Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011

Mr. President, before I begin to address the pending amendment I have offered along with a number of Senators in response to regulatory reform, I am going to yield to the Senator from North Dakota, who is a cosponsor of this legislation. I am delighted that he is a cosponsor, and that he recognizes and acknowledges the importance of changing the regulatory environment in America if we are going to have job creation and economic growth.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Hoeven, for his excellent remarks. As a former Governor for 10 years, he knows the impact of regulations on small businesses and how detrimental they can be to job creation, particularly at this time where we have a very difficult economy. We have persistent high unemployment and subpar economic growth. We are at a consequential moment in our economic history, frankly, that deserves the attention of the Senate. So, again, I thank the Senator for his comments in recognizing the effect regulatory reform will have on the performance of small business and, ultimately, job creation in this economy.

I am very pleased to have many colleagues cosponsoring this amendment. I am pleased to have worked with Senator Coburn from Oklahoma, and this amendment is also cosponsored by Senators McConnell, Ayotte, Barrasso, Brown of Massachusetts, Coats, Enzi, Isakson, Kirk, Hoeven, Johnson, Moran, Thune, and Vitter. It is clear to me that many of the Senators understand the value and imperative of reforming our regulatory system. It is absolutely vital that the Federal Government consider the small business economic impact of the rules and regulations that agencies promulgate.

The question might be asked, Why do we need regulatory reform? We had a bill on the floor last month, in early May, wherein I was denied a vote, which was regrettable because it is clear that many people don't understand how important this is and how central it is to small business job creation, how vital it is to the survival of small businesses and the cost of doing business across America. But I keep hearing from certain colleagues, ``Yes, we understand it is important; however'' or ``but'' or ``at some point.'' Let's define ``at some point.'' When?

When I was denied a vote on regulatory reform, on May 4 in the Senate, I heard that we are going to have hearings on the issue. Well, that obviously has not occurred. So it becomes the politics of obfuscation, not the reality. As I heard from a small business owner yesterday, ``When I come into Washington, it is a walled city--walled off from reality, detached from the real world on Main Street.''

I have been told that a concern with this amendment is that we have not had hearings. We had a hearing in the Small Business Committee on regulatory reform, but that is not enough for the Senator from California, who is saying we have not had hearings. She has offered plenty of amendments that haven't had hearings in the Senate. We had a major issue yesterday that was very important to small business--the interchange fee--which didn't have hearings. It didn't have hearings the first time it was offered to the Dodd-Frank legislation last year, and yesterday's amendment didn't have a hearing. So is there a new standard, in the Senate, when it comes to regulatory reform? Do you think there have been any overtures by anybody who opposes my legislation to work with us on this right away?

What is happening on Main Street America is that we are not creating jobs. Why? Because of what is failing to happen in Washington, DC, in the Senate. There is a clear detachment from the real world. Small businesses keep asking me what is going on. I say I can't explain it, other than it is clear that people don't understand what is going on because if they did, we would be working on it.

I heard the Senator from California say, ``at some point.'' But tell that to the person who is running a small business and trying to keep their neck above water and keep their business afloat during these very difficult times. What do these small business owners talk about? They talk about the regulations that are suffocating their ability to survive in a very tough economic climate.

We are dithering. That is what this is all about. It is all a masquerade, a facade, just bringing up bogus arguments. I have been in the legislative process for the better part of four decades, and I know when there is a serious purpose about working together and solving a problem. It appears to me that there is no interest in solving this problem here in Washington. Everybody has their own agenda, but people are wondering why there is this unemployment rate of 9.1 percent.

When I raised these concerns to the Secretary of the Treasury back in early February in the Finance Committee, when he was testifying--I described the concerns about what was happening on Main Street because I take Main Street tours, and I invite people to do that and to actually listen to what people are saying--he said: ``I think your view of the economy is dark and pessimistic.''

I said: Well, maybe I wasn't hearing it right. Maybe I wasn't hearing it right on Main Street. So when I meet with small business owners, I mention the Secretary's comments to them, and they cannot believe it. They cannot comprehend that the Secretary of the Treasury doesn't understand what is going on on Main Street; that the administration doesn't, the Senate doesn't, and the Congress doesn't. If they did, we would be working here day and night.

I was told I had to have a vote on this amendment right now. Why? Because it is Thursday, and certain members of this body are smelling the jet fumes while people are suffering on Main Street. Our fellow Americans are losing their jobs. Have my colleagues heard the stories about what people are facing? Time and time again I hear the same old refrains: ``We don't have time. We have to rush it. It hasn't had hearings. We will do it sometime.'' Well, tell that to the average American who is struggling to keep a job, to find a job or to keep the doors open to their business. That is what this amendment is all about. That is the reality.

We can pretend it is something else, but the macroeconomic numbers are demonstrating time and again there is a desperation out there. Yet, we take 2-week recesses, then we come back and have morning business and chat along, but it does nothing to resolve the consequential issues facing this Nation. There was a time when the Senate used to work, where we could sit down and solve a problem. Now it is all a facade, a few talking points and we move on. In the meantime, people are suffering and they are handicapped by our inability to work together. Regulatory reform is central to that agenda, make no mistake about it.

Let's look at what we are talking about and why we need regulatory reform. The analysts have lowered their forecast for the second quarter growth this year. The first quarter growth was already abysmal at 1.8 percent of GDP. Manufacturing recovery has slowed. Housing remains in shambles. New claims for jobless benefits, as the Senator from North Dakota indicated, exceeds 400,000--again. Growth of consumer spending is sluggish.

The President talks about job creation and stimulating the economy, but the results speak louder than words. Since the President took office, unemployment has dipped below 9 percent for only 5 months. Even that data is skewed because it doesn't account for the millions of workers who have exited the workforce altogether. Just last week, the unemployment rate for May increased to 9.1 percent. We are experiencing the longest unemployment period in American history since data collection started in 1948, surpassing even the 1982 double-dip recession for the length of unemployment.

Despite the President's promise, and an $800 billion stimulus package, a $700 billion TARP program, up to $600 billion in quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve, and over $2 trillion in overall government spending, we are years away from where we need to be in terms of job or economic growth. Mr. President, 40 months after the start of the four deepest postwar recessions our economic output averaged 7.6 percent higher than pre-recession levels. Yet since December 2007, when the most recent recession commenced, our GDP has only increased 0.1 percent. That is why we need regulatory reform. We need to bolster job creation, and the only place we can do that is through small businesses.

The Senator from California says we need hearings on this amendment. Then we should change the rules of the Senate and require that every amendment offered on this floor has a hearing, and every bill. That must be a new standard, Mr. President. We have had hearings on this question in the Small Business Committee, and the focus is that we desperately need reform.

In a small business regulatory reform hearing in November 2010 we heard a witness note if there was a 30 percent cut in regulatory costs, an average 10-person firm would save nearly $32,000--enough to hire one additional person.

When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. I know because I served in the House of Representatives at that moment in time. With unemployment soaring into double digits, at a peak of 10.8 percent, huge chunks of industrial America shut down in the recession of 1981-1982 and never reopened. Yet once the recovery began in earnest in the first quarter of 1983, the economy boomed. It exceeded 7.1 percent for five consecutive quarters and kept growing at a 4-percent pace for another 2 years.

The contrast in results between the current recovery and the Reagan years is instructive because the government's response was so different. As a recent Wall Street Journal article reiterated, in the 1980s the policy goals were to cut tax rates, reduce regulatory costs and uncertainty--which is what these regulations are producing day in and day out--let the private economy allocate capital free of political direction, and focus monetary policy on price stability rather than on reducing unemployment. That is the type of policy mix we need to rediscover if we are going to climb out of this economic downturn.

Let's look at the first chart--small business job creators in my State and across America because they are the ones that create 70 percent of all the net new jobs in America. That is why regulation reform becomes so essential and imperative. The total cost of regulation is at $1.7 trillion--that is with a ``t''--and small firms with fewer than 20 employees bear a disproportionate burden in terms of those costs. It is $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory costs confronting larger firms.

I know some people like to dispute numbers and say: Oh, no, that is not really a true number. Oh, really? Just add them up. There was a study that was done by Crain and Crain. They added the estimated cost of four categories or types of regulations--economic regulations at $1.2 trillion; environmental regulations at $281 billion; task compliance, $160 billion; and regulations involving occupational safety, health, and homeland security, $75 billion.

Some studies omit independent agencies. Some even omit the Internal Revenue Service from the calculation cost of regulations. Well, ask a small business or any business in America about whether IRS regulations have a cost for them. Of course they do. We have to include all agencies of government that have an impact directly on small business or any business in America.

Even a separate White House finding acknowledges that the estimated annual cost of major Federal regulations reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget this past decade cost between $44 billion and $62 billion.

The point is, the principal impediment to job creation in this country is a broken regulatory system. We have repeatedly talked about it. It is a top priority for the small business community across America. Every major organization that is a key voice for small business echoes this repeatedly: Federal regulations have placed a tremendous burden on them.

I know many of my colleagues and I understand the critical nature of all of this. We have heard the message loud and clearly. Even the President, interestingly enough, issued an Executive order in January to begin the process of reviewing Federal regulations, citing the need for ``absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money.'' So in 4 months the administration's preliminarily findings uncovered over $1 billion in savings in 30 agencies. They ran the gamut. They included even environmental regulations.

So, obviously, there is some recognition and acknowledgment that regulations are a barrier and an impediment. The President is making eliminations at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. And yet, I don't think anybody would suggest he is trying to eradicate all environmental protections in America by identifying some that just aren't worthy of support because they are onerous. He would eliminate the requirement that States install a system to protect against fuel polluting the air at gas stations since modern vehicles already have these systems. That would save up to $67 million a year. But no one in this Chamber is going to accuse the President of saying, well, we are undermining all environmental regulations in the country.

It is as if we can't be discerning and discriminating in evaluating what is worthy and what isn't, what is too costly and complex and what isn't, what makes sense and what doesn't in this current context of this economic environment. Can we spend time doing that, since I was denied the time on May 4 and an ability to vote on this amendment? Could we have worked that out? Absolutely not. So why can't we become involved in this effort?

It seems we are turning a blind eye to it. There is no recognition because I don't think there is a full understanding or an appreciation of what is going awry in the economic landscape in every community across this country and why there is that despair, that anxiety.

By the way, about 80 percent of the American people believe we are moving in the wrong direction when it comes to our economy. That should be a Paul Revere wake-up call. It should be a message on which we might want to realign our focus in the Senate.

Maybe we should spend some time in the Senate working out the issues to solve the problems so we can create jobs for Americans who are unemployed, because we know that 9.1 percent doesn't capture all unemployed Americans. There are many who have dropped out of the workforce entirely. You could have, underemployed or unemployed, as many as up to 25 million Americans. That is staggering. That is breathtaking.

Since the time I was denied a vote, we could have been moving ahead on this legislation, or in the interim from when I was denied that vote on May 4, working out a solution, working through these issues. And during that time, the chairman of President Obama's own Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt, announced the top four priorities. This just happened on May 10. Understand, on May 4 I was prevented from having a vote on regulatory reform. That is preposterous. We have not had hearings. Hearings sometimes are a path to nowhere; leading to nothing. But since then, have there been hearings called for? No, of course not.

But 6 days later, who is speaking on regulatory reform? The President's own Council on Jobs and Competitiveness chairman, that is who, and he is noting a number of priorities. Guess what. One of them happens to be regulations to support a pro-growth environment and strengthen U.S. competitiveness. He listed improving and innovating education and bolstering exports to the world's fastest growing markets as three of those priorities. Then he called for ``collaboration between government and business with regard to regulation'' as a top priority, noting that ``Decades of overlapping, uncoordinated regulations create unnecessary hurdles and increased burdens for entrepreneurs and businesses, large and small, across the country.''

Let me repeat, this is from the President's hand-selected chairman of a council dedicated to create American jobs and boosting our competitiveness. He made this pronouncement less than a week after the Senate failed to consider my regulatory reform amendment to the SBIR Reauthorization legislation that we were considering for nearly two months, with a mere three days of votes over that time.

You might think that if there were some reasonable concerns about my amendment, the other side would try to work with me since then. Nothing. Nothing. We might have had a recess or two. We had days without votes, days without debating key issues--actually not just days, weeks. Nothing. Nothing is connecting.

What is connecting, though, unfortunately for small businesses and people who depend on them for jobs, is that there is a cause and effect and that is why you are seeing the deleterious effects of our inability to work on the issues that matter, that we have basically relegated all of this to the backseat, we have substituted other things without purpose. It is truly regrettable because of what it is doing to the average American and for those who are struggling. People, rightfully, know it. The American people understand what is happening here--or what is not happening here, I should say.

The breadth of regulations is truly punitive on businesses in America. The Heritage Foundation reported last year that ``[t]he burden of regulation on Americans increased at an alarming rate in fiscal year 2010,'' with a record 43 major new regulations costing $26.5 billion alone, ``far more than any other year for which records are available.''

That is just in 1 year, $26.5 billion. That is on top of the $1.75 trillion in already existing total regulatory costs. That is just 1 year, $26.5 billion.

It is clear the administration and the agencies have gone on a regulatory rampage. Again, it is that detachment from the real world. What does this mean? What are the real, practical implications for the person running a small business and trying to calculate the costs or anticipate future costs? Why are they going to hire a new employee and take on new costs? Why should they make investments? They don't dare. They can't take the risk. They say: We don't know.

I meet with small businesses regularly and talk to them and they say it is the uncertainty with regulations that continues to limit their decisions. This demonstrates it.

The Heritage Foundation reports that ``[r]egulatory costs will rise until policymakers appreciate the burdens that regulations are imposing on Americans and the economy, and exercise the political will necessary to limit--and reduce--those burdens.''

That is exactly what our amendment will do. This is a clarion call for regulatory reform. There should be no political or philosophical boundaries. There should not be philosophical differences. You might have some arguments about what approach you take, but those things could be worked out. In fact, that is exactly what I did with the amendment I offered on which I was denied a vote back on May 4.

From the other side there were some issues. We made five major modifications to my proposal because it is important to build bipartisan support. I have certainly reached across the aisle on so many occasions. I would have thought we could have had a corresponding response to work out these issues. That is what I do not understand. I cannot understand. There should not be any debate. If they talk to their small business community, they will get the same response.

What can we do to make it better? That is the key. The key is making some changes. One, I called for a small business review panel to be required for every agency so they can review the regulations before they are promulgated, before they are implemented, so we find out beforehand what might be of concern to small business, what might have potential costs or risks, or will not work out, and know it beforehand. I hear from some: Oh, no, we will work it out later, afterward. You ask the small business person how you are going to work it out afterward, after they paid astronomical costs to comply with that regulation.

Let's set up the small business review panels. This is not a new model. There are such panels for OSHA and EPA. And due to an amendment that I offered to the financial regulatory reform bill, one also now exists at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and it is part of that mechanism now. There was a model that we adopted from OSHA and EPA, from 1996, when we had a Democratic administration, and it worked exceptionally well. So I thought, Why not apply it to every agency?

But we heard, absolutely not.

So I said OK, what can we do to work it out? I talked to those on the other side of the aisle and we changed it and said for the 3 years that this bill will be authorized we will do it for nine agencies, three a year, to see how it works for the nine agencies who's rules have the most effect on small businesses. I did that. I made that change to address the concerns that were expressed on the other side of the aisle.

Then we said we should start requiring the agencies to do what they are supposed to do by law. You think it is a little redundant to ask them to do what they are required to do already, which is to review the rules? They are supposed to review the rules every 10 years but, guess what, they do not. So I said: If they are not reviewing a rule every 10 years, then that rule cannot be that important. So let's take it off the books. That is what I proposed. If an agency cannot be bothered to review the regulations as they are required to do under the law every 10 years, if they are not doing it, then it must not be that important so let's take them off.

There was some resistance on the other side so I made the change in response to the concerns. What I incorporated is that they would lose 1 percent of their operating budget. That is fair. We have to give them incentives to do what they should be doing by law but we will now give them some greater impetus to comply with the law. It is amazing that we are in that position, but that is where it stands. So I made that change because I thought it was important.

We have tasked inspector generals with assuring that these reviews are taking place and they can do so in consultation with the chief advocacy counsel at the Small Business Administration. It is not unusual for an IG to determine that the agency they are overseeing complies with existing laws. After all, isn't that what they precisely do? Would anybody argue that outdated and ineffective regulations hurt the environment or harm small businesses? The administration's own preliminary review of regulations at 30 agencies in 4 months identified $1 billion worth of savings. Why would we not want to start having those reviews become the norm rather than the exception? I do not understand it. Are we that busy here that we cannot do it? Maybe we could forfeit a few recesses and do some work for America to connect what is going on in Main Street--getting back to Main Street because that is where the jobs are created.

Maybe we could spend more time here doing that instead of deferring to sometime down the road.

I made some other key changes in hopes that we could build that bridge in response to the concerns that were given by the other side. I made five major modifications because I thought it is important to build bipartisan support. Again I was denied that opportunity.

Now we are being told that the main concern is that it has not had a hearing. Does that mean that we ought to change the rules of the Senate, as I said earlier, to require a hearing for every amendment? Perhaps that would slow the train down even more here. Maybe we could get back to achieving some results.

Another provision I have in my Regulatory Reform Act that I have introduced with Senator Coburn and so many others here, is a basic commonsense approach: incorporating the indirect economic effects of regulations on small businesses so we make sure they anticipate the foreseeable indirect economic effects in addition to the direct effects, because we know there are a multiplicity of effects that resonate and reverberate with other industries. That needs to be calculated and incorporated and factored into the equation in terms of cost. And let's be clear. This is not a radical or partisan proposition. In fact, the language was taken directly, word for word, from the President's Chief small business regulatory watchdog, the head of the SBA Office of Advocacy.

I also recommend that we expand the judicial review requirement so we make sure that when an agency proposes a rule, it has complied with its existing legal requirements to consider the economic impact of the rule on small businesses, that it has contemplated less costly alternative ways to make the rule less burdensome.

That is important because they ought to listen to diverse options, in terms of the rule they are proposing, to make sure that they have incorporated the views of small businesses in understanding the implications, being more exact and precise in the process--not waiting until months and years down

the road, after you go through a very extensive, complicated rulemaking process, to try to make your case. Small businesses do not have the resources to do that to begin with, let alone the time or employees to do it. That is not a good use of their capital, by the way, to be spending their time arguing with a government agency time and again.

For 30 years, small businesses have had the ability to seek judicial review of an agency's small business impact statement after the rule has been made. In this entire time period, for over 30 years, even with the ability to obtain judicial review, we know of only two rules that were remanded by the courts. One was a mining regulation that did not account for the number of small businesses that had gone bankrupt under bonding requirements. The other was fishing restrictions issued without realizing the impact on fishermen. This means that waiting until the rule is final is simply too late; the damage is done.

To correct this injustice, our amendment would provide small businesses the ability to bring legal action earlier in the process so we can avert mistakes at the outset so we do not force small businesses to go through this onerous, complicated, costly process, and then find out we made a mistake, the agencies made a mistake, and they say: You know what. You are going to have to fight it and go through another rulemaking process which takes months if not years. It is not going to happen. That is why we are not stimulating economic growth; we have thousands of regulations.

As a result, we have provided small businesses the ability to bring legal action, to seek judicial review prior to the rule becoming finalized, whether an agency failed to comply with its existing small business review requirement. This is a commonsense approach, to ensure agencies abide by the law prior to a rule being made final. It is not a partisan measure. It is just practical sense. If somebody has not run a small business, they probably do not understand it, do not appreciate what it takes to start or run a small business, the ingenuity and the cost involved.

If you take a small operation with 5 employees, 10 employees, 20 employees, they are the majority of small businesses in America. And small businesses account for up to 70 percent of the net new jobs in America. Remember, in the last 2\1/2\ years other than 4 months, we have had 9 percent or higher unemployment rates. I mean, that is a dire commentary of where we stand today after we have spent $2 trillion, and the deficit is growing, the debt is growing. We are facing the potential of a debt crisis if we do not deal with this massive accumulation of debt. That is why job growth becomes such an imperative. This is why regulatory reform is urgent and why we must do something about it.

We could work across the aisle instead of making broad accusations that this is going to decimate the environment, and workplace safety, that this is going to decimate health care. If that is the case, the President must be doing the same thing because he has just proposed revoking more than $1 billion worth of regulations from agencies in 4 months. We cannot even have a hearing in 4 months on the issue if hearings are so important to the outcome. I would be more than happy to have hearings to get it done, but we cannot even get hearings, cannot work it out. It is just talk, talk, talk.

Many of my proposals have bipartisan support. In fact, interestingly enough, this proposal regarding judicial review was a provision that actually the Small Business Committee chair, the Senator from Louisiana, proposed and Senator Cardin from Maryland, in a nearly identical fashion as section 605 of the Small Business Investment and Innovation Act of 2010 in the 111th Congress. They obviously agreed with the approach. There is nothing partisan about this. We ought to be able to work this out. There is nothing complicated about it. There is nothing complicated about addressing a fundamental issue facing small business.

I just want to set things straight so it is clear and we are not misunderstood. Some are making generalized mischaracterizations. People have not read the amendment, or taken the time and effort to understand it. Reason it out, and if you disagree, come up with something so we can move with urgency, with dispatch because we are losing jobs in America. We are losing businesses. This would help enormously.

That is why the legislation I have introduced, and the Senator from Oklahoma and others, has broad support from major small business organizations across America. They understand. They are hearing from their membership. And speaking of this, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters of support, one from 32 major business organizations and another from the Chamber of Commerce.

Our amendment includes a number of other provisions that would be important. For instance, we asked the Internal Revenue Service to consider small business impact on rulemaking, and that agencies review their rule penalty structures. I think we should ask the Internal Revenue Service to consider small business impact as well. It is reasonable. They obviously have a broad effect on small businesses across America.

I have spoken on this issue at great length because I think it is that important. I have been a ranking member of the Small Business Committee. I have been chair of the Small Business Committee, since 2003 in either capacity. My State of Maine is a small business State with over 97 percent small businesses, so I fully understand and appreciate the magnitude of the situation, the circumstances in which they find themselves and struggle to survive. The interchange fee amendment to this bill, was an important issue that consumed a lot of time in the Senate. I certainly did not complain because I understand that. It did not have a hearing. It is a new proposal--that did not have any hearings. I did not complain, but it is important to understand--I just want everybody to understand not every amendment offered on the Senate floor, every proposal, has a hearing. Far from it. Very few ever do.

We had a hearing on small business regulations last fall. That is why I am working this out, but we cannot work it out. There is no process or mechanism. It is all talk. No action for where it matters most, and I feel the despair and anxiety of my constituents. I feel it intuitively. I wish we could do better.

I have been in the legislative process, as I said earlier, for the better part of four decades. My whole reason for serving in public office is to rise to a higher level. I believe it is my responsibility to solve the problems on behalf of people I represent and, hopefully, the country. There are only 100 United State Senators. It matters for our States, and it matters for our country. I would hope we could aspire to a higher level than this; certainly, in the aftermath of the last election, where there was an indisputable, unequivocal message from the American people begging and pleading with us to solve problems.

We have an individual and a collective responsibility. We know how to do it, and we can do it. The genius of America has always been working together to solve our problems. It has been the hallmark of the innovation and the can-do spirit of America. I happen to believe in that can-do spirit. I know it is possible if we have a process and a procedure in the Senate that allows for it.

When I get up every day, it is about what I can do for the people I represent and for this country at a very trying and anguishing moment, where the uncertainty is permeating the American psyche; to feel and to understand the fear that people get up with every day wondering if they are going to find a job or keep a job. Even if they get a job, it is about one-third of what they were making before. I heard that story yesterday from some constituents, about the hundreds who apply for a job for one-third of what they were making. How are they going to keep their families afloat, their homes? If they can keep it. That is what it is all about.

Why is it we cannot replicate it here in actions and speak to the American people and give voice to those fears and say we are going to do it, we are going to do it right here, and then systematically tackle those issues one after the other and just do it and do it as long as it takes, even if we have to work weekends? Americans are working weekends, two and three jobs. They are doing everything. We take recesses. We do this. We ``obfuscate'' is the word that comes to mind, sort of create a confusion, a masquerade that we are doing something to mix it up.

The practical impact in the absence of what we are doing is directly felt at home on the average American. I know we can do better. There have been soaring moments in this Chamber and there can be again. This is one of the most consequential times in our economic history, and we have an obligation to lift up the spirits of the people by working together on the issues that matter, and this is one issue that matters because there are 30 million small businesses in America. They are the job generators and creators, and if we do not recognize the reality of this type of reform and we cannot get it done, then we have failed to do our jobs. And I regret that.

I believe we can do it, and working it out instead of talking about hearings at some point, some ambiguity, as if we cannot appreciate or understand what is happening in the real world and households every day on our Main Streets. If you do not, then I suggest you take a few Main Street tours and talk to small businesses and talk about their fears. These are Americans who are working mighty hard to make a difference in this world. All they want is a better life for themselves and their families and their children and, in fact, we are retreating.

We have an obligation to stand up to do what is right. I hope we can find our way somehow, somewhere. This is a great place to start to make a difference.

I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Reserving the right to object, the Senator from California has been addressing the Senate, so wouldn't it be appropriate for the Senator from South Dakota to speak?

Reserving the right to object, I wish to include the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.

Fifteen.

Mr. President, how much time remains on the Republican side?

Thirteen minutes. Thank you, Mr. President.

I want to make a few points. It is about solving problems. That is what this is all about. It truly amazes me that we have an amendment here on regulatory reform that everybody agrees with in principle and everything else, that goes to the heart of the issues concerning the economic well-being of small business and, hence, America's well-being in these desperate times, yet we can't manage to get it together and to work on these issues.

I made a number of good-faith changes in my legislation, and I would have done more if I had heard any response from the other side to working those out. I made five major changes to the proposition back in April to respond to this. But there is no response. Then I hear about these hearings. Can somebody please tell me where it is in the rules of the Senate that every amendment has to have a hearing?

We had a major vote yesterday on interchange for the second time. That is important to small business. But even the committee of jurisdiction didn't have a hearing. So this is, again--as I describe it--the politics of obfuscation. Let's get to the heart of the matter and solve the problems for America. It isn't about who authors it and who is doing it. Let's do it. That is the point: We are not doing it. We are just sitting here talking, recessing, going home today, going to do something else, going to have recesses.

We have five committees that have jurisdiction over this issue. We are going to need a roadmap pretty soon. I don't want to go home and tell my constituents this is what happened on regulatory reform. So let me get this straight. Let me get this straight. We have five committees, there are a number of bills, time is running out, people have to leave, and we can't have enough time to debate this.

That is what I was told this morning. All of a sudden I was given a call saying: Sorry, you have to do it right now. I said: Well, is the bill over? We just started. There are a number of pending amendments that haven't even been addressed yet. Let's vote on those. This is an important issue. Let's give this the equivalency of the interchange amendment. Let's do something that is important for small business. Absolutely not.

This is about jobs at a very difficult time in America.

Let me repeat, 40 months after the start of the four deepest postwar recessions, our economic output averaged 7.6 percent. Here we are, our GDP has only increased .1 percent. Those are terrible numbers. But behind those numbers are people and human beings because it means we are not creating jobs.

We heard here today that sometimes bureaucracy is good. Well, bureaucracies, by definition, and I read, mean ``excessive multiplication of, and concentration of power in administrative bureaus or administrators'' Absolutely. They are unelected. We are elected. We understand the problems. Even the President--let's read this headline, ``Obama to scale back regulations in an effort to spur economic growth.''

What is interesting about all this--nobody is accusing the President of decimating the environment or workplace or health care. Understanding that, 6 days after I was denied a vote on this very amendment where I made five different adjustments to respond to the other side, you have the President's Economic Competitiveness Council coming out with four major priorities, one of which is a need to improve the regulatory process because there are decades of overlapping and uncoordinated regulations.

Even by the administration's estimate, this White House's own estimate, that regulations last decade cost anywhere from $44 to $62 billion, last year's alone with a $26 billion. This is a serious issue.

Can we work it out? Can we do it? Do we have the capacity to work on issues anymore, thoroughly and deliberatively? It has been almost 2 months

and we have not gotten any further. We haven't even had a hearing. Somewhere, somebody has bills. Great. Bring them up. Let's debate them. Let's compare them. Let's do something. Let's do something for small business. They desperately need it. Now I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Illinois.

I now yield to the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Brown.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for additional time on the bill, since the vote is not going to occur until 2:15, and that time be equally divided.

I yield the remainder of the time to Senator Brown. It is regrettable, since this is an important issue, that we couldn't have more time on this key issue.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is about jobs. It is about small businesses. It is about the well-being of American families. Just remember this: the stark numbers. The unemployment rate is at 9.1 percent; the average over the last 2\1/2\ years, 9.4 percent. For 23 out of the last 28 months, unemployment has been at 9 percent or higher. Housing prices are at the lowest level since mid-2002. This is the longest recession since modern record- keeping.

These are stark, grim numbers. What I am hearing here today is a bureaucratic process and response, exactly what we are trying to attack. This is not indiscriminate, as some have described on the other side of the aisle about this regulatory reform measure. It is very consistent.

I know the Senator from Louisiana was talking about several of the issues. I would like to go through them.

First of all, she mentioned about the concerns of the judicial review. But this provision is nearly identical to one that she and Senator Cardin introduced in their own legislation in the 111th Congress.

The Senator also was concerned with our tying budget cuts to the SBA to this amendment as a way of paying for some of the costs of it. But, to avoid controversy, we specifically selected as offsets, cuts in the SBA that had been proposed by the Agency's Inspector General, and in the President's very own budget.

The Senator from Louisiana talked about the problems associated with considering indirect economic effects on small businesses when issuing rules. But, for that provision we used the exact same language suggested by the President's chief small business regulatory appointee, the chief advocate at the Small Business Administration.

So this is not indiscriminate and some are mischaracterizing the provisions in this legislation because they have not bothered to read the amendment. I made a number of changes in order to address the concerns on the other side. If there were further concerns, that we could work through, I would have addressed those as well. So I think we better make sure we get our facts straight because it is about small businesses and jobs. That is what it is about. We are just stalling, deferring, delaying.

We heard concerns that we did not have a hearing on my specific amendment. Well, the Senate did not hold a hearing on it since I was denied a vote on it on May 4. And the President came out a few days later and said regulatory reform was one of the top four issues for American economic growth and job creation.

Then we hear a bureaucratic conversation about hearings and multiple jurisdictions and committees and committees. I have to say, I have never known amendments to require hearings before they are considered on the floor. In fact, I believe the Senator from California had 19 amendments in the last Congress--19 amendments--8 of which were accepted and none had hearings. Yesterday we had a major amendment on interchange. We did not have a hearing on that major issue.

I am just making a point. This is just bringing up issues to obfuscate and obscure. I do not know exactly what the concern is, to be honest with you. If there are some issues to address, then let's address them. But to just postpone in conversation, debating--the talk goes nowhere. There are no hearings. There is nothing.

The President scaled back regulations, as I said earlier in an effort to spur economic growth, including some in the Environmental Protection Agency. He did not undercut the Endangered Species Act. Nobody is accusing him of scaling back every environmental law that has ever been on the books.

I think we ought to get away from extreme mischaracterizations, inaccuracies and untruths. Let's talk about the facts. Let's read the bill. Let's know what we are talking about and get our facts straight. This goes to the heart of economic growth. It goes to jobs.

It goes to the American people's well-being.

Mr. President, as I understand it, I will have an hour and a half to present our side on the amendment and Senator Snowe will have an hour and a half. Could the Chair please give me the exact timeframes.

Thank you very much. I was close.

I wish to let Senator Snowe know what my plan is at this time. First, I am going to yield some time on another subject--but it will be used on our time--to Senator Whitehouse, who has something very important pertaining to his State, and then I am going to come back and take as much time as I might consume and it will not be that long. I wish to lay out where we are in this debate, why this bill is so important, and I am going to make some remarks about Senator Snowe's amendment. So I do not know exactly how long it will take, but I will do it as quickly as I can and retain the remainder of my time.

But at this time, I yield 10 minutes of my time to Senator Whitehouse.

Senator Whitehouse is coming back into the Chamber with his charts, and I reiterate, I will yield the first 10 minutes of my time to Senator Whitehouse.

Mr. President, I just want to thank my colleague for his remarks. I offer my deepest sympathies to these impacted by that terrible fire. Unfortunately, in this country we are witnessing so many disasters. It is so difficult for the people to deal with this, but we have to always respond. I am glad he paid tribute to the firefighters, the first responders, because they are the ones who put everything on the line to help us.

We have before us a bill called the Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011. It is S. 782. It is a good bill. It is a bill that is needed for our economy because it is a bill that is focused on one thing, jobs. When people are asked what our focus should be--and we all know we need to reduce the deficit and the debt--they all say No. 1 is jobs because without jobs, deficits only get worse, debts only get worse, as people have to turn to the safety net that is provided in this great Nation for their very survival. So when we have an opportunity to come together across party lines with a jobs bill, one would think we would be delighted to do it.

This EDA, the Economic Development Administration, was reauthorized back in 2004 when George W. Bush was President. Let me tell a story because everybody came together, and that EDA reauthorization passed by voice vote and was signed into law by President George W. Bush. So it is a bit perplexing for me to note that we have dozens and dozens of amendments that are absolutely nongermane to this reauthorization. We have one amendment that is pending that my colleague, Senator Snowe, is offering, which has never had a hearing. It has never had a markup, and it is absolutely going to change the way we can protect our people from pollution, from danger.

I think it is unfortunate that rather than work on this together, we are seeing this offered as an amendment. It is Senator Snowe's complete right to do this. I respect it. I honor it. I understand how strongly she feels. But I feel just as strongly that something that would ignore public health and safety and not even put that in the benefits column is something that is a danger to the people we serve.

So we are going to have a debate about it, and the votes will come at 2:15. I am pleased we will get to vote. I do hope at some point we will be able to look at regulatory flexibility, we will be able to work to make sure that as we assist our businesses--and we all want to do that. That is what this bill, the EDA bill, does. It is assisting businesses. It is jump-starting business development. We have example after example of that--we also can work to ease their burden a bit while not endangering the life and the health of the people. That is pretty straightforward, and I would be very happy to work with my colleague. But this bill has never even had a hearing. This bill she is offering has never been marked up. I have had no opportunity, other than this one, to basically say how I feel.

I know it is in contrast to the way Senator Snowe feels, and Senator Coburn. I have lots of respect for them. I hope they have respect for me as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee because my view is, my obligation is, to protect the health and the safety of our kids.

How many kids have asthma? If I asked a group here, I bet one-third of the hands would go up. If I asked how many people know someone with asthma, I bet more than half would raise their hands. So I think we cannot willy-nilly just support an approach that would take away the ability to put the benefits of protecting health into any formulas before we say regulation should be thrown overboard. I think there are ways to definitely work together. Unfortunately, today we are going to have an up-or-down vote on the Snowe amendment without that opportunity.

I want to go through the fact that the bill that is before us, the underlying bill, S. 782, has strong bipartisan support. It was reported out of our EPW Committee by voice vote, only one objection, and that is because this EDA has operated for 50 years. It has a very good tradition of creating jobs and spurring growth in economically hard-hit communities nationwide.

This bill is going to ensure that EDA can continue to create jobs, thousands of jobs, protect existing jobs, and drive local economic growth. It is distressing to me to see, for example, an amendment by Senator DeMint. He is very proud of his amendment. What would it do? It would do away with the EDA. So on a bill to reauthorize the EDA, he has an amendment to eliminate the Economic Development Administration.

Now, again, I respect his view, but I do not understand it. Why do I not understand it? Because in 2005, Senator DeMint sent out a press release congratulating local leaders for securing an EDA grant for the City of Dillon, SC. So we have Senator DeMint proposing to eliminate an agency which he lauded not once but more than once.

Senator DeMint was quoted in the press release as saying:

This investment in Dillon County will save and create

hundreds of South Carolina jobs. And I am pleased that the

EDA has awarded these funds.

So what planet are we on? We have a Senator who sends out a press release lauding an agency he now wants to

eliminate. So you would say, well, maybe that was 2005 and he has suddenly changed his mind. No. One year ago, Senator DeMint's staff held a workshop in Myrtle Beach to highlight competitive funding opportunities available to local communities and businesses through EDA and other Federal agencies.

June 16, 2010. Here it is:

Workshop to Highlight Competitive Funding Opportunities.

The office of U.S. Senator Jim DeMint and the Myrtle Beach

Chamber of Commerce will provide a workshop--

It goes on to say that the staff of Senator DeMint will be there.

I don't get what is going on. How do you send out a press release lauding an agency and then say: Let's do away with it. I don't get it. If jobs are our No. 1 priority--and I certainly know the occupant of the chair is fighting 24/7 for jobs, for outsourcing jobs, and for job creation.

For every dollar spent in EDA, $7 of private investment is attracted. Historically, $1 of EDA investment attracts nearly $7 in private sector investment. Now, you say: Well, for our investment with Federal dollars, how much does it cost for us to create one good job? The answer comes back: EDA creates one job for every $2,000 to $4,600 invested. That is a good investment. EDA is a job creator. That is why it is perplexing to me to have a host of amendments that are distracting us from jobs, jobs, jobs.

Between 2005 and 2010, with an investment of $2.4 billion, total jobs generated were 450,000 and total jobs saved were 85,000. At the $500 million funding level authorized, if that was spent, EDA would create 87,000 to 200,000 jobs every year and 400,000 to 1 million jobs over the life of the bill. We don't know that that $500 million will stay, but historically that is what we have authorized through EDA.

Here are the people who are supporting an authorization of the EDA: U.S. Conference of Mayors, American Public Works Association, National Association of Counties, AFL-CIO, American Planning Association, Association of University Research Parks, Educational Association of University Centers, International Economic Development Council, Association of Development Organizations, National Business Incubation Association, State Science and Technology Institute, University Economic Development Association, and National Association of Regional Councils.

We have a letter from an arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce lauding this program, citing how well they work with the EDA. They say:

We are the citizenship arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

and in this capacity we work with thousands of businesses and

local chambers of commerce on community development and

disaster recovery. These local chambers and businesses are

constantly looking for national best practices, lessons

learned, technical assistance, strategy support, and other

insights and tools and techniques to make communities as

competitive as possible.

This is the chamber of commerce arm:

As you consider EDA's future roles and responsibilities, we

would be happy to share with you our experiences and lessons

learned in working with the agency and provide you with

additional information.

They talk about the unique capability the EDA can and does support. They say EDA staff members displayed a high degree of professionalism and technical expertise. They say they have engaged with them on multiple levels, from consultation to sharing valuable field experience at the State and local level.

We have tremendous support. The AFL-CIO, dealing with the loss of construction jobs, says:

EDA has established an admirable track record in assisting

economically troubled low-income communities with limited job

opportunities by putting their investments to good use in

promoting needed job creation and industrial and commercial

development.

The last chart is the American Public Works Association, which builds public works and the water and sewer systems we need. This is from Peter King, executive director of American Public Works Association, dated this month:

I write on behalf of the 29,000 members of APWA in support

of the Economic Development Revitalization Act, S. 782. We

urge the Senate to pass this legislation, which will create

jobs, stimulate economic growth in distressed areas, and

improve the economic growth of local communities.

After Senator Snowe speaks and others speak, I will reserve my time to go into specifically what programs we have seen flourish because of that little spark that gets lit when EDA gets in there. The private sector loves this program, and local governments and State governments love it. It has worked since 1965.

I urge my colleagues, if you have amendments, let's get time agreements and dispose of those amendments. Let's get to a final vote on this very important program, which has flourished under Democratic Presidents, Republican Presidents, Democratic Congresses, and Republican Congresses. For goodness' sakes, does everything have to be a battle royale around here? We ought to be able to reach across the aisle when there is a bill brought up that deals with jobs. If we don't do that, we honestly fail the people.

My very last point is that Senator Inhofe has worked very hard on this bill. Republicans have added a lot of reforms to the EDA. I think those reforms are important. One would eliminate a duplication of effort, and others would give the private sector the ability to buy out the EDA interests. So I think, clearly, at this time, we should get these amendments done.

I am pleased Senator Snowe is here, and she is anxious to speak. I will conclude at this time and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the passion with which my colleague spoke, and I could not disagree more with her when she says we are masquerading as if we are doing something.

Were we masquerading when we brought the small business jobs bill to the floor, and Senator Landrieu, who chairs the Small Business Committee, stood here day after day after day and only faced a filibuster from the Republicans? We could not get that bill done, and millions of jobs were in the balance. Were we filibustering? No, they were. Were we masquerading?

Were we masquerading when we brought the FAA bill to the floor, in which my colleague, Senator Snowe, played a huge role? Thank God, we passed it. Were we masquerading? That bill is held up because the House Republicans have not chosen conferees, and we are waiting to have a 21st-century aviation system in this great Nation where we are using radar that was used in the last century--practically the century before. Come on. We are trying to do our job.

She talked about the last election. I will talk about the last election. I was on the ballot, so I can talk about it. It was about jobs. I told my people when I get back here: Jobs, jobs, jobs. I am proud to say we have on the floor right now a bill to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration, a program that has been around since 1965 and one which has a stellar record of attracting $7 of private capital for

every $1 we spend. The cost of each job created is approximately $3,000 per job, and they are good jobs. The Chamber of Commerce arm is supporting this and the AFL-CIO.

We are dealing with amendment after amendment after amendment, and it is fine. It is everybody's right, and I appreciate the fact that we will be voting on this amendment at 2:15. We even have an amendment to do away with the very agency we are trying to reauthorize by Senator DeMint, even though in 2005 he had a very big press release lauding the EDA and, as recently as last year, his staff attended a workshop where they were working with the EDA and praising the EDA for their work to reinvigorate jobs.

I appreciate being lectured--and it is everybody's right to do it-- and I will do anything to defend my colleagues' right to say whatever they want. It is just not true. The masquerading here is being done by Republicans who filibuster almost every single thing we do.

I hope we are going to get to the series of amendments. We are being very cooperative with our colleagues. We are going to take some of these--some of these amendments are for show. Fine. Everyone has that right. It is fine. But let's get it done, and let's get going with authorization of a bill that is going to create jobs. That is the whole idea of it. The last time we voted on it, we had a unanimous vote. Since 2004, we had a unanimous vote, and George Bush signed this into law.

I just want folks to know I have another couple minutes of remarks, and then I will yield such time as he may require to Senator Brown of Ohio.

Mr. THUNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, I am happy to propound a unanimous consent request so that at the conclusion of my remarks Senator Brown will speak for, say, 10 minutes and then it would go to Senator Thune; is that all right?

I have said I would offer a unanimous consent agreement. We are dividing the time between the two of us. It is my decision to yield to Senator Brown because Senator Snowe has spoken for a very long time and I want him to have some time and I am wrapping up my comments. I would be happy to propound a unanimous consent request that after Senator Brown's remarks for 10 minutes, we then turn to Senator Thune for 10 or 15 or 20 minutes or whatever it is he wishes.

I am not yielding time.

Thank you. So is there objection to my unanimous consent request that Senator Thune be recognized immediately after Senator Brown for as long as he wishes?

My unanimous consent request is that I have the right to call on Senator Brown. I can yield to Senator Brown is my understanding.

I wish to yield time to Senator Brown.

So then I will yield to him for some questions. I can do that under the rules; is that correct?

All right. So that is what we will do, unless my colleagues would rather do it the way I said before. If not, I will just yield for questions. Either way. It is up to my colleagues.

Then Senator Thune would be recognized for as much time as he wishes.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, could we have some indication of timeframe? It is all fine.

All right. I think I have the time; is that right?

That is correct.

I have one more question. I still have the floor?

I said at the conclusion of my remarks we would turn to Senator Brown. How many minutes remain on each side?

Thank you very much. I will wrap up in a couple minutes and come back later.

I think it is very important to reiterate what I said before. I don't think we are masquerading around here; I think we are trying to do our work. The bill before us was voted out of the committee. It had hearings. It had a vote. It was bipartisan, unlike the amendment offered by my friend who never had a hearing. Let's be clear. We are not masquerading; we are doing our work.

I only hope this bill gets better treatment than the small business bill. My friend is speaking for small business. We all know small business is the engine of jobs, and that is why it was shocking to me that the Republicans filibustered the last small business bill that was on this floor. It is outrageous, when we say we want jobs.

The reason I am going to vote to table the Snowe amendment or against the Snowe amendment--there are many, but one is process. We haven't had a hearing. It is very far-reaching. But I also wish to speak as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. One of our biggest laws and regulations that stem from it has to do with the Clean Air Act. The way my friend has put forward her amendment, there would be no benefit put into a regulation because of its impact on the health of us and our families.

The Clean Air Act has been attacked by those who want to say let's not have regulations for this segment of business and that segment. We just had a vote in California and 60 percent of the people-- Republicans, Democrats, Independents--more than 60 percent said we want to see our health protected.

Here is what has happened. In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 cases of premature deaths--premature deaths. Now we are going to come in with some regulation that has never had a hearing, never had a vote, that is not going to take into account the benefit of a health regulation such as that. By 2020, that number is projected to rise to 230,000 cases of premature deaths.

In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks--1.7 million fewer attacks. We want jobs. We want

people healthy. They can't go to work if they can't breathe, because if you can't breathe, you can't work. So let's not get up here and pass something that hasn't had a hearing, hasn't had a vote, and suddenly say we are no longer going to take into account the benefits of some of the regulations we have.

In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 130,000 acute heart attacks. In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 3.2 million lost days at school.

So my point is, yes, we want regulations to be sensible; yes, we want them to be flexible; yes, we should work together to make sure our businesses aren't facing undue delays and all the rest and I am very willing to do that. But what I am not willing to do is pass something that has far-reaching impacts. We don't even know what it would mean to the health and safety of our families, and it would absolutely ignore the benefits of regulations that protect our children's health, their safety, their well-being and our working families because a lot of these regulations are meant to protect them.

I hope we will vote down the Snowe amendment. I appreciate the passion on all sides. I truly believe we are not masquerading. We have a bill with real impacts, a bill that I have shown has made a major difference in job creation, in business creation, and in bringing hope to our most ravaged communities. It is such a good program that even Senator DeMint, who says he doesn't like this program, certainly throughout his career has praised the progress it has made in his State.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are working on a bill that is a jobs bill, plain and simple. It does not have any fancy parts to it. It is a reauthorization of a program that was set up in 1965. The purpose was very clear: to go into areas in our States where the communities are hurting for jobs, where the communities are hurting for business. It works in a way that every $1 we put into the program attracts $7 of private investment.

I will show you the job creation on some of these charts that we see. At the $500 million funding level that is authorized in the bill, the EDA is projected to create up to 200,000 jobs a year and over the life of the bill up to 1 million jobs. It is done at a very low cost per job. Mr. President, $3,000 per job is what it costs the Federal taxpayers because of all the leverage that comes in as cities join in, counties join in, and so on.

I have a list of projects we can talk about today. I have talked about a number of projects that have been funded through the EDA over the course of this debate in the last few days. I have talked about them in California and Minnesota and I wish to add just a couple other recent projects from across the country.

In California, EDA awarded $3 million to the Inland Valley Development Agency in a county that is going through some tough times, San Bernardino, to support the renovation of an existing building at the former Norton Air Force Base. This project is going to help the conversion of that base into a commercial and light industrial area, attracting new companies that are interested in locating there.

This investment, funded by the Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment and administered by EDA, is part of a $3.6 million project that will create 100 jobs and generate $20 million in private investment.

So here you have a $3 million investment that is going to be leveraged to $20 million. It is pretty extraordinary, and this is the bill we are talking about.

In Florida, the EDA awarded nearly $4 million to construct a new wastewater system for western Palm Beach County. The region suffered flooding in 2008 from Tropical Storms Hanna and Fay, which caused environmental damage. It closed local businesses.

The construction is going to support three city industrial parks and a general aviation airport, as well as a major inland port and intermodal center that are being developed. That investment is part of a $5.3 million project that will create 240 jobs, save 270 jobs, and generate $48 million in private investment.

So a $4 million investment attracting $48 million in private investment.

In Idaho, we have a very good example of a $4.4 million grant to the College of Southern Idaho in Twin Falls to fund the construction of the Applied Technology and Innovation Center. This new LEED-certified facility will help the college meet the region's needs for a higher skilled workforce. They will learn to operate computer-driven manufacturing equipment, maintain alternative energy systems, and to use environmentally sound construction processes for these green buildings. This investment is part of a $6.9 million project that will create 486 jobs.

In Indiana, EDA provided $2.4 million; in Kansas, $1.4 million to the city of Hutchinson. I will go on with this in my remaining time that I will have later.

But the point is, this is a jobs bill, and it is being hijacked by a slew of amendments, and I see the handwriting on the wall. I have been here long enough to know what is going on. There is no cooperation. We have everything from the Snowe amendment to endangered species, dealing with a chicken that somebody wants to take off the endangered species list. I mean, I was not born yesterday, as you can tell. I know what is happening. This is a dance. It is a slow dance. It, unfortunately, signals to me maybe the slow death of this bill. I think that is very sad, when you have a bill that has been supported by Republican Presidents, Democratic Presidents over the years, and the last vote on this floor was unanimous, in 2004--by unanimous consent--and George W. Bush signed it. I have fought George W. Bush in a number of areas. He and I saw eye to eye on this one. This is not controversial.

I hope we can dispose of this amendment. I will have more to say on the amendment in a couple minutes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in my 5 minutes, here is what I wish to say: Yes, I have offered many amendments on this floor, as have all my colleagues. But if I see an amendment and colleagues see an amendment that could hurt, we believe, the health of people, I am going to say, yes, let's have a hearing.

I wish to show you a picture of a child with asthma. She is beautiful. This is not a pretty picture.

I will show you another picture of a little boy with asthma. This is also a beautiful child and a terrible picture.

Let me tell you, we are trying to protect these children. We are trying to protect our families. We are trying to stop premature deaths. How do we do it? Yes, we have regulations. Have they worked? You bet they have. That is why I say, if you are going to change them, yes, I hope we would look at--you know, everybody is motivated in the right direction. Jobs? Absolutely. But I have to tell you, when you are sick, you cannot go to work. If a breadwinner dies prematurely, the family is destitute.

Let me show you just one act that would be impacted by this Snowe amendment and why I think we ought to have an alternative amendment. If you look at the study that was required by Congress, you find out that in just 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 cases of premature death; if you look at 2010 alone, 1.7 million fewer asthma attacks; if you look at acute heart attacks prevented, 130,000.

What happens in the Snowe amendment: All you are going to look at is the economic benefits, not the health benefits. It flies in the face of common sense and our moral responsibility.

Here is what I see wrong with this amendment: It hurts protection for families and communities. It stops or delays important protections for those people. It ignores public health and safety benefits. It only looks at the benefits of economics. Yes, we have to do that. But we also need a balanced approach. As I said, if someone is sick and they cannot go to work, they cannot keep a job.

It would also create additional, expensive litigation. The amendment allows polluters to sue Federal agencies during the public comment period on a proposed Federal safeguard that allows one polluter to hold up an important, let's say, drinking water or clean air protection standard for months, maybe years.

So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Let's get together and come up with something that balances economic growth with the protection of the health of our families.

I yield the floor and hope we would now go to a vote under the previous order.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Madam President, I will yield to the Senator from Rhode Island, and then I will make my statement.

Madam President, well, I want to thank Senator Reed for his comments. Senator Reed is one of the leaders on the Banking Committee. I appreciate his comments.

I do want to set the record straight on a couple of things though. It is not a 12-month delay plus a 6-month study. It is a 6-month study and then implementation of the rules.

The Senator said Chairman Bernanke had plenty of information. The problem is he does not have much information from community banks and credit unions, and that is what this amendment is about.

The exemption that is in the amendment that we passed last year, called the Durbin amendment, every regulator at the Federal and State level has said they cannot make the exemption work because market forces will determine where the customers flow.

I am glad we are here to vote on the amendment that Senator Corker and Senator Hagan, Senator Crapo, Senator Bennet, and I have worked so hard on. This afternoon we are finally going to have an opportunity to vote for an amendment that has been crafted in the right way.

Senators Hagan and Crapo and Bennet came to Senator Corker and I about a month ago to share their interests in fixing the unintended consequences of that amendment that was passed in the Senate about a year ago. The amendment directed the Federal Reserve to issue regulations limiting the cost that banks can charge retailers when consumers use their debit cards to buy things. Based on the law, the Fed intends to limit those costs to 12 cents, even though the actual costs of these transactions may be higher.

The big Wall Street banks can handle that. They are not happy about it, but they can live with it. They have plenty of tools that will help them make up the difference. The Main Street community banks and credit unions are a different story. These small guys, who had nothing to do with the financial crisis, do not have that same flexibility the Wall Street banks have. These are the banks in Montana. These are the folks I want to make sure have a fair shake. So folks from both parties came together and said: How can I fix this to make this protect the local banks and credit unions since the original amendment does not?

Senator Corker and I suggested initially a 2-year delay, a study, and then more legislating to fix any problems that were identified in the study. The Senators who are here today with me thought we could do better, and we could, and we did. After talking with our colleagues, we worked together to reduce the study period down to, as I said earlier, 6 months.

At that point the Fed and other regulators will decide if the rules can adequately prevent the small banks from getting hurt. I do not know what the study is going to find, and I do not think anybody knows. If the agencies find that the rules consider all costs, that consumers would not be harmed, and that the small issuer exemption--those that apply to credit unions and community banks--if that exemption will work, then the pending rules would move forward as passed. I would be the first person in line to tell Senator Durbin that he was right about the two-tiered system.

But if the Fed and the other regulators find that the changes must be made to ensure that current rules do not include all costs or that small banks and credit unions and consumers might be harmed, then they will have to issue new rules within 6 months, and every 2 years the Fed would have to tell us in Congress whether these rules are still working for the small banks and credit unions.

That is all we are asking. Before the Fed's new rules get implemented, let's make sure we have them correct. Yesterday the good Senator from Illinois said this was not truly a compromise. But when you sit down with folks who think you are on the wrong track and you work together to find the middle ground, well, to me that is the definition of compromise.

Some other charges have been made about this amendment, and I would like to take a moment to discuss those. Some say it is a favor to the big banks. Well, it is not. In fact, this amendment corrects a very big problem that only affects the community banks and credit unions. The good Senator from Illinois said yesterday that he crafted this amendment with awareness that a major reduction in interchange fees would kill small banks and credit unions.

No one denies that small banks and credit unions would be deeply harmed if they are forced into a system where they can only charge 12 cents per transaction. No one denies that. This is why Senator Durbin tried to establish a two-tiered system. Under his proposal, big banks, the Wall Street banks, could charge one rate, 12 cents per transaction.

The small banks, the community banks, credit unions, could continue to charge a percentage of a transaction, 44 cents on average. But there is a big flaw in the plan. The two-tiered system simply will not work. Let me repeat that. The two-tiered system simply will not work. I did not make that up. Here is what the Chairman of the Federal Reserve said:

It is possible that the merchants will reject the more

expensive cards from smaller institutions, or because

networks will not be willing to differentiate the interchange

fee for issuers of different size. It is possible that the

exemption will not be effective in the marketplace.

That was Ben Bernanke saying that. He went on to say that because the exemption will not be effective, small banks could be hurt or even fail. Here is what the head of the FDIC said:

The likelihood of this hurting community banks and

requiring them to increase the fees that they charge for

accounts is much greater than any tiny benefit that the

retail customer may get.

Again, everyone agrees if the Fed's rules go into effect, the small banks and credit unions will suffer because the exemption simply will not work. So today we can stop and doublecheck to make sure that does not happen or we can just flip a coin and hope for the best and watch as more small banks and credit unions fail, reducing consumer choice and reducing banking options, especially as they currently exist in rural America.

These small banks and credit unions are the ones that make the loans to small businesses in rural America. They are in places where folks are still willing to put their money. They are the ones that folks in Montana still trust. They do not trust the big Wall Street banks. We probably will not lose too many banks in Washington, DC, or Chicago, IL, but we will in rural America. I do not want to see that happen.

Another good one that I have heard this week is the argument that the amendment will allow banks and credit unions to factor executive compensation into the cost of interchange fees. It will not. In fact, the amendment specifically states that the Federal Reserve and other banking regulators must look at the costs associated with debit card transactions and program operations.

We also know how dangerous it is to set a price for a product without understanding all of the costs that go into that product.

Home Depot would never allow the Federal Government to set the price of garden hoses simply by looking at the cost of manufacturing a garden hose.

No, Home Depot charges us for the cost of manufacturing it, shipping it, keeping it in stock, having someone tell you what aisle it is in, and on and on.

Likewise, if we are going to be regulating debit interchange fees, we need to understand all of 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 not others. Some technology costs were included but not others. If we are going to be regulating this market, we need to be fair about it.

So the amendment directs the Fed to determine what is ``reasonable and proportional'' but it gives the Fed the discretion to look at all of the costs associated with debit transactions.

That does not mean executive pay. That does not mean a special rewards program.

All costs will still need to be justified, and if they cannot be justified they will not be considered. The Fed has been very clear with me--no executive pay, no bells and whistles.

But the decisions about the cost of routing networks, the costs of fraud and other technical details are much better left to the Fed than decided by the U.S. Senate.

Finally, Madam President, some have said that this amendment hurts consumers. It does not.

As someone who voted against the Wall Street bailout, who wrote part of the credit card reform act, and who voted for the Wall Street reform bill, I can tell you that if this amendment was somehow bad for consumers, I would not offer it.

In fact, the amendment requires the regulators to certify that the Fed's rules address consumer concerns.

The current law does not require anyone to look at the impact of interchange fee regulation on consumers. They are out of the picture.

I am not aware of any specific plans by any retailers to lower prices or provide customer rebates if interchange fees are lowered. I know that one large big box store held an earnings call at the beginning of the year where a company executive called the proposal to lower interchange fees a ``$35 million windfall.''

If I were a shareholder, that would have sounded pretty good to me. But as a customer, it is not clear how I benefit.

I understand that there are some folks who wish the amendment could go further to include additional consumer-oriented agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission as agencies that will conduct the study.

I would be happy to work with those Senators to see how we best protect consumers in this process. But the only way to make that happen is to get this amendment adopted; otherwise, the Fed's rules go into effect on July 21 regardless of what any consumers think.

I am looking forward to today's debate because we have an opportunity to address the unintended consequences of the Durbin amendment. Make no mistake, those unintended consequences will be felt all over rural America--and not for the better.

For the folks who think the two-tiered system will work, there is not a regulator out there who will tell you that it will. Some folks will tell you the Durbin amendment has an exemption for community banks under $10 billion and for credit unions under $10 billion. If they think that will work, there is not a regulator out there who will tell you that they can implement it and it will work because the free market system will drive it to the lower price. That is the way it is.

I am saying, let's slow down a little bit and make sure we get it right.

If we are going to create regulations, we are doing it in a way that is fair and consistent with the intent. Let's not try to solve one problem and create three others.

And let's not take shots at the folks in my neck of the woods who were not part of the financial meltdown.

That's all I am asking, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield the floor and ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum calls until the vote be divided equally.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, let me take a moment here to clarify for my colleagues the intent of this amendment. Not surprisingly, a number of groups have made a number of claims about what this amendment ``is'' and ``is not.''

In drafting any regulations required by the amendment, any agencies involved are required to not only abide by the letter of the law but also the congressional intent of its authors.

Let me take a minute to try to make crystal clear what exactly the intent of this amendment is.

First of all, let me address some of the claims that have been made about the implementation date of debit interchange regulations. My amendment would direct the Fed to implement these provisions on a date of their determination.

Why was this language included in this way? The intent of this language is to provide the Fed with the discretion to implement these regulations as quickly as is practically possible for merchants, issuers and networks to prepare for such new regulations.

The hope with this language would be to avoid the situation we are in right now where parties impacted by these changes would likely have less than a month to implement significant changes to the debit interchange system.

To be clear, the Fed may not disregard implementation of debit interchange regulation, as some have articulated. They also may not arbitrarily decide to implement these rules 5 years from now. Any delay in implementation beyond a reasonable timeline of a few months would need to be justified by the Fed.

Let me also take a minute to address concerns that have been raised about the language we have used to describe what considerations the Federal Reserve must make if a determination is made in this amendment and the Federal Reserve is directed to rewrite the debit interchange rules.

The language states that the Federal Reserve shall ``consider''-- again, shall ``consider''--all fixed and incremental costs in determining what is a reasonable and proportional interchange fee. Let me say this again. The Fed shall ``consider''--not include, not calculate, but shall consider--all fixed and incremental costs. That word is important because ``consider'' provides the Fed with the discretion to consider and determine, using their judgment, what is reasonable and proportional, meaning any costs considered would need to be justified to the Fed.

To further clarify, the language directs the Fed to consider ``all fixed and incremental costs associated with debit card transactions and program operations and allow incentives for a more innovative, efficient and secure payment card network.''

Why did we include all fixed and incremental costs? That is because the original statute limited the costs the Federal Reserve could consider to only those costs associated with the ``authorization, clearance or settlement of a particular electronic debit transaction.'' This language severely limits the costs to issuers that the Fed may consider in calculating reasonable and proportional rates and is in large measure why the Federal Reserve's proposed rule is currently at 12 cents.

There are a number of fixed costs associated with debit transactions, chief among them fraud costs, which are also arbitrarily limited in the original statute. The fraud language states that the Federal Reserve may--not must but may--allow for a fraud adjustment for costs associated with fraud prevention. Now, the Federal Reserve draft proposal did not include any fraud adjustment, and we have no idea what an adjustment might look like or whether the final rule would include one. But if it did, it could only include an adjustment related to fraud prevention but not the actual costs or losses associated with fraud.

Take for example the recent data breach by Michaels stores--a breach, by the way, which was the fault of the retailer, which had their debit kiosks compromised. What were the costs to the issuer of the cards that were compromised? They were significant.

First of all, it was a community bank in Illinois that had a fraud- monitoring program that identified the threat and alerted the retailer their kiosks had been compromised. Then there were the costs to these issuers of making their customers whole again for the losses they sustained by criminals removing funds directly from their bank accounts--$500 at a time. Additionally, issuers had to foot the costs associated with reissuing the cards and opening new accounts for customers with compromised accounts. But none of those costs--those associated with fraud and losses assumed by the issuers--could be calculated in the fraud adjustment under the current statute. That is why we included language directing the Federal Reserve to consider all fixed and incremental costs associated with debit card transactions and program operations to capture those costs. Fraud losses in monitoring programs are not associated with individual transactions, nor is the creation or reissuance of physical cards, account maintenance, or cardholder servicing.

Let me also say what we do not believe is included in any reasonable and proportional fixed and incremental costs associated with program operations. As a result of our conversations and consultation with the Feds, we do not believe rewards programs or miles would be nor should be considered as permissible costs, nor would or should any executive compensation, nor should the costs of maintaining ATM machines.

Why did we include the language allowing the Federal Reserve, in setting reasonable and proportional rates, to ``allow incentives for a more innovative, efficient and secure payment card network''? We added it because, in conversations with the Federal Reserve about what sorts of costs would be included in reasonable and proportional costs, they indicated that right now they do not have the ability to incentivize savings by issuers to make processing more efficient or secure. It seemed like a pretty good idea to Senator Corker and me that we should give the Federal Reserve this kind of discretion and that issuers should be incentivized to lower costs below whatever the Federal Reserve determines to be reasonable and proportional; otherwise, the fee would likely stay the same for years to come as there would be no incentive to lower costs.

In addition to the flexibility provided to the Federal Reserve to set the rates, the amendment also intends to provide discretion to the Federal Reserve to include additional factors in the study, such as the overall impact of regulating interchange fees on small businesses and the economy, as well as discretion in the agencies the Federal Reserve may consult when drafting the study.

In addition, it is intended that the findings must be made public and that the Federal Reserve is not required to start from square one. The intent is for the Federal Reserve to be able to build upon the information and insights which they have gathered already and which are a part of the current record.

Finally, this amendment doesn't undermine or inhibit the Federal Reserve's ability to implement the routing and network exclusivity provisions in the underlying statute. In fact, it does quite the opposite. We sought to preserve this language and these provisions as they were originally included in the statute.

In the last couple of days, several Senators have suggested additional changes that would improve the consumer-related aspects of the study proposed by my amendment. I very much appreciate their concerns and their interest on this critically important point, and the changes they have suggested are certainly ones I and other cosponsors are open to. Unfortunately, the Senator from Illinois filed a second- degree amendment which essentially closed off any chance to make additional changes to the amendment once it was filed.

I am more than willing to work with my colleagues to find ways to continue to improve this amendment and to ensure that consumers, small businesses, small banks, and credit unions get a fair deal as we move to a regulated interchange marketplace. And that is what we will get out of this amendment--the same idea of regulation that 64 Members of this body supported last year.

The difference between my amendment and the current law is that we will ensure that the Fed's regulations do not set the price below the cost of doing business. The current law prevented the Fed from looking at any number of elements of the cost of interchange. Some fraud costs were allowed to be included but not others. Some technology costs were included but not others. Why? Because the Senate made those arbitrary decisions. 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. Let's allow the Fed to find the actual correct number. As a farmer, I can tell you that if it costs me $3 to produce a bushel of wheat, it won't matter if I sell it for $2 or $1 or 50 cents, I will still go out of business because it is below my cost of doing business. And that is precisely what will happen to our smaller banks and credit unions.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I too echo the thoughts of the good Senator from Illinois. Senator Durbin and I are friends. We may not sound like it today, but we are. We just happen to disagree on this particular piece of policy.

There is one premise that I think is being taken as a given that is not a given at all. It was in the original Durbin amendment. It said we were going to exempt banks of $10 billion and less and credit unions of $10 billion and less--so we are going to do that. A lot of folks voted for this amendment because they knew the small banks couldn't distribute their costs, and it would have undue harmful effects on the small banks, small credit unions, and community banks.

But the facts have borne out something different since the last year. They have not been borne out by stuff that I have made up. It comes from the regulators themselves.

I have said many times on this floor that every regulator I have talked to, State or Federal, has said the exemption for small banks and credit unions will not work. It will not work. We voted on something 1 year ago that we thought we had and it does not work. Let me read the quotes:

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke:

We're still not sure whether it will work. There are market

forces that would work against the exemption.

He said it May 12 of this year.

Another quote by Chairman Bernanke:

It is going to affect the revenues of small issuers and

could result in some of the smaller banks being less

profitable or even failing.

Once again, in the banking area, by FDIC Chairwoman Bair:

I do think this is going to reduce the revenues.

Let me say that again:

I do think this is going to reduce the revenues at a number

of smaller banks and they will have to pass it on to their

customers in terms of higher fees.

What does that mean? Checking, time getting the loan, fees, all that stuff. Money doesn't grow out of air. You have to have it, and if you don't have it and you are doing business, under the cost of doing business you have to make it up somewhere.

Another quote from Ben Bernanke, and it is about the two-tiered system that is unlikely to maintain--to protect smaller institutions. This is a quote:

A number of networks have expressed their interest or

willingness to maintain a tiered interchange fee system, but

of course it is not required.

Chairwoman Bair again:

If the Federal Reserve's view is there is no legal

authority to require that, it does become more problematic.

The fact is, the two-tiered system is not going to work. Every regulator said it is not going to work. Its impacts are going to be on small community banks, not the Wall Street boys. They are fine. We agree on that. But the community banks and credit unions are going to have incredible impacts on our small businesses that we are trying to help get us out of this recession we are in.

This is not a bailout. This will ensure a regulated debit interchange system. By the way, I do not believe in bailouts. I didn't believe in the TARP bailout. I voted against it. I voted against the auto dealers' bailout. Right or wrong or indifferent, I do not believe in bailouts. I would not be supporting this if there were a bailout. I would not be offering it.

Wall Street banks are going to be just fine regardless of what happens, but the fact is, the exemption for banks under $10 billion will not work. That is why I am here. It is as simple as that.

I wish to close for now with a statement made by the ``Frank'' in Dodd-Frank, whom this bill is named after, Barney Frank, who worked with Chris Dodd to craft this bill in the House and Senate. Here is what Barney Frank says. Is today the 8th, by the way? He said it today, the 8th of June, speaking of the Tester-Corker-Hagan-Crapo-Bennet amendment, this amendment:

This is a good, balanced, compromised approach. I support

it and I hope it will pass.

The author of this bill from the House thinks this is a good policy change to make Dodd-Frank better.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, just to clarify, I have 2 minutes, Senator Durbin has 2 minutes, and then we vote?

God bless the U.S.A.

Mr. President, let me say this, first of all, to the folks in the gallery and the Members who are still in their offices. Look at me. Do I look like a banker? Senator Corker and I drew up this amendment. The banks did not draw up this amendment. We drew it up with the help of Senators Hagan, Crapo, and Bennet.

As is usual, Senator Durbin and I agree on 90 percent, and there is 10 percent on which we disagree. Do I think swipe fees need to be regulated? Of course. But the problem with his amendment is that the exemption on community banks and credit unions under $10 billion does not work. It doesn't work. I have read all the quotes from Bernanke and Bair and the head of the OCC and the NCUA and all of them. They have said that they don't know how to make a two-tiered system work because the free market system will overrule it, and that is the way it ought to be in this country.

So the bottom line is, I look at this from a rural perspective and the impact the Federal Government has on rural America, and while we are trying to solve one problem, we are creating two or three others. I could care less about the Wall Street banks. They are going to do fine. But I will tell my colleagues, if we lose the banks in our small towns in Montana or Wyoming or Tennessee, then we can put another nail in the coffin of rural America.

With that, I yield the floor to the good Senator from Tennessee.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Would the Senator yield for a question? Is the Senator aware that there are at least four other bills--Senator Vitter, Senator Roberts, Senator Collins, and Senator Portman--and, in addition, that Senator Lieberman is developing a comprehensive bill on reg reform? Is the Senator aware of those other bills?

Through the Chair, I understand Senator Coburn, under the UC, has the next 15 minutes. But, through the Chair, I would end my question by saying that I think the Senator is right. There are some regulations that are coming fairly fast and furiously. But I think the Senator would also understand that the normal process is reviewing the bills at the committee level, comparing and contrasting, and then bringing the best approach to the floor. And that is what some of us are objecting to. It is not the goal of reducing regulations; it is the process.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I understand our side has about 50 minutes left in this debate on the Snowe amendment and we will vote at 2:15. I will speak for the next 15 or 20 minutes. There is nobody else on the floor on our side. I will continue to try to answer some of the issues raised in the last few minutes about this particular amendment.

First of all, I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from Oklahoma, and nobody has worked harder on trying to bring more efficiency to the Federal Government. He has spent hours and hours and hours in meetings, official meetings, informal meetings, on budgets, efficiencies, and regulations. I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from Oklahoma personally. But I do take offense at some of the--not just the suggestions but accusations and specific attacks made on the floor against the government. Two or three were issued in the speech he just gave--statements like this: ``The bureaucracy never takes risks.''

I wish to ask him, what bureaucracy did he think supported the elimination of Osama bin Laden? Does the Senator from Oklahoma believe there were no risks taken by this bureaucracy that he so routinely wants to degrade--to no good end? I would ask him, if he were still on the floor, were no risks taken by anyone when they launched the strike against Osama bin Laden that eventually killed him?

Would the Senator from Oklahoma suggest we have no regulations on Wall Street; that we should trust the big international bankers of the world to do what is right every day for the people of Oklahoma? I know the people on Wall Street wake up every morning and think to themselves while they are eating breakfast: What can I do today to help the people in Oklahoma or in Louisiana?

Of course, that is absurd. There is a place for appropriate regulation, and bureaucracies aren't always bad. When George Washington led the creation of this country, he most certainly had in his mind a government that worked for the people, by the people.

Let's fix the government. Let's not tear it down by statements that have no basis in fact, that do not uplift people, do not encourage people. They numb people. They make people angry. They make people think there is no hope, when there is. There are thousands of people who put on a uniform every day and go to work for this country. They are mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, and uncles. They work hard and they do not deserve the disparaging remarks that come too often from the other side of the aisle.

If you don't like government--you have made it plain--then fix it. One of the ways to fix it is to take a bill--and this is not an amendment that Senator Snowe has, it is a bill. I have seen it. She asked me to cosponsor it, and I have declined. It is a bill--a major bill--that has jurisdiction that will find its jurisdiction not in one committee--the Small Business Committee--but in five committees that have jurisdiction over the aspects of Senator Snowe's bill. One of the reasons we should not vote favorably is not because we are not for regulatory reform but because this bill has ramifications that go far beyond the Small Business Committee, which I chair, and five or six other committees need to look at the provisions in her bill. That is one reason we have asked to go through the committee process.

No. 2, there are, at least to my knowledge, four other bills that attempt to fix this overregulatory reach which, I agree with Senator Thune, with Senator Coburn, and I agree with Senator Snowe, needs to be tapped down and harnessed--not eliminated--and made less onerous for all business, not just small business. There are at least four other bills I know of that are attempting to do that. One is by Senator Vitter, one by Senator Roberts, one by Senator Collins, and one by Senator Portman. I have not had the opportunity to review in detail all of these other bills, but I am sure they have some very excellent points to them.

The committee process allows a chairman such as Senator Lieberman, who is not here today, whose committee would have primary jurisdiction over this, to bring all five bills before his committee, hear the best aspects of each, potentially combine them into a bill, and bring them to the floor. Do you know what. Senator Lieberman, I know, has offered to do that in his committee. That bill could potentially come out of committee--potentially with Senator Snowe as lead author, with other cosponsors--a bill that both Democrats and Republicans can agree to, which could give relief to reg reform.

This is not about finding a solution. This is about public relations, campaigns, and Republican rhetoric about the election. That is what I object to. If this were about regulatory reform and finding a solution, the five Senators who have bills, and other Senators--Senator McCaskill, for one, who is here today, is developing a bill, and Senator Carper, who has spent years on this subject and is quite the expert--they would all come before the Homeland Security Committee, on which I have the privilege of serving, and in a short amount of time-- just a few weeks--figure out something the majority could support.

This is not about fixing the problem. This is about bumper stickers for elections, and I am very tired of it. I am not the only one. As chair of the Small Business Committee, I can promise you that our committee, with Senator

Snowe as ranking member, has worked every day very hard through this recession to put forward bills on this floor that could help create jobs, bring relief. In fact, regarding one of the most burdensome regulations that the business community was screaming about, our committee was very aggressive in helping to eliminate that. That was section 1099, which would have required every business to report to the IRS any purchase they made for goods over $600. It would have brought many businesses to their knees, buried in paperwork.

Did our committee sit around and twiddle its thumb? No. We worked hard. We had, I think, the only hearing in Congress on 1099, and we repealed it. It took us a while to find the right offset. The minute the business groups brought it to our attention, we said we made a mistake and it will take us a while to find the $20 billion to offset it, but we will look at it before it goes into effect and repeal it. We did that.

When Republicans say Democrats don't care about regulatory burdens, I find that offensive. It is not helpful. This bill is not on the floor on regulatory relief. This bill is on a small but effective economic development program that has worked beautifully in my State. Contrary to what the Senator from Oklahoma and others have said, this program-- in Louisiana, as far as Louisiana is concerned--actually works. One of the reasons it works so well is because many of the decisions about the grants are not done in Washington but at the regional level. Our office happens to be in Austin, TX. When the Chamber of Commerce comes to visit me--and they are not always huge supporters of the Democratic caucus--they say to me: Senator, one of the best programs that our members like and feel the Federal Government does a very good job with is the EDA grants, because they are not that bureaucratic. They make quick decisions and help us fill gap financing in programs that make a meaningful difference to people in our communities. I didn't raise this subject to the Chamber of Commerce; they raised this subject to me.

Maybe the Senator from Oklahoma is correct that some of these moneys were earmarked. But we don't allow earmarks anymore. So this program is going to go on without earmarks directed by Members. It is going to be done on a regional basis, and these programs have been--at least in Louisiana's experience--quite effective. Louisiana Tech, one of my universities, received a $2 million EDA grant. I will submit this for the Record: Our ongoing partnership with EDA has greatly enhanced the university's overall economic development efforts. We are creating the EDA University Center.

This is from the mayors of both cities. You know, I do trust my local elected officials. I do trust the people I represent. When they say a program works, I like to believe them.

There is a list of projects and recent investments in Louisiana--$1.2 million to Tulane University.

Can I tell you one thing about Tulane University, since it was damaged significantly after Hurricane Katrina? We have over 45,000 applicants to this school. Why do people want to come to Tulane? They want to come because not only is it a great school, but it is in a great city that is rebuilding itself. An EDA grant--that some people wish to eliminate--is helping to rebuild our city. So $1.2 million to Tulane University. It is a microloan program.

I believe the people at Tulane University. I have a great respect for Scott Cowen and their board. Everywhere I travel around the United States as a Senator I could not be more proud when people come up to me and comment what a great university Tulane is. I don't need somebody in Washington telling me how good this program is. I have the people I represent at home telling me.

We have $75,000 given to the downtown development district which was underwater after Katrina for the Idea Village. You know where the Idea Village was recently advertised? Maybe on the front page of Enterprise Magazine; maybe in Time magazine. This Idea Village is one of the best ideas in the whole country. You know who funded it? The program Senator Boxer is trying to reauthorize.

We have $400,000 for a startup fund for the creation and development of stimulus funds to support fledgling enterprises in the greater New Orleans region. Our seafood industry went completely--no pun intended-- underwater after the BP oilspill. This agency stood up, when no one else would--BP wouldn't give them a penny, Ken Feinberg wouldn't give them any money--and gave them $350,000 to keep their head above water-- the Seafood Promotion Board. That is why, in large measure, people are eating gulf coast shrimp today.

So I don't know what report Senator Coburn is looking at, but the May 19 GAO report states they have not concluded that duplication exists among programs, and plans to address these issues in their future work on overlap and duplication.

I don't know if the Senator has asked his Chamber of Commerce from Oklahoma, but I am going back to my office and I am going to call them myself, because I wish to find out. Maybe their program works differently in Oklahoma than it works in Louisiana. But when I call my people at home--and they will tell me: Senator, some of these programs aren't worth a hill of beans and you should eliminate them; these programs are too difficult. I have that all the time about some programs. Not all the time, but some programs. This isn't one of them.

The reason I am a little exercised is because this is like deja vu. I came to this floor 4 weeks ago to try to get a similar program in size--a $1.2 billion program that has worked so well. Senator Warren Rudman had created it. It is a great program. It is the country's best venture capital program for all small business. It makes money. It doesn't lose money. We got the same thing done to us by the other side of this aisle that says we don't care about small business over here because we have to talk about X, Y, and Z.

So this is the second time for one of our chairmen. I was the first, and now Senator Boxer is trying to bring to the floor a program that is not that complicated. It is a little program but it has big bang for the buck. It gets rave reviews from the people in my State--Republicans mainly but Democrats as well--and we can't seem to get this program approved until we take bills that Members want to put on this bill that have nothing to do with it and that haven't gone through committee.

I am going to be voting against Senator Snowe's bill. But to make clear, I support Senator Snowe's efforts to reduce regulation. My people in Louisiana are screaming about this. I have tried to communicate this to the administration in many ways, whether it is EPA or the Corps of Engineers, or the more recent one coming out of one agency that wants all my oilfield workers to put on HAZMAT suits to go to work. If you put on a HAZMAT suit in Louisiana when it is 100 degrees, you won't get to the oil rig because you will faint before you get there.

I am not unaware--I want the Senator from Oklahoma to understand--of some ridiculous rules and regulations that come flying out of some of our agencies. But the way to fix them is not to bring a bill to the floor that has not had a hearing when six different committees have jurisdiction, when Senator Lieberman, who has the lead jurisdiction as chair of Homeland Security has indicated a complete willingness to take this on.

There are enough bumper sticker printing operations in America today. There is only one U.S. Senate. I suggest we start acting like the U.S. Senate and stop acting like a bumper sticker operation.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

I object.

Mr. President, the Senator from California was on the Senate floor this morning, Mrs. Boxer, advocating passage of this bill and urging colleagues to vote against the Snowe amendment. I am here to support that position.

I would like to respond briefly to Senator Coburn's last couple of statements about where the bureaucracy failed. He didn't have to remind me, of course, the bureaucracy failed to respond to Katrina and Rita, the largest disasters by far in the history of the country. But we have spent 6 years fixing that bureaucracy, not printing bumper stickers for reelection campaigns. You know what. It has worked because our efforts to fix the bureaucracy have helped the people of Missouri and Arkansas and Tennessee and Montana and Indiana who are currently experiencing terrible disasters as we speak.

The bureaucracy that showed up at the Superdome is a lot better today in many ways--it is better today than the bureaucracy that showed up at the Superdome. That is because we had hundreds of hours of committee meetings, where this hard work is done, to bring

significant and important bills and changes that take debate, not on the Senate floor but take debate in the work of the committee. When you are working on major pieces of legislation that have major impacts, that is where it is done.

Besides the FREEDOM Act that is on the floor today, there is the Regulatory Responsibility For Our Economy Act, sponsored by Senator Roberts with 46 cosponsors. I am assuming--I don't have the list, but I am assuming they are Democratic and Republican cosponsors. That is a major regulatory relief bill.

There is a bill by Senator Collins called the CURB Act, Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens. The CURB Act has two cosponsors.

Then there is a smaller bill by Senator Portman that has no cosponsors, but he is the lead sponsor. That looks to me like it is a smaller bill and has limited scope but nonetheless on regulatory reform.

There could be 12 other bills filed in the Senate--I don't know--and hundreds of other bills filed in the House. Forget the House bills. When bills like this are filed in the Senate, the usual route and the most effective route is to go through the committee of jurisdiction. You can understand in this topic, which is so broad--regulatory reform--it is regulatory reform in the Department of Commerce and regulatory reform in the Department of EPW, Environmental and Public Works, regulatory reform for the Department of Homeland Security, regulatory reform in the Department of Defense. There are many committees of jurisdiction.

What everyone has agreed to is to have the hearing in the Homeland Security Committee, which has broad jurisdiction, and get the work done. Senator Lieberman is not here today because he is on Jewish holiday. He has said time and time again he will have this hearing in the committee and that is the appropriate place so we can come forward with a bill on regulatory relief.

There are a couple of reasons why this particular approach is flawed. I would like to read the comments from the administration. I would like to read three specific reasons why this particular FREEDOM Act is not in the proper position it should be. But the way to fix it is not debating on the floor of the Senate on a bill that is not really germane to the bill that we are debating, that we are trying to pass. It is to have this kind of debate in committee so we can work out these details. Senator Snowe has shown herself to be in the past, and still today, willing to work in a very cooperative manner, and the place to do this is in committee.

No. 1: The bill as currently drafted would allow judicial

review before the completion of rulemaking. That provision in

the Freedom Act would undermine regulatory certainty, making

it harder for businesses--

not easier, harder--

for businesses to plan for the future and compete in the

marketplace. It would also invite excessively costly and

unwieldy litigation.

We don't want to have more lawsuits. We want to have less lawsuits. That is one of the problems small businesses are facing today--lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit. The last thing we want to do is encourage more of them. Many people have reviewed the technical writing of the bill in its current form and believe it will result in more lawsuits, not less. We wish to fix that in committee.

The amendment would make it harder, not easier, to see the

actual cost of regulation, by expanding the Regulatory

Flexibilities Act definition to include indirect effects.

I can understand why she wants to do it, but in interpreting the language as the Senator has written it, this legislation would likely undermine any reliable and meaningful economic analysis of regulation, thereby distracting the agencies from focusing on what the actual impacts of the rules would be.

Finally, the amendment inappropriately links regulatory

decisions to budget cuts. Decisions about regulation should

be based on sound economic science and not on the threat of

budget cuts.

This is a preliminary review of some of the current problems.

Senator Snowe is right, I guess. We could stay on the floor for the next 2 or 3 or 4 weeks and the other Senators who are not on the floor could agree to come and debate their bills on the floor, which is highly unusual. But why not just go to the Homeland Security Committee, have all of the sponsors of these major pieces of legislation present their bills and have that committee work through these technical difficulties? Because it is an important issue. Many of us support regulatory reform. We know there are some burdens, particularly on small business. We want to get it fixed, so let's fix it instead of continuing to rail on this subject on every bill that comes before the Senate, whether or not it has anything to do with regulatory reform.

One thing I wish to point out to the Senator, and I point this out with the greatest respect, about 6 months ago or longer now, we were both on the floor trying to pass the small business jobs act, a very significant bill that would actually help to bolster this economy and help provide literally billions of dollars of loans to small businesses that couldn't get them anywhere. Their credit card companies had raised the rates so high or their banks had shut down their lines of credit. Senator Snowe and I worked together to bring a bill to the floor--and we did, and passed it, unfortunately, without the support of the other side of the aisle. But in that debate, the Senator from Maine said-- because I included in that bill, with a 60-vote margin--I got Senator Voinovich and Senator LeMieux to vote for the small business lending fund, which was a little unusual. She said:

. . . not included in the overall. First and foremost, it

has not had a single hearing with respect to this issue, and

in my view, it certainly does resurrect the controversial

TARP program . . . and because it hasn't had a hearing, this

should not pass.

Yet, within a year, she is back arguing against that argument--that her bill, which hasn't had any hearing in the committee--should pass.

So there is some inconsistency here. I say this with the greatest respect to the Senator from Maine. But if we want to be serious about regulatory reform, we have to have this debate in the committee of jurisdiction, which is right now Homeland Security, and then have the other chairmen of the committees try to cooperate with that committee and bring something to the floor. We will be happy, many of us, to vote for it. But doing this in this way is not helpful. It is not going to fix the problem. It is only going to make the burden on small business worse. We have to move past it.

I wish to refer my colleagues to the floor remarks Senator Snowe made on July 22, 2010.

Can these be fixed? Yes. But this is not the place, on the Senate floor, when there are many other bills as well. Senator Snowe could remain the main sponsor because she has put in the most work. She has been a tireless advocate. She should get tremendous praise for bringing forth this issue and keeping the fires burning and pushing the Senate to this end, and that would be terrific. Many of us would join that effort. But this is not the bill to do it on. This is not the place to do it. I would suggest that, again, taking this to the committee of jurisdiction, working it out, bringing the administration forward so we can actually make some real progress on curbing regulatory overreach by the Federal Government would be welcomed by all.

I see the Senator from Vermont is here on the floor. I am assuming he wants to talk.

How much time do we have remaining?

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming. Our relationship and friendship has been growing over the years. I respect him so much as one of the real voices of retailers and small business. I had an opportunity to spend some time visiting China with him and his wife. We got to sit down and talk about their lives and what they have been through.

My colleague knows the small business side of this world better than anybody who sits in this Chamber. As I listened to him talking about the solution to this problem, I could not help but nod affirmatively. There is no reason we should have had to vote a year ago to establish this interchange fee. It reflected the fact that retailers, small businesses, merchants, hotels, restaurants, and shopkeepers across the board were literally given no seat at the table to discuss the fairness and propriety of these interchange fees. The point he made drives it home. The credit card networks, working through the banks, are charging our businesses in America the highest interchange fees--that is the fee charged every time someone swipes that plastic debit card--of any country in the world. The interchange fee in Canada is zero; in the United States, 44 cents on average on every transaction.

I could not agree with the Senator more. If the banks would come down out of their ivory towers on Wall Street and other places and sit down, roll up their sleeves with the folks running shoe stores and grocery stores and hotels and restaurants, and say all right, we are going to come up with a fairer system--if it is zero in Canada and it is 44 cents here, there is a number in between that can make sense to both sides. If that were the case, the Senator and I would be working on some other issues rather than this one.

But my colleague is so right. Today we have to defeat the Tester- Corker amendment; otherwise, we are sending a massive subsidy to the biggest banks on Wall Street, up to $8 billion a year that they collect in these debit card interchange fees at the expense of small businesses and consumers all across America.

I thank the Senator for his support. I know later this afternoon at 2 o'clock when we face this vote it is an important vote for every small business in his home State and mine as well. I thank the Senator for taking the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I have high regard for the Senator from Montana. He is my friend, and he will be my friend whatever the outcome of the vote happens to be, which will happen in about 40 minutes. But I do disagree with him on this issue.

I would like to make it clear from the start that the law on the books today specifically exempts community banks and credit unions-- specifically those valued at $10 billion or less. That means 100 banks out of 7,000 in America are affected by this new law and 3 credit unions in all of America.

Now, the banks and credit unions have come here and said: Not enough protection because we can't be sure you will protect us from the credit card companies coming back on us and hurting us. OK, we can write in more protection, if necessary. But to argue that we are trying to save mom-and-pop banks here--from whom? We are trying to save them from the credit card giants that have created this price-fixing mess.

If you are an autograph seeker and you happen to want to meet CEOs of major corporations, you hit it rich today. Get over here and walk the halls of the Senate office buildings, and you will meet the CEOs of the biggest companies and banks in America. Why are they here today? Because of this 2 p.m. vote. Why is this 2 p.m. vote important to the three biggest banks in America--Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo? Because right now what is at stake with the Tester-Corker amendment is $8 billion in fees they want to collect from consumers and businesses all across America--$8 billion.

When we got into the business of TARP--remember those days when the

banks had messed up the economy so badly that we had to come to their rescue with taxpayer money, and the average family across America watched the taxes they were paying this government going to the biggest banks on Wall Street? That was about $800 billion. The three biggest banks that will profit the most here from this amendment--Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo--each was a beneficiary of that TARP money, that bailout money. Chase received $25 billion, $45 billion went to Bank of America, and $25 billion went to Wells Fargo. They did quite well. When we rescued them, they sent us a little thank-you card. Do you know what it was? It was a notice that they were giving their chief executives bonuses out of the tax money we were sending.

So the question is not whether we are going to do another TARP today but whether we are going to do a baby TARP. It is only $8 billion for these three big banks this time, but I think it is an outrage. It is an outrage to make consumers across America pay this. They pay it every time they use their debit cards, and the merchants and retailers that collect it have no voice in this process.

I wish some of the people who come to this floor and shed copious tears over community banks and credit unions that are already protected in this law would shed a few tears for the people who run the shops and businesses across America, the restaurants and the hotels. These are the people who are being hit by these debit card fees every single day. Where is the sympathy for small business on this floor? They are all over Illinois, they are all over America.

If we really believe the key to economic recovery is the strength of small business creating and expanding jobs across America, for goodness' sake, let's stand up for them. You can't vote at 2 p.m. for this pending amendment and say you are a friend of small business. No, you can't. Small business is lined up across America saying: For once, give us a break against these credit card companies and the big banks on Wall Street. Give us a break. Are we going to do it? I am afraid not, if we pass this amendment.

I look at this amendment and I think to myself, Why did the banks write it the way they did? They wrote it so they could include more costs into their calculation of the fee they charge on an interchange transaction with debit cards. I will tell you this: Based on the language that was just read to us, they will easily justify the 44 cents they are currently charging and more.

I respect my colleague from Montana when he says on the floor that he didn't mean to include certain things. I wish he had been specific. I think the language of this amendment is broad enough and wide enough to drive a truck through. The banks are going to come out quite well, thank you, at the end of the day. But don't they always? When it is all said and done, aren't they usually the winners around here?

Today, we have a chance to turn the tables, to really make the winners small businesses and consumers across America. That is why consumer groups support keeping the law as it is. That is why, when the banks wrote this, they said the four agencies that would decide what the fee was going to be would be four bank regulators. I am searching-- searching, searching--for any reference to consumers or small businesses. Sorry, the banks couldn't include those people. They couldn't include those people in that calculation.

To say ``We are for the little guy, and that is why we need to vote for this amendment'' is to ignore the amendment's wording as written. If you are for the small businesspeople across America, there is only one vote, and it is a ``no'' vote.

Let the Federal Reserve issue this rule. Don't let the banks stop them in their tracks. That is exactly what they want to do. Let them issue this rule. If more needs to be done, I am on board. But the notion that we cannot even trust the Federal Reserve to come up with a rule on this that may protect small businesses and consumers across America is just plain unfair. It is wrong and we ought to know better.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

How much time is remaining?

Is there any time remaining on the other side?

Mr. President, if Senator Tester returns to the floor and wants to speak before the vote, I will ask unanimous consent to each have 2 minutes for that purpose. Perhaps he is not going to, but I want to make this a matter of record here because I want to give him a chance to close.

Let me try to get down to basics. Have my colleagues ever pulled out one of these cards to pay for something? If you are my age, you don't pull it out as often as younger people. This morning, I was down in the carryout here, and a young woman who is a Capitol police officer bought a pack of chewing gum for $1.20 and handed over her debit card. The debit card was swiped. She took the chewing gum and walked away. The average amount that is charged by the issuing bank of her debit card is 44 cents for each transaction. How much money do we think the owner of the carryout made on that pack of gum this morning? The answer is nothing. Now repeat that over and over again across America.

What is happening is that the banks issuing these debit cards are imposing interchange fees, swipe fees, on these transactions, and the merchants and the retailers have no voice in the amount of that fee, no voice whatsoever.

The Federal Reserve did a study and asked: Well, how much does it actually cost them to process that debit transaction? The answer was 12 cents, in the range of 12 cents. The charge is 44 cents; the cost is 12 cents. Is there something wrong with this picture? It means every person buying goods at stores across America pays more to pay for this fee.

We have heard the plaintive cries of those offering this amendment of how we have to have some sympathy for these banks--these poor banks, struggling to survive. If they can't collect the maximum on their debit fee interchange fee, the swipe fee, what is going to happen to them? Well, we have already exempted, incidentally, all banks with values of $10 billion and less, so we are talking about the big boys, the big banks.

So let's ask a few basic questions.

How does the debit card interchange fee in America compare to other countries? Visa and MasterCard do business all around the world. Banks issue these all around the world. So how do we stack up? Where is the good old U.S. of A? Well, I will tell my colleagues where we stack up. We have the highest interchange fees charged by Visa and MasterCard anywhere in the world--the highest. Thank you. Can America express its gratitude any greater than to say thank you to the banks for charging us the most for using plastic?

So what do they charge in other countries? Debit interchange fees in the European Union are less than one-fifth the charge in the United States. So let's do the math: 9 cents a transaction in Europe, 44 cents here. We want to give a big, sloppy kiss to these big banks at 2 o'clock for the way they are going to treat us. But it gets better. When we go to Canada, the Visa and MasterCard debit interchange fee in Canada is zero. There is no interchange fee. Now we have people on the floor begging us to show some sympathy for these banks and give them an interchange fee, and they charge nothing in Canada--zero. That is the reality.

The biggest banks make the biggest money on this process, far and away--Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo--to the tune of almost $8 billion a year. How long did they want to study interchange fees? If one is making $1.3 billion a month, one wants the study to go on for months, if not years. Get back to you later, we say to the banks. Yes, that is exactly what they want. At 2 o'clock, we will decide as a Senate whether we are going to give it to them.

This amendment, drawn up by the banks, compromises between the banks, gives to the banks exactly what they are looking for--a huge loophole to assess their interchange fees to justify what they are charging today and charge more. There is nothing in here--nothing--to protect consumers and businesses across America.

I got started in politics with a fellow named Paul Douglas. This goes back a few years. I was a college student. Douglas was a Ph.D. in economics--much smarter than I, for sure. He spent his whole life trying to pass something called truth in lending. All he wanted the banks to do was to tell their customers how much they were charging them and what interest rates. He spent 18 years battling that, and he left the Senate without getting it done. He couldn't finish it. Bill Proxmire of Wisconsin took up the battle and passed it. Paul Douglas fought those banks for 18 years.

It is a battle that has been going on a long time around here because, you see, there is a lot of power in this banking community, these financial institutions. When they come to the floor and say they want something, Congress decides, we better start talking. Rarely do they ever lose.

I guess we could say the Wall Street reform bill was a loss for them, but they deserved it. Look at the god-awful mess they put America into with their rotten practices, their stupidity and reckless conduct. We are still paying for that. We still have a lot of people out of work and businesses that failed. Many of the savings accounts of families across America are still suffering because those banks made those mistakes. And in the free market system, did they pay for their mistakes? No. The American taxpayers paid for their mistakes.

Giving credit where it is due to Senator Tester, he voted against the TARP bill. He said it, and I want it to be on the record. I voted for it. I did because I was told by Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve and Hank Paulson of the Department of the Treasury: If you don't help these banks and they fail, you will see a worse depression than 1929. I bought it. I voted for it. Almost $800 billion in bailouts to these banks. I was seething to think we were going to spend taxpayers' money to help these banks be rescued from their own stupidity and their own greed. We did it.

The three biggest banks involved here--some $95 billion we sent to them. Well, they are back. They are looking for the second installment on their payment, this time not from the taxpayers, this time from consumers and businesses across America. What they are asking us for, the biggest banks, the three biggest ones, is almost $8 billion a year in these interchange fees.

We have a chance now to try to bring some balance to this conversation. We have a chance to finally stand up for small businesses and merchants and consumers across America who have been victimized by the credit card companies and the big banks for too long. Can this Senate stand up once a year, once a decade for consumers across America against these financial institutions? That is what is at stake with this amendment. I know it is going to be a heated vote because my poor colleagues have been beaten to a pulp by both sides by those who feel very intensely about this issue.

I wish to credit my colleague from Montana because he told me at the outside--when I said, Jon, please don't do this, he said, I believe it. And, Jon, I admire you for doing it. I still do. Even though I disagree with you, I admire you for doing it. You are a man of conviction and principle and a great Senator.

But this is a historic moment in the Senate. It is a moment where we will decide whether for once the big banks are going to lose and the consumers are going to win; whether we are going to reduce the cost of these transactions and help consumers across America and small businesses across America make the profit they need.

Some people say: Well, this hasn't been studied enough. For 11 months now, the Federal Reserve has been studying this, the best economists, the best minds there. They have entertained 11,000 comments. They have heard everything under the Sun. They have heard it all. In a matter of days, they are set to issue a rule--a rule which no one has seen, a rule which the banks don't want anyone to see. They don't want this rule to see the light of day, and that is why they are here today--to stop the Federal Reserve from issuing a rule that may cost them in terms of their bottom line.

It is our choice now. It is our choice whether these banks are going to prevail. History will record the strength of consumers and small businesses across America against the Wall Street banks that take away more than half of the interchange fees on debit cards that are collected across America.

I hope my colleagues will stand by the decision we made a year ago. I hope they will give each of us an opportunity to see this rule come into effect and from that build on it a stronger, growing economy, one that is fair--an economy where interchange fees have been dictated by the big banks and credit card companies for too long.

I reserve the remainder of my time. How much time do I have remaining?

I mentioned on the floor earlier that I would like to give to my colleague 2 minutes, and then I will take 2 minutes, and that will be it. So I ask unanimous consent.

Mr. President, I understand I have 2 minutes?

Mr. President, if my colleagues are interested in smalltown America, they should be interested in the businesses that operate in smalltown America, and they are begging us to vote no on the Tester-Corker amendment.

I happen to live in a town of 120,000 people. It is a little bit larger than my colleague's hometown in Montana, but I can tell you what the businesses there are saying. I can tell you what Wendy Chronister is saying, who owns the Qik-n-EZ gas stations. She is saying to me: Give me a break. They are hitting us so hard with these debit interchange fees.

We have letters put in the Record from military base exchanges which say this is the fastest growing, uncontrollable cost they are facing. This is a problem which the credit card companies and the banks have wanted to ignore and now this amendment wants to delay for 6 months, a year, or longer.

In terms of trusting the regulators, I am afraid the banking interests that wrote this amendment did not trust them to even issue the rule. You had to call this debate before they issued the rule. You do not know what the number is going to be on the interchange fee, but you had to stop them in their tracks.

If you will go look in the corridors and rooms around Capitol Hill, you will not find a lot of small town bankers.

You will find the biggest banks in America waiting in the wings, praying, putting in a billion dollars' worth of prayers that this amendment is going to pass.

I do not question the intentions or motives of Senators Tester or Corker. I never will. But I can tell you, the effect of this amendment is going to be giving to those big banks and those credit card companies a windfall of profit they do not deserve.

If the interchange fee is zero in Canada, why is it 44 cents here? Can we stand up, representing the people of this country, and say that is fundamentally unfair; you have to treat our consumers and merchants fairly? If we cannot stand up and do that, why are we here? To do the bidding of the banks and the credit card companies? I hope not. I hope we are here to stand up for economic fairness and for consumers and small businesses across America begging us to defeat this amendment.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) is necessarily absent.