Jon Tester

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, when we are able to move the economic development bill, I will have a bipartisan amendment that will address the interchange issue in a way I think most Senators can support. I wish also to note that I appreciate Senator Durbin's passion on the issue--and with any number of issues we have in common--and I look forward to working with him again very soon. Most of the folks in this body know I am a farmer; that I come from the agricultural sector. It is important because, over the many years I have been able to be in agriculture, I have watched consolidation in agriculture, where fewer and fewer companies control more and more of the food supply. We call it consolidation. The same thing has occurred in our energy sector, where we have fewer and fewer companies, with less competition in the marketplace. And we are paying that price in both areas. We have seen enough consolidation in the financial area. Why is this important? It is important because the amendment I am going to offer-- the bipartisan amendment--will help so that we don't further consolidate the financial industry. I also come from rural America. We all know, as the Senator from Illinois pointed out, that we are coming out of a very difficult economic time. In fact, the Senator pointed out he voted for the bailout of the big banks because it was for jobs. I want the record to be clear that I did not vote for that TARP bailout, but I too am concerned about jobs. I am concerned about jobs across the country, but particularly in rural America. The amendment we voted on a year ago had a provision in it that exempted banks under $10 billion from this debit swipe fee rule. Everybody thought it would work--at least those who voted for the amendment thought it would work. But the fact is every regulator has said, with regard to this $10 billion exemption, we don't know how to enforce it. The regulators have said, we do not know how to craft a rule to exempt those small community banks and credit unions under $10 billion. The single regulators have said the same thing. In fact, Chairman Bernanke admitted the rule could ``result in some of the smaller banks being less profitable and even failing.'' That is because the two- tiered system will not work under the current law. That is not my opinion. That is the opinion of the folks whose job it is to regulate these banks. And the customers--the hard-working folks--are going to get stuck with higher fees, potentially no access to capital or, even worse, no local banks at all--further consolidation in the banking industry. Let me be clear. If any one of the regulators--the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Chair of the FDIC, the Comptroller of the Currency--told me that the interchange rule we passed last year would actually protect small banks, I would not be here, we would not even be here having this debate, we would be moving on. But that is not what happened. The Wall Street banks are going to be just fine. My amendment is not about the Wall Street banks. They can distribute their costs. They have a lot of different irons in the fire. They can distribute their costs. The fact is, the small banks, credit unions and community banks cannot distribute those costs. That will result in less access to capital in rural America and I think across the country. It will result in fewer jobs because you have to have capital to grow business and create jobs. Oftentimes we make decisions based on incorrect information. It is nice when you make decisions based on good information, and that is what we are asking to do here: Take a step back, take a look at this stuff, and make a good decision, a decision that will work not only for rural America but for the whole country. This is an important amendment. It is a critically important amendment, from my perspective. If we shut down access to capital in rural America because community banks and credit unions cannot compete, not only will we further consolidate the financial industry but we will take away opportunity for small businesses, opportunity that will allow them to grow and create jobs at a time when we need growth in our economy and we need more job creation. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today we have an opportunity to do away with a law that tramples on our constitutional rights, a law that invades the privacy of law-abiding Montanans and Americans, a law that deprives Americans of some of our most basic constitutional protections. This week, we are voting on whether to extend the USA PATRIOT Act 4 more years as is. There is a chance we may not have an opportunity to change it even though we know our freedoms have been compromised. That is a shame because without that possibility, we are not having the debate the American people deserve. If our only choice is to vote yes or no, I am going to vote no. Long before I ever got to the Senate, the PATRIOT Act was sold to us as a toolbox of sorts to give U.S. agents the tools they need to find and fight and kill terrorists. But what we got from the PATRIOT Act was a law that is killing the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. It gives our government full authority to dig through our private records or tap our phones or make a case against us without even having a judge's warrant even if we are doing nothing wrong. When we give up our rights, we give way to exactly what the terrorists wanted for us--fewer freedoms and invasion of privacy. It is not acceptable in Montana, and I am sure it is not acceptable anywhere else. More than 200 years ago, one of our Founders in this country warned us with this statement: Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety . . . deserve neither liberty nor safety. Words of wisdom from Benjamin Franklin. Our Nation was founded on the principles of freedom and privacy and a government we control, and we got exactly the opposite with the PATRIOT Act. Mr. President, here is a copy of the Constitution. It is a reminder of our rights as Americans, guaranteed by the fourth amendment: The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. The folks who wrote the PATRIOT Act were here in Washington long before I ever thought about running for the Senate, but you don't have to be a lawyer to know the PATRIOT Act flies in the face of the fourth amendment. It allows the government to conduct secret proceedings even when those proceedings don't need to be held in secret. If we allow that to happen, we toss government transparency and accountability out the window. As we have seen over the past few weeks, our military forces and intelligence agents are the most effective in the world. They are the best because they have the most powerful tools in the world to do their jobs. They are better trained than anyone else, they are stronger and smarter, and they do what they do without needing to snoop around into the private lives of law-abiding Americans and Montanans, without having to dig up our medical records or our gun records or our library records or our Internet records. The PATRIOT Act is bad policy that has put us on a very slippery slope. Our constitutional freedoms are too valuable to give even an inch of them away, especially when we don't need to. Without the opportunity to make real changes to this bill, our only option is to say yes or no to extend this law 4 more years. If we do, an entire decade will have passed without the opportunity to make any adjustments. Not having the opportunity to amend the PATRIOT Act, I am going to vote against it in the name of freedom and privacy, and I urge all my colleagues to do the same because it is the responsible way to vote. Mr. President, I yield the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum be equally divided.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the importance of responsibly increasing our domestic drilling and energy production in order to secure America's energy future. Montana is home to the Bakken oil and gasfield, the largest technically recoverable onshore oilfield in the United States. In 2007, production from Elm Coulee field in Richland County averaged 53,000 barrels per day--more than the entire State of Montana a few years earlier. That number is expected to rise significantly as new pathways to market are put in place. Advancements in oil and gas technology are also making it possible for us to extract resources that just 5 years ago no one thought was possible. I will continue to push responsible development of the Bakken Field. Oil and gas development in the Bakken region has applied new technology originally designed to enhance natural gas development and turned a small field into the largest onshore field in the United States. Our job in the Senate should be to encourage these kinds of innovations. Our job in the Senate should be to make sure that in places like the Bakken, where it makes all the sense in the world to develop, government agencies approve and permit exploration and development in a timely fashion. The Bakken is a strong example of where Montana is contributing to increasing American-made energy. The Outer Continental Shelf is another good example. We can and should encourage investment in this area so that we increase production to meet our needs as the consumer of 25 percent of the world's produced oil. We must also continue to explore for new resources--and prove those--since as of now we only have 3 percent of the world's reserves. Unfortunately, there are a number of proposals supported by my colleagues across the aisle who do not responsibly balance the U.S. energy needs with our responsibility to protect our coastal communities and other economic livelihoods. Specifically, S. 953 does the exact opposite of what we need to safely and responsibly increase American production. The systemic lack of oversight in the Minerals Management Service was a critical component of last year's Deepwater Horizon explosion and 3- month oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The failure of BP, Halliburton and others to follow safety requirements, and the failure of the Federal Government to enforce these requirements, has cost our country tens of millions of dollars. These irresponsible oversights caused significant economic and environmental harm to an entire region. In response to this disaster, the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling stated as their first finding that ``the explosive loss of the Macondo well could have been prevented.'' The report key findings also state, ``Fundamental reform will be needed in both the structure of those in charge of the regulator oversight and their internal decision making process to ensure their political autonomy, technical expertise, and the full consideration of environmental protection concerns.'' S. 953 does the exact opposite of what the offshore drilling commission recommended by encouraging lax oversight by setting an arbitrary timeline of 60 days, allowing insufficient time for in-depth analysis. Let's be honest: the practical effect of that policy would be for certain administrations to approve permits that they should not approve while other administrations reject permits that could ultimately have been approved. This kind of rush to judgment will only inject even more politics into our energy debates. As the Senate has shown time and again, that is the last thing we need. No, it is time for a little less politicking and a little more common sense in our energy policy. Yet this bill also forces the Department of Interior to reissue leases without any environmental review--the opposite of the full environmental consideration the BP oilspill commission suggested. When a group of folks get together and tell you how to prevent another Gulf of Mexico disaster, the commonsense thing to do is listen to them. I believe there are responsible measures we can take and should take to increase domestic protection, which makes us more energy secure and helps to insulate us from unpredictable ups and downs in world production. We need to dedicate resources to efficiently and effectively processing drilling applications. But tying the agencies' hands behind their backs with arbitrary deadlines or forcing them to hold lease sales and not process environmental reviews does not address the problem. If the Deepwater Horizon disaster proved anything, it is that cutting corners doesn't promote our economy or protect our environment. Encouraging regulators to look the other way or deny permits because they cannot fully consider them is antithetical to good governance. That is not good for American production, American jobs or American energy security.

Mr. TESTER

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

Mr. TESTER. Yes.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I thank Senator Boxer and Senator Grassley for their generosity. I am not here to talk about Goodwin Liu. I am going to talk about the debate over debit interchange. In a matter of weeks, the government is planning to price-fix debit card swipe fees below--below--the cost of doing business. They are going to price-fix debit card swipe fees below the cost of doing business. On the surface, the plan might make sense. But peel back the layers and we will see why a whole bunch of folks out there on both sides of the aisle are raising a flag. I am not asking to repeal the rules or even change them. I am asking that we take a closer look so we can get the information to understand the impacts, both intended and unintended. I have listened to the feedback my colleagues have shared on this issue. I have heard their concerns. While it is important to stop and examine the impact of limiting debit card swipe fees, some have said 2 years is simply too long. I am willing to adjust my legislation to address those concerns. Senator Corker and I have decided to shorten the timeframe from 24 months to 15 months. Here is how the 15 months is going to be used. Fifteen months will provide the agencies with 6 months for a study. It will provide the Federal Reserve 6 months to rewrite the rules using that study. It will allow 3 months to implement the final rules. Fifteen months is the bare minimum to get this study right, and we want to get it right. For me, stopping and studying the unintended consequences of government price-fixing has everything to do with access to capital for small businesses and consumers in rural America. Make no mistake, the big banks are going to do fine no matter what. So I opposed bailing them out. All but two banks in my entire State are considered small community banks and will be affected by this debit interchange price- fixing rule. All of Montana's credit unions will be affected as well. They will feel the pinch, and they will lose because the government is going to set a price for doing business that does not cover their costs. Let me say it again. The Federal Government is going to tell these folks what price to set on interchange rates, and it will not be enough for the little guys to be able to compete in the marketplace. Let me ask this: How would a big box retailer react if we set the price of T-shirts below what it cost to make, ship, and market them? You can bet the retailers would be up in arms--and rightfully so--about the government setting prices and telling them how to run their business. Some have suggested that the only way to have a competitive marketplace is by capping rates. That kind of reasoning does not make sense to a farmer like me. When we slant the playing field against small banks, they cannot compete with the big guys. If they go under, the businesses and consumers who rely on them are left hanging. That is why a populist farmer from rural America is on the side of common sense in this debate, and I am on the side of Montana small businesses and consumers. Last Thursday, I asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke about the impact of government price fixing as it applies to rural America. He is not the only major regulator who has raised serious questions about whether the supposed exemption for small banks will work. He is not the only one. Last week, Chairman Bernanke said ``it could result in some smaller banks being less profitable and failing.'' Let me repeat that, in the words of Chairman Bernanke, the small banks in Montana and across America could fail under this planned rule. What does it mean if more banks fail? It means more consolidation in the banking industry. How in the world is that good for consumers? How is it better for a small business in Glendive, MT, to have to ask a bank headquartered on Wall Street for a loan instead of going to the bank on Main Street? Are big banks going to provide the same level of service as community banks? I think not. Will they be able to evaluate the prospects of a small business by only looking at data, without understanding the communities they serve? Will big banks create strong relationships with the people in rural America? Will they do that? How about those folks who are looking to start a small business? We know credit unions are one of the few financial institutions to ever consider going into Indian Country to help bring investment to some of the most impoverished areas in this country. Do you think if these small folks go under, there will be anyone else willing to lend on reservations? No way. No way. During last week's hearing, FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair said this new rule is ``going to reduce revenues at a number of smaller banks, and they will have to pass that on to customers in terms of higher fees.'' Rural America--especially in this fragile economy--cannot afford that. Today I want to share why a few businesses in Montana are opposed to government price fixing. Their stories are not uncommon. They are quite ordinary. Doris Rocheleau runs Doris's Day Care in Great Falls, MT. She has been doing business for nearly 30 years with a community bank. She tells me she is struggling to make ends meet, as many small businesses are, and paying more in monthly checking would hurt her very much. Also, in Great Falls there is a small business owner named Mark Voyles. Mark owns Y-Not Trucking. His reason for supporting my amendment to stop and study the government limit is because he ``doesn't want to pay more fees on his money in his bank.'' Cabela's is a large retailer, a popular sporting goods store in Billings, MT. They are wary of the Durbin amendment because they offer their customers a reward credit card. They have real concerns with government price controls and what they will mean for their ability to meet the needs of their customers. The bottom line is this: Allowing the government to price-fix debit card swipe fees is a slippery slope. Maybe that is why my amendment is to stop and study the impact of this proposed rule. It has broad bipartisan support from folks such as the National Education Association and Americans for Tax Reform--different sides of the economic equation. Then there are nonprofit organizations, such as Rural Dynamics in Montana. Rural Dynamics serves the entire State of Montana--thousands of folks every year. Their mission? To help individual people and families achieve economic independence, to make sure folks can earn, keep, and grow their assets to reach economic independence. Rural Dynamics is a well-respected organization. Many of their strategies involve helping Montanans manage their assets and save for their future, enabling them access to banking services. Anything that would result in undue higher fees would take their mission backwards. Rural Dynamics says simply: We want to understand the long-term risk associated with limiting debit card swipe fees, how it will impact rural America, how it will affect economic independence. Just as convincing as the small businesses in my State are the administration experts who have been tasked with trying to make this rule on debit interchange work. Chairman Bernanke last week said he is still not sure whether the small issuer exemption would work, saying: There are market forces that would work against the exemption. Sheila Bair, Chairwoman of the FDIC, raised similar concerns about the workability of the small issuer exemption. So has Chairwoman Debbie Matz of the National Credit Union Administration. So has the Conference of State Banking Supervisors. So has the National Association of State Credit Union Supervisors. This represents all--all--of the regulators of the small financial institutions at the State and national level--every one of them. These are the folks who are tasked with keeping our community banks and credit unions vibrant and strong, ensuring these institutions are well capitalized and making sound loans. Let me say again, all of them--all of them--have raised concerns about the impact of this rule on the small financial institutions they supervise. These regulators are not convinced these rules are going to be able to work in the way they were intended. My friends on the other side of this debate continue to attack these folks. They have said they are shills for the big banks; that they do not understand market forces; that they don't understand small institutions. This couldn't be further from the truth. And no one--no one--has been able to explain to me why studying this issue to make sure these rules do what they say they are supposed to do is a bad idea. To stop and to study. That is what the bipartisan bill I am sponsoring does. To stop and to study the unintended consequences for rural America and this country as a whole. If this rule goes into effect, the consumers and businesses who rely on community banks and credit unions--oh, yeah--are going to pay the price. And we can bet many retailers won't be eager to pass the few pennies they save down to you. Yet Doris Rochileau's monthly banking fees will go up. Mark Voyles will have to pay more to keep his money in his bank. The folks at Cabela's will be asking: What is next? And will it hurt their loyal customers? Thousands of Montanans who rely on Rural Dynamics will have more hurdles to jump over to reach economic independence. These stories hit home. They are the stories I tell when someone asks: Why would a populist farmer be against the government telling the small banks that drive our economy how to do business? I am not asking to repeal this provision; far from it. I am asking us to do our homework in this body, to make sure we understand exactly what it means for Montana and all of America. With that, I want to express my thanks to the good Senator from Iowa one more time. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

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

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation I am proud to cosponsor--to finally end the taxpayer handouts to the world's largest oil companies--as they rake in record profits. This measure is about accountability. It is about responsibility. It is about fairness. When I got off the tractor from planting last weekend and went to fill my tank, it was $3.69 in Big Sandy, MT--almost a dollar higher than just a few months ago. But while I am paying close to $4 gallon at the pump, like other working Americans, oil company executives are padding their stock options and bonuses. They are diminishing their investment here in America, choosing instead to use tax loopholes to offshore their production. I would like to make just three quick points today about the over $4 billion in tax earmarks that the biggest oil companies in America are receiving today. First, they never asked for them. Second, they don't need them. And finally, they are not good for America--or our economy. These taxpayer handouts are running up our national debt, taking our jobs overseas, and they expose us to higher gas prices. In 2005, the CEOs of the five largest oil companies testified in the Senate about these subsidies. When asked directly about these oil and gas tax breaks, all five executives said they did not ask for them. They agreed with President Bush--that with the price of oil over $55 per barrel, they didn't need tax incentives. And today, oil is $109 per barrel. The CEO of Chevron told the committee that ending these breaks ``will have a minimal impact on our company, minimal.'' Let me be as clear as those executives were then: This bill has nothing to do with Chevron's or Conoco's or Exxon's ability to operate refineries or put folks to work here at home. It has everything to do with holding their top-level executives accountable to all American taxpayers as they rake in billions of dollars in profits every year. Right now Big Oil executives are writing off the royalties they pay to foreign countries as taxes, and until we fix it, all of us are paying for it. That means you and I are footing the bill every time one of these big companies writes a check to the government of Saudi Arabia or Nigeria. And they are telling us they don't want it or need it. We should do the fiscally responsible thing and close these loopholes. Instead, we should use that $8.5 billion to pay down our deficit. And that is what this bill does. Special tax breaks are supposed to make companies more competitive and get new technologies into the market. But for major oil companies we have written a privileged tax code just for them. Some of these provisions have been on the books since 1913. I don't know what companies after 98 years still need a subsidy, but if it does, either it isn't very effective or the system is being abused. As you will hear again and again this week--because it is just an astonishing number--as gas surpasses $4 per gallon, oil companies are getting $4 billion annually in tax breaks. The big five oil companies have made nearly $1 trillion in profits in the last decade. Nearly $32 billion of that came in the first 3 months of this year alone. But what is happening to gas prices? Rather than bringing down prices at the pump, these giveaways merely line the executives' pockets and run up the deficit. All the while, gas prices have gone up. For example, Exxon, the biggest of the oil companies in the U.S. made more than $9 billion dollars in profit last year--just their U.S. operations. And how much did they pay in taxes? Just $39 million. That is 0.4 percent. But this is more fair than in 2009, when Exxon received a $156 million tax refund from the IRS. That means we as taxpayers are paying them. The Tax Code is broken and this bill will help fix it. Right now, we are making tough choices about how to get a handle on our Nation's debt. We have tough debates ahead about heating homes in rural America, and investing in crumbling highways, and strengthening the future of Medicare. All the while, we are still literally writing checks to our biggest oil companies who don't need them. After causing the largest offshore oil spill in American history, BP still managed to rake in more than $7 billion in profits, up 17 percent from the year before. But most of these big companies are not developing their onshore resources here at home. How do I look the oil worker in Montana's Bakken Field in the face and say: We are giving the largest oil companies a billion dollars a year to go drill overseas, taking your opportunities offshore. Dual Capacity, the most egregious of these tax provisions, subsidizes $1 billion each year in royalty payments to foreign governments that don't like us very much. We don't let companies producing in America credit royalty payments to their taxes, so why would we do that for companies that produce outside of the U.S.? And does this make us safer? Does it bring stability to the market? Absolutely not. As we have all watched in the last few months, turmoil in the Middle East has driven up speculation and driven up prices. Oil prices fell about 10 percent last week--though not enough to relieve hardworking Montanans with any changes in prices at the pump. Prices didn't fall because of the discovery of a new oil field or a new technology. It happened because some folks on Wall Street moved some numbers around on paper. There is no accountability in that. And that is why we're trying to change it. But unlike on Wall Street, there are places where folks are doing the hard work of oil discovery and developing the technology to lower the cost of oil. A lot of that has to do with the ``small guys'' in the oil business. And they are successful. In fact, domestic production is going strong-- at its highest level in almost a decade. They are making risks and getting new technology into the field, like in eastern Montana. My State is home to likely the most productive domestic onshore oilfield in the United States. And small oil companies are doing good, responsible in securing America's energy future. The Bakken Field is estimated to hold nearly 4 billion barrels of oil. They are leading the way in developing new technology for oil field development. Where is Exxon? They aren't reinvesting the last quarter's $11 billion back in U.S. exploration. In fact, in 2009, they paid their shareholders 90 percent of the profits to shareholders, leaving just 10 percent to invest in their workforce, research and development, exploration, safety and the expanding energy frontier. Contrary to what some of my colleagues are saying, eliminating these wasteful subsidies won't raise gas prices. I want to repeat that: Eliminating wasteful subsidies will not raise gas prices. Many of these handouts have been on the books for decades as prices have continued to rise. It is time to close these loopholes for big oil in order to strengthen our national security--and our energy future. It is time to end the taxpayer handouts to Big Oil. This bill returns us to a responsible path toward energy development that benefits taxpayers and consumers. And it starts addressing the debt and deficit. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, on April 20, 2010, an explosion and fire destroyed BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig, killing 11 workers and causing the largest oil spill in American history. A year later, the well is capped and Americans who live near and rely on the Gulf of Mexico are still struggling with the ramifications of the Deepwater Horizon spill, while facing destruction from unprecedented storms ripping across the region. Meantime, BP, the second largest oil company in the United States who just reported 7.1 billion dollars in profits last quarter, is attempting to skirt their fines for this unprecedented disaster. In early April, BP indicated it is exploring wording in the Federal Water Pollution Prevention Act or the Clean Water Act which allows the court to determine the fines by either the number of days of the incident, or by the number of barrels of oil spilled. Current law leaves the determination of which metric to use up to the court. In this case, the difference between these two metrics is enormous. At the low end, using the per-day charge of $32,500, BP could pay less than $3 million for the whole incident. This amount of money isn't sufficient to change BP's safety culture and improve its workplace and environmental safety. Per barrel fines range from $1,000 to $4,300 per barrel. Under this metric, BP's fines would total between $5 billion and $18 billion, which is a much more appropriate fine for the environmental damage that was done. We must address this outrageous loophole to prevent corporate polluters from skirting accountability and responsibility if they wreak havoc on our land and in our water. We must speak the only language that corporations understand and that is profit. These fines, which are the only penalties the corporation cannot write off on their taxes, are critically important to sending a message that pollution doesn't profit; that corporations act responsibly to protect workers and the resources they use. If we accept minimal fines, we are condoning this irresponsible behavior. Many will argue that we don't need this legislation, because the court will fine them accordingly. But to date, the largest Clean Water Act fine ever levied was $13 million. $13 million is less than BP spent in 2009 on lobbying. That is why I am introducing the Pollution Accountability Act of 2011, which requires the court to fine violators of the Clean Water Act whichever fine is higher, per day or per barrel. If you pollute, there will be consequences. There will be accountability. We will demand responsibility. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and expeditiously passing it into law.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, on April 20, 2010, an explosion and fire destroyed BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig, killing 11 workers and causing the largest oil spill in American history. A year later, the well is capped and Americans who live near and rely on the Gulf of Mexico are still struggling with the ramifications of the Deepwater Horizon spill, while facing destruction from unprecedented storms ripping across the region. Meantime, BP, the second largest oil company in the United States who just reported 7.1 billion dollars in profits last quarter, is attempting to skirt their fines for this unprecedented disaster. In early April, BP indicated it is exploring wording in the Federal Water Pollution Prevention Act or the Clean Water Act which allows the court to determine the fines by either the number of days of the incident, or by the number of barrels of oil spilled. Current law leaves the determination of which metric to use up to the court. In this case, the difference between these two metrics is enormous. At the low end, using the per-day charge of $32,500, BP could pay less than $3 million for the whole incident. This amount of money isn't sufficient to change BP's safety culture and improve its workplace and environmental safety. Per barrel fines range from $1,000 to $4,300 per barrel. Under this metric, BP's fines would total between $5 billion and $18 billion, which is a much more appropriate fine for the environmental damage that was done. We must address this outrageous loophole to prevent corporate polluters from skirting accountability and responsibility if they wreak havoc on our land and in our water. We must speak the only language that corporations understand and that is profit. These fines, which are the only penalties the corporation cannot write off on their taxes, are critically important to sending a message that pollution doesn't profit; that corporations act responsibly to protect workers and the resources they use. If we accept minimal fines, we are condoning this irresponsible behavior. Many will argue that we don't need this legislation, because the court will fine them accordingly. But to date, the largest Clean Water Act fine ever levied was $13 million. $13 million is less than BP spent in 2009 on lobbying. That is why I am introducing the Pollution Accountability Act of 2011, which requires the court to fine violators of the Clean Water Act whichever fine is higher, per day or per barrel. If you pollute, there will be consequences. There will be accountability. We will demand responsibility. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and expeditiously passing it into law.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, it was a little less than 10 years ago that I was in northern Wyoming driving home. It was the day of September 11, 2001. On that drive home that evening, I heard the press report saying that Osama bin Laden was behind the terrorist attack on the trade center, the Pentagon, and in that field in Pennsylvania where the plane went down. I said to myself then that it was just a matter of time before the United States would catch him and justice would be served. Mr. President, across the remote mountains and dingy suburbs of Afghanistan and Pakistan, thousands of American troops dedicated themselves to stamping out Osama bin Laden and the evil he defined. All of those Americans made painful sacrifices at home, and many still are. Many are struggling with injuries, seen and unseen, and thousands have given their precious lives. Of course, we will never forget the innocent lives taken in cold blood on that day of September 11, 2001. We all know how that day changed the course of world history. One man was behind it all. We have hunted him for the better part of a decade. Now, thanks to the hard, diligent work of America's Special Forces and intelligence agents, that man is dead. At long last, catching him in a corner, a handful of American troops delivered justice to the entire world. The price for Osama bin Laden's death was enormous. Although yesterday's precision strike was executed by the toughest, smartest, and most effective special operations force on Earth, its justice is the result of all the countless soldiers, marines, airmen, sailors, and intelligence agents and their families who went ``all in'' for us over the past decade. This country--now and among future generations--will never forget their sacrifices. Thirty-six Montanans have been killed in worldwide operations since 9/11. Dozens more have been seriously wounded, and a few were longtime servicemembers, but many of them joined the military specifically because of that awful day and what happened on September 11, 2001. We are so thankful to them for all they gave and for all their families gave. While Osama bin Laden's death is a true victory, our vigilance in the worldwide fight against terrorism doesn't end here. The hundreds of Montanans still serving abroad today remind us of that every day. Yesterday we blotted out Osama bin Laden forever, and that will make our world safer. But working together with the international community, our Nation will continue to be steadfast in our commitment to security, safety, and opportunity for all Americans. Security and opportunity and freedom aren't just American values, they are human values. As Americans, we will never be afraid to fight for them. In the days and months ahead, I expect we will refine and recalibrate the future of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. As this next chapter unfolds, my thoughts and prayers will always remain with the hundreds of Montanans serving there. We are grateful for their service. We are anxious to bring them home. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

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

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise, once again, on behalf of rural America. Many folks do not understand rural America. They often get painted in broad brush strokes in a way that does not reflect the reality we face. The Montanans who elected me sent me to bring common sense to the debate over issues that impact rural America. One issue where there is not a lot of common sense is the issue of debit interchange. There is also a lot of misinformation out there about this issue. I have been concerned about the unintended consequences of this proposed rule since the Senate voted on the provision last year. That is why I voted against the amendment when it came to the floor for a vote. Over the past few months, I have been attacked by the big box retailers and called just about every name in the book. My legislation to study the impact of the Fed's proposed rule has been called a bailout. That is pretty interesting, since I was the only Democrat in the Senate to vote against both bailouts. Only in Washington do people say you are killing a bill by making sure it does what we want it to do. I certainly do not think the goal of the interchange amendment was to engage in price fixing. I do not think folks were trying to hurt consumers or small community banks and credit unions. But now we know the impact of this provision is far different than the information we had when we passed the amendment. Now we know that the regulators tasked with implementing this rule think it may not work at all. When we passed the amendment, we were told small banks and credit unions would receive an exemption from the swipe fee rule. Since there has been a lot of misinformation on this issue, let me share these comments directly with my colleagues. In a Banking Committee hearing in February, Chairman Bernanke referred to the exemption for community banks and credit unions, and he said: We are not certain how effective that exemption will be. There is some risk that the exemption will not be effective and that the interchange fees available through smaller institutions will be reduced to the same extent that we would see for larger banks. That means the Chairman of the Federal Reserve--the guy in charge of implementing the interchange rule--does not think it will work for credit unions or for small mom-and-pop community banks. This is common sense. When you set a price cap, big box retailers will use their market share to force the little guys to meet the lower fee. At the same hearing, FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair confirmed this, saying: It remains to be seen whether they-- These are credit unions and community banks-- can be protected with this. I think they're going to have to make that up somewhere, probably by raising the fees that they have on transaction accounts. That means our credit unions and small community banks will be cutting back--cutting back on things such as free checking or ending it altogether, charging more for loans, cutting back on services to low- and moderate-income folks in rural America. Despite being tasked with the job of implementing the small bank exemption, the Fed cannot guarantee that the exemption will work in practice. Because despite what some may say, the Federal Reserve cannot control markets. It cannot ensure that this provision will work since market forces will drive rates down for the community banks and credit unions. No one doubts that rural America's small businesses will be significantly affected by regulating debit card interchange fees. Yet the true and full effects of this regulation on small businesses are not being fully discussed or fairly portrayed. This amendment was an attempt to address a problem. But when you control prices, as this amendment does, you also invite unintended consequences. At first, it might make sense that if you reduce debit card swipe fees, then small businesses will benefit. But once you take a closer look, you find a host of potential problems for small businesses and no guarantees that consumers will benefit one lick. For instance, a recent study says that only 10 percent of small businesses are in retail and in a position to accept debit cards. But that same study also says most small businesses have checking accounts and use debit cards to pay for things they need to run their businesses. These businesses will end up paying more for basic services such as checking accounts and they will see more fees and consumers will be no better off. In short, this limit is bad for small businesses, and it is bad for consumers. Which banking services are likely to be more expensive--or disappear entirely--as community banks and credit unions seek to make up lost revenue? Well, free checking, for one. Millions of Americans have had checking accounts and debit cards because they are free. If banks and credit unions are forced to charge for these services, many business owners and consumers would suffer the consequences. Because the Fed's rules do not allow banks to cover the costs of debit transactions, banks of all sizes are considering limits on credit card purchases. Moms using their debit cards at the grocery store may have to limit their grocery purchases to $50 or $100. So what is the alternative? Well, put it on a credit card. But that is a tough option for struggling families. Low- and moderate-income families may not have access to credit or may have already maxed out their credit card. Pushing consumers toward credit is not good for small businesses either because the interchange fees on credit card purchases are higher than those on debit cards. In a recent survey, three-quarters of community banks reported considering imposing annual or monthly debit card fees. Three-fifths of them would consider imposing monthly fees on checking account customers. If they start charging folks for just having an account, you can bet these folks will not be customers for long. In the long run, that will devastate rural America. What does that mean for small businesses that rely on those community banks and credit unions? Without a doubt, the small businesses and communities across Montana rely on community banks and credit unions to keep their doors open, to grow their businesses, and to create jobs. These Main Street institutions are the backbone of this Nation's small businesses. In fact, according to a recent National Federation of Independent Business report, most small businesses do their banking with smaller institutions. Community banks provide the bulk of small business lending in rural communities and small business owners receive better treatment from community banks. That is because in rural America a community bank is part of that community. A handshake still matters, and the folks on both sides of the table can look each other in the eye and be accountable to one another. We are not going to find that on Wall Street. Community banks do the lion's share of lending with the youngest and smallest of small businesses--those best positioned to create new jobs as we merge from this recession. Make no mistake about it. The price caps called for by this Durbin amendment will lead to fewer debit cards offered by community banks and credit unions. It will limit the size of debit card transactions, and it will end free checking for small businesses, as they rely on these institutions. These changes will limit the ability of small businesses to conduct daily business. They will increase banking costs and could limit the lending capability of smaller institutions. These changes come at a time when many small businesses are already fully leveraged and have few other options available. So what does this mean for small business in Montana? For a contractor in Kalispell, it means he will not be able to use his debit card to buy lumber. It will mean the end of free checking. I know of too many businesses that do not have the option of increasing their lines of credit with their bank or that have maxed out a credit card weathering this recession. Those are the circumstances folks are forced into, and those are the circumstances that limit our economy. What will this mean for community banks and credit unions that are competing for the business of these small businesses? Community banks and credit unions play an instrumental role in our economic recovery by providing loans to small businesses so these businesses can grow and hire new employees. Smaller banks treat small businesses better. But smaller banks do not have the means to make up for the lost revenue from this Federal mandate, and they do not have the volume to make up this revenue elsewhere such as bigger banks do. One of the more troubling findings from the NFIB report I referenced earlier is the fact that community banks have been losing market share nationwide. The report found that the percentage of small businesses served by local banks fell from 31 percent to 25 percent between 2009 and 2010. My concern is that this proposed rule will further harm this loss of market share by community banks. It will lead to further consolidation in the banking industry. Community banks and credit unions simply cannot compete against Wall Street unless they provide products such as debit cards. They simply cannot make up this revenue elsewhere, and they cannot compete unless they provide these services. This notion that some have raised that these proposed rules are a slam-dunk for small businesses--it is simply false. Unfortunately, this is one of the many misconceptions that have been put out there. For example, based on statements I have heard, some would have you believe we have been working and analyzing the debit interchange issue for years, talking about all the hearings we have had on this topic. The truth is, however, quite different. There has been just one Senate hearing on this issue since 2006, and it was regarding the interchange fees paid by the Federal Government. The Judiciary Committee has looked at antitrust issues, but they have never addressed the ramifications of this amendment--never. No one has been able to explain to me why studying the impact of this rule is a bad idea. Am I suggesting the debit interchange system is without fault? Absolutely not. But we should not move forward with a rule that will create a whole new set of problems and will hurt community banks and credit unions until we have fully studied the impact. If we do not measure twice and cut once, we are bound to create a whole new set of problems that will hurt small businesses and consumers. I sure would not have stepped into the middle of this fight if I did not think it was critical to the survival of rural America, and to the jobs and livelihoods of the people who live there. I am in this job not because I am known as a guy who stands for big banks or Wall Street-- far from it. I am the guy in my party who voted against TARP and against the automaker bailout. I am in this job because rural America needs a voice at the table. Rural America needs someone on their side, to make sure rural communities and Main Street businesses do not get stuck with the short end of the stick when the Senate makes policies such as this one. We need to stop. We need to study. We need to make sure we are doing the right thing. Therefore, I ask my colleagues for their bipartisan support on a responsible bipartisan bill to delay this rule so we can have time to study the consequences of this rule--both intended and unintended. Our economy cannot afford to let this go into effect. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Troop Pay Protection Act. It is one of the bipartisan pieces of a very partisan puzzle, and it is common sense. We owe it to our Nation's troops to avoid their suffering from the consequences if the House of Representatives shuts down this government. If we don't pass this measure, while we still have time, our troops will continue to serve us overseas--they will always be essential to the United States--but they won't get paid. That is unacceptable. America's troops are America's heroes. They are serving us in difficult, dirty, dangerous conditions. They are away from their families, they are away from their homes and their communities, and they are risking their lives to answer the call of duty. Yet they still have the same financial responsibilities we all have here at home. They have mortgages to pay and car payments to make. They have families to take care of. We do our service men and women right by passing this bill. The bill simply says: If there is a shutdown, don't make our troops pay the price for the failures of a few extremists in Washington, DC. Make sure their paychecks come in on time. Delayed pay is the last thing the members of our military and their families should be burdened with. I know there is talk that the House is trying to push through something similar, in an effort to cover some bases, but their plan isn't as straightforward as this bipartisan bill. Their plan to hold our troops harmless is part of a week-long spending measure loaded with a bunch of extreme provisions this country cannot afford. Because it is part of a temporary bill, if it is passed, we will be right back here making the same arguments next week. I am always amazed at how dysfunctional this process can be. I have been reminded of that a lot this week. Here is an opportunity to throw some common sense back into the mix. I ask my colleagues to pass this measure and pass it now. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

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

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, this week I got an e-mail from a first grader in Missoula, MT, 7 years old. Her note read: Senator Tester, please pass a budget so that I can go to Yellowstone National Park this weekend, or at least wait until Monday to shut down the government. I get a lot of letters and calls reminding me what is at stake. Yet some of our colleagues continue to put politics ahead of doing what is right. I will always remember that e-mail from Missoula. Even 7-year- olds expect us to get our job done. They expect us to work together to pass a budget. They expect us to work together to make responsible cuts. They expect us to make sure we don't put our government and the entire economy on life support. That is exactly what will happen if some in Congress let the government shut down. They will fail all of us. If drawing a line in the sand becomes more important than working together, I think that is a shame. Of course, we can't afford the status quo either. We all know the problem. Everyone wants to point fingers. I could spend my time pointing at those who thought it was a good idea to put two wars we are fighting on the taxpayers' credit card or those who squandered a $128 billion budget surplus in a matter of months about 10 years ago. But I will leave it at this: Our debt and spending problem is not something that we got into overnight, and it is not something we will get out of overnight. It is not going to be fixed by slick talking points ginned up by Washington, DC, consultants. It will not be fixed by symbolic gimmicks. It certainly will not be fixed by irresponsible decisions such as ending Medicare as we know it. It will not be fixed by gutting student financial aid or physical infrastructure. Those create jobs now when our economy needs it the most. Our spending and debt problem will be fixed by embracing a responsible, credible, long-term strategy to cut our debt; to cut spending, discretionary and mandatory--right now we are talking about cuts to only 12 percent of the budget known as discretionary spending-- to strengthen our entitlement programs so they work for future generations; to reform our Tax Code so it is fair and sustainable; and to cut our defense where we can afford to cut. We owe it to all Americans to get the job done. But we owe it to them to get the job done responsibly, and that is going to require some buy- in. But we have done it before. During the Great Depression, people endured incredible sacrifice. But they had inspirational leadership to challenge them to grow their way to prosperity. In World War II, they worked together and made sacrifices at home to build the machinery that helped us win victory. That momentum also created a powerful middle class. The attacks of September 11 brought us together again, and again we grew strong. When we work together, we succeed. It is in our DNA. It is what makes us the strongest, most innovative nation in the world. Now we have to summon that strength and determination again, to lead our way out of our economic challenges. It will not happen with gimmicks. It is going to take responsible decisionmaking, compromise, and shared sacrifice. Several of our colleagues in the Senate are already leading the way. I compliment Senators Chambliss, Coburn, Conrad, Crapo, Durbin, and Warner. They are working on a bipartisan strategy to cut debt and cut spending. Their plan will include cuts to discretionary spending. It will make our entitlement programs stronger. It will propose cuts to defense spending. And it will include tax reform. Last year, Senator Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles led a bipartisan commission in outlining a smart, long-term, credible strategy for cutting debt and spending. Senator Simpson and Mr. Bowles say they had 14 reasons for volunteering their time on the Debt Commission. Between them, they have 14 grandkids. While I may not embrace every component of their plan, I applaud their hard work, their leadership, their patriotism. Their hard work is a solid blueprint we are already building from. I am ready to join them, and so are many of us in this Chamber. We need to do it. Montanans are patriots. They are ready and willing to follow our lead in providing a fair Tax Code that provides certainty and fairness. They are willing to share in the pain of responsible spending cuts that will not take our economy backwards. They know we can afford to make cuts in defense. They know we need to fix--but not dismantle or privatize--our entitlement programs. What is the alternative? Well, we may find out the hard way if folks are not willing to work together to reach agreement by midnight tomorrow. Shutting down the government means our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will not get their paychecks on time--even though they will still be serving us. This week, I heard from a soldier deployed in Afghanistan. He said he would be OK in a short shutdown because he has some savings. But if their paychecks stop coming, a lot of his fellow soldiers will be hurt. Many have lower ranks. Many have pressing financial obligations such as mortgages and car payments, kids to take care of. They would get the short end of the stick. We have a duty to make sure the people who fight for us in harm's way do not have to worry about something as simple as getting a paycheck. That is why today I signed on to an important piece of legislation to ensure American troops on active duty continue getting paid if the government shuts down. But Members of Congress are a different story. If the government shuts down, we do not deserve to get paid, plain and simple. I want to say thanks to my colleagues for unanimously approving our measure to prevent congressional pay during a shutdown. Now the House needs to follow our leadership. If they fail, and if I still get a paycheck, I am going to give it back. A shutdown also means the government does not honor business contracts. That would cost jobs. It means the IRS suspends refunds. A Republican shutdown means new home loan guarantees will stop. It means the SBA stops approving business loans. Patent processing will be suspended. And it means Social Security, Medicare, and veterans' benefits checks could be delayed. Right now, in Montana, there are 1,240 veterans' benefits claims that are outstanding. If the government shuts down, those 1,240 veterans' claims cannot be addressed, and a 7- year-old in Missoula, MT, will not be able to see her national parks this weekend. We cannot afford that. Nobody deserves it. We can do better, and we will. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

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

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 7, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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

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

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

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

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

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