Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I just want to commend the Senator for his amendment. The fact is that 25 percent of our Nation's bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, as described by the Senator from Ohio. In my home State of Maine, nearly a third of our 2,408 bridges are deficient. Senator Portman's amendment targets these funds to ensure that they are awarded to structurally deficient or functionally obsolete projects in an effort to respond to our Nation's crumbling infrastructure. Like Senator Murray, I support this amendment, and I too am prepared to accept it on a voice vote.

Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, we have had a good discussion about how to proceed with this bill. The chairman of the full committee has been extremely constructive in exercising her leadership. She very much wants a new approach, and I commend her for bringing bills individually to the Senate floor. What we are going to propose--and through the Chair I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the full committee--is that, as usual, we would go back and forth, one side then the other, in considering amendments but that we would allow Senator Coburn to file a series of amendments at this point. They are already filed, but he will call them up and make them pending, with the understanding that we would set aside individual amendments so we could keep going back and forth and so that other colleagues on the Republican side who have amendments would not be shut out but, rather, would be accommodated as well. Is that the understanding of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee?

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I want to second what the chair of our subcommittee, the Senator from Washington, said. Frankly, we could have done 10 amendments today in the time that we were on the floor, ready to work through amendments. I know there are many amendments out there. I encourage our colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to wait until the eleventh hour. It is going to be much harder for us to work to accommodate amendments at that point. Tomorrow is the opportunity for people to come to the floor early. We will be here ready to work.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, let me commend the Senator from Louisiana for his amendment. It would restrict criminals who have been convicted of certain violent or sex crimes from receiving housing assistance through HUD's public housing choice neighborhood and tenant- and project-based section 8 programs. Public housing authorities and private property owners who provide assistance under these programs are already required under Federal law to deny admission or assistance to individuals who are subject to lifetime registration on a sex offender registry under a State program. However, when you move to the next stage, strangely enough, it is discretionary. Under current law, prior violent criminal activity may be grounds for the denial of assistance for public housing and the section 8 programs, but it is not required to be grounds to deny that kind of assistance. That is exactly the point that Senator Vitter is trying to make. So his amendment would tighten the current law to make it very clear that under certain categories--aggravated sexual abuse, murder, and murder in the second degree, sexual exploitation, and other abuse of children and violence against women--individuals convicted of those crimes would not qualify for public housing assistance under the programs that I have mentioned. As Senator Vitter said, this is a commonsense amendment. It will help to make housing safer for the law-abiding citizens residing there. He has targeted serious crimes, and I think his amendment should be adopted. I am going to support the amendment, and I will be urging its adoption. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, one of the issues and questions that have been raised by many of my colleagues about this bill is that at first glance it appears to be higher than the President's budget request for these two departments--Transportation and HUD and the related agencies--and I want to explain why that is. It is a very legitimate question, but it has a very good answer. The answer is the President's budget for the agencies and departments under our jurisdiction is artificially low because it relies on gimmicks, and it relies on scoring differences between CBO and OMB. Let me explain just a couple of areas where it will become evident to my colleagues why the difference exists and why the President's budget submission actually is not less than the bill that is on the floor now, if true budgeting principles and accounting were used. First of all, the President's budget proposes to shift $2 billion in existing discretionary programs to mandatory in order to appear to achieve savings, including $1.5 billion from Amtrak's operating capital and debt service grants and $450 million by removing large hub airports from the Airport Improvements Program. In addition, the President's budget request assumes an increase in the passenger facility charge at airports from $4.50 to $8.00. Well, we have seen this movie before. When the FAA authorization was being considered just last year, Congress rejected this fee increase. There is no reason to believe it is going to be accepted now. Yet that is built into the President's budget assumptions. We have seen him do this on a host of tax issues too, so this is not unknown for this administration. There is another area I think is highly significant. The President's request for section 8 project-based rental assistance is insufficient to fully fund existing 12-month renewal contracts with the private property owners who participate in this program. In fact, it is about 10 percent short of the amount the administration knows is going to be needed to renew these contracts for the full 12 months of the fiscal year. That is about $1.2 billion short. That is about half of the difference we are talking about between the President's budget request and our bill. Surely, it is not responsible to assume that somehow we are not going to pay these private property owners who are participating in the project-based section 8 program for the full year of rental assistance. It is not going to stop after 10 months. They are not going to be evicting their tenants who are receiving the subsidy. So true and accurate budgeting would have required the President to put $1.2 billion into his budget request for this program. Finally, CBO scored FHA receipts--the fees, the mortgage insurance premiums--at $1.8 billion below OMB's score, which increased the cost of maintaining the existing level of services in our bill. We know there are disputes between CBO and OMB all the time. In this case, I am not suggesting that it is a gimmick, as in the other two examples I have given. I am suggesting there is an honest difference of opinion. But the fact is, whether we like it or not at times, we are bound by CBO's score, and CBO's estimate of those FHA receipts--those fees, those mortgage insurance premiums--is $1.8 billion below OMB's score. That is quite a difference. So if you add up those gimmicks, with the Amtrak program moving from discretionary to mandatory, the assumption that Congress is all of a sudden just months later going to change its mind on the passenger facility charges and nearly double them after rejecting that idea just months ago, the failure to fully fund the project-based section 8 rental assistance, and the difference between CBO and OMB--the genuine dispute on FHA receipts--if you add all that up, it is not accurate to say our bill is $2.4 billion above the President's request. What we employed was CBO's estimate. We got rid of the gimmicks, and we used honest budgeting, and that accounts for the difference. I hope my colleagues will not be misled into thinking that somehow this bill is above the President's budget request. When you apply honest accounting principles and take into account the $1.8 billion difference between the scoring of CBO and OMB, it is obviously not different. In fact, I would argue that we are under the President's budget request.

Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am pleased to join Chairman Murray as we begin floor consideration of the fiscal year 2014 appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies. This return to regular order in which appropriations bills are considered individually, with the opportunity for full debate and for Members to come to the floor and offer their amendments, is welcome indeed. Like Senator Murray, I wish to commend the two leaders of our Appropriations Committee--Senator Mikulski, the chair, and Senator Shelby, the ranking member--for their commitment to returning to regular order. We simply must stop the irresponsible practice of waiting until the eleventh hour and then producing a bundled bill totaling thousands of pages with little or no opportunity for truly careful deliberation and debate. I wish to thank our subcommittee chairman for working very closely with me to craft this bipartisan bill. She has been a tremendous leader of our subcommittee and has operated in a way that has been completely bipartisan. This bill makes responsible investments in transportation and economic development and includes input and priorities from Members from both sides of the aisle. We listened to the concerns of our Members, and the bill was approved by a bipartisan vote of 22 to 8 in committee. The fact is that the transportation and housing appropriations bill has a long tradition of bipartisan support. Every Senator has unmet transportation and housing needs in his or her home State, from crumbling roads and bridges, to economic development needs, to a growing population of low-income families, elderly, and disabled individuals who need our help. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the condition of our Nation's infrastructure remains poor. Our roads, airports, and transit systems received a grade of D, while our bridges, ports, and rail systems received only a C. In fact, in my State of Maine the roads and bridges are among the worst in the Nation's rural transportation network. This matters because we need efficient and safe transportation networks to move our people around the country and to move our products to market. The bill before us does not begin to solve all of our Nation's transportation and housing woes. We simply do not have the money to do that. After all, we cannot ignore the size of our unsustainable $17 trillion national debt. We also cannot ignore the need for investments that will help the private sector create jobs and allow our people and products to travel safely and efficiently and our most vulnerable citizens to receive decent housing. I understand that some Members are very concerned about supporting any funding bill that has an allocation that is higher than the House counterpart. I certainly agree it is important that we adhere to current law, which limits spending to $967 billion. But it is our responsibility to consider the merits of each of the Senate funding bills and produce bills based on our best judgments. Then we negotiate with our House counterparts in conference. That is the way the process is supposed to work. That is how we produce compromises. That is how we produce appropriations bills. The Senate should not be a rubberstamp for the House, nor should the House be a rubberstamp for the Senate. Each body should come forth with its individual appropriations bills, and then we should meet in conference, negotiate, and produce bills that can have the support of both bodies. The fact is that the fiscal year 2014 House transportation and HUD allocation of $44.1 billion is, in my judgment, insufficient to meet the true needs of both transportation and housing. In fact, the House allocation was $51.6 billion just last fiscal year, so this year's House allocation reflects a dramatic cut. Could there be further cuts in our bill? Absolutely. I am sure there will be some worthwhile amendments offered on the Senate floor, and, more importantly, I believe that when we negotiate with our House counterparts we will produce a bill that is most likely somewhere in between the two allocations. Our bill is by no means a perfect bill, but the House bill includes policy choices I believe most Senators will find problematic if they take a close look at the House provisions. Let me cite one example. Our bill provides nearly $3.2 billion for the Community Development Block Grant Program. The CDBG Program supports economic development leading to job creation across the country. I want to point out that the President's budget cut that program. It proposed $2.8 billion, which is the lowest funding level since 1976, when President Gerald Ford was in office. The CDBG Program is one of the most popular Federal programs because of the flexibility it gives communities and States to tailor their economic development projects. Yet the House bill would cut the program even beyond the President's budget by reducing this important program by more than $1.1 billion below the 1976 levels. That is when the program was first created in a Republican administration that recognized that States and communities are best able to use the flexibility of the Community Development Block Grant Program to meet the needs of their citizens, to spur downtown development, to create incentives for businesses to locate, and to produce good jobs. Our bill also continues funding for the TIGER grant program, which supports transportation infrastructure projects that have a significant impact on the Nation, a region or metropolitan area. The House bill not only eliminates this program but also rescinds funding for the current fiscal year by 50 percent. That means a round of grants that are just about to be funded could not go through. For aviation programs our bill provides sufficient funding to ensure that the NextGen modernization efforts will continue to improve the efficiency, safety, and capacity of our aviation system. With the lower funding levels as proposed by the House, here is the irony: We would simply end up paying more in the long term than we would now by providing the funding when it is needed. So this program isn't a matter of whether we need it; it is when are we going to fund it. Funding it now, as we have been doing year after year in an incremental way, allows the NextGen Program for aviation to stay on track, and it will end up costing less than if we cut the funding and stretch it out over many more years. Our bill also includes $1.4 billion for Amtrak while the House bill provides only $950 million. But in no way is the Senate funding extravagant. In fact, it is nearly $1.2 billion less than the administration's request for Amtrak, and it avoids gimmicks that the Obama administration used in this account. While the needs for Amtrak infrastructure far exceed what we were able to provide, our bill is a step in the right direction. Under the House proposal, Amtrak would be forced to consider cutting service, which could affect millions of passengers, diverting them to our already congested highways and busy airports. In reality, the overall resources provided in this bill are well below the level of investment that our Nation's infrastructure requires, as the subcommittee chairman so correctly pointed out. Nevertheless, it would spur creation by the private sector of good jobs now, when they are needed most, and it would establish the foundations for future economic growth. Just as important to our economic future, however, is reining in Federal spending. Getting our national debt under control must be a priority governmentwide. In setting priorities for the coming year, this bill strikes the right balance between thoughtful investment and fiscal restraint. I appreciate the opportunity to present this important bill to our Chamber, to our colleagues. As we debate this bill, I urge our colleagues to support the motion to proceed to the compromises our committee worked so hard to achieve and, most of all, to come forward with suggestions for improvements through amendments. Let me end by emphasizing that point. I have the assurance of the subcommittee chairman that Republicans will be allowed to offer amendments. So I would say to my colleagues: Even if you don't like this bill, there is no reason to oppose the motion to proceed on the bill. You will be given an opportunity to offer amendments, to change the numbers in this bill, to cut programs if you wish. But let's get on this bill so we can return to the normal process of full and fair debate on individual appropriations bills, rather than waiting to the eleventh hour, bundling them together with little review, with insufficient care, deliberation, and debate or relying on continuing resolutions, stop-gap measures, which wreak havoc on the ability of programs to be carried out in a cost-effective manner. I see our ranking member of the full committee is on the floor and I yield to him.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Schumer to introduce legislation to ensure that our seniors and disabled citizens have timely access to home health services under the Medicare program. Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives and clinical nurse specialists are all playing increasingly important roles in the delivery of health care services, particularly in rural and medically underserved areas of our country where physicians may be in scarce supply. In recognition of their growing role, Congress, in 1997, authorized Medicare to begin paying for physician services provided by these health professionals as long as those services are within their scope of practice under state law. Despite their expanded role, these advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants are currently unable to order home health services for their Medicare patients. Under current law, only physicians are allowed to certify or initiate home health care for Medicare patients, even though they may not be as familiar with the patient's case as the non-physician provider. In fact, in many cases, the certifying physician may not even have a relationship with the patient and must rely upon the input of the nurse practitioner, physician assistant, clinical nurse specialist or certified nurse midwife to order the medically necessary home health care. At best, this requirement adds more paperwork and a number of unnecessary steps to the process before home health care can be provided. At worst, it can lead to needless delays in getting Medicare patients the home health care they need simply because a physician is not readily available to sign the form. The inability of advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants to order home health care is particularly burdensome for Medicare beneficiaries in medically underserved areas, where these providers may be the only health care professionals available. For example, needed home health care was delayed by more than a week for a Medicare patient in Nevada because the physician assistant was the only health care professional serving the patient's small town, and the supervising physician was located 60 miles away. A nurse practitioner told me about another case in which her collaborating physician had just lost her father and was not available. As a consequence, the patient experienced a two-day delay in getting needed care while they waited to get the paperwork signed by another physician. Another nurse practitioner pointed out that it is ridiculous that she can order physical and occupational therapy in a subacute facility but cannot order home health care. One of her patients had to wait eleven days after being discharged before his physical and occupational therapy could continue simply because the home health agency had difficulty finding a physician to certify the continuation of the same therapy that the nurse practitioner had been able to authorize when the patient was in the facility. The Home Health Care planning Improvement Act will help to ensure that our Medicare beneficiaries get the home health care that they need when they need it by allowing physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists and certified nurse midwives to order home health services. Our legislation is supported by the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners and the Visiting Nurse Associations of America. I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Schumer to introduce legislation to ensure that our seniors and disabled citizens have timely access to home health services under the Medicare program. Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives and clinical nurse specialists are all playing increasingly important roles in the delivery of health care services, particularly in rural and medically underserved areas of our country where physicians may be in scarce supply. In recognition of their growing role, Congress, in 1997, authorized Medicare to begin paying for physician services provided by these health professionals as long as those services are within their scope of practice under state law. Despite their expanded role, these advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants are currently unable to order home health services for their Medicare patients. Under current law, only physicians are allowed to certify or initiate home health care for Medicare patients, even though they may not be as familiar with the patient's case as the non-physician provider. In fact, in many cases, the certifying physician may not even have a relationship with the patient and must rely upon the input of the nurse practitioner, physician assistant, clinical nurse specialist or certified nurse midwife to order the medically necessary home health care. At best, this requirement adds more paperwork and a number of unnecessary steps to the process before home health care can be provided. At worst, it can lead to needless delays in getting Medicare patients the home health care they need simply because a physician is not readily available to sign the form. The inability of advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants to order home health care is particularly burdensome for Medicare beneficiaries in medically underserved areas, where these providers may be the only health care professionals available. For example, needed home health care was delayed by more than a week for a Medicare patient in Nevada because the physician assistant was the only health care professional serving the patient's small town, and the supervising physician was located 60 miles away. A nurse practitioner told me about another case in which her collaborating physician had just lost her father and was not available. As a consequence, the patient experienced a two-day delay in getting needed care while they waited to get the paperwork signed by another physician. Another nurse practitioner pointed out that it is ridiculous that she can order physical and occupational therapy in a subacute facility but cannot order home health care. One of her patients had to wait eleven days after being discharged before his physical and occupational therapy could continue simply because the home health agency had difficulty finding a physician to certify the continuation of the same therapy that the nurse practitioner had been able to authorize when the patient was in the facility. The Home Health Care planning Improvement Act will help to ensure that our Medicare beneficiaries get the home health care that they need when they need it by allowing physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists and certified nurse midwives to order home health services. Our legislation is supported by the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners and the Visiting Nurse Associations of America. I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. 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 DGA. The 2010 DGA lists four ``nutrients of concern''--potassium, dietary fiber, calcium, and Vitamin D. The guidelines state that dietary intake of these four nutrients ``are low enough to be of public health concern for both adults and children.'' Since USDA is concerned about a lack of these nutrients in the American diet, it would make sense for the Department to promote good sources of these critical nutrients. Yet the Department's proposed WIC rule eliminates a vegetable such as the potato that is an excellent source of these nutrients. USDA should not limit the availability of the potato but instead should encourage its healthy preparation and consumption. In a rather puzzling example of inconsistency, while the newest WIC regulations will no longer allow WIC mothers, infants, and children to buy white potatoes, if those same participants get benefits from the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, some States may allow them to purchase white potatoes at a farmers' market. Consider the following nutritional facts about potatoes that are often overlooked: potatoes have more potassium than bananas, a food commonly associated with this nutrient; potatoes are cholesterol free, fat free, and sodium free, and can be served in countless healthy ways; a medium-baked potato contains 15 percent of the daily recommended value of dietary fiber, 27 percent of the daily recommended value for Vitamin B6, and 28 percent of the daily recommended value of Vitamin C. It only makes common sense to include a healthy, locally grown, and nutritious vegetable such as the fresh white potato in the WIC package and I believe the sound recommendations in the 2010 DGA support this. The Collins-Udall of Colorado amendment would achieve this by requiring that all fresh fruits and vegetables, including fresh white potatoes, be included in the final USDA rule.