Filipino Veterans Fairness Act of 2013

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 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

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.

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 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 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. 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.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.