Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation I am proud to cosponsor--to finally end the taxpayer handouts to the world's largest oil companies--as they rake in record profits. This measure is about accountability. It is about responsibility. It is about fairness.

When I got off the tractor from planting last weekend and went to fill my tank, it was $3.69 in Big Sandy, MT--almost a dollar higher than just a few months ago. But while I am paying close to $4 gallon at the pump, like other working Americans, oil company executives are padding their stock options and bonuses. They are diminishing their investment here in America, choosing instead to use tax loopholes to offshore their production.

I would like to make just three quick points today about the over $4 billion in tax earmarks that the biggest oil companies in America are receiving today.

First, they never asked for them.

Second, they don't need them.

And finally, they are not good for America--or our economy.

These taxpayer handouts are running up our national debt, taking our jobs overseas, and they expose us to higher gas prices.

In 2005, the CEOs of the five largest oil companies testified in the Senate about these subsidies. When asked directly about these oil and gas tax breaks, all five executives said they did not ask for them.

They agreed with President Bush--that with the price of oil over $55 per barrel, they didn't need tax incentives. And today, oil is $109 per barrel.

The CEO of Chevron told the committee that ending these breaks ``will have a minimal impact on our company, minimal.''

Let me be as clear as those executives were then: This bill has nothing to do with Chevron's or Conoco's or Exxon's ability to operate refineries or put folks to work here at home.

It has everything to do with holding their top-level executives accountable to all American taxpayers as they rake in billions of dollars in profits every year. Right now Big Oil executives are writing off the royalties they pay to foreign countries as taxes, and until we fix it, all of us are paying for it.

That means you and I are footing the bill every time one of these big companies writes a check to the government of Saudi Arabia or Nigeria. And they are telling us they don't want it or need it. We should do the fiscally responsible thing and close these loopholes.

Instead, we should use that $8.5 billion to pay down our deficit. And that is what this bill does.

Special tax breaks are supposed to make companies more competitive and get new technologies into the market. But for major oil companies we have written a privileged tax code just for them.

Some of these provisions have been on the books since 1913. I don't know what companies after 98 years still need a subsidy, but if it does, either it isn't very effective or the system is being abused.

As you will hear again and again this week--because it is just an astonishing number--as gas surpasses $4 per gallon, oil companies are getting $4 billion annually in tax breaks.

The big five oil companies have made nearly $1 trillion in profits in the last decade. Nearly $32 billion of that came in the first 3 months of this year alone.

But what is happening to gas prices?

Rather than bringing down prices at the pump, these giveaways merely line the executives' pockets and run up the deficit. All the while, gas prices have gone up.

For example, Exxon, the biggest of the oil companies in the U.S. made more than $9 billion dollars in profit last year--just their U.S. operations. And how much did they pay in taxes? Just $39 million.

That is 0.4 percent.

But this is more fair than in 2009, when Exxon received a $156 million tax refund from the IRS.

That means we as taxpayers are paying them. The Tax Code is broken and this bill will help fix it.

Right now, we are making tough choices about how to get a handle on our Nation's debt. We have tough debates ahead about heating homes in rural America, and investing in crumbling highways, and strengthening the future of Medicare.

All the while, we are still literally writing checks to our biggest oil companies who don't need them.

After causing the largest offshore oil spill in American history, BP still managed to rake in more than $7 billion in profits, up 17 percent from the year before.

But most of these big companies are not developing their onshore resources here at home.

How do I look the oil worker in Montana's Bakken Field in the face and say: We are giving the largest oil companies a billion dollars a year to go drill overseas, taking your opportunities offshore.

Dual Capacity, the most egregious of these tax provisions, subsidizes $1 billion each year in royalty payments to foreign governments that don't like us very much. We don't let companies producing in America credit royalty payments to their taxes, so why would we do that for companies that produce outside of the U.S.?

And does this make us safer? Does it bring stability to the market? Absolutely not.

As we have all watched in the last few months, turmoil in the Middle East has driven up speculation and driven up prices.

Oil prices fell about 10 percent last week--though not enough to relieve hardworking Montanans with any changes in prices at the pump.

Prices didn't fall because of the discovery of a new oil field or a new technology. It happened because some folks on Wall Street moved some numbers around on paper.

There is no accountability in that. And that is why we're trying to change it.

But unlike on Wall Street, there are places where folks are doing the hard work of oil discovery and developing the technology to lower the cost of oil.

A lot of that has to do with the ``small guys'' in the oil business. And they are successful. In fact, domestic production is going strong-- at its highest level in almost a decade.

They are making risks and getting new technology into the field, like in eastern Montana.

My State is home to likely the most productive domestic onshore oilfield in the United States. And small oil companies are doing good, responsible in securing America's energy future.

The Bakken Field is estimated to hold nearly 4 billion barrels of oil. They are leading the way in developing new technology for oil field development.

Where is Exxon? They aren't reinvesting the last quarter's $11 billion back in U.S. exploration.

In fact, in 2009, they paid their shareholders 90 percent of the profits to shareholders, leaving just 10 percent to invest in their workforce, research and development, exploration, safety and the expanding energy frontier.

Contrary to what some of my colleagues are saying, eliminating these wasteful subsidies won't raise gas prices. I want to repeat that:

Eliminating wasteful subsidies will not raise gas prices.

Many of these handouts have been on the books for decades as prices have continued to rise.

It is time to close these loopholes for big oil in order to strengthen our national security--and our energy future. It is time to end the taxpayer handouts to Big Oil.

This bill returns us to a responsible path toward energy development that benefits taxpayers and consumers. And it starts addressing the debt and deficit. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. President, on April 20, 2010, an explosion and fire destroyed BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig, killing 11 workers and causing the largest oil spill in American history.

A year later, the well is capped and Americans who live near and rely on the Gulf of Mexico are still struggling with the ramifications of the Deepwater Horizon spill, while facing destruction from unprecedented storms ripping across the region. Meantime, BP, the second largest oil company in the United States who just reported 7.1 billion dollars in profits last quarter, is attempting to skirt their fines for this unprecedented disaster.

In early April, BP indicated it is exploring wording in the Federal Water Pollution Prevention Act or the Clean Water Act which allows the court to determine the fines by either the number of days of the incident, or by the number of barrels of oil spilled. Current law leaves the determination of which metric to use up to the court. In this case, the difference between these two metrics is enormous. At the low end, using the per-day charge of $32,500, BP could pay less than $3 million for the whole incident. This amount of money isn't sufficient to change BP's safety culture and improve its workplace and environmental safety.

Per barrel fines range from $1,000 to $4,300 per barrel. Under this metric, BP's fines would total between $5 billion and $18 billion, which is a much more appropriate fine for the environmental damage that was done.

We must address this outrageous loophole to prevent corporate polluters from skirting accountability and responsibility if they wreak havoc on our land and in our water. We must speak the only language that corporations understand and that is profit. These fines, which are the only penalties the corporation cannot write off on their taxes, are critically important to sending a message that pollution doesn't profit; that corporations act responsibly to protect workers and the resources they use. If we accept minimal fines, we are condoning this irresponsible behavior.

Many will argue that we don't need this legislation, because the court will fine them accordingly. But to date, the largest Clean Water Act fine ever levied was $13 million. $13 million is less than BP spent in 2009 on lobbying.

That is why I am introducing the Pollution Accountability Act of 2011, which requires the court to fine violators of the Clean Water Act whichever fine is higher, per day or per barrel. If you pollute, there will be consequences. There will be accountability. We will demand responsibility.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and expeditiously passing it into law.

Mr. President, on April 20, 2010, an explosion and fire destroyed BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig, killing 11 workers and causing the largest oil spill in American history.

A year later, the well is capped and Americans who live near and rely on the Gulf of Mexico are still struggling with the ramifications of the Deepwater Horizon spill, while facing destruction from unprecedented storms ripping across the region. Meantime, BP, the second largest oil company in the United States who just reported 7.1 billion dollars in profits last quarter, is attempting to skirt their fines for this unprecedented disaster.

In early April, BP indicated it is exploring wording in the Federal Water Pollution Prevention Act or the Clean Water Act which allows the court to determine the fines by either the number of days of the incident, or by the number of barrels of oil spilled. Current law leaves the determination of which metric to use up to the court. In this case, the difference between these two metrics is enormous. At the low end, using the per-day charge of $32,500, BP could pay less than $3 million for the whole incident. This amount of money isn't sufficient to change BP's safety culture and improve its workplace and environmental safety.

Per barrel fines range from $1,000 to $4,300 per barrel. Under this metric, BP's fines would total between $5 billion and $18 billion, which is a much more appropriate fine for the environmental damage that was done.

We must address this outrageous loophole to prevent corporate polluters from skirting accountability and responsibility if they wreak havoc on our land and in our water. We must speak the only language that corporations understand and that is profit. These fines, which are the only penalties the corporation cannot write off on their taxes, are critically important to sending a message that pollution doesn't profit; that corporations act responsibly to protect workers and the resources they use. If we accept minimal fines, we are condoning this irresponsible behavior.

Many will argue that we don't need this legislation, because the court will fine them accordingly. But to date, the largest Clean Water Act fine ever levied was $13 million. $13 million is less than BP spent in 2009 on lobbying.

That is why I am introducing the Pollution Accountability Act of 2011, which requires the court to fine violators of the Clean Water Act whichever fine is higher, per day or per barrel. If you pollute, there will be consequences. There will be accountability. We will demand responsibility.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and expeditiously passing it into law.

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

Mr. President, it was a little less than 10 years ago that I was in northern Wyoming driving home. It was the day of September 11, 2001. On that drive home that evening, I heard the press report saying that Osama bin Laden was behind the terrorist attack on the trade center, the Pentagon, and in that field in Pennsylvania where the plane went down. I said to myself then that it was just a matter of time before the United States would catch him and justice would be served.

Mr. President, across the remote mountains and dingy suburbs of Afghanistan and Pakistan, thousands of American troops dedicated themselves to stamping out Osama bin Laden and the evil he defined. All of those Americans made painful sacrifices at home, and many still are. Many are struggling with injuries, seen and unseen, and thousands have given their precious lives.

Of course, we will never forget the innocent lives taken in cold blood on that day of September 11, 2001. We all know how that day changed the course of world history. One man was behind it all. We have hunted him for the better part of a decade.

Now, thanks to the hard, diligent work of America's Special Forces and intelligence agents, that man is dead. At long last, catching him in a corner, a handful of American troops delivered justice to the entire world.

The price for Osama bin Laden's death was enormous. Although yesterday's precision strike was executed by the toughest, smartest, and most effective special operations force on Earth, its justice is the result of all the countless soldiers, marines, airmen, sailors, and intelligence agents and their families who went ``all in'' for us over the past decade.

This country--now and among future generations--will never forget their sacrifices.

Thirty-six Montanans have been killed in worldwide operations since 9/11. Dozens more have been seriously wounded, and a few were longtime servicemembers, but many of them joined the military specifically because of that awful day and what happened on September 11, 2001.

We are so thankful to them for all they gave and for all their families gave.

While Osama bin Laden's death is a true victory, our vigilance in the worldwide fight against terrorism doesn't end here. The hundreds of Montanans still serving abroad today remind us of that every day.

Yesterday we blotted out Osama bin Laden forever, and that will make our world safer. But working together with the international community, our Nation will continue to be steadfast in our commitment to security, safety, and opportunity for all Americans.

Security and opportunity and freedom aren't just American values, they are human values. As Americans, we will never be afraid to fight for them.

In the days and months ahead, I expect we will refine and recalibrate the future of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. As this next chapter unfolds, my thoughts and prayers will always remain with the hundreds of Montanans serving there. We are grateful for their service. We are anxious to bring them home.

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

Madam President, I rise, once again, on behalf of rural America. Many folks do not understand rural America. They often get painted in broad brush strokes in a way that does not reflect the reality we face. The Montanans who elected me sent me to bring common sense to the debate over issues that impact rural America.

One issue where there is not a lot of common sense is the issue of debit interchange. There is also a lot of misinformation out there about this issue.

I have been concerned about the unintended consequences of this proposed rule since the Senate voted on the provision last year. That is why I voted against the amendment when it came to the floor for a vote. Over the past few months, I have been attacked by the big box retailers and called just about every name in the book.

My legislation to study the impact of the Fed's proposed rule has been called a bailout. That is pretty interesting, since I was the only Democrat in the Senate to vote against both bailouts. Only in Washington do people say you are killing a bill by making sure it does what we want it to do.

I certainly do not think the goal of the interchange amendment was to engage in price fixing. I do not think folks were trying to hurt consumers or small community banks and credit unions. But now we know the impact of this provision is far different than the information we had when we passed the amendment.

Now we know that the regulators tasked with implementing this rule think it may not work at all. When we passed the amendment, we were told small banks and credit unions would receive an exemption from the swipe fee rule. Since there has been a lot of misinformation on this issue, let me share these comments directly with my colleagues.

In a Banking Committee hearing in February, Chairman Bernanke referred to the exemption for community banks and credit unions, and he said:

We are not certain how effective that exemption will be.

There is some risk that the exemption will not be effective

and that the interchange fees available through smaller

institutions will be reduced to the same extent that we would

see for larger banks.

That means the Chairman of the Federal Reserve--the guy in charge of implementing the interchange rule--does not think it will work for credit unions or for small mom-and-pop community banks.

This is common sense. When you set a price cap, big box retailers will use their market share to force the little guys to meet the lower fee.

At the same hearing, FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair confirmed this, saying:

It remains to be seen whether they--

These are credit unions and community banks--

can be protected with this. I think they're going to have to

make that up somewhere, probably by raising the fees that

they have on transaction accounts.

That means our credit unions and small community banks will be cutting back--cutting back on things such as free checking or ending it altogether, charging more for loans, cutting back on services to low- and moderate-income folks in rural America.

Despite being tasked with the job of implementing the small bank exemption, the Fed cannot guarantee that the exemption will work in practice. Because despite what some may say, the Federal Reserve cannot control markets. It cannot ensure that this provision will work since market forces will drive rates down for the community banks and credit unions.

No one doubts that rural America's small businesses will be significantly affected by regulating debit card interchange fees. Yet the true and full effects of this regulation on small businesses are not being fully discussed or fairly portrayed.

This amendment was an attempt to address a problem. But when you control prices, as this amendment does, you also invite unintended consequences.

At first, it might make sense that if you reduce debit card swipe fees, then small businesses will benefit. But once you take a closer look, you find a host of potential problems for small businesses and no guarantees that consumers will benefit one lick.

For instance, a recent study says that only 10 percent of small businesses are in retail and in a position to accept debit cards. But that same study also says most small businesses have checking accounts and use debit cards to pay for things they need to run their businesses. These businesses will end up paying more for basic services such as checking accounts and they will see more fees and consumers will be no better off. In short, this limit is bad for small businesses, and it is bad for consumers. Which banking services are likely to be more expensive--or disappear entirely--as community banks and credit unions seek to make up lost revenue? Well, free checking, for one. Millions of Americans have had checking accounts and debit cards because they are free. If banks and credit unions are forced to charge for these services, many business owners and consumers would suffer the consequences.

Because the Fed's rules do not allow banks to cover the costs of debit transactions, banks of all sizes are considering limits on credit card purchases. Moms using their debit cards at the grocery store may have to limit their grocery purchases to $50 or $100.

So what is the alternative? Well, put it on a credit card. But that is a tough option for struggling families. Low- and moderate-income families may not have access to credit or may have already maxed out their credit card. Pushing consumers toward credit is not good for small businesses either because the interchange fees on credit card purchases are higher than those on debit cards.

In a recent survey, three-quarters of community banks reported considering imposing annual or monthly debit card fees. Three-fifths of them would consider imposing monthly fees on checking account customers. If they start charging folks for just having an account, you can bet these folks will not be customers for long. In the long run, that will devastate rural America.

What does that mean for small businesses that rely on those community banks and credit unions? Without a doubt, the small businesses and communities across Montana rely on community banks and credit unions to keep their doors open, to grow their businesses, and to create jobs. These Main Street institutions are the backbone of this Nation's small businesses.

In fact, according to a recent National Federation of Independent Business report, most small businesses do their banking with smaller institutions. Community banks provide the bulk of small business lending in rural

communities and small business owners receive better treatment from community banks. That is because in rural America a community bank is part of that community. A handshake still matters, and the folks on both sides of the table can look each other in the eye and be accountable to one another. We are not going to find that on Wall Street.

Community banks do the lion's share of lending with the youngest and smallest of small businesses--those best positioned to create new jobs as we merge from this recession.

Make no mistake about it. The price caps called for by this Durbin amendment will lead to fewer debit cards offered by community banks and credit unions. It will limit the size of debit card transactions, and it will end free checking for small businesses, as they rely on these institutions.

These changes will limit the ability of small businesses to conduct daily business. They will increase banking costs and could limit the lending capability of smaller institutions. These changes come at a time when many small businesses are already fully leveraged and have few other options available.

So what does this mean for small business in Montana?

For a contractor in Kalispell, it means he will not be able to use his debit card to buy lumber. It will mean the end of free checking. I know of too many businesses that do not have the option of increasing their lines of credit with their bank or that have maxed out a credit card weathering this recession. Those are the circumstances folks are forced into, and those are the circumstances that limit our economy.

What will this mean for community banks and credit unions that are competing for the business of these small businesses?

Community banks and credit unions play an instrumental role in our economic recovery by providing loans to small businesses so these businesses can grow and hire new employees.

Smaller banks treat small businesses better. But smaller banks do not have the means to make up for the lost revenue from this Federal mandate, and they do not have the volume to make up this revenue elsewhere such as bigger banks do.

One of the more troubling findings from the NFIB report I referenced earlier is the fact that community banks have been losing market share nationwide. The report found that the percentage of small businesses served by local banks fell from 31 percent to 25 percent between 2009 and 2010. My concern is that this proposed rule will further harm this loss of market share by community banks. It will lead to further consolidation in the banking industry.

Community banks and credit unions simply cannot compete against Wall Street unless they provide products such as debit cards. They simply cannot make up this revenue elsewhere, and they cannot compete unless they provide these services.

This notion that some have raised that these proposed rules are a slam-dunk for small businesses--it is simply false. Unfortunately, this is one of the many misconceptions that have been put out there.

For example, based on statements I have heard, some would have you believe we have been working and analyzing the debit interchange issue for years, talking about all the hearings we have had on this topic.

The truth is, however, quite different. There has been just one Senate hearing on this issue since 2006, and it was regarding the interchange fees paid by the Federal Government. The Judiciary Committee has looked at antitrust issues, but they have never addressed the ramifications of this amendment--never. No one has been able to explain to me why studying the impact of this rule is a bad idea.

Am I suggesting the debit interchange system is without fault? Absolutely not. But we should not move forward with a rule that will create a whole new set of problems and will hurt community banks and credit unions until we have fully studied the impact. If we do not measure twice and cut once, we are bound to create a whole new set of problems that will hurt small businesses and consumers.

I sure would not have stepped into the middle of this fight if I did not think it was critical to the survival of rural America, and to the jobs and livelihoods of the people who live there. I am in this job not because I am known as a guy who stands for big banks or Wall Street-- far from it. I am the guy in my party who voted against TARP and against the automaker bailout.

I am in this job because rural America needs a voice at the table. Rural America needs someone on their side, to make sure rural communities and Main Street businesses do not get stuck with the short end of the stick when the Senate makes policies such as this one.

We need to stop. We need to study. We need to make sure we are doing the right thing. Therefore, I ask my colleagues for their bipartisan support on a responsible bipartisan bill to delay this rule so we can have time to study the consequences of this rule--both intended and unintended. Our economy cannot afford to let this go into effect.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Troop Pay Protection Act. It is one of the bipartisan pieces of a very partisan puzzle, and it is common sense.

We owe it to our Nation's troops to avoid their suffering from the consequences if the House of Representatives shuts down this government. If we don't pass this measure, while we still have time, our troops will continue to serve us overseas--they will always be essential to the United States--but they won't get paid. That is unacceptable.

America's troops are America's heroes. They are serving us in difficult, dirty, dangerous conditions. They are away from their families, they are away from their homes and their communities, and they are risking their lives to answer the call of duty. Yet they still have the same financial responsibilities we all have here at home. They have mortgages to pay and car payments to make. They have families to take care of. We do our service men and women right by passing this bill.

The bill simply says: If there is a shutdown, don't make our troops pay the price for the failures of a few extremists in Washington, DC.

Make sure their paychecks come in on time. Delayed pay is the last thing the members of our military and their families should be burdened with.

I know there is talk that the House is trying to push through something similar, in an effort to cover some bases, but their plan isn't as straightforward as this bipartisan bill. Their plan to hold our troops harmless is part of a week-long spending measure loaded with a bunch of extreme provisions this country cannot afford. Because it is part of a temporary bill, if it is passed, we will be right back here making the same arguments next week.

I am always amazed at how dysfunctional this process can be. I have been reminded of that a lot this week. Here is an opportunity to throw some common sense back into the mix. I ask my colleagues to pass this measure and pass it now.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, this week I got an e-mail from a first grader in Missoula, MT, 7 years old. Her note read:

Senator Tester, please pass a budget so that I can go to

Yellowstone National Park this weekend, or at least wait

until Monday to shut down the government.

I get a lot of letters and calls reminding me what is at stake. Yet some of our colleagues continue to put politics ahead of doing what is right. I will always remember that e-mail from Missoula. Even 7-year- olds expect us to get our job done. They expect us to work together to pass a budget. They expect us to work together to make responsible cuts. They expect us to make sure we don't put our government and the entire economy on life support. That is exactly what will happen if some in Congress let the government shut down. They will fail all of us.

If drawing a line in the sand becomes more important than working together, I think that is a shame. Of course, we can't afford the status quo either. We all know the problem. Everyone wants to point fingers. I could spend my time pointing at those who thought it was a good idea to put two wars we are fighting on the taxpayers' credit card or those who squandered a $128 billion budget surplus in a matter of months about 10 years ago. But I will leave it at this: Our debt and spending problem is not something that we got into overnight, and it is not something we will get out of overnight.

It is not going to be fixed by slick talking points ginned up by Washington, DC, consultants. It will not be fixed by symbolic gimmicks. It certainly will not be fixed by irresponsible decisions such as ending Medicare as we know it. It will not be fixed by gutting student financial aid or physical infrastructure. Those create jobs now when our economy needs it the most.

Our spending and debt problem will be fixed by embracing a responsible, credible, long-term strategy to cut our debt; to cut spending, discretionary and mandatory--right now we are talking about cuts to only 12 percent of the budget known as discretionary spending-- to strengthen our entitlement programs so they work for future generations; to reform our Tax Code so it is fair and sustainable; and to cut our defense where we can afford to cut.

We owe it to all Americans to get the job done. But we owe it to them to get the job done responsibly, and that is going to require some buy- in. But we have done it before.

During the Great Depression, people endured incredible sacrifice. But they had inspirational leadership to challenge them to grow their way to prosperity. In World War II, they worked together and made sacrifices at home to build the machinery that helped us win victory. That momentum also created a powerful middle class. The attacks of September 11 brought us together again, and again we grew strong.

When we work together, we succeed. It is in our DNA. It is what makes us the strongest, most innovative nation in the world. Now we have to summon that strength and determination again, to lead our way out of our economic challenges. It will not happen with gimmicks. It is going to take responsible decisionmaking, compromise, and shared sacrifice.

Several of our colleagues in the Senate are already leading the way. I compliment Senators Chambliss, Coburn, Conrad, Crapo, Durbin, and Warner. They are working on a bipartisan strategy to cut debt and cut spending. Their plan will include cuts to discretionary spending. It will make our entitlement programs stronger. It will propose cuts to defense spending. And it will include tax reform.

Last year, Senator Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles led a bipartisan commission in outlining a smart, long-term, credible strategy for cutting debt and spending. Senator Simpson and Mr. Bowles say they had 14 reasons for volunteering their time on the Debt Commission. Between them, they have 14 grandkids.

While I may not embrace every component of their plan, I applaud their hard work, their leadership, their patriotism. Their hard work is a solid blueprint we are already building from. I am ready to join them, and so are many of us in this Chamber. We need to do it.

Montanans are patriots. They are ready and willing to follow our lead in providing a fair Tax Code that provides certainty and fairness. They are willing to share in the pain of responsible spending cuts that will not take our economy backwards. They know we can afford to make cuts in defense. They know we need to fix--but not dismantle or privatize--our entitlement programs.

What is the alternative? Well, we may find out the hard way if folks are not willing to work together to reach agreement by midnight tomorrow. Shutting down the government means our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will not get their paychecks on time--even though they will still be serving us.

This week, I heard from a soldier deployed in Afghanistan. He said he would be OK in a short shutdown because he has some savings. But if their paychecks stop coming, a lot of his fellow soldiers will be hurt. Many have lower ranks. Many have pressing financial obligations such as mortgages and car payments, kids to take care of. They would get the short end of the stick.

We have a duty to make sure the people who fight for us in harm's way do not have to worry about something as simple as getting a paycheck. That is why today I signed on to an important piece of legislation to ensure American troops on active duty continue getting paid if the government shuts down.

But Members of Congress are a different story. If the government shuts down, we do not deserve to get paid, plain and simple. I want to say thanks to my colleagues for unanimously approving our measure to prevent congressional pay during a shutdown. Now the House needs to follow our leadership. If they fail, and if I still get a paycheck, I am going to give it back.

A shutdown also means the government does not honor business contracts. That would cost jobs. It means the IRS suspends refunds. A Republican shutdown means new home loan guarantees will stop. It means the SBA stops approving business loans. Patent processing will be suspended. And it means Social Security, Medicare, and veterans' benefits checks could be delayed. Right now, in Montana, there are 1,240 veterans' benefits claims that are outstanding. If the government shuts down, those 1,240 veterans' claims cannot be addressed, and a 7- year-old in Missoula, MT, will not be able to see her national parks this weekend. We cannot afford that. Nobody deserves it. We can do better, and we will.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 7, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 7, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 7, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen 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 April 7, 2011, at 2:15 p.m., to hold a East Asian and Pacific Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Combating Human Trafficking in Asia.''

Mr. President, I ask uanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 7, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Securing the Border: Progress at the Local Level.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate April 7, 2011, at 2:15 p.m. in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on April 7, 2011, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 7, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

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

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of rural America. All of Montana is rural America. Despite good intentions, rural America too often gets overlooked when we pass bills here in the Senate.

That is what happened when this body passed an amendment limiting debit card interchange fees last year. It was an attempt to address a problem. But like people on both sides of the aisle, I voted against it. I knew it was a mistake because it had unintended consequences that would hurt rural America.

It is a mistake now. Since we took that vote, the regulators have said that the small issuer exemption for banks and credit unions with assets of less than $10 billion--which is what that amendment said and the reason why many Members supported the amendment--simply won't work.

In a Banking Committee hearing back in February, Chairman Bernanke said:

We are not certain how effective that exemption will be.

There is some risk that that exemption will not be effective

and that the interchange fees available through smaller

institutions will be reduced to the same extent that we would

see for larger banks.

At that same hearing, FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair, referring to small banks and credit unions, said:

I think it remains to be seen whether they can be protected

with this. I think they're going to have to make it up

somewhere, probably by raising fees that they have on

transaction accounts.

The Acting Comptroller of the Currency has said that the Fed's proposed rules have ``long-term safety and soundness consequences--for banks of all sizes--that are not compelled by the statute.''

The regulators who have been tasked with implementing these rules have said they simply cannot guarantee that small issuers can be exempted from these rules--small issuers being community banks and credit unions. Market forces will drive rates down for the community banks and credit unions that are supposed to be exempt from these rules.

A lot of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, agree. Fortunately, we have the opportunity to fix things. I am asking for your help to apply the brakes so we can stop the unintended consequences that come with allowing the Federal Government to set the price of swipe fees on debit cards.

This morning, someone asked me: Why is a farmer from Montana leading the charge on an issue such as this? Well, it is simple, really. I am not in this fight for the big banks. I don't think these rules are going to help the consumers one lick. The cost of a hamburger isn't going down by a few cents if this is enacted. And there are no assurances that retailers would pass these savings on to consumers. Let's just say there is a reason Walmart is dumping in a ton of money to fight against this.

I am stepping into the middle of this fight because when the government sets prices on debit card swipe fees, it is the little guys who get hurt. Rural America pays the price. Community banks and credit unions get socked. We can't afford to let that happen, and we can prevent it.

Community banks and credit unions are a critical part of America's economic infrastructure. Without them, small businesses or family farms and ranches in America would go by the wayside. When farmers and ranchers need to invest in a new piece of equipment or buy feed or diesel fuel, who do they turn do? To the community banks and credit unions; organizations such as the Stockman Bank, the Missoula Federal Credit Union, the First Interstate Bank, or Yellowstone Bank. The list goes on and on.

America's community banks and credit unions are the backbone of our small businesses. These financial institutions are the ones that help small businesses grow, help small businesses create jobs, and help keep rural America growing--not the Wall Street banks.

These rules do not allow community banks or credit unions to cover legitimate costs associated with debit card transactions. These are guys who simply don't have the means to eat the cost of debit card fees that are limited by the Federal Government--and they don't have the volume to make up this revenue elsewhere, as the big guys do.

For community banks and credit unions, this rule will only add to banking costs, and it will prevent community banks and credit unions from being able to compete with the big guys. If they can't compete with debit products, they will lose customers.

It will also limit the use of debit, pushing folks toward credit instead. Already community banks are talking about limiting debit cards to $50 or $100, or ending free checking, or adding new fees to ATM withdrawals--measures that will, in the end, cost customers.

This rule will further consolidate the financial industry, and that is the last thing we need in this country. But in rural America, what financial consolidation means is that community banks and credit unions will have to compete with Wall Street, with one hand tied behind their back. Not only will that hurt Montana's farmers and ranchers and small businesses, not only will that hurt the ability for rural communities' businesses to create jobs, it could result--and I think it will result--in community banks going out of business altogether. The same is true with credit unions.

That is not what anyone would call ``reasonable and proportional.'' Yes, there is supposed to be a ``carve out'' in this rule for community banks and credit unions. But both Chairman Bernanke and Chairwoman Bair tell us this exemption simply will not work.

Only in Washington will you get criticized for trying to make sure that legislation actually does what it is supposed to do. Only in Washington does this mean you are trying to ``kill the bill.''

Some have said this means billions in interchange fees that multimillion dollar box stores will have to pay. But truly, these rules are going to put community banks and credit unions out of business--the same institutions that are the lifeblood of rural America.

It is a fact that the folks who are going to be hurt--and this is the bottom line with this--will be the small businesses, the community banks, and the credit unions, not the big box retailers.

That is why Senator Corker and I and a whole bunch of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle voted to stop this rule and take a look at the unintended consequences. Let's slow down, let's study the issue, and let's find a thoughtful and careful solution. If we do not do that, we will see our critical community banking infrastructure disappear. This issue is not about picking sides; it is about making sure we do not trample on the financial infrastructure rural America needs to stay in business.

I ask my colleagues for their bipartisan support on a responsible bipartisan bill. Our economy cannot afford to let this rule go into effect until we study its impacts, both intended and unintended.

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

Madam President, I rise today in honor of a man who gave his life serving the United States of America in World War II.

LT Jay Frederick Simpson was a pilot with the ``Mighty Eighth'' Air Force of the U.S. Army Air Corps.

On January 9, 1944, Lieutenant Simpson's mission was to test fly a Thunderbolt P-47 over Moreton, England. But something went wrong. His plane caught fire and flipped over in the air. As the P-47 hurtled to the ground, witnesses say Lieutenant Simpson managed to guide it away from nearby homes, avoiding certain casualties. Instead that P-47 crashed in a nearby field, killing the 27-year-old pilot.

Today, LT Jay Simpson is still celebrated as a hero in England. In fact, you can find a memorial to him in that grassy field.

But for three generations following Lieutenant Simpson's death, his heroism was overlooked by his own country. Until a year and a half ago. That is when a young man in Billings, MT, started doing some research. With help from his father and his grandfather, 14-year-old James Simpson discovered that his great-grandfather Jay never received the recognition he earned as a fallen American hero.

Young Jim Simpson wrote me a letter, saying proper recognition of his great-grandfather's service and sacrifice would bring about much needed closure for his family.

Indeed, honoring our heroes brings about much needed closure for all Americans. On behalf of a grateful nation, it is my tremendous honor to present LT Jay Simpson's medals to his great-grandson.

To Jim and all the Simpson family: Let these medals be family treasures that remind you--and all of us--that this Nation will never forget Jay's heroism. And we will never forget all Americans--known or unknown, celebrated or overlooked--who paid the ultimate price in service to the United States.

It is said that Lieutenant Simpson was a member of the Greatest Generation. But thanks to people like young Jim Simpson, I am reminded that there is greatness in all generations.

Thank you, Jim, for your hard work in allowing us to honor your great-grandfather. God bless you and your family.

Mr. President today I wish to pay tribute to Raymond ``Butch'' Swanson, of Anaconda, MT.

Butch passed away last evening. People in Anaconda say that Butch had the biggest heart of anyone they had ever known. He always put others' needs ahead of his own. He was the first one to show up with chicken noodle soup if a neighbor was sick. He was the nephew who helped an ailing uncle. He was the man who walked to his mother's house to wind her antique clock each week until her death.

He was an extraordinary teacher. He taught first grade and loved it. Every student was like his own son or daughter, and he always pushed them, letting them know that their dreams were possible. It was his life's work.

That devotion to his students came through in his love for his family. He was a proud and loving father and grandfather, who engaged fully in the raising of his four children. He doted on his two grandchildren.

Most important, he was a proud, loving, and great husband. His wife Kathy serves in the Montana House of Representatives. Butch was so proud of Kathy and her incredible work in the legislature for Montanans.

He not only served his family and his community, he served the State and the country he loved so much in the Montana National Guard.

Anaconda will miss Butch Swanson. To the generations of students he taught, to his family and to his community, Butch Swanson was a caretaker who always put other people first. He lived a quiet, humble life and is a lesson to us all on what it means to be a fine person, a fine Montanan, and a fine American.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes.

Mr. President, Montanans sent me to the U.S. Senate to bring accountability to this body, to make responsible decisions, and to protect America and the freedoms we all enjoy. I took the oath of office to defend the Constitution.

That is why I am going to vote against the PATRIOT Act. I encourage others to follow suit. I have never liked the PATRIOT Act. I still don't.

Like REAL ID, the PATRIOT Act invades the privacy of law-abiding citizens. And it tramples on our Constitutional rights.

We need to find a balance--making our country more secure and giving our troops, law enforcement and intelligence agents the tools necessary to get the job done. But we have to do it without invading the privacy of law-abiding Americans.

This extension doesn't address any of those concerns. It simply puts off the debate we need to have for another day.

There are some really troubling aspects that are not addressed by the extension of this law: Roving wiretaps which allow surveillance of a ``type of person,'' instead of a particular person, over multiple phone lines. That is a slippery slope to eroding our constitutional protection against government searches; Using the reasonable grounds of suspicion standard to require libraries and businesses to report to the government about what American citizens buy or borrow.

We don't have to sacrifice our privacy and lose control of our personal information in order to be secure. And we should never give up our constitutional rights.

Voting for the PATRIOT Act is the wrong way to go. We have got a lot of smart people in this body. We can develop the policies we need to fight terrorists without compromising our constitutional civil liberties. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting against extending this law today and in the future.

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