In some cases, of course, it is much more. For a typical middle-class family, that could mean a tax bill of more than $13,000. Merry Christmas. It is $13,000 tax bill you shouldn't be paying as you are trying to figure out how to protect your home. Who would want to take that risk?

Brokers and housing counselors in Michigan have been asking me what they should be telling homeowners, and we need to act right now so we can tell them they don't have to worry about this.

This is not just about fairness for homeowners. This is about keeping the housing recovery alive. The last thing we want to do is to tax people into foreclosure, where they feel their only option is default and walking away from their home.

As we have seen in so many communities, foreclosures and vacant properties destabilize neighborhoods. I can walk from community to community in Michigan and show where that has happened. They push home values down. We can't let that happen at a time when the housing market and the economy are finally recovering. We all have a stake in extending this important tax protection for families.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the National Association of Realtors, and one from over 200 housing consumer and community organizations urging us to act now.

Mr. President, this is a bipartisan initiative which I have introduced with Senator Heller and 18 other bipartisan cosponsors. To my knowledge, it is not controversial. There is no excuse not to act before we leave, and I urge colleagues to do so.