Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

We are now going to resume discussion on the farm bill, but before doing that I see one of the distinguished members of our committee on the floor who I know would like to make some other comments. But I just wish to thank her in advance for her leadership. We are so excited and pleased to have the Senator from North Dakota on the Agriculture Committee.

Having had a chance to be in North Dakota--and she has said it to me a thousand times, so it is burned into my memory--90 percent of the land in North Dakota is in agriculture, and so she reminds me of that every day. She has been a key person in helping us bring this farm bill to the floor. So before proceeding on the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act, I would ask that Senator Heitkamp be recognized.

Mr. President, first, I would I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon today the Senate observe a moment of silence for the victims of the tornado in Oklahoma.

Mr. President, we know we have other colleagues who will be coming to the floor to talk about the very important jobs bill, reform bill, and food bill we have in front of us--a conservation bill as well--but I just wish to take a moment to say to our colleagues, if there are amendments they have, as we are moving through the bill--and we are doing our best to finish this by the end of the week or certainly get as close as we can--we are very interested in working with colleagues to get to their amendments. We would appreciate it if they would let us know what they are and bring them down so we can be working with them on any of their amendments.

We are very proud of the product we have in front of the Senate right now. There are 16 million people who work in agriculture. I would say that is a jobs bill. I think it is probably the biggest jobs bill we will have in front of the Senate--agricultural jobs directly with those who are producing the food, who are producing the equipment for our food, and who are doing all the pieces around food production and processing and the efforts in trade around the globe, where we are proud to say agriculture is No. 1 in creating a trade surplus for our country. Other countries are looking to us. There are 7 billion mouths to feed in the world today, and American agriculture is at the front of the line feeding families and supporting efforts around the globe. We know that number is growing every day and the leadership of American agriculture is going to be even more important in that process.

We also know this is a bill that conserves our land, our water, our air, and our forests. This is the piece of legislation that focuses on conservation for working lands--lands that are owned by someone in this country, which is the majority of land, and there are incredibly important partnership efforts that go on. The farm bill improves 1.9 million acres of fish and wildlife habitat. That is why our conservation title is supported by over 650 conservation and environmental groups all across the country.

We have the same conservation title we had last year, and I am very pleased to say the House also has adopted the structure of reform we have in our bill. It is very similar in the House and Senate bills on conservation, and so this is a real landmark piece of legislation as it relates to preserving our soil, our land, our water, our air, and our forests, and it is a commitment we make as Americans to future generations.

We have also added in this legislation a commitment brought to us by the commodity farm groups and environmental and conservation groups to make sure, when farmers are using critically needed tools such as crop insurance--which is the mainstay for farmers now, buying crop insurance and hoping, in fact, they do not have to get a payout because it means they have had a loss or a disaster; that it is now the foundation of what we are doing to support farmers across the country--they have agreed to tie compliance for conservation practices to crop insurance, which is a very important policy. This is a historic agreement between agricultural groups and conservation and environmental groups. As a result of their agreement and their urging, we have added that to this bill, which is a very significant addition and strengthens what we are already doing on conservation.

We make a strong nutrition commitment to families. We make sure every family who currently qualifies for nutrition assistance in our country continues to receive that assistance. We create savings by looking at areas where there has been abuse or misuse by a few States on one policy and by individuals or retailers in other areas and we tighten that up so we have more integrity in the process. We make it clear we stand with families who need help; we stand with families who find their own personal disaster because of the economy, just as we stand with farmers for a strong crop insurance program when a farmer has a disaster as well, but we do make sure there is integrity in the programs, which is very important.

We have had at least two cases in Michigan where two people won the lottery and continued on food assistance--pretty outrageous. And we make sure that cannot happen again. There have been abuses in other areas, where retailers have allowed people to turn in their food assistance cards for money for drugs or other illegal activities, and we make sure we clamp down on that. We have gone through the bill and we address misuse, waste, fraud, and abuse in every part of the farm programs but certainly in this area as well. So we can stand before our colleagues and say this is about making sure folks who have worked all their lives, who have paid taxes all their lives, who suddenly find themselves, through no fault of their own, in a situation where they need some temporary food help are able to get that help for their family.

The good news is those dollars--that part of the farm bill--are actually decreasing. The costs are going down and not because we are cutting back on support for families but because the economy is improving, so more people are going back to work and don't need the temporary help. That is the way we should be reducing the costs, and that is in fact what we do.

I am also very pleased with the fact we focus on rural development and reforms that are very significant and very important. Right now, there are actually 11 different definitions of the term ``rural.'' We had local mayors and county supervisors and village residents come to us and say: We appreciate the fact that rural development funds allow us to provide financing for our businesses and water and sewer projects and housing projects and road projects, but could you just give us one definition, rather than trying to figure out 11 different ways to define rural. It may sound simple, but it wasn't simple. But we did actually get it down to one definition, and we have streamlined the process and the paperwork so communities, small towns, and folks who support and need rural economic development help can get that with a minimal amount of paperwork.

We have done that through this entire bill. Frankly, I truly believe that if, in every part of government, we did what we have done in agricultural programs, we would not only be doing what the public wants but we would balance the budget. We have 100 different programs or authorizations we have eliminated because they didn't make sense anymore. They were duplicative, not wise spending for taxpayers--things such as direct subsidy payments for farmers that did not make sense, cutting from 23 conservation programs to 13 and putting them

in 4 different subject areas with a lot of flexibility so we can stretch it out and get more bang for our buck and do a better job without in any way reducing the commitment to conservation.

We have gone through the entire farm bill and made tough decisions, smart decisions. We have saved about $24 billion--more than even we did last year--while having a set of policies that is broadly supported in the conservation community and the agricultural community and the energy community and those who represent small towns across this country. We did it, again, by making tough decisions and by working together on a bipartisan basis.

I am proud that even though these arbitrary, across-the-board cuts called sequester, cuts that make no sense--even though those cuts would require $6 billion in cuts in agricultural programs, we have been willing, voluntarily, to come up with four times that level of cuts. We ask for your support for a set of policies that works better, that streamlines the system, that cuts back on that which does not make sense to do but strengthens the priorities that are important for economic growth, for families, for conservation, for communities all across this country.

We are willing and have done our part to step up and meet the challenges of deficit reduction, of balancing our Federal budget, but keeping our commitment to our farmers and ranchers who have the most risky jobs in the world. As I said yesterday, nobody else has to worry about whether it is going to rain or not rain--too much rain, no rain; whether it is going to freeze, as it did in northern Michigan after the cherry blossoms came on the trees and the freeze wiped everything out.

Nobody else is in a business where they cannot control the most important factor, which is the weather. We have certainly seen the havoc the weather has played on families across this country, including what happened yesterday in Oklahoma.

We stand here proudly to say we support an effort that is creating reform, that is saving money, that is standing up for the folks who have helped create the most affordable and safest food supply in the world--America's farmers and ranchers. We stand here supporting American families who need to make sure that when times are tough the very best of America's values are in place, which is to make sure they have the ability to put food on the table for their families.

I believe we have others who will be coming to the floor. At the moment I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent that following a moment of silence at noon today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to Cantwell amendment No. 919; that upon disposition of the Cantwell amendment, Senator Gillibrand be recognized.

We are also working on a Sessions amendment No. 945, which we had hoped to line up as well. I understand there is an additional modification being made. If that modification is agreeable to both sides, it is our intention to adopt that amendment, as modified, prior to the caucus meetings.

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

Let me indicate that this amendment would require tribes to be included in the development of Resource Conservation Act appraisals. It is something that is supported by Senator Cochran and me.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion upon the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 931

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, we have a great start here with our first vote.

Amendment No. 945, As Modified

Before proceeding with Senator Gillibrand's amendment, I ask unanimous consent that the Sessions amendment No. 945, with the changes at the desk, as modified, be agreed to.

Reserving the right to object, Madam President.

Madam President, first, I thank the Senator from Vermont for raising all these issues that are so important for the American people. At this point in time, we do have an amendment that is pending, the amendment of Senator Gillibrand. We do not have unanimous consent in order to set that aside so I would have to, at the moment, object to setting it aside, but I assure the Senator I wish to have an opportunity to talk to him about these issues.

I object.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Certainly we want to hear from the distinguished Senator from Montana. I

know the Senator from South Dakota has been waiting for some time as well, and we had asked him to wait until Senator Roberts had offered his amendment. I am not sure of the time the Senator from South Dakota is requesting right now, but certainly we want to hear from both of the Senators.

It appears at this moment we are going to have to have a little bit more time before we do that, but I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I see my friend from Louisiana wishing to speak, but I have a unanimous consent request first.

I ask unanimous consent that at 4:05--5 minutes after 4--the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Roberts amendment, No. 948; that there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote; that the time until 4:05 be divided with 10 minutes for Senator Vitter and the remaining time to be equally divided on the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This goes way beyond what we have done in the committee, which is to focus on waste, fraud, and abuse and make sure there is integrity in the program, to make sure supplemental nutrition assistance goes to families who have been working hard all their lives, paying taxes, who fall on hard times and need some temporary help. This, in fact, would have a nine times higher cut than what we reported out of the committee on a bipartisan vote. It would undercut what we are trying to do in employment and training, which is so critical.

We all want people to have the opportunity to get back to work. We are seeing now, in the area of nutrition, the costs are now going down the way they should be, which is people are getting back to work and no longer needing the help. That is the way we should reduce it, in addition to tackling waste, fraud, and abuse, as we do in this bill.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 5 minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the Gillibrand amendment No. 931; that there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

Is there time remaining?

Mr. President, I reluctantly rise in opposition. I am a full supporter of this program to make sure families who find themselves in a situation beyond their control because of the economy, because of what has been happening to so many around the country, get the temporary help they need. What we have done in the farm bill is focus on those areas where there has been fraud or abuse or, in this case, misuse of actually a very good program to be able to provide assistance in terms of heat and food. But there are a few States--mine is one of them--that have gone beyond and are misusing a well-intended program.

I believe in fighting for the integrity of these programs so we can continue to fight for increased help for people who truly need it, and I believe what we have done in the bill meets the test of integrity and is defensible and addresses legitimate concerns raised about the misuse and fraud of programs.

So I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I call for regular order.

On behalf of Senator Leahy, I call up amendment No. 998.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, we have made great progress today. I thank colleagues for their work today bringing forth amendments. We will continue to work with Members as we go forward tomorrow, putting together a number of votes to bring before the body. We are working hard to do everything possible to complete this legislation by the end of the week. I think we are on a good track.

I announce on behalf of the two leaders that there will be no more votes this evening.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 6:30, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2013, at 10:15 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Financial Stability Oversight Council Annual Report to Congress.''

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 May 21, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart 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 May 21, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``A Review of Criteria Used by the IRS to Identify 501(c)(4) Applications for Greater Scrutiny.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2013, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2013, at 2:45 p.m., to hold a Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Prospects for Afghanistan's 2014 Elections.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2013, at 10:30 a.m., in SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to continue its executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``S. 921, The Raechel and Jacqueline Houck Safe Rental Care Act of 2013.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Offshore Profit Shifting and the U.S. Tax Code--Part 2.''

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

Mr. President, I wish to thank our majority leader, Republican leader, and all the Members for allowing us in the Senate to move forward today on this very important bill. I want to thank my ranking member Senator Thad Cochran for his friendship and his leadership. I want to thank all of the members of the committee for working together to write this important legislation. Also, I want to thank our staffs on both sides of the aisle. We have excellent staffs who have worked together, and I know we will continue to work together as we move this legislation through.

Our bill, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013, is critical to the 16 million Americans whose jobs rely on a strong agricultural economy. Agriculture has been one of the bright spots as our economy is getting back on track. In fact, it is one of the few areas where we actually have a trade surplus, where we are exporting more than we are importing. This means jobs for us in America.

The farm bill is a jobs bill. It is a jobs bill, a trade bill, a reform bill, a conservation bill, and it is a kitchen table bill. Thanks to the farm bill, families all across America will sit down around a table tonight and enjoy the bounty of the world's safest, most abundant, and most affordable food supply. Those who need temporary help to feed their families during an economic crisis will get help as well. This is a bill that reflects our best values as Americans.

It is easy to take agriculture for granted. It is easy for many of us to forget the food we eat doesn't come from the supermarket, as some folks may think. The food we eat comes from the skill and the efforts of the men and women who work hard from sunrise to sunset, day in and day out, to put food on our tables. Too often I believe we take them for granted as well. Most of us don't have to worry about how many days it has been since the last rainfall or whether it is going to freeze in May after the fruit trees are blooming. Most of us don't have to worry about decisions and weather conditions around the world and how they affect our livelihood here at home.

That is why we have what we call the farm bill. We have a farm bill because farmers are in the riskiest business in the world. We saw that last year as our country was in the grip of the worst drought in generations. We saw this as ranchers had to cull their herds because they couldn't get enough food or water for their cattle. We saw all across the country that farmers lost their crops in late spring freezes that wiped out cherry and apple crops in Michigan and other parts of the country. That is why the top goal of the agriculture reform bill is risk management. We are reforming farm programs, ending direct payments and other subsidies that have no relationship to risk and instead giving farmers market-based risk management tools. That is the hallmark of this farm bill.

We want to make sure a farm that has been passed on for generations doesn't face bankruptcy because of a drought or other events outside the farmer's control. We also want to make sure that when there is a drought we are conserving our precious soil and water resources. When it comes to conservation, the farm bill is risk management for the whole country. Conservation programs in the farm bill make sure our soil doesn't blow away and our waters aren't polluted by runoff.

In many parts of the country last year we had a drought that was worse than the Dust Bowl, but we didn't have a dust bowl. We didn't have out-of-control erosion, and that is because the farm bill did what it was supposed to do in conservation. Soil stayed on the ground. It is easy to take that for granted as well.

The farm bill is our country's largest investment in land and water conservation on private lands, and the farm bill gives farmers tools to strengthen wildlife habitat. I had the opportunity this weekend, with my gracious host, the Senator from Mississippi, to visit a wildlife preserve program and wetlands preserve program, and Senator Cochran is responsible for those parts of the farm bill. We had an opportunity to go out on a beautiful piece of flat land in the Mississippi delta and see where ducks were coming back, quail were coming back, and habitat was beginning to flourish because of efforts to support these important resources for the future. The farmer involved in the property said he felt he was in partnership with the USDA and making a commitment for his children and future generations through conservation. This is a real source of pride for us as we look at this 5-year farm bill.

I am pleased the bill before us includes a new historic agreement between conservation groups and commodity groups around conservation and crop insurance. These folks from very different perspectives sat down together, listened to one another, and worked out an agreement that will preserve land and water resources for generations to come.

The farm bill helps farmers improve 1.9 million acres of land for wildlife habitat. Healthy wildlife habitat and clean fishable waters are not only good for our environment but they also support hunting, fishing, and all the other great outdoor recreation which benefits our economy and creates jobs. We just plain have fun doing it in Michigan. In fact, outdoor recreation supports over 6 million jobs alone. That is a big deal.

We also continue our support for specialty crops, fruits, vegetables, and those crops that make up about half of the cash receipts of our country. Organic agriculture is a growing part of agriculture. We expand farmers markets in local food hubs to encourage schools and businesses to support their local farmers by purchasing locally grown food and creating more local jobs. We expand the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables that are so essential in schools and community food programs.

We also strengthen rural development financing for small businesses. Once you get outside of the cities in Michigan and all across our country, every single community in Michigan, outside of our big cities, gets support for jobs through something we call rural development, financing for small businesses, for water and sewer projects, road projects, housing efforts for families, a whole wide variety of things we do through this economic arm in the USDA called rural development.

We also expand the energy title to encourage support for new jobs in biobased manufacturing, which is an exciting new effort. In addition to biofuels, we now can use agricultural products and byproducts to replace petroleum and other chemicals in manufacturing. There is a huge new opportunity for jobs, as well as supporting our environment by doing these things. There is no doubt that the farm bill is a jobs bill.

This bill also continues to focus on the issue that has taken so much of our time this year, last year, and the year before, and that is cutting the deficit and getting our Nation's fiscal house back in order. We get rid of unnecessary subsidies such as the Direct Payment Program that sends a check to folks regardless of whether they are even farming a particular crop anymore, streamlining programs to cut redtape, and cracking down on fraud and abuse. In fact, we eliminate over 100 different programs or authorizations that either were duplicating something else or didn't make sense to do anymore. I think that is the way we ought to be cutting spending and creating savings.

Altogether, including the cuts that took effect already this year, we are able to cut spending by about $24 billion. That is more than double the cuts proposed by the Simpson-Bowles Commission and last year's Gang of Six that worked on deficit reduction. And I want to underscore that this is four times--four times--more than is required by the arbitrary across-the-board sequestration cuts. So we in agriculture take a back seat to no one in our commitment to doing our part in making tough decisions and setting priorities to reduce the deficit.

This bill represents the most significant reform of American agriculture in decades, in my judgment. We are putting caps on payments to farmers and closing loopholes that allowed people who were not actually farming to receive payments. We are strengthening crop insurance, which we heard from farmers was the No. 1 risk management tool for them. It is important we strengthen it and protect it as we move through this process.

The agriculture reform bill includes disaster assistance for our ranchers and farmers as well who cannot receive crop insurance-- livestock owners and others in areas that cannot receive crop insurance.

We made sure our food assistance programs are accountable, that there is integrity in our programs, so we continue to build on the integrity that is already there by cracking down on abuses and misuse. We made sure our changes would not remove one single needy family. It is not about hurting folks, it is about making sure there is not abuse, and that is what we address.

Let me say when we look at crop insurance, it is there for disasters for our farmers, and it goes up when there are a lot of disasters. That is when there is cost. Then it goes down when things are going better, and it is the same for food assistance for families. Costs go up during bad times, as we have seen over the last number of years, but now CBO tells us those costs are going down. Why? Because the economy is getting better and people are able to go back to work. That is how it is supposed to work, and that is how it is working.

Last year we in the Senate passed a farm bill with strong bipartisan support. We didn't take the 16 million Americans who work in agriculture for granted, we didn't take our land and water resources for granted, and we stood for families all across the country who had fallen on hard times.

Unfortunately, at that time the House of Representatives did not follow our lead. They allowed the farm bill to expire at the end of last year, which is why we are here again working through this process.

I appreciate the way we have gotten to this point in a bipartisan way. We have worked very hard to make sure every part of agriculture is addressed in terms of their needs and the risk management tools in this bill.

I thank my colleague from Mississippi Senator Cochran, who is the ranking member of our committee. He and his staff have worked diligently and in a bipartisan way, and that has allowed us to get to this point. So I thank him for that.

I am looking forward to working with colleagues to pass this bill as soon as possible, and we look forward to working with colleagues on amendments throughout this week.

I see my distinguished colleague, our ranking member, is here, and I will turn to him in just a moment. I do want to place one amendment in order at this point, and then we can proceed with our discussions. This is an amendment we have cleared on both sides on behalf of Senator Cantwell.

Amendment No. 919

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 919.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I now take the opportunity to turn to my friend, a great agricultural leader in the Senate.

Before the Senator from Ohio leaves, I want to thank him. He has been an invaluable member of our committee. We would not have the agricultural risk coverage portion and the yield loss coverage portion in this bill were it not for his work, he and Senator Thune working together. We used their bill as the basis for this.

He has also been the champion of rural development. We have investments in rural development we would not have had without his involvement, as well as other efforts in the energy title and throughout the bill. I thank him. We are very lucky to have him as a member of the committee.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I just indicated to the Senator from Arizona that while I have no objection to having a vote on his amendment, I ask that he not proceed with his request at this time. We have an amendment that is pending, and we also have a number of crop insurance amendments we want to do together. I will not object to voting on his amendment, there is no attempt not to do that, but at this point I do object to having his amendment as the pending amendment.

I ask my colleague through the Chair if he would be willing to work with us. I will commit to having a vote on his amendment. This is not an attempt to not vote on his amendment. The ranking member and I have talked, and we are certainly committed to voting on the Senator's amendment; however, we would like to have an opportunity to set up how we will be voting on a series of amendments.

That is correct.

I don't know the exact timing of the vote. There is no attempt to delay. We are just getting started at this point. I will be happy to work with the Senator from Arizona. We are certainly not trying to postpone it to be the last vote. We can certainly do it earlier rather than later, but we would like to have some flexibility to look at a group of amendments we might vote on which relate to the same subject area.

I believe I can speak on behalf of the ranking member in saying we are committed to a vote on the amendment and want to work with Senator McCain as to a time.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment this afternoon to talk about the importance of crop insurance as a risk management tool. I think we will probably have a lot of discussion on the floor about crop insurance, but, as I said, as a matter of policy, we are moving away from direct subsidies. We certainly have not subsidized tobacco growers for a long time, and I would not support doing that.

In general, we are moving away from that into an insurance model where the cost is shared between the Federal Government and growers. We want as many growers as possible to purchase crop insurance rather than have a disaster and then want us to pass a disaster assistance bill. I might add that we didn't have to do that this last time around despite the worst drought in 50, 60, 70 years because the crop insurance worked this last year. Crop insurance covered the losses. It is a very important public-private sector process and partnership.

One of my concerns about carving it up, having limits or removing one crop over another is that we have been moving away from a general policy of insurance. Going down the road, I think that would have a lot of implications and farmers in general would have great concern about that.

I have a tremendous amount of sympathy and, in fact, agreement with the distinguished Senator from Arizona. I sympathize with what my colleague was saying about tobacco as far as the harm to health and so on. When we look overall at crop insurance, the good news is that less than 1 percent of that whole program--I think substantially less than 1 percent--covers tobacco, so that is a good thing.

The larger question for farmers and all of us across the country is, Are we going to make a commitment broadly to the No. 1 risk management tool for them? Are we going to make sure that as we say we are not going to do subsidies anymore, we listen to what they are saying about having a crop insurance system?

There are parallels between that and flood insurance. So as people are proposing various limits on crop insurance, I think it is important to ask would we put that on other types of insurance, such as flood insurance risks or other things. Insurance deals with risks, and it is more about encouraging farmers to have a stake in the game and to be able to cover part of that risk with their own dollars rather than other types of policies we have debated about subsidies.

As we go forward, there will be a lot of different discussions about crop insurance, and I would ask colleagues to join with us in resisting efforts to eliminate or limit what is a public-private insurance system that is, frankly, working very well.

We are so proud that all of the farm organizations and commodity groups--just about all of them--come together to work with the conservation groups and environmentalists. They say that together they are going to both support an insurance model--a risk management model broadly as a matter of policy for agriculture--and they are also going to support linking that to conservation packages. So as a farmer receives that partnership--the piece we kick in--with that brings a commitment for conservation practices for our land, our soil, our water, and so on.

This is very important. This was not the case in the last farm bill or the farm bill before. We have not seen that kind of link, and now they have come together and said they support crop insurance broadly as an insurance model without limits that have been proposed by various people. In return for that, whether it is a very large farm or a small farm, the broad public benefit of having conservation compliance outweighs much of what we are hearing about in terms of the limits being proposed. In terms of the public good, we should have crop insurance that gives this alliance of crop insurance and conservation compliance.

This is a historic agreement, and I stand by that agreement with all of the Members. I believe that whether we are talking about large farmers or small farmers, this is a very important policy, and we need to have conservation compliance involved across the board in our efforts as we expand crop insurance.

We will have a lot of discussion and a lot of debate on this issue. I think it is very tempting to look at one particular crop--certainly a crop that has a lot of health risks related to it and that we have a lot of concerns about in other venues--and say let's just eliminate one crop.

The challenge with that, of course, is as a policy for insurance, there will be deep opposition and concern coming from agriculture--from farmers, large and small, across the country--about starting down that road no matter how noble the cause in terms of the concern about the risks of that particular crop. So we look forward to more discussion, but I think it is very important to put a broad lens on this. We have moved away from subsidies that come regardless of good times or bad, whether they are needed or not, and have moved to a system where we are asking farmers to put some skin in the game. We are saying: You have to get crop insurance; you have to be a part of paying for it, and you don't get any help unless there is a disaster; there is no payout unless there is a disaster. As we move to that broad cornerstone, I hope we can keep that in place and not see efforts that will weaken it around the edges.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Before we move on to other business this evening in the Senate, I would like to encourage all of our Senators to submit whatever amendments they have so we can begin to work through them. We want to work diligently through the amendments and be able to move, obviously, as quickly as possible within reason to be able to put together votes. We would ask all of our colleagues, if they do have amendments, to let us know what they are and to file them as soon as possible so we can begin working on those amendments.

I believe Senator Cochran and I are both in agreement. We are anxious to get going and are looking forward to working with colleagues to vote on and dispose of amendments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kevin Norton, a detailee to our committee, Heather Arnold, John Newton, and Eric Hansen, fellows for the committee, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the debate on S. 954, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013.

Mr. President, first, I wish to thank the chair of our Budget Committee for doing such a terrific job in bringing us all together. I wish to thank my colleagues on the committee. We worked very hard together in order to be able to put together a balanced budget that reflects the values of the American people. It is fair

and balanced in values as well as in numbers, and we did that 46 days ago.

So we passed that 46 days ago after hearing for over 3 years about how the Senate had not passed a budget. By the way, we did pass a law-- this is a caveat--called the Budget Control Act which actually had done the same thing as a budget. Those of us who were on the ballot this last time heard that over and over from our opponents.

So I am stunned that we would now be 46 days--and counting--into a situation where we have been trying to take the budget we passed by a majority vote--by the way, this passed on a majority vote. Each one of us ran for election, and we can win by one vote, and that is the majority. Decisions are made by a majority vote.

We went through 110 amendments. We were here all hours of the night. There were a lot of tired faces by the time we got done, but we got it done, and we made the commitment we were going to get a budget done.

The House did a budget--a very different budget, no question about it. There is no question we have a very different vision of the country. The budget in the House eliminates Medicare as an insurance plan. That is certainly not something I or the majority here would support. We rejected that approach, but that was in their budget. They have a right to put forward their vision for how things should be done.

There were many differences in values and perspectives, and that is what the Democratic process is all about. So we passed a budget by a majority and they passed a budget by a majority. The next step is to negotiate and come up with a final budget. That is the next step, and that is how the process works. We have different views, different perspectives, and then we sit down in something called a conference committee.

We cannot get to that next step. We have had 46 days of trying to get to a point to get it done by working with the House, and all we get is objection after objection after objection. I appreciate that colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have voted for similar budgets to the Ryan Republican budget would have preferred if we would have eliminated Medicare. We didn't do that, and we are not going to do that.

The majority here said we are putting forward a budget that is going to move the country forward and address the deficit and reflect the values around education and innovation and outbuilding the competition in a global economy. We are putting forward our vision. The House has their vision, which cuts innovation and cuts education and does not allow us to build.

We have very different visions. The Democracy we have says: We take both of those visions and then we sit down and try to figure something out. That is the next step.

We are not interested in just being on the floor and counting the days, although we will be on the floor and counting the days. That is not how we want to spend our time. We would rather spend our time listening to our colleagues in a respectful way about very different visions and very different values so we can find a way--if we can--to come together. We need to come together so we can tackle the last part of deficit reduction.

We have gone about $2.5 trillion toward the $4 trillion that everyone says we need to do to begin to turn the corner as it relates to the economy and the deficit. In order to get the rest of it, we need to sit down in a room together and figure it out.

We are going to continue to come to the floor and ask for an agreement. Unfortunately, if there is an objection, we have to go through the whole process of trying to get it done. We are going to keep pushing and pushing until we can get a budget done.

Why is this so important? It is very important because in our bill we stop what everyone feels is a very crazy approach to the final step in deficit reduction, which is to have across-the-board--regardless of value, importance or impact--cuts in the investments and in the discretionary budget of our country.

We know there needs to be spending reductions. We have voted for them. We have already put in place about $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction, and right now about 70 percent of that has been in spending reductions.

The concern that I have and that others in the majority have is that most of those have fallen right in the laps of the middle class, our children, the future through innovation, and seniors. We have said in our budget: No more. No more. We have to look at an approach that is balanced and that says to those who are the wealthiest in our country, who are the most blessed economically: You have to be a part of the solution in a significant way.

We want to look at spending under the Tax Code. How many times do we talk about special deals in the Tax Code, things that don't make sense in terms of spending, special deals that support jobs going overseas rather than keeping them here at home. There is spending in the Tax Code that needs to be addressed so it is more fair for American businesses, for small businesses, for families, for the future of the country. Our budget does that by saying we are going to tackle spending in the Tax Code, we are going to tackle the question of fairness in the code and asking those who are the wealthiest among us to contribute a little bit more to be able to help pay down this deficit, not just cutting Meals On Wheels or Head Start or cancer research, which is what is happening right now.

So the intensity we feel about getting this budget done is to be able to stop the things happening now that are very harmful. We saw the lines at the airports. We don't as readily see the lines of people who can no longer participate, such as people I know, in cancer research efforts that may save lives. We know there is incredibly important research going on in science, in medicine, in agriculture, including food safety and pest and disease control and every area of research where our country, the United States of America, has led the world. And that doesn't show up in lines at the airport, but it does show up in the future of our country. It does show up in the lives of someone who has Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease or breast cancer or other diseases where we are this close to cures, where there is treatment going on that can save lives--is saving lives--and it is stopping.

We don't see the seniors who get Meals On Wheels lining up. They are getting one meal a day right now--one meal a day that allows them a little bit of a visit from a volunteer and one meal a day to eat through Meals On Wheels. Now, because of these irrational cuts, we are told there are waiting lists for one meal a day. How do we have a waiting list for one meal a day? I don't get that.

So we are saying we want to fix the airports; we appreciate that. We want to fix the one meal a day going to somebody's grandma who can't figure out what is going on in terms of the priorities of this country. The children who are getting a head start to be successful in school-- how many times do we all say: Education, the most important thing; children, the most important thing. But because they don't directly have a voice here, as do a lot of other special interest groups, who gets cut first? Our budget values children and families, opportunity, innovation, fairness, and the ability to grow this economy, to create jobs so everyone has the dignity of work.

We want to get to conference committee. We want to get about the business of negotiating a final budget because we do not accept what is happening right now without a budget. Tackle the deficit, yes. Do it in a way that works for growth in America and jobs, do it in a way that supports families, that lifts our children, that respects our elders, yes. That is the budget we voted for in the Senate and the budget we want to see come to completion in this process. We can't get there unless we can negotiate, and that is what this whole discussion is about.

It has been 46 days since we passed a budget. We are ready to go. We are more than ready to go. Let's sit down in a room and work it out. We know it is a negotiation. We know we have to have give-and-take. But we are blocked right now from even getting in the room, and that is wrong. We are going to keep coming every day, and we are going to keep counting the days until our colleagues on the other side of the aisle decide they are willing to get in the room and get a budget done that works for the growth and the families of our country.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Madam President, I would like to speak for a few minutes

today about the importance of getting a budget done today, all the way through the process. Senator Reid, our majority leader, last evening spoke again about the fact that we have had 15 days now of trying to just come together to create a conference committee to work out differences between the House and the Senate on a budget. For some reason, after talk for the last 3 years that I can remember from colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying that we need regular order, we need regular order, we need to get a budget done, they now are objecting to getting a budget done, which is extraordinary. The fact is that we cannot get a budget done if the House and the Senate do not appoint conferees and sit down and negotiate differences.

There are huge differences, I might add, between the House and the Senate. It is true that we will not accept, in the Senate, eliminating Medicare as an insurance plan for seniors and the disabled in this country, which the House does in their plan, turning it into a government voucher, putting seniors back into the private sector to try to find insurance. We certainly will not accept that, it is true. There are other areas of that budget we absolutely will not accept, but we know the first step in coming together to find something we can accept is to sit down and talk. I mean, I am very proud of what we were able to do in March. We had 110 amendments. We all remember. We were here until the wee hours of the morning. We got a budget done in regular order.

We have been hearing from colleagues across the aisle that we need to have regular order. I support that. In fact, I was proud of the fact that last year we did a farm bill in regular order and plowed through 73 amendments and worked together and passed a bipartisan bill. We hope we are going to be bringing a bill to the floor very soon as well to do it again.

I am a huge supporter of giving people an opportunity to state their differences, to be able to work out amendments, and to be able to get a bill done. We did that with 50 hours of debate on the budget, 110 amendments that we took up. We got it done. Now, all of a sudden, colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not want regular order anymore. They have decided somehow that actively blocking us from actually getting a budget for the Nation is more advantageous to them for some reason or something that appeals to them more than actually getting the budget done.

I urge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take another look at this, to look at their own words over the last number of years. Our colleague from Texas who objected to the majority leader's motion to actually do the next step and get a budget done said back in January on national television: We have a crisis. Well, what was the crisis he was talking about?

There is no doubt the Senate has not done its job. The

Senate should pass a budget.

Well, we did. We passed a budget. It may not be something my colleague from Texas supported. That is the democratic process. The majority of people agreed in this body, and we passed a budget. He may be more inclined to support the House budget, which eliminates Medicare as an insurance plan and does a number of other things that I think go right to the heart of middle-class families and so on. That is his right. That is a right we all have, to have a position as to which budget we support. But we also know that in the democratic process under our Constitution--and we all talk about the Constitution and the democratic process--the way we actually get to a final budget is to get folks in a room to talk, to negotiate, and to see if there is some way to work issues out. We are now being blocked from being able to get in the room to talk to each other.

The American people want us to talk, want us to negotiate, want us to work things out. That is what we ought to be doing. So I would strongly urge that we move to conference. I do not know why in the world anyone would be objecting to putting together a group of people, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans in the House, to sit down and work out the priorities for our country.

Will we have different perspectives on Medicare, whether we should have Medicare? Yes, we will. Will we have different perspectives on where the brunt of the cutbacks should be and whether middle-class families have been hit enough, which I believe they have? Yes, we will have a disagreement on how to balance the budget. But we all know that we need to get the job done. We have done our part in passing a Senate budget. The House passed a House budget. It is a very different vision of the world, different vision of what should happen in terms of innovation, education, and investing in the future of our country--very different views. But those views deserve to be aired sitting around a conference table to try to work out some way to come together to pass a budget.

I urge colleagues to stop obstructing, stop stalling, allow us to move forward in a balanced way, and give us the opportunity to do what everyone in the country wants us to do, which is to come up with a bipartisan, balanced, fair budget for the country.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we are about to enter into an incredibly important debate about a series of issues relating to violence-- specifically, gun violence--in our communities all across America.

Today I rise to speak about a very important bipartisan amendment I will be offering with Senator Roy Blunt and others called the Excellence in Mental Health Act. This addresses a very important piece of the discussion. It is an opportunity for us to come together amidst a lot of controversial debate and agree on something that is a very important piece of the puzzle--having access to comprehensive, quality mental health services.

This weekend we heard from Francine Wheeler, whose 6-year-old son Ben was murdered on December 14 in Newtown, CT. We know that Ben was one of 26 people--20 children--who lost their lives. I can only begin to imagine what all of us as parents would feel in that situation. For those 26 victims and the 3,300 other Americans killed since then in acts of gun violence, it is time to take action. I am hopeful, given the strong bipartisan vote we had to move forward on this debate, that we can actually have the debate, that people will have their say and then vote on this very important issue.

The bill before us is a commonsense effort toward comprehensive background checks that will help save lives. I am very supportive of not only that provision but others that will be offered as well.

One important piece that hasn't been in the headlines as much but is very important in getting it right is the need for better access to comprehensive mental health services. That is why we need the bipartisan Excellence in Mental Health Act passed as an amendment that will increase access to care and improve the quality of life for those who need it.

We know that a person who does not receive treatment after his or her first psychotic episode is 15 times more likely to commit a violent act. But let me

be clear. We also know that the vast majority of those who are living with mental illnesses are more likely to be a victim of crime than to be a perpetrator of crime. But tragedies do happen when treatment and help are not available.

In too many instances today we are seeing that there is not effective help available to people in communities. The current lack of access to mental health services means too often it is the local police who are responding to psychiatric emergencies, and they may not have services to which to take someone. These police officers are being diverted from what they should be doing--responding to other crimes--and so they take people to jail rather than have them get the services they need. They are spending resources incarcerating people who would otherwise need to be and should be in a treatment situation.

That is why we have law enforcement supporting this amendment. We have over 50 organizations--from law enforcement and community mental health and health groups, as well as those who represent our brave veterans home from the war--supporting us because they know that if we don't have quality service in the community, we will continue to see people in jail who shouldn't be in jail, we will continue to see families and individuals not getting the help they need, and in some circumstances we will see more tragedies occur as well.

Over the course of this week, we are going to hear a lot of debate about different aspects of gun safety. Colleagues are going to disagree about the manner of background checks or limits on assault weapons. But I hope there will be no disagreement that people with serious mental illnesses should be given effective treatment and that we can do a better job in our country to make sure treatment is readily available in a community setting. That should be the hopeful part of this whole debate.

Science has shown us significant advances in the study of the brain and the most effective mental health treatments. There are solutions if people get the help they need. They can live healthy, productive lives rather than struggling with their illness. And I applaud President Obama's historic brain mapping initiative to expand that knowledge even more.

It is amazing to me that we have so many studies relating to heart disease, kidney disease, or diabetes, and yet all of the issues relating to the brain--whether it is bipolar disorder or Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease or schizophrenia--we have not tackled with the same vigor. There are solutions. We are finding those every day. There is hope. Today, thanks to cutting-edge research, we have answers for people living with severe mental illnesses. We have proven therapies, treatment options, and medicines that truly transform lives.

I speak as someone who lived, as a daughter, through a time when we did not have appropriate treatments. When I was growing up, in middle school and high school, my father had bipolar disease. At that time we didn't know what it was. He was misdiagnosed for 10 years. At that time everybody was schizophrenic. There was no understanding that we actually have chemical imbalances in the brain, just as someone who isn't monitoring their sugar because they are diabetic might have. They need to monitor that in order to take medicine to keep them on an equilibrium so they do not get sick and have problems. We have the same thing with something called mood disorders in our country, and we have learned much about it. If someone is taking the right medicine, it stops the imbalance where they are either manic or severely depressed.

There are solutions. When my dad was finally diagnosed correctly and received the help he needed and the medicine--at the time it was lithium--he went on to lead a very productive life for the rest of his days. So I have seen both what happens when people don't get treatment and when people do, and we literally have the opportunity to take this next step in order to make sure people all across our country get the help they need.

Unfortunately, today one-third of all bipolar disorders do not get any treatment even when we know there are absolute answers for individuals and families. Shame on us for not making sure those are readily available. The amendment I will be offering would make sure those are available and close what I believe is the final step in what we have called mental health parity.

We, as a group, on a bipartisan basis passed legislation authored by our dear departed Paul Wellstone and Senator Pete Domenici, with strong advocacy from Senator Ted Kennedy, to provide parity under health insurance between physical and mental health services. We passed that. We have now gone on to strengthen that with the new health reforms that are in place. The only place where we don't have mental health parity right now is in the community outside of the insurance system. We do not have the same parity between what we do through a community health clinic receiving reimbursement for preventive care for health services and what we do for behavioral health--mental health, substance abuse-- which is what we are going to fix with this amendment. We want to make sure we are focusing comprehensively in the community.

As part of this, I also wish to talk about another tragedy facing our country; that is, the loss of so many of our heroes from Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a very important part of this story and part of what our amendment will address in a very positive way. Men and women who survive the horrors of war are ending up taking their own lives when they come home. Twenty-two veterans a day commit suicide, 22 a day today, yesterday, and tomorrow. They and their families, all those in that situation, need to know there is help available for them. That is why we have very strong support from veterans, the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organizations, which were very pleased to have stood with us last week when we did a press conference with veterans to focus on this important part of the puzzle.

We know that one in four veterans coming home needs some kind of mental health support, so we want to make sure that if they are in a rural community in northern Michigan and it is 3 or 4 hours to drive to the VA, they instead could receive some help in their own community-- working with the VA but receiving help in their own community--and that is what this does. We want to make sure that our veterans are fully receiving the services promised them and that comprehensive health care will be available to them when they come home.

I would like to share just one story from our press conference.

Jennifer Crane joined us. She is a veteran of the war in Afghanistan. This October will mark 10 years since she returned home, but she says, ``The experiences live inside of me like it was yesterday.'' She suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. She couldn't sleep. She self-medicated and ended up homeless and in trouble with law enforcement. But when she got the help she needed at a community mental health center, it transformed her life. She met the man who would become her husband. She is now going to have a baby and now works with Give an Hour, which is a wonderful organization that helps veterans get the mental health services they need, and they are strongly supporting what we are doing as well.

Jennifer could have ended up a statistic, but she got the help she needed. We need to give every one of our heroes coming home from war the same opportunity. That is why the Excellence in Mental Health Act is so important as a part of all of this effort.

We have come a long way, in a bipartisan way, to recognize the need for mental health treatment. As I mentioned before, the wonderful partnership of Senators Domenici, Wellstone, and Kennedy paved the way for us to more fully understand that when we talk about comprehensive health services, we shouldn't stop at the neck--from the neck down, one set of rules; from the neck up, another set of rules--that, in fact, we are talking about comprehensive care. We need to make sure we lose that stigma and focus instead on what we can do to help people receive the services they need. This amendment takes those efforts across the finish line by expanding access to community mental health services.

I knew there would be a lot of controversial debate, but I hope in the end we will be able to come together, as we have on this amendment. I am very appreciative of the bipartisan support. I

want to thank Senator Roy Blunt again on our Excellence in Mental Health Act, as well as Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Susan Collins, Senator Lisa Murkowski, and others who have expressed their support as well. This is an opportunity for us to come together, as we have in the past, and do the right thing for millions of families dealing with mental illnesses that are treatable. The good news is there is hope now. There are actually answers now to so many mental illnesses. By passing our bipartisan Excellence in Mental Health Act we can prevent tragedies from happening in families all over our country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lara Flint, a detailee on the Senate Judiciary Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of calendar year 2013.

Before my colleague yields, first I am speaking and taking time off the resolution, but I wish to inquire of my colleague from Wisconsin as to how long he will be speaking, for the information of the body. It was my understanding there had been an informal discussion about having the majority start speaking on the resolution at 12:45. So just for the purposes of colleagues, I wanted to check on how long he thought he would be speaking.

I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. President, I will be speaking off of the time on the resolution for a moment and then deferring to Senator Mikulski in yielding time to her, as well as our great colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, and others who wish to speak as we proceed with the debate on this resolution.

Let me take a moment and say that today the House has passed their budget called the Ryan Republican budget, and it effectively rolls back health care for women in this country. Our budget does exactly the opposite. We protect and strengthen access to health care for women.

Under health care reform, which we strengthen and support in our budget, health insurance plans, as we know, are required to cover women's preventive care, things such as annual wellness visits, domestic violence screenings, and contraception, without copays, coinsurance, or deductibles. The Republican budget that was passed today would take away those protections. Under the budget they passed today, 1.3 million women in Michigan alone could lose their health care.

Insurance plans are now--under what we have passed--not allowed to discriminate against women. That is part of health reform. Being a woman is not a preexisting condition anymore. You cannot charge higher rates, you cannot discriminate in other ways against women in the marketplace when they are looking to buy insurance. And it would prohibit insurance companies from denying access to health insurance for a variety of things, such as being a domestic violence survivor. The Republican budget in the House would take away those critical protections.

Until we passed health reform, as many as 60 percent of the individual insurance plans in this country did not offer basic maternity care, which I think is shocking. I know that whenever I talk with folks about that, they cannot believe that basic prenatal care, which is so important for babies, for women, was not provided. Now it is under our definition of health care.

The Ryan Republican budget would mean that 1 million women and children would not have access to maternal or child health services in Michigan alone. It would mean that 6,000 fewer women in Michigan would get cancer screenings that could save their lives and that nearly 16,000 children would not get the vaccinations they need to remain healthy.

That is just one area of many reasons why we need to support the budget Senator Murray and our committee have put before this body. This is about focusing on women's health, on middle-class growth in terms of education and innovation, and on infrastructure investments to grow our economy. It is important that we are having this debate, and it is important that the women of the country understand that the budget we have before the Senate, the Democratic budget, places women as a priority--their health, the economy for their families, being able to balance their own budgets, and being able to provide futures for their children.

I would now like to yield time off the resolution to our great leader from Maryland, the chair of the Appropriations Committee, a person who, as we know, showed extraordinary leadership in the last few weeks on the floor in a very challenging time, dealing with the current budget, which we have now successfully passed. She also is our leader as it relates to women's health care and the provisions on women's health care in health reform that are now impacting and saving women's lives.

I yield time off the resolution--as much time as she would consume-- to Senator Mikulski.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank my colleague, the terrific chair of the Budget Committee, who has worked so hard in putting together the budget.

I wish to speak for a moment on the amendment I will be offering in a few

moments that relates to Medicare and protecting Medicare for future generations by keeping it as an intact insurance plan. There are very different visions, as we all know, and this will be an opportunity tonight to vote on which vision we support.

The House, under the Ryan Republican plan, has eliminated Medicare as we know it and replaced it with a voucher program which only covers part of the costs, increasing costs for seniors of around $6,000 per person. They would have to go back into the private insurance market and try to find insurance that would work for them.

We very clearly say that Medicare is a great American success story. We have created a generation of seniors such as my mom and future generations who will be able to live longer, healthier lives, play with their grandchildren and great-grandchildren because of something they have paid into all of their lives called Medicare.

When we look at the choices, even the people who invented this whole idea passed by the House have said that the proposals ``lack safeguards for beneficiaries and threaten to shift costs to the elderly and disabled and force them to shop for coverage in a confusing insurance market.''

That is what the folks who came up with the Republican idea are saying. Even Chairman Ryan's own description of his plan admits: ``We are stopping the open-ended, defined benefit system.''

In other words, the Republican plan will end Medicare and end its guaranteed benefits--benefits that seniors have paid into throughout their lives, for the security of knowing they have a health insurance plan; they won't have to go out and try to figure out how to find private insurance and then have a voucher to pay for part of it.

To add insult to injury, what is most concerning is the money that is taken away from seniors, the costs that are added, the savings in the Republican budget, don't go to save Medicare, they go to give another round of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. One more time we are seeing seniors, as we have seen middle-class families, as we have seen the vulnerable in our communities, find themselves sacrificing over and over again so the wealthiest among us, the well-connected, can get another special tax deal.

My amendment makes it very clear. If Members vote for my amendment, they are voting for Medicare. If Members vote against it, they are voting for the Republican plan that dismantles Medicare as we know it and takes the money and turns it around and gives it to another tax cut for the wealthy.

The other side of the aisle and those on the other side of the building have called the Ryan Republican plan a balanced plan. It is certainly not balanced for seniors. It is anything but balanced for the middle class. I hope when the opportunity comes we will see a very strong vote in support of my amendment to guarantee Medicare going forward for our seniors.

Thank you very much.

Madam President, this is a very simple, straightforward amendment. A ``yes'' vote supports Medicare as an ongoing insurance plan. A ``no'' vote sides with what the House of Representatives has done with the Ryan Republican budget: dismantling Medicare, turning it into a voucher program, adding $6,000 on average in costs to seniors and, adding insult to injury, their budget takes the money, doesn't strengthen Medicare but provides another tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, averaging about $245,000 for those at the very top. Please vote yes. Let seniors know in this country what they have paid into their entire lives will be there for them and the great American success story of Medicare will remain strong for the future.