[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8816-8820]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         DEBIT CARD SWIPE FEES

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this afternoon there will be a critical 
vote that will take place on the Senate floor. It is one of the most 
controversial, business-oriented votes that we have faced. Leading up 
to this vote has been one of the most heated debates and exchanges that 
many of us in the Senate have seen in our time. It relates to an issue 
that affects almost every American family, and certainly all American 
businesses, and the financial community. It is a basic question that 
needs to be resolved on the Senate floor.
  My friend and colleague from Montana, Senator Jon Tester, is offering 
an amendment, which I oppose. I have the highest respect for Jon. We 
have discussed this, and our friendship remains strong throughout this 
debate. We just see this differently. Whatever the outcome of the vote, 
I certainly am going to continue my strong friendship with Jon and be a 
fan of what he brings to the Senate and what he does for the State of 
Montana.
  Joining him in this amendment is Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee. I 
have the same high regard for Senator Corker, and any remarks that I 
make today are no reflection on them at all. I think they are both 
honorable people who are standing tall for their point of view, with 
which I happen to disagree. But I want to make it clear that I think 
this is a historic vote, a threshold vote in terms of whether the 
Senate, the Congress, and the Government of the United States will step 
into a situation that has created a fundamental unfairness. And this is 
the unfairness.
  When we use debit cards, or plastic, to pay for a transaction, there 
is a fee that is collected. It is a fee that is paid to banks and, of 
course, paid to the issuing credit card network. The merchant or 
retailer that accepts that plastic, that debit card, has no voice in 
determining what that fee will be, and it is invisible.
  Just one floor below us in the Capitol is a carryout. I went there 
this morning to pick up a little breakfast, and there was a young 
lady--a Capitol Hill policewoman--in front of me. She took a package of 
chewing gum and put it on the counter and handed her debit card to the 
cashier. The chewing gum cost $1.20. The average fee paid by the 
merchant--in this case, the proprietor of the carryout--is 44 cents on 
that transaction, more than one-third of the cost of the pack of 
chewing gum. The owner of the carryout had no voice in that fee. It is 
a fee that has been imposed on that merchant by the credit card network 
that issued the debit card.
  A year ago, we took up this issue and asked, Is it fair or 
reasonable? The reason I think we need to take a look at this is, in 
the United States of America the so-called swipe fee is dramatically 
greater than in virtually any other country in the world. The same 
networks, Visa and MasterCard, charge, on average, 1.14 percent on 
every transaction using a debit card. If one goes to the European 
Union, the average debit interchange fee is .2 percent, less than one-
fifth of what is charged in the United States by the same credit card 
network. Then, of course, take a look at Canada, just north of the 
United States, where there is no--zero--interchange fee charged on 
debit card transactions.
  Why is the United States, through its consumers, small businesses, 
and large retailers alike, paying so much more? These credit card 
networks, through their issuing banks, are charging this because they 
can. There is no restraint whatsoever--at least there wasn't until last 
year.
  We had a debate on the floor of the Senate, and we asked--on behalf 
of

[[Page 8817]]

consumers, small businesses, retailers, and merchants all across 
America--should we establish a reasonable fee for the use of a debit 
card? We voted, with 64 votes, to do that. The fee is to be established 
by the Federal Reserve.
  Most everyone would concede two things. First, the Federal Reserve is 
not partisan. It is going to make this judgment based on the economics 
of the marketplace, in terms of what the fee should be. Second, if 
there is any bias at the Federal Reserve, it is not toward consumers. 
This is not a consumer protection agency. No one has ever called it 
that. It is an agency which, by and large, is more comfortable in the 
boardrooms of major banks. So we gave them this responsibility.
  What the Federal Reserve came up with, after 5 or 6 months of 
investigation, was a startling discovery; and that was the interchange 
fee being charged on debit card transactions in the United States, on 
average, was 44 cents--that is what the 1.14 percent translates into, 
44 cents a transaction--and the actual cost to the debit card network 
issuing banks was in the range of 12 cents.
  What is being charged to consumers and small businesses all across 
America is more than three times the reasonable and proportional cost 
of the transaction. At that point, the Federal Reserve said: We are 
going to sit down as instructed by this law passed by Congress and 
signed by the President and come up with a reasonable interchange fee. 
They confessed--Chairman Bernanke and others said it was a challenge, 
and it is. But they said they were going to do it, and do it right, and 
they needed more time. Chairman Bernanke called me and said: I need an 
additional 6 to 8 weeks to do that. I said I was sorry to hear that.
  They had more than 11,000 comments posted to the Federal Reserve 
about what this debit fee should be, what is a reasonable fee. They are 
about to announce, before the end of this month, what it is going to 
be. I don't know what their report will say. I suspect it will be 
somewhere between 12 cents and 44 cents, with many other provisos 
included. That is where we stand.
  Under the law passed last year, this new debit card interchange fee 
rule would go into effect July 21. Well, needless to say, it has 
generated a lot of controversy, particularly among the card networks, 
Visa and MasterCard, and the issuing banks that issue these debit 
cards. They don't like this at all.
  As Senator Dale Bumpers of Arkansas--who used to sit right back 
there--used to say: They hate this interchange fee regulation ``like 
the devil hates holy water.'' They have done everything in their power 
to stop the Federal Reserve from issuing a rule that would bring down 
this 44-cent charge on every swipe of our plastic debit cards. Of 
course, they want to do it before the Federal Reserve issues their 
rule.
  Today on the Senate floor, at 2 o'clock this afternoon, the banks and 
credit card companies get their chance to stop the Federal Reserve from 
coming forward with this new approach to the interchange fees.
  As you can imagine, it is a titanic struggle because of all the 
retailers and merchants in the United States. From Walmart, on down to 
the corner bodega in Manhattan, or the corner store in Chicago, they 
are all involved. When I get into the car that picks me up at O'Hare to 
take me to my apartment in Chicago, my driver says: We are pulling for 
you. Every time somebody gives us a debit card, we end up paying more 
and more because of it.
  I think the reach of these charges may surprise a lot of people. Here 
is a letter that we received yesterday from Tom Gordy, president of the 
Armed Forces Marketing Council. He writes and says:

       On behalf of the member companies of the Armed Forces 
     Marketing Council, I want to offer our sincere appreciation 
     for your efforts to curb the skyrocketing costs to retail 
     business through debit card fees.
       Our particular concern about debit card fees is the adverse 
     impact the fees are having on the pocketbooks and the quality 
     of life of military families through the military exchange 
     systems.
       As you are aware, the military exchanges provide a non-pay 
     compensation benefit to military families and support 
     military families' financial readiness by offering name brand 
     products at an average savings of over 20 percent. 
     Additionally, the profits generated by the military exchanges 
     are given back to the military community through dividends 
     that support quality of life programs on military bases, 
     including childcare centers, movie theaters, gyms and 
     swimming pools, to name a few.

  Let's bring it back to the Senate floor now, and here is what he 
writes:

       Currently, the three military exchange systems--Army-Air 
     Force Exchange System, Navy Exchange Command and the Marine 
     Corps Exchange--are having to pay well over $100 million per 
     year combined in interchange fees and interchange fees are 
     the fastest growing uncontrollable expense to the military 
     exchange system.
       As interchange fees continue to increase, the military 
     exchange systems must either absorb the costs, thus reducing 
     the dividends that support essential military quality of life 
     programs, or they must pass the cost of the fees on to the 
     military family by raising prices. Either way, military 
     families lose because of interchange fees.

  That is just one example, but an example that should hit close to 
home to us because it is an example that reflects on the quality of 
life of people we care for very much--military families--who sacrifice 
for this Nation. A system which is designed to help them is paying over 
$100 million a year to the issuing banks for the Visa and MasterCard 
debit fees. Is $100 million reasonable? If next year it is twice that, 
is that amount reasonable?
  Most people would argue, if you believe in a free market system, you 
believe in two things: transparency, so people know what the rules of 
the game are--the actual prices and cost-- and competition. The honest 
answer is there is no competition here. Visa and MasterCard literally 
dictate these fees that are collected. What choice does a merchant 
have? Could you stay in business today and not take plastic? I guess 
some people do, but not many. The reality is more and more people are 
using plastic to buy things as basic as a pack of chewing gum for 
$1.20, which I saw this morning.
  That is what this debate comes down to. The question is whether we 
will let the Federal Reserve issue this rule, take a close look at it, 
watch its implementation, and then respond, if needed. I don't know if 
their rule will be excellent or need help. I am prepared to stay the 
course with it. If we need to address it in any aspect with further 
legislation, I want to do that.
  I particularly want to address my friends--at least those friends I 
have left--in the banking community. I am not going to stand here in 
defense of Wall Street. I think they have had quite a bit of friendship 
and love thrown their way by this Congress over the last few years. I 
am going to say, though, when it comes to community banks and credit 
unions, I think they deserve an exemption. It was included in the law. 
If we need to provide any other reassurances after the rule is issued, 
I will be there. I believe I can speak for the merchants and retailers, 
that they will be there as well. They have never disputed this issue of 
the community banks and credit unions being treated differently than 
the big banks.
  But I do want to make it clear what is going on here in terms of the 
biggest banks that issue these debit cards. There is $1.3 billion a 
month collected in debit card interchange fees--$1.3 billion--which is 
more than $15 billion a year. Three banks--Bank of America, Chase, and 
Wells Fargo--control 50 percent of the debit card market, and they will 
collect nearly $7 billion in fees this year off of these debit cards. 
As I mentioned, the merchants and retailers have no voice in this. They 
pay what they are told they have to pay and they collect it from 
consumers.
  Jamie Dimon is a person I have known. He is the CEO of Chase Bank. I 
worked with him when he was in Chicago. I had many conversations with 
him when he moved back to New York. I respect him for his business 
acumen. But he has been particularly pointed in going after this 
regulation of interchange fees. He has called it idiotic, in letters to 
shareholders and his customers. Chase has written to all of their debit 
card customers across the United States and said this so-called Durbin 
amendment--incidentally, it

[[Page 8818]]

isn't an amendment anymore, it is a law--will mean that Chase will have 
to raise fees on the people holding debit cards because they will 
collect less from debit card interchange fees.
  That seems to make sense, doesn't it? If less revenue is coming in, 
they will have to make it up some way. But I want to call to the 
attention of those who are following this debate to this fact: The 
bonuses distributed by the banks on Wall Street last year amounted to 
$20.8 billion. If they lost every nickel in interchange fees on debit 
cards, it wouldn't even get close to the amount they paid out in 
bonuses to their executives.
  So before Mr.--before the Chase Bank--I don't want to be personal 
about this--threatens its customers about increased fees and reduced 
benefits, let them be honest with their customers about the bonuses 
that are being paid. That bank--Chase--if I am not mistaken, had an 
increase in annual earnings of 48 percent this year. They are doing 
quite well, thank you.
  And for the record, let me remind those who are following this debate 
that the taxpayers of America were asked to stand by these banks in one 
of their darkest hours when we faced this recession. Many of us believe 
it was brought on by some awful practices on Wall Street and among 
other banks, insurance companies, and financial institutions around the 
world. But in their darkest hour, when things were toughest, where did 
they turn for help? Not the good old free market system, but the 
Treasury of the United States of America. So in the end we gave--we 
gave--$25 billion to the Chase Bank. We gave $45 billion to Bank of 
America and $25 billion to Wells Fargo to help them through their time 
of need.
  Oh, sure, they survived and they paid us back. But what was their 
gratitude? How was it reflected? It was reflected by these banks, after 
receiving taxpayer money to get them out of the hole they dug for 
themselves, turning around and awarding bonuses to their executives 
right and left. That is not an expression of gratitude where I come 
from. Now they come to us and say, we want you to continue this 
interchange fee subsidy, 50 percent of which goes to the three largest 
banks in the United States of America.
  I think it is time for us to say no. I think it is time to stand for 
consumers and small businesses across America who have no voice, no 
power, and deserve our help in making this system fairer, more 
transparent, and more competitive.
  The amendment before us is one I want to address specifically. 
Because instead of letting the Federal Reserve issue their rule at the 
end of this month--measuring whether its impact is as we had planned, 
responding, if needed, to changes--what the banking community and the 
credit card networks want to do is to kill this rule literally in the 
cradle before it has a chance to be issued, before it has a chance to 
be implemented. I think that is plain wrong.
  Right now, I hear my colleagues who come to the floor offering this 
amendment--both Senator Corker and Senator Tester--saying this is a 
compromise. This is a compromise.
  This is not a compromise. A compromise involves sides with differing 
views sitting down together and working out their differences. I wasn't 
invited to any meeting to come up with this so-called compromise. The 
merchants and retailers and businesses across America were not 
invited--not at all. There were no representatives of consumers in 
these meetings for this grand compromise. This was a compromise between 
the biggest banks, the medium-sized banks, and the small banks. So it 
is a bankers' compromise for bankers' benefit. That is what it comes 
down to.
  In the last 2 days alone, letters opposing this amendment have been 
sent by consumer groups--military exchanges, as I mentioned, 11 
colleges and university associations--because, incidentally, our kids 
at college bookstores, using debit cards, are actually paying more for 
their books because of these fees as well--308 national and State 
merchant trade associations and 6,500 small businesses. They are all 
opposing this so-called compromise amendment, though it isn't a 
compromise.
  Secondly, this amendment is described as a 1-year delay of the 
interchange rulemaking. Actually, it is an open-ended delay. The 
bankers who wrote this very carefully crafted it. The amendment 
requires the Federal Reserve's rules to be rewritten in 1 year, but it 
doesn't set an effective date for the revised rules. There is no 
telling when, if ever, these rules will go into effect. This delay 
could be significant, and from the banks' point of view, the longer the 
delay, the better, because it is worth $1.3 billion a month for every 
month they can delay it. And how long would they like to delay it? 
Forever.
  Then there is this idea of needing a study after the Federal Reserve 
put 12 months into reviewing this issue, considering thousands of 
comments to promulgate this rule. The amendment sets up a study of the 
interchange system that only takes into account the views of the 
banking regulators. Search the amendment--the Tester-Corker amendment--
for one indication there will be anyone sitting in the room 
representing the consumers or small businesses of America for this 
study. They are not invited. Not welcome. Not part of the conversation. 
Is this another compromise--a compromise that just involves banking 
regulators sitting down to decide what is in the best interest of 
consumers? Would you want your fate left to their hands as a consumer? 
Not me.
  The study, incidentally, is loaded--the so-called triggers in the 
study, if you take a look at them. If the bank regulators deem that any 
of the triggers are met, they have to throw out what the Federal 
Reserve has done and start over. Well, guess what, the triggers are 
written in a way that this is a foregone conclusion. These triggers 
will be met. As each trigger mirrors public statements the public 
regulators have already made about the Fed's draft rules, this is 
loaded. There is nothing objective or unbiased about this whatsoever.
  The amendment essentially mandates a complete rewrite of the Federal 
rules by the banking regulators for the banking industry in favor of 
the banks.
  Let me mention something else I think is outrageous about this. What 
the banks have said is, we don't want to measure the reasonable and 
proportional cost of a debit transaction to establish the fee we are 
going to impose. We want to include every variable and incremental cost 
we can consider. This amendment goes on for more than a page with all 
the possibilities.
  The amendment provides the Fed must rewrite the rules under a very 
different standard than the law which currently exists. The new 
standard is one the big banks have been begging for. The Durbin 
amendment says the fee set by Visa and MasterCard, on behalf of the big 
issuing banks, has to be reasonable and proportional to the costs 
incurred that are ``specific to a particular electronic debit 
transaction.'' The Tester-Corker amendment would require the Fed to let 
Visa and MasterCard fix fee rates to cover bank costs that are not 
specific to any debit transaction. The Tester-Corker amendment requires 
the Fed to allow interchange fees to cover ``all fixed and incremental 
costs associated with debit card transaction and program operations, 
including incentives.''
  This is a truck-size loophole the banks are begging for, because they 
know they can get up to 44 cents and beyond if they can add everything 
in from the cost of an ATM machine to executive compensation and 
executive bonuses. So honestly, are we going to stand here and say we 
cannot protect small businesses across America, struggling to survive, 
from outrageous price-fixing by the credit card companies so we can 
reward the issuing banks with bonuses? Is that what this is about? If 
it is, it is a pretty stark choice.
  This amendment is a big bank windfall. The amendment has been 
described as an effort to help small banks, but it would undoubtedly be 
a windfall for the Nation's largest banks. It would give them a free 
pass to continue their anticompetitive practices

[[Page 8819]]

for at least another year, and then it would require the Fed to write 
rules in a way that would enable big banks to justify the fees they are 
charging today. It is a no-change amendment.
  If you believe, as a Member of the Senate, the current system is fair 
to businesses across America and we shouldn't change it, then voting 
for this amendment will guarantee your position will be enshrined in 
law. This proposed amendment is a gift to the big banks that will keep 
on giving and deny swipe fee relief to small businesses and consumers 
who desperately need it.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record these three letters I have received from the Armed Forces 
Marketing Council, the American Council on Education, and Public 
Citizen U.S. PIRG.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Armed Forces Marketing Council,

                                       Manassas, VA, June 7, 2011.
     Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durbin: On behalf of the member companies of 
     the Armed Forces Marketing Council, I want to offer our 
     sincere appreciation for your efforts to curb the 
     skyrocketing costs to retail business through debit card 
     fees.
       Our particular concern about debit card fees is the adverse 
     impact the fees are having on the pocketbooks and the quality 
     of life of military families through the military exchange 
     systems.
       As you are aware, the military exchanges provide a non-pay 
     compensation benefit to military families and support 
     military families' financial readiness by offering name brand 
     products at an average savings of over 20%. Additionally, the 
     profits generated by the military exchanges are given back to 
     the military community through dividends that support quality 
     of life programs on military bases, including childcare 
     centers, movie theaters, gyms and swimming pools, to name a 
     few.
       Currently, the three military exchange systems--Army-Air 
     Force Exchange System, Navy Exchange Command and the Marine 
     Corps Exchange--are having to pay well over $100 million per 
     year combined in interchange fees and interchange fees are 
     the fastest growing uncontrollable expense to the military 
     exchange systems.
       As interchange fees continue to increase, the military 
     exchange systems must either absorb the costs, thus reducing 
     the dividends that support essential military quality of life 
     programs, or they must pass the cost of the fees on to the 
     military family by raising prices. Either way, military 
     families lose because of interchange fees.
       The debit card interchange fee restrictions that you 
     authored will help save the military exchange systems tens of 
     millions of dollars per year, reducing the adverse impact 
     that interchange fees are having on the pocketbooks and 
     quality of life of military families.
       We are hopeful that you will be successful in maintaining 
     the law that you authored to curb debit card interchange fees 
     and preventing any delays in its implementation.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Tom Gordy,
     President.
                                  ____

                                          Office of the President,


                                American Council on Education,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2011.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: I write on behalf of the higher education 
     associations listed below to oppose the Tester Amendment, 
     which would significantly delay regulatory implementation of 
     the debit card swipe fee reforms enacted last year in the 
     Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
     (``Dodd-Frank Act''). We reiterate our support for these 
     needed reforms, which will provide real relief to students, 
     their families and colleges and universities across the 
     country, and urge that they be implemented in a timely manner 
     consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act.
       Debit card swipe fees are a hidden expense for students and 
     families paying for college for which they receive no 
     benefit. As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act and the Federal 
     Reserve's proposed rule, we believe colleges and universities 
     will see reduced debit card costs which they will be able to 
     pass on to students through lower costs as well as increased 
     resources for institutional grant aid and student services. 
     In addition, implementing this reform will create an 
     opportunity for institutions to offer discounts to students 
     for payments made with checks and debit cards.
       During this time of economic insecurity, steps like those 
     undertaken in swipe fee reform will help students and their 
     families manage the costs of college with increasingly 
     strained budgets.
       We urge the Senate to reject the Tester Amendment and stand 
     with students and the colleges and universities that serve 
     them by ensuring that these debit card swipe fee reforms be 
     fully implemented in a timely manner.
           Sincerely,
                                              Molly Corbett Broad,
                                                        President.
       On behalf of: American Association of Collegiate Registrars 
     and Admission Officers; American Association of Community 
     Colleges; American Association of State Colleges and 
     Universities; American Council on Education; Association of 
     American Universities; Association of Community College 
     Trustees; Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities; 
     Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities; National 
     Association of College and University Business Officers; 
     National Association of College Stores.
                                  ____

         Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG, Federation of State PIRGs,
                                                     June 6, 2011.
     Re Opposition to Tester, S. 575, To Delay Swipe Fee Reform.

       Dear Senator: We, the undersigned consumer groups, write to 
     reinforce our continued support for the Durbin amendment to 
     reform debit card swipe fees that passed as part of the Dodd-
     Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. 
     The Federal Reserve Board of Governors has conducted enough 
     research and has adequate authority to issue a fair final 
     rule in this matter without the delays that would be imposed 
     by Senator Tester's proposal, S. 575, no matter how it might 
     be modified for the floor.
       All consumers, whether they pay with cash or plastic, pay 
     more at the store and more at the pump due to the current 
     non-transparent interchange fee system, which is tantamount 
     to a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich. Recent 
     Federal Reserve research has shown that lower-income cash 
     consumers subsidize the rewards cards of more affluent 
     customers. Yet, retail is a highly-competitive industry where 
     cost savings are routinely passed along to consumers. There 
     is no reason to expect that retailers, in a marketplace where 
     numerous sellers routinely compare and change their prices on 
     a daily basis, would fail to pass along the savings from the 
     unfair anticompetitive interchange system. Yet, as the non-
     profit and non-partisan American Antitrust Institute said in 
     a recent letter to Congress:
       [The Durbin amendment] limits the amount of fees that can 
     be charged through a price-fixing network regime and allows 
     banks to charge unregulated fees if they simply compete on 
     their prices rather than set them centrally. If the limits 
     set by the Fed are low, that aids competition by giving a 
     large incentive for banks to actually compete by lowering 
     their fees. Banks with less than $10 billion in assets would 
     not have to compete, however, because they are exempt. 
     Certainly, banks with more than $10 billion in assets can 
     compete in the free markets by setting their own prices 
     rather than hiding behind the cartel process overseen by Visa 
     or MasterCard. What the Fed is doing is to substitute 
     competition for administered prices. (March 14, 2011)
       As Senator Tester's legislation to delay implementation of 
     the Durbin amendment and the final Federal Reserve 
     regulations comes up for a vote on the Senate floor, we urge 
     your opposition to it or other efforts to weaken or delay the 
     Durbin amendment through Congressional action. Thank you for 
     your consideration of our views. If you or any of your staff 
     have any questions, please contact Ed Mierzwinski at U.S. 
     PIRG (202-461-3821 or [email protected]).
           Sincerely,
     Public Citizen,
     U.S. PIRG.

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the groups that stand behind me on this 
effort know what we are up against. When we take a look at the most 
powerful special interest groups in Washington, we have to put the 
banking industry near the top, if not on the top, of the ladder. 
Throughout my career I have tackled them on the floor. I can recall 
many years ago, brandnew to the Senate, when I said we ought to change 
the banking laws so we would put an end to the so-called subprime 
mortgages. I was in a debate with Phil Gramm of Texas, who said at that 
time that if the Durbin amendment passed, it would be the end of the 
subprime mortgage business. I lost by one vote. If I would have 
prevailed, history might have been a little different. The subprime 
mortgage mess created an economic downturn from which we still suffer.
  I stood up as well when it came to this foreclosure crisis and said 
that at some point these banks have to be reasonable. You just can't 
take homes away from people, board them up, and watch them deteriorate 
into nothing. You have to give people a fighting chance to stay in 
their homes. I said at the end the bankruptcy court should have the 
last word on that. The banking industry, the credit unions, the 
community banks opposed me. Take a

[[Page 8820]]

look across America today at the foreclosed homes, in Chicago, in 
Aurora, in Springfield, all across my State, and across this Nation. 
The outcome, years after I lost that battle, certainly does not speak 
to a stronger America because of these foreclosures. The banking 
industry beat me on that.
  Last year, fighting for these small businesses, retailers, I stood up 
and said: Somebody has to step up here and argue that there ought to be 
fairness in the fees they charge to businesses and consumers across 
America. We rallied 64 Senators--a bipartisan group--in support of 
that.
  The banks want a second run at this. They want to take this game into 
overtime. They want to come back today and count their friends here and 
hope they can come up with 60 in the hopes that if the big banks and 
credit card companies can win this battle, we will leave them alone, we 
will not ask hard questions about the interchange fees that are 
charged. I am asking my colleagues in the Senate not to give the banks 
this overtime, extra-time victory. Give the victory to consumers. They 
have precious few on the floor of the Senate. Stand up for small 
businesses that do create jobs across America, and give them a chance 
to create jobs in this country by not being overcharged by the credit 
card networks and the biggest banks in America.
  How many of us have come to the floor and said small business is the 
key to economic recovery? If you believe it, if you mean it, vote 
against the Tester-Corker amendment. That amendment is a blow to small 
and large businesses alike, large retailers and merchants alike, all 
across America. They stand in support of my effort to have a reasonable 
interchange fee on debit card transactions and to make sure they have a 
fighting chance to be profitable, to expand their businesses, and to 
hire more employees. That would be good for economic recovery. A vote 
for the Tester-Corker amendment unfortunately would be a win for the 
banks at the expense of an economy that desperately needs our help and 
support today.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________