[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4807-4812]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
        Merkley, and Mr. Whitehouse):
  S. 673. A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish a 
national usury rate for consumer credit transactions; to the Committee 
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, after the financial crisis of 2008 we 
learned that predatory lending hurts more than just families who lost 
money. Predatory lending can affect entire communities and often 
targets the most vulnerable in our society--low-income families and 
seniors.
  Under Wall Street reform we addressed predatory mortgage practices 
and granted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau the authority to 
supervise nonbank lenders, including payday lenders. We know who these 
payday folks are. I know them because their businesses are located a 
few blocks from where I live in Springfield, IL, on Macarthur 
Boulevard--title loans, payday loans. However, we failed to cap once 
and for all the annual interest rate that predatory payday lenders can 
charge for a loan.
  In 2012 payday loan volume reached an estimated $45 billion for 
storefront and online loans. This does not include deposit advance 
loans that banks make to consumers every day.
  If we look a bit deeper, we find that nearly 76 percent of payday 
loans are made to pay off a previous payday

[[Page 4808]]

loan. It is a vicious cycle. Someone borrows some money, then they 
cannot pay it back with high interest rates, and they borrow more--
deeper and deeper in debt. Fifty percent of payday borrowers ultimately 
default on their loans.
  With numbers like these, we can only assume payday lenders' profit 
depends on families rolling their payday loan over eight to nine 
times--racking up new fees every single time.
  Predatory lenders should not be allowed to pad their pockets with the 
hard-earned money of families that are barely getting by. These are 
families who are not even able to survive paycheck to paycheck.
  That is why I am introducing the Protecting Consumers from 
Unreasonable Credit Rates Act. I wish to thank my colleagues--Senators 
Blumenthal, Boxer, Merkley, and Whitehouse--for their cosponsorship of 
this bill and their commitment to protect consumers from predatory 
lending practices.
  This bill would establish a 36-percent annual interest rate cap for 
all types of consumer credit--a cap that is supported by 100 years of 
history according to a new report released by the National Consumer Law 
Center.
  That is the same Federal cap that is currently in place for loans 
marketed to military servicemembers and their families.
  Why would we protect military service families from predatory lending 
and no one else? I will tell you why. We found out that many of them in 
the military ran into financial difficulties from time to time, and the 
payday lenders--the title loans and the rest of them--were camping out 
outside of military facilities anxious to loan members of the military 
the money they needed to get by until the next payday. Many of our 
soldiers got so deeply in debt to payday loans they had to leave 
military service. They just could not keep up with it. So we passed a 
law that said we are going to protect military families from this 
exploitation. Our soldiers and sailors, airmen and marines are worth 
that much more to us that we are going to protect them.
  Well, there is an obvious question: Why are we not protecting 
everybody? If this kind of exploitation is wrong when it comes to 
military families, why is it not wrong for the rest of America? It 
surely is. We should expand the law that curbed payday, car title, and 
tax refund lending around military bases to include all types of credit 
for all borrowers. If a lender cannot make money on a 36-percent APR, 
maybe the loan should not have been made in the first place.
  Fifteen States and the District of Columbia have already enacted laws 
that protect homeowners from high-cost loans, and 34 States and the 
District of Colombia have limited annual interest rates to 36 percent 
or less for one or more types of consumer credit. But there is a 
problem with the State-by-State approach: Many of these State laws are 
riddled with loopholes. Out-of-State lenders evade these State caps. 
Cash-strapped customers are then subjected to 400 percent annual 
interest rates for payday loans, on average, and 300 percent for car 
title loans, on average--400 percent interest? Our bill would require 
all lending to conform to the 36-percent APR limit, thereby eliminating 
the loopholes that have allowed predatory practices to flourish in many 
States around the country.
  Let me be clear. I understand that sometimes families fall on hard 
times. They need a loan to make ends meet. They are desperate. Most of 
us have been there at one time or another in our lives. That is why I 
have included in this bill the flexibility for responsible lenders to 
replace payday loans with reasonably priced, small-dollar loan 
alternatives. The bill allows lenders to exceed the 36-percent cap for 
one-time application fees that cover the cost of setting up a new 
customer account and a processing cost, such as late charges and 
insufficient funds fees. I urge more institutions to offer small-dollar 
loans with consumer protections, including rates below 36 percent.
  We know it can be done because banks and credit unions--many of 
them--are offering those loans.
  I would also like to talk about a new type of payday lending--the 
online payday loan. Senator Merkley of Oregon and Senator Tom Udall of 
New Mexico are leading the effort to crack down on these types of 
lenders who use the Internet to evade State law. Their bill, called the 
Safe Lending Act, would address online payday lending, such as hiding 
behind layers of anonymously registered Web sites and so-called lead 
generators. The bill would allow consumers to cancel a debit and 
prohibit payday lenders from circumventing State usury laws. We need 
more effective enforcement on online payday lenders. The Safe Lending 
Act would do it.
  Another type of payday lending that I am afraid is on the rise is 
bank payday lending. Several banks offer deposit advance loans, which 
closely resemble the structure of payday loans, with up to 365 percent 
interest rates and short-term balloon payments.
  Earlier this year, Senators Blumenthal and I wrote a letter to the 
Federal Reserve, OCC, and the FDIC urging them to prohibit banks from 
offering predatory payday loans. Today, a petition signed by 157,000 
Americans will be delivered to the same regulators calling on then to 
ban banks from offering payday loan products. I hope they do.
  My first mentor in politics was the late Senator Paul Douglas of 
Illinois. He was a Ph.D. in economics who served here from 1948 to 
1966. I met him at the end of his career when I was a college student. 
He wrote:

       Compound the camouflaging of credit by loading on all sorts 
     of extraneous fees, such as exorbitant fees for credit life 
     insurance, excessive fees for credit investigation, and all 
     sorts of loan processing fees which rightfully should be 
     included in the percentage rate statement so that any 
     percentage rate quoted is meaningless and deceptive.

  Senator Douglas said that 50 years ago. The name of the fees may have 
changed over time, but the goal of nickel-and-diming families out of 
their hard-earned money, unfortunately, has not changed.
  By instituting a 36-percent cap on annual interest rates, the 
Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Credit Rates Act would eliminate 
products that are predatory by their nature. The bill is supported by 
more than 40 consumer groups. They include Americans for Financial 
Reform, the Center for Responsible Lending, the Consumer Federation of 
America, and the National Consumer Law Center.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
these organizations in support of this legislation.
                                                    April 9, 2013.
     Re Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Credit Rates

     Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
     Hart Senate Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durbin: Thank you for introducing the 
     ``Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Credit Rates Act of 
     2013,'' which would extend the 36 percent usury APR cap for 
     military families enacted in the Military Lending Act of 2006 
     to all consumers. A fair rate cap will protect consumers and 
     curb abuses in the high-cost small dollar loan market. The 36 
     percent rate cap set by your legislation would permit 
     responsible lending to consumers with less-than-perfect 
     credit while restraining harmful terms.
       Currently, consumers pay triple-digit rates for car title 
     and payday loans (including those offered at traditional 
     storefronts, online, and by banks). A large body of research 
     has demonstrated that these products are structured to create 
     a long-term debt trap that drains consumers' bank accounts. 
     Indeed, the lack of underwriting, high fees, short loan 
     terms, single balloon payment, and access to a borrower's 
     checking account as collateral ensure that most borrowers 
     have no choice but to take out additional loans to pay off 
     the initial payday or car title loan. A properly structured 
     federal usury cap puts all creditors on a level playing field 
     without undermining any additional consumer protections in 
     the states.
       Although many states cap rates for some forms of credit, 
     banks can undermine these protections by exporting their weak 
     home-state limits on credit costs to other states across the 
     country. It is vitally important for Congress to set the 
     outside limit on the cost-of-credit to curb abusive lending.
       We enthusiastically support the Protecting Consumers from 
     Unreasonable Credit Rates Act of 2013. For more information, 
     please contact Tom Feltner, director of financial

[[Page 4809]]

     services, Consumer Federation of America at (202) 618-0310 or 
     [email protected].
           Sincerely,
       Alabama Appleseed, Alabama Arise, Americans for Financial 
     Reform, Arkansans Against Abusive Payday Lending, Arkansas 
     Community Organizations, California Reinvestment Coalition, 
     Southwest Center for Economic Integrity (AZ), Center for 
     Responsible Lending, Citizen Action Illinois, Coalition of 
     Religious Communities (Utah), Consumer Action, Consumer 
     Assistance Council, Inc. (MA).
       Consumer Federation of America, Consumers for Auto 
     Reliability and Safety (CA), Consumers Union, Economic 
     Fairness Oregon, Demos, Green America, Florida Consumer 
     Action Network, Jesuit Social Research Institute, Loyola 
     University, New Orleans Kentucky Coalition for Responsible 
     Lending, Mississippi Center for Justice, Monsignor John Egan 
     Campaign for Payday Loan Reform (IL), NAACP.
       National Association of Consumer Advocates, National 
     Community Reinvestment Coalition, National Consumer Law 
     Center, on behalf of its low income clients, National 
     People's Action, Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy 
     Project (NY), New Jersey Citizen Action, Maryland CASH 
     Campaign, Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition, Project IRENE 
     (IL), RAISE Kentucky, Reinvestment Partners (NC), Sargent 
     Shriver National Center on Poverty Law (IL), South Carolina 
     Appleseed Legal Justice Center, Southern Poverty Law Center, 
     Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Virginia Poverty Law 
     Center, Woodstock Institute (IL).

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we can allow American consumers today to 
keep more of their hard-earned money by establishing a reasonable fee 
and an annual interest rate cap, combating abuses by Internet payday 
lenders, and eliminating bank payday loans. Families and their 
communities are sure to benefit by saving more and putting more of 
their earnings back into the economy.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 673

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Consumers from 
     Unreasonable Credit Rates Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) attempts have been made to prohibit usurious interest 
     rates in America since colonial times;
       (2) at the Federal level, in 2006, Congress enacted a 
     Federal 36 percent annualized usury cap for service members 
     and their families for covered credit products, as defined by 
     the Department of Defense, which curbed payday, car title, 
     and tax refund lending around military bases;
       (3) notwithstanding such attempts to curb predatory 
     lending, high-cost lending persists in all 50 States due to 
     loopholes in State laws, safe harbor laws for specific forms 
     of credit, and the exportation of unregulated interest rates 
     permitted by preemption;
       (4) due to the lack of a comprehensive Federal usury cap, 
     consumers annually pay approximately $23,700,000,000 for 
     high-cost overdraft loans, as much as $8,100,000,000 for 
     storefront and online payday loans, and additional amounts in 
     unreported revenues from bank direct deposit advance loans 
     and high-cost online installment loans;
       (5) cash-strapped consumers pay on average 400 percent 
     annual interest for payday loans, 300 percent annual interest 
     for car title loans, up to 3,500 percent for bank overdraft 
     loans, and triple-digit rates for online installment loans;
       (6) a national maximum interest rate that includes all 
     forms of fees and closes all loopholes is necessary to 
     eliminate such predatory lending; and
       (7) alternatives to predatory lending that encourage small 
     dollar loans with minimal or no fees, installment payment 
     schedules, and affordable repayment periods should be 
     encouraged.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL MAXIMUM INTEREST RATE.

       Chapter 2 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1631 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 140B. MAXIMUM RATES OF INTEREST.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no creditor may make an extension of credit to a 
     consumer with respect to which the fee and interest rate, as 
     defined in subsection (b), exceeds 36 percent.
       ``(b) Fee and Interest Rate Defined.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the fee 
     and interest rate includes all charges payable, directly or 
     indirectly, incident to, ancillary to, or as a condition of 
     the extension of credit, including--
       ``(A) any payment compensating a creditor or prospective 
     creditor for--
       ``(i) an extension of credit or making available a line of 
     credit, such as fees connected with credit extension or 
     availability such as numerical periodic rates, annual fees, 
     cash advance fees, and membership fees; or
       ``(ii) any fees for default or breach by a borrower of a 
     condition upon which credit was extended, such as late fees, 
     creditor-imposed not sufficient funds fees charged when a 
     borrower tenders payment on a debt with a check drawn on 
     insufficient funds, overdraft fees, and over limit fees;
       ``(B) all fees which constitute a finance charge, as 
     defined by rules of the Bureau in accordance with this title;
       ``(C) credit insurance premiums, whether optional or 
     required; and
       ``(D) all charges and costs for ancillary products sold in 
     connection with or incidental to the credit transaction.
       ``(2) Tolerances.--
       ``(A) In general.--With respect to a credit obligation that 
     is payable in at least 3 fully amortizing installments over 
     at least 90 days, the term `fee and interest rate' does not 
     include--
       ``(i) application or participation fees that in total do 
     not exceed the greater of $30 or, if there is a limit to the 
     credit line, 5 percent of the credit limit, up to $120, if--

       ``(I) such fees are excludable from the finance charge 
     pursuant to section 106 and regulations issued thereunder;
       ``(II) such fees cover all credit extended or renewed by 
     the creditor for 12 months; and
       ``(III) the minimum amount of credit extended or available 
     on a credit line is equal to $300 or more;

       ``(ii) a late fee charged as authorized by State law and by 
     the agreement that does not exceed either $20 per late 
     payment or $20 per month; or
       ``(iii) a creditor-imposed not sufficient funds fee charged 
     when a borrower tenders payment on a debt with a check drawn 
     on insufficient funds that does not exceed $15.
       ``(B) Adjustments for inflation.--The Bureau may adjust the 
     amounts of the tolerances established under this paragraph 
     for inflation over time, consistent with the primary goals of 
     protecting consumers and ensuring that the 36 percent fee and 
     interest rate limitation is not circumvented.
       ``(c) Calculations.--
       ``(1) Open end credit plans.--For an open end credit plan--
       ``(A) the fee and interest rate shall be calculated each 
     month, based upon the sum of all fees and finance charges 
     described in subsection (b) charged by the creditor during 
     the preceding 1-year period, divided by the average daily 
     balance; and
       ``(B) if the credit account has been open less than 1 year, 
     the fee and interest rate shall be calculated based upon the 
     total of all fees and finance charges described in subsection 
     (b)(1) charged by the creditor since the plan was opened, 
     divided by the average daily balance, and multiplied by the 
     quotient of 12 divided by the number of full months that the 
     credit plan has been in existence.
       ``(2) Other credit plans.--For purposes of this section, in 
     calculating the fee and interest rate, the Bureau shall 
     require the method of calculation of annual percentage rate 
     specified in section 107(a)(1), except that the amount 
     referred to in that section 107(a)(1) as the `finance charge' 
     shall include all fees, charges, and payments described in 
     subsection (b)(1) of this section.
       ``(3) Adjustments authorized.--The Bureau may make 
     adjustments to the calculations in paragraphs (1) and (2), 
     but the primary goals of such adjustment shall be to protect 
     consumers and to ensure that the 36 percent fee and interest 
     rate limitation is not circumvented.
       ``(d) Definition of Creditor.--As used in this section, the 
     term `creditor' has the same meaning as in section 702(e) of 
     the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691a(e)).
       ``(e) No Exemptions Permitted.--The exemption authority of 
     the Bureau under section 105 shall not apply to the rates 
     established under this section or the disclosure requirements 
     under section 127(b)(6).
       ``(f) Disclosure of Fee and Interest Rate for Credit Other 
     Than Open End Credit Plans.--In addition to the disclosure 
     requirements under section 127(b)(6), the Bureau may 
     prescribe regulations requiring disclosure of the fee and 
     interest rate established under this section.
       ``(g) Relation to State Law.--Nothing in this section may 
     be construed to preempt any provision of State law that 
     provides greater protection to consumers than is provided in 
     this section.
       ``(h) Civil Liability and Enforcement.--In addition to 
     remedies available to the consumer under section 130(a), any 
     payment compensating a creditor or prospective creditor, to 
     the extent that such payment is a transaction made in 
     violation of this section, shall be null and void, and not 
     enforceable by any party in any court or alternative dispute 
     resolution forum, and the creditor or any subsequent holder 
     of the obligation shall promptly return to the consumer any 
     principal, interest, charges, and fees, and any security 
     interest associated with such transaction. Notwithstanding 
     any statute of limitations or repose, a violation of this 
     section may be raised as a matter of defense by recoupment or 
     setoff to an action to collect such debt or repossess related 
     security at any time.

[[Page 4810]]

       ``(i) Violations.--Any person that violates this section, 
     or seeks to enforce an agreement made in violation of this 
     section, shall be subject to, for each such violation, 1 year 
     in prison and a fine in an amount equal to the greater of--
       ``(1) 3 times the amount of the total accrued debt 
     associated with the subject transaction; or
       ``(2) $50,000.
       ``(j) State Attorneys General.--An action to enforce this 
     section may be brought by the appropriate State attorney 
     general in any United States district court or any other 
     court of competent jurisdiction within 3 years from the date 
     of the violation, and such attorney general may obtain 
     injunctive relief.''.

     SEC. 4. DISCLOSURE OF FEE AND INTEREST RATE FOR OPEN END 
                   CREDIT PLANS.

       Section 127(b)(6) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1637(b)(6)) is amended by striking ``the total finance charge 
     expressed'' and all that follows through the end of the 
     paragraph and inserting ``the fee and interest rate, 
     displayed as `FAIR', established under section 141.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBERTS:
  S. 677. A bill to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to extend and 
improve the crop insurance program, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I have just introduced legislation 
in regards to our efforts to, once again, try to address a farm bill on 
behalf of our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and dairy producers. We 
passed a farm bill in the last session. It was one of the first bills 
where we achieved regular order, i.e., where every Senator had an 
opportunity to have an amendment. Many did. We had over 300, as I 
recall--``we'' meaning the distinguished chairperson of the committee, 
Senator Stabenow, and myself as the ranking member at that particular 
time. Thank goodness not all 300 demanded a vote, but I think we voted 
73 times, and we passed the bill by a good bipartisan margin. I hope we 
can get back to that. The chairperson, Senator Stabenow, is working 
very diligently to produce another farm bill.
  I see the distinguished majority leader coming to the floor. He was 
very helpful in our pleas to bring a farm bill to the floor. Senator 
Reid actually asked me whether we could do it in 3 days as I promised, 
and we did it in 2\1/2\, so with cooperation we got that done. It was, 
as I say, the first bill we took up in the last session where we did 
have regular order. I hope we can keep that record. I thank the 
majority leader for his efforts in that regard.
  Why am I bringing this up now, even before we mark up in regards to 
the bill I have introduced? Basically because farmers are now planting 
their crops despite 3 years of drought and all sorts of hardship and 
all sorts of uncertainty about a farm bill. We have extended the 2008 
act. It is not what we wanted to do in the Senate, but that is what 
happened. So we hope that does not happen again.
  We hope we can work again in a bipartisan way to produce a product 
that not only helps the farmer and rancher--we have, what, 6 billion 
people in the world today? We are going to go to 9 billion people in 
the next several decades. Everybody in the Senate should be aware of 
that. It is an overriding issue. We are going to have to double our 
agricultural production if we are going to continue our efforts to feed 
this country in a troubled and hungry world.
  That even has national security implications. Show me a country that 
does not have a stable food supply, and I will show you a country that 
is in a lot of trouble. Just read about the Mideast and what is 
happening there.
  What do farmers want? I mean what was the No. 1 issue we heard--
``we'' meaning, again, Senator Stabenow and I--when we held farm 
hearings both in Michigan, specialty crops, and Kansas, program crops: 
wheat, corn, beans et cetera? Over and over the No. 1 issue was crop 
insurance.
  We were trying to get out of the business or stay out of the business 
of farmers planting for the government. And ``farm subsidies,'' that 
always makes the headlines in the Washington Post for people who for 
the most part have never been west of the Missouri River.
  Despite all the criticisms of the farm program, I think we 
consolidated and reformed 100 different programs. We saved roughly $23 
billion or $24 billion--the first authorizing committee to do so. We 
also strengthened and improved crop insurance. That was the No. 1 issue 
for farm lenders, the No. 1 issue for farmers and ranchers, and the No. 
1 issue for everybody involved in the miracle of agriculture that 
allows us to do this so Americans have the safest, most abundant, and 
cheapest food in the history of the world.
  I hear time and time again from our producers and their lenders that 
crop insurance is the cornerstone of the farm safety net. I hear it at 
home in Kansas. We hear it in the Agriculture Committee. I hear it 
every time I speak to producers in Washington. I know the chairperson 
of the committee, Senator Stabenow, has heard the same. All members of 
the committee know the value of crop insurance. I mean all members of 
the distinguished Committee on Agriculture.
  As we head into another round of farm bill debates, and I know the 
chairperson would like to get it done, would like to mark up a bill in 
the next 3 weeks--I don't know if that is possible; we will see. We did 
that in 2\1/2\ days in the last session of Congress. Whether we can do 
that again I am not sure--I am constantly asked for my priorities, and 
my priorities reflect what I have heard from farmers and ranchers at 
home and their bankers and their lenders and everybody who wants 
consistency. The No. 1 priority for the farm bill is crop insurance. If 
you doubt the importance of crop insurance, just look what it has 
provided the past 2 years. It is rather unbelievable.
  Since 2011 we have faced the worst drought since the Dust Bowl in 
Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas--and in Nebraska now. In so many cases 
Nebraska is worse than any other place.
  Then we had the massive flooding along the Mississippi and the 
Missouri Rivers, and hurricanes that simply devastated the Northeast as 
well. I don't know what we have done to Mother Nature, but she sure has 
not been very kind to us. In 2012 the drought worsened and spread 
across the Midwest to States such as Missouri, Iowa, and Illinois. Now 
that we are into the Midwest, now we have headlines about the drought. 
When we burn up almost every year out in our country, on the high 
plains, nobody gets any attention. But they get it in the Midwest, they 
get a lot of attention.
  Just months after all of this, why are producers still now tuning up 
their equipment and preparing their fields to put seed in the ground 
once again? A farmer never puts any seed in the ground without hope for 
a crop. Hope springs eternal with regard to agriculture, and here we 
are, once again, having that capability. It is not because of some 
agriculture ad hoc disaster program that seems to appear every even-
numbered year in this body or any package for farmers, through a 
disaster program, that would represent some kind of help. Farmers are 
back on their feet and producing the food that feeds a troubled and 
hungry world because of crop insurance. They are able to put the seed 
in the ground again because they managed their risk and protected their 
operations from Mother Nature's destruction through the purchase of 
crop insurance.
  This is the one component of the farm safety net that requires a 
producer to have skin in the game. We could apply that to a lot of 
other things that we debate on the floor of the Senate. Don't forget, 
crop insurance only provides coverage if a producer actually has a 
loss. So a Kansas farmer might pay into the crop insurance system for 
years or a farmer or a producer from Wisconsin or, for that matter, 
anyplace that values agriculture. But if they never experience a severe 
loss or a natural disaster, they will never receive a penny. Simply, 
crop insurance allows producers a way to manage risk so they can 
continue to provide a stable and secure food supply and pass their 
operations on to their children.
  If that is not a success story in the partnership between government 
and private industry and America's farmers, I don't know what is. But 
just because a program is successful doesn't

[[Page 4811]]

 mean there is not room for improvement. That is what the bill is that 
I just laid at the desk.
  Crop insurance is a big tent with plenty of room under it. The 
program already protects more than 250 million acres of cropland in the 
United States, more than two-thirds of the eligible acres that we farm. 
But there are still acres that are not protected and producers who 
cannot afford to purchase this kind of protection they need. The more 
producers under that crop insurance tent, and the more that are 
protected from disaster, the more stable our food supply and our rural 
economies will be.
  We made great progress, as I said, last year in the Agriculture 
Committee and on the Senate floor improving crop insurance to bring 
even more people under the tent. Today, I am here again to continue our 
work to preserve and protect and strengthen our crop insurance. My 
legislation enhances the Crop Insurance Program by including something 
called a Supplemental Coverage Option. The acronym for that is SCO. It 
allows producers to purchase additional crop insurance coverage on an 
area yield and loss basis. It also amends the Federal Crop Insurance 
Act to make available separate enterprise units for irrigated and 
nonirrigated acreages of crops in counties. That is especially helpful 
in regard to what we are going through with another year of drought.
  The bill also addresses the declining Actual Production History, that 
is a yield problem, by increasing the county transitional yield. So if 
someone did not have a yield in their farm, but they could then go to 
the county yield average, they would be in a lot better shape. They 
would be helped out in one area and not another area. This would help 
in that respect.
  The legislation also sets budget limitations. Yes, we set budget 
limitations on future renegotiation of what is called the Standard 
Reinsurance Agreement by requiring any savings realized in the SRA 
renegotiations to return to the Crop Insurance Program, to return to 
the RMA programs. Let's not use the Crop Insurance Program where we 
have savings and then use it as a bank for other programs. That has 
happened far too often--in the Senate and in the House.
  The legislation also continues the Stacked Income Protection Plan--
that is known as STAX--for the producers who plant upland cotton. That 
means all or most all of the products that we produce in the 
organizations that represent those commodities and represent those 
farmers who grow the commodities are in agreement--and cotton was very 
helpful in the last farm bill.
  Meanwhile, in order to help pay down the debt and reduce the deficit, 
the legislation is fully paid for by the elimination of direct payments 
which saves taxpayers $5 billion over 10 years. Overall, the 
legislation will strengthen the farm safety net while at the same time 
saving taxpayers billions of dollars and preventing costly ad hoc 
agriculture disaster programs.
  There are those who don't believe in a good Crop Insurance Program. 
When Mother Nature doesn't behave and they get into these terribly 
destructive forces of nature--and it always happens. As I have said, it 
usually happens on an even-numbered year. If they are going to get into 
a disaster program and take part in it, they better darn well make sure 
to say: OK. I am going to help you out, but don't put your name on it. 
Because when it comes out to the Farm Service Agency and all the people 
who are supposed to implement it at the Department of Agriculture and 
in almost every county in the United States, it is a disaster to 
implement and the farmer doesn't get the kind of help he or she needs. 
That is not the way to do business. The cost annually is far greater 
than the Crop Insurance Program.
  Overall, the legislation will strengthen the farm safety net while at 
the same time saving the taxpayers billions of dollars. It prevents ad 
hoc agriculture disaster programs. That is what the farmer wants. The 
farmer wants certainty. If he takes part in a Crop Insurance Program, 
he has certainty and he has protection.
  There was a time in the not-so-distant past when the farm programs 
greatly distorted planning decisions. As chairman of the House 
Agriculture Committee, back in the day, along with others in the 
Senate, we did everything we could to eliminate those distortions. Why? 
Because with the World Trade Organization, we could get in a lot of 
trouble.
  I am confident this proposal is the responsible path forward for 
agriculture, and it will not drive planting decisions or leave farmers 
to plant for the government program rather than the marketplace. With 
this crop insurance legislation, we have the opportunity to improve on 
an enormously successful program and continue good farm program 
policies.
  We have a lot of work ahead of us to pass and sign a farm bill into 
law. A lot of farmers and a lot of ranchers are depending on it, and 
there are a lot of people who benefit from it. As I said, we have the 
lowest cost and safest food in the history of the world, and it allows 
us to use our wherewithal in a humanitarian way to be of help to those 
in need who undergo some very difficult circumstances. As I have 
indicated, agriculture involves our national security.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Agriculture 
Committee, farmers across the country, and industry partners to enact 
this legislation as part of the farm bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota:
  S. 684. A bill to amend the Mni Wiconi Project Act of 1988 to 
facilitate completion of the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply System, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, today I am introducing 
the Mni Wiconi Project Act Amendments of 2013 to facilitate completion 
of a rural water supply system that was first authorized in the 100th 
Congress. As a freshman Member of the House of Representatives, I 
introduced legislation authorizing construction of the Mni Wiconi 
Project to bring quality, treated Missouri River water to several 
Indian reservations and a large, rural area of my State. Prior to Mni 
Wiconi, these areas faced insufficient and, too often, unsafe drinking 
water.
  In the authorizing statute, Congress found that the United States has 
a trust responsibility to ensure that adequate and safe water supplies 
are available to meet the economic, environmental, water supply, and 
public health needs of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, Rosebud 
Indian Reservation, and Lower Brule Indian Reservation. Treated 
drinking water from the Missouri River now reaches most areas on these 
three reservations, as well as the 7 county area of the West River/
Lyman-Jones Rural Water System.
  Nearly 25 years after it was first authorized, this critically 
important project is very close to completion. Because appropriations 
failed to keep pace with projected timelines, however, additional 
administrative costs have cut into construction funding. As a result, 
the project needs an increase in the cost ceiling and extension of its 
authorization in order to be completed. Without these adjustments, some 
portions of the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System and Rosebud 
Sioux Rural Water System will remain incomplete. The legislation I have 
introduced today addresses this shortfall and also directs other 
Federal agencies that support rural water development to assist the 
Bureau of Reclamation in improving and repairing existing community 
water systems that are important components of the project.
  Our Federal responsibility to address the need for adequate and safe 
drinking water supplies on the Pine Ridge, Rosebud and Lower Brule 
Indian Reservations remains as important as ever. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to advance this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHATZ (for himself and Ms. Hirono):
  S. 690. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to deem certain 
service in the organized military forces

[[Page 4812]]

of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the 
Philippine Scouts to have been active service for purposes of benefits 
under programs administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; to 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 690

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Filipino Veterans Fairness 
     Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. CERTAIN SERVICE IN THE ORGANIZED MILITARY FORCES OF 
                   THE PHILIPPINES AND THE PHILIPPINE SCOUTS 
                   DEEMED TO BE ACTIVE SERVICE.

       (a) In General.--Section 107 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``not'' after ``Army of the United States, 
     shall''; and
       (B) by striking ``, except benefits under--'' and all that 
     follows in that subsection and inserting a period;
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``not'' after ``Armed Forces Voluntary 
     Recruitment Act of 1945 shall''; and
       (B) by striking ``except--'' and all that follows in that 
     subsection and inserting a period;
       (3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) Determination of Eligibility.--
       ``(1) In general.--In determining the eligibility of the 
     service of an individual under this section, the Secretary 
     shall take into account any alternative documentation 
     regarding such service, including documentation other than 
     the Missouri List, that the Secretary determines relevant.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than March 1 of each year, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
     of the Senate and Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House 
     of Representatives a report that includes--
       ``(A) the number of individuals applying for benefits 
     pursuant to this section during the previous year; and
       ``(B) the number of such individuals that the Secretary 
     approved for benefits.''; and
       (4) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
       ``(d) Relation to Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation 
     Fund.--Section 1002(h) of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (title X of division A of Public Law 
     111-5; 123 Stat. 200; 38 U.S.C. 107 note) shall not apply to 
     an individual described in subsection (a) or (b) of this 
     section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section 
     is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 107. Certain service deemed to be active service: 
       service in organized military forces of the Philippines and 
       in the Philippine Scouts''.

       (2) The item relating to such section in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:

``107. Certain service deemed to be active service: service in 
              organized military forces of the Philippines and in the 
              Philippine Scouts.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--The amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on the date that is 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Applicability.--No benefits shall accrue to any person 
     for any period before the effective date of this Act by 
     reason of the amendments made by this Act.

                          ____________________