To address the time period for consideration of the small issuer exemption.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2011

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture
motion with respect to the motion to proceed to S. 782, the Economic
Development Act, be withdrawn and the Senate adopt the motion to
proceed to S. 782; further, that after the clerk reports the bill, the
committee-reported amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be
considered as original text for the purposes of amendments, the motion
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate; that Senator Tester be recognized to
offer an amendment, followed by Senator Durbin to be recognized to
offer an amendment; following that, Senators Boxer and Inhofe be
allowed to give their opening statements on this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Senator
Inhofe and I have already spoken on the floor. What I would appreciate
is just 2 minutes before we turn to Senator Tester just to set the
stage.
Mr. REID. I think I have protected the Senator in that regard. I want
to get the amendment laid down and the second-degree amendment laid
down. All right.
Mrs. BOXER. All right.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I renew my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 782) to amend the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965 to reauthorize that Act, and for
other purposes.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported
from the Committee on Environment and Public Works, with an amendment,
as follows:
(Insert the part printed in italic.)

[[Page S3525]]

S. 782

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Economic Development
Revitalization Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS.

Section 2 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3121) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3)(C), by inserting ``, including the
location of information technology and manufacturing jobs in
the United States'' after ``investment''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (3) and
inserting the following:
``(3) whether suffering from long-term distress or a sudden
economic dislocation, distressed communities should be
encouraged to promote innovation and entrepreneurship,
including, as appropriate, the support of the formation of
business incubators in economically distressed areas, so as
to help regions to create higher-skill, higher-wage jobs and
foster the participation of those regions in the global
marketplace; and''.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

Section 3(8) of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3122(8)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
established by section 15301(a)(1) of title 40, United States
Code;
``(F) the Northern Border Regional Commission established
by section 15301(a)(3) of title 40, United States Code; and
``(G) the Southwest Border Regional Commission established
by section 15301(a)(2) of title 40, United States Code.''.

SEC. 4. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIPS.

Section 101 of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3131) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting
``economic development districts, university centers,'' after
``multi-State regional organizations,'';
(B) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) encourage and support public-private partnerships for
the formation and improvement of regional economic
development strategies that sustain and promote innovation
and entrepreneurship that is critical to economic
competitiveness across the United States; and''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, innovation,
entrepreneurship, beneficial development,'' after
``infrastructure''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by inserting ``(including economic
development districts)'' after ``local government agencies''.

SEC. 5. ENCOURAGEMENT OF CERTAIN COORDINATION.

Section 102 of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3132) is amended--
(1) by striking ``In accordance with'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) In General.--In accordance with''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Governmental Cooperation.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized and
encouraged to consult and cooperate with other agencies,
including representatives of the Federal Government, State
and local governments, and consortia of governmental
organizations, that can assist in addressing challenges and
capitalize on opportunities that require intergovernmental
coordination.
``(2) Labor.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall cooperate with the Secretary of Labor to support
economic and workforce development strategies and the
promotion of regional innovation clusters.''.

SEC. 6. ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN THE PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM.

Section 201(a) of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3141) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) other activities the conduct of which the Secretary
determines would be necessary or useful to support the
establishment and operation of those facilities on an ongoing
basis, including--
``(A) related planning, technical assistance, and business
development assistance to enable the recipient to bring
together regional assets and encourage entrepreneurial
development; and
``(B) to the extent needed to support entrepreneurial
development, revolving loan funds pursuant to section 209.''.

SEC. 7. GRANTS FOR PLANNING AND GRANTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPENSES.

Section 203 of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3143) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(B) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) formulating and implementing an economic development
program that includes systematic efforts to reduce
unemployment and increase incomes by fostering innovation and
entrepreneurship;
``(5) fostering regional collaboration among local
jurisdictions and organizations; and
``(6) facilitating a stakeholder process that assists the
community or region in creating an economic development
vision that takes into account local and regional assets
(including natural, social, community, and geographical
resources) and global economic change.'';
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (4)--
(i) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) support development practices that--
``(i) enhance energy and water efficiency;
``(ii) reduce the dependence of the United States on
foreign oil; and
``(iii) encourage efficient coordination and leveraging of
public and private investments.''; and
(B) in paragraph (5), by striking ``subsection shall'' and
all that follows through the end of the paragraph and
inserting the following: ``subsection shall--
``(A) submit to the Secretary an annual report on the
planning process assisted under this subsection; and
``(B) provide a copy of each annual report to each economic
development district within the State.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Additional Amounts To Address Severe Need.--In
determining the amount of funds to provide a recipient for
planning assistance under this section, the Secretary shall
take into account those recipients located in regions that
are--
``(1) eligible for an investment rate of 80 percent or
higher; or
``(2) experiencing severe need due to long-term economic
deterioration or sudden and severe economic distress.
``(f) Encouraging Planning Assistance on a Broader Regional
Scale.--In order to encourage district organizations to
develop regional economic competitiveness strategies on a
broader basis in collaboration with other district
organizations and entities outside the confines of a single
economic development district, the Secretary may increase--
``(1) the Federal share otherwise applicable to the
recipients; or
``(2) the amount of Federal assistance to the
recipients.''.

SEC. 8. COST SHARING.

(a) Federal Share.--Section 204(a) of the Public Works and
Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3144(a)) is
amended by striking ``shall not exceed--'' and all that
follows through the end of the subsection and inserting
``shall not exceed 50 percent, except as otherwise expressly
provided in this Act.''.
(b) Increase in Federal Share.--Section 204(c) of the
Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
3144(c)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as
paragraphs (2) through (4), respectively;
(2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1)) the following:
``(1) Relative needs of an area.--
``(A) 150-percent higher unemployment rate.--In the case of
a grant made in an area for which the 24-month unemployment
rate is at least 150 percent of the national average or the
per capita income is not more than 70 percent of the national
average, the Secretary may increase the Federal share above
the percentage specified in subsection (a) up to 60 percent
of the cost of the project.
``(B) 175-percent higher unemployment rate.--In the case of
a grant made in an area for which the 24-month unemployment
rate is at least 175 percent of the national average or the
per capita income is not more than 60 percent of the national
average, the Secretary may increase the Federal share above
the percentage specified in subsection (a) up to 70 percent
of the cost of the project.
``(C) 200-percent higher unemployment rate.--In the case of
a grant made in an area for which the 24-month unemployment
rate is at least 200 percent of the national average or the
per capita income is not more than 50 percent of the national
average, the Secretary may increase the Federal share above
the percentage specified in subsection (a) up to 80 percent
of the cost of the project.
``(D) Additional criteria.--The Secretary may establish
eligibility criteria in addition to the criteria described in
this paragraph to address areas impacted by severe
outmigration, sudden and severe economic dislocations, and
other economic circumstances, on the condition that a Federal
share established for such eligibility criteria shall not
exceed 80 percent.'';
(3) in paragraph (2) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--
(A) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall''; and
(B) by inserting ``to 75 percent of the cost of the
project, and may increase'' after ``subsection (a)''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Federally declared disaster areas.--In the case of a
grant for an area with respect to which a major disaster or

[[Page S3526]]

emergency has been declared under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq.) during the 18-month period ending on the date on
which the Federal share is determined, the Secretary may
increase the Federal share above the percentage specified in
subsection (a) up to 100 percent of the cost of the
project.''.

SEC. 9. GRANTS FOR TRAINING, RESEARCH, AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE.

Section 207(a) of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3147(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or underemployment''
and inserting ``, outmigration, or underemployment, or in
assisting in the location of information technology and
manufacturing jobs in the United States''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (I) as subparagraph (J);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (H) the following:
``(I) a peer exchange program to promote industry-leading
practices and innovations relating to the organizational
development, program delivery, and regional initiatives of
economic development districts; and''.

SEC. 10. ENHANCEMENT OF RECIPIENT FLEXIBILITY TO DEAL WITH
PROJECT ASSETS.

(a) Particular Community Assistance.--Section 209(c) of the
Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
3149(c)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``injured'' and inserting ``impacted'';
(2) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) military base closures, realignments, or mission
growth, defense contractor reductions in force, or Department
of Energy defense-related funding reductions, for help in--
``(A) diversifying the economies of the communities; or
``(B) otherwise supporting the economic adjustment
activities of the Secretary of Defense through projects to be
carried out on Federal Government installations or elsewhere
in the communities;''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
``(5) the loss of information technology, manufacturing,
natural resource-based, agricultural, or service sector jobs,
for reinvesting in and diversifying the economies of the
communities.''.
(b) Revolving Loan Fund Program Flexibility.--Section
209(d) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of
1965 (42 U.S.C. 3149(d)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (4) as
paragraphs (3) through (5), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Comments.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall periodically solicit
from the individuals and entities described in subparagraph
(B)--
``(i) comments regarding the guidelines and performance
requirements for the revolving loan fund program; and
``(ii) recommendations for improving the performance of the
program and grantees under the program.
``(B) Description of individuals and entities.--The
individuals and entities referred to in subparagraph (A)
are--
``(i) the public; and
``(ii) in particular, revolving loan fund grantees,
national experts, and employees of Federal agencies with
knowledge of international, national, regional, and statewide
trends, innovations, and noteworthy practices relating to
business development finance, including public and private
lending and technical assistance intermediaries.'';
(3) in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (5) (as redesignated
by paragraph (1)), by striking ``paragraph (2)(C)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (3)(C)''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Conversion of project assets.--
``(A) Request.--If a recipient determines that a revolving
loan fund established using assistance provided under this
section is no longer needed, or that the recipient could make
better use of the assistance in light of the current economic
development needs of the recipient if the assistance was made
available to carry out any other project that meets the
requirements of this Act, the recipient may submit to the
Secretary a request to approve the conversion of the
assistance.
``(B) Methods of conversion.--A recipient request to
convert assistance that is approved under subparagraph (A)
may accomplish the conversion by--
``(i) selling to a third party any assets of the applicable
revolving loan fund; or
``(ii) retaining repayments of principal and interest
amounts on loans provided through the applicable revolving
loan fund.
``(C) Requirements.--
``(i) Sale.--

``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), a recipient
shall use the net proceeds from a sale of assets under
subparagraph (B)(i) to pay any portion of the costs of 1 or
more projects that meet the requirements of this Act.
``(II) Treatment.--For purposes of subclause (I), a project
described in that subclause shall be considered to be
eligible under section 301.

``(ii) Retention of repayments.--Retention by a recipient
of any repayment under subparagraph (B)(ii) shall be carried
out in accordance with a strategic reuse plan approved by the
Secretary that provides for the increase of capital over time
until sufficient amounts (including interest earned on the
amounts) are accumulated to fund other projects that meet the
requirements of this Act.
``(D) Terms and conditions.--The Secretary may require such
terms and conditions regarding a proposed conversion of the
use of assistance under this paragraph as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate.
``(E) Expediency requirement.--The Secretary shall ensure
that any assistance intended to be converted for use pursuant
to this paragraph is used in an expeditious manner.
``(7) Program administration.--The Secretary may allocate
not more than 2 percent of the amounts made available for
grants under this section for the development and maintenance
of an automated tracking and monitoring system to ensure the
proper operation and financial integrity of the revolving
loan program established under this section.''.

SEC. 11. RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM.

Section 218 of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3154d) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Definition of Renewable Energy Site.--In this
section, the term `renewable energy site' means a brownfield
site that is redeveloped through the incorporation of 1 or
more renewable energy technologies, including, but not
limited to, solar, wind, and geothermal technologies.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``brightfield'' and inserting ``renewable energy''; and
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``solar energy
technologies'' and inserting ``renewable energy technologies,
including, but not limited to, solar, wind, and geothermal
technologies''; and
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ``2004 through 2008''
and inserting ``2011 through 2015''.

SEC. 12. ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

(a) Amendment.--Title II of the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3141 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 219. ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

``In administering programs under this Act, the Secretary
shall support activities that employ economic development
practices that--
``(1) enhance energy and water efficiency; and
``(2) reduce the dependence of the United States on foreign
oil.''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--The table of contents of the
Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
3121 et seq.) is amended by adding after section 218 the
following:

``Sec. 219. Energy efficiency and economic development.''.

SEC. 13. COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
IMPROVEMENTS.

Section 302 of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3162) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and opportunities''
after ``problems'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and private'' and
inserting ``, private, and nonprofit''; and
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--

(I) by inserting ``and opportunities'' after ``economic
problems'';
(II) by striking ``promotes the use'' and inserting
``promotes the effective use''; and
(III) by striking ``balances'' and inserting ``optimizes'';
and

(ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and take advantage
of the opportunities'' before the period at the end; and
(2) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``, State, or
locally'' after ``federally''.

SEC. 14. DESIGNATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS.

Section 401 of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3171) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(c) Operations.--
``(1) In general.--Each economic development district shall
engage in the full range of economic development activities
included in the list contained in the comprehensive economic
development strategy of the economic development district
that has been approved by the Economic Development
Administration, including--
``(A) coordinating and implementing economic development
activities in the economic development district;
``(B) carrying out economic development research, planning,
implementation, and advisory functions identified in the
comprehensive economic development strategy; and
``(C) coordinating the development and implementation of
the comprehensive economic development strategy with other
Federal, State, local, and private organizations.
``(2) Contracts.--An economic development district may
elect to enter into contracts for services to accomplish the
activities described in paragraph (1).''.

[[Page S3527]]

SEC. 15. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER PERSONS AND AGENCIES.

Section 503(a) of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3193(a)) is amended by inserting ``,
outmigration,'' after ``regional unemployment''.

SEC. 16. NOTIFICATION OF REORGANIZATION.

Section 507 of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3197) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Not later than'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) Notification.--Not later than''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) State of Montana.--The State of Montana shall be
served by the Seattle office of the Economic Development
Administration.''.

SEC. 17. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

Section 604(c)(2) of the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3214(c)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) may be used for administrative expenses incident to
the projects associated with the transfers to the extent that
the expenses do not exceed--
``(i) 3 percent, in the case of projects not involving
construction; and
``(ii) 5 percent, in the case of projects involving
construction; and''.

SEC. 18. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.

Title VI of the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3211 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:

``SEC. 613. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.

``(a) Expected Period of Best Efforts.--
``(1) Establishment.--To carry out the purposes of this
Act, before providing investment assistance for a
construction project under this Act, the Secretary shall
establish the expected period during which the recipient of
the assistance shall make best efforts to achieve the
economic development objectives of the assistance.
``(2) Treatment of property.--To obtain the best efforts of
a recipient during the period established under paragraph
(1), during that period--
``(A) any property that is acquired or improved, in whole
or in part, using investment assistance under this Act shall
be held in trust by the recipient for the benefit of the
project; and
``(B) the Secretary shall retain an undivided equitable
reversionary interest in the property.
``(3) Termination of federal interest.--
``(A) In general.--Beginning on the date on which the
Secretary determines that a recipient has fulfilled the
obligations of the recipient for the applicable period under
paragraph (1), taking into consideration the economic
conditions existing during that period, the Secretary may
terminate the reversionary interest of the Secretary in any
applicable property under paragraph (2)(B).
``(B) Alternative method of termination.--
``(i) In general.--On a determination by a recipient that
the economic development needs of the recipient have changed
during the period beginning on the date on which investment
assistance for a construction project is provided under this
Act and ending on the expiration of the expected period
established for the project under paragraph (1), the
recipient may submit to the Secretary a request to terminate
the reversionary interest of the Secretary in property of the
project under paragraph (2)(B) before the date described in
subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Approval.--The Secretary may approve a request of a
recipient under clause (i) if--

``(I) in any case in which the request is submitted during
the 10-year period beginning on the date on which assistance
is initially provided under this Act for the applicable
project, the recipient repays to the Secretary an amount
equal to 100 percent of the fair market value of the pro rata
Federal share of the project; or
``(II) in any case in which the request is submitted after
the expiration of the 10-year period described in subclause
(I), the recipient repays to the Secretary an amount equal to
the fair market value of the pro rata Federal share of the
project as if that value had been amortized over the period
established under paragraph (1), based on a straight-line
depreciation of the project throughout the estimated useful
life of the project.

``(b) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may establish
such terms and conditions under this section as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate, including by extending the
period of a reversionary interest of the Secretary under
subsection (a)(2)(B) in any case in which the Secretary
determines that the performance of a recipient is
unsatisfactory.
``(c) Previously Extended Assistance.--With respect to any
recipient to which the term of provision of assistance was
extended under this Act before the date of enactment of this
section, the Secretary may approve a request of the recipient
under subsection (a) in accordance with the requirements of
this section to ensure uniform administration of this Act,
notwithstanding any estimated useful life period that
otherwise relates to the assistance.
``(d) Conversion of Use.--If a recipient of assistance
under this Act demonstrates to the Secretary that the
intended use of the project for which assistance was provided
under this Act no longer represents the best use of the
property used for the project, the Secretary may approve a
request by the recipient to convert the property to a
different use for the remainder of the term of the Federal
interest in the property, subject to the condition that the
new use shall be consistent with the purposes of this Act.
``(e) Status of Authority.--The authority of the Secretary
under this section is in addition to any authority of the
Secretary pursuant to any law or grant agreement in effect on
the date of enactment of this section.''.

SEC. 19. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 701(a) of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3231(a)) is amended by striking
``expended--'' and all that follows through paragraph (5) and
inserting ``expended, $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2011 through 2015.''.

SEC. 20. FUNDING FOR GRANTS FOR PLANNING AND GRANTS FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

Section 704 of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3234) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 704. FUNDING FOR GRANTS FOR PLANNING AND GRANTS FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), of the
amounts made available under section 701 for each fiscal
year, there shall be made available to provide grants under
section 203 an amount equal to not less than the lesser of--
``(1) 12 percent; and
``(2) $31,000,000.
``(b) Subject to Total Appropriations.--For any fiscal
year, the amount made available pursuant to subsection (a)
shall be increased to--
``(1) if the total amount made available under section
701(a) for the fiscal year is equal to or greater than
$291,000,000, an amount equal to the greater of--
``(A) $32,000,000; and
``(B) 11 percent of the total amount made available under
section 701(a) for the fiscal year;
``(2) if the total amount made available under section
701(a) for the fiscal year is equal to or greater than
$330,000,000, an amount equal to the greater of--
``(A) $33,000,000; and
``(B) 10 percent of the total amount made available under
section 701(a) for the fiscal year;
``(3) if the total amount made available under section
701(a) for the fiscal year is equal to or greater than
$340,000,000, an amount equal to the greater of--
``(A) $34,000,000; and
``(B) 10 percent of the total amount made available under
section 701(a) for the fiscal year; or
``(4) if the total amount made available under section
701(a) for the fiscal year is equal to or greater than
$350,000,000, an amount equal to the greater of--
``(A) $35,000,000; and
``(B) 10 percent of the total amount made available under
section 701(a) for the fiscal year.''.

SEC. 21. REPORT ON DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS.

Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Government Accountability Office shall submit to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a
report that describes a list of the specific programs and
portions of specific programs of other Federal agencies that
are duplicative of programs or portions of programs
administered by the Economic Development Administration,
including the programs or portions of programs carried out
by--
(1) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(2) the Department of Agriculture; and
(3) the Small Business Administration.

The committee amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

Amendment No. 392

(Purpose: To improve the regulatory structure for electronic debit card
transactions, and for other purposes)

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk I would
like to call up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Montana [Mr. Tester], for himself and Mr.
Corker, Mrs. Hagan, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blunt, Mr.
Carper, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Coons, proposes an amendment
numbered 392.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, is it appropriate that I speak for 2
minutes?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object. The consent agreement was he would
offer his amendment, Senator Durbin would offer his amendment, and then
Senator Boxer, the chairman of the committee, would be recognized. That
is the order.

[[Page S3528]]

Mr. TESTER. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 393 to Amendment No. 392

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an
amendment numbered 393 to amendment No. 392.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To address the time period for consideration of the small
issuer exemption)

On page 10, line 9, strike ``2 years'' and insert ``one
year''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, over the last month, Senator Corker and I
have worked with several Senators who are concerned about the
unintended consequences of the debit interchange amendment the Senate
adopted last year. We voted against that amendment. We were concerned
about the impact of those consequences on folks--especially across
rural America--who rely on their small local banks and credit unions.
The Federal Reserve's rules based on this amendment are about to go
into effect, and the result is going to be bad for small banks and
credit unions and ultimately for the whole country but especially rural
America. Even Chairman Bernanke admits that the rule could ``result in
some smaller banks being less profitable or even failing.''
I am proud to be joined in this effort by Senators Crapo, Bennet,
Hagan, and several others--all folks who share my concern about the
impact of debit interchange fees on our local banks.
Senator Corker and I began with a concern that local community banks
and credit unions would end up being subject to the same one-size-fits-
all regulation designed to address the excesses of some of the world's
largest financial institutions. As I have said over and over, those big
Wall Street banks are going to be just fine. They have plenty of
sources for their revenue. No one needs to shed a tear for them. But
the Main Street banks and credit unions will not be OK if these rules
are implemented.
Let me give you one example. Community First Credit Union has two
branches--one in Miles City and one in Ekalaka, MT. Those two towns are
about as far away from Wall Street as you can get. Ekalaka, in fact, is
pretty far away from just about everywhere. But last year the Senate
approved an amendment that was aimed at holding the big banks
accountable for the fees they charge when you swipe your debit card at
Walmart. Folks were promised we would have a split system where big
banks such as Bank of America would get one interchange rate and
Community First Credit Union would be able to get a higher rate. The
reality is going to be quite different. Without changes, the small guys
like Community First will not see this promised benefit.
This so-called two-tiered system will not work under the current law.
That is not my opinion; it is the opinion of folks who regulate these
small banks.
What Ben Bernanke, Sheila Bair, and others say is that market forces
will inevitably push the rate down to the lowest level. That push has
already started. Retailers are seeking laws at the State level to give
themselves the freedom to deny purchases with debit cards that have a
higher interchange fee. Given the amount of money the big box retailers
are putting into their lobbying campaigns, it is only a matter of time
before they are successful. So what happens to the consumer who does
her banking at a small community bank or credit union? These are the
folks I am concerned about because they are the majority of Montanans.
Unfortunately, they are going to get stuck with higher fees, with no
access to capital or, even worse, no banks at all.
Let's be clear: If any single one of the regulators--whether it be
the Chairman of the Federal Reserve or the Chair of the FDIC or the
Comptroller of the Currency--had told me the interchange system
proposed last year would actually protect small banks and credit
unions, we would not be here. But that is not what happened.
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve said that without changes, the
system that will be implemented on July 21 will cause small
institutions--the kinds of banks that serve most Montanans--to suffer
and some could even fail. The Chair of the FDIC said that
unquestionably these banks would be hurt. The credit union
administrator agrees. Perhaps they will make up for those losses by
raising rates on checking accounts. Maybe it will be higher fees when a
small business comes in looking for a loan to expand. That will surely
help the biggest banks to capture more of the market share at the
expense of the smaller banks like Community First.
This week, we have a chance to stop and rewrite these rules before
they hurt those small banks, before they hurt those small credit
unions, before the new rules hurt the consumers and the small
businesses in rural America that prefer to do their banking business
with folks who know them and who are a part of their communities.
Rural America is what I know. It is where I am from. As I have
watched consolidation in the agriculture industry and have watched
rural America get smaller and smaller, I am not about to let this
happen in the financial services industry. Fewer banking options in
rural America is a death knell for rural America, and that is where we
are headed today. One way to stop this from happening is for us to slow
down and fix the debit interchange regulations so the small banks that
serve rural America do not get hit.
We also know how dangerous it is to set a price for a product without
understanding all the costs that go into that product. Small business
owners certainly could not stay in business if they did not understand
their own costs. Likewise, if we are going to be regulating debit
interchange fees, we need to understand all the costs associated with
debit transactions and debit programs.
When we voted on this amendment last year, we thought we were voting
to allow the Federal Reserve to consider all costs. However, the
reality is that last year's interchange amendment limited the costs
that could be included. Some fraud costs were allowed to be included
but others were not. Some technology costs were included but others
not. The result is a proposed Fed rule that sets the debit interchange
rate at 7 or 12 cents for all transactions--a level most folks agree is
too low.
I am sure the big box retailers think 7 cents or 12 cents is too
high. In fact, they have argued that the rate should be closer to 4
cents. I have heard from many of my retailers in my home State, and
some have said 12 cents is probably too low, and they understand you
absolutely cannot set the price of doing business below what it costs
to do business.
If we are going to be regulating this market, we must do it in a way
that is fair, in a way that still directs the Fed to determine what is
``reasonable and proportionate'' but gives them the discretion to look
at all of the costs associated with debit transactions. That does not
mean executive pay. That does not mean the cost of a corporate jet or a
special rewards program. All the costs will still need to be justified,
but the Fed will not be limited arbitrarily in what they can look at.
That is why my friend Senator Corker and I are offering this
amendment today. This amendment is a compromise, and that is how we do
business in Montana. We find the common ground and we work together to
do what is best.
Senator Corker and I first proposed a 2-year delay of the Fed's rules
to allow adequate time to study the impact on small banks and rewrite
the rules based on what we learn in that study. The Fed tells us now
that it may be able to do this joint study in 6 months. So that is what
our amendment proposes--just 6 months to study whether the rules that
will govern the

[[Page S3529]]

debit interchange marketplace can protect small banks.
In this amendment, we outline the topics the study should address,
including taking a closer look at all of the actual costs associated
with debit card transactions, the impact on consumers, and whether an
exemption for small banks as proposed in the interchange amendment last
year will actually work.
If, after the study, at least two of the agencies involved determine
that the current rules do not take into account all costs, that the
rules may harm consumers, or that the exemption meant to protect small
banks and credit unions will not work, then the Fed has 6 more months
to rewrite the rules considering all costs.
That is 1 year to address our concerns and to make sure rural banks
do not get wiped out by this rule. If the agencies find that the rules
consider all costs, consumers would not be harmed, and that the small
issuer exemption will work, then the current rules pending would move
forward.
What about the little guys? We put into place a process that will
address any potential impact on small issuers. My contention has long
been that market forces would drive fees for small issuers to the
lowest rate. Since we cannot fully understand how the market will
operate until interchange regulation is enacted, we direct the Fed to
report the actual impact of the market on small issuers a year after
the rules are implemented.
The Fed has to present a report to Congress and every other year
thereafter on the impact of a regulated market on small issuers. Most
importantly, the report will include recommendations for how to resolve
any potential harm to small issuers and to enforce the exemption.
This will help make sure that when Congress acts, we will have the
facts about how we would impact small banks. That means the regulatory
process is over in 12 months, and Congress does not have to revisit
this issue. Let me say it again. Congress does not have to revisit this
issue.
At the end of the entire process, there is still a regulated market
for debit interchange fees. That is what the Senate voted for last
year, loudly and clearly, and we preserve the regulated marketplace,
which is what Senator Durbin and others have been calling for.
We will have regulated the marketplace once we fully understand all
the costs relative to debit transactions and the impact of these rules
on consumers and small issuers. That is what the majority of the Senate
voted for last year, and that is what we will get. But it will be a
regulatory framework that does not penalize small banks and credit
unions and is fair by not setting prices below costs. When every
banking regulator who has a role in overseeing the debit interchange
market tells you that Congress has created a system that will not work
in the way that was intended, then we ought to listen. Today's debit
interchange market is not fair for some retailers, so I understand
their desire to see it fixed.
But the answer is not to create a new system that is unfair to the
small banks in Montana and other parts of rural America. The amendment
the Senate approved last year was designed to punish Wall Street. But
the result may be the bank in Ekalaka and the other banks all over
rural America that will lose customers and potentially even fail.
Let's measure twice and cut once. Let's do it quickly, but let's make
sure we get this right and that if we are going to create regulations,
we are doing it in a way that is fair and consistent with the intent.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak favorably toward the
Tester-Corker amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Tennessee if he
would mind yielding and indicate how long he might be speaking?
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, 8 minutes max--8 to 10.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. CORKER. I do wish to say that my friend from Montana has been a
great partner in this effort. I know lots of times people use a lot of
rhetoric down here to talk about what is happening and the fact that
anyone who might be proposing this type of amendment might be
supporting Wall Street institutions. But I think you can see that my
friend from Montana is anything but Wall Street. Certainly, I think all
of us are just trying to come up with a solution that makes sense.
I wish to give a brief history. Dodd-Frank came to the floor last
year. There were numbers of amendments to the bill. One of the
amendments that came to the floor was called the Durbin amendment. It
was an amendment that had no hearings. A lot of us--people such as
myself who are opposed to price fixing--what the Durbin amendment said
was that the Fed was going to set prices on debit transactions--were
opposed to it. On the other hand, there were numbers of people in this
Chamber who supported Durbin because they were frustrated with where
retailers were and their inability to negotiate prices with Visa and
some of the other companies. So they thought this might be a type of
solution to that dilemma of not being able to have appropriate
negotiations.
I think what all have understood, regardless of where they are on
this issue now, is that the Durbin amendment did not actually give the
Fed the ability to set prices as it relates to cost on debit cards. It
only allowed certain costs--in other words, the incremental cost of a
transaction. I think the retailers that I know are very strongly
supportive of the Durbin language know--they all tell me this anyway in
private--they could not operate under that same scenario.
But they are frustrated. So what Tester and I and others--Mike Crapo,
who voted for Durbin, I might add; Kay Hagan, who voted for Durbin;
Senator Bennet, who voted for Durbin--what people have realized is that
the Durbin amendment is way too narrow and does not allow appropriate
costs to be considered by the Fed when setting these rates.
So my friend from Montana who has numbers of rural institutions--I
have the same in my State--we all realized this is going to be highly
detrimental to the financial system. So what we tried to do is come up
with a compromise that works for both sides.
As I mentioned, Senator Crapo, Senator Hagan, Senator Brown, Senator
Carper, numbers of people have gotten involved in this and have come up
with a one-vote strategy. I know numbers of people want to vote and get
this behind them. I understand this is one of those issues where we
have retailers on one side, we have bankers on the other side, and we
feel, in some ways, we are trying to deal--we are trying to pick
between friends. What I think we are trying to do is put a good, sound
policy in place, a place that the retailers should be very happy
because they are going to end up with a regulated market--something,
candidly, I do not support.
But I think the Senator from Illinois has been very successful on
that front. Basically, the retailers win on this because they are going
to end up with something that is regulated. They feel as if they do not
have the ability to negotiate with Visa and other institutions. So now
the Fed is going to be setting pricing.
On the other hand, those Senators--most Senators in this body who
understand economics, understand business--also know you cannot run a
business if you are only going to change the incremental costs. It
would be akin to a pizza parlor selling pizza, literally, and only
being able to charge for the dough it takes to make the pizza, not to
be able to charge for electricity, not to be able to charge for the
other things it takes to actually run that particular place.
I think we have come up with something that is a good middle-of-the-
road solution. The Fed is directed to consider both fixed costs and
incremental costs, something any retailer or any business in America
would want to be considered if they were being regulated. We have also
come up with a solution that allows the Fed to look back every 2 years
and make sure those smaller institutions Senator Tester is so concerned
about, and I am so concerned about, that the Fed look at those to
ensure that every 2 years these policies that are being put into

[[Page S3530]]

place do not disproportionately negatively affect those institutions.
If so, they recommend--they do not prescribe, they recommend to
Congress--possible legislative remedies.

As the Senator mentioned, I think we should measure twice, cut once.
I think this ends up putting this issue in the place that is fair. I am
feeling momentum building around this. I will say the Senator from
Illinois is an outstanding legislator. I think he has done a very good
job championing this issue. I do not think we would be where we are on
this issue without the efforts he has put forth.
But I think he realizes possibly that by not keeping in place all
costs as it relates to a transaction, what you are doing is limiting
the availability of that to the public down the road. You limit
innovation. You limit the amount of technology investment that goes
toward each transaction.
I hope very soon to be paying my bills by just swiping my electronic
device in front of a cash register. I think we all see us moving toward
this. But what the Durbin amendment does now, in the form it is in, is
basically say to these institutions, when you conduct these types of
transactions, debit transactions, you are going to lose money every
time you do it. I do not think that is where we want to be.
Again, there are going to be some unintended consequences whenever
there is a bill the size of Dodd-Frank that passes. Surely, all of us
can come together and figure out more commonsense ways of solving
problems such as this when they arise. I would have so to say that I
like the way this body is functioning around this issue. We have people
on both sides of the aisle who have realized this policy is one that is
detrimental. We have people on both sides of the aisle who have tried
to work together. We have three iterations now of Corker-Tester to try
to get it in a place that is in the middle of the road, that takes into
account the concern of retailers, and takes into account the concern of
small credit unions and small banks around this country that are going
to be devastated, as all of the regulators have said.
This is unusual, by the way. We talk about regulatory overreach in
this body. This is a case where we have given regulators the ability to
regulate, and they are saying, please, do not make us do this. This is
bad policy. That rarely happens in Washington. But it has happened in
this case.
Out of respect for the tremendous amount of work so many people have
put into coming up with a slightly better solution than the Senator
from Illinois, who worked so hard on this issue, to put it forth
originally, I would ask every Member to please, whether you end up
voting with us or not--and I hope you will--please sit down for 10
minutes, just 10 minutes, and allow your staff to at least explain. I
know a lot of people have made commitments 10 days ago, 1 week ago, to
be on the other side of this. But I think most people have not seen the
last iteration that puts this in the middle of the road, that keeps
debit cards regulated but gives the regulators the ability to at least
consider the costs that any normal business has when it functions.
I thank you for the time to talk about it. I thank the Senator from
Illinois, who looks like he is getting ready to speak. I thank him for
the way he has conducted himself. As a matter of fact, I think we have
come up with such a great solution I would hope the Senator from
Illinois would consider being a cosponsor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. To my friend from Tennessee, not a chance. My wife over
the weekend, in Springfield, said: I would like you to clean the
garage. I said: Well, I have decided to clean half the garage. It is a
compromise. She said: With whom did you compromise? That is what we are
faced with. Senators Corker and Tester have come to the floor and said:
We have a compromise. With whom did you compromise?
It was not with the people who are affected by these debit card fees.
No. They compromised among the banks. The banks all sat down and said:
Let's work this out among us because we are talking about real money.
That is their compromise. It is not a compromise.
What is this all about? The average person listening to this debate
is going to think: What are they fighting over there in the Senate,
this bipartisan battle? What we are talking about is something we all
carry around in our wallets and purses these days, a debit card.
If I take this card and go to a local restaurant--well, let's use a
different one. If I went to a local convenience store and said: I want
to get a pack of chewing gum--Wrigley's because that is based in
Chicago--I want to get a pack of Wrigley's chewing gum, here is my
debit card, they take the debit card these days and they swipe it and
they complete the transaction.
What you do not know, but the merchant knows, is he just lost money
on that because it costs more to the merchant selling the goods to
process the piece of plastic than they could possibly profit on the
goods they are selling. So you wonder, how did it reach this point,
where the use of this piece of plastic costs so much? It reached that
point because the big giants of credit cards, Visa and MasterCard, said
to merchants and retailers all across America: If you want to accept
plastic at your place of business, then you are going to pay us a swipe
fee every time that piece of plastic goes through the reader.
How much is that swipe fee? Turns out it is 1.10 percent, on average.
It does not sound like a lot, but it is. The banks that issue these
cards receive each month in swipe fees from all across the United
States, from convenience stores, restaurants, hotels, charities--if you
gave a donation to Red Cross because of the terrible tragedy that
happened in Joppa, MO, and used your debit card, guess what. Visa and
MasterCard got a percentage of it, the amounts you thought you were
giving to the charity--college book stores, you name it.
Every time you sweep these, it ends up generating, each month, on
average, for the banks across America, $1.3 billion.
Each year, there are more than $15 billion in swipe fees. What did
the merchants have to say about how much they were being charged?
Nothing. Take it or leave it, buddy. If you don't want to pay the swipe
fee, don't take plastic.
Over the years, as you might expect, merchants and retailers said
this is a rotten deal. Not only is this an invisible charge that we
have to add to the cost of doing business on everything, we have no
control over it. We are faced with paying a swipe fee or not accepting
plastic and, in this day and age, imagine how long you would last in
many businesses if you didn't accept debit cards.
So 4 or 5 years ago, I called for a study asking: What is a
reasonable amount to charge? I was opposed, naturally, by the banking
industry. They put out an all-points bulletin to kill the Durbin study
of debit fees. They didn't want to study it. All that could do is put
the spotlight on them. They don't want that to happen. So we waited and
waited and last year we had the Wall Street financial reform bill. I
sat here patiently on the floor saying I want to offer this amendment
to finally come up with a reasonable way to regulate this fee, which is
not a product of competition and isn't transparent or disclosed. The
vote finally came along.
After 25 amendments on Wall Street reform, they decided this vote
would not require a majority, it would require 60 votes, a
supermajority. OK. We won with 64 votes in favor of our position. It
surprised a lot of people. It sure surprised the banks. They didn't
think this Senate, on a bipartisan basis, would hold them accountable
for the fees they are charging on the debit cards.
What do we say in the law? The Federal Reserve--a nonpartisan bank
regulating agency--would have the authority to determine what is a
reasonable and proportional fee for swiping the card, and that fee
would go into effect this July--July 21--1 year after we passed the
law. We said, in the meantime, to anybody who has thoughts, ideas or
comments, send them to the Federal Reserve. They received 11,000-plus
comments. Everybody had an idea. Some didn't like the law, some did--on
and on.
So they came out with a preliminary report--not a rule--in December.
You know what they found? They found

[[Page S3531]]

that the average charge per transaction in the United States was 44
cents and the average cost to the bank for processing the debit
transaction was about 12 cents--one-fourth. So the plot thickens.
It turns out the banks issuing these cards are not only charging this
invisible fee, they are dramatically overcharging merchants and
retailers. Guess what Mr. and Mrs. Consumer. We pay it; we pay it in
additional charges. Even if you go into that store to buy a package of
chewing gum with cash, the price has been raised because they are
expecting you to give plastic instead, and you pay more. So then the
battle was on--whether the Federal Reserve would issue this rule
establishing a more reasonable swipe fee for these debit cards. It is a
big battle.
Imagine, if you will, what it means to the biggest banks in America
when they have on the line $1.3 billion a month. They pulled out all
the stops. A friend of mine--a lobbyist in Washington--said: Praise the
Lord. Come up with some more ideas. This is a full employment
amendment. Everybody in Washington who is a lobbyist is working on this
amendment. We love you to pieces.
The sad reality is, it is coming--maybe--to a close with a vote on
this amendment. But the banks and credit card companies started piling
it on. Let me be fair. The other side did too. The merchants and
retailers said: We want fair treatment, and if we have to fight to
protect this new law, we are going to do that.
Senators Tester of Montana and Corker of Tennessee have offered an
amendment I am about to describe. This is interesting, though. They are
offering this amendment in an effort to stop the Federal Reserve from
issuing a rule that will establish how much that swipe fee is going to
be. How soon would the Fed issue the rule? Within the month, within a
matter of days. They are desperate to get this amendment to the floor
to try to stop the Federal Reserve from saying what is a fair swipe fee
and to protect merchants, retailers, small businesses, and consumers
across America. The banks want to stop them.
There is one other part of the story that is important. We decided
that when we wrote this law, we would give smaller banks, community
banks, and smaller credit unions an exemption. In other words, they are
not covered by the Federal rule.
You say, why? From a consumer's point of view, all the arguments made
still apply.
Well, that is true. But many of these smaller institutions are more
financially vulnerable. I happen to agree with Senators Tester and
Corker. I believe in community banks and local banks and want them to
survive. So we carved them out. Instead, if the value of your bank is
below $10 billion, you will not be affected by this. If the value of
the credit union is below $10 billion, you will not be affected. How
many did we exempt? Out of 7,000 banks in America, only 100 would be
affected by the law. Out of 7,000 credit unions, only 3 would be
affected by the law.
Then there is another part of the story. It turns out that the three
biggest banks in America are the ones that make the most money on debit
fees. Each month, they collect more than 50 percent of the debit fees.
What are those banks? Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America.
They have been fighting viciously to stop this rule from going into
effect because there are billions of dollars at stake. They don't want
to lose that income.
Let's have a little trip down memory lane about these banks. Do you
remember a few years ago when these banks got us into the biggest
economic mess in current memory? Did you notice any change in your
savings account or perhaps your IRA--the money you put away for
retirement? I sure did. I think Loretta and I lost about 30 percent of
our value because they were playing games with subprime mortgages, new
derivatives and AIG offices in London and this holy mess ended up being
visited on families, businesses, and consumers across America. We were
in a panic. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, and
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson met with us and said: If you don't do
something immediately, banks all across America are going to fail and
our economy will collapse and not just here but across the world. So
you have to come to their rescue.
We had to come up with a bailout for the banks. Remember that,
taxpayers of America? How did the big three debit card banks do in the
bailout? Chase got $25 billion in taxpayer money because they had acted
so recklessly and endangered their bank, and they needed a helping
hand. Bank of America got $45 billion in taxpayer bailout funds. Wells
Fargo got $25 billion in taxpayer bailout funds. Remember, taxpayers of
America, when the same banks that will profit from these debit card
fees were so desperate that they needed a helping hand from taxpayers
to save their banks? Do you remember how they expressed their gratitude
to us? It was heartwarming. As soon as they could, they called a
meeting of the boards of directors and awarded one another bonuses for
their reckless conduct. It warmed my heart that they were so
appreciative of the taxpayers across America sacrificing with their
taxes to save these big old banks.
Well, I have news for the taxpayers: They are back. They are back
today, and now it is smaller--I will concede that--it is only $15
billion a year. But these same big banks are asking for a handout and a
subsidy from the Senate. Are we going to get shakedown a second time?
That is what this debate is all about. At the end of the day, if this
amendment that is pending on the floor passes, then for at least 1
year--I think way beyond that--these banks will continue to take in
$1.3 billion out of the wallets and purses of consumers across America
every time a person uses one of these plastic cards. I don't think that
is fair. I don't think it is right. I think there is a way to deal with
this honestly. I will tell you what it is.
Let the Federal Reserve issue its rule this month. They will come out
with it. Let's look at it. Nobody knows what they are going to say. I
have heard both Senators who introduced this amendment say: Well, we
cannot accept this rule. They don't know what the rule is, and neither
do I. It has not been published yet. At a minimum, should we not see it
before we say it is unacceptable?
I am ready to wait. I trust that the Federal Reserve will do its job.
I think it can produce a good rule--a rule that is fair to consumers,
retailers, small businesses, and the banks too. Senator Corker said the
problem with Durbin's amendment is, he doesn't allow the banks to add
in all the possible charges and costs in a debit card transaction; he
is just allowing them to count the value of the dough and the pizza,
not all the other things they might add in.
No. What we said was that you can charge a fee that is reasonable and
proportional to the cost of the transaction. Pretty simple, right?
Reasonable and proportional. Well, this amendment on the floor decides
to open the door wide. It is no longer reasonable and proportional.
They have full pages describing all the different things the banks can
add in to establish the fee they charge small businesses and consumers.
Are you trusting of these banks to be careful with what they add in? I
am not. I can tell you that when you look at the list of things they
include, it includes executive compensation, because it is about the
costs of the operation of the program, which happens to include a lot
of managers and officers as well. I don't know what else it includes,
but it is wide open.
Here is what the banks have said. Incidentally, I guess it is
somewhat gratifying when your name is associated with an amendment and
you hear it over and over--Chase, for example, wrote to every person
that is a customer in my State of Illinois and said: Beware of the
Durbin amendment. If it goes through, it reduces the debit fee charge
we can charge, and your fees are going up. Your benefits and premiums
are going to go down. Here is what Chase failed to mention--and the
other banks as well. The total amount the Big Three banks take in in a
year from debit cards fees is about a little over--almost half the
total amount collected, about $8 billion a year. So the argument that
JP Diamond and Chase are making is that if you cut our credit card
fees, your fees are going to have to go up, and it is a cost of doing
business. What Mr. Diamond and others in

[[Page S3532]]

that business failed to note is, last year on Wall Street, the banks
awarded, in bonuses, $20.8 billion. So when they argue that an $8
billion loss means fees are going up, oh, really? Or does it mean
bonuses might go down? On behalf of consumers and businesses across
America, that is part of it.
Let me tell you a few things about the pending amendment. It is not a
compromise. Second, it includes costs that cover the whole ballpark,
that they can say we are going to add in the cost of ATM machines to
the debit card fees and pretty soon, get serious, they are right back
up to 44 cents a transaction. That is how it is designed.
They carefully wrote this so there is no effective date for the rule.
It says the Board will decide the effective date. There is no effective
date for this going into effect. That is awful.
Finally, the argument made on the floor over and over is that we just
want to protect the community banks and credit unions. That is why we
are doing all this--not a word in here--I take that back--there is one
reference to these smaller exempt institutions. There are ways--and
they know it--if they wanted to, to have even more protection and
reassurance for the smaller community banks and credit unions. They
didn't include them because that is not what this is about. This is
about all of the banks. Particularly, it is about the giant banks on
Wall Street that have at stake in this amendment $8 billion a year in
profits--$8 billion a year in subsidies through this amendment and
through the second round of bailouts.
This is a good test for the Senate. I don't know how it is going to
end. I won last year, but they have poured it on ever since. The banks
have done everything they can to reverse what we accomplished last
year. It is up to my colleagues now. They have to decide whose side
they will be on. It is simple. They are either going to be on the side
of the banks and credit card companies or on the side of consumers and
businesses all across America, to give them a fighting chance. How many
speeches have we heard on the floor of the Senate about small business?
If we could unleash the power of small business--their expansion and
hiring of more people--we could turn this economy back where it should
be. This will be a direct hit on small businesses all across America if
this pending amendment is enacted.

This is our chance to say to the big banks on Wall Street: If you can
have $20.8 billion in bonuses last year, you are doing quite well,
thank you. Incidentally, one of these banks had a 48-percent increase
in profits. They are doing okay, folks. We don't need a tag day for any
of the Wall Street banks.
Secondly, if you believe in small businesses and merchants and
retailers in your hometowns, stand up for them, fight for them. That is
what they are asking for. That is what this debate is all about.
Let's wait until this rule comes out. Let's defeat this amendment,
and see what the Federal Reserve says. I have given my word--and I will
say it again--to work with any Senator on either side of the aisle. If
we need to have any kind of reassurance or protection added to what we
have done in this law, I am there. As I have said many times, the only
perfect law I am aware of was carried down a mountain on stone tablets
by Senator Moses. The rest of the time we just do our best. If there is
a way to improve it, I will be there.
But at the end of the day, let's finally, finally, finally stand up
for consumers and small businesses across America and say to the Wall
Street banks and Visa and MasterCard: Sorry, this party is over.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Tester-Corker
amendment that, hopefully, will be before us shortly.
I have to say I have just witnessed a great discussion of populism,
and that is, if an institution is making some money, let's take it from
them and give it to others in the name of fairness.
I think everybody knows there certainly are tremendous numbers of
small institutions across America that are very concerned about the
Durbin amendment and its effects--and a number of small retailers. And
there is no question, let's face it, the big boxes, my friends--
Walmart, Home Depot, and Target--have funded this effort, as was
mentioned, on K Street with the lobbyists. There is no question a lot
of the larger financial institutions have funded the effort on the
other side. There is no question. But the people who Senator Tester and
myself and others listen to are those folks who come in from our home
States--the small community banks and credit unions around our country
that are very concerned.
Let me talk about a couple of things. No. 1, the Senator from
Illinois talked about timing. Well, we have been trying to find some
vehicle to attach this amendment to for some time. The fact is, the
Senate hasn't done any business this year. We come in from time to time
and vote on a noncontroversial judge, but we have been trying to find
some vehicle to attach this to, and we have been trying to do that for
months.
Secondly, the Federal Reserve, which has been asked to put forth this
rule, is the one saying what they have been asked to do is not
appropriate. They have testified publicly saying the Durbin amendment
is inappropriate.
Let me describe what the Senator said about reasonable and
proportioned. That means if you went out and built a debit system--you
invested in all the technology, the computers, the marketing, the fraud
prevention, all the things that went into that--the Fed can now look at
setting the price. After you have set all that up, and you are
processing millions of transactions a year, if you send one more
transaction across the wire, what does that cost you--after you have
invested? That is what he is saying about reasonable and proportional.
There is no way any business in America could possibly operate under
that scenario. Again, retailer after retailer after retailer has been
in my office and said: We know the criteria laid out by the Durbin
amendment is absolutely inappropriate. We couldn't function with that
criteria. We don't know of any other way of solving this problem, and
we hate to have the Fed involved in price setting.
So all of us set out to try--many of us set out to try--to solve that
problem. What we have come up with is, in fact, a compromise, and this
is what it says: We agree the debit card industry should be regulated.
We agree retailers are having difficulty in negotiating with Visa and
others. Let's get the Fed to set the prices based on the cost of the
transaction, which do include, I hate to say, some fixed costs in
technology and other kinds of things, such as fraud prevention. The Fed
has asked us to do that.
It is not as if we are usurping the Fed coming in and making a rule.
They have testified publicly the way the Durbin amendment is written it
is going to be terrible for community banks and rural banks.
I think we all know the Senator from Illinois likes to use these
larger institutions, but all of us know the big guys just get bigger--
they just get bigger--when we do these kind of things, and that creates
hardships for the smaller institutions.
The fact that some two-tiered system was set up and won't work--I
mean the FDIC has come in and said, look, you cannot make it work where
the small banks and small credit unions are held harmless. It won't
work. The OCC has come in and said it won't work. Market forces will
take over. This will not work. They are going to get crushed. The State
examiners, the State bank commissioners have come in and said the
Durbin amendment, as written, is going to be disastrous for consumers.
It is going to be disastrous for the smaller institutions with which we
all deal.
I am not trying to carry water for either side. I am trying to come
up with a solution that is fair. I have worked with Senator Tester,
Senator Crapo, Senator Hagan, Senator Bennet, Senator Brown, and
numbers of other people, trying to come up with language that hits that
sweet spot. The Senator from Illinois is right, we have probably never
developed a perfect law. But I think we have a responsibility, when we
know something is about to happen that won't work, that is going to be
devastating, to come up with something that meets the test of trying to
be fair to both sides. And I think that is what this amendment does.
The Senator talked about all kinds of things being added. The banks
can't

[[Page S3533]]

just add it. The Fed is regulating them. The Fed will decide what is
reasonable and proportioned. The Fed will decide, but they will use all
of the costs that it takes to actually do those operations and the
cost, which the Durbin amendment did not do.
I think this amendment meets the test. I know there are numbers of
people who voted for the Durbin amendment in the past who have now
coauthored this. They coauthored this because they realize the Durbin
amendment was far too narrow; that the Durbin amendment didn't take
into account anything but, again, the cost of adding one transaction on
top of an infrastructure that had already been built. There is no
business that could operate that way.
The Presiding Officer used to be part of a weekly broadcast. If all
that was charged was the incremental cost of that going out and being
broadcast to other television stations around the country, and that was
the only cost he could get, there is no way our Presiding Officer would
have been known to America the way he is now known because there is no
way that operation could have succeeded.
This is a very commonsense solution. People who supported the Durbin
amendment during this debate--even though there was never a hearing
held; and it was a pretty major issue to never have a hearing in the
Banking Committee--and it was passed at a time when many people around
this country were rightfully upset with some of the larger players in
our financial system--have now woken up and they realize this is a bad
piece of policy. But if we tweak it, then the retailers still end up
with a regulated market where they are not overcharged.
The institutions are providing this service. By the way, it is a
service or people wouldn't use it. Retailers like getting their money
instantly and people like being able to carry around plastic to pay
their bills instead of cash. But what this amendment does is puts it in
the middle of the road where it is fair to the retailers, fair to the
institutions involved, and most of all it protects consumers around
this country. I think we have seen the letters that were sent out as to
what is going to happen to consumers if the Durbin amendment goes into
effect as it is now laid out.
The Senator does a great job, I know, in taking a few of these
institutions that no doubt behaved badly, and causing the whole thrust
of this to be about poking a stick in the eye of these institutions
that have paid bonuses and made bad decisions. But the fact is, this is
a bad policy as it exists. The Tester-Corker amendment, with many other
cosponsors, is something to bring that into the middle of the road. So
I ask each Senator to please spend 10 minutes with your staffers and
understand what the third round of revisions does. Look at this
commonsense solution that has been put forth by the best efforts of
this body, with people working together to get here, and hopefully we
can end up with a piece of legislation of which we are all proud.
We can continue to have a financial system that is strong and that
includes the many small players we depend upon in small communities
across this country, and we can also continue to have a viable retail
industry that counts on the additional sales they get from having
access to these types of transactions.
With that, Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wanted to make sure the Senator from
Tennessee knows his amendment is pending. It has already been put into
play, and we are on it at this time. I just wanted to be sure he knew
that.
Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator. There was some discussion a minute
ago about when it was going to occur. I thank you for that and for your
deft management of this bill.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much. The Senator from Tennessee probably
won't agree with my position on his amendment, but I do know my friend
has worked long and hard with Senator Tester and others, and I
appreciate all the time he has put into trying to come up with what he
considers to be a compromise.
I do want to say this. The Senator talks a lot about the Durbin
amendment. There is no Durbin amendment. It is the law. The Durbin
amendment was included in the bill that is now the law of the land. So
it is a question of saying that we should essentially repeal it or
delay it, study it, whatever the word is, before it has a chance to
actually go forward.
I understand that, and I want to say for the record where I stand on
it. I have met with all sides. I have met with the retailers, that are
very strongly supportive of the Durbin law. I have met with the banks,
and they are fiercely against it. The credit unions are very worried
they are going to get hit with a situation where they will not be able
to compete with the banks. I have told them all the same thing, which
is I think what is important when we pass a reform is to see if it is
going to work, and if it doesn't work, I agree with Senator Durbin, we
will do everything in our power to work that out.
I understand the Fed says, help me, give me guidance. I think there
is a lot of guidance in the law. I think every bureaucracy in the world
would rather have the details fall on us. I think the details fall to
them. So I am going to be voting no on the amendment. I do appreciate,
however, all the work and all the time and effort that went into trying
to pull us all together.
I will say the last thing on the swipe fee that I find compelling is
the swipe fee reform my friends want to delay--and was signed into law
last year--places reasonable constraints on the fees Visa and
MasterCard fix on behalf of the Nation's largest banks. But here is the
thing. The United States has the highest debit interchange fees in the
world, and the rates keep going up. The average debit interchange fee
in the U.S. is 1.14 percent. The average debit interchange fee in the
European Union is 0.20 percent, and the average debit interchange fee
in Canada is zero. So it is not as if the banks are taking it on the
chin here.
I feel we should give this a chance to work. I am not saying it is
the perfect law. As Senator Durbin said, maybe there was one perfect
law--the Ten Commandments--but as far as laws here, they can all be
made better. It may well be once the Fed acts, if we are not happy, we
can move at that time.
I want to get back to the bill, the underlying bill we are debating,
which is the Economic Development Administration reauthorization, and
to thank Senator Inhofe for his remarks he made on the floor about it.
He pointed out that we have a lot of work to do here to create jobs.
When we have a program that takes $1 of Federal funds and it attracts
$7 of private investments and many jobs, we ought to come together.
I will go through a couple of charts.
The EDA is an efficient job creator. They just are. In 2009 and 2010,
investments by EDA created over 160,000 jobs and saved nearly 45,000.
One dollar of EDA investment is expected to attract--and this is a
fact--it has attracted nearly $7 in private sector investment on
average. Sometimes it is $10, sometimes it is $15, sometimes it is $4,
$3, $2, but the average is $7. EDA project funding creates one job for
every $2,000 to $4,600 invested. You see the average cost of creating a
job is very low in terms of the Federal investment. This is terrific.
This program really works.
There are a couple of things we believed we ought to take a look at--
duplication and also a way for the community to buy out the Federal
Government share of a project. We put that in the reauthorization. We
believe we really strengthened this law, and I again thank the
Democrats and Republicans on the Environment and Public Works
Committee.
This morning, I went through some of the programs in California:
The city of Dixon, $3 million for a water system that is expected to
create 1,000 jobs and leverage $40 million in private investment--$3
million attracting $40 million in private investment.
The city of Shafter, $2 million for sewer and water. It is going to
develop an additional 600 acres to enable continued growth of the East
Shafter Logistical Center and is expected to create 1,400 jobs and
leverage $250 million in private investment.
San Jose, $3 million for the renovation and expansion of the Center
for Employment Training. They can then

[[Page S3534]]

expand their capacity by 860 students, expand access to the GED, the
literacy, language, and small business entrepreneurship classes to low-
income areas. This is absolutely key. It really should bring us
together because they are training students so students get out and get
their GED, get their literacy, and can really make sure the community
is growing and thriving. That particular grant is expected to leverage
$3 million in private investment and create 4,900 jobs. So it is a 1-
to-1. In that case, it is $3 million of public and $3 million of
private.
Nationwide--I talked about this. I talked about other examples, but I
didn't mention ones on the west coast. In the Central Valley, there was
a 23,000-square-feet water and energy technology incubator, and the
incubator has housed more than 15 entrepreneurs since it opened in
2007. They obtained $17 million in private capital and created jobs for
Californians, so $1.8 million attracted $17 million.
We have the case of Boeing, and they were able to expand one of their
campuses. It created 2,000 jobs.
I talked about Duluth. In 2001, an EDA grant of $3.5 million matched
by $2.3 million from the city of Duluth helped build the Duluth
Aviation Business Incubator at the Duluth Airport. This investment
helped Cirrus Aircraft grow from a handful of employees to 1,012 by
2008. It is now leased to Cirrus Design Corporation, which has the
largest share of the worldwide general aviation market.
When we are talking about the EDA and the way it attracts private
sector funding and creates jobs, this is not hyperbole, this is not
just rhetoric, this is reality. This is a program that has been going
on since 1965. Republicans and Democrats have supported it. The last
time it was authorized was when George W. Bush was President. It passed
unanimously.
So I stand here today on the opening day full of hope, hoping that is
not naive, hoping we will see a few amendments--that is all fine. We
don't mind amendments. Amendments are fine, but let's have reasonable
discussion and reasonable time set aside and move on.
There is the Maytag plant in Newton, IA, which employed 1,800 factory
and administrative workers. It was closed. We all know how painful that
is. We remember back when we were losing 700,000 to 800,000 jobs a
month. It was not that long ago. By 2008, the city identified two new
manufacturing operations that could be located at that old plant--TPI
Composites, Inc., a wind turbine blade manufacturer, and Trinity
Structural Towers, Inc., a manufacturer of massive steel towers for
windmills. The EDA invested $580,000 in 2008 for grading, site
preparation, and surfacing for a wind tower storage facility that was
leased to Trinity and created 140 jobs and generated $21 million in
private investment.
That same year, EDA also invested $670,000 in the Central Iowa Water
Association in Newton to help build a booster station and storage tank
to serve TPI. This project helped create 500 jobs and generate $40
million in private investment.
On the east coast, in 2010 the EDA gave a $750,000 grant to Seedco
Financial Services, Inc., a national nonprofit community development
financial institution. Seedco used this funding to provide capital to
Sub Zero Insulation and Refrigeration Technologies, LLC, which is a
family-owned manufacturer of custom, environmentally friendly, energy-
efficient insulated commercial truck and van liners--Sub Zero. It is
pretty famous. They are located in Brooklyn, NY. They had been denied
financing by a major bank.
This is the thing. A lot of our companies--while the banks want to
charge very high swipe fees, they are somehow absent when our companies
need them. In 2010--that is just last year--Sub Zero was denied
financing. EDA provided access to capital, which allowed Sub Zero to
fulfill its contract with Edible Arrangement to outfit delivery
vehicles and to win contracts from Ford, Chevy, and Dodge. This allowed
Sub Zero to hire 15 new staff. They started in 2004 with just 3
employees and producing 75 vehicles a year, and the company now has 20
employees and produces approximately 400 vehicles a year.
It goes on.
EDA provided $2 million to help build the Knowledge Works
preincubator facility as part of the development of the Virginia Tech
Corporate Research Center, and now we have seen 2,000 high-wage jobs
created and the inception of 140 high-tech businesses.
The way EDA works is there are regional offices, about six of them,
and they get funded through the Appropriations Committee to the
Commerce Department, and then each region makes the decision as to
which projects really meet the goals of the legislation, which is to
bring economic development to distressed areas, create jobs, and
leverage the dollars.
In addition to this, EDA--in 2008 we gave them an extra $500 million
in disaster assistance to give to areas which were experiencing
disaster problems, and they assumed the role of a secondary responder,
working with affected communities to support long-term postdisaster
rebuilding. As an example of that, again back in Iowa, they provided
funding to help construct and install an upgraded, energy-efficient
natural gas-fired boiler system in Cedar Rapids, IA, following a flood
that destroyed the boiler that had provided steam heat and hot water to
Saint Luke's Hospital and Coe College. We all know what happens when a
hospital can't count on a backup generator: they can't count on energy.
We know what happens when that occurs: everything shuts down, and
people are in peril. EDA steps in in these areas, and while FEMA is
dealing with the immediate impacts, they are looking a little bit more
at the long-term work that could be done so that when and if there is
another disaster, the community is ready.
All I can tell you is nothing is perfect. I am sure there are
examples we have that are not as good as the ones I mentioned. I am
sure there are because nothing is perfect and nobody is perfect. But
this is a very good program. It is time-tested, signed into law by
Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents. The last time, it
passed here by unanimous consent, was voted out of the committee which
I am privileged to chair with almost unanimous consent. We had one
dissent, and that is fine. We hope we will win over that dissenter. But
here is where we are. We have a chance to reauthorize this program.

There are reforms we have made. I want to share some of the reforms
we have made. This can go on without an authorization and stumble
around. But what is important at this particular time, when the main
three issues on people's minds are jobs, jobs, and jobs, is we have to
do a jobs bill. This is a jobs bill. This creates jobs at very low cost
to the Federal Government. This creates jobs in the private sector in
some of our cities and public works areas.
This is what we did in order to help people understand why we think
it is important to reauthorize this. Working with my ranking member,
Senator Inhofe, we came up with some good reforms.
We changed the current cost-share requirements, so we increased the
Federal share for areas in which unemployment is especially high and
per capital income is especially low because we want to make sure that
when we go into an area that is deeply in need, we do a little more for
them.
We require additional planning assistance if overall funding levels
increase. In other words, we want to keep our eye on these projects. We
want to make sure they are meeting their goals.
We modified the existing Revolving Loan Fund Program to allow
recipients to convert an existing revolving loan fund to carry out
another EDA-eligible project. So we take the bureaucracy and say: Look,
if they have a better idea, let's go forward and let them use those
funds in that way.
We modify rules to allow recipients of grants that are more than 10
years old to buy out the Federal Government's interest at a depreciated
rate. In other words, if a State, city, county or participant says: You
know what, we want to do this on our own, this is an older grant and we
believe we want to take it over, they can buy out the Federal
Government's interests.
We emphasize that EDA should work with Federal, State, and local
agency partners to support economic and workforce development
strategies.
Senator Inhofe mentioned his reform that he made sure happened, which
is

[[Page S3535]]

that we are not duplicating other programs. That is important. We don't
want to be duplicative. We want to be sure that what we are doing is
not being done elsewhere.
We walk in and we do something, frankly, that people need now: We
create jobs and we leverage. That word ``leverage'' has become the
first thing out of my mouth when I talk about things I support now.
That is why we support the highway bill that we hope is going to come
here in a bipartisan way. We leverage dollars. Anytime you can leverage
dollars--you put $1 down for something good, and people come to the
table from local government, the nonprofit sector, the profit sector,
State, all the different agencies, all the different parties come
together and say: This is a great idea. If we all kick in just a
little, we are going to do something big. That is the idea behind the
EDA.
I visited projects in my own State, shopping malls and other things
that were done in these very fine communities where it is tough to get
capital, where the banks just turn their backs, where perhaps the
venture capitalists are saying: This isn't our cup of tea. That is why
this is a successful program.
Again, I hope we will have debate today on the Tester-Corker
amendment. It is a very controversial one. It is not happy because it
is one of these things where, if you do one thing, 50 percent of the
people think you are right, and if you do the other, 50 percent think
you are wrong, although Senator Durbin says the polls show that people
support these lower fees in this case. But I respect the fact that the
amendment was offered on this bill. It is an amendment that is directly
related to our economy. But I hope we vote tomorrow, as early as
possible, and I hope we do not have a lot of amendments dragging us
down because, guess what, people are looking at us and they are
thinking: Why aren't they doing more to create jobs? This will send a
signal that we are making EDA a priority.
This is not a big spending measure. This is an authorization, and the
number at which we are authorizing has been frozen so we are not adding
to it. But we are sending a signal to the appropriators and to the
Commerce Department that we think this is a good and important program.
Madam President, I thank you very much. I have said my piece for the
moment. I note the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
morning business on Wednesday, June 8, the Senate resume consideration
of S. 782, the EDA Revitalization Act, with the time until 2 p.m.
equally divided between the proponents and opponents of the Tester
amendment No. 392 regarding swipe fees; that at 2 p.m. the Durbin
amendment No. 393 be withdrawn and the Senate proceed to vote in
relation to the Tester amendment No. 392, with no amendments, motions,
or points of order in order prior to the vote other than budget points
of order and the applicable motions to waive; the Tester amendment be
subject to a 60-vote threshold; and the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to
Senators Durbin and Tester for their warm relationship and to every
Senator here on this most difficult issue, for allowing us to get this
done tomorrow expeditiously. It is something that had to be done and it
is the right thing to do and we will move forward upon completing this
to try to do other things on this very important piece of legislation.

____________________