quorum call:

: the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mr. reid: i would ask consent that that shall vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that following morning business on wednesday june 8 the senate resume consideration of s. 782, e.d.a. revitalization act, the time until 2:00 p.m. equally divided between opponents and proponents of the tester amendment number 392 regarding swipe fees. at 2:00 p.m. the durbin amendment number 393 be withdrawn. the senate proceed to a vote in relation to the tester amendment number 392 with no amendments, motions or points of order in

order prior to the vote other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive. the tester amendment be subject to a 60-vote threshold and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i want to express my appreciation to senators durbin and tester for their warm relationship and to every senator here on this most difficult issue for allowing us to get this done tomorrow expeditiously. it's something that had to be done and it's the right thing to do and we'll move forward upon completing this to try to do other things on this very important piece of legislation. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent when the senate when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until tomorrow, wednesday, june 8 at 9:30 a.m. after the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour deemed expired the time for the two leaders be reserved

for their use later in the day that following any leader remarks, the senate proceed to a period of morning business for an hour with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each during that time, that the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half, the republicans controlling the final half; that following morning business, the senate resume consideration of the economic development act legislation under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, there will be a roll call vote on the tester amendment tomorrow at approximately 2:00 p.m. that amendment will be subject to a 60-vote threshold. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it adjourn under the previous order following the remarks of senators moran and isakson. the presiding officer: without objection.

-- i ask we begin a -- mr. reid: i ask we begin a quorum call. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from kansas.

mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. moran mr. president on -- mr. moran: on friday of last week the u.s. department of labor issued a dismal report on our economy. not only did our employment rate rise to 9.1%, but the number of americans looking for work increased to 14 million and those who have been jobless for six months climbed. it's clear that the current economic policies are not working in our favor and in fact i suggest they are working against us, creating an environment of uncertainty and hampering job growth in america. when a message coming from washington d.c. is more taxes more regulation and more intrusion in the free-market system, it's no wonder that businesses are not hiring additional workers. americans are looking for leadership to get our economy back on its feet so that they can find a job and provide for their families. in a recent survey, 90% of americans said that the economy

is in bad shape and that by a margin of two to one americans said our economy is on the wrong track. i couldn't agree more. changing the course of our economy will require washington, d.c. changing its course. instead of creating barriers to job growth, congress and the obama administration should be implementing policies that encourage job creation. history shows that sustainable economic growth starts with the private sector, so congress and the administration have a responsibility to create an environment where businesses can flourish and start hiring again and that that starts by pursuing a series of progrowth policies. first, in my view, congress must rein in government regulation and stop passing burdensome mandates that come at the expense of that job creation. as i tour manufacturing plants and other businesses in my home state of kansas, owners often ask, what's the next thing coming from washington that will put me out of business?

jobs in this countries are undercut with each new government regulation because it drives up the cost of doing business erodes our global competitiveness and limits the access to credit that businesses need to grow. rather than hiring new employees, businesses are spending their resources on complying with these burdensome regulations and costly mandates from the e.p.a.'s effort to regulate carbon to the mandates imposed by the new health care law. according to the small business administration, the smallest businesses -- those with less than 20 employees -- spend 36% more per employee than larger firms to comply with federal regulations. that's roughly 10,585 dollars per employee to imply with all regulations, and very small firms are even burdened more per employee. small business is the backbone of the american economy. those businesses employee half of our private-sector workers and generated 65% of new jobs

over the last 20 years. so it makes no sense to drive up their operating cost with additional government regulations because that leaves them with fewer resources to hire new workers. second, congress can spur economic growth by replacing our convoluted and burdensome tax code with one that is fair, simple and certain. when businesses know what to expect, they can better plan for future expenses and will invest in their companies for growth and will hire new workers. unfortunately, congress is often too shortsighted when it comes to tax policy. a year or two extension of tax cuts do not give businesses the certainty they need to plan for that future. employers have to make decisions about the future of their business today and given the fact that their taxes will rise in the near future they are reluctant to hire new workers or expand their business f. we're serious about creating jobs in this country, we have to give our country's job creators the ability to plan for the future

and a tax code that encourages investment. third, congress must open foreign markets for american manufactured goods and agricultural products. across the country thousands of americans depend upon exports for jobs including more than one-quarter of all manufacturing workers in kansas. by increasing our nation's exports we will create jobs and opportunities for all americans without raising taxes or increasing the federal budget. we should be exporting our manufactured goods and agriculture products, not our jobs. unfortunately, trade agreements with colombia, panama and south korea, for example, have been stalled for four years and each day that passes we risk losing more of our market share to our competitors. during this delay colombia's moved forward on trade deals with canada, with chill sperbgs with the european union brazil and arch jean in a. -- argentina. we cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while other countries

continue to move forward in their trading relationships with our trading partners. together the trade agreements with colombia, panama and south korea are worth an estimated $13 billion in u.s. exports. the agreement with korea alone is worth $11 billion and would create an estimated 70,000 new jobs for americans. it is past time for the president to send congress implementing phrapblg for these trade -- language for these trade agreements so we can open more markets for american goods and agriculture commodities. when american businesses are given the opportunity to compete on a level playing field for these markets, they will succeed and more jobs will be created here at home. fourth the u.s., to remain competitive in the global market, must develop a comprehensive energy policy that allows for ample energy supply that is both affordable and reliable. rising gas prices and recent events in the middle east have again demonstrated that the importance of having access is to a reliable energy supply.

higher energy prices are not only threatening our global competitiveness, they are also hampering our economic recovery. i don't know how we can expect our economy to recover when energy prices are what they are. but when employers have access to reliable energy supplies, they can spend their resources on hiring new workers rather than on those escalating energy costs. in my view, no single form of energy can provide the answer to meet our country's energy needs we must develop traditional sources of oil natural gas and coal encourage the development of renewable energy sources such as beau fuels wind -- biofuel and hydropower as well as encourage conservation. a report from the congressional research service found our country's resources are far greater than those of saudi arabia china and canada combined. in fact, our combined recoverable oil natural gas and coal supplies are the largest on the planet. yet, in 2009 the administration

canceled 77 oil and gas leases in utah and last year suspended 61 leases in montana. the administration restricted access to oil and gas exploration in the easten gulf of mexico and off the atlantic coast. although these two areas hold commercial oil reserves of 28 billion barrels and up to 142 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. more production of energy in the u.s. means more jobs in the u.s. and more u.s. workers at work. and lower energy costs for businesses and for their employees. finally, congress must reduce government spending and to bring about this economic growth. i think the debate on government spending is often seen as some philosophical discussion or a partisan political bickering opportunity here in washington d.c. but the reality is out-of-control government borrowing and spending has very real consequences for the daily lives of americans. our failure to balance the budget will result in increased

inflation, higher interest rates, fewer jobs and a lower standard of living for every american. but this reality has not yet sunk in here in washington d.c. despite several recent warnings. at the end of april standard & poor's one of the world's big three credit rating agencies downgraded our future financial outlook from stable to negative. s&p says our country has large budget deficits and rising government indebtedness and the path to addressing these is not clear. furthermore, just last week, another credit rating agency, moody's, if we needed another reminder warned that our failure to cut the deficit could prompt them to downgrade their outlook on our aaa rating to negative. without a credible agreement on substantial deficit reduction -- this is moody's talking -- this could happen as soon as next month. this would have a devastating impact upon our already struggling economy. reducing our nation's debt will require us to work together to

craft a serious plan. president obama's proposal to balance budgets in part by raising taxes on business in my view would only make our economic circumstances worse. washington does not have a revenue problem. it has a spending problem. it is time for us to work together and pass a responsible budget to reduce our deficits this year, next year and far into the future. the plan should include significant spending reductions, a balanced budget amendment to restrict washington's future ability to borrow money that would put us right back in the mess that we're in today and one that addresses our long-term unfunded mandates. as john adams once quipped facts are stubborn things, and the facts tell us that washington must change our direction if we are to grow our economy and put people to work. the failed economy we are experiencing and the financial collapse around the corner is the most expected economic crisis in a lifetime. we know what is going to happen if we don't act and it would be immoral for us to look the other

way or to kick the can down the road because the politics of these issues are too difficult to deal with. americans deserve leadership here in our nation's capital to confront these challenges and not to push them off to the next generation of americans. if we do so, if we confront these issues correctly in a responsible way businesses will succeed, profits will be made, employees hired and americans will again be able to live and pursue the american dream. mr. speaker -- or, mr. president, i thank you and i notice the absence of a quorum. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i would like to ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: mr. president i rise to speak as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: i want to commend the senator from kansas, i had no idea when i came to make my remarks that they would be so in keeping with a part of his speech with regard to regulation

and what the regulatory regimen of the current administration is doing to economic improvement and economic development in the united states of america. i rise for a moment to talk about the dodd-frank legislation, to talk about the qualified residential mortgage provision and to talk about the six regulators of financial services in a recent decision that they have made. sean donovan ben bernanke, sheila behr, edwin dimarco john walsh and mary shapiro were challenged with carrying out and writing the rules of intent for dodd-frank. when they published a few weeks ago, about two months ago now the proposed rule and qualified residential mortgage, it created a firestorm and created a number of speeches on the floor of the united states senate. it also created a letter from 39 members of the united states senate which i would like to ask unanimous consent be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: these 39 senators wrote specifically to these regulators to express their concern with the possible effect of the proposed regulation that the regulators were proposing on

qualified residential mortgage. i am pleased to say that a few days ago the six regulators extended the comment period from june 20 now to august 1. i have not talked to them but i hope it's because they have been listening to the speeches, they have been reading the comment they have been seeing the testimony and they understand if left uncorrected and if put in place, the current rule on qualified residential mortgage will be a second hit to what is already a very fragile united states housing market. mr. president, just last week, the reports from the most recent month in terms of residential home sales saw a second -- beginning of a second dip in residential housing. this morning, "the wall street journal" reported that 40% of the homes in america that contain a second mortgage or an equity line of credit are now under water 40%. one of the reasons they are is that prices are continuing to decline, and one of the reasons

prices are declining is the buyers are not there it's a sellers' market, we have too many foreclosures and too many short sales. the impact of the qualified residential mortgage amendment to dodd-frank was an amendment offered by mrs. hague, ms. landrieu and myself, all with experiences in housing and the marketplace. we put it in because the original dodd-frank legislation said that people making mortgages were going to have to hold risk retention of 5% in that mortgage, which basically would put most everybody in the mortgage business out of the mortgage business except a handful of people. we put in the qualified residential mortgage the specific per am terse by which a mortgage could be exempt from risk retention which were a down payment of at least 20% or if the down payment was less than that it had to carry private mortgage insurance to ensure the effect of an 80% loan. second qualified ratios that

demonstrated the couple could pay back the mortgage under any reasonable assumption. third, the house had to appraise. fourth the creditworthiness of the individual had to demonstrate they could pay for the mortgage. those are all the reasonable underwriting criteria that existed before the financial collapse of the mid 2006-2007. the rule that was proposed by the six regulators which now they have extended the come meantary time completely avoided and made no mention of the private mortgage insurance requirement and said for a qualified residential mortgage to exempt risk retention the buyer would have to put down at least 20%. mr. president, most buyers in america don't have at least 20% and under current economic times and what's happened, they have got a lot less than that. but for years -- and i was in the housing business for 33 years -- the 90% and 95% conventional loans made in this country were the backbone of the loans that helped support the housing market, and those loans

required a private mortgage insurance policy on any amount of loan exceeding 80% up to 95%. we need the rule, the ultimate rule coming back from these regulators by august 1 to contain that provision so as to exempt from risk retention any mortgage that meets the underwriting criteria, including private mortgage insurance on any amount above 80% and up to 95%. if we don't do it, mr. president, i want to tell you what will be the outcome and it's without question. you will remember, mr. president, that when we got into trouble in housing it's because we directed freddie and fannie to buy affordable housing loans which became a consumer of subprime packages that were generated on wall street. subprime packages were loans that had haiku upon rates and they were made to risky borrowers. they were intended to get more people in housing but they became an abused process. because we directed freddie and

fannie to buy that type of paper, it created a demand for that type of paper which wall street fulfilled. so, in other words you had a premium pricing on the coupon which made the security attractive but the risk was greater because the loans were to people with less good credit. we have now gone the other way. the pendulum has swung 180 degrees the other way. with the pending rule that's being circulated upon which this commentary time has been extended if it goes into place you will create a 90% and 95% loan being priced just like loans that were subprimer priced because very few people will make those loans only a few large lenders, they will price the interest rate on those loans high because of scarcity. in other words a borrower borrowing 95% or 90% with private mortgage insurance will end up paying a premium a premium in interest rate or discount points in order to get that loan because there won't be a wide distribution or availability of that type of conventional financing. the unintended consequence of the rule being proposed, which we fortunately have got an

extension on comment time, would create another ability for lenders with the capacity of retaining risk retention to price a loan at such a rate that it's too high for the average consumer. the other thing it's going to do is a lot of consumers who can't get a qualified residential mortgage of 90% or 95% will be out of the housing market. what's the result of that? the result of that is an extension of what the most recent figures demonstrated -- lower demand, declining housing prices and a protracting continuous of the worst housing recession in the history of the united states of america. so i come to the floor today first of all to say thank you to the six regulators for extending the comment period. second to urge my colleagues, to urge the lending institutions, the real estate industry the consumer interest groups the housing advocacy groups to have their input with these regulators on the proposed qualified residential mortgage rule because if left unamended as it currently is proposed by the regulators, it will make

affordability of housing less affordable in america the access to conventional credit less available to america, it will decline the demand that exists already which is historically too low, it will protract the continuing decline of housing values in america and it will cause our economy to continue to slide in an even deeper deeper depression. it is critically important that what the gentleman from kansas said be recognized. don't -- be sure that when you pass regulation, the unintended consequence doesn't cause a bigger problem than the problem you're trying to correct. i admire our regulators, i appreciate the hard job we have given them to do. i appreciate the fact they have extended the comment time. i hope now they will also listen to the comments that are being made some back and make a qualified residential mortgage rule that includes the provision for private mortgage insurance on loans in excess of 80% and no more than 95%. mr. president, i yield the

floor. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.ñ?ñ

>> a strain of e. coli sickened people across europe. foreign ministers held an emergency meeting today in lux luxeuberg. spain's economy has been most affected after reports the outbreak was caused by spanish cucumbers. next a news conference on the method and timetable to distributing the farmers and produce organizations. this is 20 minutes. >> welcome everyone at today's

press conference. today, with the commissioners we'd like to inform you about what's happened at the extraordinary counsel meeting, what was on the agenda, and what we decided on these important issues which keep everyone busy in europe. first of all a week ago at the inform mall agriculture council meeting, we touched upon the issue of the e. coli outbreak. this has food safety dimensions claimed lives and would like to express our con doll lenses -- con doll lenses to the victims and those suffering from the disease. this is serious economic consequences. this could ruin farmers who may

have worked all their lives in this sector. this is a very important issue. this is why the hungarian presidency decided that as soon as possible we should convene the agriculture counsel of the european union. i'd like to turn to a house commissioner mr. john daly, please inform us about the latest thing in this area, and what you said to the counsel on the rapid alert system. commissioner, the floor is yours. >> well, thank you very much. to start with let me also express once again my condolences of those suffers from the death and disease caused by this outbreak. in the current face of the crisis, we have to focus all our efforts on supporting the patients suffering from the disease, rapidly identifying the source assuring right information to the public, and fighting this with res strixes.

there's now 166 producing e. coli cases and there's multiple deaths in germany and one in sweden. other cases are reported in other member states and it's reported 13 cases and the united states has four cases. the commission is using all of the tools at its di spoa sal working to support them in containing this outbreak. in dealing with this outbreak, the importance of rigorous science and coordinated communication, broaden investigation cannot be overemphasized. this is a message at the united nations and european parliament this morning. we need to be sure that the advice and information put into the public domain can send up

rigorous scrutiny. we have to be transparent, but we must not draw premature conclusions. it is very vitally important that the member states introduced were anticipating alerts and the rasff when member states are confident of the scientific evidence supporting the other indications. the outbreak is limited to areas so there no reason as of today to take any measures as european level is banning other programs. in the light of this the steps towards the source we'll consider any product as disprore portioned. we are in contact with countries like russia in order to ask them to lift the ban which is considered disproportionnate.

i can't emphasize how important it is to cooperate and share expertise to bring this outbreak to an ends as soon as possible. the consumer has the right to feel confident about the food they eat. we can and must do everything we can to ensure them that the foot they eat is safe in order to avoid anymore loss of human life and further suffering. while the crisis is over, we must learn the lessons from this outbreak, look at our systems what options and possibilities there are and where changes may be needed for improve wants to be made in order to emerge stronger and more prepared for the future but now it's not the time. this is the time for cooperation and solidarity. thank you very much. >> translator: --

>> i can take full questions for a bit because i have to leave. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: the crisis, is it also a matter of improving controls from a preventative point of view to avoid contaminated products actually ending up in the consumers' plate before people die and then try and improve on things? don't you think something should be done preventatively? thank you. >> no, i think we have to take everything into perspective and the systems we have in europe are intended to do what you are

talking about. i assure the food on the plate of our citizens are wholesome without problems, but problems from time to time because of certain issues that are not the ordinary way of doing things happenings that are art of the normality and this is where again the other systems we have of rapid alerts and controls kick in to ensure that in any incident like we are having now, we are informed as much as possible of what is happening and we can act as far as fast as possible to try and eliminate the problem as it arrises. we had in the beginning of the crisis, for example, it happened, it was controlled,

we've learned our lessons introduced new procedures in that sector to control it as much as possible of this happening again, and this is the same problem but let us not go forward in any way that the control systems the food safety systems we have in europe are in any way not effective. our policies on food protection our policies on food safety, i believe is the best in the world. >> translator: are there any other questions for the commissioner mr. daly? no fine. >> translator: thank you ladies and gentlemen. the next issue was in connection with fruits and vegetable

growers and farmers, and what's important to see is that we retain and keep the health of people and you need healthy food and you need farmers, producers. europe needs those farmers who produce top quality food and to produce for the european market and these people ended up in this situation through no fault of their own, and despite the fact that studies have shown that this was not from sprouts and from cucumbers where the contamination came the market has dropped two-thirds of fruits and vegetables that cannot be sold in europe now, and this is a situation that needs to be resolved now and have to restore confidence in consumers and also we have to make farmers believe that we're not leaving them alone, and it is worth

their while to continue working. today our council had to make responsible decisions and we have made these decisions, but the point is we have to pay compensation to farmers compensation for the damages they have suffered. we need a swift solution and our commissioner came to our meeting with a set of proposals, with a proposal, and i'd like to ask our commissioner to explain this proposal to us. >> translator: today's discussion and the proposal i made follows on discussion we already had in the inform mall, indeed counsel of ministers in hungary last week but that inform mall counsel -- informal counsel touched on the issue to look at all legal

possibilities for supporting the sector, so there are limited instruments which the present council regulation allows the commission to use in such situations. on that basis, given the crisis situation, we've tried to improve the measures already earmarked for our producers organizations and give them more flexibility. they are in the ceiling of 5% were not going to take account of withdrawals carried out by producer organizations. we're not going to apply that ceiling of 5% total annual production to the harvest which is withdrawn from the market in this crisis situation. similarly, we're not going to put the limit of one-third of operational funds used for crisis management measures given the scale of the crisis.

further more nonharvest measures can be activated in terms that have started harvesting and market and produce. that measure can only be triggered before harvesting is taken place so we've allowed flexibility for producer organizations, but given the european scale of the crisis, we've decided to provide financial aid as well by mobilizing article 191 on the single prominent organization of the market with exceptional community aid funded 100% by the community budget so that aid will entail compensation at the second level of the referenced price. compensation for certain categories of producers and products. producer as members of a

producer organization and for non-members as well. in the case of the non-members so that we can control we'll have to monitor the quantity withdrawn from the market so they'll have to conclude a contract with the existing producers and company sages will be based on the consumer organization. as for the fruit and vegetable sector, all aid is channeled through producer organizations. as a reference period, we opted for 2007-2010, price of product covered by this support in june 2007 2008, 2009 2010 and we've proposed a compensation level of 13% of the market price in that reference period.

you should note as well that market price in that reference period on average was higher than the price at present but for the present period, we don't have exact details of prices on all community markets. that's why we've taken the reference of the period 2007-2010. we've also proposed a financial amount in the initial stage of 150 million euros. now, following the discussion we've had at this afternoon's council where member states gave justifications and asked for the figures to be revised # upwards, i gave the commitment to revise these figures that is the level of compensation and the overall amount and come back with an improved offer, a substantial, balanced, and justified figure in the light of the current

situation. we can do this analysis fairly quickly, i think tomorrow perhaps, come back with an improved proposal, and then propose it in the management committee to discuss and vote on that commission's proposal, so we make an improved proposal to the management committee for a speedy decision, probably at the beginning of next week. there you are. i fear discussions took place today were very constructivity on the decisions to be taken now and also on the perspectives. in the council i stressed the fact that in the decisions taken reforming the cap it's pote 2013 period we must bear in mind at present the number of community actions is very limited for these crisis measures. it puts the commission in an awkward situation because we

have few measures for acting quickly and first timely so we -- efficiently, so we have to draw conclusions from that and take into account of improving the measures and make them more flexible in decisions we make with the counsel and parliament in the context of the cap reform. >> thank you. i would like to make just one addition here. the member states had many comments with the commission proposal. they wanted to add the other products to the list and they also wanted to increase the reference price and there's active cooperation between us and based upon the member states to gain, modify the proposal. the member states also said that some of the countries imposed

unjustified ban on the european fruit and vemg table exports -- vegetable exports, and we want to lift that as soon as possible and within a few days and also want to make sure farmers receive compensation within a few days. ladies and gentlemen, if there are any questions, we'd be more than happy to answer. >> translator: i'd like to put this in spanish. you were talking about revising the figure upwards but we haven't had any figures as regarded to the losses in the crisis. to what extent can you improve on that offer? what are the actual needs? these have to be known.

the spainish minister had said there would be a promotion campaign to try and recover the image of the spanish industry. >> translator: from our first estimates, well the commission proposal can't only take into account losses, but look at our budget available. as the budget is limited, and you are all aware of the pressures on the budget, within the budget, we have to find a balance between the level of compensation that we can offer producers and the types of products to which they would apply.

after the proposal we received the most affected are cucumbers tomatoes, and lettuce, and looking at the figuring today there's other products that's been affected like peppers, and we have to target products that sl been affected and also products where there's a weak capacity for storage and that means that the producers have very small margin for maneuver for preserving these products, so what we're going to do is provide a proposal that is balanced looking at the budget we have and then looking at the products effected, but we are operating within a single market, and we have to bear in mind. as regards, the promotion campaign, i also said in the

context of the programs that we function within the european union for the fruit and vegetable sector, i asked the agriculture services to accelerate the process to select projects for intenders and for promotion of the sector so that by the autumn, we will have selected and decided op these projects, and then we can have promotions campaigns within the e.u.. >> translator: another question from spain. i'm over here. you said the figures would be corrected upwards. well several ministers asked for 100% or 90% can you manage that? >> translator: there are two things. we can want have overcompensation because 100%

for some might mean 120% or 130% for others so we have to bear that in mind. we also should not forget that for producers that are members of producer organizations they can already get part of their license compensated through the budget of the producer organization, and a part of that budget comes from the community so when the commission said 30%, you have to be aware that added on to that is what farmers can get from the producer organizations so i'm prepared to revise this upwards but i don't think that the budget available at the moment will mean that we can go up to 100% for all products and for all producers. i am aware that we have to

provide support as much as possible. the commission is assuming its responsibility within the limits of our regulation and of our budget. >> translator: the president of the council has to leave in 10 minutes time so we have time for two more questions. >> translator: i'm from jv and i want to put my questions in spanish to the commissioner. i'd like to know whether most countries concerned asked for 100% compensation and have the council considered asking for germany to pay part of that

compensation out of its own pocket? >> translator: well, if this is about the council, i think the council should reply. i can't speak on behalf of the ministers out of respect for them. >> we have live debate in the council and all member states commented on this agenda point, and we heard bearing ideas as to the level of compensation. many member states they wanted 100% but given the fact they don't want to overcompensation we have to start with realistic opportunities. the point is we have to find the bestest and fastest solutions for the farmers. >> i have a short question. what is the timeframe, actually when can the first money be

deplored to the farmers? >> translator: add for the commission -- as for the commission, my aim is to have a commission taken as soon as possible, that is in a few days so following today's discussion on the basis of a proposal already prepared which was already discussed today in bros sells we'll come back tomorrow with an improved proposal tomorrow i imagine, and then they'll be about three days within the commission for a commission regulation to be adopted and approved by the commission, and then in a management committee which might be convened, say next tuesday then we'd be in a position to have a decision, and on the basis of that decision member states could already start

implementing the measure and collect information, but to start again you have to bear in mind that this is public money and we need to be in a position to account for its use so we need to have the information that's collected from potential beneficiaries and the type of brockets and the -- products and the quantity of products are free of charge for the members of organizations and as well as non-members. the information will be available next week and member states can get to work accordingly. >> translator: from afp could you please just specify, commissioner what order of magnitude are you thinking of? from 150 million up to 200 or 300 million just to give us some idea? >> translator: i can't say

that. that's why i didn't give you a new figure today. i can't just do my sums here at the table. in fact, my figures were for these amounts and i'm ready to reconsider, but i can't give you the figures now. we will announce them as soon as possible possibly even tomorrow where you'll see the improved version. one last question. >> translator: in italian. i've got a specific question. of these 150 million that you have, how would they be distributed? i was told that it would be first come first served. if you're going to increase the range of products increasing, for example products from the

south and so on then they'll probably to the be enough for everyone. will you have a method or will it simply be first come first served? the first who fill the application would get the money, and those what make the applications later might end up with nothing. >> translator: i can't give you an answer to that question today. we're still analyzing the best way of ensuring that we manage to compensate the maximum of people but without committing any flagrant inequalities. we have to look at the demand we get. we don't know how many requests will be made for what amount. once again, we have to ensure producers can show proof that they've had such and such

productions that they have withdrawn and district the free of charge. in the draft legislation proposing for adoption in the committee, you'll find all those details i'd imagine. >> translator: would you like to add something? >> translator: thank you ladies and gentlemen. we had another topic for our meeting today which is the drought situation which is a special problem in the western part of europe and has an impact on the bovine market and agriculture production in general. we discussed this topic as requested by france supported by belgium. the council took note of the proposal and the commission is going to take the necessary measures. this is another very important topic of today's meeting. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[no audio]

>> today in the senate, members continued work on an economic development programs bill that includes a measure to regulate the debit card fees that banks charge for transactions. some hope to delay the fee on debit cards to go into effect on july 21. a debate on the measure. this is an hour and 10 minutes. [inaudible conversations]

>> senator from montana. >> i -- okay. over the last month, mr. president, senator and i worked with other senators who are concerned about the unintended consequences of the amendment the senate adopted last year. we voted against the amendment and concerning about the impact of con convinces on folks especially in rural america relying on their signal banks and credit unions. the federal reserve rules on this amendment is about to go into effect and the results will be bad for banks and credit unions, but especially for rural america. even chairman bernanke admits the rule could result in banks being less profitable or failing. i'm joined in in by senator crapo and others who are concerned about our local

banks. senator corker and i began with a concern that community banks would be subject to the same one-size fits all regulation designed to address the excesses of some of the world's largest financial institutions. as i have said over and over and over again, those big wall street banks will be just fine. they have plenty of sources for their revenue. nobody needs to shed a tear for them, but the mainstream banks and credit unions will not be okay if these rules are implemented. let me give you one example. community first credit one has two branches. those two towns are about as far away from wall street as you can get. they are far away from pretty much everywhere but last year the senate approved an amendment aimed at holding the big banks accountable for the fees they charge you swipe a debate card at wal-mart. folks were promised we'd have a

split system where big banks like bank of america gets one change rate and community first credit union would be able to get a higher rate. the reality is going to be quite different. without changes the small guys like community first will not see the benefit. .. not my opinion. it's the opinion of the folks who regulate these small banks. what ben bernanke and sheila behr and others say is that market forces will inevitably push the rate down to the lowest level. that push has already started. retailers are seeking laws at the state level to give them freedom to deny purchases with debit cards that have a higher interchange fee. given the amount of money the big box retailers are putting in their lobbying campaigns, it is only a matter of time before they're successful. so what happens to the consumer who does their banking at a small community bank or credit union? these are the folks i am

concerned with because they are the majority of montanans. unfortunately, they are going to get stuck with higher fees with no access to capital or even worse no banks at all. and let's be clear. if any single one of the regulators whether it be the chairman of the federal reserve or the chair of the fdic or the comptroller of currency, had told me that the interchange system proposed last year would actually protect small banks and credit unions, we would not be here but that is not what happened. the chairman of the federal reserve said that without changes, the system that will be implemented on july 21 on july 21st will cause smaller institutions and banks that serve most in montana to suffer in some could even fail. the chair of the fdic that said unquestionably the banks would union be hurt, the credit union losses administrator agrees. checng acc perhaps they will make of for

those losses may be it will beg for aoan high your fees or small businessthat will comes in looking for a loan toture expand the will m help the biggestarket sha re banks capture more of the marketike share at the expense of the we hav smaller banks. this week we have in a chance to stop and re-ride these rules before they hurt the smallere banks, before they hurt the a t ha small, before we can hurt the small businesses and roll americaol but the banking business for the folks who know that who rura are part of their communities. where i rural america is what i know.and as it is where i am from. and as i watch consolidation of the agricultural industry andot have watched world america get smaller and smaller i'm not about to let this happen in the financial-services industry. for here is a debt now for rural america. and that is where we are headedm today. forced to slow down and fix the

debt and interchange regulations that the small banks preservewe also rural america don't get hit. we also know how dangerous it isnderstanding to set a price for a project tohat be a product without sml busines understanding the cost that go cly into the product. small-business owners certainly couldn't stand business if they didn't understand their ownlating d cost. likewise if they're going to regulate the change fees' we need to understand all the costs associated with the transaction amement and debit programs. when we voted on this amendmento allow the last fyear we thought we were voting to allow the federalhat reserve to consider the cost amt l however the reality is that last year's amendment limited thesome fra task to be included. some were to be included butts others were not. oth some technology costs were e included but others, not to read the result is a proposed federal rules that sets the debit interchange rate of seven or 12nts fo cents for ther transactions to be a little most folks agree is toohat

low. the big retailers think 7 centsoo or 12 cents is too high in fact they argued it should be closer have f to 4 croents. i've heard from retailers in mys in my hom state and some that have said cents the 12 cents is probably too low and they can understand theyet the can't set the price of doing tha businesst below the business that rulating it costs. if we are going to be regulating's fai r, this market we must do it in a still dire way that is fair but stillble direct the fed to determine what is reasonable and proportionate but to give them the discretion to look at all of the costs ctions associated with a debit executive transactions that doesn't mean executive pay. that doesn't mean the cost of a corporate jet or special reward program. justied all the costs will still need toitrarily be justified but the fed will not be limited arbitrarily and what they can look at.corker a thatnd is why senator corker and indment is are offering this amendmentand today. t we d this amendment is a compromise and that's how we do business inrk togethe to montana.t's we find common ground and work i fir together to do what is best. the

senator corker and i proposed the delay in the fed rules to totudy allow time to study the impactules of small banks and a rewrite the rules based on what we learnedbe abl in that study. the fed tells us it may be able to do this study and six months. to is that is what our amendment proposes, six months to study the rules the would govern debtbanks. interchange and protect small banks. tthat this amendment we outline the takin topics the s tudy should address including taking a close look at all the actual costs associateder with the card transactions, the impact on consumers and whethererchange an exemption for small banks has proposed in the interchange amendment last year would the actually work. of if after the study at least two of the agencies involved to determine that the current rules don't take into account allor that costs, that the rules may harm prote small customers or that the exemption work, to protect small banks and six more credit unions will work than theules fed is six more months to rewrite the rules considering

that's the costs. addre o that's one year mr. president to banks address concerns and make sure the bankpes don't get wiped out by this rule. but the agency finds the rules would consider all costs consumers wouldn't be harmed and the smallcurrent issuing exemption would work theove current rules pending would move forward.e put what about the little guys? well, we put in place a process that would address any potential the impact on small insurers. my contention has long been for market forces would drive the fees for small issuers to the ful und lowest rate since we cannot fully understand how the market will operate until the interchange regulation is impof enacted we direct the fed to report the amactual impact of the small market on the small issue work ilement in the rules to implement.port and the fed has to prevent a report to congress and every other year thereafter.f the and act as a regulatedt market on the small issuers. repor most importantly the reporto resolve would include recommendationsharm to for how to resolve any potential

harm to small issuers and to enforce the exemption. that this will help make sure when congress acts we will have the facts about how it would impactegulat smallor banks.12 that means the regulatory cong re process is over in 12 months and congress doesn't have to revisitin. this issue. let me say it again, congress does not have to revisit this issue. at the end of the entire process, there's still a regulated market for the debit interchange fee is. that's what the senate voted for for last year loudly and clearly and we preserve the regulated market place which is what senatorlace. durbin and others have been falling for.ed we will have a regulated market place once we folia understand all the costs relative to the debit transactions and the impact of the rules of consumers are small issuers.ajority as with the majority of the for senate voted for last year and is that is what we will get.ulatory it will be a regulatory framework the doesn't penalize credit unio small banks and credit unions

but has failed by not setting the price is below the cost.n when every banking regulator hasseng a role overseeing the interchange market tells you that congress created a system that will not work in a way that was intended then we ought to listen.markets not today's debt at interchange market is not fair for some desire retailers, so i understand their desire to see the fix.tem that is but the answer is not to create banks a new system that is unfair to parts the banks in montana and othere amendnt places in rural america. the amendment the senate approved last year was designed result to punish wall street but the result may be the banking and the other banks all over rural america will lose customers and t's meas potentially even fail.ui measure twice and cut once.et let's do it quickly but make if sure we get this right and that if we are going to create regulations we are doing it in ai way that is fair and consistento su withppor the intent.the i urge my colleagues to support

the amendment and with that on a yield the floor. mr. pr >> mr. president? i rise >> senator from tennessee? >> thank you. i rise to speak to words the test of corporate amendment and want to thank my colleague. >> if he would mind yielding and indicate how long he might be he speaking.o >> eight minutes max, eight to ten. i dot to s >> i do want to say that my pa friend from monte and has been a great partner in this effort and use i know that lots of times peoplee to use a lot of rhetoric down here to talk about a what's happeninght and the fact that anyone who might be proposing this type oftitution b amendment might be supportingd wall street institutions, but i you can see that my friend from and montana is anything but wall street and certainly i think all of us are just trying to come up with a solution that makes up. and i want to give a brief last history and the floor last yeardm en there were numbers of amendmentsill. to the bill.

one of the amendments that came to the floor was called thead durbin amendment. an it was an amendment that had no hearings, and a lot of us people like myself opposed to the price-fixing with the durbin amendment said is the fed was going to set prices o tn the government transactions or opposed to it. on the other hand there were numbers of people in this chamber that supported durbin because they were frustratedretailers and t with where retailers work andinability to their inability to negotiate prices with visa and some of the other companies and so they thought that this might be a type of solution to the dilemma la beagle to have appropriate negotiaons. negotiations. i think what all have understood the regardless where they make the issue now is the durbin amendment didn't actually give the fed the ability to set debit prices as a relates to cost onin debit cards and only allowed certain costs. in other words, the incremental cost of transaction and i think

the retailers i know are strongly supportive of the language no, they tell me this any way in private, they knowt they can operate themselvesmsel ves under that same scenario but s your just frustrated. and so what tester and ausley and others, crapo who voted for durbin i might add kay hagen who who voted for center durbin and what people have realized is dbin, w that the durbin amendment is way am too narrowen and doesn't allow allow appropriate cost to be con considered bysi the fed when setting these rates and so my rates. friend from montana who hasumber numbers of rural institutions, i have the same in my state wely detrintal all realize that this will be highly detrimental to the wh financial system, so what we tryhat to do is come up with aides compromise that works from both sides. as i mentioned, senator crapo,wn senator brown, senator carper,ten numbers of people have gotten wp

involved in this and come up know with a one-vote strategy. vote aet i know numbers of people want toand that thi vote and get this behind but my we understanding this is one ofn one those issues where we've got you fl retailers l on one side and bankers on the other side and dea you feel like in some way yourying are trying to deal, trying to fr pick between friends. i think what we are trying to doicy is just press a good sound policy in place, a place the retailers would be happy because they are going to end up with an't regulated market. something candidly that i don'tator support, but i think the senatorthe and his very successful in that front and basically thed u retailers went on this because they will end up with something regulated and they feel like they don't have the ability to neg negotiate with visa and other vi institutions so now the fed is going to be set pricing. t on the other hand, those senators, most in this body thatiness, understand economics. inement at if you're willing to be komen to

charge the interim until cost it would be like a pizza parlor setting people literally and only being a charge for the dough that it takes to make the pizza, to build a charge forricity not to electricity, not to be able toer thi charge for the other things it takes to actually run so i think we come up with something that is a good middle of the road solution. the fed is directed to consider both fixed cost and increment will cost something that any want retailer or any business in america would want to be t g considered if they were beingy regulated.ve and so we have come up with a place, we also come up with asolution tha solution that allows the fed to look back every two years and sma make sure those smaller so institutions that senator testerconcer is so concerned about and i am so concerned about the feds looked at the and engineers that that aeing p every two years the policies being put in placehose disproportionately negatively t affect those institutions. if so, they recommend that

congress and legislative as remedies. the as the senator mentioned we should measure twice and cut mea once. i think this ends up putting this issue in the place that is this fair momentum building around this. i would say the senator is an outstanding common outstanding job legislator. i think that he's done a very i don't t good hijob of championing this issue. i don't think we would be where we are on this issue without the effort that he has put forth.ossibly but i think he realizes possibly in that you know by not keeping in place all cost as it relates to the transaction or you arehat really doing is limiting the availability of that to the public on the road. you limit innovation, you limit the amount of technology very investment goes towards b transaction very soon to be just paying the bills by swiping my electronic device in front of a

register and i think we all see see as moving towards this and with the durbin amendment in the i format does not was basicallyth these institutions when you conduct these types of you're gog transactions and i don't thinkwant that's where we want to be. so again they are going to be cons eq unintended consequences. whenever there's a bill of dodd-frank that passes. that when they arise i would have to this say that i really like the way that this body is functioning around this issue people on bothfunctioning arou sides of the aisle thatnd have havrealiz realized that this policy is one that is detrimental with you on both sides of the ogle that try to work together and we have three iterations now with of corporate taxes to try to get it in a place that is in the middle of the road that takes into

account the retailers and takeshe conce into account the concern of the small credit unions small banks around this country that are going to be devastated as all of allhe the regulators have said this is unusual by the way we talk about regulatory overreach in this we've body. this is a case where we have regu given the regulators the abilityse don to regulate, and they are saying please, don't make us do this rarel this is really bad policy. shington that rarely happens inhappenedthis washington but it's happened one. this case. so out of respect for thek tremendous amount of work that so many people have put intoing up with coming aup with a slightly betterfrom iois, who solution than the senator fromn illinois who worked so hard on this issue put forth originally i would just ask every member to to please please and up voting with us or not and i hope he will sit downst for ten minutes and allow your staff to at least explain i know a lot of people have made wee

commitments ten weeks ago to be. on the other side of this. this puts us in the middle of the road, it keeps debit cardsives regulated that gives regulators ability to the ability to at least consider the cost that in the normal with business has when it functions. talk with that, i think you for thei time to talk about it. illino i thank the senator fromgettineady t illinois who looks olike he's getting ready to speak. i thank him for the week that he a matteof fact, has conducted himself.such as a matter of fact i think that we have come up with such a senar great solution and i would hope being a that the senator would considerloor. me a co-sponsor and with that all i yield the floor.d >> mr. president? tennessee, >> to my friend from tennessee, not a chance.eld s my wife over the weekend into cle springfield supply but like you to cleanar the garage and i said well i decided to clean half ofid the garage. it's a compromise. f

she said who did you compromise with? that is what we are faced with have here. flo senator corker and tester come to the floor and say we have toh? compromise. who did you compromise with?h re aff it wasn't with the people who affected by these debit card the fees.e banks no. the compromise among the banks. the banks sit down and say let's work this out among us becausemoney we are talking about real money.se. it's and that is the compromise. it's not a compromise.nk the average person and listening is going to think what are they states, fighting over in this bipartisan is battle. what we're talking about is around something we kind of killing around in our wallets these days , a debit card. if i take this and go to a locals use a restaurant was a different one if i went to a local conveniencegley's and said i want a pack of b chewing gum here's my debit cardipe

i and take the debit card and a slight bit and complete the you transaction when you don't know on th but the merchant knows is he's lost money on that because it costs more to the merchant selling the goods to process the piece of plastic and they couldy're possibly profit on the goods they are selling so you wonder how to reach the point is piece of plastic cost so much? because the giants visa and mastercard said to merchants and retailerset across america if yout your want to accept plastic then you to pay are going to pay a fee every it go time that piece of plastic goes true and how much is that the? it turns it is 1.01% on average.t

it doesn't sound like a lot. but it is.wipe f today the issuer's receive each month in swipe fees for all across the united states for hot el convenience stores restaurants hotels, charities if you give your donation to red cross because the thing that happened in joplin missouri, guess what visa mastercard got a percentage that of it. ng college t bookstores you name it. name every time you swipe thesewipe events of generating each monthing for on average for the banks across ch year america $1.3 billion. $15 each year more than $15 billion in swipe fees, and what do the a merchants have to say about how much they were being charged?t toay nothing. e, take-it-or-leave-it.

you don't want to payic the fee? don't take plastic.pect the so, over the years as you might expect the merchants and t only i retailers said this is a rotten invisle deal.ha not only is this an invisible charge that we have to add to on the cost of doing business on everything, we have no control overit it.lastic paying a slight fee or not lo ng accepting plastic and in this day and age imagine how long he would last in many businesses if c you didn't accept did cards.called f so four or five years ago, i called for a study, what is a reasonable amount to charge? it was opposed by the banking industry. nt theys put out an all points bulletin kill the durbin study of the devotees. anyone will study it. t all of a study can do is put the spotlight on them. they don't want that to happen so we waited and we waited, and last year we had the wall street waite

financial reform bill, and i satreform here patiently on the floorere on saying i want to offer this f amendment to finally come up pa with a reasonable way to amendment f regulate this fee which is not a product ofee competition and it isn't transparent or disclosed.ed. the vote finally came along. and after 25 amendments on the wall street reform, they decidedrequire this wouldn't require the majority it would require 60 a votes simple majority and we called it and we won.sition. 64 votes in favor of opposition.le. it surprised a lot of people. it sure surprised banks. wod they didn't think that thele f senate on a bipartisan basis would hold them accountable for the fee they are charging on the w debit card so what we say in the law? the federal reserve, pay a nonpartisan a bank regulating agency would have the authorityle and

to determine what is a proional reasonable and proportional feet for swiping the card. go and the public and to effect this july july 21st, 1 yearin the after we pass the law and we sit in the meantime anyone who has any thoughts, ideas or commentseser ve. send them to the federal 11 reserve, the of 11,000 plus comments comments.everyb everybody had an idea.dea. so some of them didn't like the law, some of them did, on and o on. and so they came out with a preliminary report coming off a rule, but a preliminary report in december. what they you know what they found? they found that the averageunited charge per transaction in the united states was 44 cents, and the average cost to the bank for processing the debit transaction about 12 cents, about one-fourthut that so the plot thickens. issu it turns out that the banks issuing the cards are not only

charging this invisible feet they are dramatically over reilers. charging merchants and retailers and guess what mr. and mrs. consumer, all of us too.itional we pay an additional charge. even if you go into that store to buy the package of chewing gum with cash the price has been exg you raised because they are pstic expecting to get plastic instead and you pay more. so then the battle is on. reserve whether orwo not the federal reserve would issue this rulewipe f establishing a more reasonableor fee for the study cards, and it big is a big battle.ans to the imagine if you will what it means to the biggest banks in america when they have on the lawn and $1.3 billion a month flout all the stops. is a friend of mine who is a in lobbyist in washington said come up praise the lord, come up with ideas. th more ideas. this is a full employmenteverybod

amendment. everybody that is a lobbyist in washington is working on this p amendment. well we just love you to pieces. the sad reality is it is coming to a close with a vote on this amendment. but, the banks and the credit card companies started piling it on. and let me be fair, the other side did too. railers the retailer's finally set for goodns goodness sakes we want fair treatment and if we have to fight to protect all we are going to fight to do it and that is where we are today. senator tester, senator corker in tennessee issued an amendmentr which i'm about to describe. this is interesting though. they are offering this amendment a in an effortme to stop the federal reserve from issuing a rule that a will establish how much the fee is going to be. how soon would the fed issued a are despe rule they try to stop the a fair federal reserve and see what isrotect a fierce white feet and totailers,mall protect merchants retailers,

small businesses and consumersks wan across america, they want to the stop.w thate we decided when we wrote thisbanks,ommuni law we would give slower banks, union community banks in smaller credit unions and exemption in rul other words they are not covered by the federal rule. and they say why from a consumer m point of view of the argumentswe ll you may still apply. that's true but many of theseinan smallerci institutions are more and financially vulnerable and by having to agree with bothty ban senators tester and corker. lol i believe in community banks and to local banks and i want them toso we survive. theout so we carve them out and said is the value of your bank is belowgoing be $10 billion you're not going to if t be affected by this. cdit if the value of your credit bel $ union is below 10 million you affted by won't be affected by this. how many did we exempt out of the 7,000 banks in america only 100 would be affected by the 100 wou

law. and out of the 7000 credit unions only three would be affected by the law but thenther there's another part of theit turns story. it turns out that the three that mak biggest banks in america are the on ones that make the most money on 5 devotees to read each month they collect more th dan 50% of devotees what are those bankswo chase, wells fargo and ban o bankamerica. they have been fighting viciously to stop this war will are billi from going into effect because there are billions of dollars at incom stake, and they don't want ton lose that income. so let's have a little trip down memory lane about these banks. do you remember a few years ago when these banks got us in the biggest c economic mess in currentany c memory did you notice any change in your savings account? for perhaps your ira?

i sure did. i think we lost 30% of our valuet because they were playing games we in there subprime mortgages andge new derivatives and aig offices up in london and this mess ended up being visited on families and ame businesses riand consumers all pan across america and we were in a panic. secrety of t the chairman of the secretary of the treasury hank paulson tamim met with us in a room that far from from here and said if you don'tething a do something and do it immediately banks across america g are going to fail in our economy is going to collapse not just just here but across the world. we've got to come to the rescue t you've got to come up with a bailout for the banks.f remember the taxpayers ofameric america,a? well well how did the big three debit card banks do in do in the bailout? y chase, $25 billion in taxpayers' reckssly and

money because they had acted so bank tt they recklessly and endangered their helping bank that they needed a helping ameca hand. bank of america $45 billion in taxpayer bailout funds. $25 wells fargo, $25 billion inrememberhat, taxpayer bailout funds. remember that taxpayers of go america on the same banks that are going to profitca from these needed that policies are so desperateayers to they needed a helping hand from taxpayers to save their banks come in and do you remember how they express their gratitude to less? soon it was heartwarming. mee ti as soon as they could call the board aof directors and awarded one another bonus is for the reckless conduct but they are so america appreciative the taxpayers across america sacrifice with their taxes to save these big new s old banks i have news for the taxpayers, their back today.

and now, it's smaller it's only $15 billion a year but the same big banks are asking for a handout for the senate. i will tell you at the end of the the day this amendment is passing on the floor passes them for at least a year, and i think contie we beyond these banks will continue to bring in $1.3 billion out of the wallets and purses of consumers in america every time a person uses one of these plastic cards. ii don't think it's fair. right i. don't think it's right. i i don't think there's a way to deal with this honestly and let me tell you what it is with theule federal reserve issuing its rule come out this month they are going to let's come out with it and let's look at it.

i've h nobody knows what it's going to say. amement i heard both senators introduced rule, this amendment say this will we can't accept this they don't neither d know what this role is andasn't been neither do lie.r it hasn't been issued yet orto seet published at the minimum should we wait to see it? before we sit on acceptable i j. trust the federal reserve willro dodu its job i think it can thas f produce a good rule.etailers a little that is fair to consumers and small businesses and banks too.ker's let me go to senator carper senator cardin said the problem with his amendment of possiblearges a charges and costs to count the value of the dough and the peace and not all the other things they might add in. can you can charge a fee reasonable the and proportionate to the cost of the transaction reasonable and

proportionate. it's n decide to open the door wide open. it's no longer reasonable and p proportionalag they have fullifferent pages here describing all the to different things the banks can add in to establish a fee they charge small businesses and to consumers.efuln arthu trusting these banks to be careful in what they add? ok at i'm not. and i can tell you that when youthey can look at the list of things thatludes they can include it includes executive compensation because it's about the cost of thehe operation of the program that happens to include a lot of managers and officers as well. and i don't know what else itpen. includes. it is wide open. so here is what the banks have somewhat said.fying incidentally i guess it is somewhat gratifying when your name is associated with an amendment to hear over and over again. a chase, chase for example wrote to everyson

whos a person who was a customer in my of home state of illinois and said the where of the durbin amendment, if the durbin amendment goes through andhat we c reduces the debt charge we can charge, your fees are going up your benefits and premiums are d going down. b the total amount the big banks to get a year for a debit carder almost hal fees was a little over half ofit's the total of collected so it's about $8 billion a year and so the argument that jamie dimond and chase are making is to cut the debit card fees i'm sorry your fees have to go out it'sf the cost of doing business. but mr. dimond m and others in the business failed to note on wall street that banks awarded in bonuses, bonuses $20.8 billion

so they offer when the fees are going up zero really or does it mean bonuses might go down in america that's part of it. second it includes cost thate're cover the whole ball park that it can start saying we're going to add in the cost of atmtty machines on in the debit card fees pretty soon get serious centa their back to 44 cents a desd. transaction is no effective dateor the for the rule. they talk about 12 months, whatde it says the board will sign the effective date will be. there's no effective date fort. this coming into effect and thathat are is awful. and finally the arguments thatover a are made on the floor over and over again we just want to credit protect the community banks and thi

credit unions, not a word in here, one reference, one trader small to the small xm institutions. there are ways and they know it pity if they want to have theses to more protection reassurance for a the smaller community banks and credit unions because that isn't what this is about and in particular the big giant banks ba on wall street and this amendment $8 billion a year andn products. sub $8 billion a year in subsidies for this amendment and the second round of bailouts. the it's a good test.know it's a good test for the senate. i don't know how it's going to on end. and the banks will begin to reduce what we accomplished last have year. it's of to my colleagues now on. they have to decide whose side

they are going to be on.oi it's pretty simple. side of they will either be on the side the of the banks and the credit card b companies, or on the side of consumers and businesses across america to give them a fighting chance. how many speeches have we heard on the floor of the senate onall small business? if we co uld just give small business to unleash the power of peop, we can t their expansion and hiring more ba w peheople we can turn this economy back where it should be. well, this will be a direct hitamerica on small businesses all across america. th if this amendment is enacted.20.8 if you can have $20.8 billion ofou're doi bonuses last year you're doing quite well, thank you a 40% increase in profits there doing folks. okay, folks. t we don't need a tab for any of the wall street banks and particularly small business and merchants and retailers in your bu home town for goodness sakes stand up for them, fight for th's what them that's what this debate is all

all about? let's wait till this rule comesserve s out and lets you the federalave given reserve says and i have given my word, i will say it again, i on work with any senator on eithertoave side of the aisle. if we need to have any kind ofone in reassurance or protection added to what we have done in this long line there. the only perfect all that i'm aware of is to carry on aone mountain on this note tablets bythe resof the cementer moses most time we do best and if there's a way to improve and i will be there. finallyfinall but finally, finally stanhopeca and for consumers and smallt businesses across america and say to the wall street banks andpart y' visa and mastercard, sorry, this party is over. i yield the floor. >> the senator from tennessee. >> i rise of the tester corker be amendment and hopes will be before us shortly and i justssionf

witnessed a great discussion of populism and that is, you know, if an institution is making some money let's take it from them and give it to others in the name of fairness and mr. president, i think everybody knows certainly there are a lot of tremendous numbers of smaller institutions across america that are very concerned about the durbin amendment and a number of's small retailers there's no my question looks a said the big wa boxes, my friend, wal-mart, home thi depot, target, they have funded he this effort as we mentioned on khere is n street with the lobbyist and there is no question a lot of ha the larger financial effort on t institutions have funded the effort on the other side. there's no question the people i think senator tester and myself are and you and others listen to andour those folks that come in from ours, home state the small and community banks and creditredit unions around the country are

very concerned about this.his. let me talk about a couple of things. from number one he talked about the attac timing we are trying to find some vehicle to attach thise hn' amendment to for some time and yea the fr.act is the senate hasn't done any business this year we've come in from time to time and vote on a noncontroversial judge that we have been trying some to find some vehicle to attach fo mon this to and second the fed the t federal reserve which is going forth t to ask to put forth this rule that they are the ones that say what you ask us to do is not appropriate. they've testified publicly saying that the durbin amendment what is inappropriate and reasonable and proportional. wentut that means that, mr. president, if you went out and build aall debit system, you interested in all of the technology, the computers, thefr marketing, the what

fallout prevention, all the at things that went into that what is the fed can look at now in have s setting the price is after you set all that up and you are tranctions a processing millions of transactions a year if you send one more transaction across the wire what is that cost you aftering a you invest that is what he'sproportional. saying about regional and proportional there's no way that any business in america could scenio. possibly operate under that of scenario again, retail after retail has been in my office and durbi said we know the criteria that has been laid out by the durbin amendment is absolutely function, inappropriate. we couldn't function with that of s criteria, but we don't know of we h any other way of solving this problem. we hate to have the fed involved us in price of that.hat. so i set out to try to solve that and what we come up with is compromise, and in fact a compromise and what it

says is okay we agree that it card industry should be are regulated, we'd agree thatifficulty i retailers are having difficulty in negotiating with these andhe others. let's get the fed to set the the prices based on the cost of the transaction which to include, i hate to say some fixed cost and of technology and other kind of do things. the fed has asked us to do that not deserving the fed coming and making a rule thcle testified amen dm publicly the way that the durbin amendment as written is going to d ru ra be terrible for community banks andnk rural banks. i think we all know the senator itions, from illinois likes to use these larger institutions but all of us know the big guys just getigger bigger, just get bigger when we and create do these kinds of things and create hardships for the institutions the two-tiered

system was set up won't work. the fdic has come in and said and look, you cannot make it works a with the small banks andre credit and unions the occ has come in and w said it won't work.is will market forces will take over.rushed. this will not work. the they will get crushed.ve come i the state examines, the state bank commissioners have come in i and said the burden the amendment as written is going toonsumers. be disastrous to consumers. it's going to be disastrous toe all d the smaller institutions with loo which we all deal.water so look i'm not trying to carry water for either side. f i'm trying to come up with a solution that's fair.or i worked with senator tester. senator senator brown, numbers of people to try to come up with language that it's the sweet spot. responsilit but i think that we have a abo

responsibility whuten we know that something is about to have been that won't work that it's going to be devastating. i think we have an obligation toeets the try to come up with something that meets the test of trying to be fair to both sides and that's what this amendment does. the senator talked about all add it kind of things being added in.ulate the banks can't just add in. the fed will decide what is fed reasonable and proportionate. the fed will decide that they cos will use all of the cost that it takes to actually take to dohe those operations on the cost which the durbin amendment but not too. amen so,, i think that this amendment meets the test. i know there are numbers of people that voted for the durbin amendment in the past that have

co-authored this. aco offered this because they realized the durbin amendment didn't was too narrow, suburban amendment didn't take into account anything but again the transa cost of adding one transaction on top of an infrastructure that built you had already built.op there is no business that can operate that way. the presiding officer used to be part of a weekly broadcast, andcrementa if all you charges the broadca incremental cost of that going out and being broadcasters to other television stations aroundld the country and that is the only cost you could get there is no way that our presiding officer that would have been known to americaucceed because this the way the operation could have succeeded. those people who supported the a amendment during the debate are pretty never hearing pretty major issues to never have a hearingat the height in the banking committee, but to

pass at the height of the time we when many good people in this so, country were upset rightfully so with some of the larger players up, in our financial system people a have woken up and realize that p this is a reolally bad piece of policy but if we tweet get the retailers and up with a regulated market if and the w institutions providing this is a i service by the way thet. people wouldn't use it retailers like people getting their money instantly being about karina round plastic to pay their bills instead of mide of cash but what this amendment does is put it in the middle of the road where it is fair to the of you retailers and fair to the institutions and those involvedette in and i think that you haveo what' seen the letters that have been sent out as to what is going to happen to consumers if thes it durbin the amendment goes into effect as it is now laid out.

so, the senator does a really taking a good job i know and taking a fewons of these institutions that no doubt be his badly and cause the whole thing to be about sticking tha a stick in the eye of the and institutions that have paid bonuses and made bad decisions but the fact is this is a bad policy as it exists.corker ame the tester corker amendment and is s many other co-sponsors is to tryat in the to m bring that in the middle of the road, and i would just ask each senator please, just spent ten minutes with your staff and r understand what the third round of revisions does. will get with a common sense solution has been put forth bythat is, the best of this body happening and that is people working together to try to get there, and hopefully, we can end upwe're all with a piece of legislation that we are all proud of we can fiial continue to have a financialmall system that's strong and thatn includes the small players wehi

depend upon in the small communities across this country and we can continue to have aat they vibrant retail industry that counts on the additional sales they get from having tax to these types of transactions and th an with that, mr. president, thank you and i yield the floor.nia. >> mr. president? president >> senator from california? the >> i just want to make sure the senator from tennessee knows that his amendment is pending. it has already been put into to b play, and we are on it at this time. i just wanted him to be sure he mrcorker: knewth that i think you for that and four-door best management in bill. this bill.bably won agree you probably would agree with myti on you positionr on your amendment but i do know that my friend has worked hard and long and ithat you have really appreciate all the time that you have put into trying to come up with what to consider a

complement i do want to say thisamendm i talk a lot of the durbin it's amendment. there is t no durbin amendment. it's for law. bill. the burden amendment included in land. the bill is now the law of the land, so it is a question oft saying that we should be essentially repeal it or delay word i s, it. it has a you could study it whenever the word is, before it has a chance to actually go further. i unde trstand that and i just sta want to say for the record whereith i stand on it is all i have metrs with all sides.ery i've met with the retailers who were very strong supporters of the durbin law and i've met withy the banks against it andworrie thed credit unions who were worried they were going to get able hitched with the situation they b won't be able toan compete with the banks, and i told them of i the same thing which is i think what's important and we pass the reformist to see if it's goingee wit

to work and if it doesn't work i agree with senator durbin we will do everything in our power me, and i understand this says helphe l me, give me guidance. there's a lot of guidance and your wall, but i think every bureaucracy in the world would rather have the detailed format and the details fall to them i'm i d going to be voting no on thefort tha amendment and the time and toget he effort that went into trying to pull this together dole all but i find to be compelling the want reform that my friends want to y delay was signed into law last on t year with reasonable constraints and on the fees that visa and mastercard fixed on behalf ofation's the nation's largest banks.. but here's the thing the u.s. h haigs the highest debt interchange

fee in the world and the rates just keep going up. the the average debit interchange fi in the u.s. is 1.14%. europea the average debt at interchange feet in the european union isinterchae fee .0% and the average debt it interchange be in canada is zero banks so it's not as if the banks are taking it on the chin here.to i just feel give this a chance it the to work. i'm not saying it's the perfector law as senator durbin said maybe there was one tablet, the ten a commandments, but as far as of at law here it can be made better come and it may well be once the fed acts and we can move at that get time, but i wanted to really get back to the bill the underlying bill but weis are debating which

is the economics is a limit administration reauthorization and senator inhofe for his remark he made on the floor about and his pointing out we to have a lot of work to do here toogram create jobs and when we have a program that takes a dollar of federal funds and attracts $7 billion of price investmentsther. and many jobs we have to come together. in 09 and in 2010 investments j created over 150,000 jobs and is 45,000 jobs this is effective as attracted $7 billion in private sector investment on average.. sometimes it is $10. sometimes 15, sometimes it isut

four three, to the average is $7. eates one the eda project funding creates one job for every 2000 to $4,600 invested. so you can see the average cost is very of creating a job is very very invest low inme terms of the federal pgram investment. this is terrific. and ther this program reallye works and a still there are a couple of things we felt we have to take a look at duplication, the wayion, a for a community to buy out the federal government share of a project.roject we put that in theave reall reauthorization. so wye think we have really strengthened this law, and again i want to think the democratsenvirot and and the republicans on the environment of public works committee.s i went through this morning somethe stiff of the programs in california, the city of tax income of cre $3 million for a water system creat created ise expected to create a milon thousand jobs and leverage

$40 million in investments. 3 million attracting 40 millionin priva in the investments. mlion 2 million for sewer and water. going t it's going to develop anable additional 600 acres to enableea continued growth of the easttrvment sector logistical center and expect to create 1400 jobs and leverage to hundred 53 million investmen in private investment. mlion for in san jose $3 million for the renovation and expansion of the center for employment training expan they can expand their capacity by 860 students and expandhe lit a access to the g eda for literacy, language and small business entrepreneur should class's to low-income areas. mean, this is a key, absolutely key. toget absolutely should bring us student together because they are training students so students their lit get out aand get their ged andan

get their literacy and can really make sure that the community is growing and t thriving. that particular grant is expected to leverage 3 million in private investment and 4900 a jobs. so it is a 121. and $3 its 3 million of public and 3 million of private. nationwide, i talked about this, i talked about other examples. the i didn't mention actually in the west coast in the senator valley 23,000 square foot water and energy technology into the air mo andre into later opened in 07d they have obtained 17 million in private capital and created jobs for california, so 1.8 million cas attract 17 million.ing, we have a case of boeing where e they were able to expand one of

their campuses to create a 2500 abo jobs, and i talked about abo mr. president, to you,ut about duluth. and 01 the of 3.5 million m matched by 2.3 million from the of city of duluth help build theuth aviation business incubator att the airport. this investment is it serious aircraft grown from a handful of employees to 1,012 employees by8. 08. the incubator isth now leased todesign c the corporation which is the largest share of the world wide general aviation market.he e.d. so when we are talking about the eda and the way that it attracts thi private-sector funding and creates jobs this is ands hyperbole, this isn't just rhetoric, this is reality, and going this is a program that has been going on since 1965.

in 1965 and republicans andime it democrats have supported it. the last time it was authorizedesiden as when george w. bush wasso i president. it passed unanimously so i stand ful here today on the opening day full of hope hoping that it's we'll not my eve hoping that we willind see the amendment that's fine bu we don't mind amendments, theyeasonabl are fine but let's have aside and reasonable discussions and a reasonable time set aside and tag move on. there is a case in the maytag plant in newton of iowa. and the employed 1800 factories andorkers administrative workers and of the closed down. we all know how painful that is, wwe and we remember back when we long were losing seven, 800,000 jobs a month. it wasn't that long ago. city by 08 complicity identified to th the maatnufacturing operations that could be located at that turbine

plant. bla the composite wind turbines trinity manufacturer and trinityacturer of structural towers incorporated a manufactureeer of steel towers for windmills. the infest the $580,000 in a waytion to for the surfacing for a wind fa tower storage facility thacit was leased for trinity created 140 gene jobs and generate 21 million in s private investment. that same year 670,000 centralelp iowa water association in new to and to help build a booster station, storage tank to surfobs this project called autrey 8500investme jobsnt that generated forn 40 million private investment.e the east coast in 2010 the epa gave a 750,000-dollar grant in fal the nonprofit community development institutions and to provide capital to subzero and

refrigeration technology is which is a family-owned andcturer of operatedus manufacturer of customly some environmentally friendly friend energy-efficient refrigerated insulated commercial trucks and winners subzero is pretty famous bro and they are located ind finan brooklyn, new york. they have been denied financing by a major bank. compani this is the thing.--hile the a lot our companies can to get caught a lot of the banks want to charge very high fees.eede they're some how absent when our companies needed then and in 2010 that's just last year itl which was the financing. subzero eda provide the access to capital which allowed the subzero to fulfill its contracts with edible arrangements in the contr ac delivery vehicles and win contracts from ford chevy and dodge. this allowed them to hire 15 new staff starting in 04 with just thr

three employees and producing 75 vehicles a year. com the company has 20 employees andear. it approximately produces 400 vehicles a year. it goes on.he they provided 2 million to help build the knowledge workerelopment incubation part of the default of the virginia tech. created and now we have seen lahoud 2,000 jobs created and the busin inception of 140 high-tech . pres businesses khan and the way thatffices works mr. president is there's a regional office is about six of f them and they get funded throughhrough her appropriations committee to the commerce department and at least each region makes the decision as to which project to really meet the goal of thec legislation which is to bring economic development to the distressed areas create jobs and leverage the dollars. so in addition to this, the eda in 08 we gave them an extraas ter 500 million of disasterreas whic assistance to give to areas disas

which were experiencing aed disaster problems come and they assumed the role of a secondaryer responder working with the to affected communities to support long-term post disaster anxample rebuilding. an example of that again, backo in iowa, they provided funding to help inspect and install an upgraded energy-efficient natural gas-fired systemthe er following a flood that destroyed the boiler that had provided lu ke steam heat and water to in e st. luke's hospital in college.n a we know what happens when a a hospital can't count on the back c of a generator. they can't count on energy.w what .. curse. everybody shuts down and people are in peril. e.d.a. steps in ands in these areas and while fema is dealing with the immediate impacts they're looking a little bit more at the long-term work that could be done so when and if there is another disaster, the community is ready.

so all i can tell you is, you know it's -- nothing is perfect and i'm sure there are examples that we have that aren't as good at ones i mention. i'm sure there are, because nothing is perfect and nobody is perfect. but this is a very good program. time-tested, signed into this is time tested, signed into law by democrats republicans presidents, and passed last year voted out of the committee in which i'm privileged to chair with almost unanimous consent. we had one discenter, and that's fine. we hope that we'll win over that discenter, but here's where we are. we have a chance to reauthorize this program. there are reforms we've made. i want to share with you some of the reforms we've made. you know, this can go on without an authorization and stumble around but what's important in this particular time when the

main three issues on people's minds are job, jobs and jobs. we have to do a jobs bill. you know this -- this is a jobs bill. this creates jobs at very low cost to the federal government. this creates jobs in private sector in some of our cities and public works areas so this is what we did in order to help people understand why we think it's important to reauthorize. working with my ranking members we came up with good reforms. we changed the current cost share requirements increasing the federal share for areas in which unemployment is especially high and per capita income is especially low because we want to make sure that when we go into an area deeply in need we do a little more for them. we require additional planning

assistance if overall funding levels increase. in other words, we want to keep our eye op these projects, want to make sure they are meeting their goals. we modify the existing reinvolving loan fund program to allow recipients to convert an existing loan fund to carry out another eda eligible product saying taking the bureaucracy if they have a better idea let's let them go forward and use the funds in that way. we modify rules to buy out the federal government's interest at a depreciated rate. in other words, if a state, city county, participant says, you know, we want to do this on our own. this is an older grant and we feel we want to take it over. they can buy out the federal government's interest. we exercise eda should work with federal, state and local agency partners to support economic and work force development strategy

and senator inhofe mentioned we are not duplicating other programs. we don't want to be duplicating. we want to be sure it's not done elsewhere, we walk in, and make something people need now, and that word, "leverage" is the first word out of my mouth in things i support now. that's why i support the highway bill that we hope comes here in a bipartisan way. we love raj dollars -- we leverage dollars. people come from the government nonprofit sector, profit sector states all the different parties come together and say this is a great idea. if we all kick in just a little, we're going to do something big,

and that's the idea bind the eda, and i visited projects in my own state shopping malls and other things that were done in these very difficult communities where it's tough to get capital where the banks just turn their backs, where perhaps the venture capitalists are saying this is our cup of tea. this is why this is a successful program. again, i hope that we'll have debate today on the amendment. it's a very controversial one. it's not happy because you know, it's one of these things where you do one thing, and do the other and people think you're wrorng, but senator durbin says the people support the lower fees in this case, but i respect the fact that the amendment was offered on this bill. it is an amendment directly related to our economy but i hope we vote tomorrow as early

as possible, and i hope that we don't have a lot of amendments dragging us down because guess what? people are looking at us, and they are thinking why are they not doing more to create jb jobs? this will send the signal we're making this a priority. this is not a big spending measure. this is an authorization and the number we're authorizing at has been frozen. we're not adding to it, but sending a signal to the appropriators and the congress department that we think this is a good and important program. mr. president, i thank you very much and i've said my piece for the moment and we'll note the absence of a quorum. >> today in the senate, members continued work on an economic development programs bill that includes a measure to regulate the debate card fees that banks charge for each payment transaction. new restrictions on debit cards

would go into effect on july 21st. wednesday at 2 p.m., members vote on a tester amendment to delay action on debit card regulations. 60 votes required for passage. more senate coverage here on c-span2. >> next a discussion on the future of walter reed army medical hospital. the facility is expected to close in september. from today's "washington journal," this is 20 minutes. >> host: we're joined from two

others from the medical center. on your left is captain dan from the u.s. army and then on the right is colonel paul with the medical corp.. let's start with you. can you tell us a little bit about your time at walter reed and what brought you to the center? >> guest: sure. i was an infantry platoon leader with the division out of the fort louis washington in august of 2009 when we deployed to afghanistan. after being in theater for a month, i was leading a dismounted foot patrol with my platoon, and i stepped on an improvised explosive device in the middle of the night and lost both legs. >> host: and then when you got to the medical cementer, what happened to you? >> guest: i was in in-patient care for four months first couple weeks to a month was spent in the icu. i transitioned to ward 57 the

famous amputee mostly combat veterans. i started with prosthetic work, and since then, i've been an outpatient and i've been here several months before i moved into an apartment in the town of silver spring where i continue to do out-patient physical therapy and rehab. >> host: talk about the specifics of your rehab especially coming to learn how to use your new legs. >> guest: well it's a totally new endeavor. it's something i never considered doing ever in my life, you know, no one thinks they are going to get seriously injured and end up using prosthetics, so i knew nothing about it before. i'm a tough case. out of both of my legs, i have about 12 inches of fee mor left. on my right side i lost the entire leg. i have my hep and pelvis.

it makes using a traditional above the knee device pretty difficult, but we're working on it. it's what i spend most time working on doing physical rehab so both in the strengthening, the conditioning of my core strength and my abilities as well as my skills on the legs themselves. we have to consider how to best fit the devices to my body because that is an issue because i am missing so much of my legs. >> host: as far as your current day is concerned tell us about as far as what you do day-to-day as rehab goes. >> guest: day-to-day what i do officially is pretty simple. i come in for an hour to two hours, depends, of physical rehab. some days depending on how well the legs are working or if i gained or lost weight, just you know the daily fluxuations can affect the legs and being a bilateral, using two prosthetic legs meaning a correction to one on monday that the following

tuesday, you know, the other leg peoples off. it's challenging. i can do two to two -- one to two hours of rehab a day followed up with a couple hours working with the prosthetic team. that's my duty beside coming in for formations and paperwork every now on then. on my own i'm studying to go to graduate school next year and a certified mentor here. on occasion i speak to patients and advise them on the road ahead, see how they are doing and talk to them as a peer regardless of rank, just as a fellow wounded soldier. >> host: doctor talk about how prosthetics and how they changed and what this means for people who get them at walter reed. >> guest: i think as said earlier and dan just so well stated, there have been

significant advances in prosthetics over the years but they have not reached the point where they can actually replace a human hand or a human leg so there's been some tremendous advances in the technology, but we still have a lot of challenges ahead of us. >> host: when someone comes in what are -- captain talked about it, but what are things considered when fitted for prosthetics? >> guest: one of the more challenging things is that human prosthetic interface so where the skin comes in contact with the prosthetic socket. as with just discussed, a human leg is not always the same volume or the same shape, so during the day is flux waits in chias. how do you get a suggest to accommodate that fluxuation and size. additionally, if you have an amputation very proximal, so at

the hip or shoulder level there's very little for that prothesis to hold on to. we're looking at a lot of different ways, partner k with industry and academic centers and listening to those users those customers that, you know, more importantly our service members, and they're identifying their needs and we're trying to meet them from development research and development stand point. >> host: how much prosthetic work is done year to year at walter reed? >> guest: well we've seen over 1200 individuals that have been injured in either iraq or afghanistan with loss of a major limb. many of those have lost more than one limb, so quite a bit is done especially if you start adding on the multiple limbs and fittings that are involved with finding the right prosthesis for the individual, so most of our work if not all our work, is

really individualized. each individual we see, each injured service member, has different goals and objectives for their life and simpt challenges as well as anatomic challenges. we try to meet each person's goals individually. >> host: the numbers stay the same on the screen if you want to talk to either of our guests, and as you get on the air and be able to do so, if you have a question, trays who you want to -- address who you want to talk to. gary on the independent line, go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i was calling just to say how much we appreciated walter reed over the years. my mom, in fact met my dad there when he came back from world war ii stationed there after he was injured and i was born there, and my dad actually spent his last year there when he passed a couple years back, you know, getting care there for

cancer, and i just wanted to say that, you know all the times we came to visit him, spent time there, the care that they gave to all the wounded warriers was just fantastic, and we just really appreciated it. thanks. >> host: washington d.c., sharon on the democratic's line. >> caller: hi i'm sharon. i'm ex-military. i'm from dc. i've seen the walter reed, the renovations of walter reed. my statement maybe can't be answered by the two gentlemen there, but i have yet to understand since walter reed has been reconstructed and everything is up to par and we're meeting -- we're meeting all of the necessities as far as taking care of our veterans, of our military personnel, with the cost of the economy right now i tend to find it hard to

understand why there will be a need to put all of that money into this new location. >> host: colonel how does the prothetic work change with the transfer of the current location to the two separate ones? >> guest: well right now, walter reed is modified in the last decade in response to the war to meet the demands of our injured service members, and so we added on the military advanced training center to help supplement a lot of work that needed to be done, and what we've done with the new bethesda campus is incorporate that to the center itself to improve efficiencies as well as offer more services to not only our injured service members but other beneficiaries as well. >> host: captain, you said as a peer you talk to various groups there. talk a little bit about the

morale of those coming in given to it your experience. >> guest: sure, the morale here is interesting. i think most outsiders imagine it's fairly low, but it's quite the opposite. we have, unfortunately, a lot of seriously wounded service members which initially when they learn of their wounds a lot of guys go unconscious shortly after being injured. once they come to in the hospital and come to grips with the immediacy and the severity of their wounds and what it means for their life, there's an initial, quite plainly bummed out understandably but at the same time, we have a great mix of soldiers here of wounded veterans all going through the same thing. i kind of tell people very shortly that it's like a lockerroom environment. it's like being back in combat because when i'm wearing my two prosthetic legs and just sweating like crazy and working

hard i look around seeing other guys who went through the exact same thing like me who are more advanced in their recovery but i look to the other side and there's other servicemen who are wounded, you know, the same as i am, but they are a couple months behind me so they go through everything i've been through, or i look around and i see a lot of our guys that are wounded worse than i am, and so it definitely coming down to your individual personality, how strong of a support network you have. if your family is together, whether you still have your spouse or a girlfriend or boyfriend, all those things factor in. my role as a patient is just to listen to guys and to evaluate them on the individual level, and some guys you say hey man, you'll be fine suck it up, everything's good, but sometimes you have to be more tender. some patients don't come from a good solid family and support network, and they need a little bit more care.

>> host: port orange florida. ryan, go ahead. >> caller: hi sir. i'm an eight year army veteran and really humbled in watching the program now of the sacrifice of many soldiers who have come and gone there after i did. in 1991, i spent a year at walter reed after the persian gulf war where i was diagnosed with cancer, two months after the ground war, and i was in the very late stage of lemp foam ma, and dr. nicole reed was my doctor there, an internship on the oncology ward. she saved my life. it's sad to see walter reed closing, but it's just an incredible place that's affected so many people over so many years, and i have two wonderful children now, and i have been out of the military for quite some time, but i'm just very humbled by people like this

young captain here and other people that lost so much more than i did, but it's just amazing, and it's a sad day when it does close. >> host: kernel, for those like dan coming in, what's the prospects of normalcy once they leave the program and are fitted and rehabilitated? >> guest: well, i think you can't understate the challenges that our service members and their families face coming back with some very very severe injuries. some of those physical, some of those emotional, and helping them rebuild their lives is obviously a privilege and an honor for all of us on the walter reed staff, as well as at bethasda. as i said before and as dan just said, every individual is unique, and everybody has their own individual social support system family support system,

and so we recognize that as a very very important part of the recovery and rehabilitation and therefore do our best to incorporate family members loved ones into rehab. they are here at the wards in wamenter reed, here in our therapy areas, and their encouragement and determination to get through this, i think we all find inspirational. >> host: captain is walter reed doing the job as far as the emotional and mental needs people need as part of rehab? >> guest: yeah, i would say without a doubt it is. again, look at every patient as an individualment some of us require a lot more help and support than others and i would also say that there's, quite honestly there's only so far you can take some people. from what i know walter reed does a great job. i'm happy to see on the

outpatient side wops our guys start doing their physical rehab, if they choose to take advantage of the program, they have all kinds of options for educational rehabilitation, vocational rehabilitation. they are set up with internships, private sector and public, and so that, you know, the physical rehab is only part of the program. the other part is realizing that hey, maybe you will not be as physically active as you used to be. i can't be a leader anymore, but i can retire go to a business school and work in the prosthetic injury and help out other people that are in my same situation, and so if our patients regardless of rank or college graduate or non-college graduate if they look beyond their injury and decide hey, i'm going to push on with my life lucky to be alive this is okay, and then if they want to take advantage of what walter reed has to offer they can.

>> host: you said about those who end up initially at the center being bummed out. was that your case? >> guest: yeah, i mean, yeah, definitely. i knew what had happened. i was conscious for a couple minutes after i stepped on the ied in afghanistan. i was induced into a coma for the next week from what i understand and i woke up at walter reed, and my family was here. certainly, i had 25 years of a great life with legs. i was very physically active an infantry platoon leader jumped out of planes, i did marathons hiking, play soccer, all that stuff, and i quickly realized that none of that i will not be able to do any of that ever again in my life, but like kind of getting back to what i said earlier, i realize there's more important things in life than running marathons and playing soccer and that's kind of where i guess i started to see the lining in the clouds i guess. once i found something that i

could be passionate about again outside of the army, i think my recovery personally really started to take a turn for the better. >> host: if you could would you serve again? >> guest: yeah, yeah, without a doubt. if colonel could put my legs on me today i would go back and do exactly what i was doing again. >> host: next call, new orleans, louisiana frank democratic line. >> caller: first, congratulations to the colonel up there and the job you're doing, and god bless you, captain. i appreciate your service. i too am a retired military veteran, and the question for the captain is how hard was it for you to get emotionally back into, you know, wanting to get yourself, how do i say prepared to continue to serve in the military? >> guest: to be honest, it was fairly easy i would say. again, you know i had my dark days early on. i was really disappointed about

my injury but i realized that it's not -- it's not the most important thing in life and most of all i realized that plenty of americans combat veterans or non-combat veterans have harder challenges to face than i ever will even with the loss of my legs. in terms of continuing my army service, that is an option for me. from what i understand, the army can find me a job if i wanted to stay in and contribute. it's something i seriously thought about, but i decided the best route for me -- what i actually want to do is enter the biotechnology sector and prosthetics specifically from the business side of things, and if i do that i'll help out not only my fellow wounded veterans, but any other disabled americans, kid hurt in car accidents, people with debilitating diseases and i

think that's rewarding. >> host: what does the future of prosthetics hold from what vnses you've seen and in the future? >> guest: well, i think having a new generation of folks that have lost limbs, bringing with them, you know incredible intelligence determination and innovation, i think we'll see some great things in prosthetics. the biggest movement, obviously in the lower limbs is going to be introducing a power back into the lower limb prosthetics so right now, the majority of prosthesis or artificial lower limbs are passive devices. they don't substitute the muscles that were lost. by up corporating motors into the knees and ankles and hopefully into the hip, we'll be able to see much more long lasting effects for individuals of lower limb loss. in terms of the upper limb the sky is the limit. we can build robots now that do

virtually anything. the big challenge is how an individual can control that in a way that's more human humanistic. a lot of research is being done. it's very exciting to be a part of that research, but at the same time very humbling to see our injured service members and all those with limb loss in the challenges they currently face. >> host: what's the cost as far as upper limbs versus lower limbs? >> guest: well i've been asked this question a lot. you know, we're very fortunate in uniform, particularly providers, service members, that cost is, how do you put a price on somebody's hand? how do you put a price on somebody's leg? and so that -- it's very difficult to answer that question. every individual has different needs, and we do our best to meet those needs. >> host: as far as what i

meant, sir, what's the cost for a leg, what's the cost for an arm, to give our audience a sense of how many an actual prosthetic cost? >> guest: well, you have to understand kind of the billing mechanism existing within the united states, and it's probably not, you know an interesting topic for many of the listeners but when you start discussing costs of a prosthesis, at least in the civilian community, that includes the services associated with it, so it's not just the prosthetic come poppets itself -- components itself. it's the physical demands of the prosthesissist to fit the individual, make additional prosthesis and do additional training in terms of use of that prothesis. if you talk about the individual components versus the service, it's much different. in the individual components, what you see is as new technology comes on the market

it's fairly expensive but as we learn that technology, as we decide what or learn what components are better than others then obviously the costs go down significantly. we have also have to realize there is a business component to this. we can have great ideas for prosthetic limbs, but we need an industry partner that will fabricate the limbs. industry, you know you can't ask a company to start making products that don't have, you know a huge market so we recognize that, but we are very, very fortunate that in the department of defense, department of veterans affairs we have gone in and said hey we will pay for these things. don't go with the usual business model. we have service members that need them now. we have veterans that need them now. >> host: colonel have to leave it there and captain thank you