Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Ms. STABENOW. Before the Senator from Ohio leaves, I want to thank him. He has been an invaluable member of our committee. We would not have the agricultural risk coverage portion and the yield loss coverage portion in this bill were it not for his work, he and Senator Thune working together. We used their bill as the basis for this. He has also been the champion of rural development. We have investments in rural development we would not have had without his involvement, as well as other efforts in the energy title and throughout the bill. I thank him. We are very lucky to have him as a member of the committee.

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

Ms. STABENOW. That is correct.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I just indicated to the Senator from Arizona that while I have no objection to having a vote on his amendment, I ask that he not proceed with his request at this time. We have an amendment that is pending, and we also have a number of crop insurance amendments we want to do together. I will not object to voting on his amendment, there is no attempt not to do that, but at this point I do object to having his amendment as the pending amendment. I ask my colleague through the Chair if he would be willing to work with us. I will commit to having a vote on his amendment. This is not an attempt to not vote on his amendment. The ranking member and I have talked, and we are certainly committed to voting on the Senator's amendment; however, we would like to have an opportunity to set up how we will be voting on a series of amendments.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wish to thank our majority leader, Republican leader, and all the Members for allowing us in the Senate to move forward today on this very important bill. I want to thank my ranking member Senator Thad Cochran for his friendship and his leadership. I want to thank all of the members of the committee for working together to write this important legislation. Also, I want to thank our staffs on both sides of the aisle. We have excellent staffs who have worked together, and I know we will continue to work together as we move this legislation through. Our bill, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013, is critical to the 16 million Americans whose jobs rely on a strong agricultural economy. Agriculture has been one of the bright spots as our economy is getting back on track. In fact, it is one of the few areas where we actually have a trade surplus, where we are exporting more than we are importing. This means jobs for us in America. The farm bill is a jobs bill. It is a jobs bill, a trade bill, a reform bill, a conservation bill, and it is a kitchen table bill. Thanks to the farm bill, families all across America will sit down around a table tonight and enjoy the bounty of the world's safest, most abundant, and most affordable food supply. Those who need temporary help to feed their families during an economic crisis will get help as well. This is a bill that reflects our best values as Americans. It is easy to take agriculture for granted. It is easy for many of us to forget the food we eat doesn't come from the supermarket, as some folks may think. The food we eat comes from the skill and the efforts of the men and women who work hard from sunrise to sunset, day in and day out, to put food on our tables. Too often I believe we take them for granted as well. Most of us don't have to worry about how many days it has been since the last rainfall or whether it is going to freeze in May after the fruit trees are blooming. Most of us don't have to worry about decisions and weather conditions around the world and how they affect our livelihood here at home. That is why we have what we call the farm bill. We have a farm bill because farmers are in the riskiest business in the world. We saw that last year as our country was in the grip of the worst drought in generations. We saw this as ranchers had to cull their herds because they couldn't get enough food or water for their cattle. We saw all across the country that farmers lost their crops in late spring freezes that wiped out cherry and apple crops in Michigan and other parts of the country. That is why the top goal of the agriculture reform bill is risk management. We are reforming farm programs, ending direct payments and other subsidies that have no relationship to risk and instead giving farmers market-based risk management tools. That is the hallmark of this farm bill. We want to make sure a farm that has been passed on for generations doesn't face bankruptcy because of a drought or other events outside the farmer's control. We also want to make sure that when there is a drought we are conserving our precious soil and water resources. When it comes to conservation, the farm bill is risk management for the whole country. Conservation programs in the farm bill make sure our soil doesn't blow away and our waters aren't polluted by runoff. In many parts of the country last year we had a drought that was worse than the Dust Bowl, but we didn't have a dust bowl. We didn't have out-of-control erosion, and that is because the farm bill did what it was supposed to do in conservation. Soil stayed on the ground. It is easy to take that for granted as well. The farm bill is our country's largest investment in land and water conservation on private lands, and the farm bill gives farmers tools to strengthen wildlife habitat. I had the opportunity this weekend, with my gracious host, the Senator from Mississippi, to visit a wildlife preserve program and wetlands preserve program, and Senator Cochran is responsible for those parts of the farm bill. We had an opportunity to go out on a beautiful piece of flat land in the Mississippi delta and see where ducks were coming back, quail were coming back, and habitat was beginning to flourish because of efforts to support these important resources for the future. The farmer involved in the property said he felt he was in partnership with the USDA and making a commitment for his children and future generations through conservation. This is a real source of pride for us as we look at this 5-year farm bill. I am pleased the bill before us includes a new historic agreement between conservation groups and commodity groups around conservation and crop insurance. These folks from very different perspectives sat down together, listened to one another, and worked out an agreement that will preserve land and water resources for generations to come. The farm bill helps farmers improve 1.9 million acres of land for wildlife habitat. Healthy wildlife habitat and clean fishable waters are not only good for our environment but they also support hunting, fishing, and all the other great outdoor recreation which benefits our economy and creates jobs. We just plain have fun doing it in Michigan. In fact, outdoor recreation supports over 6 million jobs alone. That is a big deal. We also continue our support for specialty crops, fruits, vegetables, and those crops that make up about half of the cash receipts of our country. Organic agriculture is a growing part of agriculture. We expand farmers markets in local food hubs to encourage schools and businesses to support their local farmers by purchasing locally grown food and creating more local jobs. We expand the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables that are so essential in schools and community food programs. We also strengthen rural development financing for small businesses. Once you get outside of the cities in Michigan and all across our country, every single community in Michigan, outside of our big cities, gets support for jobs through something we call rural development, financing for small businesses, for water and sewer projects, road projects, housing efforts for families, a whole wide variety of things we do through this economic arm in the USDA called rural development. We also expand the energy title to encourage support for new jobs in biobased manufacturing, which is an exciting new effort. In addition to biofuels, we now can use agricultural products and byproducts to replace petroleum and other chemicals in manufacturing. There is a huge new opportunity for jobs, as well as supporting our environment by doing these things. There is no doubt that the farm bill is a jobs bill. This bill also continues to focus on the issue that has taken so much of our time this year, last year, and the year before, and that is cutting the deficit and getting our Nation's fiscal house back in order. We get rid of unnecessary subsidies such as the Direct Payment Program that sends a check to folks regardless of whether they are even farming a particular crop anymore, streamlining programs to cut redtape, and cracking down on fraud and abuse. In fact, we eliminate over 100 different programs or authorizations that either were duplicating something else or didn't make sense to do anymore. I think that is the way we ought to be cutting spending and creating savings. Altogether, including the cuts that took effect already this year, we are able to cut spending by about $24 billion. That is more than double the cuts proposed by the Simpson-Bowles Commission and last year's Gang of Six that worked on deficit reduction. And I want to underscore that this is four times--four times--more than is required by the arbitrary across-the-board sequestration cuts. So we in agriculture take a back seat to no one in our commitment to doing our part in making tough decisions and setting priorities to reduce the deficit. This bill represents the most significant reform of American agriculture in decades, in my judgment. We are putting caps on payments to farmers and closing loopholes that allowed people who were not actually farming to receive payments. We are strengthening crop insurance, which we heard from farmers was the No. 1 risk management tool for them. It is important we strengthen it and protect it as we move through this process. The agriculture reform bill includes disaster assistance for our ranchers and farmers as well who cannot receive crop insurance-- livestock owners and others in areas that cannot receive crop insurance. We made sure our food assistance programs are accountable, that there is integrity in our programs, so we continue to build on the integrity that is already there by cracking down on abuses and misuse. We made sure our changes would not remove one single needy family. It is not about hurting folks, it is about making sure there is not abuse, and that is what we address. Let me say when we look at crop insurance, it is there for disasters for our farmers, and it goes up when there are a lot of disasters. That is when there is cost. Then it goes down when things are going better, and it is the same for food assistance for families. Costs go up during bad times, as we have seen over the last number of years, but now CBO tells us those costs are going down. Why? Because the economy is getting better and people are able to go back to work. That is how it is supposed to work, and that is how it is working. Last year we in the Senate passed a farm bill with strong bipartisan support. We didn't take the 16 million Americans who work in agriculture for granted, we didn't take our land and water resources for granted, and we stood for families all across the country who had fallen on hard times. Unfortunately, at that time the House of Representatives did not follow our lead. They allowed the farm bill to expire at the end of last year, which is why we are here again working through this process. I appreciate the way we have gotten to this point in a bipartisan way. We have worked very hard to make sure every part of agriculture is addressed in terms of their needs and the risk management tools in this bill. I thank my colleague from Mississippi Senator Cochran, who is the ranking member of our committee. He and his staff have worked diligently and in a bipartisan way, and that has allowed us to get to this point. So I thank him for that. I am looking forward to working with colleagues to pass this bill as soon as possible, and we look forward to working with colleagues on amendments throughout this week. I see my distinguished colleague, our ranking member, is here, and I will turn to him in just a moment. I do want to place one amendment in order at this point, and then we can proceed with our discussions. This is an amendment we have cleared on both sides on behalf of Senator Cantwell. Amendment No. 919 Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 919.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I wish to thank the chair of our Budget Committee for doing such a terrific job in bringing us all together. I wish to thank my colleagues on the committee. We worked very hard together in order to be able to put together a balanced budget that reflects the values of the American people. It is fair and balanced in values as well as in numbers, and we did that 46 days ago. So we passed that 46 days ago after hearing for over 3 years about how the Senate had not passed a budget. By the way, we did pass a law-- this is a caveat--called the Budget Control Act which actually had done the same thing as a budget. Those of us who were on the ballot this last time heard that over and over from our opponents. So I am stunned that we would now be 46 days--and counting--into a situation where we have been trying to take the budget we passed by a majority vote--by the way, this passed on a majority vote. Each one of us ran for election, and we can win by one vote, and that is the majority. Decisions are made by a majority vote. We went through 110 amendments. We were here all hours of the night. There were a lot of tired faces by the time we got done, but we got it done, and we made the commitment we were going to get a budget done. The House did a budget--a very different budget, no question about it. There is no question we have a very different vision of the country. The budget in the House eliminates Medicare as an insurance plan. That is certainly not something I or the majority here would support. We rejected that approach, but that was in their budget. They have a right to put forward their vision for how things should be done. There were many differences in values and perspectives, and that is what the Democratic process is all about. So we passed a budget by a majority and they passed a budget by a majority. The next step is to negotiate and come up with a final budget. That is the next step, and that is how the process works. We have different views, different perspectives, and then we sit down in something called a conference committee. We cannot get to that next step. We have had 46 days of trying to get to a point to get it done by working with the House, and all we get is objection after objection after objection. I appreciate that colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have voted for similar budgets to the Ryan Republican budget would have preferred if we would have eliminated Medicare. We didn't do that, and we are not going to do that. The majority here said we are putting forward a budget that is going to move the country forward and address the deficit and reflect the values around education and innovation and outbuilding the competition in a global economy. We are putting forward our vision. The House has their vision, which cuts innovation and cuts education and does not allow us to build. We have very different visions. The Democracy we have says: We take both of those visions and then we sit down and try to figure something out. That is the next step. We are not interested in just being on the floor and counting the days, although we will be on the floor and counting the days. That is not how we want to spend our time. We would rather spend our time listening to our colleagues in a respectful way about very different visions and very different values so we can find a way--if we can--to come together. We need to come together so we can tackle the last part of deficit reduction. We have gone about $2.5 trillion toward the $4 trillion that everyone says we need to do to begin to turn the corner as it relates to the economy and the deficit. In order to get the rest of it, we need to sit down in a room together and figure it out. We are going to continue to come to the floor and ask for an agreement. Unfortunately, if there is an objection, we have to go through the whole process of trying to get it done. We are going to keep pushing and pushing until we can get a budget done. Why is this so important? It is very important because in our bill we stop what everyone feels is a very crazy approach to the final step in deficit reduction, which is to have across-the-board--regardless of value, importance or impact--cuts in the investments and in the discretionary budget of our country. We know there needs to be spending reductions. We have voted for them. We have already put in place about $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction, and right now about 70 percent of that has been in spending reductions. The concern that I have and that others in the majority have is that most of those have fallen right in the laps of the middle class, our children, the future through innovation, and seniors. We have said in our budget: No more. No more. We have to look at an approach that is balanced and that says to those who are the wealthiest in our country, who are the most blessed economically: You have to be a part of the solution in a significant way. We want to look at spending under the Tax Code. How many times do we talk about special deals in the Tax Code, things that don't make sense in terms of spending, special deals that support jobs going overseas rather than keeping them here at home. There is spending in the Tax Code that needs to be addressed so it is more fair for American businesses, for small businesses, for families, for the future of the country. Our budget does that by saying we are going to tackle spending in the Tax Code, we are going to tackle the question of fairness in the code and asking those who are the wealthiest among us to contribute a little bit more to be able to help pay down this deficit, not just cutting Meals On Wheels or Head Start or cancer research, which is what is happening right now. So the intensity we feel about getting this budget done is to be able to stop the things happening now that are very harmful. We saw the lines at the airports. We don't as readily see the lines of people who can no longer participate, such as people I know, in cancer research efforts that may save lives. We know there is incredibly important research going on in science, in medicine, in agriculture, including food safety and pest and disease control and every area of research where our country, the United States of America, has led the world. And that doesn't show up in lines at the airport, but it does show up in the future of our country. It does show up in the lives of someone who has Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease or breast cancer or other diseases where we are this close to cures, where there is treatment going on that can save lives--is saving lives--and it is stopping. We don't see the seniors who get Meals On Wheels lining up. They are getting one meal a day right now--one meal a day that allows them a little bit of a visit from a volunteer and one meal a day to eat through Meals On Wheels. Now, because of these irrational cuts, we are told there are waiting lists for one meal a day. How do we have a waiting list for one meal a day? I don't get that. So we are saying we want to fix the airports; we appreciate that. We want to fix the one meal a day going to somebody's grandma who can't figure out what is going on in terms of the priorities of this country. The children who are getting a head start to be successful in school-- how many times do we all say: Education, the most important thing; children, the most important thing. But because they don't directly have a voice here, as do a lot of other special interest groups, who gets cut first? Our budget values children and families, opportunity, innovation, fairness, and the ability to grow this economy, to create jobs so everyone has the dignity of work. We want to get to conference committee. We want to get about the business of negotiating a final budget because we do not accept what is happening right now without a budget. Tackle the deficit, yes. Do it in a way that works for growth in America and jobs, do it in a way that supports families, that lifts our children, that respects our elders, yes. That is the budget we voted for in the Senate and the budget we want to see come to completion in this process. We can't get there unless we can negotiate, and that is what this whole discussion is about. It has been 46 days since we passed a budget. We are ready to go. We are more than ready to go. Let's sit down in a room and work it out. We know it is a negotiation. We know we have to have give-and-take. But we are blocked right now from even getting in the room, and that is wrong. We are going to keep coming every day, and we are going to keep counting the days until our colleagues on the other side of the aisle decide they are willing to get in the room and get a budget done that works for the growth and the families of our country. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I would like to speak for a few minutes today about the importance of getting a budget done today, all the way through the process. Senator Reid, our majority leader, last evening spoke again about the fact that we have had 15 days now of trying to just come together to create a conference committee to work out differences between the House and the Senate on a budget. For some reason, after talk for the last 3 years that I can remember from colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying that we need regular order, we need regular order, we need to get a budget done, they now are objecting to getting a budget done, which is extraordinary. The fact is that we cannot get a budget done if the House and the Senate do not appoint conferees and sit down and negotiate differences. There are huge differences, I might add, between the House and the Senate. It is true that we will not accept, in the Senate, eliminating Medicare as an insurance plan for seniors and the disabled in this country, which the House does in their plan, turning it into a government voucher, putting seniors back into the private sector to try to find insurance. We certainly will not accept that, it is true. There are other areas of that budget we absolutely will not accept, but we know the first step in coming together to find something we can accept is to sit down and talk. I mean, I am very proud of what we were able to do in March. We had 110 amendments. We all remember. We were here until the wee hours of the morning. We got a budget done in regular order. We have been hearing from colleagues across the aisle that we need to have regular order. I support that. In fact, I was proud of the fact that last year we did a farm bill in regular order and plowed through 73 amendments and worked together and passed a bipartisan bill. We hope we are going to be bringing a bill to the floor very soon as well to do it again. I am a huge supporter of giving people an opportunity to state their differences, to be able to work out amendments, and to be able to get a bill done. We did that with 50 hours of debate on the budget, 110 amendments that we took up. We got it done. Now, all of a sudden, colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not want regular order anymore. They have decided somehow that actively blocking us from actually getting a budget for the Nation is more advantageous to them for some reason or something that appeals to them more than actually getting the budget done. I urge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take another look at this, to look at their own words over the last number of years. Our colleague from Texas who objected to the majority leader's motion to actually do the next step and get a budget done said back in January on national television: We have a crisis. Well, what was the crisis he was talking about? There is no doubt the Senate has not done its job. The Senate should pass a budget. Well, we did. We passed a budget. It may not be something my colleague from Texas supported. That is the democratic process. The majority of people agreed in this body, and we passed a budget. He may be more inclined to support the House budget, which eliminates Medicare as an insurance plan and does a number of other things that I think go right to the heart of middle-class families and so on. That is his right. That is a right we all have, to have a position as to which budget we support. But we also know that in the democratic process under our Constitution--and we all talk about the Constitution and the democratic process--the way we actually get to a final budget is to get folks in a room to talk, to negotiate, and to see if there is some way to work issues out. We are now being blocked from being able to get in the room to talk to each other. The American people want us to talk, want us to negotiate, want us to work things out. That is what we ought to be doing. So I would strongly urge that we move to conference. I do not know why in the world anyone would be objecting to putting together a group of people, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans in the House, to sit down and work out the priorities for our country. Will we have different perspectives on Medicare, whether we should have Medicare? Yes, we will. Will we have different perspectives on where the brunt of the cutbacks should be and whether middle-class families have been hit enough, which I believe they have? Yes, we will have a disagreement on how to balance the budget. But we all know that we need to get the job done. We have done our part in passing a Senate budget. The House passed a House budget. It is a very different vision of the world, different vision of what should happen in terms of innovation, education, and investing in the future of our country--very different views. But those views deserve to be aired sitting around a conference table to try to work out some way to come together to pass a budget. I urge colleagues to stop obstructing, stop stalling, allow us to move forward in a balanced way, and give us the opportunity to do what everyone in the country wants us to do, which is to come up with a bipartisan, balanced, fair budget for the country. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, we are about to enter into an incredibly important debate about a series of issues relating to violence-- specifically, gun violence--in our communities all across America. Today I rise to speak about a very important bipartisan amendment I will be offering with Senator Roy Blunt and others called the Excellence in Mental Health Act. This addresses a very important piece of the discussion. It is an opportunity for us to come together amidst a lot of controversial debate and agree on something that is a very important piece of the puzzle--having access to comprehensive, quality mental health services. This weekend we heard from Francine Wheeler, whose 6-year-old son Ben was murdered on December 14 in Newtown, CT. We know that Ben was one of 26 people--20 children--who lost their lives. I can only begin to imagine what all of us as parents would feel in that situation. For those 26 victims and the 3,300 other Americans killed since then in acts of gun violence, it is time to take action. I am hopeful, given the strong bipartisan vote we had to move forward on this debate, that we can actually have the debate, that people will have their say and then vote on this very important issue. The bill before us is a commonsense effort toward comprehensive background checks that will help save lives. I am very supportive of not only that provision but others that will be offered as well. One important piece that hasn't been in the headlines as much but is very important in getting it right is the need for better access to comprehensive mental health services. That is why we need the bipartisan Excellence in Mental Health Act passed as an amendment that will increase access to care and improve the quality of life for those who need it. We know that a person who does not receive treatment after his or her first psychotic episode is 15 times more likely to commit a violent act. But let me be clear. We also know that the vast majority of those who are living with mental illnesses are more likely to be a victim of crime than to be a perpetrator of crime. But tragedies do happen when treatment and help are not available. In too many instances today we are seeing that there is not effective help available to people in communities. The current lack of access to mental health services means too often it is the local police who are responding to psychiatric emergencies, and they may not have services to which to take someone. These police officers are being diverted from what they should be doing--responding to other crimes--and so they take people to jail rather than have them get the services they need. They are spending resources incarcerating people who would otherwise need to be and should be in a treatment situation. That is why we have law enforcement supporting this amendment. We have over 50 organizations--from law enforcement and community mental health and health groups, as well as those who represent our brave veterans home from the war--supporting us because they know that if we don't have quality service in the community, we will continue to see people in jail who shouldn't be in jail, we will continue to see families and individuals not getting the help they need, and in some circumstances we will see more tragedies occur as well. Over the course of this week, we are going to hear a lot of debate about different aspects of gun safety. Colleagues are going to disagree about the manner of background checks or limits on assault weapons. But I hope there will be no disagreement that people with serious mental illnesses should be given effective treatment and that we can do a better job in our country to make sure treatment is readily available in a community setting. That should be the hopeful part of this whole debate. Science has shown us significant advances in the study of the brain and the most effective mental health treatments. There are solutions if people get the help they need. They can live healthy, productive lives rather than struggling with their illness. And I applaud President Obama's historic brain mapping initiative to expand that knowledge even more. It is amazing to me that we have so many studies relating to heart disease, kidney disease, or diabetes, and yet all of the issues relating to the brain--whether it is bipolar disorder or Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease or schizophrenia--we have not tackled with the same vigor. There are solutions. We are finding those every day. There is hope. Today, thanks to cutting-edge research, we have answers for people living with severe mental illnesses. We have proven therapies, treatment options, and medicines that truly transform lives. I speak as someone who lived, as a daughter, through a time when we did not have appropriate treatments. When I was growing up, in middle school and high school, my father had bipolar disease. At that time we didn't know what it was. He was misdiagnosed for 10 years. At that time everybody was schizophrenic. There was no understanding that we actually have chemical imbalances in the brain, just as someone who isn't monitoring their sugar because they are diabetic might have. They need to monitor that in order to take medicine to keep them on an equilibrium so they do not get sick and have problems. We have the same thing with something called mood disorders in our country, and we have learned much about it. If someone is taking the right medicine, it stops the imbalance where they are either manic or severely depressed. There are solutions. When my dad was finally diagnosed correctly and received the help he needed and the medicine--at the time it was lithium--he went on to lead a very productive life for the rest of his days. So I have seen both what happens when people don't get treatment and when people do, and we literally have the opportunity to take this next step in order to make sure people all across our country get the help they need. Unfortunately, today one-third of all bipolar disorders do not get any treatment even when we know there are absolute answers for individuals and families. Shame on us for not making sure those are readily available. The amendment I will be offering would make sure those are available and close what I believe is the final step in what we have called mental health parity. We, as a group, on a bipartisan basis passed legislation authored by our dear departed Paul Wellstone and Senator Pete Domenici, with strong advocacy from Senator Ted Kennedy, to provide parity under health insurance between physical and mental health services. We passed that. We have now gone on to strengthen that with the new health reforms that are in place. The only place where we don't have mental health parity right now is in the community outside of the insurance system. We do not have the same parity between what we do through a community health clinic receiving reimbursement for preventive care for health services and what we do for behavioral health--mental health, substance abuse-- which is what we are going to fix with this amendment. We want to make sure we are focusing comprehensively in the community. As part of this, I also wish to talk about another tragedy facing our country; that is, the loss of so many of our heroes from Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a very important part of this story and part of what our amendment will address in a very positive way. Men and women who survive the horrors of war are ending up taking their own lives when they come home. Twenty-two veterans a day commit suicide, 22 a day today, yesterday, and tomorrow. They and their families, all those in that situation, need to know there is help available for them. That is why we have very strong support from veterans, the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organizations, which were very pleased to have stood with us last week when we did a press conference with veterans to focus on this important part of the puzzle. We know that one in four veterans coming home needs some kind of mental health support, so we want to make sure that if they are in a rural community in northern Michigan and it is 3 or 4 hours to drive to the VA, they instead could receive some help in their own community-- working with the VA but receiving help in their own community--and that is what this does. We want to make sure that our veterans are fully receiving the services promised them and that comprehensive health care will be available to them when they come home. I would like to share just one story from our press conference. Jennifer Crane joined us. She is a veteran of the war in Afghanistan. This October will mark 10 years since she returned home, but she says, ``The experiences live inside of me like it was yesterday.'' She suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. She couldn't sleep. She self-medicated and ended up homeless and in trouble with law enforcement. But when she got the help she needed at a community mental health center, it transformed her life. She met the man who would become her husband. She is now going to have a baby and now works with Give an Hour, which is a wonderful organization that helps veterans get the mental health services they need, and they are strongly supporting what we are doing as well. Jennifer could have ended up a statistic, but she got the help she needed. We need to give every one of our heroes coming home from war the same opportunity. That is why the Excellence in Mental Health Act is so important as a part of all of this effort. We have come a long way, in a bipartisan way, to recognize the need for mental health treatment. As I mentioned before, the wonderful partnership of Senators Domenici, Wellstone, and Kennedy paved the way for us to more fully understand that when we talk about comprehensive health services, we shouldn't stop at the neck--from the neck down, one set of rules; from the neck up, another set of rules--that, in fact, we are talking about comprehensive care. We need to make sure we lose that stigma and focus instead on what we can do to help people receive the services they need. This amendment takes those efforts across the finish line by expanding access to community mental health services. I knew there would be a lot of controversial debate, but I hope in the end we will be able to come together, as we have on this amendment. I am very appreciative of the bipartisan support. I want to thank Senator Roy Blunt again on our Excellence in Mental Health Act, as well as Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Susan Collins, Senator Lisa Murkowski, and others who have expressed their support as well. This is an opportunity for us to come together, as we have in the past, and do the right thing for millions of families dealing with mental illnesses that are treatable. The good news is there is hope now. There are actually answers now to so many mental illnesses. By passing our bipartisan Excellence in Mental Health Act we can prevent tragedies from happening in families all over our country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator very much.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I will be speaking off of the time on the resolution for a moment and then deferring to Senator Mikulski in yielding time to her, as well as our great colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, and others who wish to speak as we proceed with the debate on this resolution. Let me take a moment and say that today the House has passed their budget called the Ryan Republican budget, and it effectively rolls back health care for women in this country. Our budget does exactly the opposite. We protect and strengthen access to health care for women. Under health care reform, which we strengthen and support in our budget, health insurance plans, as we know, are required to cover women's preventive care, things such as annual wellness visits, domestic violence screenings, and contraception, without copays, coinsurance, or deductibles. The Republican budget that was passed today would take away those protections. Under the budget they passed today, 1.3 million women in Michigan alone could lose their health care. Insurance plans are now--under what we have passed--not allowed to discriminate against women. That is part of health reform. Being a woman is not a preexisting condition anymore. You cannot charge higher rates, you cannot discriminate in other ways against women in the marketplace when they are looking to buy insurance. And it would prohibit insurance companies from denying access to health insurance for a variety of things, such as being a domestic violence survivor. The Republican budget in the House would take away those critical protections. Until we passed health reform, as many as 60 percent of the individual insurance plans in this country did not offer basic maternity care, which I think is shocking. I know that whenever I talk with folks about that, they cannot believe that basic prenatal care, which is so important for babies, for women, was not provided. Now it is under our definition of health care. The Ryan Republican budget would mean that 1 million women and children would not have access to maternal or child health services in Michigan alone. It would mean that 6,000 fewer women in Michigan would get cancer screenings that could save their lives and that nearly 16,000 children would not get the vaccinations they need to remain healthy. That is just one area of many reasons why we need to support the budget Senator Murray and our committee have put before this body. This is about focusing on women's health, on middle-class growth in terms of education and innovation, and on infrastructure investments to grow our economy. It is important that we are having this debate, and it is important that the women of the country understand that the budget we have before the Senate, the Democratic budget, places women as a priority--their health, the economy for their families, being able to balance their own budgets, and being able to provide futures for their children. I would now like to yield time off the resolution to our great leader from Maryland, the chair of the Appropriations Committee, a person who, as we know, showed extraordinary leadership in the last few weeks on the floor in a very challenging time, dealing with the current budget, which we have now successfully passed. She also is our leader as it relates to women's health care and the provisions on women's health care in health reform that are now impacting and saving women's lives. I yield time off the resolution--as much time as she would consume-- to Senator Mikulski.

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank my colleague, the terrific chair of the Budget Committee, who has worked so hard in putting together the budget. I wish to speak for a moment on the amendment I will be offering in a few moments that relates to Medicare and protecting Medicare for future generations by keeping it as an intact insurance plan. There are very different visions, as we all know, and this will be an opportunity tonight to vote on which vision we support. The House, under the Ryan Republican plan, has eliminated Medicare as we know it and replaced it with a voucher program which only covers part of the costs, increasing costs for seniors of around $6,000 per person. They would have to go back into the private insurance market and try to find insurance that would work for them. We very clearly say that Medicare is a great American success story. We have created a generation of seniors such as my mom and future generations who will be able to live longer, healthier lives, play with their grandchildren and great-grandchildren because of something they have paid into all of their lives called Medicare. When we look at the choices, even the people who invented this whole idea passed by the House have said that the proposals ``lack safeguards for beneficiaries and threaten to shift costs to the elderly and disabled and force them to shop for coverage in a confusing insurance market.'' That is what the folks who came up with the Republican idea are saying. Even Chairman Ryan's own description of his plan admits: ``We are stopping the open-ended, defined benefit system.'' In other words, the Republican plan will end Medicare and end its guaranteed benefits--benefits that seniors have paid into throughout their lives, for the security of knowing they have a health insurance plan; they won't have to go out and try to figure out how to find private insurance and then have a voucher to pay for part of it. To add insult to injury, what is most concerning is the money that is taken away from seniors, the costs that are added, the savings in the Republican budget, don't go to save Medicare, they go to give another round of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. One more time we are seeing seniors, as we have seen middle-class families, as we have seen the vulnerable in our communities, find themselves sacrificing over and over again so the wealthiest among us, the well-connected, can get another special tax deal. My amendment makes it very clear. If Members vote for my amendment, they are voting for Medicare. If Members vote against it, they are voting for the Republican plan that dismantles Medicare as we know it and takes the money and turns it around and gives it to another tax cut for the wealthy. The other side of the aisle and those on the other side of the building have called the Ryan Republican plan a balanced plan. It is certainly not balanced for seniors. It is anything but balanced for the middle class. I hope when the opportunity comes we will see a very strong vote in support of my amendment to guarantee Medicare going forward for our seniors. Thank you very much.

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Did I hear correctly that the Republican budget would give an average of $400,000 in additional tax cuts?

Ms. STABENOW. I look forward to colleagues who will be joining me to express strong support for the budget that has been reported out of the Senate Budget Committee. I first want to thank our chair, who has done a yeoman's job in putting this together. She has had so many different assignments dealing with the budget and efforts to come to responsible reform and put our country back on the right track in order to bring down the deficit and grow the economy. One more time she has stepped up to the job. So I want to thank our chair for all of her efforts. Let me start, first of all, by saying this is very simple when we look at what we are talking about in this budget. As I said also, I want to thank the ranking member for his courtesy throughout the budget process. While we have very different views, this was done in a very professional and courteous way on all sides. I really appreciate that. But this is a very different view, both in what we debate and how we view this budget, which is a values document for the country, and the budget that is being debated in the House of Representatives. It comes down to something very simple. Our budget strengthens the middle class. We believe it is critically important that we grow the economy from the middle out. That means making sure folks who are struggling to stay in the middle class have a fair shot, people trying to get in the middle class have a fair shot, and that we grow the economy by understanding the economic engine of America comes from having a strong middle class. On the other side, the Republican budget just plain simply protects the special interests, special interest deals in the Tax Code and other special interests in other kinds of policies. It is just very different and does not grow or support the middle class. I also think it is very important that we not just talk in theory but talk about what has happened in the past and what has worked and what has not. We should do more of what works and less of what does not work. We need to start by looking at what happened as we came into 2001. I was fortunate to be a new Member of the House of Representatives in 1997 when, under President Clinton, we all worked together and balanced the budget for the first time in 30 years. I came to the Senate in 2001. We were debating the largest budget surplus projected in the history of the country. That is where we were. The question was, What kind of economic policies, what kinds of approaches will be put in place to be able to manage that fact, that we had the largest budget surplus projected in the history of the country? There were two proposals put forward at that time. When you look at the way the debt was going from 2001, it is amazing. If we had only taken a different track than what happened. I remember as a new Member, a new Democrat, that our leader on our side of the aisle, Senator Conrad, came forward with a proposal that I believed was eminently reasonable. He said: Why do we not take that budget surplus and divide it into thirds: one-third of it for strategic tax cuts to grow the economy; one-third of it for strategic investments in education, science, R&D, moving the economy; and one-third to prefund the liabilities for Social Security for the next 75 years. Imagine if we had done that. Instead, what happened was the surplus was put into a huge supply side tax cut, benefiting, as we know now, the wealthiest in the country, adding to a situation where the wealthy have gotten wealthier and wealthier in the last decade, the middle class has shrunk and shrunk, and more and more people are struggling today. So it was all put into a large tax cut, and then we proceeded to go into two wars that were not paid for, a Medicare prescription drug plan not paid for, and nothing else paid for for a decade. We ended up with the largest deficit in the history of the country. That is what this President walked into. That is what we have been faced with. Now, when we look at where the debt has come from, and why it is important that we focus on the economy, we know the biggest piece of where the debt came from was the tax cut geared to the wealthiest Americans, which has been famously called trickle down economics. The folks in Michigan are still waiting for it to trickle down. Then we saw the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are so appreciative of the President leading us out of the war in Iraq. We are closing down the war in Afghanistan. So that piece is being addressed. We have addressed the tax cuts at the end of the year, to ask those at the top to do more of their fair share. So that is being addressed. We go on down to the Recovery Act, which was so important to be able to try to focus on the middle class and get things going again. We did have some success with this. Then the other piece, the 30 percent of what is happening right now is the economic downturn. So as we go forward today, even though we have addressed the high-end tax cuts, the wars ending, we no longer see the rescue-and-recovery measures. The economy is still 30 percent of our deficit. Frankly, we will never get out of debt with 12 million people out of work, which is why we, as Democrats, have made sure we are front and center focused on jobs and the economy in this budget. We have to create opportunities for jobs for small businesses, for manufacturers, for the private sector, for entrepreneurs to be able to be successful so we have strong economic growth while we are putting forward a balanced budget. That is what we are attempting to do. That impacts what we do in this budget. In fact, the efforts we put together--we know what happened when the President came in: 700,000 jobs a month being lost, the banks and financial markets in big trouble. We all know the story of what happened and what the President walked into on day one. But we have been focused on supporting an economic growth structure that would create jobs, create jobs. We are seeing that turnaround from the lost decade of jobs. We saw certainly in manufacturing huge job losses from 2001 on up to 2008. We know what happened with the automobile industry, which, by the way, because of our rescue efforts and support for them, is roaring back now and creating jobs. By the way, tremendous private sector investment is coming into the city of Detroit. The private sector is helping us turn that around. We are very proud of that. We are also seeing now jobs being created. As fast as we want? No. But we understand we have to focus on these numbers, which is creating jobs, if we are going to, in fact, get out of the deficit hole. We have to reduce the deficit if our country is going to be more competitive, and we have to grow more jobs. We have to create opportunities for middle-class families. We know we need progrowth policies such as the ones in our budget that focus on innovation, education, rebuilding America through infrastructure, whether it is our courts, whether it is our roads or rails or water and sewer projects or what we do on technology. To compete we have to build, and we have to focus on what will create jobs. We are now at a spot where we know if we focus, as we are in our budget, on growing the economy from the middle out rather than the top down, based on what was done in the 1990s when we did that, when we balanced the budget in the right way by investing in the future, investing in education, investing in innovation, and then also making smart cuts to balance that out, we balanced the budget. We had 22 million jobs that were created. That is what this budget does again. It is focused on those policies that worked, not just debate back and forth in theory, but policies that actually worked in the 1990s to balance the budget, to grow the economy. We saw the policies being advocated by our friends on the other side. We did that already. We did that 2001 to 2008. I do not know about anybody else, but I know people in Michigan do not want to relive that. That was not our idea of economic growth. It certainly did not balance the budget. It put us in the largest deficit in the history of the country. So the budget in the House says: Boy, if you liked 2001 to 2008, you are going to love this. Two million jobs next year alone are lost in the Ryan Republican budget. And similar policies are being advocated by colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Let me just take a moment; I see my colleague, Senator Reed from Rhode Island, is here, who I know wants to be a part of this and is such an important voice. But let me just say a couple of things. We understand we need to make smart spending reductions in order to balance the budget. In fact, we have already started doing that. One of the things which is so frustrating to me is to hear colleagues talk about spending cuts without acknowledging what we have done for the last 2 years. So we already know we have put ourselves on a path for $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction. And 70 percent of that has come out of services for the middle class, the most vulnerable. It has been cuts in spending for things that would actually grow the economy, innovation and research. I am desperately concerned as chair of the Agriculture Committee because we have seen agricultural research decimated around issues of food safety and pest and disease management and other critical things, on invasive species, that we may not feel right away but are things that will affect our future. So we have already seen major cuts. At the end of the year a small amount of money, 30 percent of the deficit reduction, was done. We have actually been asking those at the very top, who have the most benefits from the tax cuts, the most benefits from the efforts to rescue Wall Street, the most benefits in general, just to do a little bit more--30 percent of what we have already done. So what we have said is that going forward, the final amount we need to do, between the $2.4 and $4 trillion, we are insisting that be done in a balanced way and not one more time to come back on the middle class who have already had the brunt of the sacrifice, the brunt of the cuts. It is not fair. So we have replaced across-the-board cuts. We have had colleagues in the last few days complaining about the sequester cuts. Please vote for this budget. It stops those across-the-board cuts and puts something in that is much more common sense. Those across-the-board cuts would cut 750,000 jobs this year alone. When you add what the Ryan Republican budget would do in the House, that is another 2 million jobs next year. It is a jobs killer. What we are saying is replace it with a responsible, balanced approach. That is what we need to do, but it does it in a way that sets priorities. The House says spending cuts again. This is predominantly education, innovation, construction. They also include eliminating Medicare. There is no way our majority will support this policy. There is a whole range of things that hit the middle class, seniors, veterans, and vulnerable citizens. We say our cuts will be different. We are willing to make priorities and smart cuts on the direct spending side, but there is a whole range of things we can do in the special interest deals and Tax Code for the other half. I totally reject the idea which has been put forward here so far today that our budget somehow raises taxes on the middle class. That is absolutely false. We have report after report after report which indicate by closing loopholes which are sending jobs overseas, cutting subsidies that aren't needed anymore, such as the top five wealthiest companies in the world, the top five oil companies--there are trillions of dollars in savings. Do this by cutting things that aren't necessary and are special deals in the Tax Code. We say half of the amount needed, yes, should come from there. On the other side of the building, what we see is a very different picture. The Ryan Republican budget, when they look at their tax cuts, 55 percent of what we are doing in tax cuts goes to the top 1 percent. I feel this is Groundhog Day over and over. It is the same thing we have heard over and over. Give it to the top, it will trickle down. We did that. It did not trickle down. At least it didn't hit Michigan. This budget does it over and over. Two-thirds of what they do in the House goes to the top 5 percent of taxpayers. What is left for middle- class families? We say something very different to grow the economy. We say we need in a global economy to outeducate, outinnovate, and outbuild. The President has said that over and over and our budget invests in those things that allow us to compete, grow the middle class, and create jobs while doing what we need to do to make smart, commonsense decisions on spending in the Federal Government. Here is what I am worried about. Right now, when we look at U.S. investing in research and development, compared to what is happening around the world, the greatest country in the world, the United States of America, is down. We are losing ground on investments while everybody else races to be like America--everybody else. China wants to be like us and have a middle class. They are investing in innovation. We see proposal after proposal after proposal to cut our ability to compete for the future. This is why the Senate budget prioritizes research and development by replacing the devastating across-the-board cuts with a balanced and responsible approach which preserves $10 billion in R&D funding every year and for the future. We continue support for medical research, one of the areas where we are the leader. We strengthen the National Institutes of Health. We have increased investments in renewable energy technology. There are so many opportunities for us. I am very proud today Michigan is No. 1 in new clean energy patents, and new ideas are coming. It is part of the economic engine which is bringing jobs back to Michigan. Investing in our 21st century manufacturing sector is also here. Senator Baldwin put forward a proposal on manufacturing hubs which I strongly support. Other colleagues, Senator Coons and others, have supported the manufacturing extension partnership to help small manufacturers as well. We are also investing in exports and opening markets abroad. We know when American companies are able to increase their exports by $1 billion, they create 5,000 new jobs. In infrastructure, we need roads and bridges. The chair of our committee is a strong advocate for ports as well in the global economy, being able to export and import. That investment in rebuilding America is in this budget. The American Society of Civil Engineers just released their report card, and they gave America a D-plus. We are not going to outcompete the world with a D-plus on infrastructure. This budget makes historic investments in our workforce. We know from hearing from CEOs that workforce development education is absolutely key to our future. Before asking my colleague from Rhode Island to join in this discussion as well on jobs--I speak as the chair of the Agriculture Committee--I thank the chair for including in our efforts creating a 5- year farm bill, which not only participates in deficit reduction of $23 billion but is twice what we would be required to do under sequestration. The farm bill is a jobs bill. I don't know of any other bill that has an impact on 16 million jobs in this country. The farm bill does. It supports agriculture and rural America. The farm bill is a part of this effort. My colleague from Rhode Island is deeply involved in efforts to create jobs, balance the budget, and reduce the deficit. I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to join in a colloquy with Senator Reed at this point. He has been a champion in job creation, and I am very grateful he came tonight to join us.

Ms. STABENOW. I wonder if my colleague would allow me to ask a question.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. When I think of him, I think of his advocacy for our men and women who make up our troops--and I know our budget chair as well-- and his strong leadership on veterans issues. I think about $400,000 being an average tax cut for a multimillionaire under this budget versus what will happen to our veterans or folks coming home from the war and now trying to get a job, trying to do what they need to do to get back into the community and society and so on, and I wonder--the Senator has been such a leader on this and, of course, has experience with his own distinguished career in the military--if he might speak about those issues, his own experience with people coming home. Are they getting the $400,000 tax cut?

Ms. STABENOW. Might I ask through the Chair if we could have a few more moments.

Ms. STABENOW. I believe we have other colleagues coming as well. We were hoping to have 30 minutes and possibly more.

Ms. STABENOW. I would simply, first of all, again thank our chair, who understands and gets this, not only about how to grow the economy and the middle class and in a commonsense way to balance the budget, but she has been such a leader on veterans issues and reminds us every day about those coming home and what they need, as does Senator Reed as well, with his own service as well as his efforts with regard to our veterans. I would be happy to defer to Senator Reed, if he has additional comments. I didn't mean to interrupt him before. If he has additional comments to make, I would certainly allow for that, and then I would be happy to wrap up at some point.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island again for his comments, his leadership, his advocacy for our military men and women and our veterans, and for the economy, for people who need help. As he said, there are a lot of people on the edge right now trying to just hold on, to stay in the middle class, or trying to get in the middle class, and our budget is for them. It is about growing the economy from the middle out. What makes us different from other countries around the world is that we don't have just a few very rich people and a lot of poor people. We have had a robust middle class. People in Michigan feel that eroding every day, so we need to be laser-focused on making sure we keep that strong middle class that not only grows the economy but creates opportunity for young people to grow up and go to college, to dream big dreams and know that in America they can succeed and be whatever they want to be, that they have a shot. That is the American dream, and that is what we are fighting for. Our budget, bottom line, strengthens the middle class. It creates opportunities for people to work hard no matter where they live, what their background is, so they have a shot at making it. We believe that to our core. The Republican budget is represented by the House budget, and the proposals here on the floor on the Republican side are geared to the wealthy and the well-connected, the special interests of this country, to keep their special deals going. Let's try trickle-down economics one more time. It didn't work from 2001 to 2008. We lost 5 million manufacturing jobs. But, hey, why not try it again? Well, we say no, let's use something that has worked. So let me in conclusion say again that the Republican tax cuts represented by the Ryan budget--55 percent of the benefit goes to the top 1 percent. As my friend the Senator from Rhode Island indicated, those at the very, very top are getting $400,000 in a tax cut, and $400,000 is more than the vast majority of Americans and certainly the vast majority of people in Michigan make in a year. Can we afford to do that? Is that the right priority? I find it so interesting that we had a colleague speaking passionately for the past couple of days now about his concern about closing airports in rural areas. I have those concerns about closing rural airports. Well, our budget doesn't do that. Our budget invests in infrastructure and keeps those open, as opposed to the across-the-board cuts that have been objected to by the Senators trying to make changes in the budget this year and the Ryan Republican budget in the House. We believe strongly that we should build a budget in the future on what has worked in America, and what has worked is strengthening America with investments so we can out-educate, out-innovate and out- build to win in a global economy. That is what this is about. Our businesses tell us they are concerned about getting the right workers for the right jobs. It is a major issue right now. That is something we have a responsibility to be a part of. The Democratic budget invests in education, invests in innovation, and invests in building for the future. I worry every day about this kind of a chart that shows that the United States of America--not a third world country--is investing less in research and development than competitors around the world. It makes no sense. The innovations are here. The smart scientists are here. The cutting-edge technology is here. And we need to keep it here. Our budget places a huge value on it. Then, finally, it is all about jobs and making sure when we figure out and when we look at how to balance a budget, that we understand we will never balance a budget with more than 12 million people out of work. We have to focus on jobs and growing the economy. We have to. Thirty percent of our deficit right now as we look at this going forward is in the slow economic recovery. We know it was bad prior to 2009 when President Obama was elected. It has gotten better, but it is not where it needs to be. And it won't be where it needs to be unless we invest in innovation, in education, and rebuilding America's infrastructure. That is what we do. This budget makes sense. This budget is for middle-class families all across America. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today in celebration of my staff member, Melissa Dore, who is retiring after working with me throughout most of my years in the U.S. Senate. Melissa started as a staff member in my East Lansing office and immediately impressed us with her ability to connect with people when they called. Hers was often the first voice constituents heard when contacting me and her natural ability to be compassionate and empathetic made their first impression a good one. Melissa's compassion and tenacity made her a natural choice to work with those who contacted me for help with their Social Security or Medicare benefits. Time and time again, I have seen her go to bat for people and get answers about their cases and resolve very tough problems. Melissa is someone who cares deeply and her commitment shows in the results she gets for people. There probably isn't a week that goes by where we do not receive a thank you note or I don't get stopped by someone who tells me about the difference her advocacy has made. My staff and I will miss her presence in the office and her passion for helping others. I also know that the many families in Michigan whose lives she touched as well as those she worked with in agencies and in my office will miss her. After leaving the Senate, Melissa looks forward to spending more time with her family and dogs, traveling and going to her cottage in Northern Michigan. She is very creative and I know her passion for quilting will result in many beautiful creations. I am sad because I am losing a valued member of my staff, but I am happy to see her move on to new life experiences, and I wish her the best of everything.