Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleagues, Senators Boxer, Kirk, Menendez, and Shaheen, in introducing the International Violence Against Women Act of 2014. This bill makes ending violence against women and girls a top diplomatic priority. It would permanently authorize the State Department's Office of Global Women's Issues and the position of the Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues.

It requires the administration to develop and implement an annual strategy to prevent and respond to violence against women and girls for each of the next 5 years. This legislation will ensure that the efforts begun under President George W. Bush and continued by President Barack Obama to combat gender-based violence will be a priority for future administrations as well.

We have witnessed great strides in women's equality in our own country and in much of the developed world over the past century. Across vast swaths of the globe, however, violence against women and forced marriages are everyday occurrences. One out of three women worldwide will be physically, sexually or otherwise abused during her lifetime, with rates reaching 70 percent in some countries.

This violence ranges from domestic violence to rape and acid burnings, to dowry deaths and so-called honor killings. Such violence is often exacerbated in humanitarian emergencies and conflict settings. Violence against women and girls is a human rights issue, a public health epidemic, and a barrier to solving global challenges such as extreme poverty, HIV/AIDS, and conflict.

The world has just seen an appalling example of women and girls being treated as property and bargaining chips in Nigeria, where the terrorist group Boko Haram kidnapped nearly 300 school girls and is threatening to sell them into sexual slavery and into forced marriages. Tragically, there are reports that some have already been sold into child marriages. Boko Haram's leaders said the girls should get married and never be educated. He has said:

I will marry off a woman at the age of 12. I will marry off

a girl at the age of 9.

In fact, the very name of this terrorist group roughly translates to the phrase ``Western education is sinful.'' Sadly, this is a viewpoint that is not just limited to terrorist leaders, though it is difficult to think of a more egregious example of abuse against girls than what we have just witnessed in Nigeria. The International Center for Research on Women says that one in nine girls around the world is married before the age of 15, a harmful practice that deprives girls of their dignity and often their education, increases their health risks, and perpetuates poverty. The practice of preventing women from attaining their full potential by targeting them for violence and early marriage is still far too common in far too many countries around the world.

The International Violence Against Women Act ensures that our country will take a leadership role in combating these problems. It establishes that it is the policy of the United States to take action to prevent and respond to violence against women and girls around the globe and to integrate and coordinate efforts to address gender-based violence into U.S. foreign policy and foreign assistance programs.

Specifically, our bill will foster efforts in four areas. First, it will increase legal and judicial protections by supporting laws and legal structures that prevent and appropriately respond to all forms of violence against women and girls, including honor killings and forced marriages. For example, our bill will support our State Department's work with other countries to help those nations reform their legal systems by providing technical expertise and model laws and building the capacity of their police and judges.

Second, our bill will increase efforts to build health sector capacity, integrating programs to address violence against women and girls into existing health care programs focused on children's survival, women's health, and HIV/AIDS prevention.

Third, our legislation will focus on preventing violence by changing community norms and attitudes against the acceptability of violence against women and girls.

Fourth, our bill will focus on reducing females' vulnerability to violence by improving their economic status and educational opportunities. Efforts would include ensuring that women have access to job training and employment opportunities and increasing their right to own land and property, allowing them potentially to support themselves and their children.

Our bill will require the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally to identify 5 to 20 eligible low- and middle-income countries for which comprehensive individual country plans would be developed. The bill requires that at least 10 percent of U.S. assistance to prevent and respond to violence against females be provided to nongovernmental organizations, with priority given to those headed by women.

As the Presiding Officer well knows, violence has a profoundly negative impact on the lives of women and girls. In addition to being a pressing human rights issue, such violence contributes to inequality and political instability, making it a security issue as well as a moral issue for all of us.

I am committed to working with my colleagues to end violence against women and girls and to provide the assistance and resources necessary to achieve this goal, and I am pleased to be the principal cosponsor of Senator Boxer's bill.

Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleagues, Senators Boxer, Kirk, Menendez, and Shaheen, in introducing the International Violence Against Women Act of 2014. This bill makes ending violence against women and girls a top diplomatic priority. It would permanently authorize the State Department's Office of Global Women's Issues and the position of the Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues.

It requires the administration to develop and implement an annual strategy to prevent and respond to violence against women and girls for each of the next 5 years. This legislation will ensure that the efforts begun under President George W. Bush and continued by President Barack Obama to combat gender-based violence will be a priority for future administrations as well.

We have witnessed great strides in women's equality in our own country and in much of the developed world over the past century. Across vast swaths of the globe, however, violence against women and forced marriages are everyday occurrences. One out of three women worldwide will be physically, sexually or otherwise abused during her lifetime, with rates reaching 70 percent in some countries.

This violence ranges from domestic violence to rape and acid burnings, to dowry deaths and so-called honor killings. Such violence is often exacerbated in humanitarian emergencies and conflict settings. Violence against women and girls is a human rights issue, a public health epidemic, and a barrier to solving global challenges such as extreme poverty, HIV/AIDS, and conflict.

The world has just seen an appalling example of women and girls being treated as property and bargaining chips in Nigeria, where the terrorist group Boko Haram kidnapped nearly 300 school girls and is threatening to sell them into sexual slavery and into forced marriages. Tragically, there are reports that some have already been sold into child marriages. Boko Haram's leaders said the girls should get married and never be educated. He has said:

I will marry off a woman at the age of 12. I will marry off

a girl at the age of 9.

In fact, the very name of this terrorist group roughly translates to the phrase ``Western education is sinful.'' Sadly, this is a viewpoint that is not just limited to terrorist leaders, though it is difficult to think of a more egregious example of abuse against girls than what we have just witnessed in Nigeria. The International Center for Research on Women says that one in nine girls around the world is married before the age of 15, a harmful practice that deprives girls of their dignity and often their education, increases their health risks, and perpetuates poverty. The practice of preventing women from attaining their full potential by targeting them for violence and early marriage is still far too common in far too many countries around the world.

The International Violence Against Women Act ensures that our country will take a leadership role in combating these problems. It establishes that it is the policy of the United States to take action to prevent and respond to violence against women and girls around the globe and to integrate and coordinate efforts to address gender-based violence into U.S. foreign policy and foreign assistance programs.

Specifically, our bill will foster efforts in four areas. First, it will increase legal and judicial protections by supporting laws and legal structures that prevent and appropriately respond to all forms of violence against women and girls, including honor killings and forced marriages. For example, our bill will support our State Department's work with other countries to help those nations reform their legal systems by providing technical expertise and model laws and building the capacity of their police and judges.

Second, our bill will increase efforts to build health sector capacity, integrating programs to address violence against women and girls into existing health care programs focused on children's survival, women's health, and HIV/AIDS prevention.

Third, our legislation will focus on preventing violence by changing community norms and attitudes against the acceptability of violence against women and girls.

Fourth, our bill will focus on reducing females' vulnerability to violence by improving their economic status and educational opportunities. Efforts would include ensuring that women have access to job training and employment opportunities and increasing their right to own land and property, allowing them potentially to support themselves and their children.

Our bill will require the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally to identify 5 to 20 eligible low- and middle-income countries for which comprehensive individual country plans would be developed. The bill requires that at least 10 percent of U.S. assistance to prevent and respond to violence against females be provided to nongovernmental organizations, with priority given to those headed by women.

As the Presiding Officer well knows, violence has a profoundly negative impact on the lives of women and girls. In addition to being a pressing human rights issue, such violence contributes to inequality and political instability, making it a security issue as well as a moral issue for all of us.

I am committed to working with my colleagues to end violence against women and girls and to provide the assistance and resources necessary to achieve this goal, and I am pleased to be the principal cosponsor of Senator Boxer's bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sarah Groen, a State Department fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this day.

Mr. President, I would like to engage my fellow Senator from Maine in a colloquy regarding a new citizen-led education enterprise in our great State, the Aroostook Aspirations Initiative,

Madam President, I am very pleased to join my colleague from Maine, Senator King, in supporting the nomination of Justice Jon

Levy to the U.S. District Court for the State of Maine.

As Senator King has pointed out, Justice Levy has had a long career as an attorney and as a judge in our great State. His experience makes him well qualified for Maine's Federal district court. He was appointed to the bench by my colleague, Senator King, when he was Governor, and Justice Levy currently serves as an associate justice on the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, a position he has held for more than a decade.

Justice Levy's legal skills have been evident for many years. After his graduation from law school where he was an editor of the law review, he clerked in the Southern District of West Virginia. Later, he was appointed to the position of special monitor in the U.S. district court for southern Texas.

In 1982, Jon and his wife had the good sense to relocate to Maine, and Jon entered private practice in York. Although his practice spanned a range of civil and criminal matters, he quickly distinguished himself in the area of family law. Jon literally wrote the book on family law. He is the author of ``Maine Family Law,'' which is a key resource on the subject for Maine's attorneys.

As both an attorney and a judge, Jon has remained very active with the local bar association and several State committees, working to improve the administration of justice in Maine. He has served as president of the York County Bar Association and received its Outstanding Member Award in 2006. He was also honored with the Maine State Bar Association's Family Law Achievement Award in 2001.

Justice Levy has been an advocate for advancing access to civil justice in Maine. He has championed initiatives to improve pro bono representation for Maine's elderly and low-income people and affordable representation for other Mainers in need of legal assistance. In the same vein, he helped to launch the Katahdin Counsel Recognition Program, an annual statewide program that honors Maine attorneys who provide more than 50 hours of pro bono service per year.

Justice Levy has also advocated for these efforts nationally, and recently joined the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants. He has worked with Maine's Juvenile Drug Treatment Court in Maine's York County, which has seen numerous successes over the years.

This combination of experiences that Justice Levy brings to the court--his experience as a private attorney I think is so important; his experience as a State judge is so critical, as is his experience in family law, in pro bono representation--makes him a well-rounded individual to serve on our courts. Many times our judges are chosen just from the ranks of either academia or because they have previously served on the bench.

Judge Levy brings both private sector and judicial experience to this important post. I believe he will serve the people of Maine and the Nation with distinction, intelligence, and integrity. So I urge my colleagues to support this nomination when we vote later today.

Again, I commend my colleague from Maine for having the good sense to start Justice Levy on this path which, I believe later today, will lead to his confirmation as a Federal judge.

Thank you, Madam President. Seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I wish to comment on the vote we took earlier today on whether to proceed to a bill that would increase the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.

It has been several years since we increased the minimum wage, and I support an increase in the minimum wage. But I do not believe at a time when our economy is so fragile, as is indicated by the very slow increase in GDP that was reported this morning, we can afford to increase the minimum wage by some 39 percent.

I would note that just a year ago President Obama was suggesting we should increase the minimum wage to $9 an hour. I do not see any change in the economic conditions that would have caused him to abruptly change his position and now be advocating $10.10 an hour.

I know there are many low-income families who are really struggling in this country, and I believe our economy could accommodate an increase in the minimum wage. But the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan entity, has told us the consequences of going to $10.10 an hour would be a loss of some 500,000 jobs--at a time when our economy simply cannot afford that kind of loss.

I have talked with numerous employers in Maine. They care deeply about their employees. They, in most cases, are willing and able to pay more. In fact, many of them do pay more. In fact, all of them pay more than the Federal minimum wage because Maine's minimum wage is $7.50 an hour rather than $7.25 an hour. So we are already above the Federal minimum wage.

But what they told me is that if there is too much of an increase too rapidly, they will be forced to shrink their workforces or not bring on those summer part-time employees, those high school students, those college students, those individuals who do not have the training and experience that are necessary to be productive in the job for which they are hired at that time.

There is a huge area of compromise available here between $7.25 and $10.10. I think it speaks to what is wrong with Washington today that we were placed in a situation where it was take it or leave it rather than our trying to come together and offer amendments and debate the level that might be acceptable to Members of this body and our colleagues in the House--a level that would not cause dramatic job losses, which would hurt the very people we are trying to help, and yet would recognize we do need to increase the minimum wage by a reasonable amount to help struggling low-income families.

So I have to express my disappointment and frustration that we cannot seem to have a normal legislative process, where ideas could be offered as amendments, as compromises between $7.25 and $10.10, where Members could bring other ideas to the Senate floor on how we might spur job creation, on how we could improve job training programs, which is a huge issue in this country.

I have talked to so many employers in Maine, particularly in the trades, who have jobs available but cannot find the skilled workers to fill those jobs. I had a terrific and enlightening meeting with union representatives from Bath Iron Works, who told me we need to do a better job at our community colleges in training workers for the great jobs--far above minimum wage--that exist at Bath Iron Works in my State.

So there are so many ideas out there that would help us improve the financial condition of our low-income families--from increasing the minimum wage by an amount that does not cause massive job losses, to improving our job training programs so we can fix this mismatch between the jobs that are available and the skills that our workers have.

I would note that the Department of Commerce Secretary testified there are 4 million jobs that are unfilled nationwide because of that mismatch in available jobs to the skills needed to fill them.

There are other proposals to give tax incentives to small businesses. We have allowed a very important tax incentive that encouraged hiring to expire at the end of last year. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit expired. Why not extend that--not only to those groups who qualify now, but also to people who have been unemployed for a long time, to encourage employers to take a chance on them, to bring them back into the workforce, where they want to be.

We could also include other provisions. For example, I have a bipartisan bill with Senator Donnelly and Senator Manchin and Members on my side of the aisle that would fix the definition of full-time work under ObamaCare so it would be 40 hours a week and not 30 hours a week. We would go back to the standard definition of 40 hours a week.

There are tax incentives having to do with bonus depreciation and small

business expensing that would encourage small businesses to make the investments so they can hire more employees.

We ought to have a full debate on all of these options, not just stop with one vote on whether to proceed to one bill to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, with no amendments allowed, with no alternative proposals being permitted.

I so believe if we could get back to the normal way of doing business, we would so much better serve the people of this country, including low-income workers who are struggling to get by. I believe we could come up with a compromise that would enjoy bipartisan support. I am not saying it would be easy, but we ought to at least try. I have talked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are willing to try, and we need to be given that opportunity.

Each and every Member in this body cares about individuals who are working two jobs, who may have two minimum-wage jobs because they are trying to support their families. I think we could come together. But we cannot come together unless we are allowed to offer alternatives, to fully debate the issues, and to bring forth ideas to improve our job training programs and to encourage the creation of more jobs, as well as better-paying jobs, in what, unfortunately, remains a very anemic economy.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am delighted to be joined today by my colleagues, Mike Johanns and Sherrod Brown, in introducing the Insurance Capital Standards Clarification Act of 2014. We are pleased to be joined by Senators Kirk and Tester as cosponsors. This legislation clarifies the Federal Reserve's authority to recognize

the distinctions between banking and insurance when implementing section 171 of the Dodd-Frank Act, commonly referred to as the ``Collins Amendment'' since I wrote this provision of the law.

Before I describe our bill in detail, I would like to provide some background on section 171 and why it is so important that nothing be done to diminish or weaken it.

We all recall the circumstances we faced 4 years ago, as our Nation was emerging from the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression. That crisis had many causes, but among the most important was the fact that some of our nation's largest financial institutions were dangerously undercapitalized, while at the same time, they held interconnected assets and liabilities that could not be disentangled in the midst of a crisis.

The failure of these over-leveraged financial institutions threatened to bring the American economy to its knees. As a consequence, the federal government was forced to step in to prop-up financial institutions that were considered ``too big to fail.'' Little has angered the American public more than these taxpayer-funded bailouts.

That is the context in which I offered my capital standards amendment, which became section 171 of Dodd-Frank. Section 171 is aimed at addressing the ``too big to fail'' problem at the root of the 2008- 2009 crisis by requiring large financial holding companies to maintain a level of capital at least as high as that required for our nation's community banks, equalizing their minimum capital requirements, and eliminating the incentive for banks to become ``too big to fail.''

Incredibly, prior to the passage of Section 171, the capital and risk standards for our Nation's largest financial institutions were more lax than those that applied to smaller depository banks, even though the failure of larger institutions was much more likely to trigger the kind of cascade of economic harm that we experienced during the crisis. Section 171 gave the regulators the tools, and the direction, to fix this problem.

It is important to recognize that Section 171 allows the federal regulators to take into account the significant distinctions between banking and insurance, and the implications of those distinctions for capital adequacy. I have written to the financial regulators on more than one occasion to underscore this point. For example, in a November 26, 2012, letter I stressed that it was not Congress's intent to replace State-based insurance regulation with a bank-centric capital regime. For that reason, I called upon the federal regulators to acknowledge the distinctions between banking and insurance, and to take those distinctions into account in the final rules implementing Section 171.

While the Federal Reserve has acknowledged the important distinctions between insurance and banking, it has repeatedly suggested that it lacks authority to take those distinctions into account when implementing the consolidated capital standards required by Section 171. As I have already said, I do not agree that the Fed lacks this authority and find its disregard of my clear intent as the author of section 171 to be frustrating, to say the least. Experts testifying before the Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection subcommittee of the Senate Banking Committee, chaired by Senator Brown, concur that the Federal Reserve has ample authority to draw these distinctions.

Nevertheless, the bill we are introducing today clarifies the Federal Reserve's authority to recognize the distinctions between insurance and banking.

Specifically, our legislation would add language to section 171 to clarify that, in establishing minimum capital requirements for holding companies on a consolidated basis, the Federal Reserve is not required to include insurance activities so long as those activities are regulated as insurance at the State level. Our legislation also provides a mechanism for the Federal Reserve, acting in consultation with the appropriate State insurance authority, to provide similar treatment for foreign insurance entities within a U.S. holding company where that entity does not itself do business in the United States. In addition, our legislation directs the Fed not to require insurers which file holding company financial statements using Statutory Accounting Principles to instead prepare their financial statements using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

I should point out that our legislation does not, in any way, modify or supersede any other provision of law upon which the Federal Reserve may rely to set appropriate holding company capital requirements.

In closing, I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Brown and Johanns, for working so hard with me over many months to help craft the language we are introducing today. I believe our language removes any doubt about the Federal Reserve's authority to address the legitimate concerns raised by insurers that they not have a bank-centric capital regime for their insurance activities imposed upon them. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am delighted to be joined today by my colleagues, Mike Johanns and Sherrod Brown, in introducing the Insurance Capital Standards Clarification Act of 2014. We are pleased to be joined by Senators Kirk and Tester as cosponsors. This legislation clarifies the Federal Reserve's authority to recognize

the distinctions between banking and insurance when implementing section 171 of the Dodd-Frank Act, commonly referred to as the ``Collins Amendment'' since I wrote this provision of the law.

Before I describe our bill in detail, I would like to provide some background on section 171 and why it is so important that nothing be done to diminish or weaken it.

We all recall the circumstances we faced 4 years ago, as our Nation was emerging from the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression. That crisis had many causes, but among the most important was the fact that some of our nation's largest financial institutions were dangerously undercapitalized, while at the same time, they held interconnected assets and liabilities that could not be disentangled in the midst of a crisis.

The failure of these over-leveraged financial institutions threatened to bring the American economy to its knees. As a consequence, the federal government was forced to step in to prop-up financial institutions that were considered ``too big to fail.'' Little has angered the American public more than these taxpayer-funded bailouts.

That is the context in which I offered my capital standards amendment, which became section 171 of Dodd-Frank. Section 171 is aimed at addressing the ``too big to fail'' problem at the root of the 2008- 2009 crisis by requiring large financial holding companies to maintain a level of capital at least as high as that required for our nation's community banks, equalizing their minimum capital requirements, and eliminating the incentive for banks to become ``too big to fail.''

Incredibly, prior to the passage of Section 171, the capital and risk standards for our Nation's largest financial institutions were more lax than those that applied to smaller depository banks, even though the failure of larger institutions was much more likely to trigger the kind of cascade of economic harm that we experienced during the crisis. Section 171 gave the regulators the tools, and the direction, to fix this problem.

It is important to recognize that Section 171 allows the federal regulators to take into account the significant distinctions between banking and insurance, and the implications of those distinctions for capital adequacy. I have written to the financial regulators on more than one occasion to underscore this point. For example, in a November 26, 2012, letter I stressed that it was not Congress's intent to replace State-based insurance regulation with a bank-centric capital regime. For that reason, I called upon the federal regulators to acknowledge the distinctions between banking and insurance, and to take those distinctions into account in the final rules implementing Section 171.

While the Federal Reserve has acknowledged the important distinctions between insurance and banking, it has repeatedly suggested that it lacks authority to take those distinctions into account when implementing the consolidated capital standards required by Section 171. As I have already said, I do not agree that the Fed lacks this authority and find its disregard of my clear intent as the author of section 171 to be frustrating, to say the least. Experts testifying before the Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection subcommittee of the Senate Banking Committee, chaired by Senator Brown, concur that the Federal Reserve has ample authority to draw these distinctions.

Nevertheless, the bill we are introducing today clarifies the Federal Reserve's authority to recognize the distinctions between insurance and banking.

Specifically, our legislation would add language to section 171 to clarify that, in establishing minimum capital requirements for holding companies on a consolidated basis, the Federal Reserve is not required to include insurance activities so long as those activities are regulated as insurance at the State level. Our legislation also provides a mechanism for the Federal Reserve, acting in consultation with the appropriate State insurance authority, to provide similar treatment for foreign insurance entities within a U.S. holding company where that entity does not itself do business in the United States. In addition, our legislation directs the Fed not to require insurers which file holding company financial statements using Statutory Accounting Principles to instead prepare their financial statements using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

I should point out that our legislation does not, in any way, modify or supersede any other provision of law upon which the Federal Reserve may rely to set appropriate holding company capital requirements.

In closing, I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Brown and Johanns, for working so hard with me over many months to help craft the language we are introducing today. I believe our language removes any doubt about the Federal Reserve's authority to address the legitimate concerns raised by insurers that they not have a bank-centric capital regime for their insurance activities imposed upon them. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, on May 30, H. Sawin Millett will step down as commissioner of the Maine Department of Administrative and Financial Services, one of many positions he has held during a remarkable career of more than 55 years of dedicated service at all levels of government. I rise today to join the people of Maine in thanking him for his many contributions as he retires to his family, his farm, and his beloved hometown of Waterford, ME.

Sawin has served five Maine Governors--Republican, Democratic, and Independent--and in the cabinets of four. His energy, expertise, and commitment to responsible and accountable government have been applied to such diverse areas as education, finance, and mental health services.

Sawin served six terms in the Maine legislature and was lead House Republican on the Appropriations Committee during the last three. His institutional knowledge and keen understanding of the State budget process and fiscal operations has been invaluable to our State. Building on his early career as a teacher, coach, and principal, he was the first executive director of the Maine School Management Association and an assistant professor at the University of Southern Maine.

It is fitting that Sawin's life in public service began at the local level, serving as selectmen in the towns of Dixmont and Waterford, and as a town meeting moderator.

The appreciation of Sawin's service crosses party lines. When the announcement of his retirement was made, both sides of the aisle were united in praise for this generous mentor and effective leader who has always been devoted to the people of Maine.

I have had the privilege of knowing Sawin for many years. We served together in the cabinet of Gov. John McKernan, and I was fortunate to have him on my State staff during my first term in the Senate. I also have had the pleasure of knowing his wonderful wife Barbara, who has been a strong and loving partner for more than 57 years. On behalf of the people of Maine, I wish them health and happiness in the years to come.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my friend from North Dakota, Senator Heitkamp, in introducing the School Food Modernization Act to assist schools in providing healthier meals to students throughout the country.

School meals play a vital role in the lives of our young people. More than 30 million children participate in the National School Lunch Program every schoolday. In Maine, 40 percent of children qualify for free or reduced-price meals based on household income.

The food served to these children has a demonstrable effect on their health and well-being. Many children consume up to half their daily caloric intake at school. In fact, children often get their most nutritious meal of the day at school instead of at home.

At the same time, too many of our children are at risk of serious disease. One-third of the children in this country are overweight or obese, which increases their risk for heart disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes and other chronic diseases. These ailments may have a lifelong effect on their health as they grow to adulthood.

Given the concerns about the health of our children, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued updated school

meal nutrition standards that call for increased servings of fruit, vegetables, low-fat products, and whole grains while limiting the intake of fats, sugar, salt, and excess calories.

In response, our schools have stepped up to the plate. Nationwide, schools are working diligently to meet the standards and serve healthier meals. For example, in the New Sweden Consolidated School in Aroostook County, ME, food service manager Melanie Lagasse prepares meals from scratch instead of opening cans or pushing a defrost button. The school's 64 students, ranging from preschool to eighth grade, have grown to relish the chicken stew, baked fish, and whole grain pasta and meatloaf that she makes fresh every day.

Many schools, however, lack the right tools for preparing meals rich in fresh ingredients and must rely on workarounds that are expensive, inefficient, and unsustainable. Schools built decades ago lack the tools and the infrastructure necessary to comply fully with the new USDA guidelines. In fact, many lack any capacity beyond reheating and holding food for meal service.

To serve healthier meals to their students, 99 percent of Maine school districts need at least one piece of equipment and almost half-- 48 percent--of districts need kitchen infrastructure upgrades. While some of the needs appear quite simple--food processors, knives, serving-portion utensils, scales, utility carts--there is still a cost. The median equipment need per school is $45,000.

Even more costly would be making the required changes to infrastructure. Forty-eight percent of Maine schools need some kind of infrastructure change to serve healthy meals. For example, 41 percent of schools need more physical space, 22 percent need more electrical capacity, 21 percent need more plumbing capacity, and 19 percent need more ventilation. In addition, for Maine, 82 percent of school districts are in areas defined as rural.

Add the equipment costs together with the infrastructure costs and it is estimated that overall, $58.8 million would be needed just in Maine to serve healthy meals to all of our students. That far exceeds the $74,000 grant the USDA awarded Maine in March for new equipment.

Our bill aims to make better use of current resources by authorizing loan guarantee assistance and grants for school equipment and infrastructure improvements and by helping food service personnel meet the updated nutrition standards. First, it would establish a loan guarantee assistance program within USDA to help schools acquire new equipment to prepare and serve healthier, more nutritious meals to students. School administrators and other eligible borrowers could obtain Federal guarantees for 80 percent of the loan value needed to construct, remodel, or expand their kitchens, dining, or food storage infrastructure.

Second, it would provide targeted grant assistance to give school administrators and food service directors the seed funding needed to upgrade kitchen infrastructure or to purchase high- quality, durable kitchen equipment such as commercial ovens, steamers, and stoves.

Finally, to aid school food service personnel in meeting the updated nutrition guidelines, the legislation would strengthen training and provide technical assistance by authorizing USDA to provide support on a competitive basis to highly qualified third-party trainers to develop and administer training and technical assistance.

We need to start our schoolchildren off on the right food every day. If they are going to compete in the global arena, they need to be healthy and their minds and bodies fully nourished. This bill will help us achieve that goal.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my friend from North Dakota, Senator Heitkamp, in introducing the School Food Modernization Act to assist schools in providing healthier meals to students throughout the country.

School meals play a vital role in the lives of our young people. More than 30 million children participate in the National School Lunch Program every schoolday. In Maine, 40 percent of children qualify for free or reduced-price meals based on household income.

The food served to these children has a demonstrable effect on their health and well-being. Many children consume up to half their daily caloric intake at school. In fact, children often get their most nutritious meal of the day at school instead of at home.

At the same time, too many of our children are at risk of serious disease. One-third of the children in this country are overweight or obese, which increases their risk for heart disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes and other chronic diseases. These ailments may have a lifelong effect on their health as they grow to adulthood.

Given the concerns about the health of our children, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued updated school

meal nutrition standards that call for increased servings of fruit, vegetables, low-fat products, and whole grains while limiting the intake of fats, sugar, salt, and excess calories.

In response, our schools have stepped up to the plate. Nationwide, schools are working diligently to meet the standards and serve healthier meals. For example, in the New Sweden Consolidated School in Aroostook County, ME, food service manager Melanie Lagasse prepares meals from scratch instead of opening cans or pushing a defrost button. The school's 64 students, ranging from preschool to eighth grade, have grown to relish the chicken stew, baked fish, and whole grain pasta and meatloaf that she makes fresh every day.

Many schools, however, lack the right tools for preparing meals rich in fresh ingredients and must rely on workarounds that are expensive, inefficient, and unsustainable. Schools built decades ago lack the tools and the infrastructure necessary to comply fully with the new USDA guidelines. In fact, many lack any capacity beyond reheating and holding food for meal service.

To serve healthier meals to their students, 99 percent of Maine school districts need at least one piece of equipment and almost half-- 48 percent--of districts need kitchen infrastructure upgrades. While some of the needs appear quite simple--food processors, knives, serving-portion utensils, scales, utility carts--there is still a cost. The median equipment need per school is $45,000.

Even more costly would be making the required changes to infrastructure. Forty-eight percent of Maine schools need some kind of infrastructure change to serve healthy meals. For example, 41 percent of schools need more physical space, 22 percent need more electrical capacity, 21 percent need more plumbing capacity, and 19 percent need more ventilation. In addition, for Maine, 82 percent of school districts are in areas defined as rural.

Add the equipment costs together with the infrastructure costs and it is estimated that overall, $58.8 million would be needed just in Maine to serve healthy meals to all of our students. That far exceeds the $74,000 grant the USDA awarded Maine in March for new equipment.

Our bill aims to make better use of current resources by authorizing loan guarantee assistance and grants for school equipment and infrastructure improvements and by helping food service personnel meet the updated nutrition standards. First, it would establish a loan guarantee assistance program within USDA to help schools acquire new equipment to prepare and serve healthier, more nutritious meals to students. School administrators and other eligible borrowers could obtain Federal guarantees for 80 percent of the loan value needed to construct, remodel, or expand their kitchens, dining, or food storage infrastructure.

Second, it would provide targeted grant assistance to give school administrators and food service directors the seed funding needed to upgrade kitchen infrastructure or to purchase high- quality, durable kitchen equipment such as commercial ovens, steamers, and stoves.

Finally, to aid school food service personnel in meeting the updated nutrition guidelines, the legislation would strengthen training and provide technical assistance by authorizing USDA to provide support on a competitive basis to highly qualified third-party trainers to develop and administer training and technical assistance.

We need to start our schoolchildren off on the right food every day. If they are going to compete in the global arena, they need to be healthy and their minds and bodies fully nourished. This bill will help us achieve that goal.

Mr. President, the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary, the Aurora movie theater, and the Washington Navy Yard served as wake-up calls to our Nation that action must be taken to provide better care and support for Americans living with mental illness and their families.

As an original cosponsor of the bipartisan Excellence in Mental Health Act, I am pleased that the bill before us today includes a provision, based on our legislation, to establish pilot programs in eight States to strengthen and improve access to quality community mental health services.

Unfortunately, patients with serious mental conditions all too often lack access to care and experience difficulties obtaining appropriate and sustained treatment for their illness. Over the course of a year, fewer than half of those with severe mental disorders receive any treatment at all. Treatment rates are even worse for children, adolescents and young people between the ages of 16 and 24. This is especially troubling given that nearly half of all lifetime cases of psychiatric conditions begin by the age of 14, and 75 percent by the age of 24.

Of the 20 percent of Americans who will suffer from mental illness at some point in their lives, just one in five will receive professional care. These kinds of numbers would be totally unacceptable for patients afflicted with cancer, diabetes, heart disease or any other physical disorder. They therefore should not be accepted for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, severe depression, or any other serious mental illness.

I am particularly concerned about the high rates of suicide among our active duty military and returning veterans. The number of reported suicide deaths in the U.S. military surged to a record 349 in 2012, which is more than the number of servicemembers who lost their lives in combat in Afghanistan during the same period of time.

The number of suicides among veterans has reached an astounding rate of 22 a day according to some studies. These losses are simply unacceptable. With at least 25 percent of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan experiencing some type of mental health condition, it is even more urgent that comprehensive mental health services be available in communities across the country. This is particularly true in rural states like Maine, where mental health services may not be easily accessible through the VA.

We know that people suffering from mental illness are more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators. However, we also have seen too many tragic examples of what happens when people with serious mental illness do not get the treatment and services they need.

The legislation that we are considering today has been endorsed by more than 50 mental health organizations, veterans organizations and law enforcement organizations. It takes an important first step toward expanding access to care and improving quality of care so that more people living with mental illness can get the treatment they need in their communities.

In closing, I want to commend my colleagues from Michigan and Missouri for their tireless work to increase access to community mental health services and to improve the quality of care for those living with mental illness.

Mr. President, I wish to commemorate the 225th anniversary of the town of Gouldsboro, ME. Known today as a beautiful gateway to the Schoodic Peninsula section of Acadia National Park, Gouldsboro was built with a spirit of determination and resiliency that still guides the community today.

Gouldsboro's incorporation in 1789 was but one milestone on a long journey of progress. For more than 10,000 years, the area was a favorite hunting and fishing grounds of the Abenaki, the Native American tribe of northeastern North America. The name ``Schoodic'' comes from their word for a place of plentiful fish in waters kept ice- free through the winter by the moderating currents of the Gulf of Maine. The reverence of the Abenaki for nature remains strong among all who call the peninsula home today.

The original name of Acadia National Park--Sieur de Monts National Monument recognizes the ongoing influence of the French explorers who visited the area in the early 1600s. In 1763, the Seven Years' War between France and Great Britain for control of North America ended with a British victory. With peace came bold pioneers seeking opportunity.

The first recorded non-Native American settler on the peninsula was Thomas Frazer, who built a salt works at the mouth of a creek that today bears his name. Another early settler was the town's namesake, Robert Gould, whose untiring efforts and boundless optimism helped attract new members to the growing community. By the early 1800s, Gouldsboro was a thriving town of lumber and grain mills, fishing, and shipbuilding.

The character of the people of Gouldsboro of years gone by and of today is best represented by one of the town's historic treasures, the bell of the SS Queen Victoria. In 1864, leaders of the Canadian Confederation gathered on that great steamship anchored at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and reached the agreement to found a new nation.

Two years later, the Queen Victoria sank in a hurricane off the coast of Cape Hatteras, NC. Captain Rufus Allen, from the Gouldsboro village of Prospect Harbor, steered his Gouldsboro-built brig Ponvert into harm's way and was able to rescue 42 of the 43 officers and crew. In recognition of his heroism, Captain Allen was presented with one of the few items saved from the doomed steamship--the bronze bell. He gave the 95-pound bell to the Prospect Harbor School upon his retirement in 1875.

In 2004, 138 years after Captain Allen's daring rescue, the people of Gouldsboro recognized the significance of the Queen Victoria to Canadian history and commissioned Prospect Harbor artist and craftsman Dick Fisher to create a replica, which was given to the people of Charlottetown.

That single gesture reaffirmed Gouldsboro's connection to the sea and strengthened the enduring friendship between the United States and Canada.

Today, Gouldsboro is a place where fishing families and summer visitors cherish that connection to the sea. Through hard work and ingenuity, Gouldsboro has become not just a gateway but an essential part of the Acadia experience. With its charming villages, working waterfronts, artist studios, and many recreation opportunities, Gouldsboro is a true gem on the Maine coast.

One of Gouldsboro's early and most influential citizens was David Cobb of Massachusetts, a hero of the American Revolution who served as General Washington's aide during the British surrender at Yorktown.

As the war neared its end and American independence was secured, General Washington urged his aide to leave rocky and cold New England and make his future in Virginia, which he argued had a superior climate and more fertile soil. With his sights already set on Maine, Colonel Cobb replied, ``Sir, we have our heads and our hands.''

That is the spirit that made a thriving town out of the wilderness more than two centuries ago and that sustains a vibrant community today. It is a pleasure to congratulate the people of Gouldsboro, ME, on their 225th anniversary and to wish them all the best in the years to come.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues this afternoon in expressing support for the

reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program, and I too commend Senator Mikulski, Senator Burr, Senator Harkin, and Senator Alexander for crafting this bipartisan bill and bringing it to the Senate floor for debate and amendment.

Childcare for working parents is essential to families throughout the Nation, and Maine is no exception. For years the CCDBG Program has assisted low-income parents in affording childcare. The support provided by this important program enables parents to obtain needed care for their children so they may work or improve their own skills and education.

Mr. President, 2,600 children from 1,800 Maine families receive Federal childcare subsidies through this program. Particularly during these difficult economic times, this program goes a long way in helping families in Maine and across the country.

I have seen firsthand the impact of high-quality early learning on a child's ability to succeed and grow. Educare Central Maine, located in Waterville, which I visited a few years ago, is a state-of-the-art early learning center that serves more than 200 mostly low-income children from birth to age 5. Almost half of these children come from families that are eligible for assistance, and many rely on the CCDBG voucher to help cover the cost of their attending Educare. Educare is a great example of quality childcare in my State and of the real impact of this program's funding at work in our communities.

As I saw at Educare in Waterville, the vouchers provided under this program allow parents to choose the best childcare setting for their children. That is a critical aspect of this program. Vouchers give parents the flexibility they want and need to make the best choice for their children about the kind of care that best serves their needs, whether it is at a childcare center, at a family care home, or with a relative or friend. The voucher program helps to keep the decisions in the hands of parents.

I am also pleased this reauthorization requires coordination among the early learning advisory councils and Head Start and the IDEA programs that serve children with special needs. Aligning these programs will help to improve the quality of all services offered for infants, toddlers, and preschool-aged children.

High-quality early learning experiences help ensure that children are well prepared for school. This bill improves the current program by making sure those providers receiving funding are qualified, receive training, and are regularly inspected and monitored.

I also express my gratitude to the members of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee for including in this legislation provisions from the Child Care Infant Mortality Prevention Act. That is a bill I introduced with the Senator from California, Dianne Feinstein. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics, half of the approximately 4,500 sudden infant death syndrome cases in the United States are entirely preventable with effective training and implementation of correct sleep practices. I am very pleased this reauthorization includes sudden infant death syndrome prevention and safe sleeping practices among the new health and safety training topics for providers.

Childcare is not only important to the developmental health of our children but also to the well-being of their parents. When parents know their children have a place to go where they will be safe and where they will learn, then parents have the peace of mind to earn a living to support their families.

Balancing the need to work with the need for childcare can be very difficult. At times, a parent's salary would be almost completely offset by the cost of childcare in a low-income family. This bill will help more parents get the support they need while reinforcing the requirement for high-quality care in healthy, stimulating, and safe environments.

Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to support this reauthorization bill.

I yield the floor.

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean Cookstove Support Act. This legislation addresses a serious global public health and environmental issue, and I am very pleased to be joined in this effort by my friend and colleague, Senator Durbin.

Nearly half of the world's population cooks over open fires or with inefficient, polluting, and unsafe cookstoves using wood, agricultural waste, dung, coal, or other solid fuels. Smoke from these traditional cookstoves and open fires is associated with chronic and acute diseases and affects women and children disproportionately.

Alarmingly, the Global Burden of Disease Study of 2010 doubled the mortality estimates for exposure to smoke from cookstoves referred to as household air pollution from 2 million to 4 million deaths annually in the developing world. The GBD indicates this is more than the deaths from malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS combined. The GBD ranks household air pollution as the fourth worst overall health risk factor in the world and as the second worst health risk factor in the world for women and girls. Millions more are sickened from the toxic smoke and thousands suffer burns annually from open fires or unsafe cookstoves.

Traditional cookstoves also create serious environmental problems. Recent studies show that the emissions of black carbon or common soot from biomass cookstoves significantly contribute to regional air and climate change. In fact, cookstoves account for some 25 percent of black carbon emissions. Each family using a traditional cookstove can require up to 2 tons of biomass cooking fuel, and where demand for fuel outstrips the natural regrowth of resources, local land degradation and loss of biodiversity often results.

Moreover, the collection of this fuel is a burden that is shouldered disproportionately by women and children. In some regions of the world, women and girls risk rape and gender-based violence during the up to 20 hours a week they spend away from their families gathering fuel.

Replacing these cookstoves with modern alternatives would help reverse these alarming health and environmental trends. This would be relatively inexpensive. In fact, there are stoves that are coming on the market now that cost as little as $20 and are 50 percent more efficient than the traditional cooking methods. It also could be done quickly. It is what scientists call the low-hanging fruit of environmental fixes.

Through the leadership of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the United Nations Foundation, the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves was formed in 2010. Recognizing the serious health and environmental issues posed by traditional cookstoves, the alliance aims to save lives, improve livelihoods, empower women, and combat pollution by creating a thriving global market for clean and efficient household cooking solutions. Alliance partners are working to help overcome market barriers that currently impede production, deployment, and use of cookstoves that are clean in the developing world.

To assist in this important endeavor, several Federal agencies and departments have committed a total of up to $125 million to the sector for the first 5 years of the alliance. These include a wide variety of departments, including the Departments of State, Energy, and Health and Human Services, the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, NOAA, and the Peace Corps have also made commitments to provide technical assistance in the developing world.

To help advance the alliance's goal to spur the adoption of clean cookstoves in 100 million households by the year 2020, the U.S. Government has focused its commitments on applied research and development, diplomatic engagement to encourage a market for clean cookstoves, and to improve access, international development projects to help build commercial businesses, and development efforts, including humanitarian and empowerment programs for women and girls.

The legislation Senator Durbin and I are introducing today reinforces this commitment and would require the Secretary of State to work to advance the goals of the alliance. In addition, the bill authorizes the existing funding commitments made by our government to ensure that these crucial pledges toward preventing unnecessary illness and reducing pollution around the globe are met.

By supporting the work of the alliance and the commitments of the U.S. Government to replace traditional cookstoves with modern versions that emit far less soot, this bill aims to directly benefit some of the world's poorest people and to reduce harmful pollution that affects us all. It offers a way for us to address the second leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is inexpensive, not burdensome to the people of this country, and will benefit poor people living in developing nations.

There is yet another reason for my colleagues to support this initiative. Addressing persistent global issues of poverty and underdevelopment makes our country more secure by undercutting some of the key drivers of extremism and militancy around the world.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Durbin and me in supporting the Clean Cookstoves and Fuel Support Act.