Freedom to Fish Act

Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy to introduce the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2013.

Our legislation places common sense restrictions on the use of cluster munitions. It prevents any funds from being spent to use cluster munitions that have a failure rate of more than one percent.

In addition, the rules of engagement must specify that the cluster munitions will only be used against clearly defined military targets; and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians.

Our legislation also includes a national security waiver that allows the President to waive the prohibition on the use of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than one percent, if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so.

However, if the President decides to waive the prohibition, he must issue a report to Congress within 30 days on the failure rate of the cluster munitions used and the steps taken to protect innocent civilians.

Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions, or individual ``bomblets.''

They are intended for attacking enemy troop and armor formations spread over a half mile radius.

But, in reality, they pose a deadly threat to innocent civilians.

In Afghanistan, between October 2001 and November 2002, 127 civilians lost their lives due to cluster munitions, 70 percent of them under the age of 18.

An estimated 1,220 Kuwaitis and 400 Iraqi civilians have been killed by cluster munitions since 1991.

During the 2006 war in Lebanon, Israeli cluster munitions, many of them manufactured in the U.S., injured and killed 343 civilians.

Sadly, Syria is just the latest example.

According to Human Rights Watch, the Syrian military has used air- dropped and ground-based cluster munitions near or in civilian areas.

In October, residents of Taftanaz and Tamane reported that helicopters dropped cluster munitions on or near their towns. One resident told Human Rights Watch:

On October 9, I heard a big explosion followed by several

smaller ones coming from Shelakh field located at the north

of Taftanaz. We went to see what happened. We saw a big

[bomb] cut in half and several [bomblets] that were not

detonated. I personally found one that was not exploded.

There were small holes in the ground. The holes were

dispersed and spread over 300 meters.

Another resident reported that an air-dropped cluster munitions released bomblets that landed between two neighboring schools.

Last month, Human Rights Watch issued another report that Syrian forces used ``notoriously indiscriminate'' ground-based cluster munitions near Idlib and Latamenh, a town near Hama.

Not surprisingly, the residents of these towns also reported that many of the bomblets were dispersed over a wide area, failed to explode, and killed or maimed innocent civilians.

One resident of Latamneh told Human Rights Watch:

I heard a big explosion followed by smaller ones. . . . I

saw wounded people everywhere and small bombs covering the

streets. The damage caused to the buildings was minimal. I

saw a lot of unexploded bomblets.

One civilian was killed during the attack and 15 more, including women and children, were wounded. Another civilian was later killed by an unexploded bomblet. One video shows a baby with shrapnel along his right arm.

Videos taken after the incident also show that the civilians who came across the munitions were unaware of the deadly power of an unexploded bomblet.

Men, and even children, can be seen handling these weapons as if they were toys or simply souvenirs from the war.

Now, the United States has rightly condemned the Syrian military's use of cluster munitions against innocent civilians.

However, our moral leadership is hampered by the fact that we continue to maintain such a large arsenal of these deadly weapons and our continued resistance to international efforts to restrict their use.

In fact, the United States maintains an estimated 5.5 million cluster munitions containing 728 million submunitions. These bomblets have an estimated failure rate of between 5 and 15 percent.

According to the most recent data, only 30,900 of these 728 million submunitions have self-destruct devices that would ensure a less than one percent failure rate.

That accounts for only 0.00004 percent of the U.S. arsenal.

So, the technology exists for the U.S. to meet the one percent standard, but our arsenal still overwhelmingly consists of cluster bombs with high failure rates.

How then, do we convince Syria not to use these deadly weapons?

While we wait, the international community has taken action.

On August 1, 2010, the Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions--which would prohibit the production, use, and export of cluster munitions and requires signatories to eliminate their arsenals within eight years-- formally came into force. To date, it has been signed by 111 countries and ratified by 77 countries.

This group includes key NATO allies such as Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, who are fighting alongside our troops in Afghanistan.

It includes 33 countries that have produced or used cluster bombs.

But it does not include the United States.

The United States chose not to participate in the Oslo process or sign the treaty.

This is unacceptable.

Instead, the Pentagon continues to assert that cluster munitions are ``legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat.''

Recognizing that the United States could not remain silent in the face of widespread international efforts to restrict the use of cluster munitions, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued a new policy on cluster munitions in June, 2008 stating that, after 2018, the use, sale, and transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent would be prohibited.

This policy is a step in the right direction, but would still allow the Pentagon to use cluster bombs with high failure rates for five more years.

That runs counter to our values. I believe the administration should take another look at this policy.

In fact, on September 29, 2009, Senator Leahy and I were joined by 14 of our colleagues in sending a letter to President Obama urging him to conduct a thorough review of U.S. policy on cluster munitions.

On April 14, 2010, we received a response from then National Security Advisor Jim Jones stating that the administration will undertake this review following the policy review on U.S. landmines policy.

The administration should complete this review without delay.

Until then, we are still prepared to use these weapons with well- known failure rates and significant risks to innocent civilians?

What does that say about us?

The fact is, cluster munition technologies already exist that meet the one percent standard. Why do we need to wait until 2018?

This delay is especially troubling given that in 2001, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen issued his own

policy on cluster munitions stating that, beginning in fiscal year 2005, all new cluster munitions must have a failure rate of less than one percent.

Unfortunately, the Pentagon was unable to meet this deadline and Secretary Gates' policy essentially postpones any meaningful action until 2018.

If we do nothing, close to twenty years will have passed since the Pentagon first recognized the threat these deadly weapons pose to innocent civilians.

We can do better.

First, it should be noted that in 2007, Congress passed, and President Bush signed into law, the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which included a provision that prohibits the sale and transfer of cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than one percent.

That ban has been renewed on an annual basis and remains on the books.

Our legislation simply moves up the Gates policy by five years and extends the ban on the sale and transfer of cluster munitions with high failure rates to our own arsenal.

For those of my colleagues who are concerned that it may be too soon to enact a ban on the use of cluster munitions with failure rates of more than 1 percent, I point out again that our bill allows the President to waive this restriction if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so.

I would also remind my colleagues that the United States has not used cluster munitions in Iraq since 2003 and has observed a moratorium on their use in Afghanistan since 2002.

In conclusion, let me say that Senator Leahy and I remain as committed as ever to raising awareness about the threat posed by cluster munitions and to pushing the United States to enact common- sense measures to protect innocent civilians. This body constantly talks about America's moral leadership, and this is the perfect opportunity to exercise it.

Senator Leahy and I continue our efforts for people like Phongsavath Souliyalat.

Last year, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Laos and met Phongsavath, a 19-year old Lao man who lost his eyesight and his hands to a bomblet just three years before.

The bomblet that injured Phongsavath was dropped more than 30 years ago during the Vietnam War. It lay unexploded, a de facto landmine, until his 16th birthday.

Sadly, he is not alone. The U.S. dropped 270 million bomblets over Laos, and 30 percent failed to explode.

According to an article from the Los Angeles Times, civilians in one- third of Laos are threatened by unexploded ordinance, and only one percent of that area has been cleared.

Since the Vietnam War, more than 20,000 people have been killed or injured by these deadly weapons. All of them were innocent civilians that the United States did not intend to target.

After Phongsavath described the suffering of those who, like him, had been injured by unexploded bomblets, Secretary Clinton replied: ``We have to do more.''

I agree wholeheartedly. As a first step, Congress should pass the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2013. I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nepal Trade Preferences Act.

This legislation is simple and straightforward. It grants duty-free status to imports of Nepalese garments for a seven year period.

As a friend of Nepal and the Nepalese people for over 25 years, I believe this bill will promote economic prosperity and lasting political stability in one of the world's poorest countries.

Nepal has a per capita income of $540.

Approximately 25 percent of the Nepal's 24 million people live in poverty.

The unemployment rate in Nepal stands at a staggering 47 percent; and most Nepalese live on $3 a day.

Nepal's poverty was also compounded by a devastating, 10-year Maoist insurgency which resulted in the deaths of 13,000 people.

Thankfully, on November 21, 2006 Nepal's government and Maoist rebels signed a peace accord.

Two years later, Nepal became a republic and a Constituent Assembly was elected to draft a new constitution.

Unfortunately, this momentum has stalled and Nepal remains without a new constitution.

Challenges persist for Nepal's economy.

In 2005, in accordance with an international agreement, all quotas on garment imports were removed.

This has had a devastating impact on Nepal's garment industry as U.S. importers have shifted their orders to China, India and other suppliers with cheaper labor markets.

The number of people employed by the Nepalese garment industry dropped from over 100,000 people--half of them women to between 5,000 and 10,000.

Garment exports fell from approximately $139 million in 2000 to $47 million in 2011.

The number of garment factories plummeted from 450 to 10.

The U.S. share of Nepalese garment exports dropped from 90 percent to 21 percent.

Despite Nepal's poverty and the collapse of the garment industry, Nepalese garments are still subject to an average U.S. tariff of 11.7 percent and can be as high as 32 percent.

In essence, we are penalizing an impoverished country which cannot afford it. This makes no sense.

I would point out that U.S. tariffs on Nepalese garments stand in contrast to the European Union, Canada, and Australia which allow Nepalese garments into their markets duty free.

It should come as no surprise, then, that while the U.S. share of Nepalese garment exports has fallen, the European Union's share has risen from 18.14 percent in 2006 to 46 percent in 2010.

The purpose of the Nepal Trade Preferences Act is to ensure that we provide Nepal with the same trade preferences afforded to it by other developed countries. No more, no less.

Humanitarian and development assistance programs should be critical components of our efforts to help Nepal.

But we should also help the Nepalese people help themselves and open the U.S. market to a once thriving export industry.

In the end, economic growth and prosperity can be best achieved when Nepal is given the chance to compete and grow in a free and open global marketplace.

Success in that marketplace will lead to a lesser dependence on foreign aid and encourage Nepal to develop other viable export industries.

With this legislation, the United States can make a real difference now to help revitalize the garment industry in Nepal and promote economic growth and higher living standards.

The impact on the domestic industry will be minimal. At most, Nepalese garments have accounted for 0.26 percent of all garment imports in the United States generating $14 million in revenue.

Nepal will continue to be a small player in the U.S. market.

But to allay any concerns that Nepalese garments will somehow flood the market, this bill does place sensible restrictions on the amount of garments that will receive duty free status. That amount will rise every year up to a specific percentage of all U.S. garment imports.

By passing this legislation, we will help ensure that the garment industry will be a big player in contributing to Nepal's economic growth and development. This will be more jobs and a rising standard of living for the Nepalese people.

Let there be no doubt, it is my hope that this bill will also spur Nepal's political parties to come together, resolve their differences, and finalize a new constitution. Lasting political stability is essential if Nepal is to fully realize the economic benefits of this legislation.

Almost 7 years ago, the Nepalese people embraced peace and reconciliation. Let us show our solidarity with them and demonstrate our commitment to the success of the peace process by passing this commonsense measure.

I urge my colleagues to support the Nepal Trade Preferences Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Asia- South Pacific Trade Preferences Act of 2013, a bill to promote economic growth, democracy, and political stability in some of the world's poorest countries.

This legislation will provide duty-free and quota-free benefits for garments and other products similar to those afforded to beneficiary countries under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA.

The countries covered by this legislation are 13 Least Developed Countries, LDCs, as defined by the United Nations and the U.S. State Department, which are not covered by any current U.S. trade preference program: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Kiribati, Laos, Maldives, Nepal, Samoa, Solomon Islands, East Timor, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

These countries are among the poorest in the world with the bulk of their citizens living on less than $1 a day.

Despite this widespread poverty, their exports are subject to some of the highest U.S. tariffs, averaging around 16 percent.

In fact, these developing countries pay a disproportionate share of U.S. tariffs.

Bangladesh, for example, is the 9th largest contributor of U.S. tariffs even though it is the 46th largest source of U.S. imports.

Cambodia is the 12th largest contributor of U.S. tariffs but ranks as the 60th largest source of U.S. imports.

So, in essence, these two developing countries pay more in U.S. tariffs than many European countries. How is that fair or consistent with our values?

Unfortunately, the United States is the only developed nation that has not provided an enhanced trade preference program to the beneficiary countries in this bill.

Indeed, we maintain duty preference programs for Haiti, the countries of sub-Saharan African and other developing countries and rightly so. These programs are critical components of our efforts to provide hope for millions of people struggling with poverty.

But it makes no sense to exclude other countries at the same level of economic development. We should not hesitate to correct this inequity.

This is not about pitting one developing country against the other. Rather, it is a simple matter of fairness and

ensuring that we help all of those in need.

In fact, this effort goes hand in hand with my long-standing support for a strong and effective foreign aid budget for the United States as an essential tool in helping lift these countries out of poverty and put them on the path to economic prosperity and political stability.

Especially in these difficult fiscal times, however, humanitarian and development assistance should not be the sum total of our efforts.

Make no mistake: these programs help stabilize poor and war-torn countries, save lives, and lay the foundation for future prosperity.

Yet, the key for sustained growth, jobs, and rising standards of living will be the ability of each of these countries to create vital export industries to compete in a free and open global marketplace.

It is clear that the textile and apparel industries in many of the Asia-South Pacific countries in this bill are those industries that hold out the best hope for export growth.

We should help these countries help themselves by opening the U.S. market to their exports as we have done for other developing countries in the past.

By doing so, we will demonstrate the best of American values: reaching out to neighbors in need and helping them to stand on their own two feet.

We will also help ourselves.

First, as these countries become more prosperous, we will see new opportunities for our own exports in their growing markets.

This, in turn, will create jobs and economic growth in our own country.

But if we maintain high tariffs on imports from the Asia-South Pacific countries, those opportunities will likely go to the European Union and other developed countries that already have trade preference programs for these countries.

We should not put ourselves at such a disadvantage.

Second, as the Asia-South Pacific countries become more stable politically, we will help protect U.S. national security interests by preventing failed states which could become breeding grounds for terror.

There is no doubt in my mind that the cost of lowering tariffs on the imports of textile and apparel products from the Asia-South Pacific countries is far less than any military intervention.

We will also help ourselves by securing partners in the fight against global threats such as terrorism, climate change, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. leadership is essential in those efforts. But they require a global, multilateral response. As these countries grow, they can assume a larger role and contribute more effectively.

When it comes to our national security, every bit of assistance helps.

Finally, at a time of economic uncertainty, by eliminating tariffs on imports from the Asia-South Pacific countries, this bill will help lower prices for the American consumers and provide them with more options.

It will also help the 3 million American workers whose jobs depend on apparel imports.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Asia-South Pacific Trade Preferences Act is a win-win for the U.S. and the Asia-South Pacific countries.

Now, let me address some of the concerns that may be raised about this bill.

First, many of the Asia-South Pacific countries have struggled in the past with corruption, a lack of democracy, human rights abuses, and the absence of rule of law.

Some may ask: why reward these countries with a trade preference program?

Make no mistake. These countries will not automatically receive the trade benefits provided by this legislation.

This legislation has been drafted to ensure that the benefits are granted on a performance-driven basis.

That is, to be eligible, a beneficiary country must demonstrate that it is making continual progress toward establishing rule of law, political pluralism, the right to due process, and a market-based economy that protects private property rights.

So, this legislation would help promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law while sustaining vital export industries and creating employment opportunities.

The beneficiary countries have a clear incentive to stay on the right path or they will lose the benefits of this bill.

If we ignore any problems, we will sustain the status quo and our efforts will fail.

Finally, whenever we discuss the creation of a new trade preference program, understandable concerns are raised about the impact on domestic manufacturers.

If this bill becomes law, however, the impact on U.S. jobs will be minimal.

Currently, the beneficiary countries under this legislation account for only 4 percent of U.S. textile and apparel imports, compared to 24 percent for China, and 72 percent for the rest of the world.

These countries will continue to be small players in the U.S. market, but the benefits of this legislation will have a major impact on their export economies.

By passing this legislation we will have an opportunity to change lives, protect our national security interests, and help the American consumer. We should seize this opportunity.

I respectfully ask for the support of all my colleagues for this important initiative.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on an issue that is of great importance to my home State of Louisiana: Federal disaster assistance. As you know, along the Gulf Coast, we keep an eye trained on the Gulf of Mexico during hurricane season. This is following the devastating one-two punch of Hurricanes

Katrina and Rita of 2005 as well as Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008. Unfortunately, our region also has had to deal with the economic and environmental damage from the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010 and more recently Hurricane Isaac. For this reason, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship ensuring Federal disaster programs are effective and responsive to disaster victims is one of my top priorities. While the Gulf Coast is prone to hurricanes, other parts of the country are no strangers to disaster. For example, the Midwest has tornadoes, California experiences earthquakes and wildfires, and the Northeast sees crippling snowstorms. So no part of our country is spared from disasters--disasters which can and will strike at any moment. This certainly hit home when the northeast was struck by Hurricane Sandy in October of last year. With this in mind, we must ensure that the Federal government is better prepared and has the tools necessary to respond quickly, effectively following a disaster.

In order to give the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, better tools to respond after a future disaster, I am proud that to file the Small Business Disaster Reform Act of 2013. I want to thank my colleague Senator Thad Cochran for cosponsoring the bill and for helping me to make improvements. I am also appreciative that Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator Mark Pryor also have cosponsored the legislation. This bill will make two important improvements to SBA's disaster assistance programs for businesses. The first provision builds off of SBA disaster reforms enacted in 2008 and ensures that SBA is responsive to the needs of small businesses seeking smaller amounts of disaster assistance. These are the businesses that are burdened the most by liens on their primary personal residential homes when they could conceivably provide sufficient business assets as collateral for the loan. The second provision in the bill also authorizes the SBA Administrator to allow out-of-state Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, to provide assistance in to small businesses located in Presidentially-declared disaster areas. This provision removes a limitation that, for disasters such as Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Sandy, would allow experienced SBDC counselors to come in to a disaster area while local SBDCs are being stood back up following a catastrophic disaster. Lastly, to ensure that out-of-state SBDCs are not left paying out of pocket for assisting in these disaster areas, there also is legislative language in Section 4 encouraging the SBA to ensure it reimburses SBDCs for these disaster-related expenses provided they were legitimate and there are funds available to do so.

In particular, Section 2 of the bill that I am filing today would clarify that, for SBA disaster business loans less than $200,000 that SBA is required to utilize assets other than the primary residence if those assets are available to use as collateral towards the loan. The bill is very clear though that these assets should be of equal or greater value than the amount of the loan. Also, to ensure that this is a targeted improvement, the bill also includes additional language that this bill in no way requires SBA to reduce the amount or quality of collateral it seeks on these types of loans. I want to especially thank my former Ranking Member Olympia Snowe for working with me to improve upon previous legislation on this particular issue. The provision that I am re-introducing, as part of this disaster legislation, is a direct result of discussions with both her and other stakeholders late last year. I believe that this bill is better because of improvements that came out of these productive discussions.

I note that this provision is similar to Section 204 of S. 2731, the Small Business Administration Disaster Recovery and Reform Act of 2009 that Senator Bill Nelson and I introduced during the 111th Congress. A similar provision also passed the House of Representatives twice that Congress. H.R. 3854, which included a modified collateral requirement under Section 801, passed the House on October 29, 2009 by a vote of 389-32. The provision also passed the House again on November 6, 2009 by a voice vote as Section 2 of H.R. 3743. During the 112th Congress, this provision passed the Senate on December 28, 2012 by a vote of 62- 32 as part of H.R. 1, the Senate-passed Disaster Relief Appropriations Act. However, it was not included in H.R. 152, the House-passed Disaster Relief Appropriations Act that subsequently was enacted into law. Despite the setback earlier this year, I remind my colleagues that this provision has a history of bipartisan Congressional support and has previously passed both chambers of Congress.

Section 2 addresses a key issue that is serving as a roadblock to business owners interested in applying for smaller SBA disaster loans. After the multiple disasters that hit the Gulf Coast, my staff has consistently heard from business owners, discouraged from applying for SBA disaster loans. When we have inquired further on the main reasons behind this hesitation, the top concern related to SBA requiring business owners to put up their personal home as collateral for smaller SBA disaster loans for their business. This requirement is understandable for large loans between $750,000 and $2 million. However, business owners complained about this requirement being instituted for loans of $200,000 or less. I can understand their frustration. Business owners, in many cases who have just lost everything, are applying to SBA for a $150,000 loan for their business. SBA then responds by asking them to put up their $400,000 personal home as collateral when the business may have sufficient business assets available to collateralize the loan. While I also understand the need for SBA to secure the loans, make the program cost effective, and minimize risk to the taxpayer, SBA has at its disposal multiple ways to secure loans.

Furthermore, SBA has repeatedly said publicly and in testimony before my committee that it will not decline a borrower for a lack of collateral. According to a July 14, 2010 correspondence between SBA and my office, the agency notes that ``SBA is an aggressive lender and its credit thresholds are well below traditional bank standards . . . SBA does not decline loans for insufficient collateral.'' SBA's current practice of making loans is based upon an individual/business demonstrating the ability to repay and income. The agency declines borrowers for an inability to repay the loan. In regards to collateral, SBA follows traditional lending practices that seek the ``best available collateral.'' Collateral is required for physical loans over $14,000 and Economic Injury Disaster Loans, EIDL, loans over $5,000. SBA takes real estate as collateral when it is available, but as I stated, the agency will not decline a loan for lack of collateral. Instead it requires borrowers to pledge what is available. However, in practice, SBA is requiring borrowers to put up a personal residence worth $300,000 or $400,000 for a business loan of $200,000 or less when there are other assets available for SBA.

This provision does not substantively change SBA's current lending practices and it will not have a significant cost. I believe that this legislation would not trigger direct spending nor would it have a significant impact on the subsidy rate for SBA disaster loans. Currently for every $1 loaned out, it costs approximately 10 cents on the dollar. Most importantly, this bill will greatly improve the SBA disaster loan programs for businesses ahead of future disasters. If a business comes to the SBA for a loan of less than $200,000 to make immediate repairs or secure working capital, they can be assured that they will not have to put up their personal home if SBA determines that the business has other assets to go towards the loan. However, if businesses seek larger loans than $200,000 or if their business assets are not suitable collateral, then the current requirements will still apply. This ensures that very small businesses and businesses seeking smaller amounts of recovery loans are able to secure these loans without significant burdens on their personal property. For the business owners we have spoken to, this provides some badly needed clarity to one of the Federal government's primary tools for responding to disasters.

To be clear though, while I do not want to see SBA tie up too much of a business' collateral, I also believe that if a business is willing and able to put up business assets towards its disaster loan, SBA should consider that first before attempting to bring in personal

residences. It is unreasonable for SBA to ask business owners operating in very different business environments post-disaster to jeopardize not just their business but also their home. Loans of $200,000 or less are also the loans most likely to be repaid by the business so personal homes should be collateral of last resort in instances where a business can demonstrate the ability to repay the loan and that it has other assets.

As previously mentioned, there are also safeguards in the provision that ensures that this provision will not reduce the quality of collateral required by SBA for these disaster loans nor will it reduce the quality of the SBA's general collateral requirements. These changes will assist the SBA in cutting down on waste, fraud and abuse of these legislative reforms. In order to further assist the SBA, I believe it is important to clarify what types of business assets we understand they should review. For example, I understand that SBA's current lending practices consider the following business assets as suitable collateral: commercial real estate; machinery and equipment; business inventory; and furniture and fixtures.

Section 3 of this bill removes an unnecessary prohibition in the Small Business Act that currently prohibits SBDCs from other states to help out in areas impacted by disasters. In particular, this provision authorizes the SBA Administrator to allow out-of-state SBDCs to provide assistance in to small businesses located in Presidentially-declared disaster areas. This is because, as you may know, SBDCs are considered to be the backbone of the SBA's Office of Entrepreneurial Development efforts, and are the largest of the agency's OED programs. SBDCs are the university based resource partners that provide counseling and training needs for more than 600,000 business clients annually. From 2007 to 2008, the counseling and technical assistance services they offered lead to the creation of 58,501 new jobs, at a cost of $3,462 per job. Additionally, they estimate that their counseling services helped to save 88,889 jobs. These centers are even more critical following natural or manmade disasters. That is because SBDCs help impacted businesses in navigating Federal disaster programs, insurance programs, and in creating new business plans following a disaster. For that reason, we must ensure that there is continuity to have SBDC counselors on the ground in disaster areas.

For example, right after Hurricane Katrina our SBDCs in Louisiana were severely limited in what they could do because of the widespread damage to homes and facilities utilized by their counselors. On the other hand, their counterparts at the Florida SBDCs had a wealth of disaster expertise and were willing to assist but were prohibited from providing assistance to small businesses outside their geographic area. In 2012, we experienced similar challenges following Hurricane Sandy but SBDCs in Louisiana, Florida or elsewhere were prohibited from helping their counterparts in the Northeast even if they wanted to help recovery in New York or New Jersey and doing so would not impact their operations back home. For smaller scale disasters, local SBDCs will respond to disasters in their own areas. However, for large scale, catastrophic disasters, this provision could make a significant difference for impacted small businesses.

In fact, on December 13, 2012, my committee received excellent testimony from Jim King, Chair of the Association of Small Business Development Centers, ASBDCs, and State Director of New York State Small Business Development Center. Mr. King outlined the symbiotic relationship between different SBDC state chapters and how they currently assist each other after disasters. He specifically noted that, ``I was also privileged to have the opportunity to work with the SBDC in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and visited New Orleans as one of five State Directors invited to share thoughts with my counterpart there, Mary Lynn Wilkerson, to evolve a strategy for recovery. I should note that Mary Lynn has returned the favor many times over since Hurricane Sandy devastated our area, with materials, information and support, which has been greatly appreciated.'' He also later noted that ``Starting almost immediately after the disaster, staff in other states and programs began reaching out with offers of assistance and words or experiences of support . . . The experiences gained from disasters in Florida, Texas, Colorado, Louisiana and many other places reinforce the value of the SBDC network in meeting the needs of small business in times of disaster.'' I believe that these current relationships will be further strengthened by enacting this legislation. C.E. ``Tee'' Rowe, President/CEO of ASBDC noted this in his February 10, 2013 letter to my office, noting that, ``Allowing SBDCs to share resources across state lines or other boundaries for the purposes of disaster recovery is a common sense proposal, little different from utilities sharing linemen.'' At the same time, however, I encourage SBDC chapters across the country to establish more of these partnerships pre-disaster so that their SBDC counterparts can be there post-disaster. SBDC chapters that are, unfortunately, battle hardened from multiple disasters should not be the only chapters that bear fruit from these partnerships with their counterparts.

Furthermore, I note that Section 3 of the bill has previously been passed out of committee and has been approved by the full Senate during past sessions of Congress. So this provision has a strong record of bipartisan support. During the 110th Congress, this provision was approved unanimously by the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee on May 7, 2007 as Section 104 of S. 163, the ``Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2007.'' S. 163 was subsequently passed by the full Senate by unanimous consent on August 3, 2007. Unfortunately, this provision was not enacted into law before the adjournment of the 110th Congress. In the 111th Congress, this provision was again approved unanimously by the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee on July 2, 2009 as Section 607 of S. 1229, the ``Entrepreneurial Development Act of 2009'' but was not enacted into law before the adjournment of that Congress. Lastly, during the 112th Congress, the provision received 57 strong bipartisan votes on July 12, 2012 as Section 433 of Senate Amendment 2521 to S. 2237, the ``Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act of 2012.'' My Republican colleagues Senators Snowe, Collins, Vitter, Scott Brown, and Heller all voted in support of the amendment. Although it was not ultimately enacted into law, the provision was subsequently included in separate pieces of legislation introduced by Senator Olympia Snowe and myself. This provision was included as Section 433 of S. 3442, the ``SUCCESS Act of 2012'' that I introduced on July 25, 2012 as well as Section 433 of S. 3572, the ``Restoring Tax and Regulatory Certainty to Small Business Act of 2012'' that Senator Snowe introduced on September 9, 2012.

Lastly, Section 4 is a new provision that I worked with my colleague Senator Cochran to include in the legislation. This section addresses past instances where SBDCs were not sufficiently reimbursed post- disaster by the SBA for disaster-related expenses. Section 3 provides clear Congressional intent that, in authorizing the SBA to allow out- of-state SBDCs to assist in disaster areas outside their geographic location, the agency must also ensure that out-of-state SBDCs are not left paying out of pocket for assisting in these disaster areas. If the SBA approves for these SBDCs to deploy staff or resources to a disaster area, the agency must in turn ensure that it reimburses SBDCs for these expenses provided they were legitimate and there are funds available to do so. I thank Senator Cochran for bringing this to my attention on behalf of his local SBDCs, and look forward to working closely with him to enact this provision into law.

In closing, I believe that these commonsense disaster reforms will greatly benefit businesses impacted by future disasters. First, the major proposals in this legislation are neither new nor untested. Next, this approach has already received support from the following groups from across the country: the Association of Small Business Development Centers, the International Economic Development Council, the Southwest Louisiana Economic Development Alliance, the St. Tammany Economic Development Foundation, the Northeast Louisiana Economic

Partnership, and the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership. With that in mind, the Senate should not make the perfect the enemy of the good. If we can make these reforms today and help one business impacted by a disaster tomorrow, we will have done what our constituents sent us here to do: make good laws.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I welcome Senator Vitter and his cooperation in this matter. I appreciate the work he has done on the issue. He and I are going to address the concentration of the financial system in this country and what that means to the middle class, what it means to business lending for small businesses, and again what it means to the potential of too big to fail, which is something Senator Vitter has been a leader on for a number of years. Both of us are members of the Senate Banking Committee.

More than 100 years ago, in 1889, one of my predecessors, Senator John Sherman, a Republican, and author of the Sherman Antitrust Act-- who actually lived in my hometown of Mansfield, OH, and was the only other Senator from that city who served here--said:

I do not wish to single out Standard Oil Company . . .

[s]till, they are controlling and can control the market so

absolutely as they choose to do it; it is a question of their

will. The point for us to consider is whether, on the whole,

it is safe in this country to leave the production of

property, the transportation of our whole country, to depend

upon the will of a few men sitting at their council board in

the city of New York, for there the whole machine is

operated?

At the time, Senator Sherman was speaking about the trusts-- specifically Standard Oil but other trusts as well--that were large, diverse industrial organizations with outsized economic and political power, not just economic power but also political power. His words are as true then as they are today. Today our economy is being threatened by multitrillion dollar--that is trillion dollar--financial institutions. Wall Street megabanks are so large that should they fail, they could take the rest of the economy with them.

If this were to happen, instead of failure, taxpayers are likely to be asked again to cover their losses and to bail them out just as we did 5 years ago. This is a disastrous outcome because it transfers wealth from the rest of the economy into these megabanks and suspends the rules of capitalism and perpetuates the moral hazard that comes from saving risk-takers from the consequences of their behavior.

Just as Senator Sherman spoke against the trusts in the late 19th century, today people across the political spectrum--both parties and all ideologies--are speaking about the dangers of the large, concentrated wealth of Wall Street megabanks.

In 2009, another Republican--and one a little more familiar to a modern audience--Alan Greenspan said:

If they're too big to fail, they're too big . . . in 1911

we broke up Standard Oil. . . . Maybe that's what we need to

do.

If anyone thought the biggest banks were too big to fail before the crisis, then I have bad news: They have only gotten bigger.

These are the six largest banks and their growth patterns in 1995--18 years ago--had combined assets that were 18 percent of GDP. Today they have combined assets over 60 percent of GDP. Over that time, 37 banks merged 33 times to become the top 4 largest behemoths, which now range from $1.4 trillion in assets to the largest, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, which is around $2.3 or $2.4 trillion in assets. That is $2.3 trillion in assets. Since the beginning of the fiscal crisis, three of these four megabanks have grown through mergers by an average of more than $500 billion.

The 6 largest banks now have twice the combined assets of the rest of the 50 largest U.S. banks. These 6 banks--Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America--the combined assets of 6 banks, are larger than the next 50 largest banks. Put another way, if we add up the assets of banks 7 through 50, the bank that resulted would only be half the size of a bank made from the assets of the top 6.

As astonishing as these numbers are, they don't tell the whole story. Many megabank supporters argue that U.S. banks are small relative to international banks.

But as Bloomberg reported last week, FDIC Board member Tom Hoenig has exposed a double standard in our accounting system that allows U.S. banks to actually shrink themselves on paper. Under the accounting rules applied by the rest of the world, the 6 largest banks are 39 percent larger than we think they are. That is a difference of about $4 trillion. If that is the case, instead of being 63 percent of GDP under international accounting rules, these 6 banks are actually 102 percent of GDP. Let me say that again. The six biggest banks' combined assets are slightly larger than the entire size of our economy. When measured against the same standard as every other institution in the world, we see the United States has the three largest banks in the world. These institutions are not just big, they are extremely complex.

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, the 5 largest U.S. banks now have 19,654 subsidiaries. On average, they have 3,900 subsidiaries each and operate in 68 different countries. These institutions are not just massive and complex--I don't object so much to that--it is they are also risky.

According to their regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency--and I met with them today--none of these institutions has adequate risk management. Let me say that again. In stress tests, not one of the largest 19 banks has shown adequate risk management.

It is simply impossible to believe that these behemoths will not get into trouble again. We saw what happened with one of the best managed banks with a lot of employees--some 16,000, 17,000, 18,000 employees in my State alone--at one site with 10,000 employees in Columbus: JPMorgan Chase, a well-managed bank with a very competent CEO but a bank that not so long ago lost $6 billion or $7 billion.

It is impossible to believe they will not get into trouble again and they will not be unwound in an orderly fashion should they approach the brink of failure.

If you don't believe me, ask Bill Dudley, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He said recently that ``we have a considerable ways to go to finish the job and reduce to intolerable levels the social costs'' of a megabank's failure. He said that more drastic steps ``could yet prove necessary.''

Governor Dan Tarullo, from the Federal Reserve, threw his support behind a proposal first introduced by the Presiding Officer's predecessor, Senator Ted Kaufman, and me to cap the nondeposit liabilities of the megabanks some 3 years ago in this body.

These men are not radicals; they are some of the Nation's foremost banking experts.

History has taught us we never see the next threat coming until it is too late and almost upon us. When we passed the Dodd-Frank Act, it contained tools that regulators can use to rein in risk taking.

Unfortunately, many of those rules have stalled, and most will not take effect for years, because it is not just the economic power of the banks but the political powers so often having their way in this city and with regulators all over the country.

Dodd-Frank focuses on improving regulators' ability to monitor risks and enhancing the actions that regulators can take if they believe the risk has grown too great. Over the last 5 years alone we have seen faulty mortgage-related securities, we have seen foreclosure fraud, and we have seen big losses from risky trading, money laundering, and LIBOR rate digging.

Until the Dodd-Frank rules take effect, the rest of us more or less have to stand by idly as megabanks take more risks that almost inevitably and eventually lead to failure.

We shouldn't tolerate business as usual, monitoring risk until we are once again near the brink of disaster. We should learn from our recent history. We should correct our mistakes by dealing with the problem head on. That means preventing the anticompetitive concentration of banks that are too big to fail and whose favored status encourages them to engage in high-risk behavior.

How many more scandals will it take before we acknowledge that we can't rely on regulators to prevent subprime lending, dangerous derivatives, risky proprietary trading, financial instruments that nobody understands, including the people running the banks in many cases, and even fraud and manipulation.

Wall Street has been allowed to run wild for years. We simply cannot wait any longer for regulators to act. These institutions are too big to manage, they are too big to regulate, and they are surely still too big to fail.

We can't rely on the financial market to fix itself because the rules of competitive markets and creative destruction don't apply to Wall Street megabanks as they do to businesses in Louisiana or Delaware or Ohio. Megabanks' shareholders and creditors have no incentive to end too big to fail. As a result, they will engage in ever-riskier behavior. In the end, they get paid out when banks are bailed out.

Taking the appropriate steps will lead to more midsized banks--not a few magabanks--creating competition, increasing lending, and providing incentives for banks to lend the right way.

If there is one thing the people in Washington love, it is community banks. Senator Vitter has been very involved in helping community banks deal with regulations and other kinds of rules. Cam Fine, the head of the Independent Community Bankers of America, is calling for the largest banks to be downsized because he sees that his members, the community banks--there might be 50 million, 100 million, or less than that in assets--are at a disadvantage.

Just about the only people who will not benefit from reining in these megabanks are a few Wall Street executives. Congress needs to take action now to prevent future economic collapse and future taxpayer- funded liabilities.

Before yielding, I wish to thank Senator Vitter, who recognizes this problem with an acuity that most don't have, and for joining me in doing something about it. I am pleased to announce today that we are working on bipartisan legislation to address this too-big-to-fail problem. It will incorporate ideas put forward by Tom Hoenig, Richard Fisher, and Sheila Bair. Senator Vitter will talk about his views in a moment.

The American public doesn't want us to wait. They want us to ensure that Wall Street megabanks will never again monopolize our Nation's wealth or gamble away the American dream.

To those who say that our work is done, I say we passed seven financial reform laws in the 8 years following the Depression, so it is clear there is precedent for not just one time, one fix, but a continued addressing of this problem until we know we have the strength of the American financial system returned to the way it once was.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I know Senator Alexander is waiting to speak. I thank Senator Vitter for his work on this issue. I remember the first discussions Senator Vitter and I had about this when he was asking some tough questions of a couple of regulators--it might have been the Secretary of the Treasury as well as a couple of other regulators--on capital standards and how important it was that, as he just mentioned, these banks have the kinds of capital standards, have the kinds of capital reserves that are so important in making sure these banks are healthy. Probably most of us in our lives have seen the movie ``It's a Wonderful Life,'' and we know what happens to a bank that is not capitalized; a small-town example of a bank that served the country in ways that community banks do. It is a very different story today, perhaps.

But I think his insight into the importance of capital reserves and then continuing these discussions, we both came to the realization that, as he pointed out, people all across the political spectrum--some of my more Democratic colleagues, people such as George Will and others--have been very involved as business leaders and speaking out on issues that matter.

So I thank Senator Vitter for his work. We will be working on legislation, and I am hopeful more of my colleagues see how important this issue is so we can continue to work together.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will speak briefly, and then I will certainly yield to Senator Alexander.

I appreciate very much Senator Vitter's words and comments and insight. I wish to expand for 2 or 3 minutes on one thing he said about the subsidy that these largest six banks get.

We can see again on this chart that 18 years ago these six banks' total assets were 18 percent; 18 years ago it was 18 percent of GDP. Today, through mergers and growth--and I would argue unfair competition in many cases--they are over 60 percent. But what Senator Vitter said, which I think is important to expand on a bit, is the subsidies these banks get--Bloomberg said it was about $83 billion a year in subsidies they get because of government action or inaction, frankly. It is interesting, that $83 billion, when we are talking about the sequester today is about $85 billion, is not relevant, except putting it in some context.

But the reason they have this $83 billion subsidy, $85 billion subsidy or so--$83, $84, $85 billion--or they have the advantage, when they go in the capital markets, of getting the advantage of 50, 60, 70, 80 basis points--and 80 basis points is eight-tenths of 1 percent in interest rate advantage--is because the capital markets believe their investments in these banks are not very risky because the markets believe these banks are too big to fail because they have the government backup for them.

So if they have no risk, people are willing to lend money to them at lower interest rates. That is why the Huntington Bank in Columbus, OH, a large regional bank with about $50 billion in assets, or Key, a larger bank in Ohio--still, though, a regional bank--or banks in Coldwater, OH, or Sycamore, OH, or Third Federal in Cleveland--banks that maybe own only a few tens of millions or even up to $1 billion in assets--do not have that advantage. They pay higher interest rates when they borrow because the people who lend to them know they are not going to get bailed out if something bad happens.

It is only these six largest banks that have that advantage. So because they can borrow money from the markets at a lower rate, they are, in effect, being subsidized because we have not fixed this too- big-to-fail problem for the Nation's banks.

So it is not a Senator or a conservative Republican or a progressive Democrat from Louisiana or Ohio making this case that they are getting this advantage; it is the capital markets that have decided, yes, these are too big to fail, so we are going to lend them money at lower rates than we would lend to the Huntington or Key or Third Federal or FirstMerit in Ohio.

Fundamentally, that is the issue; that it is our actions or inactions that have given these banks a competitive edge that nobody through acts of government--whether you are a liberal or a conservative--should believe it should be part of our economic system and our financial system.

I thank Senator Vitter and yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am joining my colleagues Senators, Crapo, Wyden, and Moran in introducing the Short Line Railroad Rehabilitation and Investment Act of 2013, legislation to extend for 3 years the Section 45G short line freight railroad tax credit.

In the 112th Congress, I introduced a 6-year extension of this credit. Despite the often contentious atmosphere of the 112th Congress, during which my colleagues found little they could agree on, the short line rail credit was a bipartisan success story, with my legislation attracting more than 50 bipartisan cosponsors.

``Short line'' railroads are small freight rail companies responsible for bringing goods to communities that are not directly served by large, trans-continental railroads. Supporting small railroads allows the communities surrounding them to attract and maintain businesses and create jobs. The evidence of the success of this credit can be found in communities across America.

This credit has real impact for the people of my state. West Virginia is the second biggest producer of railroad ties in the country. Since the credit was enacted, it is estimated 750,000 railroad ties have been purchased above what would have otherwise been purchased with no incentive. Those railroad ties translate directly into jobs. This credit does not create just West Virginia jobs though. The ties, spikes, and rail this credit helps fund are almost entirely American made.

Over 12,000 rail customers across America depend on short lines. This credit creates a strong incentive for short lines to invest private sector dollars on private-sector freight railroad track rehabilitation and improvements. Unfortunately, it is now scheduled to expire at the end of 2013.

We were unable to enact a full 6-year extension of this important tax credit last Congress, but I was pleased that this credit was extended through the end of 2013 as part of the December 31st fiscal cliff deal.

This Congress I want to do more. This credit, and the short line railroads that serve all of our constituents, deserve a meaningful extension. If this credit is allowed to expire at the end of the year, private-sector investments in infrastructure in our communities will fall by hundreds of millions of dollars.

This bill would extend the 45G credit through 2016, providing the important long-term planning certainty necessary to maximize private- sector transportation infrastructure investment. Over 50 members of this body sponsored legislation in the last Congress extending this credit and I hope there will be similar support again this year. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Do-Not-Track Online Act of 2013. This bill is a critical step towards furthering consumer privacy. It empowers Americans to control their personal information online and provides them with the ability to prevent online companies from collecting and using that information for profit.

Do-not-track is a simple concept. It allows consumers, with a simple click of the mouse, to tell every company that participates in the vast online ecosystem, ``Do not collect information about me. I care about my privacy. My personal information is not for sale. And I do not want my information used in ways I do not expect or approve.'' Under this bill, online companies would have to honor that user declaration or face penalties enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, or State Attorneys General.

This bill is necessary because the privacy of Americans is increasingly under assault as more and more of their daily lives are conducted online. Whether it is a person at home searching for a new job or home, a parent researching her sick child's symptoms and treatments using a health application, or a teenager using her smartphone while riding the subway, online companies are collecting massive amounts of information, often without consumers' knowledge or consent. A vast array of companies that consumers have never heard of are surreptitiously collecting this information in numerous ways: third-party advertising networks place ``cookies'' on computer web- browsers to track the websites that consumers have visited; analytic and marketing companies identify individual computers by recognizing the unique configuration, or ``fingerprint,'' of web-browsers; and software applications installed on mobile devices, colloquially known as ``apps,'' collect, use, and share information about consumers' precise locations, contact lists, photographs, and other personal matters. All of this information can be combined and stored on computer servers around the world and used for a variety of purposes, ranging from website analytics to online behavioral advertising to the creation of comprehensive dossiers by data brokers that build and sell personal profiles about hundreds of millions of individual Americans.

My bill would empower consumers, if they so choose, to stem the tide. It would give them the means to prohibit the collection of their information from the start. Consumers would be able to tell companies collecting their personal information that they want those collection practices to stop. At the same time, the bill would preserve the ability of those online companies to conduct their business and deliver the content and services that consumers have come to expect and enjoy. The bill would grant the FTC rulemaking authority to use its expertise to protect the privacy interests of consumers while addressing the legitimate needs of industry.

The key to this bill is its simplicity. For over a decade in the Senate Commerce Committee, which I chair, we have tried to determine how online companies can provide clear and conspicuous notice to consumers about their information practices and--once this notice has been given--further determine how consumers can either opt-in or opt- out of those information collection practices. Yet today, privacy policies are still far too long, too complicated, and too full of technical legalese for any reasonable consumer to read, let alone understand. The failures of these notices are even clearer when placed on the exploding number of mobile devices on which consumers have grown to rely. My bill avoids this messy ``rabbit hole'' of policy considerations and creates an easy mechanism that gives consumers the opportunity to simply say ``no thank you'' to anyone and everyone collecting their online information. Period.

Let me also say a few words about what this bill does not do. My bill would not ``break the Internet,'' as I am sure we will hear from opponents. The truth is that my bill makes every necessary accommodation for online companies to continue providing content and services to consumers. For instance, websites and applications would still be able collect data to deliver the content and functionality that consumers have requested, perform internal analytics, improve performance, and prevent fraud. My bill would also allow online companies to collect and maintain consumer information when it has been voluntarily provided by the consumer. They could also collect data that is truly anonymous. Finally, consumers could allow companies they trust to collect and use their information by giving specific consent that overrides a general do-not-track preference. But, when consumers say that they do not want to be tracked, online companies would no longer be allowed to ignore this request and collect and use this information for any extraneous purpose. Moreover, these companies would be obligated to immediately destroy or anonymize the information once it is no longer needed to provide the service requested.

I think it is worth noting that since 2010, the FTC has called for a do-not-track solution. The commission has stated that any effective do- not-track system should be simple, easy to use, and persistent, and that, if implemented, it should prevent the collection of consumers' online data. The private sector has also taken notice and similarly recognized the utility of do-not-track for its users. Nearly every popular web browser now allows consumers to affirmatively declare a do- not-track preference to websites. The problem is that online companies have no legal obligation to honor this request and, in fact, many have gone so far as to outright refuse to do so. In February 2012, industry leaders stood at the White House and publicly declared their commitment to honor do-not-track requests from web browsers. Yet since that time, industry has failed to live up to those commitments. The online advertising industry has articulated huge exemptions to its pledge to limit the collection of information--exceptions that undermine the very self-regulatory programs the industry has promoted as effective. This industry has emphasized consumer choice yet has made statements publicly refusing to honor new do-not-track browser features. My bill would put an end to this gamesmanship and nonsense.

My bill is only part of the ongoing discussion on consumer privacy in Congress. It is simple, yet powerful. It allows consumers, if they choose, and I should emphasize that many will not make such a choice, to stop the mind-boggling number of online companies that are collecting vast amounts of their information. It gives consumers an easy-to-use tool that will implement their choices effectively in a complex, rapidly-changing online world. It prohibits those lurking in the cyber-shadows from profiting off of the personal, private information of ordinary Americans. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this and other privacy legislative efforts in the Commerce Committee and on the Senate floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Brown on the Senate floor to echo those comments. I agree that too big to fail, unfortunately, is alive and well, and that poses a real threat to all of us--to consumers and citizens everywhere and fundamentally to the American economy.

Coming out of the financial crisis, it seemed to me that the biggest threat and the biggest problem was continuing too big to fail. I think now, several years after the passage of Dodd-Frank, we have objective numbers and evidence that it did not bury too big to fail. Again, they are objective numbers and evidence and pricing in the market that too big to fail is alive and well.

I think the fact that Senator Brown and I are both here on the floor echoing each other's concerns, virtually repeating each other's arguments, is pretty significant. I don't know if we quite define the political spectrum of the Senate, but we come pretty darn close. Yet we absolutely agree about this threat.

I think Senator Brown's historical analogy is right. It is like the unfettered growth and power of the trusts in the late 19th century, and there too folks of all sorts of ideologies correctly recognized that threat--liberal Democrats as well as Senator Brown's Republican predecessor, Senator Sherman, and, of course, the biggest Republican trust-buster of all, Teddy Roosevelt. It is the same issue. It is the intense concentration of power. As a conservative, I am very suspicious and nervous about that, whether it is when it is in government or whether it is when it is in the private sector.

I think the sort of bipartisan consensus that, perhaps, we personify on the Senate floor is also growing outside Congress and outside this institution. Senator Brown alluded to some of it, but let me flesh that out.

We have, for instance, the Federal Reserve Board Governor, Dan Tarullo. He was appointed by President Obama. He was a prominent figure in drafting and implementing Dodd-Frank. He recently lamented:

. . . to the extent that a growing systemic footprint

increases perceptions of at least some residual too-big-to-

fail quality in such a firm--

Meaning a megabank--

notwithstanding the panoply of measures in Dodd-Frank and our

regulations, there may be funding advantages for the firm,

which reinforces the impulse to grow.

In a little more blunt terms, our colleague, Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is also a figure in coming up with Dodd-Frank, said recently in our Banking Committee hearing with Chairman Bernanke:

I'd like to go to the question about too-big-to-fail; that

we haven't gotten rid of it yet. And so now we have a double

problem, and that is that the big banks--big at the time that

they were bailed out the first time--have gotten bigger, and

at the same time that investors believe that too-big-to-fail

out there, that it's safer to put your money into the big

banks and not the little banks, in effect creating an

insurance policy for the big banks that the government is

creating this insurance policy--not there for the small

banks.

In a similar way, we have those concerns echoed in the real world outside this body on the right as well.

Recently, George Will said:

By breaking up the biggest banks, conservatives will not be

putting asunder what the free market has joined together.

Government nurtured these behemoths by weaving an improvident

safety net and by practicing crony capitalism.

Peggy Noonan, another well-known conservative, has said:

If you are conservative you are skeptical of concentrated

power. You know the bullying and bossism it can lead to. . .

. Too big to fail is too big to continue. The megabanks have

too much power in Washington and too much weight within the

financial system.

So I do think there is a real and growing consensus in this body, in Washington, and in the real world, as I have suggested by those observers' quotes, and I think we need to build on that consensus and act in a responsible way.

Senator Brown and I have been doing that, first with joint letters to Chairman Bernanke and others, focusing on the need for significantly greater capital requirements for the biggest banks. We think this would be the best and first way we should try to rein in too big to fail, to put more protection between megabank failure and the taxpayer, more incentive for the megabanks to perhaps diversify, perhaps break up, or at least correctly price their size and risk to the financial system.

We are following up on that initial work that was reflected in letters and specific suggestions to Chairman Bernanke with legislation that is quite far along, and I know we will be talking about more both today and in the near future.

With that, let me invite Senator Brown to round out his comments, and then I will have a few more words to say.

Again, I thank Senator Brown for his partnership. Senator Brown, with those posters, made crystal clear the facts. The fact is that since the financial crisis, the megabanks have only continued to grow in size, in dominance, and in market share. In fact, that has accelerated significantly.

Some folks will say: Oh, well, that was a preexisting trend. That is because of a number of factors.

It is certainly true there are a number of factors at issue. But the growth has only accelerated since the crisis and Dodd-Frank. It has not let up. In addition, there have been several recent studies that actually quantify the fact that too big to fail is a market advantage, is, in essence, a taxpayer subsidy, as Elizabeth Warren suggested, for the megabanks.

An FDIC study released in September says that. It says:

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection

Act of 2010 was explicitly intended to, in part, put an end

to the TBTF [too big to fail] de facto policy.

But it concludes that:

The largest banks do, in fact, pay less for comparable

deposits. Furthermore, we show that some of the difference in

the cost of funding cannot be attributed to either

differences in balance sheet risk or any non-risk related

factors. The remaining unexplained risk premium gap is on the

order of 45 bps [basis points]. Such a gap is consistent with

an economically significant ``too-big-to-fail'' . . . subsidy

paid to the largest banks.

Another recent study and working paper is an IMF working paper. It simply attempted to quantify that taxpayer too-big-to-fail subsidy. According to that study, before that financial crisis, the subsidy:

. . . was already sizable, 60 basis points. . . . It

increased to 80 basis points by the end [of] 2009.

Then, most recently, Bloomberg has tried to put pen to paper and refine that calculation, and Bloomberg's calculation is $83 billion--an $83 billion subsidy of the five biggest U.S. banks, specifically because of artificially cheap rates created by the market believing they are too big to fail.

I do not like huge size and dominance in market share, period. But certainly--certainly--we should not have government policy that is driving it, that is exacerbating it. It seems to me that should be a solid consensus left and right, Democrat and Republican.

Senator Brown and I are following up on our previous work and drafting legislation. Of course, we are not ready to introduce that today. But it would fundamentally require significantly more capital for the megabanks and would distinguish between megabanks and other size banks; namely, community banks, midsized banks, and regional banks. The largest banks would have that significantly higher capital requirement.

It would also try to walk regulators away from Basel III and institute new capital rules that do not rely on risk weights and are simple and easy to understand and are transparent and cannot be gamed the way we think Basel III can be manipulated and gamed.

Requiring this would do one or both of two things. It would better ensure the taxpayer against bailouts and/or it would push the megabanks to restructure because they would be bearing more cost of that risk to the financial system.

In addition, we are contemplating and discussing another section of this bill that would do something that I think is very important to do at the same time: create an easier--not a lax but a more appropriate regulatory framework for clearly smaller and less risky financial institutions such as community banks.

Again, I thank Senator Brown for his partnership. I thank him for his words today. I look forward to continuing to work on this project, as I believe a true bipartisan consensus continues to grow on this issue.