Floor Statements

Madam President, the first vote tomorrow will be at 12 noon on the resolution of ratification of the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Additional votes in relation to the Defense bill are expected.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the centennial of the Post, an independent, student-run newspaper at Ohio University in Athens, OH.

Finley Peter Dunne once noted that ``the newspaper . . . comforts the afflicted, and afflicts the comfortable.'' Newspapers also connect concerned citizens with their elected officials by providing a venue for valuable discussion on issues that affect our lives and communities. It is no secret that a free press is critical to strengthening and preserving our democracy.

For 100 years, students at Ohio University have celebrated their first amendment rights by creating a newspaper that informs residents, students, and business leaders in Athens County about vital news on campus, around Ohio, and throughout the world.

When students are encouraged to present structured, well-written views in writing, they are given the opportunity to develop life-long skills that will serve them as citizens--and leaders--of our enduring American institutions.

Ohio University has produced many first-class journalists, including thirteen Pulitzer Prize winners and reporters and columnists whose bylines and photographs appear in our Nation's leading newspapers. I regularly witness the fine reporting of several Post alumni, including Columbus Dispatch senior editor Joe Hallett and Washington correspondent Jessica Wehrman, among others.

As the tools and resources of journalism evolve, the Post continues to respond to a changing world. Whether students read the news on a handheld device or hold newsprint in their hands, Ohio University students can expect to hear from an independent voice on campus and in Athens.

Throughout the next century, the Post will undoubtedly continue to play a critical role in training student-journalists to shape and inform Ohio University. As we mark this milestone, it is my privilege to salute the students who work to keep this publication alive while fully participating in our first amendment freedoms. As the proud husband of a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist, Connie Schultz, I have immense respect for journalists and the role they play in the public sphere. Improving our democracy starts with papers like the Post, that are willing to cultivate America's next generation of journalists.

Mr. President, we recognize September as Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month.

This year, the American Cancer Society estimates that 22,000 women will develop ovarian cancer and more than 15,550 women will lose their battle with this deadly cancer.

In the last 40 years, the National Cancer Institute, NCI, academic medical centers, and researchers across the country have made remarkable strides in improving treatments and therapies for various cancers.

Today, there are 12 million Americans who are cancer survivors.

Despite this progress, effective treatments for some cancers-- including ovarian cancer--remain elusive.

This month, we support these women, their families, and the tireless efforts of health care providers and researchers across the country.

That is why I joined more than a dozen Senate colleagues as an original cosponsor of the National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month Resolution.

If detected earlier, an ovarian cancer patient has a 94 percent chance of surviving longer than 5 years.

However, only 20 percent of ovarian cancer is detected in its early stage, and when diagnosed in the advanced stage there is only a 30 percent chance of survival.

This makes ovarian cancer the deadliest of all gynecologic cancers.

The National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Resolution designates September as Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month and encourages the efforts of cancer advocates to increase public awareness.

It also supports the NCI and medical researchers work to develop a reliable early detection test.

I have long been an advocate of cancer patients and research.

During the health reform debate, I successfully worked to pass the Clinical Trials Amendment.

Because of the amendment's inclusion in the Affordable Care Act, ACA, health insurance companies can no longer use participation in a clinical trial as a reason to deny health insurance coverage for routine health care.

This provision of the ACA is especially important for diseases like ovarian cancer that desperately need advancements in effective therapies.

As we recognize the importance of advancing ovarian cancer research and commend the struggle ovarian cancer patients and survivors encounter, we must ensure that researchers get the necessary funding and patients receive access to comprehensive care and coverage.

I will continue to support the goals of Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month--not just in September--throughout the year.

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

Mr. President, today we remember September 11, 2001, 11 years ago, a Tuesday like today was, a beautiful day like today was, but a day of horror incited by a hateful ideology. We, of course, cannot afford to forget what happened, but let's remember what can happen when Americans come together.

On this national day of remembrance we honor those who lost their lives 11 years ago, the daughters and sons, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers from various walks of life and avenues of faith. We honor the families of the victims. We honor the survivors. We honor the courageous civil servants and first responders, most of them union members, who lost their lives and suffered illnesses because of their selflessness. We salute the servicemembers and their families who sacrificed so much since these tragic events.

More than a decade later we all remember where we were on that clear Tuesday morning. I remember feeling the fear and uncertainty when gathering my staff at a location near the Capitol. Regardless of where we were on that fateful day, whether speaking English with a Brooklyn accent or as a first generation American learning English as a second language or those of you from the Midwest who perhaps speak with a bit of a Midwestern accent--although Midwesterners do not have an accent-- we all came together. Regardless of where we worked--in a manufacturing plant in Cleveland or a farm near Lima--we came together. This is this spirit or solidarity we reaffirm today.

Today we must come together again and focus on moving forward as one nation in spite of our differences.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call.

This weekend, I believe it was Saturday, I was in Lordstown, OH, celebrating the 2-year anniversary of the first Chevy Cruze that came off the Lordstown GM Chevy plant line. I was there the day the first Cruze came out. The first three cars--painted red, white, and blue--represented the determination of workers and that company and the Nation to succeed to bounce back, despite national naysayers who were willing to stand idly by while our economy stalled.

We read it in newspapers, saw it on television, heard it on the radio how some elected officials not only wanted to turn their back on an industry that has provided middle-class wages, college educations, homes, and cars to millions of Americans, but a number of elected officials wanted to bet against the American automotive industry.

During the height of the economic crisis, when American manufacturing was sputtering--and the Presiding Officer knows the statistics because he paid attention in his State of Alaska, which is not so much a manufacturing State but a State that contributes a lot to manufacturing. The Presiding Officer knows what has happened in this country. From 2000 to 2010, we lost 5 million manufacturing jobs. That was one-third of all the manufacturing jobs in this country. Six thousand plants closed in the United States in that decade. Since 2010--and more on that in a moment--because of the auto rescue and because we have a Federal Government that is willing to enforce trade laws, we have seen a growth of 500,000 manufacturing jobs, the first time we have seen month-to-month manufacturing job growth for almost every month for 2-plus years. It is the first time since 1999 this country has actually seen any manufacturing job growth.

Some said: Let the industry go bankrupt. A Presidential candidate said--I believe his words to Detroit were along the lines of drop dead; that wasn't something we wanted to do, to do anything to help that industry. They were willing to let the auto industry go bankrupt and then see what happened.

Some of these naysayers thought it was OK to bail out Wall Street. They thought it was OK to pad the salaries of reckless bankers who drove our economy off the cliff. It wasn't the nonunion autoworker in Marysville who built the Honda, it wasn't the Chrysler autoworker in Toledo who built the Wrangler or the Liberty, it wasn't the Chevy autoworker in Lordstown who built the Cruze, it wasn't the autoworker in Defiance who built the engine or the glass worker in Crestline who made the glass for the Chevy Cruze or the aluminum worker in Cleveland or the steelworker in Middletown who caused the collapse of the economy and the problems with the banks. In many ways, they were blamed by the people who bet against America, who were willing to say it is OK to pad the salary of reckless bankers, even though they are the ones who drove the economy off the cliff.

They railed against rescuing autoworkers in places such as Holmesville, Waverly, Middletown, and Youngstown. The easy road--and it wasn't the easy road by a long shot--isn't always the right path, not when this many jobs are at stake, paying these kind of wages, strengthening this middle-class.

The Chevy Cruze represents what was at stake. Three days ago, when I was in Lordstown, we marked the day of the 2-year anniversary, how resilient we can be when we make decisions not based on politics but what is best for the country. Plain and simple, the auto rescue was the right choice.

Last year, the Cruze was elected the Car of the Year by the North American Dealer Association. Now it is the best-selling compact car in America. My

daughter drives one. My wife traded in her 6-year-old Pontiac Vibe and bought a Chevy Cruze. Just a few short years ago, 1,000 workers in Lordstown were laid off. Today, nearly 5,000 workers build one of the fastest selling small cars in the country.

For people such as Glenn Johnson, who is the local President in the Lordstown assembly plant, the politically unpopular decision to save the auto industry was about saving the livelihood for hard-working families in Ohio and in the Midwest. Two years later, we are moving forward. GM profits are up. GM has been profitable for 10 consecutive quarters. None of the naysayers thought it could possibly happen. None of the naysayers were willing to invest in GM and to find private capital. It only happened because taxpayers stepped forward because the government was willing to understand and recognize that this mattered for our country.

GM has announced plans to make a $200 million additional investment in Lordstown, where they have added a third shift to produce the Chevy Cruze. Chrysler has invested tens of millions of dollars in Toledo. Honda has invested tens of millions of dollars in a new model in Marysville. Ford has invested tens of millions of dollars in Cleveland. All three American auto companies and the major U.S. auto transplant Honda have all made major investments in Ohio since the auto rescue. The Cruze epitomizes how essential the auto industry is in Ohio.

The engine for the Cruze is made in Defiance, the transmission for the Cruze is made in Toledo, the brackets are made in Brunswick, the glass for the Wrangler is made in Crestline, the sound system for the Cruze is made in Springboro, the underneath steel for the Cruze comes from Middletown, the exposed steel comes from Cleveland, the seat frame comes from Lorain, the seats are made in Warren, and the aluminum for the Chevy Cruze Eco comes from Cleveland. The car is assembled by 5,000 workers in Lordstown, OH.

This success story goes far beyond one State. In my State alone, hundreds of thousands of jobs are associated with the auto industry. There are 120,000 Ohioans who are directly employed by automakers, dealers, and supply chain parts manufacturers. We know even with that success and even with the success of enforcing trade laws, which have turned into--as a result of enforcing trade rules, we have a new steel mill in Youngstown. More tires are made in Findlay and more aluminum is made in Heath and Sidney, OH. More steel is made in Lorain and Cleveland.

Because we have enforced trade rules, that doesn't mean we don't need to do more. The economy is still not what it should be. Our unemployment rate from 2 years ago went from over 10.5 percent to under 7.5 percent, but it is clearly still not enough because far too many workers in Ohio, Alaska and America and all over are underemployed or unemployed.

We are moving in the right direction. Since January of 2010, after a full decade of manufacturing job loss from 2000 to 2010, where 5 million manufacturing jobs were lost, we have gained 500,000 manufacturing jobs in those 2 years.

Supporting America means valuing workers. It is patriotic to support America's middle class. When it comes to protecting American workers and supporting American manufacturers and boasting America's middle class, we still have much to do. We have made major progress in the last years. We have much to do. We have no choice but to move forward.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration en bloc of the following resolutions which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 548, S. Res. 549, and S. Res. 550.

I ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the resolutions be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, September 12; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3457, the Veterans Jobs Corps Act, postcloture; that the first 70 minutes be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the latter half; further, that all time during adjournment, recess, and morning business be counted postcloture on the motion to proceed to S. 3457.

We will begin consideration of the Veterans Jobs Corps Act tomorrow. Senators will be notified when votes are scheduled.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Madam President, 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 20 minutes.

Madam President, I rise to discuss the troubling state of our financial system and the unfinished business of Wall Street reform. I am here to talk specifically about too-big-to-fail banks.

Decades of deregulation and laissez faire economic policies helped the six largest U.S. banks grow from 18 percent of gross domestic product only 25 years ago to 68 percent of gross domestic product in 2009. So it went from 18 percent in the mid-1990s to 68 percent of GDP in 2009.

We know what happened next. During the financial crisis, these six megabanks collected $1.2 trillion--just to understand that figure, if we can--$1.2 trillion is $1,200 billion and $1 billion is $1,000 million. The six megabanks collected $1.2 trillion in Federal taxpayer- funded support from the Treasury, from the FDIC, and from the Federal Reserve.

Two years after we passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act--and I supported it because it took many important steps--I am concerned we are not seeing reform, nearly sufficient enough reform, in the financial sector. As we uncover more and more risky, fraudulent, and illegal activities, it seems far too clear that the American people absolutely see this and believe Wall Street is back to business as usual.

Since 2010, we have learned about a number of things. I am just going to rattle off seven or eight significant, serious problems. Some are illegal, some are accusations, some are alleging significant systemic problems--all troubling issues that have happened just in the last couple years: Investor lawsuits and SEC enforcement actions over mortgage-backed securities; municipalities being sold overpriced credit derivatives, bankrupting some of those municipalities, and think of the hardship that causes these communities; the forging of foreclosure documents and mortgage securities legal documents by five of the Nation's largest servicers, leading to $25 billion in penalties--$25 billion in penalties--from these servicers forging foreclosure documents and mortgage security legal documents--$25 billion in penalties; the Nation's largest bank halting all consumer debt collection lawsuits due to concerns about poorly maintained and inaccurate paperwork; the Nation's largest bank losing $5.8 billion so far--so far--on large, complex derivative trades that regulators either missed or didn't understand or ignored; suspicions that 16 global banks, including the three largest U.S. banks, manipulated LIBOR--the London Interbank Overnight Rate--that is used as a benchmark for mortgages, credit cards, student loans, and even for derivatives-- financial instruments that affect almost everybody in our country.

Continuing with the list of problems since 2010: a criminal bid- rigging trial exposing illegal practices by many Wall Street banks in arranging bids so banks could underpay for municipal bonds; former employees of the Nation's largest bank alleging the company urged them to steer clients to their own mutual funds because they were more profitable to the bank, even though they paid investors lower returns than other funds, while their clients presumably were trusting them to act in their best interests; the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission investigating whether the biggest U.S. bank manipulated prices in the energy markets, forcing consumers to pay more; a $175 million settlement by the Nation's fourth largest bank for discriminatory lending practices in housing markets that include Cleveland and many other cities. One can walk through these neighborhoods and see what foreclosures have done to them, see what rigging, what other dysfunctional servicers' behavior or illegal activities have done to these communities and to these families.

Putting the numbers aside and the political speech aside, imagine for a moment that a parent of 12- and 13-year-old daughters has to sit down with them and say: Sorry, but dad lost his job a few months ago and now we are losing our home.

Where are we going to move, Mom?

I don't know.

What school am I going to go to?

I don't know yet. We have to figure that out.

Imagine the personal hurt and hardship caused by a lot of these things to

a whole lot of families in Cleveland and Mansfield and Cincinnati and Dayton.

More problems since 2010: Regulators are investigating whether the rate that establishes municipal bond prices is susceptible to manipulation.

These are just 11 examples, all of them huge separately and in the aggregate devastating, potentially--certainly devastating to many individuals and potentially devastating in a huge way to our economy as a whole. The list goes on and on and on.

Some experts say we can't--when we talk about potentially forcing these banks to divest themselves because of their size, some experts say our banks need to compete. They say: No, our banks need to compete with the banks in other countries. But then does anyone truly believe-- do any of these bankers on Wall Street or bankers in my State who have acted, frankly, more responsibly--the community banks and the credit unions and the regional banks--does anybody truly believe we should follow the European model where never-ending bank bailouts have become the norm?

We know the world's largest bank, HSBC, at $2.55 trillion, helped launder money from Mexican drug traffickers and Middle Eastern terrorists. As we know by now--all over the newspapers--the eighth largest bank in the world, the $2.4 trillion Barclays--the city where the Olympics are being held--was the first bank caught manipulating the LIBOR rate, not exactly models we should emulate.

Financial reform is supposed to reduce industry concentration. It is supposed to end too big to fail. But the financial sector is even more concentrated now than it was before the financial crisis.

My colleagues will remember what I said at the outset. In 1995, 18 percent of GDP was the assets of these banks. The six largest banks had 18 percent of GDP in 1995. By 2009, it was 68 percent, and it is even worse today--the top 10 banks' assets, 6 percent in 2006, now 77 percent at the end of 2010 and growing, presumably, as a result of mergers during the financial crisis. Three of the four largest megabanks have grown by an average of more than $500 billion--grown by an average of more than $500 billion. They are in the vicinity of $800 billion and $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion in assets.

The six biggest U.S. banks have combined assets that are twice as large as the rest of the top 50 U.S. banks put together. Think about that. The six largest U.S. banks, their assets total this; and the next largest 50 U.S. banks--big banks, to be sure; hundreds of billions in assets--total even less than the six largest.

According to Robert Wilmers, the CEO of M&T Bank, the six biggest banks in the United States account for 35 percent of all U.S. deposits, 53 percent of U.S. banking assets, 56 percent of all mortgages, and 93 percent--93 percent--of trading revenues.

This is just six banks that wheel such immense power in our economy. The message to the markets is clear: These trillion-dollar megabanks are too big to manage, they are too big to regulate, and they continue to be too big to fail. We still have work to do.

For all of its benefits--including a new consumer protection agency and oversight of derivatives--the Dodd-Frank legislation relies upon regulators to get it right this time.

But given their track record--sometimes being too close to the people they regulate, so-called regulatory capture; sometimes there just are not enough of them; other times they may not have the expertise to be able to chase around some of the smartest, best educated, most experienced banking executives who know how to game the system. Also, as I said, as to these regulators, we simply do not have enough of them.

That is why I am skeptical. That is why we need to go beyond the central provisions of Dodd-Frank that increase capital, that establish living wills, that establish a process for orderly liquidations. Those are all good things. But, clearly--I just mentioned these 10 or 11 or 12 problems; those are just the biggest ones--clearly, those are not enough.

Members of Congress in both political parties agree that banks need to have much more capital to cover their losses--much more of a financial capital cushion. We agree institutions should issue more stock, should restrict dividends, should retain their earnings to build bigger buffers. But while countries such as Switzerland are considering 19 percent capital requirements--a ratio of about 5 to 1--U.S. regulators are staying within the Basel III international capital standards, which FDIC Director Tom Hoenig has said simply will not prevent another financial crisis.

There is also a living will process that is intended to make it easier to resolve large, complex institutions. We talked a lot about that in Dodd-Frank.

Institutions are supposed to tell regulators how they can be dismantled to protect the financial system as a whole and to protect Middle America when they get into financial trouble. But the proof will be in the results.

So far regulators have yet to begin a process of simplifying the six largest banks that have a combined 14,420 subsidiaries. Six banks have 14,420 subsidiaries.

I mention that number because, Madam President, as you think about every look at these six banks, every quantifying number I try to give, every observation of these six banks, every delineation of what these six banks do and what they are, this speaks of these huge, these behemoth banks that are too big to fail--these six banks. They are too big to regulate, and they are too big to manage.

There is title II Orderly Liquidation Authority. I have heard my colleagues, including the ranking member on my subcommittee, Senator Corker from Tennessee, who coauthored title II, note that the FDIC and Treasury could keep failing banks on life support rather than liquidate them. Is that what we want when we think of too big to fail, too big to manage, too big to regulate?

I have talked to regulators who have privately told me and told Graham Steele of my staff that they believe our banks are still too big to be allowed to fail because the collapse of banks that size could potentially crush the economy.

We remember the fear in the voices of some of the top people in the Bush administration when they talked to us in the fall of 2008 about what was happening to our financial system. I do not think we have answered those fears nearly well enough.

This is not capitalism the way it should be. It is not right. Some of my colleagues think the answer to too big to fail requires repeal of Dodd-Frank--this is about as silly as it gets--and a return to the same unfettered free market approach that Alan Greenspan championed for decades and that led us into this mess--except Alan Greenspan does not even think we should have that again, even though he was the No. 1 cheerleader, he and the Wall Street Journal editorial board, for an unfettered, unregulated Wall Street. He is, to his credit--and I do not give him credit for much in most of the last 10 years--but, to his credit, he has acknowledged that, yes, indeed, he was wrong; that this unfettered, unregulated Wall Street capitalism simply did not work for our country. He acknowledges doing that again would be a recipe for financial crises and bailouts as far as the eye could see.

Instead, we must face the reality that too big to fail is simply too big, and we must enact the SAFE Banking Act because too big to fail and too big to manage and too big to regulate has become the norm, especially among these large six behemoth institutions.

The SAFE Banking Act, my legislation, would place reasonable limits on the share of deposits and the volatile nondeposit liabilities that any one institution could take on. It would require the largest financial companies to fund themselves with more of their own shareholders' equity and less leverage. It would put an end to the government's implicit and explicit support for megabanks--specifically, the six largest Wall Street institutions that, as I spelled out earlier, are in a class by themselves.

Remember those numbers. The six largest banks: 35 percent of all deposits, 53 percent of all U.S. banking assets, 56 percent of all mortgages, 93 percent of trading revenues. Those six institutions have that kind of power in the economic marketplace in large part because of actions here.

Regulators and banking leaders are increasingly voicing support for this bill.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker recently said the J.P.Morgan episode might be an illustration that these banks are too big to manage.

Former FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair says shareholders and regulators could force banks to break up, but this legislation would be the most direct way to do it.

Richard Fisher, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and James Bullard, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, agree that more needs to be done to address the problem of too-big-to- fail banks.

Last week, the architect of the too-big-to-fail banking model, former Citigroup CEO Sandy Weill, said the biggest banks should be broken up.

Increasingly, this is not a partisan issue. The ranking member of the Banking Committee, Republican Senator Shelby from Alabama, supported the SAFE Banking Act when it was a floor amendment, when it was the Brown-Kaufman floor amendment.

I have heard from more and more of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that they might have voted against it a couple years ago as a floor amendment, but things have gotten worse. The idea is sounding better and better to them.

This legislation would protect taxpayers by putting megabank shareholders on the hook for losses and ending bailouts for good.

At a time of increasing fiscal restraint, our Nation can ill-afford to waste precious taxpayer dollars bailing out our largest banks in their recklessness.

My legislation would benefit the community banks that are at an unfair competitive disadvantage because megabanks have access to cheaper funding based upon the perception that the government stands behind them.

Studies estimate this support gives megabanks a 70 to 80 basis point funding advantage. Madam President, 70 to 80 basis points means three- fourths, four-fifths of a percent on interest advantage, if you will--a subsidy encouraged, provided, for that matter, by the expectation of taxpayer support of up to $60 billion per year.

So if you are one of the six big banks, you can borrow money in capital markets at a lower cost than if you are a community bank in Carey, OH, or a community bank in Sandusky or a mid-sized bank in Columbus or Akron, OH, because the market knows we will not let those six biggest banks fail. So their lending is a little less expensive because there is a lot less risk.

My legislation will benefit investors, as many experts agree that the sum of the parts of the largest megabanks is more valuable than the banks as a whole. So under our legislation, when they begin--these six megabanks, with assets from $800 billion to $2.2 trillion--when they begin to divest themselves, there is a reasonably good chance they will be worth more in the aggregate than they were in the whole.

It will benefit Main Street families and businesses because increased competition will result in better prices, and fraudsters will be punished with the full force of the law. Just about the only people who will not benefit from my plan are a few Wall Street executives who, frankly, have done just fine in the last 10 years.

We simply cannot wait any longer for regulators to act. Wall Street has been allowed to run wild for years. Their watchdogs are either not up to the job or, in some cases, complicit in their activities.

How many more scandals will it take before we acknowledge that we cannot rely on regulators to prevent subprime lending, dangerous derivatives, risky proprietary trading, and even fraud and manipulation?

Even if the regulators wanted to do the job--and I think they do--it would require 70,000 examiners to examine a trillion-dollar bank with the same level of scrutiny as a community bank.

The regulation of the community banks is plenty, but when its comes to the six largest banks, we are not even close. Again, they are too big to fail, they are too big to manage--look at what has happened, those examples I gave--and they are too big to regulate.

We cannot rely on the market to fix itself. The six largest Wall Street megabanks are essentially an oligopoly and a cartel, making true competition impossible.

Megabanks' shareholders and creditors have no incentive to end too big to fail because they get paid out when banks are bailed out. They get paid out when banks are bailed out. And banking laws prevent meaningful management shakeups because any hostile takeover effort would require Federal Reserve approval.

That is why it is time for Congress to act in the interests of the American public. It is time to restore the public's confidence in our financial markets. It is not there now, to be sure. It is time to put an end to Wall Street welfare and government subsidies. We have seen far too much of that. It is time to enact the SAFE Banking Act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today because servicemembers who risk their lives protecting our Nation should not have to ever worry about predatory banking practices. They should not have to worry about whether they can vote absentee while serving abroad. While they are fighting our Nation's foes, they should not have to worry about fighting a foreclosure. When they are serving our country, they should not have to worry if their civilian job, if they are Guard or Reserve, will be available when they return.

Unfortunately, too many do worry about that. Last week I joined the Attorney General of the United States at Wright Patterson Air Force base near Dayton, OH, and spoke with men and women who serve our country, air men and air women. Also around that time I spoke to some Guard and Reserve, members of the Guard and Reserve who serve our country, about some of these fraudulent practices. When they are overseas, some of them do not know when they return if they are going to still have their job. They don't know what happens to them when they go back to school if they are enrolled in a university, private or public, 2-year or 4-year. They don't know what happens sometimes with their families in foreclosure or facing financial fraud.

We know that employment is critical for servicemembers and military families. So is housing. So is protecting their ability to cast a ballot. That is why I am sponsoring legislation, the Servicemembers' Protection Act, which is so vital to those men and women in uniform. It would make critical changes to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act that could improve the quality of life for members of the Armed Forces.

My bill first would strengthen housing and lending rights for servicemembers. Right now, a bank cannot foreclose upon servicemembers while they are serving overseas until it gets a court order. Yet the bank has no real obligation to actually investigate whether a homeowner is on active duty overseas. My bill would require lenders who want to foreclose on a home to conduct a meaningful investigation into a borrower's military status. It would increase civil penalties for violating a servicemember's rights as a homeowner.

The bill also would strengthen enforcement for the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, to make sure servicemembers' votes are counted. It would create a nationwide standard for getting absentee ballots to overseas servicemembers in a timely fashion.

Finally, it would make sure servicemembers can return to their jobs after they have completed their military service with the seniority and pay rate they would have earned if they remained continuously employed by the civilian employer.

We know the Guard and Reserve who are called up leave their civilian jobs and too often come home to the uncertainty of, What happens when I arrive home? Members of the Guard should not have to worry about whether they will return home to the same job and the correct pay rate.

As citizens of a grateful Nation, we have a responsibility to do something--more than something to protect servicemembers' rights as they sacrifice to keep our country safe. That is why I urge my colleagues to stand up for our servicemembers. It is time we serve those who served us.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kareem Yakub and Ghazan Jamal, members of my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. President, in cities and towns across the Nation, workers have the proud tradition of manufacturing products that are made here at home.

Manufacturing helped us become an economic superpower and build a strong, vibrant middle class.

Ohio manufacturers and workers are some of the most industrious, innovative, and competitive in the Nation.

Our companies and the hard-working people who fill our factories can compete with anyone in the world.

But this competition is getting tougher as our Nation is facing ongoing and unfair competition from countries like China.

It does not help when U.S. companies and organizations either outsource jobs, production, and purchases overseas.

As has been reported in the news recently, the U.S. Olympic Committee's use of Chinese-made apparel was a missed opportunity to use domestic apparel manufacturers.

The public outrage about this decision created was predictable.

It is unconscionable that the U.S. Olympic Committee would hand over the production of uniforms worn by our proud athletes to a county that flouts international trade laws, manipulates its currency, and cheats on trade.

It makes no sense that an American organization would place a Chinese-made beret on the heads of our finest athletes when we have the capacity to make high-end apparel here.

I am encouraged that, after speaking with the chief executive and chair of the U.S. Olympic Committee, uniforms designed by Ralph Lauren for the 2014 Olympic Games will be made in the United States.

I also applaud USOC's decision to further ensure, as a matter of policy, that they are going to make Buying American a priority.

But this incident reminds us of the consequences of passing a trade deal without real accountability and enforcement.

Congress passed a trade deal with China more than 10 years ago, which has contributed to the loss of more than 5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2010.

While some lawmakers and economists have written off our manufacturing sector including textile and apparel production they need to think again.

According to the National Council of Textile Organizations, the United States is the third largest exporter of textile products in the world.

The textile sector put more than 500,000 people to work at plants in large cities and mills in rural towns.

Do some lawmakers and economists really think we should turn our backs these working Americans?

No. It is not right that U.S. workers get overlooked when it comes to showcasing that American apparel workers in Ohio towns like Brooklyn and Aracanum can make things.

We've seen this time and time again: whether it is Olympic uniforms or U.S. flags, products all too often are not made here.

We can and we must stop this disturbing trend.

That is why I am introducing the Wear American Act to make certain that the Federal Government purchases apparel that is 100 percent American-made.

That means all textiles and apparel purchased with U.S. tax dollars will be invested in U.S. businesses and communities not China.

The textile industry has been a staple of our Nation's economy since its founding and it will be important in the future.

The United States is the world leader in textile research and development.

American companies and universities are developing new textile materials such as conductive fabric with antistatic properties and high-tech textiles that monitor movement and heart rates.

When consumers in the United States and around the world demand our products, we deliver.

The United States textile industry is the third leading exporter of products worldwide. In fact, recently total textile and apparel exports reached a record $22.4 billion.

This legislation makes sense plain and clear. Why shouldn't our national policies support American companies and workers?

We should be in the business of creating policies that reward hard working Americans who work hard every day rather than supporting a Tax Code and trade policies that help big companies send U.S. jobs overseas.

Right now, the stakes couldn't be higher.

That is why the Wear American Act and supporting American workers is so important.

Mr. President, over the last few years, our country has grappled with rising health care costs.

While we are making strides, there is one area of health care that is lagging behind: pediatric research.

Children comprise 20 percept of the U.S. population, but only about 5 percent of the National Institutes of Health, NIH, extramural research is dedicated to pediatric research.

If this rate of investment is not expanded, discoveries of new treatments and therapies for some of the most devastating childhood diseases and conditions will be hindered, and the next generation of researchers will be discouraged from entering into the field of pediatrics.

That is why I have introduced the National Pediatric Research Network Act. This act seeks to reverse this trend by strengthening and expanding NIH's investments into pediatric research.

This expanded investment will help accelerate new discoveries and directly affect the health and well-being of children throughout our Nation.

My home State of Ohio is home to world-class researchers at topnotch research hospitals and universities.

We must give these institutions, including Cincinnati Children's, Rainbow Babies, Children's Hospital, and Nationwide Children's Hospitals, the resources to partner with other leading researchers across the country.

This legislation creates such an opportunity.

The centerpiece of the legislation will be the authorization of up to 20 National Pediatric Research Consortia.

They are modeled after the exemplary National Cancer Institute, NCI, Centers to help finance efficient and effective, inter-institutional pediatric research.

While NIH is working to advance translational research through Clinical & Translational Science Awards, those centers are far-reaching and focused primarily on adult diseases and clinical research. In contrast, these pediatric centers would be solely dedicated toward pediatric research.

Unlike existing NIH initiatives in which only the largest research institutions receive funds, the legislation envisions that each center will operate in a ``hub and spoke'' framework with one central academic center coordinating research and/or clinical work at numerous auxiliary sites. Encouraging collaboration can help ensure efficiency.

Furthermore, this legislation will encourage research in pediatric rare diseases.

While each rare disease or disorder affects a small patient population, it is important to note that 7,000 rare diseases--such as epidermolysis bullosa, sickle cell anemia, spinal muscular atrophy, Down syndrome, Duchene's muscular dystrophy, and many childhood cancers--affect a combined 30 million Americans and their families.

What is even more devastating is the fact that children with rare genetic diseases account for more than half of the rare disease population in the United States.

As anyone with a rare disease or disorder knows, these patient populations face unique challenges.

It is my hope the National Pediatric Research Network Act will increase our understanding of pediatric diseases, improve treatment and therapies, and create better health care outcomes for our nation's children.

I thank Senators Wicker, Whitehouse, Kerry, Blumenthal, and Begich for joining me as original cosponsors.