Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 423, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 424, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I congratulate the new appointee.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, January 24; that on Thursday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day,

and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 2248, the FISA legislation.

Mr. President, if there is no further business, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Mr. Dodd, the senior Senator from Connecticut, the Senate then stand adjourned under the previous order.

Madam President, Wall Street and international markets are clearly concerned or worse over a possible U.S. recession. Congress is formulating, as we know--the President, both parties' leadership, the Members of the House and Senate--an economic stimulus package, which is the right thing to do, but there are several pieces to this puzzle. The economy is faltering, to be sure, and we have those concerns about our economy as a whole. Equally important, I would argue more importantly, more Americans are losing access to basic necessities because of it.

A stimulus package should do two things. First of all, a stimulus package needs to stimulate the economy so we can pull ourselves more quickly and more vigorously, if you will, out of this recession. A stimulus package also, equally or more importantly, needs to help those people who have been most victimized by the recession.

I rise to urge this body to take responsibility for helping those who are

without food, without adequate heat, and without adequate housing; those for whom the economic crisis is not just a source of anxiety, in some sense it is a thief in the night who has robbed Americans of basic human needs.

In December, I spoke about the crisis food banks across our Nation face. It was the lead-up to Christmas, a time when the spirit of giving is at its peak. The holidays are now over and we are deep into January. Not surprisingly, food bank donations have fallen off precipitously. Yet the need for food grows as the economic crisis deepens.

Across this country more Americans are in need of food assistance and less food is available. The result is hunger. In the wealthiest Nation in the world, people are waiting in line for a subsistence level of food, food that runs out too often before the lines run out. People who live in the communities we serve are facing increasing food insecurity. In too many cases, people don't know from where their next meal will come.

Increasingly, these are families with children. Food banks in Ohio and Virginia and Arizona and California and in the Presiding Officer's home State of Missouri, in Colorado and every State in the Union are underfunded, overextended. The unemployed, the sick, the aged, the homeless, the mentally ill--these are the individuals who typically seek food banks and food pantries for assistance. And now more working families are also being forced to seek food assistance as factories close and as gas prices and transportation prices--the cost of transportation goes up for people driving to work, wages stagnate, food prices go up, and daily necessities become more expensive.

Five years ago, the Food Bank of Southeast Virginia reported serving 95,000 people--95,000 people in 2002. In 2007, that food bank served 203,000. Forty-two percent of their recipients are categorized as working poor, a population that is on the rise.

In Warren County, OH, a generally affluent county northeast of Cincinnati--the county seat is Lebanon, which I visited last week--in that county, 90 percent of people who go to food pantries have jobs, 90 percent of them are working. They are working often in part-time jobs, often in full-time jobs without benefits, always in jobs that cannot pay their bills.

For many years, one of my constituents, Tim, and his wife donated time and money to Cleveland-area food banks and soup kitchens. But over time, cash for Tim and his wife became tight. They stopped giving money to the food bank; they continued to donate their time to the food bank. This year, after months of rationing food in their own household, Tim and his wife were forced to use the food bank themselves. It took great humility, Tim recalls. Tim says he used to be middle class, but he does not see himself as middle class anymore. He says his wages have not kept pace with subsistence expenses. What he gets from the food bank is not enough either. The groceries he receives last his household about 1 week. Food distributions are limited to once a month.

In Ohio, 70 percent of food pantries do not have enough food to serve everyone in need. This problem is not unique to Ohio. It is affecting cities across the country, with Denver and Orlando and Phoenix particularly hard-hit. American's Second Harvest, the nationwide food bank network, projected a food shortage of 15 million pounds--11.7 million meals--by the end of 2007.

Congress must act swiftly to alleviate the current food shortage. That is why I introduced last month legislation that would allocate $40 million in emergency assistance--$40 million is all. Just to put it in perspective, we are spending $3 billion a week on the war in Iraq. We are asking for $40 million in short-term emergency funding for the Emergency Food Assistance Program, so-called TEFAP.

With legislators still negotiating the details of the farm bill, critical TEFAP funding, which provides food at no cost to low-income Americans in need of short-term hunger relief, has dried up at the worst possible time. This bill will provide the funding necessary to keep food banks funding intact until the farm bill is signed into law.

On a cold December morning about a month ago in southeast Ohio, in the town of Logan, at 3:30 in the morning--3:30 in the morning--people began to line up at a food bank at the Smith Chapel United Methodist Church pantry. By 8 o'clock, about 4\1/2\ hours later, when volunteers began distributing food, the line of cars stretched for more than a mile and a half. By early afternoon of this cold December day, more than 2,000 residents had received food. That is 7 percent of the local population in a county where people drove 20 or 30 minutes to get there. Seven percent of the local population in 1 day, in one church, came to this food pantry for food. Just 8 years ago, that pantry served 17 families a month--17 families a month. One December day, 2,000 families, that is a crisis.

In the Los Angeles Times yesterday, a grateful recipient of scant food donations said: I eat anything they give me.

In the Virginia Pilot in southeast Virginia yesterday, a recipient admitted: What I get here lasts all month. I kind of stretch it.

Of the shortages at the food banks, Tim from Cleveland asked: How hard is it to give a can of tuna?

In a nation as wealthy as ours, no one who works hard for a lifetime--as most of these people who have gone to food banks do and have worked a lifetime to provide for their families, to get along, try to join the middle class--no one who works hard for a lifetime should ever have to make statements like those statements.

This is a national crisis. In a faltering economy, more people descend into crisis. It is inevitable. The need for economic stimulus goes hand in hand with the need for a caring community. Again, the economic stimulus package needs to stimulate the economy. It also needs, equally, maybe more importantly, to help those who have been victimized by this recession.

Our Nation has always been a caring community. More children are hungry today. More elderly Americans cannot pay their heating bills. More middle-class families now consider themselves among the working poor. Americans do not turn their backs on fellow Americans in need. As individuals, Americans do not; as a government, we should not.

The economic stimulus package should revive the economy and reaffirm our bonds with each other. This economic stimulus package is an opportunity to demonstrate our economic and moral strength. Let us take that opportunity. Let us act immediately to prevent more Americans from going to bed hungry.

The stimulus package needs to include food banks, food pantries, extension of unemployment compensation, and help for those elderly Americans who simply cannot pay their heating bills.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on Monday, in Hocking County--a small-town, rural county in southeast Ohio--residents began forming a line at the Smith Chapel United Methodist Church Pantry before dawn. By 8:30, when volunteers began distributing food, the line of cars stretched for more than a mile and a half. By early afternoon, more than 2,000 residents had received food. That is over 7 percent of the local population. Mr. President, 1 out of 14 people in this county had received food from this food pantry. Eight years ago, the same pantry was serving 17 families a month. Two thousand people in one day; 17 families for the whole month 8 years ago.

The Freestore Foodbank in Cincinnati, OH, has seen a 52-percent increase in demand this year. Many of these new patrons are working people. They are working minimum-wage jobs. Some hold two jobs. They are not just the homeless. They are not just the dispossessed. They are all kinds of people who have had a series of bad luck in the last several months.

With food prices going up, fuel prices going up, wages stagnating, and subprime foreclosures continuing to hit home, working middle-class Americans are finding it difficult to find room in their budgets for food.

More Americans in need; less food available--the result is far too much human suffering. Think of this. In the wealthiest Nation in the world, people are waiting in line for a subsistence level of food, and some of them are not even receiving that. The men and women and children waiting in line for food are men and women and children you have passed on the street--mothers and fathers trying to feed their kids, children too proud to admit there is no lunch money in their pocket, no food in the refrigerator, no holiday meals ahead; no food.

Grandmothers raising their grandchildren, living on fixed incomes, relying--because they have no choice but to rely--on food pantries, on food donations, on food banks.

The unemployed, the sick, the aged, the homeless, the mentally ill. And in Hocking County, 1 out of 14 people went to one food bank on 1 day. There are people who live in the communities that all of us serve. Food banks in Ohio, in Montana, Michigan, Illinois, Arizona, New York, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Rhode Island and in every State of the Union are underfunded and overextended. Food banks too often are rationing rations, trying to prevent children and families from going hungry over the holidays. In Lorain, OH, my hometown, the Salvation Army Food Pantry ran out of food completely and was forced to close temporarily. The society of St. Vincent de Paul Food Pantry in Cincinnati has been forced to give families 3 or 4 days of food instead of the customary 6 or 7 days of food when people come to see them. In Athens County, OH, earlier this month, the director of the Family and Friends Choice Pantry was actually ``praising God we are in a snowstorm and not many people showed up'' because if they had, her pantry would have run out of food. In Ohio as a whole, 70 percent of food pantries don't have enough food to serve everyone in need.

That is why earlier last week I offered legislation to act to alleviate the current food shortage. That is why I want to see us include $40 million in emergency food aid for food pantries across my State and across the country. I appreciate the leadership of Senator Durbin and Majority Leader Reid in wanting to include this at the next opportunity come January to get this $40 million out to the States, out to churches and food banks and food pantries so that the 1 out of 14 people in Hocking County and people in need all over this country can get the assistance we can afford to give them.

I yield to the senior Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Illinois for his work on food issues and on other issues, including everything from subprime to minimum wage and all issues where we can play a role in improving the lives of people who, as the Senator from Illinois said, are working, in most cases, full-time jobs.

Second Harvest is one of the great organizations in this country--in Illinois, in Ohio, in Nevada, and in Vermont, all over this country. I urge people, understanding that Second Harvest is not getting the donations they used to get, they are not getting enough help from the Government, they are not getting as much from supermarkets and from businesses as they got before, and they, frankly, are not getting as many charitable donations because people who gave before sometimes are in need themselves because it is often people who don't make a lot of money who are the most generous with their money and with their assistance, to plea to people in our States, businesses, individuals who are as lucky as we are in this Chamber, to help Second Harvest, to go on Web sites and look in the yellow pages and look around their communities where they can help people so that this will actually make a difference. So I thank the Senator from Illinois for his interest.

Mr. President, yes, we have been here before. I hear the Senator from Iowa, whom I greatly respect, say we have been here before and have done this over and over. In the last 2 hours, we have made the same mistake, or about to make the same mistake, that we have made in the last 6 years. About 7 groundhog days ago, if you will, we went from a budget surplus to huge budget deficits, as Senator Conrad pointed out. Do you know why? Because we are in the middle of a war that Senator Byrd spoke so eloquently against time and again on this Senate floor, a war that has cost us $500 billion and counting, and we have done tax cuts over and over. Every groundhog day we do another tax cut.

So tonight, in the space of 2 hours, we are going to encapsulate that in one evening. We did $70 billion for a war nobody is willing to pay for. Let our grandchildren pay for that one. And then we are doing more tax cuts, hundreds of billions of dollars we are not paying for, so let our grandchildren take care of it.

We have been here before, and it is about time we vote ``yes'' on this and do the right thing, so instead of these going from a budget surplus 7 groundhog days to hundreds of billions of dollars in budget deficits, instead we have an opportunity, as Senator Conrad said, to do the right thing to begin to pay for things as we go so that our grandchildren will not continue to be burdened with our profligacy and our irresponsibility.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I join the senior Senator in Connecticut in rising in strong opposition to the retroactive immunity provisions contained in the bill before us today. I thank Senator Dodd for his strong opposition and leadership and courage to make this fight.

Earlier today, I opposed the cloture vote because I don't believe we should consider providing immunity to corporations that broke the law, breached the Constitution, and trampled on Americans' civil liberties. It is pretty much as simple as that.

As Senators Dodd, Feingold, and others have made clear throughout this day, this is a matter of law, this is a matter of basic civil liberties, and this is a matter of accountability.

The decisions we make when we vote on this bill have bearing on every single American because the rights and protections the Constitution provides are precious to every single American. That is what we stand for as a nation.

No individual or corporation can breach the Constitution and break the law. No individual or corporation can breach the Constitution and break the law, even if the Federal Government tells them to do it.

Corporations cannot rely on a piece of paper handed to them by the administration that says that an act on the very face of it sounds illegal but it is, in fact, legal. They have, and they had, an independent obligation as corporations to assess the legality of wiretapping before engaging in it. That is why some telecommunications companies refused to comply when the administration asked them to wiretap. All of them should have taken that step.

The Constitution does not allow companies to rely on the executive branch to interpret the Constitution for them. When the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans are at issue, corporations have one--and only one--course of action: they must act in accordance with the law; they must act in accordance with the Constitution.

Some in this body have suggested that these companies were compelled to go along with the administration's illegal wiretapping program because of 9/11 and because of the very real danger of foreign terrorist attacks. Mr. President, while all of us--every 1 of the 100 Members of this body--wants to protect America at all costs, these companies went along with this program absent a legal warrant or court order for over 5 years after 9/11.

These multibillion-dollar corporations have teams of lawyers that assess the meaning and implication of Federal law as it relates to every move they make. But this time, now, we are asked to accept that highly trained lawyers working for these companies could not clearly understand and interpret the Constitution or interpret the requirements of FISA, a law that is more than 30 years old.

It would be a total and absolute assault on the Constitution to allow a small group of companies to ignore Federal law simply because they were asked to by the President--whoever the President is.

It is important for all those listening to take a good look at whom the administration is fighting for and whom it is representing.

President Bush has threatened to veto this bill unless it contains the retroactive immunity provisions but not because the protections for citizens are too weak. The President will veto this bill, he says, frankly, because he is concerned about the bank accounts of a handful of telecommunications companies.

Since when did money trump constitutional freedom? Since when did corporate connections matter more than the rule of law?

Congress has the responsibility to protect the freedoms and the rights of all citizens. Our Government should be open and transparent and, when rights are infringed, there should be an opportunity to seek legal redress in a court of law.

That is why our system of government contains a judicial branch: to litigate infringements of rights, to assess the constitutionality of laws and programs.

The retroactive immunity provisions in this bill will make it impossible to hold those who broke the law accountable for their illegal actions. That is wrong, Mr. President, and that is dangerous.

We must remember that by protecting our civil liberties we protect our Nation and our values.

I urge all my colleagues to vote for the Dodd-Feingold amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Schumer, and I thank Senator Coburn for always being generous with his time. I thank the Senator from Delaware.

Over the past few years, our country's problem has not been lack of credit; it has been too much bad credit, too many unscrupulous opportunists looking to take advantage of a situation. Nowhere is that more true than in the State of Ohio. As State and Federal regulators ignored the problems, predatory lending mushroomed. We have the highest rate of foreclosed homes in the country. Whole neighborhoods have been devastated because of foreclosures. It is not an isolated event. When homes are foreclosed, they affect the value of homes nearby, the crime rate, city tax revenues--the entire fabric of Slavic Village, Garfield Heights or Cincinnati or all over the State. These communities stretch across my State. Of the 30 cities hardest hit in the Nation, 6 are in Ohio.

By providing loans program at a fair price, the FHA program can give tens of thousands of families an alternative to the decidedly unfair loans they are caught in today. We need to act quickly, as Senator Schumer and Senator Martinez said. We need to work out our differences with the House. We need to get this legislation to the President.

Every day in Akron, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton, Columbus, and Toledo, in addition to smaller cities in Ohio, 200 families in Ohio lose their homes. Every month, thousands and thousands of these predatory loans are resetting at rates that will quickly become unaffordable to more and more families.

This legislation, needless to say, is only part of the solution. We need to do several things. We need to ensure that additional resources for counseling, as Senator Casey and Senator Schumer worked so hard on and that were included in the housing appropriations bills, are signed into law. We need to enact reasonable protection for borrowers so they are not preyed upon when it comes time to refinance loans. We need to change policies, as Senator Gregg, Senator Stabenow, and Senator Voinovich said, so families forced to sell their homes at a loss do not find themselves slapped with a tax bill. We need to change our bankruptcy laws, as Senator Durbin advocated, so that homeowners have the same rights in bankruptcy as vacation homeowners do. And we need to champion the interests of homeowners.

Next week, the Federal Reserve will consider and I hope adopt rules to strengthen the protection against deceptive mortgage lending practices. I commend Senators Dodd, Shelby, Schumer, Casey, and all those who have worked hard on this legislation and want to take further steps to deal with this problem better than we have.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the chairman for his outstanding work.

Madam President, I call up amendment 3819.

On behalf of Senators Sununu, McCaskill--who is presiding--McCain, Durbin, and Schumer, I am proud today to offer the Reduction of Excess Subsidies to Crop Underwriters--or the RESCU-- amendment to the farm bill.

Our bipartisan amendment takes dollars from where they do not belong, from oversubsidized crop insurers, and invests them in priorities with a return for the United States of America, such as nutrition programs and conservation programs and initiatives that create sustainable economic development in other countries and our own, which, after all, is the key to strong export markets and also to deficit reduction.

The RESCU amendment is based on a simple premise: When resources are limited, we simply cannot afford to waste them. We cannot afford to overpay crop insurers with tax dollars while underinvesting in programs that pay for themselves, programs that preserve farmland and deploy U.S. resources strategically in the global arena.

Our amendment does not increase the cost of crop insurance for any farmer. I repeat: Our amendment does not increase the cost of crop insurance for any farmer. In fact, it has no effect on premiums at all. It does not, as some will claim, dramatically reduce the margin for crop insurers, jeopardizing access to crop insurance. It draws from huge, bloated overpayments and astounding profit margins, making them a little less huge and a little less astounding.

Crop insurers will have no incentive to leave a business that continues to reward them so generously, as this Federal program does with these tax-dollar subsidies. They will have no incentive to leave a business that continues to reward them so generously for their involvement. I can assure you that before and after this amendment, if it is enacted, crop insurers will continue to be generously rewarded for their activities.

This amendment simply seizes an opportunity to do some good while doing no harm. It is a fiscally responsible amendment that reroutes insurance overpayments to accomplish several beneficial goals. Some of the dollars go toward deficit reduction, some of the dollars honor faith-based missions throughout the world by contributing to a like program that feeds hungry children in developing countries, and some of the dollars help family farmers become better stewards of our land and our natural resources. This amendment is not glamorous or earth- changing; it is simply an opportunity to move forward and to do the right thing.

I know some of my colleagues do not want to take any money from crop insurers. They want to continue to shovel more taxpayer dollars to crop insurers. As I mentioned, some of them are worried that taking these dollars will put crop insurers out of business. They are not really worried; that is what they will say. But you just can't get there from here. This amendment is not going to break the backs of those insurers; it is just going to mean slightly less huge profits for those insurers. Let's face it, this amendment does not take crop insurers to the cleaners; this amendment takes a little drop from their rather large bucket.

Federal crop insurance is an essential part of the farm safety net, as it should be and as it will continue to be. However, billions of dollars that are intended to benefit farmers are instead siphoned off by large crop insurance companies.

Listen to this number for a moment. Since 2000, farmers received $10.5 billion in benefits from the Crop Insurance Program, but it has cost taxpayers $19 billion to provide those benefits--$10 billion in benefits for farmers, $19 billion in taxpayer subsidies to get that $10 billion to the farmers. That is because the crop insurance companies have had such huge overpayments, huge profits during those 7 years.

So where does the difference go? According to GAO, crop insurance companies take 40 cents out of every dollar that Congress appropriate to help farmers. Think about that, 40 cents out of every dollar. No place operates that way. Medicare does not operate that way, Medicaid does not operate that way. No other insurance company does that well.

Look at this chart. Private property and casualty insurance profits, 8.3 percent; Federal crop insurance profits more than double that, 17.8 percent. So slicing a little off here, they are still going to be close to double the profits of other private property insurance companies, property and casualty insurance companies.

In the same report, GAO found that crop insurance--this was a GAO report--company profits are more than double insurance industry averages. Again, over the past 10 years, crop insurance companies have almost an 18-percent return, while most of the rest of the private insurance market has an 8-percent return.

This amendment also reduces the exorbitant--I mean exorbitant administration fees crop insurance receives. For each policy they sell, the GAO report shows that the per-policy subsidies to insurance companies will be triple what they were less than 10 years ago. This is the money crop insurance companies receive. A&O is administration and operations. So whatever the premiums are, the Government then--already profitable for the crop insurance company--the Government then pays them a percentage--roughly 20 percent, slightly more than that--in addition so that they can administer and operate this insurance program.

Look, as prices have gone up, as the price of corn, for instance, and soybeans--which I have a huge growing crop, huge corn and soybean production in my State, one of the leading States in the country--the crop insurance companies make more and more money the higher the prices are because the premiums are then higher. If you think the price of corn is high, you are going to buy more insurance, the premiums are going to be higher, and

the A&O--administration and operations--subsidy is 20 percent of an increasingly higher number. That is why you see from $497 million, to $591 million, to $700 million, to 830 million, to, in 2007, $1.172 billion for these administrative bonuses, if you will. These delivery subsidies have tripled because they are linked, as I said, to the total premiums and thus the rising price, particularly of corn and soybeans.

This amendment will reduce the administrative subsidies for each policy to the national average of 2004 and 2006. This level is still well above every year prior to 2006. We are not taking them back to these numbers; we are just modestly bringing them back to this number. This number still was historically the highest ever. It is historically very generous to the crop insurance companies as a subsidy.

This amendment, I repeat, is no threat to the crop insurance industry. It is a threat to something--it is a threat to complacency. Instead of taking the painless route and leaving the crop insurance industry be, we can simply apply a dose of reason and do a world of good. We can help feed children in impoverished nations. We can help restore the McGovern-Dole Program--two of the most respected Members to have served in this distinguished body. We can help bring down, by hundreds of millions of dollars, something near and dear to the heart of Senator Conrad, I know--we can bring down the Federal deficit.

Simply put, we can do the right thing. I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will support the amendment.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, how much time do I have?

Madam President, I reserve my right to object. Rather than have three or four speeches in a row in support of this amendment, I would like to--particularly since I have more time remaining--at least use a couple minutes now. I will not give a long speech, but I would like to use a couple minutes responding to Senator Roberts and then go back and forth, if that would be acceptable to the Senator from Iowa, or if the Senator from Iowa has somewhere to go, I am fine with him speaking now. But I would like to speak afterwards.

Madam President, I am fine with that. I would like to be recognized after Senator Grassley, if that is OK with the Senator from Georgia.

I thank the Senator. I certainly will reserve my time.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for adding his knowledge to this debate.

After listening to the Senator from Kansas, I think we might think the sky is falling in Kansas or in Ohio or in Iowa or in Georgia, that the sky is falling on the crop insurance companies.

But when I hear the opponents of this amendment say crop insurance companies may go out of business because of this amendment, or a new argument today, that the reinsurer might go out of business-- reinsurance companies that insure the crop insurers--I think you should, again, look at this chart.

On this chart is shown the number of dollars per policy that the crop insurance companies are paid. In the last 10 years, it slowly went up, until about 2004. So a crop insurance company writing a policy would get $591, 4 years ago. They would get this A&O subsidy, this administrative and operating subsidy. Then it went to $700, stayed around $700. Then it went up to $800 in 2006, the highest number in crop insurance program history. Then, this year, it is close to $1,200 per policy of the subsidy. In addition to everything else with crop insurance, we don't need to get into the inner machinations of the subsidies in other ways. But this over-the-top subsidy--I have been very involved in Medicare issues. Medicare is about 2 percent of administrative costs that the Government pays them to operate the Medicare Programs in the 50 States. I don't make the comparison, generally, because it is a very different program. But we give them $1,100 for every policy they write--almost $1,200. Our amendment simply says: Let's go back to the last record-setting year, which is $830 per policy.

So for Senator Roberts to claim they may go out of business--all we are doing is going back to the very profitable year they had when they were getting $830. This is all taxpayer dollars. These are private insurance companies making huge profits--making huge profits from our tax dollars. Again, I go back to the profit levels of these Federal crop insurance companies. These are private companies getting financing profits from taxpayers--twice the profits of the average private insurance property and casualty companies.

Then I hear my friend from Kansas, Senator Roberts, talk about how business is going to be bad for farmers. Understand, no premium increase. This amendment increases no premiums; it doesn't touch premiums for farmers. But then he makes the case that--he does the oldest trick in the book, making the farmers' interests coincident with the insurance company interests. If you buy car insurance as a driver, you don't think your interests are always the same as the car insurance companies. When you get your health insurance plan, you don't think your interests are exactly identical with your health insurer. So to believe our taking some of the oversubsidized profits--taxpayer dollars--from the private crop insurance companies, that that means we are going after the farmers or that is going to hurt the farmers simply doesn't pass the straight-face test, and here is why.

We spent, if you recall from my earlier comments, $10 billion in subsidies in the last few years which go to the farmers for crop insurance--a $10 billion benefit for farmers, but it took $19 billion of taxpayer dollars to get them those $10 billion. So in other words, a majority of crop insurance spending, this spending is taxpayer dollars. A majority of crop insurance spending goes to insurers, not the farmers. The farmers and the insurance companies don't have identical interests. I am very supportive of family farmers in my State. Most of the agriculture in my State is corn and soybeans. Most of the crop insurance premium dollars are insuring corn and soybeans in this country. Some 75 percent, if I recall, of crop insurance is about corn and soybeans. I am very supportive of those farmers. I will continue to be. I don't want to see taxpayers, whether they are taxpayers in rural Lexington, OH, or whether they are taxpayers in more urban Youngstown, OH, I don't want to see them giving all of these subsidies to insurance companies.

Again, more than half the spending on crop insurance--more than half the spending--goes to the crop insurance companies, not the farmers. We are not touching the 46 percent that goes to farmers. We are not touching those dollars. We don't want those premiums to increase. We are saying, take a little bit away from the crop insurance companies. Go back to their 2006 levels of $830 per policy. They had huge profits in 2006. The crop insurance companies were thriving. The farmers were benefiting from these programs. Why give them the extra $342 per policy when that money could go to programs such as conservation for farmers; EQIP--an important program in Kansas--or go to McGovern-Dole or go to hundreds of millions of dollars in deficit reduction.

So we are taking those taxpayers' dollars, giving them to these private insurance companies so their profits can absolutely go through the roof. Instead, I want those dollars to be used wisely. We are stewards of taxpayer dollars, as my farmers are stewards of their land. I want to support the farmers. I want to support the conservation programs. I want to support the feeding programs. I want to help reduce the Federal deficit. That is why the Brown-Sununu-McCaskill amendment makes so much sense.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, will the Chair let us know how much time remains on each side?

I thank the Chair.

Will Senator Roberts take his last 2 minutes?

I have a good bit of time left. You have a couple of minutes. I want to close, but I want to make some comments first.

I thank the Senator. I think we should wrap this up.

I appreciate the comments of my friend from North Dakota, who has fought more effectively and passionately for his farmers in North Dakota than perhaps anybody in the Senate. But this debate is not about how much money has gone to conservation, to nutrition, or in or out of direct payments. This amendment is the subsidies, the taxpayer dollars, that go directly into crop insurance, the huge, bloated subsidies, the taxpayer dollars, that go to these companies that, by any measurement, are the most profitable insurance companies in America--Federal crop insurance, with 17.8 percent profits; and private property and casualty insurance, with 8.3 percent.

I know crop insurance is different; they have Federal rules. But in the end, this profit is all about taxpayer subsidy. This is the same kind of profit that a private property and casualty insurance company has. It is taxpayer dollars from taxpayers in Providence, RI; Topeka, KS; Columbus, GA; and Mansfield, OH.

I heard Senator Conrad's discussion of a Grant Thornton analysis over the last dozen or so years. I don't know who paid for that study. It doesn't matter. I know who paid for the GAO study, and I know about the professionalism, even though called into question by my friend from Kansas, when the audits don't come out the way some people want them to. I know about their professionalism and what they said about crop insurance, and I know what they said about overpayments and profitability.

Most importantly, that study from Grant Thornton looks over a period of many years. I probably would not have offered this amendment in 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002. But look at where we are today. Look at the subsidies we provide to crop insurance from taxpayer dollars. I repeat that these are taxpayer dollars, the subsidies to these crop insurance companies: $723, $696, $830 per policy with the subsidy, leading up to this year, when the policy jumps to a $1,172 subsidy.

All we are saying is to take this huge overpayment from this year and go back to the already very profitable year in 2006. This is not a debate about what farmers get. Farmers' premiums don't increase. They will get the same services. Farmers will still have the same access, in spite of what some people say, to these crop insurance policies. So it is a matter of whose side you are on. Are you on the side of the farmers or the taxpayers and the side of conservation and nutrition? Or are you on the side of a very small number of crop insurance companies that are reaping huge profits, getting huge subsidies, getting bloated numbers of dollars from taxpayers in their pockets? Whose side will you be on? We should be on the side of the family farmers and taxpayers.

I reserve the remainder of my time, and I will close after Senator Chambliss uses his last couple of minutes.

Mr. President, I will not use all my time. I have a couple of points. Several of the speakers have said that the committee already made substantial cuts in crop insurance subsidies from the Government. That is not quite true. There was a bit of a cut, but the cuts were much less than the House of Representatives had in their bill. The House made cuts in the shared risk and the A&O, the administration and operating expenses. They say the crop insurance companies were already cut by $3.5 billion. The vast majority of these savings were due to the sleight of hand, the shifts in time. The CBO cost estimate indicates that only $700 million were actually cut.

According to the CBO, the supplemental disaster package adds an additional $2.1 billion to crop insurance. So they took a little here and added more there. It adds up to a net gain of $1.5 billion to crop insurance companies. Their lobby is strong and they are doing well. They have a lot of influence on this body. But the fact is, in the end, this is about one thing: This chart shows that the majority of crop insurance spending goes to insurers, not family farmers or large farmers--not to farmers, period. A majority of this money--the underwriting gains paid to companies was $840 million. Administrative subsidies paid to companies was $960 million. Fifty percent of crop insurance spending goes to crop insurance companies, not to farmers.

About $10.5 billion in the last 7 years has gone to farmers benefiting from the crop insurance program, but it took $19 billion from taxpayers to pay them that $10 billion. What kind of program is that? We get $10 billion in public benefits, but it takes $19 billion to provide those public benefits. No other Federal program does it that way. If it were Medicare, we would bring them in here and have hearings and destroy them if they were spending that much of the services they are supposed to provide, with that much in administrative costs. Again, over 50 percent--more than half--of crop insurance spending goes to insurers, not farmers.

The Brown-Sununu-McCaskill amendment will do what we need to do. It will say no more bloated, oversubsidized spending, no more taxpayer dollars of this magnitude will go to the crop insurance companies. Let's use that money for nutrition, for conservation--and, again, don't forget, hundreds of millions of dollars from the Brown-Sununu-McCaskill amendment will go to reduce the national debt. Taxpayers save, family farmers are better off, and the natural resources in this country-- something Senator Harkin has worked so effectively on for so many years--will make all of the difference in this. I ask my colleagues to vote for the Brown-Sununu-McCaskill amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will yield whatever time I have left to Senator Harkin.

Mr. President, I yield back our time on the amendment. I thank the Senator from Iowa.

Madam President, the Brown-Sununu-McCaskill-McCain-Durbin- Schumer amendment will make the Crop Insurance Program work for family farmers and work for taxpayers. In the last 6 years, $10.5 billion in benefits through the Crop Insurance Program have gone to farmers. It took 19 billion taxpayer dollars to deliver that $10 billion in benefits. Farmers get less than half of the crop insurance money. Of the crop insurance dollars, more money goes to insurers than it does to farmers. We want to take a very small

amount of that and move it to deficit reduction and move it to the conservation programs and move it to the McGovern-Dole Program, something I know Senator Roberts supports.

This is not going to mean the Crop Insurance Program is in jeopardy. This will make the Crop Insurance Program work better for family farmers and work better for taxpayers.

I ask for my colleagues' support of the Brown-Sununu-McCaskill- McCain-Durbin-Schumer amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing, along with Senator Cornyn, an important bill--the Catalyst for Better Diabetes Care Act-- that will enhance and better coordinate our Nation's fight against diabetes.

It is estimated that one out of every three Americans born after the year 2000 will develop diabetes in their lifetime. This startling statistic should be reason enough for this body to act swiftly and decisively on this issue. We must increase our investment into this deadly and costly disease before the epidemic reaches overwhelming proportions. The Catalyst for Better Diabetes Care Act marks an important step in this effort by focusing the government's attention on specific areas in diabetes care that can and must be improved.

First, we must ensure that all Americans are aware of the importance and availability of diabetes screening. Like any preventable and manageable disease, early diagnosis of diabetes is key. Yet millions of Americans--nearly a third of the 20-plus million Americans with diabetes--have diabetes but don't know it. Recognizing the enormity of this problem, many of us in Congress fought hard in recent years to include a diabetes screening benefit in Medicare, a program that already spends a third of its total budget on diabetes patients. Now the challenge is to ensure that Americans are fully utilizing this and other screening opportunities, which is exactly what this bill aims to do. By establishing a collaboration and outreach program within the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, this act would help reduce the number of Americans with diabetes who remain undiagnosed.

The private sector also has a role to play in this fight. Thankfully, many companies have already started investing in employee wellness programs that reward pro-active, preventative care. With chronic diseases like diabetes driving up health insurance costs for individuals and employers, it is critical that new, pre-emptive approaches to health care are encouraged. This bill would create an advisory group in HHS to determine which wellness programs work and which do not, information that will encourage employers to provide effective diabetes prevention programs.

It is also critical to carefully monitor our effectiveness in combating diabetes and the impact of this disabling and deadly condition on our nation. With that information in hand, we will be far better equipped to determine the nature and scope of diabetes prevention and treatment strategies. The bill includes two key provisions to address this need. It would create a National Diabetes Report Card that provides crucial information on diabetes' impact on the nation. The report card would be published every 2 years. It would also take steps to ensure accurate data on diabetes morbidity and mortality. Diabetes is often not listed anywhere on death certificates as a cause of death. This bill would ensure the training of physicians on properly completing birth and death certificates and improving the collection of diabetes data.

Finally, this act would commission an Institute of Medicine study on diabetes medical education to ensure that physician training--which currently requires less than four hours of diabetes education--is keeping pace with the growing threat diabetes poses to the public's health. The study would make a recommendation as to the appropriate level of diabetes medical education that should be required prior to licensure, board certification, and board recertification.

Our country faces a tremendously challenging fight against diabetes, but it is one we can and will win. The Catalyst for Better Diabetes Care Act is a targeted and cost-effective bill that will push us toward victory. Let us act quickly and pass this bill.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing, along with Senator Cornyn, an important bill--the Catalyst for Better Diabetes Care Act-- that will enhance and better coordinate our Nation's fight against diabetes.

It is estimated that one out of every three Americans born after the year 2000 will develop diabetes in their lifetime. This startling statistic should be reason enough for this body to act swiftly and decisively on this issue. We must increase our investment into this deadly and costly disease before the epidemic reaches overwhelming proportions. The Catalyst for Better Diabetes Care Act marks an important step in this effort by focusing the government's attention on specific areas in diabetes care that can and must be improved.

First, we must ensure that all Americans are aware of the importance and availability of diabetes screening. Like any preventable and manageable disease, early diagnosis of diabetes is key. Yet millions of Americans--nearly a third of the 20-plus million Americans with diabetes--have diabetes but don't know it. Recognizing the enormity of this problem, many of us in Congress fought hard in recent years to include a diabetes screening benefit in Medicare, a program that already spends a third of its total budget on diabetes patients. Now the challenge is to ensure that Americans are fully utilizing this and other screening opportunities, which is exactly what this bill aims to do. By establishing a collaboration and outreach program within the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, this act would help reduce the number of Americans with diabetes who remain undiagnosed.

The private sector also has a role to play in this fight. Thankfully, many companies have already started investing in employee wellness programs that reward pro-active, preventative care. With chronic diseases like diabetes driving up health insurance costs for individuals and employers, it is critical that new, pre-emptive approaches to health care are encouraged. This bill would create an advisory group in HHS to determine which wellness programs work and which do not, information that will encourage employers to provide effective diabetes prevention programs.

It is also critical to carefully monitor our effectiveness in combating diabetes and the impact of this disabling and deadly condition on our nation. With that information in hand, we will be far better equipped to determine the nature and scope of diabetes prevention and treatment strategies. The bill includes two key provisions to address this need. It would create a National Diabetes Report Card that provides crucial information on diabetes' impact on the nation. The report card would be published every 2 years. It would also take steps to ensure accurate data on diabetes morbidity and mortality. Diabetes is often not listed anywhere on death certificates as a cause of death. This bill would ensure the training of physicians on properly completing birth and death certificates and improving the collection of diabetes data.

Finally, this act would commission an Institute of Medicine study on diabetes medical education to ensure that physician training--which currently requires less than four hours of diabetes education--is keeping pace with the growing threat diabetes poses to the public's health. The study would make a recommendation as to the appropriate level of diabetes medical education that should be required prior to licensure, board certification, and board recertification.

Our country faces a tremendously challenging fight against diabetes, but it is one we can and will win. The Catalyst for Better Diabetes Care Act is a targeted and cost-effective bill that will push us toward victory. Let us act quickly and pass this bill.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Coburn for his cooperation on an important issue with Senator Schumer, something this body needs to move on. I thank both Senator Schumer and Senator Coburn. I wanted to talk about the same issue this morning for 5 or 6 minutes.

Thousands and thousands of families in Ohio are struggling to keep a roof over their heads during the upcoming Christmas season. My State has been in the grip of a mortgage crisis at some level for years, which shows no signs of letting up. Ohio is faced with one of the highest foreclosure rates in the country. Our largest cities are being particularly hit hard. Ohio's six biggest cities are among the 30 hardest hit in the Nation. It looks as if things may get worse before they get better.

What we do in Washington, or what we fail to do here, will have a profound effect on families in Akron, Cincinnati, Toledo, Columbus, and Cleveland. It is not just my State's largest cities; it is Portsmouth, Lima, and my hometown of Mansfield, Zanesville, Ravenna, and Marion. Every day, over 200 families in Ohio lose their homes.

A month ago, the majority leader, Senator Reid, sought to bring up a bill that would modernize the FHA home loan program. Our colleagues on the other side objected, claiming they had not had sufficient time to read the bill. Mind you, this wasn't a bill written in secret. It passed out of the Banking Committee 20 to 1 in September after a long process that fully involved the ranking member, Senator Shelby, a Republican of Alabama, and all of my colleagues on the Banking Committee.

By making improvements in the FHA program, more families would be able to refinance out of their unaffordable subprime loans and into fair, more equitable, and affordable FHA loans. As the Wall Street Journal found in an analysis published last week, many subprime borrowers had pretty good credit when they took out their loans. Many should have been in conventional loans, but in too many cases they were steered into higher priced loans, loans more profitable for the mortgage broker, but more costly, and ultimately disastrously so, for far too many borrowers, new homeowners. Many of them should be able to take out FHA loans that won't have those exploding adjustable rates.

We all went home for Thanksgiving, and when we came back, Senator Reid tried again, and again our Republican colleagues objected.

President Bush announced last week a plan that may help a small slice of the population. He called on Congress to adopt FHA reform. Good for him. But what he needs to do is call on his fellow Republicans to stop obstructing every single attempt we have tried to help homeowners in Ohio and across the country. There may be progress today in the conversation between Senators Schumer and Coburn. That is our hope.

Most of the people who work in the mortgage industry have their clients' best interests at heart. They rely on repeat business and word-of-mouth advertising. But as the industry has evolved, it seems as though more and more market participants are acting in ways that are at odds with their clients' interests, all for short-term and sometimes huge profits.

Some mortgage brokers have chosen to prey on the most vulnerable--the poor, the elderly, and the family one paycheck away from disaster. Their conduct is unforgivable.

Borrowers who may not have been particularly sophisticated when they took out a loan are very likely going to be unfamiliar with how to navigate their way out of a bad situation. They are going to need a lot of help, and the network of nonprofit organizations across the country is going to be of vital importance in providing that help. Congress approved $200 million. Senator Schumer and Senator Casey and I worked to put that money into the legislation to provide this help. But the President has threatened to veto that legislation.

We also need to do what we can to prevent the situation from getting worse. Mortgage brokers and originators have to exercise care in how they do business. At a bare minimum, they should be sure a borrower can repay a loan, and they need to do so based on real verification rather than a wink and a nod.

Nobody is doing anybody a favor by convincing them to take out a loan that will become unaffordable in 2 or 3 years, or that doesn't include the payment of taxes and insurance.

No longer should the dreams of Ohioans and new homeowners across the country fall victim to the fine print. No longer should Congress turn a blind eye to the despicable practices that victimize our neighbors and our communities because foreclosure in one house affects the homes all over that neighborhood.

We have tried to provide tax relief to people who have had some of their mortgages forgiven by their lender when they sell their house for less than their outstanding loan. Right now, any amount of debt forgiven is considered income, slapping additional tax burden on a family who has gone through the trauma of losing their home.

But that provision is imperiled by end-of-year obstructionism as well. Not one Republican supported Senator Reid's effort to force an end to the Republican filibuster of the tax bill that included this provision.

Everything we have tried to do to help homeowners--from counseling funds, to FHA reform, to tax relief--has been blocked by Republicans. If President Bush is serious about helping homeowners, he will bring this to an end. The people of Ohio have waited too long for relief. They need our help. They need it now.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, on behalf of Senators Sununu, McCaskill, Durbin, and Schumer, I am proud today to offer the reduction of excess subsidies to crop underwriters rescue amendment to the farm bill.

The rescue amendment is based on a simple premise. When resources are limited, we cannot afford to waste them. We cannot afford to overpay crop insurance----

Yes.

Yes, it was laid down on Friday.

Of course.

Five minutes.

Madam President, our bipartisan amendment, on behalf of Senators Sununu, McCaskill, McCain, Durbin, and Schumer, takes dollars from where they do not belong--that is, heavily subsidized crop insurers--and invests them in priorities with a return to the United States, as nutrition programs, conservation programs, and initiatives that create sustainable economic development in other countries which, after all, is the key to strong export markets.

Our amendment does not increase the cost of crop insurance for any farmer. That is an important point. It merits repeating. Our amendment does not increase the cost of crop insurance for any farmer. Instead, it reduces the excessive taxpayer-funded fees that crop insurers receive for servicing their customers.

The savings from this amendment will be invested in programs that work--programs such as McGovern-Dole which provides school lunches to the over 100 million children around the world who suffer from hunger.

There is a reason the House provides $800 million in mandatory funding for this program; the Senate provided none. There is a reason this program was developed by and is named after two of the most notable Members of this body. The reason is this program stands out. It melds compassion with common sense, feeding the hungry and building sustainable economies in the developing countries, making our country safer.

We responded to a hostile Communist threat in Europe with the Marshall Plan. Our best response to a hostile threat overseas is to provide help in nutrition and education to people who desperately need it.

This amendment is also about ensuring the appropriate funding levels for conservation programs. We have done a

good job with conservation in the Senate farm bill and much of that credit goes to Chairman Harkin. We can do better, and it will pay off for our Nation to do so.

The Farmland Protection Program received no increase in funding from the committee-passed bill. Yet it is crucial to the protection of family farms.

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, protects water quality and provides farmers and ranchers with the tools they need and want to be good environmental stewards. Yet three out of four applications go unfunded.

Our amendment invests in these resource conservation programs.

Importantly, it invests in human decency. It invests in preventing Americans from going hungry. How, in the wealthiest country in the world, can we let too many of our people be hungry? More Americans are struggling to make ends meet, and with the savings from our amendment, children who rely on food stamps will not have to go to bed hungry.

It is a smart amendment.

I know some of my colleagues are skeptical about the amendment's ``pay-for.'' Some of my colleagues don't want to take money from crop insurers. That is why we must take a serious look at the excessive subsidies in the Federal Crop Insurance Program.

Federal crop insurance is an essential part of the farm safety net and will continue to be in the future. However, billions of dollars that are intended to benefit farmers are instead siphoned off by large crop insurance companies.

Since 2000, farmers have received $10.5 billion in benefits from crop insurance, but it has cost taxpayers $19 billion: $10 billion in benefits, it has cost taxpayers $19 billion to deliver those benefits.

Where does the difference go? According to a GAO report, crop insurance companies take 40 cents out of every dollar that Congress appropriates to help farmers manage the risk of agricultural production. What kind of good business sense is that?

In the same report, GAO finds crop insurance company profits are more than double industry averages. Private and casualty insurance has 8.3 percent; Federal crop insurance is literally more than double the rate of profit.

Over the past 10 years, crop insurance companies have had an average rate of return of 18 percent compared to just over 8 percent for the comparable private property and casualty insurance companies.

Let me repeat, no farmer under the Brown-Durbin-McCaskill-McCain- Sununu amendment, no farmer will pay more for crop insurance because of this amendment. The Federal Government sets Federal crop insurance premium rates. This amendment does not change any of that.

This amendment will require that crop insurance companies share a greater portion of their underwriting gains with taxpayers. It is only right in a true public-private partnership that both sides benefit fairly.

This amendment also reduces the exorbitant--and I mean exorbitant-- administrative fees that crop insurers receive for each policy they sell. A GAO report shows that per-policy subsidies to insurance companies will be triple what they were less than 10 years ago.

This amendment will reduce administrative subsidies for each policy to the national average from 2004 to 2006. It is not a huge cut. It says to the crop insurance companies: Let's go back a couple years. You were getting well compensated and well subsidized. Why should we do more than that? With high commodity prices, this is still well above every year prior to 2006.

This amendment provides commonsense reforms to a system of subsidies that has simply spun out of control.

I yield the floor.