[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 81 (Tuesday, June 7, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3524-S3535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2011

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Development Act, be withdrawn and the Senate adopt the motion to 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

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

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

[[Page S3525]]

                                 S. 782

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS.

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

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

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

     SEC. 4. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIPS.

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

     SEC. 5. ENCOURAGEMENT OF CERTAIN COORDINATION.

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 8. COST SHARING.

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

[[Page S3526]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 11. RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM.

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

     SEC. 12. ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 13. COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES 
                   IMPROVEMENTS.

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

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

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

     SEC. 14. DESIGNATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS.

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

[[Page S3527]]

     SEC. 15. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER PERSONS AND AGENCIES.

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

     SEC. 16. NOTIFICATION OF REORGANIZATION.

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

     SEC. 17. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

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

     SEC. 18. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.

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

     ``SEC. 613. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.

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

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

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

     SEC. 19. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 21. REPORT ON DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS.

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

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


                           Amendment No. 392

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

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

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

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

[[Page S3528]]

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


                 Amendment No. 393 to Amendment No. 392

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S3529]]

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

[[Page S3530]]

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

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

[[Page S3531]]

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

[[Page S3532]]

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

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

[[Page S3533]]

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

[[Page S3534]]

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

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

[[Page S3535]]

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

                          ____________________