Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of Jesse Owens, an Olympic recordbreaker and pioneer on the track and off the track, who was born 100 years ago tomorrow. Born in Alabama as the youngest of 10 children, James Cleveland Owens moved with his family to Cleveland, OH, at the age of 9. Leaving the South during the great migration of those several decades between 1910 and 1970, Jesse's family came north seeking economic opportunity and greater personal freedom. His father left his work as a sharecropper in the South--something difficult to do because so often the landowner held those sharecroppers by holding real or imagined debt over their heads--and found a job in the steel industry in Cleveland, OH. James Cleveland Owens enrolled in Bolton Elementary School on the east side of Cleveland. Because of his strong southern accent, when the teacher asked his name and he said J.C., the teacher misheard it and started calling him Jesse--a name that stuck. While in junior high, he met Charles Riley, who taught physical education and coached the track team. Charles Riley nurtured Jesse's obvious talent, helping him to grow stronger athletically and to set long-term goals that served him well as he went on to Cleveland East Technical School. In 1927, my hometown of Mansfield, OH started hosting the storied Mansfield Relays--maybe the biggest in the country--a sporting event that drew athletes from six States and Canada. I remember in the 1960s my family hosting many of the athletes who came to our town to compete. Obviously prior to my parents doing that, among these many promising athletes none shone brighter than the sprinter from an hour up north. At the Mansfield Relays, Jesse Owens sharpened his focus and won the 1932 and 1933 relays for East Tech, setting records that lasted into my childhood in the 1960s and 1970s. He later went on to attend the Ohio State University, where he was known as the Buckeye Bullet, winning a record eight individual NCAA championships. The story goes that at the Big 10 track meet 1 year in Ann Arbor, MI, while competing in a 45-minute period, Jesse Owens set 3 world records. We are used to seeing college athletes who are revered today. But in his day, Owens could not live on campus due to a lack of housing for Black students, and he could not stay at the same hotels when his track team traveled or eat at the same restaurants as the White players on the team who traveled with him. But he achieved global fame and heroism status because of what he did in the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. While a hateful regime in Germany hoped to use the Olympics to promote the Aryan race and promulgate a wrongheaded, dangerous, and inherently racist belief in the superiority of that race, Jesse Owens turned this theory on its head. He won four gold medals in Berlin, and he set world records in three events while tying for a world record in a fourth event. He showed that talent and sportsmanship transcend race, and he embarrassed an evil dictator who hoped to manipulate the Olympic Games to further his political agenda. Interestingly, Adolph Hitler refused to shake hands with Jesse Owens when he won one of those events. The International Olympic Committee told the German Government that Hitler must either shake hands with all the winners or none of the winners. The story goes that Hitler refused to come back and observe the Olympics--again, a testament to the heroism, courage, and discipline of James Cleveland ``Jesse'' Owens. Despite these achievements--and the Rose Garden and Oval Office greetings that today's Olympians are accustomed to--Jesse Owens never received congratulations or recognition by President Roosevelt or President Truman. It was only during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, beginning to be a different time in race relations in this country, that a President of the United States actually recognized Jesse Owens' achievements. He was, by most measures, the best athlete in the world, but he returned to the United States of America a Black man in the 1930s to face economic challenges and racial discrimination that are far too familiar to far too many Americans. But he continued to travel and inspire athletes and fans across the globe. I had the honor of meeting Jesse Owens when he was the speaker at my brother Bob's high school graduation in 1965, when I was 12 years old. Jesse Owens worked alongside the State Department to promote good will in Asia, and worked in 1950 to promote democracy abroad as part of a Cold War effort. Think about that. A Black man who is the best athlete in the world, was a hero to large numbers of Americans--Black and White--in 1936, standing up in many ways against the Fascist machine of Adolph Hitler, not being recognized by a President of the United States who was winning a war against Hitler ultimately. Yet he went out 5 years later after that war to promote democracy abroad as part of a Cold War effort, still proud of his country, still knowing our country had work to do. In 1973 he was appointed to the board of directors of the U.S. Olympic Committee, where he worked to ensure the best training and conditions for U.S. athletes. He lent his skill and his talents to various charitable groups, notably the Boys Club of America. In 1976 Jesse Owens finally received the Presidential recognition he deserved. He was presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Ford. Jesse Owens was a pioneer. Despite facing adversity, he had the strength of mind and the discipline, common to almost all great athletes, to become the most elite of athletes. Despite being treated differently and shamefully from other athletes of his stature, he went on to shatter records. Despite the darkest of days globally, he did his part, standing up to fascism, dispelling racism, and promoting unity. Tomorrow we celebrate the 100th birthday of a hero to all Americans, James Cleveland ``Jesse'' Owens. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 15 minutes. After I conclude my remarks, I ask that Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma and Senator Casey of Pennsylvania be recognized.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, most of us were in our States over Labor Day. I usually come to the floor a few days after Labor Day to talk about the importance of Labor Day and what it means to working Americans, what it has meant to our country, and what it has meant to building a strong middle class. I would like to read a letter sent to me by Bill Ross, who is an Ohio business leader. Mr. Ross writes: I grew up in a first generation immigrant family in a small Ohio town. My father, who obtained only an 8th grade education (not uncommon for his generation), worked hard in an industrial job. My mother worked at home to care for our family of 5 children. When able to do so, she went to work outside the household too. We rented a home for $25 a month, ate nutritious meals at home, and all walked to school with clean clothes each day. All five children went to college, obtained post-graduate professional degrees, and pursued rewarding professional careers in law, education and business. How did that happen? Because, first and foremost, my father had a job with a living wage and health care for his family that his union protected. Because we had access to good quality public education. Because we had access to affordable state universities and student loan programs that we could later afford to repay. Because blue collar working people had a chance. I hope we can restore all that in America again. Bill Ross's story is very much like my wife Connie's story. Bill Ross was born in Ashtabula a bit before my wife who was also born there. Bill Ross's dad carried a union card and his mother went to work when she could. My wife's father carried a utility worker's union card for more than 30 years in Ashtabula, OH. Her mother was a home care worker who worked, when she could, after the children were a little older. My wife, as did Bill Ross, was able to go to school with minimal debt. She graduated from Kent State University in the 1970s with not much more than $1,200 in student debt. The ability of a living wage and carrying a union card gave them a reason to celebrate Labor Day because it gave so many working families a chance. The Presiding Officer comes from a State much like mine. He understands the importance of carrying a union card and getting a living wage gives people the kind of opportunity that people in this country deserve. For generations hard-working Americans left their homes every morning, and some at night, to earn an honest living. They bent with swollen knees to put on steel-toed work boots to provide for loved ones. They put up with calloused hands to build a better life for their children. Middle-class Americans and people struggling to enter the middle class labored to ensure that children have enough food and clean clothes and an adequate education to thrive. We know steelworkers, nurses, mechanics, teachers, and plumbers are not always treated with the dignity they deserve--especially, far too often, from our elected officials. American history is a history of struggle for working people-- fighting for representation and fair wages, for access to good-paying jobs, and for the dignity every human being deserves. It is about fighting for democracy and civil rights--as we were reminded a few days ago when we marked the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for jobs and freedom. More than a century ago, when John Patterson Green, an Ohioan, and Cedarville native John Henderson Kyle introduced a bill to establish Labor Day as a State holiday in Ohio, they were not thinking of any one segment of the population. They were focused on the rights of all Americans who work hard and play by the rules. Since then, we have seen how the middle class grew when we ensured that hard work is rewarded with fair pay and decent benefits. Seventy-five years ago, President Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which ultimately ensured that American workers would receive a minimum wage, reasonable work hours, and an end to child labor. One of the authors of that bill, Senator Hugo Black, sat at this specific desk in the Senate and supported Social Security, minimum wage, and paying for overtime. He initially introduced that legislation in 1932. President Roosevelt led us to decades of prosperity by ensuring that hard work is met with fair wages and decent working conditions. A minimum wage helped to lift millions of Americans from poverty and allowed them to join the middle class. Today workers face new challenges. While corporate executives and Wall Street banks are earning record profits, too many families in Ohio, Indiana, Oklahoma, and across the country are still struggling. Some politicians have used the recession and the budget crisis it created as grounds for attacking worker's rights. We have seen vicious attacks on workers' rights across the country. We have seen it in North Carolina. We saw it last year in Indiana and Michigan. We have seen it over the last 3 years in Ohio. Ohio passed one of the worst attacks on collective bargaining rights in Ohio's history, trying to convince people that public employees caused the financial crisis, not Wall Street. Workers fought back and shattered a record for signatures needed to establish a ballot initiative and energized 2 million voters who came out to overturn that wrong-headed law. Today, because the unity of not just labor union members but the huge majority of voters in Ohio, police officers, firefighters, sanitation workers, teachers, and other public sector workers continue to have the right to bargain and work with management through collective bargaining to ensure safety and fairness on the job. In Akron, OH, UAW workers at Meggitt do high-quality and efficient work which allows them to be competitive with workers in Mexico and has prevented operations from being outsourced and helped to attract new investment in Ohio. In Toledo, Youngstown, Cleveland, and beyond, union autoworkers helped bring back the American auto industry. They are building the cars of the future that people want to drive. I met with business owners across Ohio over this August and the month before and the month before and the month before that--during my 7 years in the Senate--Ohio business owners who want to pay their workers a fair wage and have joined in efforts to raise the minimum wage. They know increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will increase domestic production by nearly $33 billion over 3 years as workers spend their raises in their local businesses and communities. This economic activity would generate 140,000 new jobs over the course of 3 years. It is no surprise that the American public is anxious about our place in an increasingly multipolar, complicated, dynamic global economy. People know that after NAFTA and CAFTA and permanent China trade relations were passed, plants closed and we lost 5 million good manufacturing jobs. Never in history has company after company implemented a business plan where they close down production in Stuebenville or Toledo or Dayton, OH, to move overseas to Wuhan or Shanghai, China, and sell the products back to the United States. That business plan led us to this. In 1977 manufacturing was 20 percent of our GDP and financial services represented significantly less. That flipped by 2010, where manufacturing is now only about 11 percent of GDP. Between 2000 and 2010, because of wrongheaded trade agreements, because of tax policy that has given incentives to move offshore, our country lost 5 million manufacturing jobs and 60,000 plants closed down. Since 2010 we have seen manufacturing jobs grow by more than 500,000. That is not good enough. We have to enact an agenda that includes the best trained workers, the most developed and sophisticated infrastructure, the most robust manufacturing base, and the strongest defense against currency manipulation. Until every American worker is able to rise out of poverty, we still have work to do. Labor Day, celebrated last week, shouldn't simply mark the end of summer; it should mark the beginning of a renewed commitment to fighting for American workers, American businesses, and strengthening our middle class. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, most of my colleagues might look at these pictures and think they depict facilities owned by ExxonMobil or BP, but this is, amazingly enough, a picture of Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley, to most Americans and most people in this Chamber, if they know of it, is a bank. Morgan Stanley used to be an investment bank and now it is just considered a bank. Let me explain. Morgan Stanley owns a company called TransMontaigne, a petroleum and chemical transportation and storage company, and Heidmar Inc., which reportedly manages more than 100 oil tankers--tankers that look like this. Today I held a banking subcommittee hearing, which the Presiding Officer attended, as did Senator Merkley and Senator Toomey, to examine how the line between banks and commercial enterprises is blurring. Increasingly, these large institutions combine banks and trading firms and energy suppliers and oil refiners and warehouses, as well as shipping firms and oil tankers and mining companies. Federally insured bank holding companies, once in the business of providing checking and savings accounts to workers or loans to small businesses, are now also in the business of owning physical commodities, including aluminum, oil, and electricity. Witnesses testified at the subcommittee hearing that these risky Wall Street practices are artificially inflating prices for manufacturers and consumers. Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs take their cut when we fill up our tanks, take their cut when we buy a Coke or buy a beer in an aluminum can. They take their cut increasingly in the copper market, a metal that is in all kinds of industrial products. A recent article in the New York Times said: The maneuvering in markets for oil, wheat, cotton, coffee and more have brought billions in profits to investment banks like Goldman, JPMorgan Chase Morgan Stanley, while forcing customers to pay more every time they fill up a gas tank, flick on a light switch, open a beer or buy a cell phone. For years, our Nation separated banking from traditional commerce. But about 13, 14 years ago, after years of eroding that protection, Congress finally tore down what was left of that wall. Beyond just combining commercial banking with insurance and investment banking, banks are now allowed to trade in commodities and to engage in a variety of nonfinancial activities. Four years later, after that 1999 repeal, the Federal Reserve enabled the first financial holding company to trade in physical commodities. The justification for this is a familiar one: Other companies were doing it, they told us, and banks were at a competitive disadvantage. Over the next 6 years, the rules unraveled, becoming looser and looser, until the loopholes were big enough for these six megabanks--now $600 billion in assets, up to $2.3 trillion in assets--the loopholes are big enough for these six megabanks to jump through. The expansion of our financial system in traditional areas of commerce--from crude oil to natural gas to mining and shipping--hasn't happened in a vacuum. It has been accompanied by a host of anticompetitive activities. These activities threaten consumers. They threaten American businesses that rely upon efficient markets and arm's-length transactions. They especially threaten American manufacturing when they buy and sell and manage and transport and store metals. From speculation in the oil and gas markets to inflated prices for aluminum to energy manipulation--we know the role of banks has expanded. Banks have expanded far beyond their traditional roles. There has been little public awareness of or debate about the massive expansion of our largest financial institutions into new areas of the economy. That is, in part, because regulators have been less than transparent about basic facts. We can't get the information from the Federal Reserve. Whether a person is a citizen or a reporter or a Senator sitting on the Banking Committee, we can't get from the Federal Reserve the information we need to know about the governance and these rules about commodity trading by the banks. It is also because these institutions are so complex and so dense and so opaque and so impossible for people to understand that we simply can't figure out what we need to figure out. The six largest U.S. bank holding companies have 14,000 subsidiaries. The six largest U.S. bank holding companies have 14,000 subsidiaries. Fewer than 20 of those 14,000 are the end of our traditional banks. There are three important issues here that concern me--that Morgan Stanley can own refineries and can own the ships. Three important issues concern me, whether it is Morgan Stanley, whether it is Goldman Sachs, or whether it is JPMorgan Chase, for aluminum, copper, electricity, or oil. The lessons of this hearing were three. No. 1, these institutions can control physical goods and financial contracts based upon those goods, meaning they know more about the trading of these goods because they store the aluminum in two dozen warehouses in Detroit or because they are moving the oil in these tankers. They know more about transactions, they know more about price, they know more about movement of goods, so that means they can trade on inside information and it gives them an advantage in proprietary trading. It means they can manipulate markets. No. 2, these institutions--these banks that own the oil tankers and own the refineries--have access to cheap funding--cheaper funding from the Federal Reserve--that means us, as taxpayers--that they can use to finance their commodities activities. I will say that again. Because they can go to the window, they can get cheaper financing. These banks can get cheaper financing. They say there is a wall between their traditional bank activities and what they are doing while owning these commodities and buying and selling and transporting and storing and gaming the markets, but they can get money cheaper from taxpayers. They can borrow money at a less expensive rate than anybody else, they and their competitors who also might own oil tankers or refineries. No. 3, they are exposing themselves and us--the economy--to risks that can threaten our financial system. Just imagine the economic, the environmental, and the reputational impact to a megabank of an Exxon Valdez or a BP oilspill. Think of the economic impact that could have on the stability of the bank and the success of the bank and, therefore, the stability of the whole financial system. Today was the first of what I expect to be several hearings on this issue. Taxpayers have a right to know what is happening. American citizens have a say in our financial system because taxpayers are the ones who will be asked to rescue these megabanks yet again if the unthinkable--which almost inevitably happens in this world over time-- if the unthinkable happens.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, in 1935 Senator Robert Wagner of New York introduced the National Labor Relations Act. Also known as the Wagner Act, this bill would prove to be one of the most important pieces of legislation in our Nation's history. This desk at which I sit was used by Senator Hugo Black of Alabama, who was Franklin Roosevelt's favorite southern Senator, they said, who later became a member of the Supreme Court. Senator Black sat at this desk and helped draft legislation with the National Labor Relations Act. In fact, he did some of the early work on what would be the Fair Labor Standards Act. What he proposed as a 30-hour workweek later helped Senator Wagner pave the way for the Fair Labor Standards Act. Before President Roosevelt signed the National Labor Relations Act into law, American workers were routinely harassed and fired for organizing unions. American workers were often intimidated and prevented from bargaining collectively. The Wagner Act changed that. One year after its passage in 1936, this law gave rubber workers in Akron, OH, the legal tools needed to protect against poor working conditions and to protest the conditions under which they were working. The bill authorized an independent Federal agency consisting of Presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate. The National Labor Relations Board protects American workers. It protects union members and private sector employees without a union card--both--to work together to improve their wages or working conditions. Today, the NLRB is needed perhaps more than ever. Let me tell you a story real quickly, Madam President. A few years ago I was in Cincinnati at a dinner, and sitting at the table in front of me were six or seven middle-aged women--half White, half minority, perhaps. They had just signed their first union contract with the Service Employees International Union. These five or six women were the negotiators on behalf of 1,200 janitors negotiating with the downtown Cincinnati business owners. There was an empty seat at the table, so I went and sat down. I said: What does having this union mean to you? They had just signed the contract that day. One woman said: I am 51 years old. This is the first time in my life I have ever had a paid 1-week vacation. Think about the number of Americans who do not have a paid 1-week vacation. For people in jobs that dress like me, for the pages sitting here, most of their parents, I imagine, are used to working in a place where they get a 1- or 2- or 3-week paid vacation. Much of America does not. That is just one of the things a union has brought to this country--giving people those opportunities. The reason I say the NLRB is needed perhaps now more than ever is that in 2013 State legislatures are curbing collective bargaining rights. Two years ago in Ohio, the State legislature and Governor Kasich took away collective bargaining rights for all intents and purposes for public-employee workers. The voters of Ohio said no to that, and 61 percent of them struck that law down in a referendum. But nonetheless the antiunion efforts from the most pro-corporate, conservative, far-right State legislators in State legislatures across the country continue unabated. Workers are still being punished for discussing pay and bonuses with one another. For 78 years the NLRB has been instrumental in addressing the challenges American workers faced. Senator Wagner explained on the floor: It is necessary to insure a wise distribution of wealth between management and labor, to maintain a full flow of purchasing power, and to prevent recurrent depressions. We know that when workers make decent wages, workers buy the cars made in this country, they buy the appliances, they go to the hardware store, they pay their property taxes, they buy homes, they renovate their homes, they do things that put money into the economy. If you only have a sliver of people who are very wealthy and a declining middle class, the purchasing power and the growth in the economy tends to diminish. That is not the kind of country we want, and it is not the kind of country we have had since World War II. But just a few years after the great recession, there is a widening gap between the average wage of workers and heads of corporations. For families struggling to make ends meet after a breadwinner was unfairly forced off the assembly line, the NLRB matters. If we do not confirm the President's nominees, then workers, such as Kevin from Akron, will have no recourse against retaliation for his union activity. Kevin and his coworkers wanted to form a union to stop a 12-hour shift policy from being put in place at their place of employment. The company fired six workers, including Kevin, for this union activity. While the NLRB ordered the company to reinstate the workers--the NLRB said the company was wrong; under Federal law, the workers should be reinstated--the DC Circuit Court--in large part, with judges who almost always do the bidding of the wealthiest corporations in this country-- the DC Circuit Court delayed enforcement of the case until the pending challenge to the President's 2012 nominees is resolved in court or the board has a Senate-confirmed quorum. Kevin is a human face of why America needs a fully staffed National Labor Relations Board with the legal quorum needed to do its job. We should confirm these board members. We should make sure workers such as Kevin receive the workplace protections--whether they are union members, whether they are not union members--they deserve. I thank the Presiding Officer. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stabenow be recognized for up to 3 minutes and that I be recognized for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I thank the chairwoman of the agriculture committee for her work. This is legislation that saves taxpayers literally tens of billions of dollars while strengthening the safety net. The bill provides adequate revenue and nutrition for literally millions of people--children, seniors, people on disability, and people who work in low-income jobs--and that is also important in this agriculture bill.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, in the years leading up to the financial crisis, the biggest banks and lenders created new ways to make record profits off of consumers. They made predatory loans to working-class families, created prepaid cards with exploitative fees, and gave out student loans to first-generation college students with interest rates sometimes as high as 20 percent. Today millions of consumers are still trying to recover from these unscrupulous practices while companies keep looking for new ways to increase their profits at the expense of these consumers. Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect Americans from consumer fraud and abusive fees and products. I thank the Presiding Officer for her role in this before she came to the Senate. More than 700 days since its creation, American citizens are now just getting to vote for a consumer watchdog to head the organization. Because of the CFPB, consumers can now decipher credit card applications and have help correcting erroneous credit reports. Because of these successes, confirming Richard Cordray as the Director was right. We know where he stands. We know for whom he stands--as a strong advocate for consumers, families, and small businesses. No one doubted Richard Cordray's qualifications or temperament for the job. This is the first time in American history when one party refused to confirm a nominee because they didn't like the agency. A terrible precedent was being set. Thankfully a number of our colleagues understood--as we discussed last night--it was important to move past that. Richard Cordray served as Ohio's first State solicitor. He represented the U.S. Government before the Supreme Court. He has been elected the attorney general and State treasurer of Ohio. He has received bipartisan accolades and support from Ohio's business and consumer groups. Let me share a bit of a letter written by a Republican Member of Congress from my home State, Representative Steve Stivers. Rich has always proven himself hardworking, collaborative, and pragmatic. If you take the time [. . .] to evaluate Rich's character and disposition, you will find him to be an individual who listens to your opinion and seeks mutually acceptable solutions. Representative Stivers is right. Under Cordray's leadership, the Bureau has earned praise from industry and consumer groups alike for the rules it has come up with. It has already recovered millions of dollars for consumers from credit card companies, credit repair companies, and others. That is why consumers won a victory today and should be happy that the 2-year-long process that has prevented Richard Cordray from being considered has finally come to an end and we can now move forward. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, July 17, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the majority leader be recognized; and that following the remarks of the two leaders, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 178, the Hochberg nomination, and the time until 10 a.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Tomorrow at 10 a.m. there will be a rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Hochberg nomination.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Thune.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 196, submitted earlier today.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, there is broad agreement that overleveraged financial institutions significantly contributed, to put it mildly, to the 2008 financial crisis and that they were bailed out because everyone knows they are too big to fail. Years later--5 years later now--there is an implicit assumption that the largest megabanks--the five or six largest banks in the country-- are still too big to fail. That means the markets give them funding advantages that experts estimate are as high as 50 or 60 or 70 or even 80 basis points. That means when they go in the capital markets, they can borrow money at close to 1 percent. Eighty-eight basis points is fourth-fifths of 1 percent. They can borrow money at a lower cost than virtually anyone else in our economy. Studies from Bloomberg have shown that this can mean a subsidy of upward of $80 billion to these five, six, seven megabanks--these large megabanks. Last year, as a result, my colleague Senator Vitter and I began to push the banking regulators--the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation--to use stronger capital and leverage rules to end this too-big-to-fail subsidy. There is now bipartisan agreement that imposing more stringent capital and leverage requirements for the largest financial institutions could help prevent the next financial crisis and prevent future bailouts. Unfortunately, the Basel Committee--named after a city in Switzerland--responsible for the Basel III international capital rules adopted a mere 3-percent leverage ratio. In 2007, the investment banks Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers were leveraged 33 to 1 and 31 to 1, respectively. These institutions would have been compliant with the Basel III international leverage ratio, and yet each would have become insolvent, or nearly insolvent, if the value of their assets declined by as little as 3 percent. That meant they only had sort of 3 percent protection, and if their assets declined by more than 3 percent, they would be what you call underwater. They simply would be a failing, unsustainable institution or bank. I am pleased to say that this week regulators finally went beyond these inadequate rules and proposed a 6-percent leverage ratio for insured banks. I said earlier, Senator Vitter and I had argued for this and were pushing the banking regulators to do what they, in fact, did this week. The move is a necessary step in the right direction. It shows how far this conversation has gone in a short time. But there is more work to be done. Let me explain several things we can do now. First, the number needs to be higher. The Wall Street Journal editorial board--not a group of people with whom I often agree or with whom I see eye to eye very often--wrote this morning about these rules: [O]ur preference would be to go north of 6 percent. To be higher. Why not approach the capital levels that small finance companies without government backing are required by markets to hold, which can run into the teens? They are required by markets. For the megabanks, the market does not quite respond the same way because of their economic and their political power. Second, I am still concerned that banks can use risk weights and their internal models to game capital rules. This amounts to the banks determining for themselves--this is not some government body or some unaligned group of economists--this amounts to the banks determining for themselves how risky their assets are, thereby setting their own capital requirements. The Financial Times said today the biggest banks plan to use ``optimization'' strategies--not more equity--to meet the new leverage ratio. ``We're going to be able to pull a lot of levers,'' said an executive at a large US bank on Wednesday. . . . Analysts at Goldman Sachs noted in research for clients that ``banks have a lot of options to mitigate the impact.'' That is why we need simpler rules that cannot be gamed by Wall Street, and this rule cannot be watered down by Wall Street lobbyists. There is no reason agencies should not finalize these rules and begin implementing their rules tomorrow--not go through the long rules process. We cannot wait. Small businesses and families cannot afford to wait, neither can our economy. Finally, there is more work to be done to rein in Wall Street megabanks. Senator Vitter and I have a bill that would do this--the bipartisan too big to fail act. It would restore market discipline by raising megabanks' capital requirements and limiting the Federal safety net that supports them. I have also proposed legislation called the SAFE Banking Act to cap the amount of nondeposit liabilities that any single megabank can have. The regulators have begun to do their jobs. It is time for Congress to do its job. This week was a good week. It was a step in the right direction, but it is time to finish the job. It is time to end too big to fail once and for all. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Mr. Julius Ciaccia, executive director of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District on his election as president of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, NACWA. Mr. Ciaccia is an accomplished leader and committed environmental steward who has played a prominent role in the water industry, exemplifying what it means to be a public servant. He is ideally suited to serve as president of one of the Nation's leading proponents of responsible policies that advance clean water. Mr. Ciaccia has served the people of the Cleveland area for decades, and in this new role, will continue to ensure that the Nation's clean water agencies continue to protect public health and improve the environment. Mr. Ciaccia began his career in public utilities in 1977 when he was appointed as assistant director of the Public Utilities Department for the city of Cleveland. In 1979, he joined the leadership of the city's Division of Water where he served as both deputy commissioner and commissioner until 2004. During some 30 years with the city of Cleveland's Division of Water, Mr. Ciaccia oversaw the management of more than $1 billion worth of capital improvement projects and maintained the agency's favorable financial position. He was appointed director of the city's Department of Public Utilities in 2004 exercising oversight of the water, sewer collection, and public power systems, with a focus on developing comprehensive financial plans and supporting revenue enhancement initiatives. Mr. Ciaccia began his current role at the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, NEORSD, in 2007. In his current role at the district, he oversees all aspects of managing one of the Nation's largest wastewater management utilities. Under his leadership, the district has received two awards from the Commission on Economic Inclusion, including a 2009 award for Supplier Diversity, which highlights the success of his initiative to craft and implement a supplier inclusion program. In 2012, the NEORSD was awarded by the Commission for Senior Management Inclusion, recognizing the diversity of senior staff. As the district's executive director, Mr. Ciaccia was responsible for confirming their consent decree for a long-term control plan to significantly reduce overflows from combined sewers, as well as the successful development and implementation of a new Regional Stormwater Management Program. Among Mr. Ciaccia's many accomplishments as executive director of NEORSD is the transformation of the district's culture to one of transparency and exceptional financial management. As a member of NACWA's board of directors, Mr. Ciaccia has served as the secretary, treasurer, and vice president. Mr. Ciaccia has shared his time, passion, energy and ideas to carry out the objectives of the Clean Water Act. It is my pleasure to congratulate Julius Ciaccia on becoming president of NACWA. I am certain his actions will ensure continued water quality progress for the Cleveland area, the State of Ohio and the Nation.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor from time to time to share thoughts from people in my State. All of us are hearing comments from college students, people who have finished college, and often from the parents of those who face a massive debt from going to 2-year and 4-year private-public schools. This situation can sometimes be even more tragic at for-profit schools where they haven't gotten much help in their job search. It can be even more tragic if they have not finished school and still face this debt. My wife Connie Schultz graduated from Kent State University some number of years ago. Her father was a utility worker and carried a union card for more than 30 years. Her mother was a home care worker. She was the oldest of four and the first in her family to go to college. Her two younger brothers and sister also went to college. Connie graduated from Kent State University 30-some years ago with a debt of only $1,200. That so starkly illustrates the difference from today and then. She had little privilege, little money, and parents who couldn't really put much money out, but with lower tuition, Pell grants, a few scholarships, Stafford loans, and working, she was able to get through school with little debt. The stories we hear today are so different from that. I plead with my colleagues that we freeze interest rates at 3.4 percent. I know that will not solve anything close to all the problems of college tuition and costs of room and board, but it will help. We need to do much more than that. Every year I convene 50 or 60 college presidents from Ohio's 2- and 4-year private and public schools, community colleges, and 4-year State universities. I invite all of them to come and discuss these issues. We have done it for 6 years in a row. It is helpful to try to find ways to keep higher education costs in check, but, again, it is not nearly enough. I am hopeful that in the next 24 hours or so we can freeze interest rates at 3.4 percent and then get serious about what we are going to do about the $1 trillion aggregate debt that students, or former students, have in this country. We need to focus in part on the $150 billion of the $1 trillion which 2.9 million students are burdened with. That is debt from the private market for the $150 billion of the $1 trillion. Fifteen percent is in the private market where interest rates sometimes are as high as 12 or 15 or 16 percent. Few private banks are willing to renegotiate and refinance those loans. My legislation with Senator Heitkamp will help with a carrot-and- stick approach to encourage the private institutions--banks and private lenders--to refinance these loans. Let me share a couple of letters from students and families because I think that speaks volumes better than I can. This is a letter from Daniel from Centerville, OH. Daniel has been at the University of Dayton. He said: I currently have $100,000 in outstanding loans. Last summer (2012) I graduated with a Masters Degree in Middle Child Education and the previous summer I graduated with a Bachelors in Middle Child Education as well from Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio. Starting in July of 2013, because of the high interest rates, my average monthly payment for all my student loans will be $600 a month. I recently got one of my payments lowered; otherwise that total would be over $800 a month. I have consolidated all I can, and even deferred (and still made payments while in deferment) other loans which will be due in February 2014; adding to the $600 a month payment. I teach in a school in Cincinnati and LOVE THE WORK THAT I

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I want to echo the words of my colleague from Iowa about the upcoming vote this week, which is so important. We know a lot of what has happened with student loan debt, which now exceeds $1 trillion--that is 1,000 billion dollars. It is more than credit card debt in this country. It is more than auto loan debt. It is also second only to mortgage debt of 300 million people of this great country. According to the Wall Street Journal, the average student loan debt for a college graduate who borrowed to finance a bachelor's degree this year is nearly $30,000. My wife, who graduated some years ago from Kent State University--the first of her family to go to college--graduated with just $1,200 in debt. Her father carried a union card, worked at the local utility company in Ashtabula. Her mother was a home care worker. They had no real money to put into her education or the education of her two younger sisters and younger brother. Yet she graduated with only $1,200 in debt, getting a 4-year degree from Kent State University and going on to a very good career in journalism. For students such as the young man named Amish Patel, who works two jobs to pay tuition at that same university, Kent State, Stafford loans are important. Stafford loans are essential to helping students such as Amish achieve their goal of obtaining a college degree. Just 7 days ago, because of inaction by Congress--as we know so well from the comments of Senator Harkin and others on the floor--the Stafford interest rate doubled from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. We have a chance to address this private student loan market today also. My legislation, introduced not so long ago, helps those 2.9 million students across the country with more than $150 billion in private student loan debt. Overall, student loan debt is $1 trillion. Most of that is with the direct lending program--the Stafford loan program from the Federal Government. But $150 billion, or about 15 percent, which burdens about 2.9 million students, is private student loan debt. Private loans typically have higher interest rates, sometimes topping 15, 16, 17, 18 percent. They are more difficult to refinance, and they offer fewer payment options than those loans administered by the U.S. Department of Education. Recent graduates with private loans, such as Lynsay Spratlen of Macedonia, a community in northeast Ohio, are living with their parents because their heavier debt burden often means they are unable to buy a home, to start a business, to buy a car, or to go on to graduate school. So along with Senator Heitkamp, I am introducing legislation to help stop the fleecing of college graduates who are stuck under a mountain of private student loan debt. Often these banks will not refinance these loans. They are paying much higher interest rates. Sometimes they are cosigned, other times they are not cosigned, by a family member, by a parent, typically. But either way they are a huge burden, and a significantly lower interest rate would be available if they could refinance these loans. The legislation authored by Senator Heitkamp and myself--Refinancing Education Funding to Invest for the Future Act--addresses this problem by authorizing the Treasury Department to make the private student loan market more efficient. I want to read a couple of letters. We come to the floor of the Senate and talk about statistics, but we don't often enough illustrate or recite notes and letters and stories and discussions from people we meet or who write our office or we meet on college campuses or around our States. This is a letter from Chad, age 25 from Toledo. He is from the University of Toledo: I am currently pursuing a Bachelor's Degree in electrical engineering at the University of Toledo. I live 15 minutes away from there so I am a commuter living at home. My parents don't have the funds to help me pay for college, so in order to attend I must work full time to cover expenses. The Federal aid I receive helps me cover a good portion of the tuition costs. Increasing the interest rate for my loans would be devastating to me on a financial level. It is hard enough to pay them at the rate they are now; increasing them would only make things a lot worse. They are now at 3.4 percent. He wrote this before it had gone up to 6.8. Mr. Brown, if there is anything you can do to prevent this from happening please do so. I am not the only one that will feel the major effects. That is why this upcoming vote is so important. Let me share one other letter from Oregon, OH, also near Toledo. It is from Mlynek: I have been a single mother of twin boys since 1989. They were born October 1, 1986. I co-signed on loans for both of them so they could further their education in the field they love ``music.'' Jason Mlynek went to Ball State University for 2 years and then transferred to Carnegie Mellon University for his BA and obtained his Master's Degree in arts management. Jason is working in New York City for Distinguished Concerts International, but due to the loans he incurred and the cost of living barely has enough to buy food. He is paying $1,300 a month on his loans. Shawn Mlynek received his BA from Carnegie-Mellon and then went to the University of Miami 1 year and then transferred back to the University of Cincinnati Music Conservatory and received his Master's Degree in vocal performance. He works as a singing waiter and has voice students but is in the same situation. His income for 2012 was under $20,000, but he is paying over $900 a month on his loans. I work full time, have been at the same company 19 years, make $35,000 a year, have good credit, own by own home . . . and wanted to refinance. I was told I have too much outstanding debt due on the loans I cosigned for my children. Too much debt to ratio so I cannot refinance to lower my payments. So not only do these burdensome student loans with interest rates too high--if they double to 6.8 percent, but with costs already too high-- affect the student when she or he graduates and wants to buy a house or start a business, but they affect the whole economy, and they also affect the debt burden of parents, such as this mother--Jason and Shawn's mother--who couldn't refinance her own mortgage because of the debt burden she was carrying because she cosigned on student loans for her sons. Finally, she writes this: The American Way is to help our children and they would not have been able to accomplish their dream of an education in the music field if I hadn't cosigned for their educational loans. Mr. President, I think that sums it up. These two letters--the one from the University of Toledo student and from the mother of the twins--sum up in so many ways why this issue is so important and why the Senate needs to act, and act quickly, because the interest rates on student loans doubled last week. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about amendment No. 1311, the Hire Americans First amendment, which I hope to call up later. Nearly 8 percent of Americans are unemployed or underemployed and our immigration policy obviously must be a jobs policy. Any successful immigration plan must take a closer look at the H-1B Program, which serves an important but specific and limited purpose. The H-1B visa was created so businesses--particularly in high tech but not exclusively that--so businesses could recruit foreign workers to help fill the void created a by a lack of American workers with those specific skills. Yet, as this bill comes to the floor, something very important was excluded. The bill lacks a requirement--which was in earlier versions of the bill--that employers hire an equally or better qualified American worker when one is available, rather than a potential H-1B worker. The bill lacks a requirement that employers hire a qualified, equally or better qualified American worker when one is available, rather than a potential H-1B foreign worker. With this bill we are enshrining a process--without this amendment--that allows companies to pass over skilled Americans for foreign workers after they have been required to actually actively recruit those Americans. The bill has provisions to recruit Americans for these jobs that might have gone to an H-1B foreign worker, but it falls short. It doesn't require the employer to actually--after going through that process, to actually hire the American worker who is as qualified or better qualified than the H-1B foreign worker. This approach only undermines support for the H-1B Program because it will be seen as a tool to avoid hiring American workers. Understand the American public, as they start to kind of understand and digest the provisions of this purported new law, this legislation, when they hear that, yes, companies have to recruit and look for American workers but in the end, even if the American worker is as qualified or more qualified, the company is under no obligation to actually hire the American. Senator Grassley has been a champion in the fight to end H-1B abuse. That is why I am proud to join Senator Grassley in our bipartisan amendment to introduce the H-1B and L-1 Visa Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 2013. The H-1B program should only be used when there is no qualified worker available in the United States. That is clearly what the American people overwhelmingly say they want: that the program should only be used when there is no qualified worker available here. This amendment would increase protections to workers by requiring that employers only hire H-1B workers, as I said before, when there is no equally qualified or better qualified American. This amendment would make sure a worker from Wuhan would not be hired at the expense of a qualified engineer or scientist from Elyria or Sylvania, OH. It means ensuring that American companies seek out, find, and hire skilled American workers before seeking visas for foreign workers. However, that is not included in this version of the bill that we are debating on the Senate floor--the immigration bill. The bill in its current form simply says that companies have to look for qualified Americans. It doesn't require them to actually hire the equally qualified or better qualified American, such as a chemist from Cleveland or a computer scientist from Celina. The underlying bill increases the number of H-1B-eligible visas, and that is fine. But it also cracks down on employers who take advantage of the system. Without the requirement to also hire qualified U.S. workers, the recruitment steps mean standing on an escalator that leads to nowhere. What this legislation now says is that companies that consider H-1B visa hires need to recruit Americans, but the bill falls short of saying if the American is as qualified or more qualified they need to hire that American. If they are qualified Americans who can do the work, there is simply no need to fill the post with an H-1B worker. Passing the Brown-Grassley amendment--also cosponsored by Senator Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, and Senator Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia--the hire Americans first amendment is important in fixing that. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. I thank Senator Isakson. I am so appreciative of the work the Senator has done with the Centers for Disease Control in his home State of Georgia. There is no Federal agency that is quite like the CDC in this country or across the world. Our Nation's fiscal health cannot be strengthened at the expense of our Nation's public health. In the 21st century it is easy to overlook this country's public health safety net. Too often we take for granted that our children are not being crippled by polio or dying from whooping cough because we have immunizations. We take for granted that we have stronger teeth and less tooth decay because of water fluoridation in many of our communities. We take for granted that few people in this country now die of infectious diseases such as cholera and tuberculosis because we have made the kind of remarkable progress we have in sanitation, in hygiene, antibiotics, and disease surveillance. We take these advancements for granted because for over six decades the CDC has been doing an extraordinary job of ensuring Americans have basic health protections. The CDC's work, along with that of other public health advocates and researchers, is credited with increasing the average American's life expectancy over the last many decades, increasing the average American's life expectancy by 25 years--25 years, a quarter of a century longer because of our investment in public health. The CDC's reach and responsibility, as intimated by Senator Isakson, is not limited by our country's borders. Due to globalization it matters a great deal how other countries respond to health threats. The CDC plays an essential role in helping its international partners react to these threats. The CDC is the gold standard, the global leader in disease prevention and public health preparedness. Other nations follow our lead. Yet the CDC's leadership is not guaranteed. Even with its topnotch facilities and world-class staff, the CDC faces challenges to this continued leadership. The CDC's base budget authority is at its lowest level in a decade. The fiscal year 2013 budget is about $600 million below its fiscal year 2012 level. This reduction undercuts the health security of all Americans, even those who never once think of the existence of the Centers for Disease Control. The reduction in the CDC budget has harmful, immediate, and long-term consequences across the United States and around the world. This reduction affects the ability of our State and local health departments to provide on-the-ground services. As my friend from Georgia explained during his discussion of the deadly fungal meningitis outbreak, funding the CDC is critical to the foundation of our public health. When we invest in CDC, we invest in the health of families in Lorain, OH, and Cuyahoga Falls, OH. When we invest in CDC, we support programs such as the Epidemiology Laboratory Capacity Program which addresses infectious disease threats. When we invest in the CDC, we ensure that our State and local health departments on the frontlines are able to detect the first signs of outbreak. Without this critical funding, we leave ourselves vulnerable to the initial spread of health threats, such as fungal meningitis and emerging new diseases such as the MERS coronavirus and the novel H7N9 avian flu virus, which we read about. Unfortunately, public health departments across the Nation have already lost thousands of jobs and will lose more if our support of CDC continues to dwindle. Before turning it back over to Senator Isakson, I would like to emphasize a point he made. The CDC responds to long-term health threats as well as to urgent immediate health dangers. These threats don't make the headlines. So much of CDC's work you never hear about, you never read about because of its name, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevention is such an important part of this. CDC continues a longstanding tradition of working in partnership with many international organizations and global partners to ensure that our country takes the lead in stopping these threats. I have had the pleasure of seeing CDC's dedicated, expert staff working in Africa, in Atlanta, in communities such as Medina County, OH, and all over the world, working to keep these countries and our communities healthier, safer, and helping to keep all Americans safe as well.

Mr. BROWN. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. BROWN. I thank the Senator from Georgia. I think that is exactly the point. While perhaps those who know CDC--obviously in the State of Georgia people know it more intimately than in my State. They more likely think of CDC doing something in Africa or Asia, not so much what it means locally. We know that our hospitals, for instance, are sometimes havens for high health care costs and unnecessary illnesses due to infections acquired in the hospital and antibiotic-resistant superbugs such as CRE--a family of germs with high levels of resistance to antibiotics. I wonder if my friend is familiar with CDC's work in these areas and if he would expand on that.

Mr. BROWN. That is certainly right. It seems there are new emerging and potentially dangerous health threats. We obviously know of the disease--the acquired infection you just mentioned. We know now of the H7N9 bird flu and MERS. How does the Senator see CDC's unique role in tracking and attempting to prevent the spread of these threats before they reach our shores, before we in American hospitals such as Grady Memorial or at MedCentral of Ohio might be victims of that?

Mr. BROWN. If the Senator would yield for a moment, MERS was identified recently, and CDC scientists developed and shipped a diagnostic kit to be used in the field. To talk about one--when I talk to people about public health and certainly the importance of NIH but especially the focus on public health by CDC, we talk about polio and what CDC did to address and not quite yet wipe out but in our country certainly wipe out--and in most of the rest of the world--the polio virus. Give us a little bit of history on how important that was and what we learned from that, if you would, Senator Isakson.