Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

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

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

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

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

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am proud of what we were able to accomplish in the nutrition title of the Farm Bill. It achieves important reforms in SNAP, but also protects food assistance for families, many of whom never dreamed that they would need help putting food on their table. We are adopting important reforms to clarify the law or rules in a few places where members had legitimate concerns. At the same time, and perhaps more importantly, we are rejecting many draconian proposals that would have caused serious harm to program participants by slashing benefits or kicking families off of SNAP, undermining the primary purpose and the basic framework of the program. Let's start by reviewing some of the improvements we made to SNAP to address concerns around minor eligibility issues. In Michigan, we discovered two lottery winners were continuing to receive benefits after winning a million dollars. In a program with 46 million participants, this really is an example of a very rare problem. Nevertheless, we want to make absolutely clear in federal law that individuals who win the lottery are not eligible for SNAP. So we tightened rules in a way to ensure that not even one lottery winner can get SNAP. But we also wanted to make sure that this prohibition does not result in a burdensome new requirement to ask all applicants and participants if they had recently won the lottery. The provision requires that State SNAP agencies and local lotteries and gaming commissions set up data-sharing to ensure that the SNAP agency is informed when individuals win substantial sums of money. A SNAP agency can then take action to contact the winning participant and review their eligibility in light of these major winnings. I'm pleased that we managed to find a way to address this problem without imposing new requirements on the millions of struggling low income households who participate in this program. There is no need to put questions about the lottery or gambling on the application form, and we expect USDA to ensure that won't happen. In other words, this change allows us to use our data and technology to prevent this extremely rare event from happening again without putting new burdens on participants. States will apply regular income and asset tests apply to lottery winners--if someone has winnings that make them ineligible, they can be disqualified from SNAP. But if that person paid off debts or was able to finally afford costly home repair or health care and now had income that made them eligible, they have every right to receive SNAP benefits. Another area of eligibility that follows the same principle on implementation is eligibility for ex-offenders felons who are fleeing criminal justice. Current SNAP law prohibits people with criminal records who are fleeing from law enforcement or violating the terms of their parole from participating in SNAP. Because criminal law is a complicated mix of federal and State statutes and definitions, members wanted to make very clear that people committing odious crimes would be ineligible for SNAP if they were fleeing or violating their parole. This does not apply to any convicted criminal who satisfies his or her debt to society by serving out the sentence and complying with any court order. So, it's a narrow group of people that we're highlighting. For that reason, we do not expect any changes to the SNAP application and eligibility process. Applicants are already asked about their fleeing felon status, so we expect that additional inquiries about applicants' criminal records will not be necessary. We did include one provision that will result in a cut to SNAP benefits for some households. Some States have been providing as little as $1 in heating assistance for the sole purpose of qualifying recipients for higher benefit. While I agree that SNAP benefits are often insufficient to cover a family's food needs over the course of a month, the very structure of SNAP is meant to award benefits based on how much money a family has available to purchase food. Providing $1 in heating assistance skews benefits away from this income and expense based system. So the change we made means a SNAP recipient now must receive $20 in heating assistance to qualify for the Standard Utility Allowance. If you do not receive at least $20 in low income heating assistance, you will need to produce a utility bill. This is intended to make the energy assistance a real contribution to the actual expenses of a poor household. Congress never intended to permit households that don't have heating or cooling costs because they are included in rent or covered by the landlord to get a deduction as if they did have expenses. The law is ambiguous on this point, so this bill would clarify the issue. When we decided to make this change, I insisted that we do it in a way that did not harm any household that had actual heating or cooling costs, including costs passed on by a landlord or shared with another family. That means we expect USDA to make three things a priority when overseeing State implementation of this change. One priority is that anyone currently getting this $1 in energy assistance must be given a chance to show whether they have energy costs of any kind. I think many of these households will have these costs and qualify for the deduction that raises their benefits. That's how the current program works in the majority of States that do not offer this minimal energy assistance. States must give households a chance to document actual costs. I expect USDA to provide guidance to States to ensure that reflects many different living scenarios that low-income households experience are taken into account when implementing this change. The second priority for USDA is to make clear that this change should have no effect on anyone currently receive a more typical LIHEAP payment. We continue to support the connection between SNAP and LIHEAP and do not expect these changes to cause problems for the majority of people who rely on and receive LIHEAP, or are applying and are likely to receive it, in getting the SNAP utility deduction. I know this puts the burden on States to make sure their application process and benefit calculations are performed in a way that allows them to determine everyone eligible for the deduction based on receiving energy assistance. We expect households to be given the opportunity to attest to their participation in LIHEAP. Many States offer that option to households now, and we do not intend to change that. We expect that a State SNAP agency could certify that its State State does not provide LIHEAP payments of less than $20 per year. This would mean there is no need for households to provide information about the amount of LIHEAP they receive or the method or frequency of those payments. We expect the Secretary to monitor this change closely and help States come up with the least burdensome implementation options available. Because CBO did not assume any savings from reduced benefits in States that have not implemented this practice, we expect the Secretary to implement this change in a way that is consistent with the intent to not impact those States. Although we did provide States the flexibility to phase in the provision for most participating households, I remain concerned that the timetable for implementation of these changes is short. For new applicants and households, the provision is effective just 30 days after enactment. Under SNAP regulations, States will be protected from being cited for errors during the first few months after enactment. However, low-income households do not have the same administrative protection. It is possible that they could receive higher benefits as a result of the State not being able to convert its systems quickly enough. I urge the Secretary to work with States to waive any household liability that results from receiving slightly higher benefits because States were unable to implement the provision in a timely manner. Let me turn now to a significant outcome in the nutrition title. I am particularly pleased with the reforms that we have proposed to SNAP's employment and training program. A key element of that effort is a new demonstration project to test innovative strategies to help build individuals' skills and employability. The majority of adults enrolled in SNAP who can work do. Even more work just before or just after their participation in SNAP. Nevertheless, all of the conferees had a shared goal of exploring whether there were ways that SNAP could more affirmatively support SNAP participants' desire to work and improve their and their families' situation. We agreed to look for ways to help adults get the training, support and encouragement to find suitable employment. Of course, we had to do this in an environment with very constrained resources. We worked on a package of ideas that would make better use of existing federal resources, provide modest new sums of money for SNAP employment and training and provided funding to test innovative new approaches. We wanted to be sure that by the time of the next reauthorization we would have a better sense of what kinds of services States were offering, what was producing results for families, and that USDA would have more capacity to oversee an employment and training effort. The bill provides $200 million to for up to 10 State pilot projects that will test new strategies to support individuals to return to work, enhance their skills to improve their earnings, and address households' barriers to work. The pilot will operate within SNAP's employment and training program framework, but we have also expanded the types of activities that can be offered. Now States will have the option to include activities offered through the State's cash assistance as well as supportive services that are allowed under SNAP. States can use the funding to cover the mandated supportive services, such as child care, for participants in the pilot. Moreover they can test whether supportive services such as child care or transitional housing are appropriate interventions on their own. After all, a mother with safe, stable high quality child care is far more likely to be able to look for and maintain employment than one without such help. Similarly an individual with a place to live is far more likely to find and keep employment than someone without housing. It was important to me to include unsubsidized employment as an allowable activity because that's ultimately what we want all job training participants to find. This required some careful consideration. Private employment is a different kind of activity than a class or program run and monitored by the State. States, very understandably, will have very limited ability to oversee private employment situations. So we wanted to ensure that the kinds of protections that exist in the private labor market, such as workplace protection laws, health and safety standards and wage and hour protections also apply to any private employment programs under SNAP employment and training programs. We also made clear that placements into unsubsidized employment cannot displace an existing worker at the employment site. That has long been the rule under other types of SNAP employment and training programs, and we expect the same here. I expect that USDA will issue comprehensive standards that incorporate all existing SNAP protections as well as the appropriate private employee protections such as the Fair Labor Standards Act into the requirements for offering unsubsidized employment. Despite that responsibility, I hope USDA shares my excitement that including unsubsidized employment as an education and training activity is an unprecedented opportunity to support low-income individuals as they enter or rejoin the workforce. I specifically focus on one challenge in offering unsubsidized work. The pilot projects will allow States to apply SNAP's sanction policy to any individual who is assigned a work activity, but willfully refuses, without good cause, to take an action that he or she could safely take. In the traditional education and training setting, it is usually-- though not always--relatively straightforward to determine whether an individual has complied. Did the person participate in the required activity? If not, did the person have good cause, like sickness, not to do so? But in the unsubsidized work placement, it may be difficult to make the correct assessment when an individual does not meet the work requirement. The private employer may have reduced work hours or transferred the individual into a position for which they are clearly not qualified. Such action does not speak to the individual's willingness to work. Because of the inherent challenges in determining compliance with unsubsidized work activities, the pilot program requires clear evidence that an individual willfully refused to take a safe and proper action without good cause before the State can subject him or her to sanctions. I also encourage the Secretary to issue guidance about the very limited circumstances under which a person who is working could be sanctioned for losing his or her job. When someone who is working loses the job for reasons beyond their control, we want to ensure they are not doubly punished by losing SNAP benefits as well. The only way we will know if the pilot projects are succeeding is if we have a high quality, longitudinal evaluation. So any State applying to conduct a pilot must also participate in a comprehensive evaluation to determine what works and what doesn't. We want to measure actual outcomes--employment and changes in earnings, as well as documented improvements in a participant's skills, training and experience, since successfully completing a job training program is not a guarantee of immediate employment. We also want to better understand how to ensure that the assessment of each job training participant helps match the individual with the training or support best suited for their needs. After all, if a job training volunteer really just needs help with child care or transportation in order to accept a job offer, we don't want that person assigned to job search or workfare. Assessment is already a requirement under federal rules. Gaining more insight into how a good assessment and assignment system can improve participant outcomes may be one of the most cost-effective lessons we can hope to gain from this effort. This is an area where I want to thank my fellow conferees for all of their hard work. We came to the conference with very different ideas about what the issues facing the program and clients are, and what SNAP's approach towards promoting work out to be. We spent a tremendous amount of time educating ourselves about the issues, the opportunities and the risks of various approaches. I believe we ended up with a stronger program that encourages work without penalizing those who are willing to work but unable to find a job in this economy. The pilot program represents a true compromise and an important step forward in helping low-income Americans succeed in the labor market. In addition to the pilot projects, the bill requires States to begin measuring actual individual-based outcomes from participating in job training. We directed USDA to compile and analyze this information so we can learn what kinds of services work best to provide SNAP participants with the skills and experience they need to find employment. Because matching an individual's employment needs to an appropriate program or service is critical to positive employment outcomes, this review should include a focus on the individualized assessment that is required of SNAP work registrants. As I mentioned earlier, this is an aspect of employment and training that is already required. Understanding individuals' needs and abilities is crucial to matching them to a job training or work program where they can succeed. That is the first important step in making future improvement in the program. We were very clear that successful outcomes can mean more than a full-time job placement. We expect that the State outcome data reflect this by including measures of improved employability, like educational attainment, credentials and work experience. We also expect USDA's analysis to acknowledge the reality that getting suitable employment may take more than the completion of a job training course. This admittedly increases the attention both USDA and the States must place on their education and training programs, but it will give us invaluable information about how best to meet the needs of SNAP participants. Another area of the legislation where we made some important investments is enhancing USDA's efforts to combat fraud. The agency has done a remarkable job of identifying and preventing fraud and trafficking; even as household and retailer participation grew drastically, fraud remained at a historic low percentage. So we targeted every small area we could to improve the integrity of the program. We've increased funding for USDA to address retailer fraud through data mining and expand State and federal partnerships to combat retailer fraud. Historically, States have pursued household fraud and USDA has dealt with retailer fraud. But, in some cases, the fraudulent activity involves both types of parties, so we're creating pilot projects to see how collaboration can help stretch resources. While States have done a good job with their responsibility to prevent and prosecute fraud, some States have developed troubling techniques that pressure innocent low-income households to admit wrongdoing. When USDA selects States to partner with, we intend that they prioritize States that have a record of addressing fraud through investigations, hearings and actual third-party findings of fraud. We urge USDA to take a close look at States that have a high number of disqualifications that come from client confessions in the absence of investigations. States that are ready to take on new responsibilities under the pilot must be those that ensure their disqualifications are in fact a result of documented fraud. Another provision deals with a rare, but important, participant integrity issue. SNAP benefits are paid on a debit card we call Electronic Benefit Transfer or EBT cards. Clients use these at the grocery store to buy food just like any other consumer. Clients who lose their card can request replacements. That's an important customer service feature which ensures needy households don't lose the assistance they need. However, some households requesting multiple replacements may raise red flags. Multiple care replacements might be an indication that the household needs help in how to use the debit card. In other cases, multiple replacements could be an indication that an individual in the household is trying to sell the card. The farm bill requires the household to provide an explanation when they request an excessive number of replacements in a given year. In order for this to be helpful in fighting fraud, rather than become a burden on innocent households that struggle to keep their cards, we added a set of protections that USDA must implement. After consultation with the Department, we expect they would consider it excessive if a household requested more than four replacement cards per year. USDA's own analysis indicates that fraud is only an issue when the requests are that frequent. Second, the provision requires that households be given the flexibility in how they want to provide their explanation. In particular, States may not require households to go to the local SNAP office or to be interviewed about their card loss. The goal was to avoid undue burdens on households, including those who are working, are homebound, or who may not have the means to travel to a SNAP office. This provision also does not empower the State to withhold household benefits based on the household's explanation. If the State questions the validity of the household's reason, we encourage the State to pursue a fraud investigation. SNAP has processes in place already for program violations and we expect these processes to be followed. This provision does not expand or alter that authority. Finally, it is important to emphasize that this process is not just a way to identify potential fraud; it's also a way to identify households that need help in using the benefits they are eligible for. There are many perfectly legitimate reasons to need a new card, and we intended that this integrity measure not entrap households that have done nothing wrong. That's why we require USDA to include specific protections for the homeless, people with disabilities and victims of crime. My colleague, Senator Harkin, has led the way in championing the needs of people with disabilities and making clear that federal programs have an obligation to provide such individuals accommodation. We expect this provision to result in States' intensifying their efforts to identify and assist individuals who would benefit from more assistance. SNAP retailers operate within a rapidly changing food retail environment. We've seen fundamental changes in the way food is sold since the last farm bill, so the conferees sought to make some changes in the way SNAP benefits can be redeemed. This farm bill will direct USDA to conduct pilots to test both mobile technologies, like smart phone apps, and online technologies. These pilots offer an exciting opportunity for farmers markets and other small retailers who find the point-of-sale EBT equipment to be too expensive or cumbersome. They also provide access to SNAP recipients that may have real physical or geographical challenges in getting to the store. But one of the risks of embracing new technology is that bad actors will find a way to defraud the program. So we included a set of protections, for both recipients and retailers, and expect USDA to carefully monitor the pilot programs for evidence of fraud. This may require USDA to develop standards of transparence and recordkeeping for mobile technologies that differ from those used in traditional brick-and-mortar stores. Most online retailers charge a fee for the delivery of food. For low- income SNAP participants, fees like that can really cut into their food budget. We were clear that SNAP benefits cannot be used to pay for any delivery fee or premium, and we required that the cost of food be the same as the in-the-store price, but we cannot prevent retailers from charging for delivery. So we urge USDA to pay special attention to these fees and be willing to deny participation to entities that cannot ensure that fees will be minimal. We also want USDA to assess whether fees undermine the ability of a household to afford an adequate diet with SNAP benefits. Since we are moving towards adapting SNAP to emerging retail trends, I'd like to note what we did not do in this bill. First, we have not removed the requirement that SNAP households be treated the same as other customers. Whatever steps States and USDA take to modernize benefit redemption methods cannot result in overt identification of SNAP households, such as SNAP-only lanes in grocery stores. Because technology continues to evolve, we included several provisions that have to do with ``data matches.'' Data matching is where the SNAP agency or eligibility worker can check information about SNAP participants' household circumstances with third party data bases. When done well, this is a cost effective means to test the veracity of client statements as well as to catch information that client may fail to provide the program. If done poorly, data matching can result in lots of confusing data matches that do not actually improve verification. We don't want States to undertake data matching for data matching's sake. The point is to empower States with good information at the right time to inform effective eligibility processing. First, we include a provision to add federal standards for data exchanges to SNAP so that SNAP can more easily share data with other programs. This is a commonsense provision that will ensure that across the various State and federal programs, our systems can ``talk'' with one another other. SNAP law and the privacy act protects client's personal privacy and this authority does not change that obligation. Second, we required States to use the Department of Health and Human Services' National Directory of New Hires (NDNH). This database primarily is for State child support agencies to learn information about the employment of noncustodial parents who live or work in other States and States currently have the option to use it for SNAP. By requiring its use at the time a household is certified for SNAP, we believe it can help States determine eligibility and the correct level of benefits. We do not, however, dictate how States must use the data. Third, the bill codifies the existing State practice of verifying immigration status by using the Citizenship and Immigration Services database for immigrants' status through the federal Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements program. Currently in SNAP, States have the option to use SAVE and nearly every State currently does. The Food and Nutrition Act references SAVE and another database, the Income Eligibility Verification Systems, or IEVS, in the same place in the Social Security Act. I want to make clear that we are only mandating States use SAVE. We did not intend to change anything about how States use IEVS--use of that database would continue to be optional for States. Longstanding SNAP policy has required rigorous verification procedures, and IEVS is one of many ways to get information to ensure correct eligibility decisions. We want States to have a plan for using the data available to them. The goal is not to require data matches that States know to be unhelpful, or where they determine it is not cost-effective to do so. Moreover, we are not pressing States to run afoul of simplified reporting and check these databases between reviews. In our last two farm bills, we took great pains to reduce needless paperwork burdens on States and households between certifications. These changes are not meant to override the framework of simplified reporting. Instead, States will use third-party data to make periodic reviews as accurate as efficiently possible while always providing participants the ability to challenge data matches they believe to be inaccurate. The nutrition title also takes steps to ensure that federal funds used to inform Americans about the SNAP cannot be used in inappropriate ways. To be clear, USDA has done a fine and necessary job getting information about SNAP to low-income households that struggle to put food on the table. The program cannot be effective if those who may need it are unaware of its existence or believe they are not eligible. Moreover, outreach and program promotional materials can be helpful to improving program integrity. Applicants and clients who are informed about their responsibilities and educated about what the application process entails will be better prepared to complete the application and renew process. That's likely to increase program accuracy, reduce fraud and enhance overall efficiencies. It's important that we provide low-income households with accurate information about the program, just as we do with Social Security or Medicare benefits. That's the only way that individuals can make the right choice for them about whether or not to apply. In this bill, Congress continues to support this kind of information sharing, while clarifying that aggressive recruitment, including recruitment outside of the United States, is not permissible. Recruitment is trying to persuade or convince someone who has made an informed decision not to apply to change his or her mind. That hasn't been a permissible activity, and the bill simply codifies that practice. Providing and producing positive information about the program and the benefits of applying or assisting households to navigate the complicated application process would still be permitted. We expect the agency will continue to provide necessary information while ensuring that education funds are used appropriately. As I said at the start, this bill is not perfect. I much prefer to be discussing more ways we could better ensure SNAP benefits were adequate to help families have enough healthy food throughout the month. However, I continue to believe this farm bill protects SNAP, which is the best defense we have against hunger in our communities. We have continued the long tradition in the Agriculture Committee of bipartisan support for the program. This was not an easy task, given how far apart the House and Senate were just a few months ago. This farm bill is an important step in dealing with the most important food and agricultural issues facing the nation today. I urge my colleagues to support it. I understand we will recessing for lunch in a moment, but there are some very important people I would like to thank today. I wish to take this moment before we have the final vote to do so. I know, listening to other colleagues, as we come to major pieces of legislation, at the end they talk about the importance of their staff. I have come to realize just how powerful those words are. I have been blessed with an incredibly talented, hard-working staff. They are the reason we are here today talking about the Agricultural Act of 2014. Every single one of them should be very proud of their contribution, as I am proud of them. This certainly starts with our staff director Chris Adamo. We have been on speed dial for so long, I am sure I will be doing that probably out of habit from now on, day and night. I appreciate his incredible leadership, tenacity, talent, and hard work. Chris deserves a tremendous amount of credit for leading us with his team. I thank him. I also thank Joe Schultz, who is our chief economist. No matter what the problem, he seemed to make the numbers add up, whether it is the commodity title, crop insurance, or dairy. When at the very end it became very clear that after 3 years of hard work and passing a dairy policy, it wouldn't get the support of the House Republicans and we were going to have to rewrite it in a week and a half--which was no small thing--Joe continued to give us the right kind of advice. I am proud to say that we started with a commitment to have $23 billion in deficit reduction, counting our sequestration and spending cuts, and we have ended with $23 billion in deficit reduction and spending reductions in agriculture. Joe has been a huge reason why we have been able to get there. I thank Jonathan Cordone, who is our chief counsel. He made sure we were right on the process and worked specifically on issues such as trust funds with many colleges and around the complex areas to help them to be able to meet the issues of their States. There were important issues, such as payment reforms and a number of legal issues. He has been an incredibly valuable and important member. Russ Benham is our counsel on regulatory issues. Some of the trust fund issues we had to address related to regulatory issues and forestry issues. We are very proud that in this bill there is an agriculture advisory committee to the EPA, moving forward on rules. It is extremely significant to have the voice of agriculture involved with the EPA in a formal way. In this and so many other areas, Russ has been very instrumental. To our conservation team, Tina May is amazing. She is going back to the USDA next week to help lead the implementation, which gives me confidence that this is really going to be done as we intended. Tina May's brilliance in strategy, negotiation, and commitment on these issues is unmatched. Her team is Kevin Norton and Hanna AbouElSeoud. The area of conservation is really landmark in reforms, protecting our land, water, conservation compliance, and setting real standards around strong conservation practices and in forestry as well. These are important areas that we have addressed in forestry and international food aid--America's opportunity to fulfill our values around the world and create more flexibility for us to help feed a hungry world. Karla Thieman is also on speed dial. The very last phone calls I was making and emails before we wrote and finalized the conference report were with Karla and Chris. Our energy title is about jobs and about energy efficiency. I am so proud of what we were able to do; a landmark energy title; livestock disaster assistance, all of the areas that support livestock and, again, dairy. Karla was our lead on dairy. I think we may have finally stopped waking up in the middle of the night, dreaming about dairy policy. I am not sure, but we are getting there. Cory Claussen led our efforts on farm credit and beginning farmers. I am so proud we have added our veterans to the support there. I thank him so much. Brandon McBride--rural development, jobs, and quality of life in rural America. Brandon led our effort to make sure we were strengthening tools for businesses and local units of government and all of those who count on rural development; also research, a new research foundation and partnership, a real commitment to research in a way we have not seen before. I thank Brandon for leading that effort. Of course, on nutrition, fruits and vegetables, Jacqlyn Schneider and Katie Naessens led an extremely complicated area. Jacqlyn had to negotiate some very difficult areas. I am proud to say that we rejected every harmful policy in the House bill. Because of Jacqlyn and Katie's efforts, we have a strengthened commitment to organics and farmers markets, fresh fruit and vegetables for our children's schools, and so many other areas in which we are beginning to change the paradigm about local food systems and strengthening opportunities for local markets for our farmers. Grant Colvin has worked so hard on commodities as well as livestock and trade and, of course, exports. They are so very important to us. It is an area of real strength and jobs for our country. I thank Grant for all of his expertise. As staff assistants, Alexis Stanczuk and Kyle Varner helped the entire team every step of the way. They have been there to help us on every single project, every single effort we needed help with. I thank Alexis and Kyle. Jessie Williams and Nicole Hertenstein are clerks. Their entire team basically kept the whole thing together. They made sure we were doing the right thing on point. I thank Jessie, Nicole, and their team as well. Finally, I would like to thank my personal staff. Bill Sweeney, my chief of staff, has been with me in a multitude of different capacities--from telling the story on the floor with our charts to making sure we had a coordinated team between the Agriculture Committee staff and all of the talented people on my personal staff, as well as wonderful strategy advice. Bill, as my chief of staff, I am proud to say, has been invaluable in this process. Matt VanKuiken, my legislative director, worked as a team every single step of the way. Our press team, when we looked at telling the story of the new farm bill approach, Cullen Schwarz, Ben Becker, Alex Barriger, Will Eberle, and Matt Williams--they were telling this story and getting the facts out every step of the way. My State team, led by my State director Teresa Plachetka, Kali Fox, Mary Judnich, Brandon Fewins, Korey Hall, Jeremy Hosking, and Adrian Walker--they made sure Michigan's voice was heard in every part of this bill, a tremendous amount of hard work. This bill is better, certainly, for Michigan as a result of all their efforts. Kasey Gillette in Senator Reid's office worked as our partner on everything. Gary Myrick, Trish Engle, Tim Mitchell, and all of our floor staff--I thank them for all of their patience as we have passed this once, passed this twice, and finally we are going to pass the conference report this afternoon. I also thank legislative counsel Michelle Johnson-Wieder and Gary Endicott. I thank Senator Cochran's staff of T.A. Hawks and James Glick for their partnership and excellent work. Finally, I thank Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack and the USDA. The technical expertise we have received on every single section has been absolutely invaluable. When it came to the final days on dairy, the Secretary played a very critical role in helping us get the compromise that will allow us to meet the goals and address farmers all over the country. Last but not least, I thank the Congressional Budget Office, which we called on day and night. We appreciate their efforts. I appreciate the patience of the Presiding Officer, who allowed me to speak at this time to make sure we had a chance to say thank you to a lot of folks who deserve, as usual, a tremendous amount of credit for getting this done. They are the folks behind the scenes who have made this happen. I am very proud of each and every one of them.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I realize we will be having the vote at 2:35, so let me just take one more moment to stress how important it is that we recognize this was an effort in good faith between the House and the Senate and Republicans and Democrats. I too wish to join with my ranking member Senator Cochran in thanking the chairman in the House Frank Lucas. He and ranking member Collin Peterson were true partners with us as we moved through this process. We actually started about 2\1/2\ years ago when the supercommittee on deficit reduction at that time asked each committee to come up with a way to reduce the deficit, to cut spending in their area of jurisdiction. We decided to do it a little differently. Chairman Lucas and I talked and we decided the four of us would get together and actually come up with a House-Senate, Democratic-Republican recommendation that would be solidly supported by all sides. So it was a prenegotiation on the farm bill that we were going to be doing in the next year. So in July, August of 2011, we sat down and started going through ways we could save dollars. We all agreed direct payment subsidies could no longer be justified and needed to be eliminated. We also knew it was important to have a safety net for our farmers, and disaster assistance for our ranchers and farmers as well, and that we needed to help them manage their risk. We came up with an approach which took part of the dollars we cut and put it back into strengthening risk management tools, such as crop insurance--which is just like any other insurance: you pay a premium, you get a bill--not a check--and you don't get any kind of help unless you have a loss. But we also took a look at other areas of the farm bill. We found there were 23 different conservation programs. Every time somebody had a good idea, we added a new program. We thought, let's go back and really take a look at this. If we were starting from scratch, how would we put together all these important programs and do it in a way that is more user friendly for farmers and ranchers and organizations that work on land and water preservation. So we went from 23 to 13 programs and put them in 4 different buckets, or subject areas, and we saved money. Then we looked at every part of the farm bill. I asked our staff not to talk about programs but principles: What should we be doing? What should the farm bill be doing for agriculture, for farmers, ranchers, families, consumers, rural communities, job creators? Let's not protect programs. Let's look broadly at principles. So we did that, and we ended up eliminating about 100 different authorization programs, consolidating, cutting down on duplication, doing what I think Americans are asking us to do in every part of the Federal Government. We then turned around to set priorities about where to invest, because it is not just cutting for cutting's sake, it is trying to make things work better, be more effective, and save precious dollars, but at the same time investing in the future--investing in that which will strengthen agriculture, create jobs, strengthen rural communities, and new opportunities for the broad array of production, what consumers are asking for in organics, local food systems, and so on. So we basically put together a plan that started with the deficit reduction process, the supercommittee, and we made a recommendation of $23 billion in cuts and deficit reduction. We all know that the broader deficit reduction process did not proceed, but we decided to keep the commitment to that $23 billion, and so we have. We have moved forward. Part of the cuts now that we have put into place have been accounted for by the Budget Office as part of sequestration. Most have not. But when we add it all up, it is still $23 billion that we started with back in 2011, when the four of us together decided to sit down and listen to each other, understand each other, find common ground, and make some tough decisions about how we could do things better in the area of agriculture and the farm bill. As we come to a close, I again thank colleagues who have given such valuable input and been involved every step of the way. I hope everyone will feel a sense of pride that this is something we have done together--that people expect us to do together, which is do our job, to make decisions and to govern, and to operate in a way which allows us to listen to each other, find common ground, and get our work done. Madam President, I yield back all remaining time.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Again, I wish to say what a pleasure it has been to work with the distinguished Senator from Mississippi and also with the chairman in the House, Congressman Lucas, and the ranking member, Congressman Peterson. This really has been an example of the House and the Senate working in a bipartisan way. We are about to take the final steps now in passing the 2014 farm bill. We have actually passed this twice in the Senate. Each time we have gotten large bipartisan majorities because of the fact that we have worked together. The final conference report that we have before us is one of which I believe we can all be proud. I hope my colleagues will support it and send it to the President for his signature. We all know this has been a long time in coming--in fact, frankly, way too long. Our farmers and ranchers have waited way too long. This bill has seen a long and winding road, but in the process we have worked together. We have not quit. We have worked across the aisle. The final bill has the support of over 370 different groups, and they represent those from all over the country and all over the ideological spectrum. That is because we wrote this bill when we were working hard to find common ground. We listened to each other, we respected each other, and we developed a bill that works for every kind of agricultural production in every region of our country, for families, and for consumers across the country. We have 16 million people who work in America because of agriculture--16 million people. Many of them work in Michigan. Many of them work in Mississippi, California, New England, Virginia, North Dakota, and in every other State in this great country. They grow different crops in different climates, and they have different needs. That certainly is one of the challenges, always, for a farm bill, particularly when we are talking about a farm bill that reforms programs. Those 16 million people were on our minds every single minute as we wrote this bill, and that is why we have such a strong coalition supporting this farm bill. This is a farm bill for the future with a whole new focus on responsible risk management, healthy, locally-grown foods, strong conservation practices, clean energy, and research. In fact, it is a bit of a misnomer to call it a farm bill. It is 12 different bills, all of them impressive and worthy of colleagues' votes, and they all are put together in what we call the farm bill. I want to take a moment to talk about these different pieces and all of the great policies that we have been working on for 2\1/2\ years. The first title, the commodity title, if we were going to split off the commodity title of the farm bill and give it a name of its own, we would probably call it the farm bill. That pretty well describes the commodity title. Maybe that is why--even though the commodity title of the farm bill is, in fact, smaller in terms of spending this year than it has been before--the farm bill has held onto its name all of these years. Once upon a time the commodity title was the be-all and end-all. The first farm bill was written during the Great Depression, when the entire agricultural system in the country broke down. Farmers left food to rot in the fields because crop prices were so low. It would bankrupt them to spend the money to harvest and to ship their products to market. At the same time, people were so desperate for food that some of the most iconic images of the Great Depression are long, crowded bread lines that stretched for blocks and blocks. We have come a long way since the Great Depression, and our agricultural farm policies are very different than they once were. That is why this farm bill focuses on the future of agriculture in this country. This is not your father's farm bill. In 1996 Congress passed a law called Freedom to Farm that eliminated the last vestiges of those production controls. To give farmers time to get used to the new system, that bill created a system of direct payment subsidies, which were supposed to be temporary. But it didn't quite work out that way. Those payments continued, farm bill after farm bill, even when it was quite clear they were no longer defensible. The checks kept coming in good years and in bad. In some cases the checks went to people who weren't even farming. In the budget climate of today, we just cannot afford those business- as-usual policies of the past. It was one of my top goals, as we wrote this bill, to end direct payments once and for all, and that is exactly what we have done together in this farm bill. We also went through this bill page-by-page and made major reforms. We streamlined programs. We have cut red tape. We have eliminated waste. The first thing in this bill, on page 1, line 1, is repealing direct payments. This is not your father's farm bill. This is a critical step in changing the paradigm of agricultural policy. Instead of direct payment subsidies, we are shifting the focus of the farm bill to responsible risk management. Farming is a risky business. In fact, I can't think of a more risky business than farming in this country. We saw this in South Dakota last fall when a freak blizzard wiped out tens of thousands of cattle and devastated ranchers. We saw this the year before when record-setting droughts wiped out crops across America's heartland. We saw it in Michigan where the combination of an early thaw and a late freeze almost destroyed our entire cherry crop and our apple crop. No other industry is as dependent on the whims of Mother Nature or on the wild swings of the market as agriculture. That is why we have a farm bill. We have a stake, and we should be proud we have the safest, most affordable food supply in the world because we partner with farmers. That is why risk management is our No. 1 goal in this bill. In fact, it is what farmers have been asking for. They want the ability and, more importantly, the responsibility of managing their own risk. Of course, in a country as big and diverse as ours, the risks faced by farmers in Michigan are very different from the risks faced by farmers in Mississippi or Oklahoma or Minnesota. That is the key principle that guided us when we wrote the bill to make sure it worked for all different kinds of crops throughout the country. As farmers are managing their risk, we are giving them the choice to participate in an Agricultural Risk Coverage Program--that we are calling ARC--which will help them cover losses they incur at the individual farm level or county level or they can participate in a Price Loss Coverage Program which will trigger if prices drop below a reference price. Both of these programs will use historically-based acres decoupled from production to minimize any influence from the program on farmers' decisions on what or where to plant. We don't want them planting to the government program. In addition, in order to qualify for either of these programs, farmers must agree to comply with conservation and wetlands requirements. They are so important. We are reforming the system to stop subsidy payments to millionaires, and we have imposed a new, overall cap--a first-time overall cap--of $125,000, for the first time covering both crop support and marketing loans, all parts of the commodity title. This is the overall commodity title cap passed by the Senate, even though underneath the cap there were differences. We are requesting the USDA to close what is called the management loophole by updating its definition of ``management'' and giving the Secretary, for the first time, the authority to put limits on the numbers of managers on a farm that can qualify for payments. By ending direct payments once and for all--by asking farmers to take responsibility for managing their own risk, and by partnering with them so that they can do it, and by capping farm payments and stopping payments to millionaires--we are putting in place the most significant reforms in agricultural policy in decades. This is a bill our colleagues can be proud to vote for. In hearing some of the opposition, people are debating the old farm bills and not understanding what we have done. Every farmer we have talked to in writing this bill said that crop insurance was their top priority. So we strengthened crop insurance and gave more crops access to this kind of insurance. With this bill, we are taking significant steps to change the paradigm of farmer programs. With crop insurance, farmers don't get a check, they get a bill. They may pay tens of thousands of dollars in premiums and never get a check in a year because it is a good year and there is no disaster, just like any other kind of insurance. This bill also includes a very important permanent livestock disaster assistance program for ranchers who lose livestock due to severe weather, disease or other acts of nature. In the past, Congress had to pass ad hoc disaster assistance for livestock producers, adding to the cost and the complexity of the program. These have been some very tough years for ranchers. In fact, livestock herds are down to their lowest level since 1951--imagine that--because of what we have seen. That is why this bill, for the first time, has a permanent, funding baseline, and a system that will ensure our ranchers don't go bankrupt because of a freak blizzard in October or a scorching drought that wipes out a rancher's feed supply. This disaster assistance is applied retroactively to October 1, 2011, and makes the program permanent. One of the worst agricultural disasters happened in 2009 to our American dairy farmers. That is why we worked very hard in this bill to strengthen the dairy safety net by replacing the existing dairy supports with two new programs. The dairy margin insurance program, another insurance program, protects producer margins equal to the difference between the all-milk price and a national feed cost. We are taking special care to make sure that these insurance premiums are affordable for small and medium-sized dairy farms, making sure, especially, that we focus on any farm with fewer than 200 cows. The Dairy Product Purchase Program, which is new and is a part of this, gives the Department of Agriculture the flexibility to purchase dairy products, milk, and other products when margins fall below $4. Those dairy products will be donated for the first time to families in need, through public and private organizations, including food banks, homeless shelters, and soup kitchens. This was a hard-fought compromise on dairy. I have to say my preference would have been what we passed twice in the Senate as a strong dairy policy. But given the resistance of the Speaker and the leadership in the House and the need to be able to find something we could move forward on and pass that would work for dairy farmers, we worked very hard to find a way to move forward to get the votes and support and make sure we were helping farm operations in every region of the country. We know the pressures on the New England area farmers are very different from the pressures on our own producers in Michigan or in the Midwest or on the west coast, and we have worked hard to find something that works. While title I of the farm bill reforms programs so farmers are taking responsibility for their own risk, title II of the farm bill is about risk management for the whole country. This is the conservation bill in this farm bill. In all the discussions in the farm bill, it too often gets overlooked. In fact, it is our Nation's largest and most enduring investment in conservation on private lands, which are the majority of our lands in America. This farm bill includes a historic agreement between supporters of traditional commodities and environmental and conservation groups to link conservation compliance to crop insurance--critically important as we eliminate direct payments and ask farmers to manage their risk through crop insurance. We do not want to create unintended consequences of risk for our lands and our water resources. At the start of this farm bill process, commodity groups and conservation groups were on very different sides on this issue, but they sat down together, they listened, and they found common ground. It turned out their differences weren't as great as they thought they were. In fact, no one has a bigger stake in protecting our land and our water than our farmers. With a little compromise and a lot of hard work, which is the story of this entire bill, they brought us a plan that conserves soil and water resources for generations to come and protects the safety net for farmers to rely on. This has been called the greatest advancement in conservation in three decades. I wish to underscore for my colleagues that this is an important and historic agreement, and I thank everyone who has been involved in the hard work of putting it together. We have also created a new sodsaver provision to prevent farmers from plowing up native prairie lands, saving money for taxpayers and saving absolutely critical wildlife habitat. We need to manage land to prevent erosion. That is how we avoid having another dust bowl during droughts. It is equally important to continue preserving wetlands that help prevent flooding and create important wildlife habitats for ducks and birds and other waterfowl. What else does the conservation title do? It directly preserves millions of acres of wildlife habitat, which in turn has helped to rebuild populations of duck, quail, and pheasants, among others. That is why the bill has the strong support of the National Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, Quail Forever, Pheasants Forever, the Audubon Society, World Food Program USA, and the World Wildlife Fund, which are only a handful of the more than 250 conservation groups that have endorsed this bill. To strengthen conservation, we went through every program and focused on making it more flexible, easier to use, and we were able to take 23 different programs, cut it down to 13, and put it into 4 different areas with a lot of flexibility that also allowed us to save dollars in this bill. The first is working lands, giving farmers the tools they need to be the best stewards of their natural resources. The centerpiece of this function is called EQIP--the Environmental Quality Incentives Program-- one of the most important conservation programs out there for farmers. EQIP gives technical and financial assistance to farmers, ranchers, and private forest owners to help them conserve soil and water. Working lands conservation also includes the Conservation Stewardship Program, which encourages higher levels of conservation and the adoption of new conservation technologies. We continued the conservation innovation grants and the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program, which allows landowners to get value-added benefits from their land by opening them to hunting and fishing and bird watching. We made these programs even more flexible and added a focus on wildlife habitat, making them easier for farmers to use. The second area, the Conservation Reserve Program, recovers highly erodible land from production to benefit soil and water quality as well as wildlife habitat. Despite record droughts over the last few years-- droughts that in many ways were worse than during the Dust Bowl--the soil stayed on the ground. We haven't had a Dust Bowl. The soil has stayed on the ground. CRP was a big part of that, protecting not only the soil but air quality as well. We also continued an important incentive program to help older farmers transition their land to beginning farmers. One of the parts of the conservation title that I am most proud of is a new focus on regional partnerships. This will have a big impact on my own Great Lakes--that we in the Great Lakes area love so much--as well as the Chesapeake Bay and other critical areas where there are large- scale regional conservation challenges. We consolidated several programs into one, which will offer competitive, merit-braced grants to regional partnerships made up of conservation groups, universities, farmers, ranchers, and other private landowners to support improved soil health, water quality and quantity and habitat for wildlife. The final area includes conservation easements, which lets landowners voluntarily enter into agreements to preserve wetlands and farmlands and protect them against development and sprawl. We consolidated and streamlined existing easement programs to protect important land for generations to come. The farm bill is also an export bill. In fact, agriculture is one of the few areas where our Nation maintains a healthy trade surplus. That is why this farm bill continues efforts to expand opportunities for American exports, including the Market Access Program, to promote U.S. agricultural products in overseas markets and develop programs to open new markets for American agricultural products. The farm bill is also a humanitarian bill that speaks to the best about us and our American values. Around the world millions of people get their only meals as a result of the generosity of the American people through the Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole program. I saw this last year firsthand in Haiti, where schools would open bags stamped with the American flag and provide a modest meal to students every day--very likely their only meal that day. I met one little boy who saved part of his lunch to take it home in his bag to his parents so they could have something to eat that night. In fact, in the life of this program, more than 3 billion--billion-- people in over 150 countries have gotten a meal thanks to the generosity of the American people and the American farmer. The farm bill makes major reforms to our food aid program, speeding up emergency food aid response and giving flexibility to organizations on the ground to supply local food to people in need. These reforms mean that because of this farm bill we will feed another 500,000 people around the world. That is why this bill has earned the endorsement of many humanitarian and religious groups, including Feed the Children, the ONE Campaign, CARE USA, Church World Service, Catholic Relief Services, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the United Methodist Church, and the American Jewish World Service, among many others. Of course, we know hunger and poverty strike families all around the globe, including right here at home. I believe in the richest country in the world it is a disgrace for any child to go to bed hungry at night or go to school hungry in the morning. Crop insurance is disaster assistance for farmers who have been hit by a natural disaster. The nutrition title of the farm bill is disaster assistance for families who have been hit by an economic disaster. Most families who need food assistance only need it for a few months, and the vast majority of people receiving food help are children, the elderly, and the disabled, including our disabled veterans. When the House of Representatives passed their nutrition bill, they included many provisions that would have seriously hurt Americans, such as many in Michigan who have paid taxes all their lives, lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and are mortified they need help to put food on the table for their families while they are getting back on their feet. This conference report rejects every single one of those harmful provisions. Instead, this final conference report before us strengthens the integrity and accountability of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--or SNAP--ensuring every dollar is spent responsibly so those who need help can get it. The bill stops lottery winners from being able to get SNAP benefits and stops the use of SNAP funds at liquor stores. It also includes an important provision that addresses what the Washington Post called ``a black eye on the program.'' We have streamlined eligibility requirements to cut down on wasteful duplication, but a number of States discovered a way to use that streamlining to give some families additional SNAP benefits by counting utility bills they do not have. By sending out as little as $1 in home heating assistance, States have been able to qualify families for a utility deduction, even if they do not pay any utility bills. I salute those who want to help people get additional funds. I would have very much supported adding additional help in this bill, but this cannot be justified--what is being done here. We addressed this loophole and protected the entire program for 47 million people. Here is what we have done and here is what it means to someone on SNAP. If you receive $20 or more a year in low-income heating assistance--if you receive $20 a year in low-income heating assistance--nothing changes for you. If you receive less than $20 a year, you will need to go back to the old system of producing an actual utility bill in order to receive credit for a utility bill. That is the sum total of where we have received and garnered the savings in this bill as it relates to closing loopholes. This is about strengthening the integrity of this program to ensure that food assistance is there for families who have fallen on hard times. The farm bill also includes a number of pilot programs to help people find work or receive job training so they do not need food assistance. The Secretary of Agriculture can approve these pilots, which include funding for child care and transportation to make sure individuals are able to succeed. The bill increases funding for food banks, continues an important effort that provides supplemental food for seniors as well as the senior farmers market program. I am pleased this bill has the support of the AARP and others who understand the importance of senior nutrition. The farm bill continues efforts to serve fresh fruit and vegetable snacks in schools, and includes a new national pilot based on something we do in Michigan called double Up Food Bucks. It essentially doubles the SNAP benefits for families when they shop for fresh produce at farmers markets. I also wish to mention the healthy food financing initiative, which addresses the very serious problem of lack of access to grocery stores in low-income neighborhoods. There are many places in Michigan where this is a very serious issue. This financing initiative will help families put healthy food on the table while creating jobs in neighborhoods across the country. It is also important to stress that the Congressional Budget Office projects that this farm bill, in addition to addressing fraud and abuse, will spend $11.5 billion less on food assistance the right way-- by the economy improving and people going back to work. So when we look at the fact that the numbers are going down, it is because of the economy improving. Frankly, this is where we need to be focusing our efforts, on supporting businesses to create jobs, and part of the way to do that is by passing this jobs bill called the farm bill. The farm bill is also a credit bill, increasing access to resources which help farmers, especially the beginning and veteran farmers, own and operate farms. This results in jobs. This title will make more qualified farmers, of all sizes, eligible for USDA farm loans and gives more flexibility to the USDA so they can better reach new types of farming, including local and regional producers. With 16 million people working in agriculture across the country, the farm bill is a jobs bill--and nowhere is that more evident than in America's rural communities. The rural development title of the farm bill authorizes programs which are absolutely essential to small towns and rural communities and those who work in those communities. We are continuing the important work of rural economic development and rural broadband. Just as rural electrification brought opportunities to families across the country in the last century, rural broadband opens doors for increased commerce and interconnectedness for the 21st century. Ninety percent of community water systems serve 10,000 people or less. We provide mandatory funding to address the backlog of rural water applications at USDA so rural communities have a safe supply of drinking water. For the first time we prioritize and reserve funding for rural development applications submitted by communities working together on long-term, sustainable community and economic development plans because these regional strategies will be more effective at the local level, and we want to provide as much flexibility as possible. The farm bill's rural development title is about entrepreneurship and the lasting strength of small towns across America in which it invests. As I mentioned earlier today, we are creating an innovative new Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research in this bill--modeled after what we do with medical research--to tackle the difficult fight against pests and diseases, and it increases opportunities through innovation to create jobs. For too many years, agricultural research has suffered because of budget cuts over and over. This new research foundation will bring together public and private funds to maintain a steady stream of funding for this important research. We provide $200 million in seed money, and it can be matched by $200 million from the private sector in an ongoing commitment. In addition to the new research foundation, we have a major new focus on food and agricultural research throughout this bill. We have a major focus on the specialty crops research initiative to find solutions to pests and diseases that affect fruit and vegetable crops, and we have efforts in this title to support beginning farmers and ranchers as well. We are also continuing successful research and extension efforts, including work done by our premier land grant universities--such as my alma mater, Michigan State University. As to the forestry title, healthy forests mean clean air, fresh water, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. Coupled with the tools we have in the conservation title, the forestry title of the farm bill helps foresters maintain the health of our private forest lands. We are strengthening our efforts to fight invasive pests that have destroyed many thousands of trees, particularly in the West. We worked hard to ensure that private landowners can continue to effectively manage their operations. As I mentioned earlier this afternoon, the farm bill is an energy bill. I am extremely pleased that during negotiations with the House we kept the full funding from the Senate's energy title. Our rural communities have been at the forefront of the effort to achieve American energy independence. We are strengthening these efforts through the highly successful Rural Energy for America Program, which helps farmers and rural small business owners generate their own power or improve energy efficiency to lower their utility bills. Thousands of farms across the country have lowered their input costs thanks to the REAP program. We are continuing our commitment to the development of the next generation of advanced biofuels. Scientific advancements are allowing us to develop ethanol with food and agricultural waste products. With this farm bill, we will see even more biorefineries come online, producing homegrown fuels which bring competition and lower prices for consumers at the pump. This farm bill also supports our growing biobased economy with my new grow it here, make it here initiative. Biobased products are manufactured items made from all kinds of plant materials that replace petroleum and other chemicals. These products are everywhere, from the cups in the Senate cafeteria--which are made by a Michigan company, by the way--to cleaning products, industrial lubricants, and even the foam in the seats of cars which, if it is a new American-made car, will be based on soy oil foam rather than petroleum oil. Biobased manufacturing creates jobs, strengthens our economy, and reduces our use of fossil fuels. As I have said before, this is a farm bill focused on the future, and nowhere is that more evident than in the specialty crops title. This is essentially the produce aisle of the farm bill. Specialty crops include fruits, vegetables, nuts, and nursery crops. We are strengthening the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, expanding specialty crop research, expanding crop insurance to include specialty crops, and continuing the highly successful fresh fruits and vegetables SNAP program in our schools. We don't want to just grow more fruits and vegetables, we need to be able to get them to consumers. That is why this farm bill more than quadruples support for farmers markets. We are also strengthening local food hubs, which bring farmers together with local supermarkets, restaurants, and schools to supply locally grown healthy foods. The farm bill also recognizes an incredibly fast-growing segment of agriculture--organics. We continue our efforts to support farmers to get certified as organic, expand crop insurance options to organic farmers, and provide funding for continued organic research. This bill truly reflects the diversity of crops we grow in America, and nowhere is that more evident than in the specialty crops and organics title. In every part of this farm bill we worked on streamlining and consolidating programs. In fact, we ended over 100 different programs and authorizations in this process. I said to my staff at the very beginning: Don't think about programs. Think about principles--what should we be doing in agriculture and food policy, not what programs do we want to protect. That is how we have moved forward throughout this entire process. There is one thing we did add and I am very pleased with; that is, a new veterans agriculture liaison at USDA to work with our men and women in uniform who are coming home and want to get involved in agriculture. We know the majority of our men and women are coming home to small towns, such as where I grew up in northern Michigan, and rural communities, and we want to support them so they can be successful if they choose to go into agriculture. This is a new kind of farm bill, designed to meet new challenges of a changing world. We are also making major reforms, eliminating unnecessary, unjustified programs to cut government spending and to increase the integrity of farm programs. This farm bill reflects critical steps in changing the paradigm, where we are ending subsidies and giving farmers the tools they need to manage their own risks. We support them, but in doing that, as we know, when we have insurance products--and that is what we are looking at throughout this bill, whether it is a new insurance-type approach for cotton or dairy or for our traditional commodities. With any other kind of insurance, you pay the premium, pay the premium, and pay the premium but don't get any help unless there is a loss, a disaster. This is a fundamental shift in this farm bill, helping our farmers to manage risk in a fiscally responsible way. I think my distinguished ranking member would admit it was a lot of work. After all of this work, to my knowledge, we offer the Senate the only effort where a group of people within their jurisdiction of authority have voluntarily cut spending to reduce the deficit. If we couple the sequestration cuts of approximately $6 billion and the cuts in this bill to agriculture, we are coming to the Senate and offering a bill of reform, cutting programs, cutting duplication, cutting spending that actually creates $23 billion in deficit reduction. I am proud of that. This truly is not your father's farm bill. We are about to vote to bring debate on this conference report to a close. But before we do, I once again thank my ranking member, the senior Senator from Mississippi, who has been a friend and a partner throughout this entire process. I have enjoyed very much having the opportunity to work with Senator Cochran and his very competent staff. I learned along the way that we have a great love of music in piano playing and the blues--which sometimes we were singing during this process. But it has been my great honor to work with him and our House colleagues as we have worked to bring this forward. My ranking member had a different perspective than I had, and we have written this bill together. I have learned a lot about the perspective of Mississippi and the South, and I hope I have shared the perspective of Michigan and the North--and the East and the West--as we have listened to our colleagues. I urge our colleagues to support this conference report. Cloture Motion

Ms. STABENOW. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, as we begin the final debate and vote on the farm bill conference report, I thank our majority leader for supporting this effort every step of the way. Every time I have gone to him and said, Mr. Leader, we need to have time for some particular procedural vote or to move it along, he has been there. So I thank him very much for moving this conference report so quickly. I also thank Senator Cochran and our entire committee. When Senator Cochran is here later today, I will speak more about the wonderful partnership we have had. The senior Senator from North Dakota will be speaking after me. I thank, Senator Hoeven for being an invaluable partner through this entire process. It has been a tremendous pleasure working with the senior Senator, and he has made a real impact. I am very appreciative. As my colleagues know, the last farm bill expired 490 days ago. It is time to get it done. It is time to pass this tomorrow and to give it to the President for his signature. This is not your father's farm bill. This farm bill is focused on the future, not the past. We worked long and hard to make sure that policies worked for every region of the country, for all of the different kinds of agricultural production we do in our country--from traditional row crops, to specialty crops like fruits and vegetables, to livestock, to organics, to local food systems. For the past 2\1/2\ years, we have been working in a bipartisan way with colleagues in the Senate and in the House, and I appreciate our partnership with the chairman and ranking member in the House to craft a farm bill that reflects the future in American agriculture and the healthy food choices that consumers are asking for in the marketplace. As we begin this final debate, I want to focus for a few minutes on some of what people might not be focused on in this bill. Later today I am going to speak about the bill and each of its parts. There are just five things I wanted to highlight as we begin this debate. First, conservation. The farm bill is actually our country's largest investment in land and water conservation on private lands, which are the majority of our American lands. That means we are restoring and preserving wildlife habitat and open spaces. We help farmers reduce runoff to help keep rivers and streams clean and teeming with fish. This bill includes a historic new agreement that ties conservation compliance to crop insurance. This bill helps prevent plowing of native grasses through a provision called Sod Saver that will save taxpayers money and preserve sensitive habitat for years to come. Second, energy jobs. This farm bill has major investments in American energy independence. I am very proud to say this conference report contains the full $880 million investment we passed in the Senate for renewable and clean energy. It includes my Grow it Here, Make it Here initiative to support innovative biobase manufacturing that takes crops grown on our farms, uses it to replace petroleum and other chemicals, and transforms them into consumer products. It contains the Rural Energy for America Program, known as REAP, to help farmers install on-farm renewable energy and energy efficiency systems to lower their energy usage. This bill supports the development of the next generation of biofuels, including new technologies using food and agricultural waste. Third, healthy foods. One of the incentivized programs in this bill, among others, is a successful program in Michigan called Double Up Food Bucks, which essentially doubles food assistance when a family is shopping for produce at a farmers' market. Speaking of which, we have quadrupled support for farmers' markets--four times more help than the previous farm bill. That means farmers have more choices to find fresh, locally grown foods, and it means farmers have more opportunities to sell those products and grow our rural economies. Fourth, research. Crops and livestock are affected by pests and diseases, and if we are going to continue to be the world's leader in food production, we need to invest in order to fight back. Unfortunately, for years we have had to cut funding for critical research, and that has been a great concern of mine and of all of our committee. This farm bill includes an innovative solution to that problem. It creates a new agricultural research foundation modeled after health research foundations to bring private and public dollars together to support our scientists all across the country who are working to fight pests, find cures for crop diseases, and focus on food safety and innovation. Finally, reform. This farm bill contains the greatest reforms to agricultural programs in decades. We have finally ended direct payment subsidies, which are given to farmers in good times and bad. Instead, we shift to a responsible, risk management approach that only gives farmers assistance when they experience a loss. The bill also ends farm payments to millionaires, addresses a loophole that allows people who aren't farming to get payments, and tightens payment limits with a cap on payments that, for the first time, includes all commodity title programs, including limits on marketing loans. We looked at every part of the farm bill for reform and savings. It is safe to say we are the only area of the Federal Government that has voluntarily cut spending in our own area of jurisdiction. Counting sequestration cuts, we made a commitment to achieve $23 billion in deficit reduction, and we have. I have spoken about five reasons to support the farm bill. There are many more. This farm bill reflects a major step forward in creating a new paradigm for the future and a real victory for farmers, families, and all Americans who care about protecting our soil and water resources, increasing American energy independence, and the quality of life of rural communities across our country. With that, at this time, so that other colleagues may speak, I yield the floor. Recognition of the Minority Leader

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before the Senator from Montana leaves the floor, I wish to thank him for his wise counsel throughout the process of writing the farm bill. It is nice to have a farmer in the Senate who can give practical ideas and reactions. This is somebody who has been out there fighting for the farmer, small farmers, to be able to make sure they have the same shot to be successful as the big producers. I thank Senator Tester not only for his support, but he has a very key voice in supporting farmers and ranchers across the country. I very much appreciate his counsel as we bring this effort to conclusion. I ask unanimous consent that the time during quorum calls be equally divided.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first of all, I thank our majority leader again, as I did earlier today, for his help in bringing this conference report to the Senate as quickly as possible and for his willingness every step of the way to work with us. I thank my partner in the Senate, Senator Cochran from Mississippi, for his wonderful leadership. At this point in time I will turn to him and allow him to make his statement before proceeding with mine. I want to say to Senator Cochran and to all of those in Mississippi who are lucky to have him as their Senator fighting for them what a pleasure it has been to partner with him and his really excellent staff, and to have the opportunity to come here today with a strong bipartisan product that represents the agricultural and food interests of all parts of our country. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first I thank my friend and colleague from Washington for her passionate advocacy, and I join with her and other colleagues today in supporting the unanimous consent request to pass immediately the Tax Extenders Act. There is no reason not to get this done, as colleagues have said--absolutely none. We are in a situation where there are critical tax policies that will directly affect families. Middle-class families across the country are going to be hit by a number of different policies. Small businesses, large businesses, and a number of different entities will be affected if we don't get this passed. I would like to specifically talk about an urgent priority I have been offering, which we have been able to shepherd through a number of different times, which needs to get done as a part of this package or by itself, however we want to do it. We need to make sure struggling homeowners across the country--and in terms of all of the economy as well--are able to continue using tax policy to protect them from not only being hit with a mortgage problem that puts them underwater and struggling to keep their homes but an extra tax bill on top of it that makes absolutely no sense. Let me explain that. At the end of the year, a law I offered back in 2007 to protect homeowners against unforeseen and unfair tax bills is set to expire. Before this law, when a portion of a distressed homeowner's mortgage was canceled--either in a loan workout with a bank, a short sale, or even a foreclosure in some instances--the IRS treated the canceled debt as taxable income. Think about that: You are already struggling with your home. You could lose your home. Or maybe you are able to refinance in some way, work with the bank, get a short sale, and then on top of that get a tax bill for whatever the value was of what you were able to work out. It makes absolutely no sense. It is, frankly, outrageous. The IRS was telling homeowners that money they had already lost on their home was income, so we have essentially been correcting that since 2007 through a tax change. The IRS before that was taxing families on what is considered phantom income at the worst possible time for the family. With the onslaught of the housing crisis, Congress recognized how critical it was to protect struggling homeowners from paying this kind of tax on mortgage debt relief. In 2007, we provided tax relief for homeowners by excluding mortgage forgiveness from their income for tax purposes. It made sense then, it makes sense now. It expires at the end of the year. We came together on a bipartisan basis. We said to millions of working families, middle-class families struggling to keep a roof over their head for their families that: If you are struggling with an underwater mortgage, the IRS shouldn't kick you while you are down. You can seek relief without having to worry about incurring a massive tax bill. This provision has aided millions of families and helped enable the housing market to begin to recover. However, in too many areas of the country and for far too many homeowners, the housing crisis is far from over. Nearly 6.5 million homeowners are still underwater in their mortgages. They owe more than their homes are worth. That includes 250,000 hard-working families in Michigan. Nearly 13 percent of homeowners nationally are underwater. Again, 18 percent are in Michigan--above the national average. It is critical that we extend this provision, and it is very important it be done before the end of the year. It needs to be done ahead of time so homeowners know what the IRS rules are going to be in 2014, as they are literally making decisions today, tomorrow, the next day, over Christmas. They need to know. If we don't act, homeowners who are offered relief from their lenders or are thinking about a short sale won't know if they will be hit with a major tax bill as a result, and that will affect decisions being made. On average, underwater homeowners owe $53,000 more on their mortgage than the market value of their homes. In some cases, of course, it is much more. For a typical middle-class family, that could mean a tax bill of more than $13,000. Merry Christmas. It is $13,000 tax bill you shouldn't be paying as you are trying to figure out how to protect your home. Who would want to take that risk? Brokers and housing counselors in Michigan have been asking me what they should be telling homeowners, and we need to act right now so we can tell them they don't have to worry about this. This is not just about fairness for homeowners. This is about keeping the housing recovery alive. The last thing we want to do is to tax people into foreclosure, where they feel their only option is default and walking away from their home. As we have seen in so many communities, foreclosures and vacant properties destabilize neighborhoods. I can walk from community to community in Michigan and show where that has happened. They push home values down. We can't let that happen at a time when the housing market and the economy are finally recovering. We all have a stake in extending this important tax protection for families. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the National Association of Realtors, and one from over 200 housing consumer and community organizations urging us to act now.

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, Federal emergency unemployment benefits are going to expire on December 28 unless we do something to stop it. Right now, there are 11 million Americans out of work through no fault of their own. They are trying to find work, and they rely on unemployment insurance to help them keep food on the table and keep a roof over their heads and their families' heads, while they search for a new job. And now, over 1 million people who are trying to find work stand to lose their unemployment insurance on December 28 because Congress has not acted. Let me repeat that: Just 3 days after Christmas, 1 million people will lose a critical source of income while they look for work because of us. Letting Federal unemployment insurance expire would be devastating for families all across the country. I have heard from many of my constituents in Michigan on just how bad this will be, and how it will affect their families. There are stories throughout Michigan and across our country. It is astounding that Congress would even consider letting this expire, given that unemployment rates in many States are higher today than they were in 2008 when we passed this law. In June of 2008, when the President signed this law, the national unemployment rate was under 6 percent. Today, it is 7 percent. Even though we are seeing a number of great things happening in Michigan, we are still struggling to create enough jobs for everyone who needs one. And because of that, Michigan just moved back into a position where, as a State with a high percentage of people out of work, Federal emergency unemployment benefits have been extended to 36 weeks. This means that people in Michigan who are trying to find a job get a few more weeks to find something before they lose this critical lifeline. But not if we let it expire. The story is the same in many States across the country. Today, 46 out of the 50 states, including Michigan, have higher unemployment rates than they did when this law went into effect. While we are seeing some positive signs in the economic numbers, there are still almost 11 million Americans out of work. That is far too many. There are three people who are looking for work for every 1 job available. And if we don't act, if we don't extend this critical lifeline, then over 43,000 people in Michigan--and over 1 million longterm unemployed people across the country--will face an uncertain future. We are six days from Christmas; six days from our children waking up and running to the Christmas tree to see what Santa brought them. And the question facing thousands of families in Michigan--facing Regina in Holland and Stephen in Dearborn--and over a million men and women across the country, is: Will there be anything under the tree on Christmas morning? Will there be a house to sleep in on Christmas Eve? Will there be food on the table tonight, or tomorrow night, or on Christmas night? These are people who are out of work through no fault of their own. People who have lost their jobs are already on the ropes. They have already seen cuts to unemployment insurance that have made it harder to make ends meet. And now Congress is threatening to pull the rug out from under them. These are people who want to work, who are trying to work, and just need help getting by while they find a new job. Giving them the benefits they earned isn't a ``disservice''--it is a lifeline. This is what little money families have to get by--and they spend it at the grocery store and to pay their bills. Without this help, they could lose their homes to foreclosure. At such a critical time in our economic recovery, we cannot afford another wave of foreclosures. It is also important to note that this is unemployment insurance-- people earned it by working, and in order to qualify for this assistance, you must be actively looking for a job every week. Letting the Federal emergency unemployment benefits expire would hurt these families and would send a ripple effect through the economy. Congress should be helping to create jobs, not pulling the rug out from under people looking for jobs. There is no reason for this to happen. We can pass a bill to extend this critical help. In the past, both parties have always worked together to continue emergency unemployment insurance when the economy is struggling. This is not the time to pull the rug out from people looking for work. I urge my colleagues to come together in a bipartisan way to extend unemployment insurance so our families--and the economy--do not suffer. Again, I thank Senator Reed who has been such a champion on this issue. I have been proud to partner with him on behalf of over a million people who are trying to find work and will lose their unemployment benefits three days after Christmas, on December 28. I can't think of anything more devastating to families trying to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. I also thank Senator Baucus for his leadership on this issue and congratulate him on his new opportunity for the future. Specifically, let me read letters that I think tell it all from people in Michigan. Regina from Holland writes: I am begging you to extend unemployment insurance. I have been unemployed since June. I am almost done with my first tier of unemployment. I have been trying to find work. I am 59 years old, and that does not help in finding a job. Madam President, let me say we have way too many women--we have way too many people who are in their 50s and in their 60s trying to find work and having a very difficult time for a number of reasons. She goes on to say: If you don't pass extensions, my family will only have my husband's Social Security check coming in, and we'll lose our home. I am really scared we will not have this money coming in after December 28th, and I don't know what we will do. I also heard from Stephen in Dearborn who wrote me and said: This December 28 deadline directly affects me and my family. I have been unemployed for 6 months. I have been struggling to keep things afloat for my wife and my two young children. If these benefits cease at the end of the month, it will put us even closer to losing everything my wife and I have worked very hard for. The reality is, even though the economy is getting better, we still have three people looking for every one job that is available. At one time it was five people, so we have made some progress. But the truth is we still have a situation where way too many people in Michigan and across the country--in fact, almost 11 million people are out of work, and we have three people fighting for every one job that is available. We also still have challenges as it relates to matching up the jobs with the skills that people have. Not that people don't have skills, but they are different than the jobs that are available. People going back to school, they want to work. We all want the dignity of financial independence and work. But too many people are struggling in an economy they did not create, a global economy they did not create. If we do not act--if we do not support Senator Reed's motion--over 43,000 people in Michigan, over 1 million long-term unemployed people across the country will find themselves in a devastating situation right after Christmas. It makes no sense. I urge my colleagues to join together and do what we have done with Republican Presidents, Democratic Presidents, what we have done on a bipartisan basis over the years; and that is to make sure we have a lifeline for people who are needing temporary help while they look for work. I thank the Chair.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I would like to join several of my colleagues who have already spoken to clarify the intent of an important provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act that the Senate is currently considering. Section 203 of the legislation is intended to prevent criminals from using information in the Death Master File, DMF--a list of recently deceased individuals that includes personal information such as Social Security numbers--to steal their identities to commit fraud. At the same time, the provision is intended to allow those who must use the DMF for legitimate business or official purposes, such as paying life insurance proceeds, preventing fraud, and addressing unclaimed property, to continue to have access to the information they need. Under this provision, the Secretary of Commerce is required to establish a program that will restrict public access to an individual's personal information on the DMF for a 3-year period after his or her death. The Secretary will also determine individuals certified under the program who will maintain access to the Death Master File for legitimate business or fraud prevention interests. These include State authorities, life insurance companies, and other legitimate users. To strike this balance between stopping criminals and allowing legitimate users to perform their responsibilities, the provision intends for the Department of Commerce to follow rulemaking procedures allowing for sufficient notice and comment from the public and interested parties. The provision is also intended to allow legitimate current users of the Death Master File to continue accessing DMF information until the certification program is established. I understand that Senator Nelson, the original author of this provision, engaged in a colloquy with Chairman Murray and Senator Casey, clarifying its intent. I salute Senator Nelson for his leadership in crafting a strong and well-targeted response to the important issue of identity theft.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I very much wish to thank a great friend and colleague, Senator Blunt, for joining me today on the floor and in leadership on some very important community mental health legislation. We have an opportunity to get something done with this issue. I ask unanimous consent to proceed with the colloquy.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I again thank my friend from Missouri for his commitment and for working with so many colleagues across the aisle on a bipartisan basis. I believe we will get this done and we will now, on this 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's signing the Community Mental Health Act, complete the circle in terms of mental health parity in our country.

Ms. STABENOW. I wish to go back to what the Senator from Missouri has indicated. Our veterans are coming home. We know that at least 200,000 of our veterans coming home will go into the community. I see our distinguished chair of the Senate veterans' committee on the floor. I thank the Senator for all of his good work. In addition to the VA system, where we are strengthening mental health services, we know that many will come home to the communities and be looking to an outpatient clinic or somewhere in the community for help. The reason we have strong support from the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans' organizations is because our Excellence in Mental Health Act legislation, which creates a behavioral health clinic model based on what has been done in community health that has worked so well, will create an opportunity for those veterans coming home to get support and help in the community. One of the most difficult statistics to talk about is that 22 of our veterans are committing suicide every day--22 every day. That is unacceptable. We need to make sure families and veterans have the support that they need so that when they come home they can receive the help they need. I am very proud of the fact we have about 50 organizations supporting the Excellence in Mental Health Act, such as sheriffs and police officers. Most likely, if somebody needs help, they are placed in a jail or in the emergency room. They don't go to a mental health facility. What we are proposing is something that would provide 24-hour emergency psychiatric delivery, coupled with high quality community mental health services. The time is now to do this. We have seen the need increase as states over the years have cut funding for in-patient mental health services and have not replaced them with services in the community. Too often, people who need mental health treatment end up not getting the treatment they need, and end up in the emergency room or, worse, in jail. The ER and jail are not the place to treat mental illness. It is fair to say that our need now is greater than ever. Too many people who need treatment don't get it, including one-third of all people living with mood disorders and more than half of those with severe mental disorders. Tragically, 22 American veterans commit suicide every day. At least 25 percent of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are in need of some form of mental health treatment. We know that people suffering from mental illness are more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators. However, we have seen too many examples of what happens when people don't get the treatment they need around the country and right here in Washington, DC, where we've seen two tragic examples in the past 2 months, including the shootings at the Navy Yard and the woman who tried to drive her car into the White House and the Capitol. What can we do to improve the way we treat mental health issues in this country? How can we improve people's lives? We need to take the final step in mental health parity by strengthening access to quality mental health services in communities across America. That is why we need to pass the Excellence in Mental Health Act that the Senator from Missouri and I have sponsored together. This bill would expand access to community mental health care by making sure more providers are available to treat mental health issues and can offer a broad range of mental health services, such as the 24- hour crisis psychiatric services, integrated preventive screenings, integrated treatment for mental illness and substance abuse, and expanded peer support and counseling services for patients and families. This bill can help fulfill the legacy of President Kennedy's Community Mental Health Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. There will be health care legislation coming to the floor before the end of this year to address physician payments, and that would be a natural place to address the Excellence in Mental Health Act. I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting critical efforts to address mental health care in this country, and I hope they will join us in moving this proposal forward so we can get closer to this goal. I wish to turn to my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Missouri for closing remarks. He has been a true champion for mental health and a wonderful partner to me and for his views on how we can work together to improve mental health treatment in America.

Ms. STABENOW. We wish to do this today because today marks the 50th anniversary to the day that President John F. Kennedy signed into law the Community Mental Health Act. The good news is he signed this act. The unfortunate news is it was the last act he signed in his life. Today we want to recognize what that has meant to so many people across the country. This put in place the ability to serve people in the community who have mental health issues, rather than only being in institutions, being able to serve people closer to home, at home or to be able to give them the opportunity to get the help they need and still be active and successful in the community. I think so many of us have been touched by mental health issues, which is part of physical--it is not mental and physical health. I think it is about time. I know my friend would agree that we start treating illnesses above the neck differently than illnesses below the neck. It is all about comprehensive health care. We have all been touched in some way. My father went undiagnosed with a bipolar disorder for 10 years when I was growing up. When he finally received the help he needed, the medication he needed, he was able to work and be successful for the rest of his life. I wish to make sure every family has that opportunity. I know for President Kennedy it was his younger sister Rosemary who was institutionalized in the early 1940s and that brought him to this issue as well as to other passionate concerns that he had. President Kennedy saw a way to improve the lives of people such as his sister living with a mental illness by providing service in the community and, frankly, lowering the stigma on mental health. We still have a long way to go on reducing the stigma and understanding that it is, in most occasions, a physiological change in the brain, a chemical imbalance, something that needs to be treated appropriately, and that is certainly not a choice by an individual. President Kennedy thought we needed to make sure we were providing the very best for the people in this community. In his statement to Congress he wrote: We need a new type of health facility, one which will return mental health care to the mainstream of American medicine, and at the same time, upgrade mental health services. We have worked together in a bipartisan way since then. The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act was championed by our friends and colleagues, Senators Pete Domenici, Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy, and Congressman Patrick Kennedy in the House, and it became law. It said we have to have parity in how insurance companies treat mental health and physical health. I was pleased to get those provisions into health reform, but there is more to do and that is why we are here. I wish to turn to my friend from Missouri, who has been a great partner and ask, as we go forward, what his thoughts are on this day and what we should continue to do to continue with this legacy.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with my great friend from Missouri, Senator Blunt. I wish to make a comment, if my colleague will excuse me. I have to say I am amazed to hear that we are court packing when what we are talking about is trying to fill three vacancies on a court. I hadn't heard that before with other Presidents. Hopefully, we can fill vacancies and try to do it in a bipartisan way.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, there are two issues wrapped together right now that are causing dire consequences for people all across the country. The first, as we know and as we have been debating, is the government shutdown and all that has happened in terms of people being hurt, jobs being lost, small businesses not being able to get the loans they need, people not being able to complete their mortgage requirements to get the homes they want, the concerns about health and safety and all of the other issues, children, what is happening to so many people, senior citizens, veterans, and so on--very, very serious. This is the 11th day of the government shutdown that is costing us jobs, slowing the economy, and hurting families all across the country. It is an absolute drag on the economy, on our markets and on, frankly, America's standing in the world, which we should all be concerned about right now. It is, frankly, an embarrassment that in the greatest, wealthiest country in the world our government is shut down while a small minority tries to score political points. Unfortunately, that is what has been happening. The second issue is also very important; that is, the lapse of a farm bill, the agriculture and food policy bill in this country. The farm bill has been actually expired for 376 days--376 days--because it ended on September 30 of 2012. Last January there was a partial extension that extended subsidies that we all said should be eliminated as it did not include reforms and did not include deficit reduction, but there was a partial extension until September 30 and that has also lapsed. I know the distinguished Presiding Officer from Indiana, who is a member of my committee, fights very hard for Indiana. I am grateful he is a member of our committee. I know the Senator understands and shares my tremendous concern and urgency, both about the government shutdown and that we are seeing agricultural programs and rural economic development shut down because we don't have a farm bill. Nowhere is this felt more strongly now than in South Dakota. The Presiding Officer and I are not from South Dakota, but we have colleagues in the Senate who have been speaking on the floor. I have talked to the Senators from South Dakota who are deeply concerned, as well as the Senators from North Dakota. In South Dakota last Friday, October 4, an early autumn blizzard killed an estimated 75,000 head of cattle. This is one of the many pictures of what is happening as a result of this blizzard. Many producers lost half of their entire herd. Keep in mind that many thousands of these cows would have produced calves in the spring. These losses are huge for ranchers and families and will be felt for many years to come. These cattle ranchers and their families have no safety net, zero safety net. They don't receive direct payment subsidies. They now have zero safety net. They only had livestock disaster plans which expired on October 1, 2011, 741 days ago. Their losses are expected to reach into the tens of millions of dollars. Our Senate farm bill, which we passed with strong bipartisan majorities last year and this year--we have actually done it twice-- includes permanent livestock disaster assistance for these ranchers' families to make sure ranchers, such as those in South Dakota, don't go bankrupt, which is what is going to happen if we don't get this farm bill in place as soon as possible. But there is no farm bill. Even if there were, those farmers wouldn't be able to get help because the farmers can't document their losses or get the answers they need from the Farm Service Agency offices because they are closed due to the shutdown. These ranchers, such as many other ranchers across the country, are getting a one-two punch by not being able to go to their local FSA office to get the help they need, while at the same time not having the long-term certainty of agricultural policy and a safety net when there is a catastrophe. Three things have come together to make this a major disaster for ranchers, such as the need for a farm bill with livestock disaster assistance, which we have. We have a great livestock disaster assistance program in our bill. The good news is the House has one as well. If we can get a farm bill done, which could be done any day--we are willing to be a part of any agreement anyone does--and we will be able to help those South Dakota ranchers. Of the three items, one is that we don't yet have the final farm bill, even though the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, has done its job twice. Secondly, we have a government shutdown that is not allowing these ranchers to get the help they need. Thirdly, we have a blizzard. Two out of three of these are self-inflicted. Think about it. Because there is no farm bill, because there is a government shutdown, somewhere ranchers are going to lose everything--their homes, their land, everything--because of the freak blizzard in early October. We can debate the larger issues around that as well. The irony is those ranchers in South Dakota have 3 days under the law to dispose of their dead cattle. They were just hit by blizzard, suffered unbelievable losses, and they have 3 days to clean it up. They don't get an extension. They can't kick the can down the road. They can't wait forever either. They can't wait any longer for us to get a farm bill done. This needs to be done right now. If there is the political will to do it and there is support from the Speaker to do it, we can get this done quickly. Those cattle ranchers aren't alone. Producers in the Midwest, the Northwest, the West, and much of the South went through one of the worst droughts in a generation last summer. Many producers sold off most of their herds because there wasn't the grass for the cattle to graze on. Feed was scarce and expensive. As a result, cattle inventories dropped to their lowest levels in five decades, 50 years. For all of us who enjoy eating meat, we are seeing the consequences of the lowest level in five decades. Farmers all across the country suffered from this drought. In addition, fruit growers from my State suffered heavy losses last year from an early spring followed by a late frost, and our cherry growers were some of the hardest hit. In fact, they were virtually wiped out. Their crop was wiped out last year. They also don't have a safety net. Similar to ranchers, they aren't eligible for direct payment subsidies and they weren't able to get any crop insurance either. We worked hard in this farm bill to make sure there were risk management tools, not only subsidies because a farmer grows something. As taxpayers, we can't afford to do that. It is not the right thing to do. We have a deficit we have to address, and it makes no sense. We work hard to make sure the risk management tools are available to help farmers and ranchers manage their risk when there is a disaster such as South Dakota, but there is no help until we get the farm bill signed into law. For all the men and women, all the families--and the vast majority we are talking about are middle-class families--small farmers, medium- sized farmers who are working hard from sunrise to sunset, day-in and day-out with the riskiest business in the world, they can't kick the can down the road. When the crop is ready to be harvested, they have to do it. They are looking at us and saying: Get the job done. Get the farm bill done now. All of those middle-class families and 16 million people in this country have jobs because of agriculture. They are saying we have waited long enough. How many disasters have to happen without the right tools before this gets done? With 16 million people, the biggest bill we are going to pass this year is the farm bill. This is for rural economic development, energy, food-related industries, conservation efforts, our help for people who are caught up in their own personal economic disasters, which is so critical, and they are all counting on us. The men and women who are working hard to bring in the harvest are counting on us to get this done. We did a farm bill. I am grateful to leaders on both sides of the aisle who came together. That is how I know we can stop this shutdown and pay our bills because we have done things together in the Senate. We need our colleagues in the House to be willing to step in and do the same. People have waited long enough. It is time to get it done, and it is time to get it done now. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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