Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business for up to 6 minutes.

Seventy-five years ago, President Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act. This legislation, proposed by Senator Hugo Black in 1932, ultimately ensured American workers would receive a minimum wage, reasonable work hours, and an end to child labor.

President Roosevelt led our country out of the worst economic climate we have ever faced. He led us to decades of prosperity by ensuring hard work in our Nation is met with two fundamental American rights--fair wages and decent working conditions.

In the 20th century, the minimum wage lifted millions of Americans from poverty and allowed them to begin the step toward joining the middle class. In the 21st century a fair livable minimum wage can continue moving our country forward.

Even as corporate executives and Wall Street banks are earning record profits, too many families are struggling. Americans who work hard and play by the rules should be able to take care of their families. Too many people in my home State, in places such as Youngstown, Lorain, Portsmouth, and Norwood are working harder than ever and barely getting by.

Nearly 1.3 million Ohioans in places such as Chillicothe and Mansfield work in a minimum wage job. Working full time in a minimum wage job in Ohio pays about $16,000 per year because our minimum wage is a bit higher. The Federal minimum wage today pays only $15,000 per year, $3,000 below the poverty level for a family of three.

It is not much to live on for families trying to put food on the table, fill a gas tank, send their children to school or provide a safe place for them to live. The minimum wage in this country should be a livable wage.

This is why I am fighting to pass the Fair Minimum Wage Act. It would raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour in three 95-cent increments, then provide for automatic annual increases linked to changes in the cost of living.

The bill would also gradually raise the minimum wage for tipped workers for the first time in 20 years. The tip minimum wage now stands at $2.13 an hour. This bill would increase it to 70 percent of the regular minimum wage.

More than 1.2 million people in Ohio would receive a raise because of our bill. Millions of people around the country in places such as Helena, Butte, and Billings would have an increase in their standard of living.

The vast majority of minimum wage earners, despite what some in this body say--some 88 percent--are adult workers. They are not 16- and 17- year-old high school students. They are 18 and above, with many of them supporting families. More than half are women.

Eighteen million children, nearly one-quarter of all American children, have parents who would receive a raise. Over the past 2 weeks, I have met with people in my home State who earn low wages, and I listened to their stories.

Ms. Walter, a server from Youngstown in northeast Ohio, struggled to raise three boys as a single mother.

Ms. Day, a cake decorator from Bowling Green, works two jobs because the salary of one isn't enough to provide for her two children. She says she doesn't need a lot but just a little more.

This bill matters. It matters for the grandmother who works an evening shift at a restaurant to enable her to care for her grandchildren during the day. It matters for the elder care worker who takes two buses to work, and it matters for all of the working-class families who work hard and play by the rules. It is not only about the families who will be directly affected.

Increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will also help the economy. It will increase GDP by more than $30 billion over the course of 3 years as workers spend their raises in local businesses and communities. Opponents to the increase in minimum wage say people will not hire; it will cost jobs.

It is actually the opposite. This economic activity created by more spending in communities as a result of more money in minimum wage earners' pockets would generate 140,000 new jobs over these 3 years. This is why business owners support raising the minimum wage.

The owners of Brothers Printing and Synergistic Systems in the Cleveland area both pay their workers more than the minimum wage. It means they have less turnover. It means their workers have a better standard of living, and it helps their community. They do this because it is the right thing to do. It helps them keep their best employees and strengthens their businesses and their commitment. Plain and simple, ensuring a fair wage is good for America's families. It is good for America's economy.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise to commemorate Geraldine Mitchell of Toledo, OH.

Ms. Mitchell saved a woman's life during her work day as a bus driver in Ohio's fourth most populous city. Every day, hundreds of Toledoans take public transit to work, to the doctor's office, to school.

As a driver for the Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority with some 16 years of experience, Ms. Mitchell keeps a watchful eye--for children chasing balls into the street, for passersby crossing busy roads in front of on-coming traffic. So, on an afternoon in March, Ms. Mitchell did not hesitate to act as she witnessed a woman attempting to commit suicide along the bus route. Ms. Mitchell immediately stopped her bus and ran to the woman's aid.

Bus passengers and Corey Bush, an off-duty police officer from a neighboring jurisdiction, also ran to help as Ms. Mitchell performed CPR to keep the woman alive before emergency responders arrived. According to the Toledo Police Department, the victim would have died if not for Ms. Mitchell's quick actions.

A police officer responding to the incident entered the woman's home and found a man unconscious. Both individuals were taken to Mercy St. Vincent Medical Center--and they are alive today.

Ms. Mitchell and her fellow citizens are heroes whose actions saved a life, potentially two. They didn't give any thought to their own safety. They did what many of us hope we would do by acting swiftly when a fellow citizen was in danger. Together, they exhibited the courage worthy of recognition here today. In addition to receiving the Toledo Police Department's Meritorious Public Service Award, it is my honor to commend Ms. Mitchell on the Senate Floor.

Mr. President, I rise in recognition of General Electric's famed Nela Park, which is celebrating its 100th Anniversary this year.

Nela Park was built in 1913, but its roots go back even further.

In 1879, American hero and one of Ohio's great luminaries, Thomas Edison, invented the carbon filament lamp. This invention led to the founding of Edison Electric, which in 1892 would merge with a competitor to become General Electric.

GE had many competitors by the turn of the century. When the National Electric Lamp Company, NELA, was acquired by GE, it prompted the development of Nela Park in East Cleveland. The 92 acre campus was completed 2 years later and was the world's first industrial park, another example of Ohio's leadership and trailblazing spirit.

Nela Park is famous for its Georgian Revival architecture and every year features a world-renowned Christmas lighting display, modeled after the lighting display in Washington, DC. By 1975, the park earned the recognition it deserved and was listed as a Historic Place in the U.S. Department of the Interior's National Register.

Today, Nela Park is the national headquarters of GE's Lighting & Electrical Institute and serves as a source of innovation and a testament to Ohio's manufacturing strength. In an age of environmental and efficiency conscientiousness, GE lighting still illuminates the world, advancing new technologies such as fluorescents and light- emitting diodes.

For more than a century GE has employed Ohioans--at all levels of the company--and has been a significant part of our State and our Nation's economy. I commend GE for its positive impact on Ohio, the United States, and the world.

I am proud that GE Lighting calls Ohio its home, and I look forward to its continued production and innovation in the Buckeye state.

Mr. President, we ask support for the Vitter-Brown-Corker- Pryor amendment. The community banks of America support it because they know the playing field isn't level.

One real quick statistic. Eighteen years ago, the six biggest U.S. banks had assets equal to 18 percent of GDP. Today it is 65 percent of

Madam President, I rise and join with Senator Blunt in a bipartisan amendment, No. 455, in support of a national network for manufacturing innovation.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from the National Association of Manufacturers, Semiconductor Industry Association, United Auto Workers, and others.

Madam President, this amendment--the NNMI--offers one commonsense approach by partnering with private industry to bring together companies, small businesses, research institutions, and community colleges so we can outinnovate the rest of the world.

I ask for its support and yield the remainder of my time to Senator Blunt.

Mr. President, over 60 years ago, the Young Audiences organization was founded with a mission to promote arts- integrated education. Each year the Young Audiences Arts for Learning impacts more than 5 million students in over 8,000 schools and communities. In honor of its commendable work around arts education, through its 30 affiliates across the United States, I am pleased to recognize the week of March 24, 2013 as National Young Audiences Arts for Learning Week.

I would especially like to highlight the work of the Young Audiences of Northeast Ohio, YANEO, which reaches more than 240,000 students across 18 counties in my home State. YANEO's 120 professional artists assist young Ohioans by teaching dance, theater, music, visual arts, literary, and media arts. Additionally, the Young Audiences Artworks in Cleveland successfully pairs Ohio teenagers with local artists to mentor students and provide them with college and career advice.

Art programs help keep students engaged in their schools and communities. Music and visual arts not only serve as a form of personal expression, but enable dynamic collaboration. Learning to dance, sing, and perform in front of a group can instill confidence in children. Learning to edit a film, record a song, or create a graphic design can provide individuals with an invaluable set of skills which are transferable to the workplace. Contributing to local communities through the arts--from outdoor murals to large theatrical performances--offers young people a new sense of belonging, purpose, and achievement. The arts help to look at the world, and themselves, anew.

Including arts and music in a student's curriculum may also greatly improve his or her grasp of math and scientific problems. It has been demonstrated exposure to the arts endows children with insight, reason, and technical proficiency. Art education improves communication skills, academic achievement, encourages discipline, and discourages high-risk behavior. Students' ability to innovate and utilize new technologies through arts activities will not only better prepare students for 21st century jobs, but is also key to our Nation's competiveness in the global economy.

I commend both the students who participate in Young Audiences and the hard-working parents, teachers, volunteers, and artists of Young Audiences who inspire future generations of artists and musicians. Your passion and commitment should be celebrated.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 2 minutes. After my remarks, I ask that the senior Senator from Arizona be recognized.

Madam President, I don't yet want to call up my amendment--I have been working with Chairman Mikulski on this--until they get an agreement. However, I will discuss for a moment amendment No. 83, which I am cosponsoring with Senator Isakson of Georgia. It does help us restore what Senator Mikulski has been working toward, which is regular order in this Chamber.

This is an amendment having to do with some language dealing with a

pilot project with customs and privatization that Senator Landrieu has supported. I have spoken to Senator Landrieu about this issue, and we need to talk through some other things. If we are going to do regular order the way we need to, this language should come in front of the Finance Committee to work out these issues, where Senator Isakson and I sit. I think we should not succumb to the temptation to legislate through appropriations, and this would be one way of doing that.

Later I will ask my colleagues to support amendment No. 83, sponsored by me and Senator Isakson. I appreciate the forbearance of Senator McCain.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 83.

I would say to Chairwoman Mikulski that the amendment I would have offered along with Senator Isakson would strike the language on the pilot projects that expire at the end of the year with privatization of customs services. It is something I will work on with Senator Landrieu, and I appreciate Senator Mikulski's input on that. It is about public services and creating jobs and assisting with imports and exports.

I thank the chairwoman.

Madam President, I assume a number of my colleagues have seen the movie ``Lincoln.''

One particularly brief but poignant moment of that movie showed the President's staff discouraging him from spending so much time talking to regular people, leaving the White House and inviting normal people who weren't involved in politics every day or didn't work in the White House into the White House to talk.

They were saying: Mr. President, you need to run this war. You have so much to do. You shouldn't be meeting with people as much.

President Lincoln said to his staff: I need my regular public opinion baths.

Just listening to the last few speakers, particularly the Republican leader, I think it is more important more people in this institution go out and talk to real people who are affected by this health care law. There is the 25-year-old who has already benefited from staying on her mother's health care plan, the person in the high-risk pool who has insurance now--such as a friend of mine in Port Clinton in Ottawa County, Ohio, does--because of this law. People have seen the consumer protections. They haven't lost their insurance because they were expensive for an insurance company.

My colleagues need to get a public opinion bath, walk around their States a little more and listen to people outside of the country clubs and outside of the trade associations who are charged ideologically and not really particularly open about these kinds of issues.

I rise to oppose the amendment offered by Senator Cruz, the badly named ``Restore Growth First'' amendment, which would prohibit resources included in the continuing resolution to implement the Affordable Care Act.

Specious claims about how the health law will harm our economy have already been debunked by the hundreds of Ohioans who are able to have annual wellness visits, by the tens of thousands of young adults staying on their parents' insurance plans, by the seniors who are seeing the doughnut hole coverage gap closing with real savings on prescription costs.

It has been debunked by Americans who are no longer denied coverage because of a preexisting condition, by the Americans who are not forced to pay more for insurance because of a preexisting condition, by women who may now rely on affordable, accessible reproductive health services; and starting in 2014, Americans who have not been able to afford health insurance in the private market will be able to comparison shop, if needed, to purchase insurance.

These much needed health care reforms which will benefit Americans next year are already benefiting Americans and have been for a couple of years. Continued implementation of these reforms is crucial for improving the quality of care and bending the cost curve.

I agree with Senator Cruz on one thing: health spending is related to the economy and to the deficit. Let's be clear. We know the health care law will reduce the deficit by over $100 billion over the next decade. These are Congressional Budget Office numbers, not Republican numbers or Democratic numbers. On the Cruz amendment, repealing the health care law would increase, not reduce, the deficit.

We know how it is helping people. There are 100,000 reasons in my own State of Ohio to stand up for this health care law and reject this amendment: Nearly 97,000 of Ohio's young adults are now able to stay on their parents' plan until age 26.

I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Almost 100,000 of Ohio's young adults are now able to stay on their parents' health plan. Seniors have saved almost $300 million in prescription drugs just since the passage of the health care law, with an average per beneficiary savings of $774. And up to 147,000 small businesses in Ohio are eligible for tax credits.

Finally, thanks to the health law, more people in my home State and across the Nation have access to free preventive services. As I said, there are 100,000 reasons for Ohioans to like this law and oppose this amendment.

There are 2 million Ohioans with private insurance who have gained preventive health services with no cost sharing. This means major illnesses may be detected earlier. It means decreasing treatment costs and human suffering over the long term.

The Affordable Care Act was the most promising initiative to control health care costs in decades. The health care law is about reducing health costs for consumers and investing in more affordable preventive care for Americans.

The health care law is about containing costs as we extend insurance. It means people, rather than going to the emergency room with a sick child, may go to the family doctor and receive preventive care prior to the child's ear infection becoming serious. Under the new medical loss ratio rules health insurance plans must spend at least 80 percent of premium dollars on health care costs, not executive bonuses, not other administrative expenses. In Ohio, 143,000 received over $11 million in rebates.

The Prevention and Public Health Fund is the part of the health care law which will give us test data about how to bend the cost curve through preventive programs. Ohioans received more than $17 million already to prevent chronic diseases and decrease smoking rates.

Certainly.

That is correct.

This is what they have been saying, yes.

That is what they say.

You did.

I am aware of it. I assume my colleagues are too.

I have not heard any say that.

It is my understanding this has been sort of the hypocrisy we have woven through this debate over the last 3 years.

Apparently not good enough for a senior, not good enough for somebody who is low income but working two $10-an-hour jobs, I guess it is not good enough for them.

The Cruz amendment doesn't just anticipate changes in the future, it takes away all these services which have been out there that I have been talking about: the thousands of people in Illinois, Ohio, and Wisconsin who have benefited; 25-year-olds, 22-year-olds, such as somebody who graduates from Champagne, Urbana, Madison, or Columbus and don't have insurance but have a job, are 23 years old and may stay on their parents' health plan. All of the preventive care literally hundreds of thousands of seniors in Ohio now receive with no copay or no deductible would all be wiped away. All the provisions people have benefited from already would be taken away by this amendment.

These kids would be on their own, but the Senators who are pushing this amendment would still have their health insurance, just to reiterate that.

It doesn't take away the insurance for those people voting on this amendment; that is correct.

My reading of it is it is not affected.

Apparently not.

In my State and the Senator's State, since his State is slightly larger than mine--over 1 million seniors in each State and hundreds of thousands in the Presiding Officer's State of Wisconsin-- millions of seniors have received some kind of preventive care, such as screenings for diabetes, screenings for osteoporosis, and not paid a copay or deductible. They have received their physicals and not had their deductibles, copayer deductibles, waived as a result of the Affordable Care Act.

The Cruz amendment would, while still protecting health insurance for Senator Cruz and others, wipe away those benefits for seniors.

It is true. That is true. This is open to people regardless of how they vote on the Cruz amendment.

It does not.

We had this discussion back in 2009 and 2010 when we debated this health care law, that Members of the House and Senate continue to receive health insurance.

I recall one House Member was unhappy during campaigning against the Affordable Care Act, as he recently came to the House. He didn't get his insurance for the first month paid for by the government, as he tried to take away insurance for low-income, moderate-income people in my State, my district and the Senator's State.

I would like to see Senator Cruz or one of the supporters of the Cruz amendment offer an amendment.

I appreciate the words of the Senator from Illinois.

To close, Senator Durbin's comments accurately explain that there is a bias in this institution on tax policy and health policy for some Senators to take care of themselves and people like them, a little more than paying attention to the rest of the country. I think this amendment shows this and is one more good reason to vote against the Cruz amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes, and Senator Inhofe, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, be given 20 minutes after I speak.

Madam President, I rise to recognize the lasting contributions of 80 courageous Americans who participated in the Doolittle raid, our Nation's first offensive action on Japan's soil during the Second World War. I am pleased to have Senator Boozman as the lead Republican of an effort to ensure these men have the recognition they deserve. Together, we introduced S. 381, which will award the surviving airmen, known as the Doolittle Raiders, with the Congressional Gold Medal. Senator Boozman's collaboration reiterates that bipartisan support for our veterans endures in this body. Joining us as original cosponsors are Senators Murray, Tester, Baucus, Nelson, Cantwell, and Schatz.

As chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee during the last session, Senator Murray also cosponsored last year's resolution. We are grateful for her leadership. Our colleague Senator Lautenberg, the sole World War II veteran serving in the Senate, is also a cosponsor.

Some 16 million Americans served this country during World War II. Today their average age is 92. These survivors have earned the respect of a grateful Nation. Now is the time for us to act to honor them.

On April 18, 1942, 80 American airmen volunteered for an unknown assignment. These sons, fathers, and brothers accepted what they only knew to be ``an extremely hazardous mission.'' They were led by Lt. Col. James ``Jimmy'' Doolittle, a one-time flight instructor at Wright Field in Dayton, OH, in my home State. He also studied at Kelly Field and McCook Field in Ohio.

The Doolittle Raid was the first time the Army Air Corps and the Navy collaborated on a tactical mission. These pilots flew 16 U.S. Army Air Corps B-25 Mitchell bombers from the deck of the USS Hornet into combat, a feat that had never been before attempted.

On the morning of the raid, the USS Hornet was discovered by Japanese picket ships. Fearing the mission

might be compromised, the Raiders launched 170 miles earlier than planned. The earlier launch meant these men now had to travel over 650 miles to their intended targets, leaving them with the possibility of running out of enough fuel to land beyond the Japanese lines in occupied China.

Accepting this choice meant the Raiders would almost certainly have to crash land or bail out either above Japanese-occupied China or over the home islands of Japan. Any survivor would certainly be subjected to imprisonment, torture or death.

After reaching their targets, 15 of the bombers continued to China, while the 16th--whose plane was dangerously low on fuel--headed to Russia.

The total distance traveled by the Raiders was about 2,250 nautical miles over a period of 13 hours, making it the longest combat mission ever flown in a B-25 during the war.

Of the 80 Raiders who launched that day, 8 were captured--3 of them were executed, 1 died of disease, and 4 of these prisoners survived and returned home after the war. Of the original 80, 4 are still with us today. They are residents of Montana, Texas, Tennessee, and Washington State.

There was a fifth, MAJ Tom Griffin of Cincinnati, OH. On the evening of February 26, just 1 week ago--the date I introduced this legislation--Major Griffin of Cincinnati passed away surrounded by family and friends. His family lost a loved one, our Nation lost a hero.

The remaining four Raiders will be commemorating the 71st anniversary of this raid this coming April in Fort Walton Beach, FL. Now is the time to award these survivors the Congressional Medal. Their valor, their skill, their courage proved invaluable to the morale of our country on that day more than 70 years ago and the eventual defeat of Japan in the Second World War. These men continue to remind us of the quiet determination and that uncommon valor in the face of sheer danger.

I humbly ask my colleagues to join us in this bill in honoring the Doolittle Raiders.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, since 2009, the last day of February has been observed as National Rare Disease Day to raise awareness of and provide support for Americans living with a rare disease or disorder.

By definition, each rare disease or disorder affects a small patient population, less than 200,000 people. However, the combined 7,000 individual rare diseases affect nearly 30 million Americans. Sadly, children with rare genetic diseases account for more than half of the rare disease population.

Many of these rare diseases are serious, even life-threatening: epidermolysis bullosa; progeria; muscular dystrophy; sickle cell anemia; Tay-Sachs; cystic fibrosis; many childhood cancers; and fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva.

Patients with rare diseases face unique challenges. Too many of these conditions lack effective treatments and cures. And too often people with rare diseases experience challenges in obtaining an accurate diagnosis. In addition, there is often difficulty finding physicians or treatment centers with the necessary expertise in rare diseases or disorders.

Great strides have been made in research and treatment as the result of the Orphan Drug Act, legislation passed in 1983 to encourage pharmaceutical companies to bring treatments for rare diseases to market.

This year, the Rare Disease Day Resolution also pays tribute to the 30th Anniversary of the Orphan Drug Act and calls for us to reflect upon the successes of that Act and the challenges to be addressed in the future to prevent, identify, combat, and treat rare diseases.

Rare Disease Day is also an important opportunity to honor lifesaving advances in science and research that continue to transform the diagnosis, treatment, and standard of care for many orphan diseases, thanks in no small part to the advocacy efforts of the National Institutes of Health, the medical community, patients and their

families, and rare disease organizations, especially the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

By designating February 28, 2013, as Rare Disease Day, I hope we create greater awareness of these conditions, encourage accurate and early diagnosis of rare diseases and disorders, and help demonstrate and support a national and global commitment to improve treatment options for individuals with rare diseases and disorders.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator

from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, be allowed to speak following my remarks.

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.

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