Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I honor the military service of Raymond Deutscher.

Raymond enlisted in the Army in his home State of North Dakota in the spring of 1942. He was a born leader who became a combat infantry squadron leader. And he led his troops to the beaches of Normandy, June of 1944.

When Raymond and his troops arrived, he said the water and sand was already stained with blood. In Normandy, on June 11, 1944, Raymond was shot and severely wounded by German forces. His recovery took 7 months at a hospital in England and further hospital stays at home.

Through the long trauma and his long recovery from enemy fire, Raymond Deutscher never received the medals he earned as a hero of World War II.

His military records were destroyed by a 1973 fire in St. Louis. And he passed away on January 10, 2001.

His family reached out to me and started asking questions about Raymond's service and the due recognition he never received.

Last month I had the honor of presenting to his family Raymond Deutscher's Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Good Conduct Medal, American Campaign Medal, European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal, Combat Infantryman Badge First Award with Rifle Bar, World War Two Victory Medal, and Honorable Service Lapel Button

These eight medals may be small tokens, but they are powerful symbols of true heroism, sacrifice, and dedication to service. These medals are presented on behalf of a grateful nation.

Mr. President, today I honor CPL Peter Schneider and his service to the U.S. Army during World War II.

At the age of 17, Corporal Schneider's parents passed away and he was left to raise two younger siblings. Although he didn't have to go to war, he believed it was his calling. And his older brother agreed to take care of the children.

On July 3, 1944, Corporal Schneider was severely wounded by German troops in Livry, France. His wounds were so severe he spent 4 years recovering in a hospital. The attack left Mr. Schneider 100 percent disabled. But that didn't stop him from working the rest of his life after the war.

Corporal Schneider received a Purple Heart for his sacrifice. His daughter Marlene keeps the medal in her home as a memorial. But after some research, Marlene discovered her father never received all the recognition he earned for his service in World War II.

A full year before he was wounded, Corporal Schneider served in the 41st Armored Infantry Division under General Patton. And in July of 1943, he was part of the first wave of Allied Forces--the tip of the spear--to storm Sicily and liberate Palermo.

After reaching out to me, we discovered that for his heroism in that significant part of the war, Corporal Schneider earned two more important medals.

Last month I had the honor of presenting to his family CPL Peter Schneider's Bronze Star and European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal.

These may be small tokens, but they are powerful symbols of true heroism, sacrifice, and dedication to service.

These medals are presented on behalf of a grateful nation.

Peter Schneider passed away in 1999 having never seen these medals. But they will be part of his family's history forever.

Mr. President, you should see the folks back in Montana and across this country as they watch the news and read the papers, shaking their heads. I do not blame them. I am shaking my head too because we just wasted 2 precious days debating a plan that wipes out Medicare and Social Security, a plan that guts veterans' benefits.

Yes, that is exactly what the plan did. That is exactly why I opposed it. It is incredible to me that some folks have no problem turning their back on America's seniors and America's veterans while at the same time preserving tax loopholes that benefit millionaires and Big Oil and Wall Street and corporations that ship our jobs overseas. That is why Montana and folks across this country are shaking their heads. They do not think much of what is going on in Washington, DC, these days.

My friends in the House know full well this bill is no friend of the seniors and it is no friend of the veterans. They know full well it would force deep cuts in Medicare and Social Security. They know this all so very well. So you know what they did. What do career politicians do when they want people to believe their plan to cut Medicare somehow exempts Medicare? They add language saying ``exempt Medicare.'' That is what they did. Montanans deserve better, and Americans deserve better.

Let's look at the whole truth. Let's first talk about the cuts that are in the cut, cap, and balance plan.

This plan locks in cuts proposed by the controversial House budget plan--otherwise known as the Ryan plan in the House--and it locks them in for a full decade. That means you are going to see more than $111 billion in cuts this year alone. That is 10 percent. Will it be a 10- percent cut to veterans health care or highway or water infrastructure or education? They will not tell us how they plan to make those cuts. Maybe they will take a little less out of our veterans but at the expense of the police and firefighters. Maybe they will take a few less dollars out of agricultural research but then kick a few more kids out of Head Start.

Now let's talk about the ``cap.'' The plan caps Federal spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product, requiring even further spending cuts. Now, 18 percent brings us to a level this country has not seen since 1966, about the same time Medicare was created. Even Ronald Reagan advocated for a higher rate than 18 percent.

Here is the kicker: The small print you will not hear from the people who already voted for this bill is that the annual interest on our debt and the very things this bill claims to exempt--Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veterans' benefits--will cost more than what is allowed under the cap. That means there is to be nothing left to spend on any other program--nothing. That includes the military, our infrastructure, homeland security, and just about everything else. So how is that going to work so that this bill protects Social Security and Medicaid? It will not unless you invent your own math. What are the lawmakers going to do? Do they really intend to close down the Pentagon? I doubt it. But that means they are going to have to go back and cut Medicare and Social Security. Under this bill, it is their only choice. The numbers simply do not add up.

The fact is, we were wasting time even giving it daylight in the Senate, and it is exactly why the folks back home are shaking their heads. They expect us to get a job done responsibly, using common sense in a way that does not dismantle Medicare, Social Security, or hurt our veterans.

I look forward to debating a bipartisan plan to responsibly cut the debt and cut spending. There is one being worked on right now. But the bill the Senate just voted on was not responsible. The Senate rejected it, and rightfully so. Now we need to move to a bipartisan plan that comes out of the middle, not from the partisan extremes.

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

Madam President, I wish to talk a little bit about the flooding that is going on in Montana and has been going on for basically better than the last month. The picture I have is that of the Musselshell River east of Roundup. The river channel is not in this area. In fact, it is on the far side of this river.

My guess is--I have not seen this--this picture was taken about 10 days ago. But my guess is, it is still flowing like this and for a number of reasons I want to address in my speech today.

Over the past few months, we have seen severe flooding in Montana that has impacted our homes and businesses. It has devastated farmland and ranch land. It has displaced families across our State.

The flooding has tested thousands of Montanans and the basic services and infrastructure they rely on every day. But when disaster hits Montana, we rise to the occasion. When I meet the families and the community leaders affected by flooding and when I tour their towns, I do not see resignation or hopelessness. I see resilience. I see our traditions of hard work and working together. I see communities that are rebuilding and moving forward, ordinary people and local officials working diligently with local, State, and Federal partners to address urgent and ongoing needs they are unable to address alone.

Thanks to that spirit of working together, neighbor to neighbor, Montana communities are rebuilding and businesses are reopening. We are looking to account for the severe crop damage and livestock loss suffered by Montana's farmers and ranchers, and we are looking for resources to make up for the $8.6 million in damages to our State's infrastructure. Sadly, that number is only getting bigger.

Montana's resiliency is going to be tested because we are not out of it yet--not even close. Given the unusually significant snowpack in the Rocky Mountains that has yet to melt, our rivers and streams will continue to swell. The cost to Montana communities and families will continue to mount, and more and more of them will look to emergency assistance to provide timely services and assistance to those most in need, to help them get back on their feet.

That is why I am particularly alarmed by the looming shortfall in FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, which the House left dangerously unfunded, even amid a string of weather-related disasters across this country that have led us to 45 declared disasters. We are now looking at estimates of a $2 to nearly $5 billion shortfall for fiscal year 2012 alone.

The total need is estimated to be as much as $6.6 billion. Montana is still tallying the damage. The risk of further damage is still very high. Yet we do not know right now if there will be enough money left over to meet the needs this disaster has already created in our State of Montana.

The House thinks we should pay for past disasters with funding allocated for current and future disasters and by cutting assistance to firefighters and other first responders. In Roundup, Billings, and elsewhere in Montana, the folks who are rescuing stranded residents in boats to take them to get urgent medical care are not from FEMA; they are the same men and women who fight to protect our communities every day--the cops and firefighters who are part of these communities.

Taking away the resources they need will not fly. It is irresponsible and unacceptable. I want all my colleagues to understand the importance of what we are facing, not just in Montana but across this country. There are 45 declared disasters around the country. It is time to do our part for communities all across this country that are facing unprecedented disasters from floods, tornadoes, to wildfires.

Let's make sure this Nation's emergency responders have what they need to do their jobs. They are doing their part for all of us. Tough economic times have forced us all into some very difficult decisions. There is no doubt about that. But it is critical that we do everything we can on behalf of the communities and families across our Nation who are simply looking to pick up the pieces, to rebuild their homes, their schools and businesses, and to get back on their feet.

When small businesses cannot get back on their feet and when our No. 1 industry, agriculture, gets a punch during the growing season, our entire economy will be impacted in a negative way. Montanans will continue to be resilient, and they will continue looking out for one another. But there are some burdens that are simply too big for them to bear alone. It is time for Congress to stand, do its part, and the sooner the better.

I look forward to working with Chairman Landrieu and Ranking Member Coats on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee to make sure that no community from Montana or anywhere else in the country is left wondering if the government will make good on a commitment to help them rebuild.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 21, 2011, at 4:15 p.m. in room S-216 of the Capitol.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 21, 2011, at 10 a.m., to conduct hearing entitled ``Cybersecurity and Data Protection in the Financial Sector.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 21, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 21, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing entitled ``Senior Hunger and the Older Americans Act'' on June 21, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room SD- 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 21, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 21, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Cybersecurity: Evaluating the Administration's Proposals.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 21, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Inspiring Students to Federal Service.''

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

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 8, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 8, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 8, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 8, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's Request to Extend the Service of Director Robert Mueller of the FBI Until 2013.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 8, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 8, 2011, in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety and the Subcommittee on Children's Health and Environmental Responsibility of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 8, 2011, at 10 a.m., in Dirksen 406 to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Air Quality and Children's Health.''

Mr. President, when we are able to move the economic development bill, I will have a bipartisan amendment that will address the interchange issue in a way I think most Senators can support.

I wish also to note that I appreciate Senator Durbin's passion on the issue--and with any number of issues we have in common--and I look forward to working with him again very soon.

Most of the folks in this body know I am a farmer; that I come from the agricultural sector. It is important because, over the many years I have been able to be in agriculture, I have watched consolidation in agriculture, where fewer and fewer companies control more and more of the food supply. We call it consolidation. The same thing has occurred in our energy sector, where we have fewer and fewer companies, with less competition in the marketplace. And we are paying that price in both areas.

We have seen enough consolidation in the financial area. Why is this important? It is important because the amendment I am going to offer-- the bipartisan amendment--will help so that we don't further consolidate the financial industry. I also come from rural America. We all know, as the Senator from Illinois pointed out, that we are coming out of a very difficult economic time. In fact, the Senator pointed out he voted for the bailout of the big banks because it was for jobs. I want the record to be clear that I did not vote for that TARP bailout, but I too am concerned about jobs. I am concerned about jobs across the country, but particularly in rural America.

The amendment we voted on a year ago had a provision in it that exempted banks under $10 billion from this debit swipe fee rule. Everybody thought it would work--at least those who voted for the amendment thought it would work. But the fact is every regulator has said, with regard to this $10 billion exemption, we don't know how to enforce it. The regulators have said, we do not know how to craft a rule to exempt those small community banks and credit unions under $10 billion.

The single regulators have said the same thing. In fact, Chairman Bernanke admitted the rule could ``result in some of the smaller banks being less profitable and even failing.'' That is because the two- tiered system will not work under the current law. That is not my opinion. That is the opinion of the folks whose job it is to regulate these banks. And the customers--the hard-working folks--are going to get stuck with higher fees, potentially no access to capital or, even worse, no local banks at all--further consolidation in the banking industry.

Let me be clear. If any one of the regulators--the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Chair of the FDIC, the Comptroller of the Currency--told me that the interchange rule we passed last year would actually protect small banks, I would not be here, we would not even be here having this debate, we would be moving on. But that is not what happened.

The Wall Street banks are going to be just fine. My amendment is not about the Wall Street banks. They can distribute their costs. They have a lot of different irons in the fire. They can distribute their costs. The fact is, the small banks, credit unions and community banks cannot distribute those costs. That will result in less access to capital in rural America and I think across the country. It will result in fewer jobs because you have to have capital to grow business and create jobs.

Oftentimes we make decisions based on incorrect information. It is nice when you make decisions based on good information, and that is what we are asking to do here: Take a step back, take a look at this stuff, and make a good decision, a decision that will work not only for rural America but for the whole country.

This is an important amendment. It is a critically important amendment, from my perspective. If we shut down access to capital in rural America because community banks and credit unions cannot compete, not only will

we further consolidate the financial industry but we will take away opportunity for small businesses, opportunity that will allow them to grow and create jobs at a time when we need growth in our economy and we need more job creation.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk I would like to call up.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, is it appropriate that I speak for 2 minutes?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, over the last month, Senator Corker and I have worked with several Senators who are concerned about the unintended consequences of the debit interchange amendment the Senate adopted last year. We voted against that amendment. We were concerned about the impact of those consequences on folks--especially across rural America--who rely on their small local banks and credit unions.

The Federal Reserve's rules based on this amendment are about to go into effect, and the result is going to be bad for small banks and credit unions and ultimately for the whole country but especially rural America. Even Chairman Bernanke admits that the rule could ``result in some smaller banks being less profitable or even failing.''

I am proud to be joined in this effort by Senators Crapo, Bennet, Hagan, and several others--all folks who share my concern about the impact of debit interchange fees on our local banks.

Senator Corker and I began with a concern that local community banks and credit unions would end up being subject to the same one-size-fits- all regulation designed to address the excesses of some of the world's largest financial institutions. As I have said over and over, those big Wall Street banks are going to be just fine. They have plenty of sources for their revenue. No one needs to shed a tear for them. But the Main Street banks and credit unions will not be OK if these rules are implemented.

Let me give you one example. Community First Credit Union has two branches--one in Miles City and one in Ekalaka, MT. Those two towns are about as far away from Wall Street as you can get. Ekalaka, in fact, is pretty far away from just about everywhere. But last year the Senate approved an amendment that was aimed at holding the big banks accountable for the fees they charge when you swipe your debit card at Walmart. Folks were promised we would have a split system where big banks such as Bank of America would get one interchange rate and Community First Credit Union would be able to get a higher rate. The reality is going to be quite different. Without changes, the small guys like Community First will not see this promised benefit.

This so-called two-tiered system will not work under the current law. That is not my opinion; it is the opinion of folks who regulate these small banks.

What Ben Bernanke, Sheila Bair, and others say is that market forces will inevitably push the rate down to the lowest level. That push has already started. Retailers are seeking laws at the State level to give themselves the freedom to deny purchases with debit cards that have a higher interchange fee. Given the amount of money the big box retailers are putting into their lobbying campaigns, it is only a matter of time before they are successful. So what happens to the consumer who does her banking at a small community bank or credit union? These are the folks I am concerned about because they are the majority of Montanans. Unfortunately, they are going to get stuck with higher fees, with no access to capital or, even worse, no banks at all.

Let's be clear: If any single one of the regulators--whether it be the Chairman of the Federal Reserve or the Chair of the FDIC or the Comptroller of the Currency--had told me the interchange system proposed last year would actually protect small banks and credit unions, we would not be here. But that is not what happened.

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve said that without changes, the system that will be implemented on July 21 will cause small institutions--the kinds of banks that serve most Montanans--to suffer and some could even fail. The Chair of the FDIC said that unquestionably these banks would be hurt. The credit union administrator agrees. Perhaps they will make up for those losses by raising rates on checking accounts. Maybe it will be higher fees when a small business comes in looking for a loan to expand. That will surely help the biggest banks to capture more of the market share at the expense of the smaller banks like Community First.

This week, we have a chance to stop and rewrite these rules before they hurt those small banks, before they hurt those small credit unions, before the new rules hurt the consumers and the small businesses in rural America that prefer to do their banking business with folks who know them and who are a part of their communities.

Rural America is what I know. It is where I am from. As I have watched consolidation in the agriculture industry and have watched rural America get smaller and smaller, I am not about to let this happen in the financial services industry. Fewer banking options in rural America is a death knell for rural America, and that is where we are headed today. One way to stop this from happening is for us to slow down and fix the debit interchange regulations so the small banks that serve rural America do not get hit.

We also know how dangerous it is to set a price for a product without understanding all the costs that go into that product. Small business owners certainly could not stay in business if they did not understand their own costs. Likewise, if we are going to be regulating debit interchange fees, we need to understand all the costs associated with debit transactions and debit programs.

When we voted on this amendment last year, we thought we were voting to allow the Federal Reserve to consider all costs. However, the reality is that last year's interchange amendment limited the costs that could be included. Some fraud costs were allowed to be included but others were not. Some technology costs were included but others not. The result is a proposed Fed rule that sets the debit interchange rate at 7 or 12 cents for all transactions--a level most folks agree is too low.

I am sure the big box retailers think 7 cents or 12 cents is too high. In fact, they have argued that the rate should be closer to 4 cents. I have heard from many of my retailers in my home State, and some have said 12 cents is probably too low, and they understand you absolutely cannot set the price of doing business below what it costs to do business.

If we are going to be regulating this market, we must do it in a way that is fair, in a way that still directs the Fed to determine what is ``reasonable and proportionate'' but gives them the discretion to look at all of the costs associated with debit transactions. That does not mean executive pay. That does not mean the cost of a corporate jet or a special rewards program. All the costs will still need to be justified, but the Fed will not be limited arbitrarily in what they can look at.

That is why my friend Senator Corker and I are offering this amendment today. This amendment is a compromise, and that is how we do business in Montana. We find the common ground and we work together to do what is best.

Senator Corker and I first proposed a 2-year delay of the Fed's rules to allow adequate time to study the impact on small banks and rewrite the rules based on what we learn in that study. The Fed tells us now that it may be able to do this joint study in 6 months. So that is what our amendment proposes--just 6 months to study whether the rules that will govern the

debit interchange marketplace can protect small banks.

In this amendment, we outline the topics the study should address, including taking a closer look at all of the actual costs associated with debit card transactions, the impact on consumers, and whether an exemption for small banks as proposed in the interchange amendment last year will actually work.

If, after the study, at least two of the agencies involved determine that the current rules do not take into account all costs, that the rules may harm consumers, or that the exemption meant to protect small banks and credit unions will not work, then the Fed has 6 more months to rewrite the rules considering all costs.

That is 1 year to address our concerns and to make sure rural banks do not get wiped out by this rule. If the agencies find that the rules consider all costs, consumers would not be harmed, and that the small issuer exemption will work, then the current rules pending would move forward.

What about the little guys? We put into place a process that will address any potential impact on small issuers. My contention has long been that market forces would drive fees for small issuers to the lowest rate. Since we cannot fully understand how the market will operate until interchange regulation is enacted, we direct the Fed to report the actual impact of the market on small issuers a year after the rules are implemented.

The Fed has to present a report to Congress and every other year thereafter on the impact of a regulated market on small issuers. Most importantly, the report will include recommendations for how to resolve any potential harm to small issuers and to enforce the exemption.

This will help make sure that when Congress acts, we will have the facts about how we would impact small banks. That means the regulatory process is over in 12 months, and Congress does not have to revisit this issue. Let me say it again. Congress does not have to revisit this issue.

At the end of the entire process, there is still a regulated market for debit interchange fees. That is what the Senate voted for last year, loudly and clearly, and we preserve the regulated marketplace, which is what Senator Durbin and others have been calling for.

We will have regulated the marketplace once we fully understand all the costs relative to debit transactions and the impact of these rules on consumers and small issuers. That is what the majority of the Senate voted for last year, and that is what we will get. But it will be a regulatory framework that does not penalize small banks and credit unions and is fair by not setting prices below costs. When every banking regulator who has a role in overseeing the debit interchange market tells you that Congress has created a system that will not work in the way that was intended, then we ought to listen. Today's debit interchange market is not fair for some retailers, so I understand their desire to see it fixed.

But the answer is not to create a new system that is unfair to the small banks in Montana and other parts of rural America. The amendment the Senate approved last year was designed to punish Wall Street. But the result may be the bank in Ekalaka and the other banks all over rural America that will lose customers and potentially even fail.

Let's measure twice and cut once. Let's do it quickly, but let's make sure we get this right and that if we are going to create regulations, we are doing it in a way that is fair and consistent with the intent.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today we have an opportunity to do away with a law that tramples on our constitutional rights, a law that invades the privacy of law-abiding Montanans and Americans, a law that deprives Americans of some of our most basic constitutional protections. This week, we are voting on whether to extend the USA PATRIOT Act 4 more years as is. There is a chance we may not have an opportunity to change it even though we know our freedoms have been compromised. That is a shame because without that possibility, we are not having the debate the American people deserve. If our only choice is to vote yes or no, I am going to vote no.

Long before I ever got to the Senate, the PATRIOT Act was sold to us as a toolbox of sorts to give U.S. agents the tools they need to find and fight and kill terrorists. But what we got from the PATRIOT Act was a law that is killing the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. It gives our government full authority to dig through our private records or tap our phones or make a case against us without even having a judge's warrant even if we are doing nothing wrong.

When we give up our rights, we give way to exactly what the terrorists wanted for us--fewer freedoms and invasion of privacy. It is not acceptable in Montana, and I am sure it is not acceptable anywhere else. More than 200 years ago, one of our Founders in this country warned us with this statement:

Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little

temporary safety . . . deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Words of wisdom from Benjamin Franklin.

Our Nation was founded on the principles of freedom and privacy and a government we control, and we got exactly the opposite with the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. President, here is a copy of the Constitution. It is a reminder of our rights as Americans, guaranteed by the fourth amendment:

The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and

seizures, shall not be violated.

The folks who wrote the PATRIOT Act were here in Washington long before I ever thought about running for the Senate, but you don't have to be a lawyer to know the PATRIOT Act flies in the face of the fourth amendment. It allows the government to conduct secret proceedings even when those proceedings don't need to be held in secret. If we allow that to happen, we toss government transparency and accountability out the window.

As we have seen over the past few weeks, our military forces and intelligence agents are the most effective in the world. They are the best because they have the most powerful tools in the world to do their jobs. They are better trained than anyone else, they are stronger and smarter, and they do what they do without needing to snoop around into the private lives of law-abiding Americans and Montanans, without having to dig up our medical records or our gun records or our library records or our Internet records.

The PATRIOT Act is bad policy that has put us on a very slippery slope. Our constitutional freedoms are too valuable to give even an inch of them away, especially when we don't need to.

Without the opportunity to make real changes to this bill, our only option is to say yes or no to extend this law 4 more years. If we do, an entire decade will have passed without the opportunity to make any adjustments. Not having the opportunity to amend the PATRIOT Act, I am going to vote against it in the name of freedom and privacy, and I urge all my colleagues to do the same because it is the responsible way to vote.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum be equally divided.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the importance of responsibly increasing our domestic drilling and energy production in order to secure America's energy future. Montana is home to the Bakken oil and gasfield, the largest technically recoverable onshore oilfield in the United States. In 2007, production from Elm Coulee field in Richland County averaged 53,000 barrels per day--more than the entire State of Montana a few years earlier. That number is expected to rise significantly as new pathways to market are put in place. Advancements in oil and gas technology are also making it possible for us to extract resources that just 5 years ago no one thought was possible.

I will continue to push responsible development of the Bakken Field. Oil and gas development in the Bakken region has applied new technology originally designed to enhance natural gas development and turned a small field into the largest onshore field in the United States. Our job in the Senate should be to encourage these kinds of innovations. Our job in the Senate should be to make sure that in places like the Bakken, where it makes all the sense in the world to develop, government agencies approve and permit exploration and development in a timely fashion. The Bakken is a strong example of where Montana is contributing to increasing American-made energy.

The Outer Continental Shelf is another good example. We can and should encourage investment in this area so that we increase production to meet our needs as the consumer of 25 percent of the world's produced oil. We must also continue to explore for new resources--and prove those--since as of now we only have 3 percent of the world's reserves.

Unfortunately, there are a number of proposals supported by my colleagues across the aisle who do not responsibly balance the U.S. energy needs with our responsibility to protect our coastal communities and other economic livelihoods. Specifically, S. 953 does the exact opposite of what we need to safely and responsibly increase American production.

The systemic lack of oversight in the Minerals Management Service was a critical component of last year's Deepwater Horizon explosion and 3- month oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The failure of BP, Halliburton and others to follow safety requirements, and the failure of the Federal Government to enforce these requirements, has cost our country tens of millions of dollars. These irresponsible oversights caused significant economic and environmental harm to an entire region.

In response to this disaster, the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling stated as their first finding that ``the explosive loss of the Macondo well could have been prevented.'' The report key findings also state, ``Fundamental reform will be needed in both the structure of those in charge of the regulator oversight and their internal decision making process to ensure their political autonomy, technical expertise, and the full consideration of environmental protection concerns.''

S. 953 does the exact opposite of what the offshore drilling commission recommended by encouraging lax oversight by setting an arbitrary timeline of 60 days, allowing insufficient time for in-depth analysis. Let's be honest: the practical effect of that policy would be for certain administrations to approve permits that they should not approve while other administrations reject permits that could ultimately have been approved. This kind of rush to judgment will only inject even more politics into our energy debates. As the Senate has shown time and again, that is the last thing we need.

No, it is time for a little less politicking and a little more common sense in our energy policy. Yet this bill also forces the Department of Interior to reissue leases without any environmental review--the opposite of the full environmental consideration the BP oilspill commission suggested. When a group of folks get together and tell you how to prevent another Gulf of Mexico disaster, the commonsense thing to do is listen to them.

I believe there are responsible measures we can take and should take to increase domestic protection, which makes us more energy secure and helps to insulate us from unpredictable ups and downs in world production. We need to dedicate resources to efficiently and effectively processing drilling applications. But tying the agencies' hands behind their backs with arbitrary deadlines or forcing them to hold lease sales and not process environmental reviews does not address the problem.

If the Deepwater Horizon disaster proved anything, it is that cutting corners doesn't promote our economy or protect our environment. Encouraging regulators to look the other way or deny permits because they cannot fully consider them is antithetical to good governance. That is not good for American production, American jobs or American energy security.

Yes.

Madam President, I think this is appropriate. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I thank Senator Boxer and Senator Grassley for their generosity. I am not here to talk about Goodwin Liu. I am going to talk about the debate over debit interchange.

In a matter of weeks, the government is planning to price-fix debit card swipe fees below--below--the cost of doing business. They are going to price-fix debit card swipe fees below the cost of doing business.

On the surface, the plan might make sense. But peel back the layers and we will see why a whole bunch of folks out there on both sides of the aisle are raising a flag.

I am not asking to repeal the rules or even change them. I am asking that we take a closer look so we can get the information to understand the impacts, both intended and unintended. I have listened to the feedback my colleagues have shared on this issue. I have heard their concerns.

While it is important to stop and examine the impact of limiting debit card swipe fees, some have said 2 years is simply too long. I am willing to adjust my legislation to address those concerns. Senator Corker and I have decided to shorten the timeframe from 24 months to 15 months.

Here is how the 15 months is going to be used. Fifteen months will provide the agencies with 6 months for a study. It will provide the Federal Reserve 6 months to rewrite the rules using that study. It will allow 3 months to implement the final rules. Fifteen months is the bare minimum to get this study right, and we want to get it right.

For me, stopping and studying the unintended consequences of government price-fixing has everything to do with access to capital for small businesses and consumers in rural America. Make no mistake, the big banks are going to do fine no matter what. So I opposed bailing them out. All but two banks in my entire State are considered small community banks and will be affected by this debit interchange price- fixing rule.

All of Montana's credit unions will be affected as well. They will feel the pinch, and they will lose because the government is going to set a price for doing business that does not cover their costs.

Let me say it again. The Federal Government is going to tell these folks what price to set on interchange rates, and it will not be enough for the little guys to be able to compete in the marketplace.

Let me ask this: How would a big box retailer react if we set the price of T-shirts below what it cost to make, ship, and market them? You can bet the retailers would be up in arms--and rightfully so--about the government setting prices and telling them how to run their business.

Some have suggested that the only way to have a competitive marketplace is by capping rates. That kind of reasoning does not make sense to a farmer like me. When we slant the playing field against small banks, they cannot compete with the big guys. If they go under, the businesses and consumers who rely on them are left hanging. That is why a populist farmer from rural America is on the side of common sense in this debate, and I am on the side of Montana small businesses and consumers.

Last Thursday, I asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke about the impact of government price fixing as it applies to rural America. He is not the only major regulator who has raised serious questions about whether the supposed exemption for small banks will work. He is not the only one. Last week, Chairman Bernanke said ``it could result in some smaller banks being less profitable and failing.''

Let me repeat that, in the words of Chairman Bernanke, the small banks in Montana and across America could fail under this planned rule.

What does it mean if more banks fail? It means more consolidation in the banking industry. How in the world is that good for consumers? How is it better for a small business in Glendive, MT, to have to ask a bank headquartered on Wall Street for a loan instead of going to the bank on Main Street? Are big banks going to provide the same level of service as community banks? I think not. Will they be able to evaluate the prospects of a small business by only looking at data, without understanding the communities they serve? Will big banks create strong relationships with the people in rural America? Will they do that? How about those folks who are looking to start a small business?

We know credit unions are one of the few financial institutions to ever consider going into Indian Country to help bring investment to some of the most impoverished areas in this country. Do you think if these small folks go under, there will be anyone else willing to lend on reservations? No way. No way.

During last week's hearing, FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair said this new rule is ``going to reduce revenues at a number of smaller banks, and they will have to pass that on to customers in terms of higher fees.'' Rural America--especially in this fragile economy--cannot afford that.

Today I want to share why a few businesses in Montana are opposed to government price fixing. Their stories are not uncommon. They are quite ordinary.

Doris Rocheleau runs Doris's Day Care in Great Falls, MT. She has been doing business for nearly 30 years with a community bank. She tells me she is struggling to make ends meet, as many small businesses are, and paying more in monthly checking would hurt her very much.

Also, in Great Falls there is a small business owner named Mark Voyles. Mark owns Y-Not Trucking. His reason for supporting my amendment to stop and study the government limit is because he ``doesn't want to pay more fees on his money in his bank.''

Cabela's is a large retailer, a popular sporting goods store in Billings, MT. They are wary of the Durbin amendment because they offer their customers a reward credit card. They have real concerns with government price controls and what they will mean for their ability to meet the needs of their customers.

The bottom line is this: Allowing the government to price-fix debit card swipe fees is a slippery slope. Maybe that is why my amendment is to stop and study the impact of this proposed rule. It has broad bipartisan support from folks such as the National Education Association and Americans for Tax Reform--different sides of the economic equation. Then there are nonprofit organizations, such as Rural Dynamics in Montana. Rural Dynamics serves the entire State of Montana--thousands of folks every year. Their mission? To help individual people and families achieve economic independence, to make sure folks can earn, keep, and grow their assets to reach economic independence.

Rural Dynamics is a well-respected organization. Many of their strategies involve helping Montanans manage their assets and save for their future, enabling them access to banking services. Anything that would result in undue higher fees would take their mission backwards.

Rural Dynamics says simply: We want to understand the long-term risk associated with limiting debit card swipe fees, how it will impact rural America, how it will affect economic independence.

Just as convincing as the small businesses in my State are the administration experts who have been tasked with trying to make this rule on debit interchange work. Chairman Bernanke last week said he is still not sure whether the small issuer exemption would work, saying:

There are market forces that would work against the

exemption.

Sheila Bair, Chairwoman of the FDIC, raised similar concerns about the workability of the small issuer exemption. So has Chairwoman Debbie Matz of the National Credit Union Administration. So has the Conference of

State Banking Supervisors. So has the National Association of State Credit Union Supervisors.

This represents all--all--of the regulators of the small financial institutions at the State and national level--every one of them. These are the folks who are tasked with keeping our community banks and credit unions vibrant and strong, ensuring these institutions are well capitalized and making sound loans. Let me say again, all of them--all of them--have raised concerns about the impact of this rule on the small financial institutions they supervise.

These regulators are not convinced these rules are going to be able to work in the way they were intended. My friends on the other side of this debate continue to attack these folks. They have said they are shills for the big banks; that they do not understand market forces; that they don't understand small institutions. This couldn't be further from the truth.

And no one--no one--has been able to explain to me why studying this issue to make sure these rules do what they say they are supposed to do is a bad idea. To stop and to study. That is what the bipartisan bill I am sponsoring does. To stop and to study the unintended consequences for rural America and this country as a whole. If this rule goes into effect, the consumers and businesses who rely on community banks and credit unions--oh, yeah--are going to pay the price. And we can bet many retailers won't be eager to pass the few pennies they save down to you. Yet Doris Rochileau's monthly banking fees will go up. Mark Voyles will have to pay more to keep his money in his bank. The folks at Cabela's will be asking: What is next? And will it hurt their loyal customers? Thousands of Montanans who rely on Rural Dynamics will have more hurdles to jump over to reach economic independence.

These stories hit home. They are the stories I tell when someone asks: Why would a populist farmer be against the government telling the small banks that drive our economy how to do business? I am not asking to repeal this provision; far from it. I am asking us to do our homework in this body, to make sure we understand exactly what it means for Montana and all of America.

With that, I want to express my thanks to the good Senator from Iowa one more time.

I yield the floor.

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