Jim Cooper

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. I thank the gentleman from California, my friend from Virginia, and the gentleman from South Carolina for the prompt consideration of this vitally important measure. I have the privilege of representing not only Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee, but also Meharry Medical College, as well as Tennessee State University and American Baptist College. But Fisk and Meharry are two private institutions that are in urgent need of funds such as these. People should be more aware of the historic role these institutions have played in American history. At one point Meharry Medical College alone had supplied literally half of the African American physicians practicing medicine in the United States of America. This country would be completely different without the legacy and the bright, bright future of Meharry Medical College. Equally prominent is Fisk University, what some people have called the Harvard of the historically black colleges and universities world. Currently led by Hazel O'Leary, many have heard of the Fisk Jubilee Singers, a group that is literally famous worldwide. But they should also know about the science, the liberal arts, and the incredible education that is going on at Fisk University every day. These are vitally important institutions, and I am thankful that even the administration has seen that we need to increase this loan fund. We need to offer help to these vitally important institutions so they can continue their historic mission of educating not only African American youth, but people of all colors and persuasions to live up to their full God-given potential. Fisk and Meharry are two vital institutions in my district. But as the gentleman noted, there are hundreds of other institutions spread nationwide. These are very important institutions to support, and I am grateful that the House leadership, with Republican cooperation, has brought this bill forward. We must pass this important legislation.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. I thank my colleague from Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to join this Blue Dog Special Order hour tonight. I would like to discuss not only the Wartime Spending Accountability Act but also another measure that most of the Blue Dog leadership has been kind enough to cosponsor having to do with reform of all of our entitlement programs. But first on wartime spending, there is absolutely no question that there's been an astonishing amount of waste, fraud and abuse in this conflict in Iraq. I personally was on the tarmac at the Baghdad Airport when a C-130 plane flew in, and the Air Force did not want us to see that plane land and unload its cargo. Well, why was that? Here are a group of U.S. Congressman standing on the runway and they did not want us to see a U.S. plane land because of its cargo. Well, what was in that plane that was so secret? Well, the plane landed and they got the forklift out and they unloaded six pallets, very well wrapped up, absolutely full, very heavy. And what was in those pallets? $1.2 billion of U.S. cold hard cash, $100 bills. I've never seen that much money in my life. I'm not sure if any bank in the country keeps that much cash on hand. But that much U.S. currency was flown into Baghdad. Why? We were told it was to go to replenish the Baghdad or Iraqi Central Bank. It certainly had the most elaborate convoy I've ever seen protecting that cash, because if it had been robbed, it would have been the greatest robbery in the history of the world. Now, the tragedy is we don't know how much of that money disappeared once it got to the bank and was in proper hands, because it is widely known that there is massive corruption in that country. Another incident that most people know about is the fact that U.S. contractors, who are supposed to be handling taxpayer money wisely, have been seen playing touch football with what, a football? No. With small bales of $100 bills. They've been so loose with our money, and they have so much on hand, not in single dollar form, but in bales of $100 bills, that they've been seen playing touch football with that. Another episode we were recently made aware of is due to the Iraqi Government's inability to pass an oil revenue sharing law. There's been a lot of upset by the Sunnis in al-Anbar province in particular because they're worried they won't get their fair share of Iraq's oil wealth. Well, recently a shipment was made of millions and millions of U.S. dollars to basically dump this money in a town square in al-Anbar province just to make sure the Sunnis felt better about themselves. That is not a wise use of U.S. taxpayer dollars. So the Inspector General in Iraq is doing an outstanding job of ferreting out this misuse of U.S. taxpayer money. We have tried here in the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis to strengthen inspectors general. They are a wonderful mechanism for ferreting out waste, fraud and abuse. We passed a bill to strengthen inspectors general in this House by a vote of 404-11, an overwhelming bipartisan majority. And guess what the administration response was? They threatened to veto that bill. Veto a bill that enjoyed the support of 404 House Members, overwhelming bipartisan support. I think we need to keep on strengthening inspectors general because they are finding problems with U.S. taxpayer dollars, and we need to root out all this waste, fraud and abuse. The other topic I wanted to focus on tonight is a different measure. And as important as the war in Iraq is, as important as it is to find misspent U.S. dollars, this topic is even bigger. This has to do with overall U.S. entitlement spending. And the proposal is H.R. 3654. We call it the SAFE Act. What it would do, and my bipartisan cosponsor is Frank Wolf of Virginia. David Broder actually commented on this bill in his national column today in the newspaper. What it would do is set up a bipartisan commission to study the problem of entitlements for 1 year, then by the time the next President is sworn in, give that new President a commission recommendation that's completely bipartisan, a 50/50 commission. All issues are on the table, so there's no favoritism, no exclusion of certain hot-button issues. And Congress would be required to vote up or down on the finding of that commission as well as on any proposal that the new President or this Congress would like to make. But the key is, this commission would have teeth. Congress would have to act. Reforms would have to take place, because if you look at our overall entitlement spending, there are severe problems. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, Medicare alone, which is one of the most important programs in America, Medicare alone is $32 trillion in the hole. $32 trillion. That's many times larger of course than even $32 billion. This is $32 trillion. And their estimate is, if we knew how to measure it, that Medicaid would be in a similar bind. That's probably more than this Congress can handle in terms of problem solving this late in the session, so that's why we think that a bipartisan commission will do the best job and the fairest job and the most bipartisan job of coming up with a solution that we can all support to solve these fundamental fiscal problems. So I would encourage my colleagues to look at H.R. 3654, the SAFE Act, to try to remedy the entitlement crisis that we face in this country. A wide group of folks from all sides of the political spectrum have supported this measure: the Bipartisan Concord Coalition, for example, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the Heritage Foundation on the right and the Brookings Foundation, which is more of a nonpartisan organization. So we have wide bipartisan support from the think tanks. We have wide bipartisan support in this body, with some 25 Members from each side of the aisle cosponsoring the measure already. So I hope most of my colleagues can see their way clear to going ahead and cosponsoring H.R. 3654. But I want to thank my colleague from Arkansas, as my friend from Florida has said earlier, you've taken the lead on many weeks now to bring the message of the Blue Dogs to the American people, that message of fiscal conservatism, that message of centrism, that message of common sense and trying to do what's right for our country. We're fortunate in the Blue Dogs to have members from all corners of the country, from California to Maine, from Florida to Washington, it's a wide and diverse group, and we're proud of that. But the most important thing is the common sense we try to bring to these debates, because these shouldn't be highly partisan debates. Most Americans can agree when they get around the kitchen table or meet at the Rotary Club back home on what the right thing to do is for the country. We should show a similar amount of common sense here in Washington. So I thank my colleague from Arkansas, Mr. Ross, for holding this important Special Order.

Mr. COOPER. Well, we probably should mention the meeting that you and I had with all the other Blue Dogs with three remarkably distinguished Americans this afternoon because they, too, gave us some insight in our current fiscal situation in this country. I don't think you've mentioned this before earlier in the hour, but former Secretary of Treasury Bob Rubin came to meet with us, as well as former Secretary of Treasury Larry Summers, as well as former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Roger Altman. One of our group called them actually the dream team of treasury management in recent American history, because under Secretary Rubin, Summers and Altman, we had 8 of the greatest years of growth in all of American history, certainly the longest sustained period since World War II. It was an amazing performance, an amazing feat, one that I hope that future treasury secretaries can try to live up to. But the key was sound fiscal management. Secretary Rubin in particular set the tone by making sure that the markets in this country were strong, making sure that growth was strong, making sure that prosperity was strong. So it was an amazing thing to hear these three gentlemen. And they're very concerned today because, unlike the surpluses that were being accumulated in the Clinton administration, especially in the last 3 years, now, of course we've sunk into terrible deficits. And they basically told us today that our number one problem is a lack of savings in this country, a lack of personal savings, because the average American is having trouble paying their bills, doesn't put anything away for a rainy day, too tempted by credit cards, have to buy things. And now the Christmas season is coming up so there's a lack of personal savings, but there's also a huge lack of government savings, because when you run a large deficit, as we're doing, that's dissavings. That's the opposite of savings. So they pointed out that both things are problems for this country. And I know the gentleman also enjoyed their presentation. It was quite an honor for the Blue Dogs to have them ask us to share a few thoughts with them. And they are promoting, of course, their Hamilton Project, which is a centrist think tank here in Washington supported by these gentlemen and others to try to bring more common sense to Washington policy debates and economics. But I thank the gentleman for referring to those issues.

Mr. COOPER. Since 1969.

Mr. COOPER. Well, the gentleman's exactly right. An authority of no less than Alan Greenspan said that PAYGO was the most important reform that this Congress could undertake to right our fiscal imbalance. PAYGO was actually started under the first President Bush in 1990. It was instituted on a bipartisan basis. It worked extremely well for 12 years, from 1990 to 2002. And then sadly the Republican majority here allowed it to expire. And that's when, really, our fiscal wheels started running off the track. So we swung from a surplus, a surplus that was growing so fast there was actually fear that the United States would be debt free, as if you could be afraid of that, that would have been a glorious moment in our history for our children to be unburdened by interest payments and future generations. That was the prospect when President Clinton left office. And then to swing from that into, as all Blue Dogs have, we have the debt sign outside of our office. Now it's $9 billion, $29,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. But it's growing so rapidly. And that doesn't even take into account our Medicare, our Social Security, our Medicaid and other entitlement program liabilities. So it's a monster of a problem, and it's going to take a bipartisan commission to deal with it. But PAYGO, according to Alan Greenspan and other authorities, was the single most important reform step that we could undertake. The Blue Dogs are responsible for that reform. It's working. I am proud of our Democratic leadership here because they have been remarkably strict in making sure that every bill that reaches this House floor adheres to PAYGO requirements. And as you said, it is completely common sense. If you want something new, pay for it. Don't charge it. And that is the way America needs to be acting in the future. So I think it will not inhibit new ideas. It will just make sure that new ideas are fiscally responsible and paid for so we are not adding to the debt load of our kids and grandkids, and, as the gentleman said, not borrowing any more money from foreign countries, because we've done too much of that already. Many Americans don't realize that President Bush, his administration, has already borrowed more money from foreign nations than all previous Presidents in American history put together. What a sad record to hold, to have borrowed more money from foreign nations than all previous Presidents in American history combined. That's not good medicine for America. That's not good fiscal policy. And the Blue Dogs are leading the way in helping to change that.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a former Member of this body, Louis W. Stokes, for his contributions both in service to our Nation and to the State of Ohio. Representative Stokes has made significant strides in increasing benefits to veterans in the Cleveland area, and through his work on the Appropriations Committee, he brought significant increases in revenue to the Cleveland's East Side. He was recently inaugurated into the Karamu House Hall of Fame for his contributions to the continued legacy of Cleveland's black settlement house and theatre. Louis Stokes was born in Cleveland and grew up in one of the Nation's first federally funded housing projects, the Outhwaite Homes. He served in the Army during World War II, attended Western Reserve University and Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, and began practicing law in Cleveland in 1953. In 1968, Stokes argued the seminal ``stop and frisk'' Terry v. Ohio case in front of the United States Supreme Court. He was elected to the House in 1968, representing the 21st District and then the newly created 11th District, both on Cleveland's East Side. He was Chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, charged with investigating the murders of President John F. Kennedy and civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. He also served on the House committee that investigated the Iran-Contra Affair and was a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus. By the time of his retirement in 1999, Stokes had represented the people of Cleveland for nearly 30 years. He was dean of the Ohio delegation and one of the most senior members of this body. Madam Speaker, Louis Stokes' contributions to public life have been celebrated in many ways, not least of which is the Louis W. Stokes Health Policy Lecture at Meharry Medical College in Nashville. Today, October 17, 2007, Representative Stokes was honored at Meharry for his pioneering contributions to the field of health policy and law. And today I rise to extend my heartfelt congratulations and appreciation to Louis Stokes, to celebrate his long career of public service and to encourage my colleagues to join me in honoring him. May his words inspire new generations of leaders to follow in his footsteps and serve their country.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. Madam Speaker, I inadvertently missed last Wednesday's vote on final passage of H.R. 2895. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``yes'' on the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. I would first like to thank the subcommittee chairman, my friend, Mr. Towns, for doing an outstanding job on this and other legislation. I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Davis, who has been particularly accommodating in working on this bill to do a better job for the Federal taxpayer. That's what this is all about, making government work better. If there has ever been a good government measure, this is it. I also want to thank the full committee chairman, Mr. Waxman, who was so helpful in so many ways, and the outstanding staff of this committee, the Government Reform Committee. There is none better on the Hill, perhaps in the history of the Hill, so we are very proud of their work. Finally, let me thank my personal staff, my legislative director, Cicely Simpson. She has been a tireless champion of this bill, and even her predecessor, Anne Kim. Sadly, this good government measure has taken years to come to the floor and to be passed by the House of Representatives, but now we're making progress, and the Federal taxpayer will benefit as a result. Now, why do I say this is such a good government measure? There are some 58 IGs scattered throughout the Federal Government. They are the fiscal watchdogs for the taxpayer. They are the first line of defense against fraud, waste and mismanagement in Federal Government. These IGs and their staff save many, many times more money than their salary cost or their benefit cost. These are the folks who see the fraud first and catch it before it gets too big. Let me give you an example. In today's Washington Post, there is a new GAO study that comes out and it says, Federal officials too often flying first and business class, GAO finds, their leg room and your tax dollars. The GAO has found that $146 million was spent just in the last year for improper Federal first class and business travel. They could go through agency after agency naming executives who have abused the Federal credit card. This is an outrage. Now, by Federal standards, this is a relatively small outrage, but this is the sort of stuff that needs to be caught and caught early. This is also why we need Inspector General independence, because they're not going to be popular when they point out to their agency head or other senior officials in Federal Government that they shouldn't have been flying first class. That endangers the IG's position because that is not a popular thing to do. One of the folks here was caught flying his entire family of eight from Washington, D.C. to Eastern Europe first class. That's wrong. And I'm sure the Federal executive wanted to take his whole family first class, but these are Federal tax dollars at stake. So this is a very important bill. It is very important to update the original IG legislation. It has been on the books since 1978. Problems have occurred since then, and now we will fix those problems. Now, it has been noted here today by the ranking member, and I appreciate his courage in opposing the administration veto on this, the veto threat. A SAP has been issued, a Statement of Administration Policy, and in my opinion, at least, the grounds for this threatened veto are remarkably flimsy. So I hope that the Members listening back in their offices and their staff, particularly across the aisle, will pay close attention to the reasons that the administration says it objects to this reform legislation and to figure out whether those reasons are really valid. There are two fundamental grounds. First of all, they object to ``for cause'' dismissal. I think perhaps the Bush administration feels this is somehow aimed at them. It's not. Everyone knows that by the time this legislation is fully administered, the next administration will be in place. This legislation is really designed to help all administrations, whatever their political stripe. So it's very important to realize that the ``for cause'' language that the administration objects to has already been removed at the urging of the ranking member, due to his excellent amendment in committee, for half of the IG agencies. It only remains for the Cabinet-level agencies. Why? Because those folks should have a 7-year term and have full political independence so that they can make the tough calls, even if it means denying a Cabinet Secretary first-class airfare to Europe. They need independence. The second grounds that the administration has posed for objecting to this legislation is they shouldn't have separate budget submissions. Now, I was down eating lunch with one of my colleagues a few minutes ago, and he had the mistaken notion that somehow this would be an entire separate budget for the entire agency. That's not true. This is just the IG's own budget for the IG and his or her staff. So that's a very modest request, that the IG cannot be pressured by the agency head. So that, to me, also is a pretty flimsy ground for objecting to this legislation. So, I would urge all Members to take a close look. This is good government legislation. This will save the taxpayer billions of dollars, according to the committee report. Just last year, IG recommendations saved $9.9 billion in audit recommendations and $6.8 billion in investigative recoveries. That's $15 billion-plus for the Federal taxpayer. We need to be saving much more money like this, and IGs and this bill can do it.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I speak as a Blue Dog Democrat, and I'm proud to see progressives and Blue Dogs, Democrats and Republicans coming together on this important good government cause. We've been working on it for 4 years now, and now it's about to pass. We're about to send it to the Senate, hopefully, with a huge vote, because Members on both sides of the aisle can agree that we need to cut out waste, fraud and abuse in government, and there's no better group to do it than our Inspectors General. That's what this bill does, empower Inspectors General. So I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Waxman, for his outstanding work with our ranking member. We've done a great job of moving this and other important legislation before Congress.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina, because he has been an excellent Member of this body for some time and has worked on the Science Committee and has contributed greatly to the work of this body. I am particularly grateful for his work on the IG issue. I want to make it crystal clear to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that the gentleman's amendment essentially makes it easier to fire IGs. I support that. I think the gentleman's reasoning is sound. I also think it is very important that Members on the other side the aisle realize that this largely should eliminate the President's veto threat, because the primary grounds in this Statement of Administration Policy for opposing this bill is that IGs may be too hard to fire. Well, the gentleman's helpful amendment adds additional grounds that makes it easier to get rid of errant IGs if they knowingly violate the law, rule or regulation, if they are guilty of gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds or abuse of authority. So that should obviate the administration's objections to this bill. Mr. Chairman, I hope by accepting the gentleman from North Carolina's amendment we cannot only promote the cause of good government, we can also get the folks at OMB and in the administration to relax and realize what a good bill this is. So I would urge a huge and bipartisan majority vote for this legislation thanks to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, President Bush, having vetoed fewer bills than almost any President in American history, is now talking about vetoing many bills. One of these is the children's health insurance bill, the so-called CHIP or SCHIP piece of legislation. To veto this bill would be a big mistake. One reason is the Senate has already demonstrated it has the votes for an override, and I think in the House it's just a question of time until we have the votes to override. But the key point is this: It's a good bill. And I don't say that lightly. I voted against the first version of the SCHIP legislation that came through the House. I thought it was unaffordable, and over half the bill wasn't for kids at all; it was for senior citizens. This bill is tightly focused on poor children. Poor children, only up to 200 percent of poverty, not the $80,000 you may have been hearing about on talk radio. These are the Tiny Tims of the United States. President Bush should not want to play Ebenezer Scrooge in this play.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the African Methodist Episcopal Church Sunday School Union on the occasion of its 125th anniversary. The Sunday School Union has played a critical role not only in preserving the church's history, but also in educating its members and providing an encouraging vision for the future. For over a century, the Union has been a fine contributor to the Nashville community, to the State of Tennessee, and to many parts of the world that have benefited from this organization's publications and services. As far back as 1818, there grew a call within the African Methodist Episcopal Church for an organization that would produce suitable literature for its youth and would advocate training for its Sunday school teachers. Richard Allen, the church's founder, knew that in order for the church to grow, effective circulation of the information would be essential. In 1847, the A.M.E. Church began considering several proposals for an organization that could achieve these goals. In 1882, after over 60 years of preparation, Reverend Charles Smith presented the final plan to the bishop in Cape May, NJ. The Department of Publications and Book Concern was created, publishing the first Sunday school literature by African-Americans. In a letter to Reverend Smith, Frederick Douglass wrote that the Union ``will doubtless be a luminous point in the moral and intellectual progress of the colored people of the South.'' In 1886, Reverend Smith purchased a five-story brick building on the square in Nashville for the newly founded organization. Madam Speaker, I take great pride in the fact that, since that time, Nashville has been the headquarters for the Sunday School Union. In the years that followed, a number of dedicated and capable men led the Union, They sought to innovate the production process and to improve the quality of the publications. Reverend William Chappelle took over for Reverend Smith in 1900 as secretary-treasurer and served for 8 years. He was followed by Ira Bryant, under whose leadership the Union acquired additional property and purchased a modern printing plant. Then in 1936, E.A Selby headed the Union, and it was during his term that the Department of Publications and the Book Concern merged with the Sunday School Union. Reverend Charles Spivey, Sr., was elected in 1964 and served until his retirement in 1972. Upon the announcement of his retirement, Reverend Spivey made a generous donation of $20,000 to the A.M.E. Church to help support its continued growth. Reverend Henry Belin, Jr., who followed Spivey, secured a new publishing house for the Union. Under his leadership, the Union published not only denominational materials, but also several scholarly works covering topics such as theology and history. Reverend Belin was ordained as a bishop in 1984, and Reverend A. Lee Henderson was elected in his stead. Henderson revamped the Union's publications, giving the Sunday school literature and other publications a new look through the use of brilliant color and creative graphics. In 2000, Reverend Dr. Johnny Barbour was elected. The efforts of Secretary-Treasurer Barbour and of Bishops Philip Cousin, Sr., McKinley Young, Gregory Ingram, and Vashti McKenzie have combined to lead the Union to its current strong state on its 125th anniversary. Because of their passion, the Union can look forward to a bright future. This anniversary marks real accomplishment that years of perseverance have made possible. For decades, the African Methodist Episcopal Sunday School Union has focused its energy and its talent, making itself a first-class publishing institution. Today, the A.M.E. Sunday School Union continues its mission, publishing the highest quality hymnals, study courses, and church materials. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the African Methodist Episcopal Sunday School Union, whose exemplary publications have strengthened the church and have fostered intellectual growth for over a century. I would like to ask the House to join me in extending warm congratulations to the Sunday School Union on its 125th anniversary. May it enjoy many years of continued success.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, whether you are for or against the upcoming farm bill, you should be able to support the Cooper amendment. It will be brought up next to last this afternoon, and everyone should be able to agree on it. First of all, the administration is for it because it coincides with administration reforms. And the chairman of the committee himself has a statement in today's National Journal that says he is going to launch a major national investigation of the crop insurance industry starting next week, after the bill passes. Well, why not start today? Let's clean up this mess today. We can save between 2 and 5 billion of taxpayer dollars that are currently being wasted. Let's save the American farmer. Let's improve this farm bill. Vote for the Cooper amendment this afternoon.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COOPER. I have the highest respect for the gentleman and for all the members of the Agriculture Committee. I am sure this was not intentional. That's why I am trying to correct the problem. When I looked into it, 84 percent of the savings that are in the agriculture bill from crop insurance happened only in year 5. Nothing happens in year 1, 2, 3, 4. Year 5 is the year in which the next agriculture bill will be drafted. It's very unlikely that those cuts will ever occur, when 84 percent of them are back-loaded in year 5. So that was my concern about those cuts. But the larger provision, allowing these collusive discussions and negotiations with the government, surely the gentleman is disturbed by those.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, everyone should be able to support the upcoming Cooper amendment, whether you're for or against the farm bill. It really doesn't make any difference because my amendment doesn't affect 99 percent of what's in the farm bill, but it does affect 1 percent. And what is that? It's called the crop insurance industry, a little known curious part of the insurance world that is completely dominated by 16 fabulously rich companies. These companies, at taxpayer expense, made $2.8 billion in profits, underwriting gains, in the last 5 years. I don't begrudge anyone big profits out in the real world; but when it's at taxpayer subsidy expense, I get a little worried. So what my amendment would do is two things. Number one, it would reform that industry and reform it in the way that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has recommended, and I'm proud that they strongly support my amendment. But it also does something else, and we only found this out yesterday, and this is very important because it could well not only save the bill, it could save the reputation of many of our colleagues in the House because there is a provision in the bill today that I'm sure was unintended. I have no idea how it got in there, how it found a place on page 668 of the bill. It just happens to enrich forever these 16 crop insurance companies. Now, what does that little slender provision do which the Bush administration has already said allows them to collude to raise prices for consumers and the government? That little provision allows them an antitrust exemption, an antitrust exemption that, of course, was never referred to the Judiciary Committee. No one on the Judiciary Committee knows about it. I haven't found anybody on the Agriculture Committee who knew about it, but it's a long-sought goal of the crop insurance industry so that they can collude to price-fix, to bid-rig in their negotiations with the government so they can get even more subsidies, because apparently $2.8 billion in profits in the last 5 years was not enough. So my amendment is the only way to cut out that provision. Unless some of our colleagues are not attuned to antitrust laws, these antitrust obligations are not just wrong. Talking in contract negotiations is supposed to be an open-bidding process, a real free market competition. This sort of behavior is not just wrong; it is criminal, criminal. So unintentionally and apparently unbeknownst to most folks on the committee, we are giving them a license to conduct what would otherwise be criminal antitrust behavior. This is wrong. This is so wrong it should not be part of any of this bill, and I am sure that no one intended it, although it just happens to benefit these 16 companies. Now, these are not bad people who work for these companies; but it's a rotten system, and it doesn't need to be destroyed, but it does need to be reformed; and we need to follow the guidelines of the Bush administration in reforming it because I haven't found anybody else who's willing to take on this task. But surely this can bring us together in a bipartisan fashion to cure this flaw in the bill. Modification to Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Cooper

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, in order to discourage this illegal criminal behavior, I ask unanimous consent for a modification of my amendment so that it can be handled properly according to parliamentary fashion.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who just spoke knows that we discussed this precise matter at dinner last night. He was not caught unawares at all. We discussed it at some length at dinner. Second, it is the prerogative of any Member of this House to defend the honor of this institution. I am personally extremely disappointed that our provision allowing what would otherwise be antitrust violation, wrongful, possibly criminal behavior, would be allowed to be inserted in this bill, apparently without the knowledge of anyone on the committee, certainly not of anyone on the Judiciary Committee. I regret his objection. But my intention is clear. We need to reform crop insurance in America. I only found out about this issue, as the gentleman said correctly, because I am fortunate enough to be a member of the Government Reform Committee. Under the hearings led by Henry Waxman, we did more to uncover abuse in this area than the Agriculture Committee ever did. In fact, when I attended the agriculture hearing, only four members of that committee were present to hear the government witnesses to describe the ongoing abuse in the crop insurance industry, witnesses from the GAO and USDA IG. This is important information that every Member of the House deserves to have, because we should not be party to handing out free antitrust exemptions without anybody knowing about it.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. I thank the gentleman. Madam Chairman, for anyone interested in reforming crop insurance, there are two ways to do it tonight. This way through comprehensive agriculture reform, the Kind amendment, is probably the best way to do it. But there will be another way to do it later on. We need to reform crop insurance. Everyone who has studied it realizes it. The question is when. I suggest the time is now, because there are literally billions of dollars of corporate welfare we can and must be saving starting tonight. These 16 companies, there are only 16 companies, made $2.8 billion, at taxpayer expense, profit in the last 5 years. It's an outrageous system once you look into it. The GAO and others discovered that 40 cents of every dollar that is supposed to go to the farmer, in fact, goes to the insurance middleman. This is not right. We need to get more money to the farmers, not less. Let's reform the crop insurance system. The Kind amendment is the right way to do it. Another way to do it will be the Cooper amendment. Support the Kind amendment.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, the one thing that we should all be able to agree on in this House regarding the upcoming farm bill is the need to reform crop insurance. The folks back home are demanding that we cut Federal spending, and this is not only a great way to do it, it is probably the best way to do it. There are only 16 crop insurance companies in America, but, sadly, each one is addicted to corporate welfare from Washington. Reforming these companies can save at least $2 billion a year without hurting a single farmer. Let's stop these middlemen from taking 40 cents out of every dollar the taxpayers offer to help the American farmer. The Cooper-Waxman-McGovern amendment unites this House, from conservative Blue Dogs to progressive Members. It is a bipartisan approach. We simply adopt the reform proposals of the Bush administration. That is all we do. These are not radical ideas; these are USDA approved. But these ideas will save over $2 billion a year. It won't kill the industry; it will just trim back the massive subsidy flows. Farm bill supporters should also endorse these because they reduce the need for new revenue, and the Agriculture Committee itself recognizes the need for reform. They just want to do it in the next farm bill.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.