Floor Statements

Mr. President, every day across this country, firefighters quietly put their lives on the line in order to protect the communities in which they serve. Few firefighters better exemplify the selfless qualities that

characterize this select group of public safety personnel than those in Franklin County, ME, who recently rushed to the aid of their Canadian neighbors to help combat a deadly fire in the border town of Lac- Megantic, Quebec. I rise today to recognize those firefighters from the Maine towns of Chesterville, Eustis, Farmington, New Vineyard, Phillips, Strong, and Rangeley.

In the early morning hours of Saturday, July 6, 2013, a freight train carrying hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil was sent hurtling toward Lac-Megantic, a small, picturesque Canadian village located only 30 miles from the Maine border. The train derailed in the center of town, leveling several blocks and killing numerous residents. This unthinkable loss has touched every member of that close-knit community. My heart goes out to the family and friends of the victims of this tragedy, and my thoughts and prayers are with the residents of Lac-Megantic during this time of mourning. Yet, out of this terrible calamity, I was exceedingly heartened to hear the stories of more than 30 firefighters in nearby Maine who answered their Canadian neighbors' call and reported for duty.

Within mere hours of the accident, the Franklin County Emergency Management Agency had alerted seven area fire departments, and the Maine firefighters were at the scene. Upon arriving in Lac-Megantic, these firefighters overcame tremendous obstacles in order to combat the flames. The initial blasts had severed the town's phone lines, power, and water supply, leaving Canadian firefighters unable to use the fire hydrants. Maine fire trucks, equipped with the capability of drawing water directly from the nearby lake, allowed firefighters to cool off the remaining fuel-laden cars that were in danger of combusting, likely averting additional destruction.

The response of the Maine firefighters demonstrates the best qualities of international cooperation as well as the tenets of the brotherhood of firefighters. Maine and eastern Canada are bound together by history, family ties, and friendship, and that special relationship was clearly evident on the morning of July 6. Despite challenges posed by incompatible hose couplings, different radio systems, and even a language barrier in French-speaking Quebec, Maine and Canadian firefighters worked side-by-side to quickly and effectively douse the flames and mitigate the damage caused by this dreadful accident.

The valiant and selfless efforts of these Maine firefighters are unquestionably worthy of our respect and gratitude. This unassuming group of first responders never thought twice about helping their Canadian neighbors and fellow firefighters. I applaud the firefighters of Chesterville, Eustis, Farmington, New Vineyard, Phillips, Strong, and Rangeley, as well as the effective coordination of these departments by the Franklin County Emergency Management Agency. Truly, we can feel secure knowing these heroes are always willing to answer the call for help.

Madam President, I rise to speak on an issue of significant importance to the forest products industry in Maine. I am pleased to be joined here by my colleague from Maine, Senator King. We have both heard from a number of our constituents in Maine who are concerned about the ambiguity in the bill that is currently before the Senate, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, with regard to the definition of ``agriculture employment'' for the purposes of the proposed W agriculture visa program. I would like to turn to Senator King to elaborate on the concerns that we've heard from constituents in our State.

Mr. President, I rise today to wish the town of Freedom, ME, a very happy 200th birthday. The people of Freedom are proud of their hometown and the generations of hard-working and caring people who have made it such a wonderful place to live, work, and raise families.

The name of this town is more than a word; it describes its history. Originally part of the Plymouth Patent,

this community can trace its roots to the brave Pilgrims who came to the New World to secure freedom. Its first permanent settler was Stephen Smith, a soldier of the American Revolution who fought for freedom. When the town was incorporated in 1813, American independence was again under attack, and the town's name--first Smithtown, then Beaverhill Plantation--became Freedom.

Decades later, when the Civil War threatened to divide our Nation and condemn millions to continued slavery, many young men from the town enlisted in the Union Army to fight for the freedom of all. One of them, Daniel Franklin Davis, became the 37th governor of our great State of Maine.

And when the town's oldest citizen, Roy Ward, is recognized at the bicentennial celebration on July 5th, his friends and neighbors will honor his courageous Navy service during World War II in freedom's cause.

Through the years, the people who built this community demonstrated the qualities that make freedom possible--determination, energy, and self-reliance. They harnessed the waters of Sandy Stream to power mills for grain, lumber, and textiles. They turned the untilled soil into productive farms. In 1836, they established Freedom Academy, the first secondary school in their region and a milestone in the history of public education in Maine.

The energy that so many have devoted to this year's exciting bicentennial celebration is but one example of the spirit that has been nurtured there for two centuries. The restoration of such landmarks as the Stephen Smith gravesite and the Mill at Freedom Falls, and the dedication of the gazebo at Freedom Academy all demonstrate widespread commitment by the people of Freedom.

Thanks to those who came before, Freedom has a wonderful history. Thanks to those who are there today, it has a bright future.

Mr. President, it is a great pleasure to wish the Town of Columbia Falls a very happy 150th birthday. Throughout this year, Columbia Falls will celebrate the generations of hard-working and caring people who have made it such a wonderful place to live, work, and raise families.

While this sesquicentennial marks Columbia Falls' incorporation, the year 1863 was but one milestone in a long journey of progress. It is a journey that began eons earlier, when the receding glaciers carved out the river known to Native Americans as the Wescogus and to those who came later as the Pleasant. In the decades before America won its freedom, the Pleasant River provided the wildlife that sustained the first settlers. In the years that followed, it became a great avenue of commerce in products from field and forest and a great shipbuilding industry thrived along its banks.

Natural resources are only the background for Columbia Falls' story. Such names as Judge Thomas Ruggles, Daniel Carleton, Elijah Hamlin, Henry Bucknam, and Mary Ruggles Chandler remind us of the determination, ingenuity, and hard work that built the town. The impressive representation of Columbia Falls landmarks on the National Registry of Historic Places and the town's ongoing effort to restore Union Hall demonstrate the high regard the residents of today have for those who came before.

In the year of Columbia Falls' incorporation, America was engaged in the Civil War. Many brave patriots from this community stepped forward to preserve our Nation and to secure the blessing of freedom for all, and they were remembered at the Columbia Falls Civil War Ball in April that launched this 150th anniversary celebration. Through their longstanding commitment to the inspiring Wreaths Across America Project, the people of Columbia Falls honor the heroes who have served our country throughout our history and bring distinction to our State.

This celebration is not just about something that is measured in calendar years. It is about human accomplishment. We celebrate the people who for more than a century and a half have pulled together, cared for one another, and built a great community. Thanks to those who came before, Columbia Falls has a wonderful history. Thanks

to those who are here today, it has a bright future.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to extend and improve a program aimed at addressing the unique needs of rural schools. The Rural Education Achievement Program, or REAP, is designed to help level the playing field for small and high-poverty rural school systems. It is the only dedicated federal funding stream to aid rural school districts in overcoming certain challenges associated with geographic isolation.

Nearly \1/3\ of America's public schools are in rural areas, and more than 21 percent of our public school students attend these schools. Students in rural America should have the same access to federal dollars and quality education as those students who attend schools in urban and suburban communities. For this reason, in 2001, I worked with former Senator Kent Conrad to author the law creating REAP, and I am now pleased to work with Senator Max Baucus on its reauthorization. REAP created two grant programs: the Small and Rural Schools Achievement program SRSA, which provides additional funding and flexibility to small rural school districts, and the Rural and Low- Income School program, RLIS, which provides additional funding for poor rural school districts.

Prior to enactment of this law, rural school districts received funds based on school enrollment. In many of these districts, Federal formula programs, which are population-based, do not produce enough resources to carry out important programs, which these grant programs help make possible. One school district in Maine, for example, received only $28 in 2001 to fund a district-wide Safe and Drug-free school program.

In addition, small and rural school districts often forgo Federal education dollars because they lack the personnel and the resources to apply for competitive grants. Having fewer personnel also creates additional challenges in providing professional development opportunities. By allowing rural school districts to combine funds, as well as providing additional funds, REAP gives these districts the levels of resources required to undertake significant educational reform. Funds from this program have already helped to support new technology in classrooms, distance learning opportunities, and professional development activities, as well as a vast array of other programs that will help rural districts.

The REAP Reauthorization Act of 2013 would reauthorize and implement a few improvements to the law. These changes would allow Federal funds to be even more closely targeted to geographically isolated districts. One important reform would allow program eligible districts to participate in the Rural and Low-Income School program if they would not receive financial benefits from the Small and Rural Schools Achievement program.

Education is an essential driver for good jobs for our citizens. This rings true especially in rural America, where schools are the linchpin of rural communities. I am pleased to have the support of the Maine School Management Association for the REAP Reauthorization Act of chair of the Senate Rural Education Caucus, I will continue to work toward our goal of advancing the educational interests of rural schools and districts.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to extend and improve a program aimed at addressing the unique needs of rural schools. The Rural Education Achievement Program, or REAP, is designed to help level the playing field for small and high-poverty rural school systems. It is the only dedicated federal funding stream to aid rural school districts in overcoming certain challenges associated with geographic isolation.

Nearly \1/3\ of America's public schools are in rural areas, and more than 21 percent of our public school students attend these schools. Students in rural America should have the same access to federal dollars and quality education as those students who attend schools in urban and suburban communities. For this reason, in 2001, I worked with former Senator Kent Conrad to author the law creating REAP, and I am now pleased to work with Senator Max Baucus on its reauthorization. REAP created two grant programs: the Small and Rural Schools Achievement program SRSA, which provides additional funding and flexibility to small rural school districts, and the Rural and Low- Income School program, RLIS, which provides additional funding for poor rural school districts.

Prior to enactment of this law, rural school districts received funds based on school enrollment. In many of these districts, Federal formula programs, which are population-based, do not produce enough resources to carry out important programs, which these grant programs help make possible. One school district in Maine, for example, received only $28 in 2001 to fund a district-wide Safe and Drug-free school program.

In addition, small and rural school districts often forgo Federal education dollars because they lack the personnel and the resources to apply for competitive grants. Having fewer personnel also creates additional challenges in providing professional development opportunities. By allowing rural school districts to combine funds, as well as providing additional funds, REAP gives these districts the levels of resources required to undertake significant educational reform. Funds from this program have already helped to support new technology in classrooms, distance learning opportunities, and professional development activities, as well as a vast array of other programs that will help rural districts.

The REAP Reauthorization Act of 2013 would reauthorize and implement a few improvements to the law. These changes would allow Federal funds to be even more closely targeted to geographically isolated districts. One important reform would allow program eligible districts to participate in the Rural and Low-Income School program if they would not receive financial benefits from the Small and Rural Schools Achievement program.

Education is an essential driver for good jobs for our citizens. This rings true especially in rural America, where schools are the linchpin of rural communities. I am pleased to have the support of the Maine School Management Association for the REAP Reauthorization Act of chair of the Senate Rural Education Caucus, I will continue to work toward our goal of advancing the educational interests of rural schools and districts.

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

Mr. President, the United States has always been a country of refuge for the persecuted, a protector of life and individual freedoms. This is evident in the entire purpose of our Nation's asylum program under which foreign nationals who can show a credible fear of persecution in their home country may apply for and receive shelter here. But flaws in the asylum program leave it vulnerable and open to exploitation by those who mean us harm. I have, therefore, proposed two amendments to the immigration reform bill, amendments No. 1391 and 1393, that are designed to lessen those flaws by giving asylum officers the tools they need to dismiss frivolous claims and, more important, to ensure that derogatory information about applicants who may wish to harm us is reviewed during the application process.

Before I outline those amendments in detail, I would like to discuss the circumstances under which the suspects in the Boston Marathon terrorist attack came to be in the United States and how that terrible attack underscores the need for reform of our asylum process.

According to media reports, the younger of the two Tsarnaev brothers came to the United States on a tourist visa in 2002 and was granted asylum on his father's petition shortly thereafter.

As I mentioned before, asylum is supposed to be only available to those who can show a credible fear of persecution in their home country.

Curiously, and notwithstanding his supposed fear of persecution back home, the father came to the United States with only one of his four children, leaving his wife and three other children behind in the land he claimed to fear.

I can't help but wonder whether the asylum officer who reviewed Mr. Tsarnaev's application was aware of that fact and to what extent this was considered in determining whether he met the burden of proving a credible fear of persecution by his country, since, after all, he had left his wife and three of his four children behind.

Whatever the circumstances that caused Mr. Tsarnaev to seek asylum in 2002, after the Boston Marathon bombing, the international media caught up

with him back in the land where he came from and now lives.

Even more curious are the questions surrounding the grant of asylum to another Chechen immigrant, the individual who was shot dead while being questioned by the FBI agents and local law enforcement regarding his association with the Tsarnaevs and a 2011 triple homicide. After his death, reports indicated this individual came to the United States in 2008 on a J-1 visa, the type of visa intended to promote cultural understanding that allows foreign students to work and study in our country, and that individual was granted asylum sometime later that year in 2008.

The way in this particular case the visa operated is he was supposed to work for 4 months and then travel for 1 month in our country, but that is not what happened. Last month, I was contacted by the Council on International Educational Exchange, or CIEE, a J-1 visa sponsor organization located in my home State of Maine. CIEE told me they had learned this individual had come to the United States through their program, arriving in June of 2008. From the start, it appears he had no intention of complying with CIEE's J-1 visa rules and, thus, on July 29 of 2008, CIEE withdrew its sponsorship of him because he failed to provide the required documentation with respect to his employment.

That very day, CIEE, which is a very responsible organization, instructed him to make immediate plans to leave the country because they could not verify his employment, a key condition of the J-1 visa rules. CIEE then recorded this information in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, or SEVIS, the database used by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State to keep track of foreign visitors who travel to the United States on exchange visas.

As I understand the facts, CIEE did everything right. It followed the rules. When this individual was clearly out of compliance with the conditions of his visa, it alerted DHS and the State Department he was out of compliance. I have spoken to the President of CIEE, who told me his organization was shocked to learn this individual had been granted asylum and later given a green card.

I find this very curious. How is it that a young man from Chechnya comes to the United States to participate in a cultural exchange program, immediately violates the conditions of that program, is told to leave our country but then is able to be granted asylum? The fact that he was out of compliance with his visa was correctly recorded in the SEVIS database. Did the asylum officer who approved his application review that information? Did he check the database for derogatory information? Were any other databases, such as that maintained by the National Counterterrorism Center, consulted during the review of this asylum applicant? When and where was his asylum application reviewed and approved and by whom?

More than 2 weeks ago, I asked these fundamental questions of the Department of Homeland Security through staff and by letters I personally sent to the Office of Legislative Affairs and to Secretary Janet Napolitano. Despite repeated phone calls and e-mails from my staff, the Department has still not provided me with the answers. Instead, what I have received are excuses, despite the fact the subject of my inquiry is dead and my questions are directly relevant to the asylum provisions in the immigration bill before us.

Think about the failure of the DHS to provide the basic information I have requested. I have not asked about the individual's relationship to the terrorist attack in Boston, nor have I asked about his alleged connection to the triple homicide. The questions I have asked relate only to when he applied for and received asylum, whether the information related to his violation of his visa requirements was available and reviewed by the officer who granted him asylum, and I have asked who made the decision to grant him asylum.

We know from media reports his asylum application was acted on in 2008, 5 years ago. Is the Department saying, through its silence, that information related to this individual's asylum application did, in fact, foreshadow the terrorist attack in Boston in April and his ultimate death last month? Why was his application approved? Why didn't the Department deport him from our country when it was clear he was no longer in compliance with his J-1 visa?

The basic question is: Why wasn't this individual deported from our country when it was clear he was no longer in compliance with the requirements of his J-1 visa? Instead, what happens? He is granted asylum and then later given a green card.

I can only take the Department's refusal to provide answers as a tacit admission that a flawed asylum process allowed a dangerous man to get into our country on false pretenses and to stay. That possibility, that likelihood, underscores the importance of the two amendments I am offering.

The first of my amendments, No. 1391, would require that before an individual can be granted asylum, biographic and biometric information about that individual must be checked against the appropriate records and databases of the Federal Government, including those maintained by the National Counterterrorism Center. In addition, this amendment requires the asylum officer find that the information in those records and databases supports the applicant's claim of asylum or, if derogatory information is uncovered, that the applicant is still able to meet the burden of proof required by law.

The second of my two amendments, No. 1393, would provide asylum officers with the authority to dismiss what are clearly frivolous claims, without prejudice to the applicant, and requires asylum officers and immigration judges to obtain more detailed information from the State Department on the conditions in the country from which asylum is sought.

In other words, what we have discovered is this is another example of one department not talking to another department. It is very difficult for an asylum officer to make a correct decision if he or she lacks information about conditions in the originating country.

This amendment also calls for increased staffing for the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate at asylum offices funded through fees in this bill.

We can never know for sure whether the reforms I am calling for in these two amendments would have kept these dangerous individuals out of this country and perhaps even prevented the terrorist attack in Boston and the triple murder in another town in Massachusetts.

But the way in which they use the asylum process clearly demonstrates that it can be and will be abused. My amendments will give asylum officers the tools they need to help prevent that kind of fraudulent use of a very important and worthwhile system, and it will help to protect the American public from those who would do us harm.

With these modest reforms, America's asylum process will continue to shelter those who legitimately fear persecution in their home countries, but it will be less easily taken advantage of by those who seek to harm us.

I urge my colleagues to support these commonsense amendments.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise this evening to discuss an amendment I have filed to the immigration bill. It is Senate amendment No. 1255. It would ensure that the funding for an important border security program known as Operation Stonegarden continues to be allocated by the Department of Homeland Security based on risk. Without my amendment, 90 percent of the $50 million in funding for this program awarded annually would be earmarked for the southwest border. What I am proposing is that we not put a percentage in the bill but, rather, allow for a risk-based assessment of where Operation Stonegarden monies would best be spent. This program has been extraordinarily successful in my State of Maine. It has helped Federal, county, State, and local law enforcement to pool their resources and work together to help secure our border.

While the southwest border is much more likely to make the evening news, we must not forget about our northern border. As the Department of Homeland Security pointed out when it released its first northern border strategy in June 2012: ``The U.S.-Canadian border is the longest common border in the world'' and it presents ``unique security challenges based on geography, weather, and the immense volume of trade and travel.''

According to a report released by the GAO in 2010, the Border Patrol had situational awareness of only 25 percent of the 4,000-mile northern border and operational control of only 32 miles--less than 1 percent. We will hear those terms discussed a lot during the debate on immigration with respect to the southwest border. I think it is important that we not forget we also have a 4,000-mile northern border.

This lack of situational awareness and operational control is especially troubling because as GAO has observed: ``DHS reports that the terrorist threat on the northern border is actually higher [than the southern border], given the large expansive area with very limited law enforcement coverage.''

In the same report, GAO noted that the maritime border on the Great Lakes and rivers is vulnerable to use by small vessels as a conduit for the potential smuggling and exploitation by terrorists, alien smuggling, trafficking of illicit drugs, and other contraband and criminal activity. Also, the northern border's waterways frequently freeze during the winter and can be easily crossed by foot, vehicle, or snowmobile. The northern air border is also vulnerable to low-flying aircraft that, for example, smuggle drugs by entering U.S. airspace from Canada.

Additionally, Customs and Border Protection reports that further threats result from the fact that the northern border is exploited by well-organized smuggling operations which can potentially also support the movement of terrorists and their weapons.

There is also, regrettably, significant criminal activity on the northern border. In the same report, GAO noted that in fiscal year 2010 DHS has reported spending nearly $3 billion in its efforts to interdict and investigate illegal northern border activity, annually making approximately 6,000 arrests and interdicting approximately 40,000 pounds of illegal drugs at and between the northern border ports of entry.

The Operation Stonegarden grant program is an effective resource for addressing security concerns on our northern, southern, western, and coastal borders. Over the past 4 years, approximately $247 million in Operation Stonegarden funds has been allocated to 19 border States using a risk-based analysis for determining the allocations rather than the formula-based analysis that is included in this immigration bill.

Earmarking 90 percent of funding from Operation Stonegarden to the southwest border is ill-advised. Operation Stonegarden grants should be used to help secure our northern, southern, and coastal borders by funding joint operations between the Border Patrol and State, county, and local

law enforcement. These joint operations can act as a force multiplier in areas that would otherwise be unguarded altogether.

My amendment would ensure that DHS continues to have the flexibility it needs to make risk-informed decisions about where Operation Stonegarden funds will best serve the security of our Nation's borders.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I hope it will be brought up at some point tomorrow.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Madam President. I rise today to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the founding of Machias, ME, a remarkable town on the Downeast Coast that exemplifies the determination, resiliency, and courage of our Nation. It was there, in 1775, just 12 years after the village was established, that the first naval battle of the American Revolution was fought and won.

The word ``Machias'' translates from the language of the Passamaquoddy Indians as ``bad little falls.'' The rushing water where the Machias River plunges to the sea and the vast stands of virgin pine drew the first settlers in 1763, who built a successful sawmill and a thriving community.

In early June of 1775, word reached Machias of the Battles at Lexington and Concord in April, the first military engagements of the American Revolution. When two British cargo ships, escorted by the warship Margaretta, arrived at Machiasport to take on a shipment of lumber to build barracks for British troops under siege in Boston, they were met by patriots eager to join the fight for freedom.

On June 12, with the town under threat of bombardment if it did not cooperate with the lumber shipment, a militia of 30 men under the command of CPT Jeremiah O'Brien stormed the Margaretta. Armed with muskets, pitchforks, and axes, the militia captured the warship and sailed it triumphantly into harbor. The battle known as the ``Lexington of the Seas'' was a stunning American victory.

Among the heroes of that battle was a young woman named Hannah Weston. As the plans to seize the Margaretta were taking shape, this 17-year-old wife of militiaman Josiah Weston went house to house throughout the sparsely settled region collecting gunpowder and shot, and lugging the heavy load through the wilderness to the front lines. Today, the Hannah Weston Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution keeps her memory alive.

The Passamaquoddy gave Machias more than a name. By 1777, the town had become a center of revolutionary activity and the British sent an invasion fleet to crush the rebellion. Some 40 or 50 Passamaquoddy, led by Chief Joseph Neeala, joined the militia and the invaders were turned back.

Just outside of Machias stands Fort O'Brien, one of just a few forts to have been active in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. On the road to that historic site, on the banks of a small stream, there is a plaque that wonderfully describes the spirit of this community.

It was at that place in June of 1775, when the Margaretta's cannons threatened Machias, that the townspeople met in open air to choose between a humiliating peace and a likely hopeless war. The words on the plaque tell the story: ``After some hours of fruitless discussion, Benjamin Foster, a man of action rather than words, leaped across this brook and called all those to follow him who would, whatever the risk, stand by their countrymen and their country's cause. Almost to a man the assembly followed and, without further formality, the settlement was committed to the Revolution.''

Today, that settlement is a thriving community. Machias is the shiretown of Washington County and, as the home of the University of Maine at Machias, it is a center for education and the arts in the region. Located in the heart of the blueberry industry, Machias hosts the Maine Wild Blueberry Festival, one of our State's great summer events. Beautifully restored Burnham Tavern, where the valiant militiamen met to plan their attack on the Margaretta, is a National Historic Site, so designated for its significance in America's independence.

In his marvelous history of the town published in 1904, George W. Drisko, a descendant of one of the heroes of the Revolution wrote this: ``The pioneers of Machias believed in destiny. They had faith in vitality. In their rough homes were courageous souls who believed they had a future.'' Those beliefs and that faith helped America achieve the freedom we cherish today, and all Americans congratulate the people of Machias on their 250th anniversary.

Madam President, I rise today in support of the Senate farm bill, S. 954, which would make significant reforms to federal agriculture programs and important investments in nutrition, conservation, and rural development. In addition to providing a safe and healthful food supply, America's farmers sustain our rural communities, protect the environment, and preserve the open space that is a vital part of our heritage.

This 5-year reauthorization bill demonstrates much-needed fiscal responsibility by eliminating wasteful direct payments, which over the years have provided financial benefits to hundreds of wealthy individuals not involved in farming. Overall, the bill would cut spending by $24 billion, which is a step in the right direction.

The farm bill contains some significant help for family farms in Maine and throughout the country. It contains a provision I authored with Senator Gillibrand that would reform the way the USDA sets dairy prices, reforms that are supported by Maine's dairy farmers. The provision would require the USDA to begin the hearing process to restructure the milk pricing system and would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to release the Department's recommendations to Congress.

S. 954 would maintain fruit and vegetable research programs, which are critical for Maine's potato and wild blueberry growers. In addition, the bill includes several local and organic food initiatives that would benefit Maine's agriculture community.

The bill would also continue vital programs to address hunger and nutrition promotion while strengthening the integrity and accountability of federal nutrition programs. I was pleased to see the adoption of commonsense reforms and the rejection of an amendment that would have made harmful changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program safety net.

Given the significant budget pressures, the bill would appropriately improve the effectiveness of conservation and rural energy initiatives. S. 954 demonstrates a continuing commitment to voluntary working lands programs that help improve stewardship practices with technical assistance and cost-share programs for working agricultural and private forest lands, including in Maine.

There are, however, some disappointments. In an arbitrary decision by the USDA, the fresh white potato is the only fresh vegetable or fruit to be specifically excluded from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC. I filed an amendment that would allow for the purchase of nutritious and affordable fresh white potatoes in WIC, which is cosponsored by a group of bipartisan colleagues, including Senators Mark Udall, Risch, King, Crapo, Bennet, Johanns, Schumer, Cantwell, and Baldwin. The modification I proposed is strongly endorsed by Maine's potato industry and supported by sound nutritional science, and I am disappointed I was denied a vote on it. I will continue to press for this reform as the Senate and House negotiate a final farm bill.

An amendment I cosponsored with Senator Leahy that would eliminate a payment limit for organic farmers under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, also did not receive a vote. It is also regrettable that the amendment to reform the sugar program by Senator Shaheen, which I cosponsored and which was endorsed by a broad coalition of consumer, business, and environmental groups, failed to pass. According to CBO, these reforms would save $82 million over the next 10 years.

The leadership of the Senate Agriculture Committee deserves credit for putting together a bipartisan farm bill during this time of partisanship. This bill is a welcome change from the previous reauthorization, which was loaded with wasteful spending and subsidies. I continue, however, to have concerns that the cost of this farm bill remains too high and that more should be done to reform agribusiness programs to help address our skyrocketing deficit. This is an area I hope Congress will continue to work on moving forward.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, in introducing the Positive Aging Act of 2013, which will help to increase older Americans' access to quality mental health screening and treatment services in community-based settings.

The legislation we are introducing today is particularly important for States like Maine that have a disproportionate number of older persons. Sixteen percent of Maine's population is 65 or older, and, with the highest median age, Maine is the ``oldest'' State in the Nation. Moreover, our percentage of older adults is increasing; by 2030, more than one in five Mainers will be over the age of 65.

One of the most daunting public health challenges facing our Nation today is how to increase access to quality mental health services for the more than 46 million American adults living with severe, disabling mental disorders that can devastate their lives and the lives of the people around them.

What is often overlooked is the prevalence of mental illness among our Nation's elderly. Nearly one in five older adults in America have one or more mental health conditions. Moreover, older white males age 85 and older have the highest rate of suicide of any group in the country. Particularly disturbing is the fact that the mental health needs of older Americans are often overlooked or not recognized because of the mistaken belief that they are a normal part of aging and therefore cannot be treated.

While effective treatments exist for mental health disorders, it is estimated that nearly two-thirds of older adults with a mental health problem do not receive the services they need. Older adults with evidence of a mental disorder are generally less likely than younger and middle-aged adults to receive mental health services and, when they do, they are less likely to receive care from a mental health specialist. Failure to treat mental disorders leads to poorer health outcomes for other medical conditions, higher rates of institutionalization, and increased health care costs.

Fortunately, important research is being done that is developing innovative approaches to improve the delivery of mental health care for older adults by integrating it into primary care settings. This research demonstrates that older adults are more likely to receive appropriate mental health care if there is a mental health professional on the primary care team, rather than simply referring them to a mental health specialist outside the primary care setting. Multiple appointments with multiple providers in multiple settings simply don't work for older patients who must also cope with concurrent chronic illnesses, mobility problems, and limited transportation options. The research also shows that there is less stigma associated with psychiatric services when they are integrated into general medical care.

The Positive Aging Act builds upon this research and authorizes funding for projects that integrate mental health screening and treatment services into community sites and primary care settings. Specifically, the Positive Aging Act of 2013 would authorize the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to fund demonstration projects to support integration of mental health services in primary care settings. It would also support grants for community- based mental health treatment outreach teams to fund demonstration projects to support integration of mental health services in primary care settings. To ensure that these geriatric mental health programs have proper attention and oversight, it would mandate the designation of a Deputy Director for Older Adult Mental Health Services in the Center for Mental Health Services, and it would also include representatives of older Americans or their families and geriatric mental health professionals on the Advisory Council for the Center for Mental Health Services. Finally, it would require State plans under Community Mental Health Services Block Grants to include descriptions of the States' outreach to and services for older individuals.

We are fortunate today to have a variety of effective treatments to address the mental health needs of American seniors. The Positive Aging Act will help to ensure that older Americans have access to these important services. I therefore urge my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors of the legislation, which has been endorsed by numerous mental health, aging, and health care organizations, including the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, the American Geriatrics Society, and the National Association of Social Workers.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, in introducing the Positive Aging Act of 2013, which will help to increase older Americans' access to quality mental health screening and treatment services in community-based settings.

The legislation we are introducing today is particularly important for States like Maine that have a disproportionate number of older persons. Sixteen percent of Maine's population is 65 or older, and, with the highest median age, Maine is the ``oldest'' State in the Nation. Moreover, our percentage of older adults is increasing; by 2030, more than one in five Mainers will be over the age of 65.

One of the most daunting public health challenges facing our Nation today is how to increase access to quality mental health services for the more than 46 million American adults living with severe, disabling mental disorders that can devastate their lives and the lives of the people around them.

What is often overlooked is the prevalence of mental illness among our Nation's elderly. Nearly one in five older adults in America have one or more mental health conditions. Moreover, older white males age 85 and older have the highest rate of suicide of any group in the country. Particularly disturbing is the fact that the mental health needs of older Americans are often overlooked or not recognized because of the mistaken belief that they are a normal part of aging and therefore cannot be treated.

While effective treatments exist for mental health disorders, it is estimated that nearly two-thirds of older adults with a mental health problem do not receive the services they need. Older adults with evidence of a mental disorder are generally less likely than younger and middle-aged adults to receive mental health services and, when they do, they are less likely to receive care from a mental health specialist. Failure to treat mental disorders leads to poorer health outcomes for other medical conditions, higher rates of institutionalization, and increased health care costs.

Fortunately, important research is being done that is developing innovative approaches to improve the delivery of mental health care for older adults by integrating it into primary care settings. This research demonstrates that older adults are more likely to receive appropriate mental health care if there is a mental health professional on the primary care team, rather than simply referring them to a mental health specialist outside the primary care setting. Multiple appointments with multiple providers in multiple settings simply don't work for older patients who must also cope with concurrent chronic illnesses, mobility problems, and limited transportation options. The research also shows that there is less stigma associated with psychiatric services when they are integrated into general medical care.

The Positive Aging Act builds upon this research and authorizes funding for projects that integrate mental health screening and treatment services into community sites and primary care settings. Specifically, the Positive Aging Act of 2013 would authorize the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to fund demonstration projects to support integration of mental health services in primary care settings. It would also support grants for community- based mental health treatment outreach teams to fund demonstration projects to support integration of mental health services in primary care settings. To ensure that these geriatric mental health programs have proper attention and oversight, it would mandate the designation of a Deputy Director for Older Adult Mental Health Services in the Center for Mental Health Services, and it would also include representatives of older Americans or their families and geriatric mental health professionals on the Advisory Council for the Center for Mental Health Services. Finally, it would require State plans under Community Mental Health Services Block Grants to include descriptions of the States' outreach to and services for older individuals.

We are fortunate today to have a variety of effective treatments to address the mental health needs of American seniors. The Positive Aging Act will help to ensure that older Americans have access to these important services. I therefore urge my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors of the legislation, which has been endorsed by numerous mental health, aging, and health care organizations, including the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, the American Geriatrics Society, and the National Association of Social Workers.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak to an amendment to the farm bill on a subject important not only to the farmers of Maine but also to the participants in the WIC program. I am pleased that Senator Mark Udall has joined as the lead cosponsor of the amendment, which would require that all fresh fruits and vegetables, including fresh white potatoes, be included in the final USDA rule. Specifically, the amendment would only allow fresh, whole, or cut vegetables to be included--vegetables with added sugars, fats, or oils would be prohibited.

The proposed final USDA rule for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, food package, which went into effect in December 2009, includes a ban on the purchase of fresh white potatoes by WIC participants. Fresh potatoes are the only fruit or vegetable to be excluded, which sends a message to WIC participants that USDA believes that potatoes are not healthy.

The USDA has said that the proposed ban on fresh white potatoes is based on a 2005 National Academies' Institute of Medicine, IOM, report, which considered recommendations of the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, DGA, and includes consumption data nearly 20 years old. The subsequently published 2010 DGA, however, recommends 5 to 6 cups of starchy vegetables per week for women with a daily caloric intake of 1,800 to 2,400 calories--an increase of 2 to 3 cups per week from the 2005 DGA. USDA has yet to update the rule to reflect the most recent

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Servicemembers and Veterans Prescription Drug Safety Act of 2013, with my colleagues Senators Blumenthal, Boxer, Manchin, Murkowski, and Boozman. This bill would require the Attorney General to establish drug take-back programs in coordination with both the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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 while serving our nation in Afghanistan during the same period of time. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the number of suicides among veterans has reached an astounding rate of 22 each day based on data collected from more than 21 states.

These losses are unacceptable. We are losing dozens of America's finest each month, squandering precious talent that our nation needs and depriving families of their loved ones. Today's soldiers are tomorrow's veterans; their mental health needs must be met now to avoid future suicides.

There is substantial evidence that prescription drug abuse is a major factor in military and veteran suicides. In its January 2012 report, Army 2020: Generating Health and Discipline in the Force, the Army found that 29 percent of suicides involved individuals with a known history of psychotropic medication use, including anti-depressants, anti-anxiety medicine, anti-psychotics, and other controlled substances such as opioids.

This report recommended the establishment of a military drug take- back program to help combat prescription drug abuse in the ranks. Given that more than 49,000 soldiers were issued three or more psychotropic or controlled substance prescriptions last year, and an estimated 3,500 soldiers illicitly used prescription drugs, it is past time we act on this recommendation and implement a military drug take-back program.

In Afghanistan, we have invested billions of dollars and devoted some of the military's best minds to protect our soldiers and give them the tools they need to reduce the threat of an improvised explosive devise attack. Unfortunately, we have not focused sufficient resources or creativity to suicide prevention. While I applaud the military's, and especially the Army's, and VA's efforts to address this threat seriously, we must do more.

At present, only the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, has the inherent authority to conduct a drug take-back program. Three years ago, the Congress passed the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010, which provided the Attorney General the flexibility necessary to delegate similar authority to other agencies for the collection and disposal of controlled substances. Since that time, the Attorney General has not sufficiently exercised his existing authority to provide this much needed assistance to the Department of Defense and the VA. The DEA recently proposed new regulations to expand the options available to collect controlled substances for purposes of disposal. Unfortunately, the proposed regulations fall short because they fail to authorize the Department of Defense or the VA to collect controlled substances through appropriate mechanisms.

DEA has concerns that DOD and VA cannot maintain the same strict accountability of drugs to prevent the misuse, abuse, or sales in the black market. I am confident, however, that the DOD--the institution that has developed and implemented programs for the handling of nuclear weapons and classified information--and the VA are capable of conducting drug take-back programs with the utmost accountability and highest of standards.

Excluding the DOD and VA from conducting drug take-back programs is detrimental to efforts to reduce controlled substance abuse, decrease non-medical use of prescription drugs, prevent diversion of controlled substances, and limit the possibility for accidental overdose and death for our servicemembers and veterans, or their family members. This legislation will provide the necessary authority to give both departments an effective drug-take back program that will help address the scourge of suicide.

The loss of even one servicemember or veteran to a potentially preventable suicide involving controlled substance abuse or misuse is unacceptable. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important, life-saving legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Servicemembers and Veterans Prescription Drug Safety Act of 2013, with my colleagues Senators Blumenthal, Boxer, Manchin, Murkowski, and Boozman. This bill would require the Attorney General to establish drug take-back programs in coordination with both the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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 while serving our nation in Afghanistan during the same period of time. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the number of suicides among veterans has reached an astounding rate of 22 each day based on data collected from more than 21 states.

These losses are unacceptable. We are losing dozens of America's finest each month, squandering precious talent that our nation needs and depriving families of their loved ones. Today's soldiers are tomorrow's veterans; their mental health needs must be met now to avoid future suicides.

There is substantial evidence that prescription drug abuse is a major factor in military and veteran suicides. In its January 2012 report, Army 2020: Generating Health and Discipline in the Force, the Army found that 29 percent of suicides involved individuals with a known history of psychotropic medication use, including anti-depressants, anti-anxiety medicine, anti-psychotics, and other controlled substances such as opioids.

This report recommended the establishment of a military drug take- back program to help combat prescription drug abuse in the ranks. Given that more than 49,000 soldiers were issued three or more psychotropic or controlled substance prescriptions last year, and an estimated 3,500 soldiers illicitly used prescription drugs, it is past time we act on this recommendation and implement a military drug take-back program.

In Afghanistan, we have invested billions of dollars and devoted some of the military's best minds to protect our soldiers and give them the tools they need to reduce the threat of an improvised explosive devise attack. Unfortunately, we have not focused sufficient resources or creativity to suicide prevention. While I applaud the military's, and especially the Army's, and VA's efforts to address this threat seriously, we must do more.

At present, only the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, has the inherent authority to conduct a drug take-back program. Three years ago, the Congress passed the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010, which provided the Attorney General the flexibility necessary to delegate similar authority to other agencies for the collection and disposal of controlled substances. Since that time, the Attorney General has not sufficiently exercised his existing authority to provide this much needed assistance to the Department of Defense and the VA. The DEA recently proposed new regulations to expand the options available to collect controlled substances for purposes of disposal. Unfortunately, the proposed regulations fall short because they fail to authorize the Department of Defense or the VA to collect controlled substances through appropriate mechanisms.

DEA has concerns that DOD and VA cannot maintain the same strict accountability of drugs to prevent the misuse, abuse, or sales in the black market. I am confident, however, that the DOD--the institution that has developed and implemented programs for the handling of nuclear weapons and classified information--and the VA are capable of conducting drug take-back programs with the utmost accountability and highest of standards.

Excluding the DOD and VA from conducting drug take-back programs is detrimental to efforts to reduce controlled substance abuse, decrease non-medical use of prescription drugs, prevent diversion of controlled substances, and limit the possibility for accidental overdose and death for our servicemembers and veterans, or their family members. This legislation will provide the necessary authority to give both departments an effective drug-take back program that will help address the scourge of suicide.

The loss of even one servicemember or veteran to a potentially preventable suicide involving controlled substance abuse or misuse is unacceptable. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important, life-saving legislation.