Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I rise to recognize the lasting contributions of 80 courageous Americans who participated in the Doolittle raid, our Nation's first offensive action on Japan's soil during the Second World War. I am pleased to have Senator Boozman as the lead Republican of an effort to ensure these men have the recognition they deserve. Together, we introduced S. 381, which will award the surviving airmen, known as the Doolittle Raiders, with the Congressional Gold Medal. Senator Boozman's collaboration reiterates that bipartisan support for our veterans endures in this body. Joining us as original cosponsors are Senators Murray, Tester, Baucus, Nelson, Cantwell, and Schatz. As chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee during the last session, Senator Murray also cosponsored last year's resolution. We are grateful for her leadership. Our colleague Senator Lautenberg, the sole World War II veteran serving in the Senate, is also a cosponsor. Some 16 million Americans served this country during World War II. Today their average age is 92. These survivors have earned the respect of a grateful Nation. Now is the time for us to act to honor them. On April 18, 1942, 80 American airmen volunteered for an unknown assignment. These sons, fathers, and brothers accepted what they only knew to be ``an extremely hazardous mission.'' They were led by Lt. Col. James ``Jimmy'' Doolittle, a one-time flight instructor at Wright Field in Dayton, OH, in my home State. He also studied at Kelly Field and McCook Field in Ohio. The Doolittle Raid was the first time the Army Air Corps and the Navy collaborated on a tactical mission. These pilots flew 16 U.S. Army Air Corps B-25 Mitchell bombers from the deck of the USS Hornet into combat, a feat that had never been before attempted. On the morning of the raid, the USS Hornet was discovered by Japanese picket ships. Fearing the mission might be compromised, the Raiders launched 170 miles earlier than planned. The earlier launch meant these men now had to travel over 650 miles to their intended targets, leaving them with the possibility of running out of enough fuel to land beyond the Japanese lines in occupied China. Accepting this choice meant the Raiders would almost certainly have to crash land or bail out either above Japanese-occupied China or over the home islands of Japan. Any survivor would certainly be subjected to imprisonment, torture or death. After reaching their targets, 15 of the bombers continued to China, while the 16th--whose plane was dangerously low on fuel--headed to Russia. The total distance traveled by the Raiders was about 2,250 nautical miles over a period of 13 hours, making it the longest combat mission ever flown in a B-25 during the war. Of the 80 Raiders who launched that day, 8 were captured--3 of them were executed, 1 died of disease, and 4 of these prisoners survived and returned home after the war. Of the original 80, 4 are still with us today. They are residents of Montana, Texas, Tennessee, and Washington State. There was a fifth, MAJ Tom Griffin of Cincinnati, OH. On the evening of February 26, just 1 week ago--the date I introduced this legislation--Major Griffin of Cincinnati passed away surrounded by family and friends. His family lost a loved one, our Nation lost a hero. The remaining four Raiders will be commemorating the 71st anniversary of this raid this coming April in Fort Walton Beach, FL. Now is the time to award these survivors the Congressional Medal. Their valor, their skill, their courage proved invaluable to the morale of our country on that day more than 70 years ago and the eventual defeat of Japan in the Second World War. These men continue to remind us of the quiet determination and that uncommon valor in the face of sheer danger. I humbly ask my colleagues to join us in this bill in honoring the Doolittle Raiders. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, since 2009, the last day of February has been observed as National Rare Disease Day to raise awareness of and provide support for Americans living with a rare disease or disorder. By definition, each rare disease or disorder affects a small patient population, less than 200,000 people. However, the combined 7,000 individual rare diseases affect nearly 30 million Americans. Sadly, children with rare genetic diseases account for more than half of the rare disease population. Many of these rare diseases are serious, even life-threatening: epidermolysis bullosa; progeria; muscular dystrophy; sickle cell anemia; Tay-Sachs; cystic fibrosis; many childhood cancers; and fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva. Patients with rare diseases face unique challenges. Too many of these conditions lack effective treatments and cures. And too often people with rare diseases experience challenges in obtaining an accurate diagnosis. In addition, there is often difficulty finding physicians or treatment centers with the necessary expertise in rare diseases or disorders. Great strides have been made in research and treatment as the result of the Orphan Drug Act, legislation passed in 1983 to encourage pharmaceutical companies to bring treatments for rare diseases to market. This year, the Rare Disease Day Resolution also pays tribute to the 30th Anniversary of the Orphan Drug Act and calls for us to reflect upon the successes of that Act and the challenges to be addressed in the future to prevent, identify, combat, and treat rare diseases. Rare Disease Day is also an important opportunity to honor lifesaving advances in science and research that continue to transform the diagnosis, treatment, and standard of care for many orphan diseases, thanks in no small part to the advocacy efforts of the National Institutes of Health, the medical community, patients and their families, and rare disease organizations, especially the National Organization for Rare Disorders. By designating February 28, 2013, as Rare Disease Day, I hope we create greater awareness of these conditions, encourage accurate and early diagnosis of rare diseases and disorders, and help demonstrate and support a national and global commitment to improve treatment options for individuals with rare diseases and disorders.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, be allowed to speak following my remarks.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I welcome Senator Vitter and his cooperation in this matter. I appreciate the work he has done on the issue. He and I are going to address the concentration of the financial system in this country and what that means to the middle class, what it means to business lending for small businesses, and again what it means to the potential of too big to fail, which is something Senator Vitter has been a leader on for a number of years. Both of us are members of the Senate Banking Committee. More than 100 years ago, in 1889, one of my predecessors, Senator John Sherman, a Republican, and author of the Sherman Antitrust Act-- who actually lived in my hometown of Mansfield, OH, and was the only other Senator from that city who served here--said: I do not wish to single out Standard Oil Company . . . [s]till, they are controlling and can control the market so absolutely as they choose to do it; it is a question of their will. The point for us to consider is whether, on the whole, it is safe in this country to leave the production of property, the transportation of our whole country, to depend upon the will of a few men sitting at their council board in the city of New York, for there the whole machine is operated? At the time, Senator Sherman was speaking about the trusts-- specifically Standard Oil but other trusts as well--that were large, diverse industrial organizations with outsized economic and political power, not just economic power but also political power. His words are as true then as they are today. Today our economy is being threatened by multitrillion dollar--that is trillion dollar--financial institutions. Wall Street megabanks are so large that should they fail, they could take the rest of the economy with them. If this were to happen, instead of failure, taxpayers are likely to be asked again to cover their losses and to bail them out just as we did 5 years ago. This is a disastrous outcome because it transfers wealth from the rest of the economy into these megabanks and suspends the rules of capitalism and perpetuates the moral hazard that comes from saving risk-takers from the consequences of their behavior. Just as Senator Sherman spoke against the trusts in the late 19th century, today people across the political spectrum--both parties and all ideologies--are speaking about the dangers of the large, concentrated wealth of Wall Street megabanks. In 2009, another Republican--and one a little more familiar to a modern audience--Alan Greenspan said: If they're too big to fail, they're too big . . . in 1911 we broke up Standard Oil. . . . Maybe that's what we need to do. If anyone thought the biggest banks were too big to fail before the crisis, then I have bad news: They have only gotten bigger. These are the six largest banks and their growth patterns in 1995--18 years ago--had combined assets that were 18 percent of GDP. Today they have combined assets over 60 percent of GDP. Over that time, 37 banks merged 33 times to become the top 4 largest behemoths, which now range from $1.4 trillion in assets to the largest, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, which is around $2.3 or $2.4 trillion in assets. That is $2.3 trillion in assets. Since the beginning of the fiscal crisis, three of these four megabanks have grown through mergers by an average of more than $500 billion. The 6 largest banks now have twice the combined assets of the rest of the 50 largest U.S. banks. These 6 banks--Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America--the combined assets of 6 banks, are larger than the next 50 largest banks. Put another way, if we add up the assets of banks 7 through 50, the bank that resulted would only be half the size of a bank made from the assets of the top 6. As astonishing as these numbers are, they don't tell the whole story. Many megabank supporters argue that U.S. banks are small relative to international banks. But as Bloomberg reported last week, FDIC Board member Tom Hoenig has exposed a double standard in our accounting system that allows U.S. banks to actually shrink themselves on paper. Under the accounting rules applied by the rest of the world, the 6 largest banks are 39 percent larger than we think they are. That is a difference of about $4 trillion. If that is the case, instead of being 63 percent of GDP under international accounting rules, these 6 banks are actually 102 percent of GDP. Let me say that again. The six biggest banks' combined assets are slightly larger than the entire size of our economy. When measured against the same standard as every other institution in the world, we see the United States has the three largest banks in the world. These institutions are not just big, they are extremely complex. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, the 5 largest U.S. banks now have 19,654 subsidiaries. On average, they have 3,900 subsidiaries each and operate in 68 different countries. These institutions are not just massive and complex--I don't object so much to that--it is they are also risky. According to their regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency--and I met with them today--none of these institutions has adequate risk management. Let me say that again. In stress tests, not one of the largest 19 banks has shown adequate risk management. It is simply impossible to believe that these behemoths will not get into trouble again. We saw what happened with one of the best managed banks with a lot of employees--some 16,000, 17,000, 18,000 employees in my State alone--at one site with 10,000 employees in Columbus: JPMorgan Chase, a well-managed bank with a very competent CEO but a bank that not so long ago lost $6 billion or $7 billion. It is impossible to believe they will not get into trouble again and they will not be unwound in an orderly fashion should they approach the brink of failure. If you don't believe me, ask Bill Dudley, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He said recently that ``we have a considerable ways to go to finish the job and reduce to intolerable levels the social costs'' of a megabank's failure. He said that more drastic steps ``could yet prove necessary.'' Governor Dan Tarullo, from the Federal Reserve, threw his support behind a proposal first introduced by the Presiding Officer's predecessor, Senator Ted Kaufman, and me to cap the nondeposit liabilities of the megabanks some 3 years ago in this body. These men are not radicals; they are some of the Nation's foremost banking experts. History has taught us we never see the next threat coming until it is too late and almost upon us. When we passed the Dodd-Frank Act, it contained tools that regulators can use to rein in risk taking. Unfortunately, many of those rules have stalled, and most will not take effect for years, because it is not just the economic power of the banks but the political powers so often having their way in this city and with regulators all over the country. Dodd-Frank focuses on improving regulators' ability to monitor risks and enhancing the actions that regulators can take if they believe the risk has grown too great. Over the last 5 years alone we have seen faulty mortgage-related securities, we have seen foreclosure fraud, and we have seen big losses from risky trading, money laundering, and LIBOR rate digging. Until the Dodd-Frank rules take effect, the rest of us more or less have to stand by idly as megabanks take more risks that almost inevitably and eventually lead to failure. We shouldn't tolerate business as usual, monitoring risk until we are once again near the brink of disaster. We should learn from our recent history. We should correct our mistakes by dealing with the problem head on. That means preventing the anticompetitive concentration of banks that are too big to fail and whose favored status encourages them to engage in high-risk behavior. How many more scandals will it take before we acknowledge that we can't rely on regulators to prevent subprime lending, dangerous derivatives, risky proprietary trading, financial instruments that nobody understands, including the people running the banks in many cases, and even fraud and manipulation. Wall Street has been allowed to run wild for years. We simply cannot wait any longer for regulators to act. These institutions are too big to manage, they are too big to regulate, and they are surely still too big to fail. We can't rely on the financial market to fix itself because the rules of competitive markets and creative destruction don't apply to Wall Street megabanks as they do to businesses in Louisiana or Delaware or Ohio. Megabanks' shareholders and creditors have no incentive to end too big to fail. As a result, they will engage in ever-riskier behavior. In the end, they get paid out when banks are bailed out. Taking the appropriate steps will lead to more midsized banks--not a few magabanks--creating competition, increasing lending, and providing incentives for banks to lend the right way. If there is one thing the people in Washington love, it is community banks. Senator Vitter has been very involved in helping community banks deal with regulations and other kinds of rules. Cam Fine, the head of the Independent Community Bankers of America, is calling for the largest banks to be downsized because he sees that his members, the community banks--there might be 50 million, 100 million, or less than that in assets--are at a disadvantage. Just about the only people who will not benefit from reining in these megabanks are a few Wall Street executives. Congress needs to take action now to prevent future economic collapse and future taxpayer- funded liabilities. Before yielding, I wish to thank Senator Vitter, who recognizes this problem with an acuity that most don't have, and for joining me in doing something about it. I am pleased to announce today that we are working on bipartisan legislation to address this too-big-to-fail problem. It will incorporate ideas put forward by Tom Hoenig, Richard Fisher, and Sheila Bair. Senator Vitter will talk about his views in a moment. The American public doesn't want us to wait. They want us to ensure that Wall Street megabanks will never again monopolize our Nation's wealth or gamble away the American dream. To those who say that our work is done, I say we passed seven financial reform laws in the 8 years following the Depression, so it is clear there is precedent for not just one time, one fix, but a continued addressing of this problem until we know we have the strength of the American financial system returned to the way it once was. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BROWN. I know Senator Alexander is waiting to speak. I thank Senator Vitter for his work on this issue. I remember the first discussions Senator Vitter and I had about this when he was asking some tough questions of a couple of regulators--it might have been the Secretary of the Treasury as well as a couple of other regulators--on capital standards and how important it was that, as he just mentioned, these banks have the kinds of capital standards, have the kinds of capital reserves that are so important in making sure these banks are healthy. Probably most of us in our lives have seen the movie ``It's a Wonderful Life,'' and we know what happens to a bank that is not capitalized; a small-town example of a bank that served the country in ways that community banks do. It is a very different story today, perhaps. But I think his insight into the importance of capital reserves and then continuing these discussions, we both came to the realization that, as he pointed out, people all across the political spectrum--some of my more Democratic colleagues, people such as George Will and others--have been very involved as business leaders and speaking out on issues that matter. So I thank Senator Vitter for his work. We will be working on legislation, and I am hopeful more of my colleagues see how important this issue is so we can continue to work together. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I will speak briefly, and then I will certainly yield to Senator Alexander. I appreciate very much Senator Vitter's words and comments and insight. I wish to expand for 2 or 3 minutes on one thing he said about the subsidy that these largest six banks get. We can see again on this chart that 18 years ago these six banks' total assets were 18 percent; 18 years ago it was 18 percent of GDP. Today, through mergers and growth--and I would argue unfair competition in many cases--they are over 60 percent. But what Senator Vitter said, which I think is important to expand on a bit, is the subsidies these banks get--Bloomberg said it was about $83 billion a year in subsidies they get because of government action or inaction, frankly. It is interesting, that $83 billion, when we are talking about the sequester today is about $85 billion, is not relevant, except putting it in some context. But the reason they have this $83 billion subsidy, $85 billion subsidy or so--$83, $84, $85 billion--or they have the advantage, when they go in the capital markets, of getting the advantage of 50, 60, 70, 80 basis points--and 80 basis points is eight-tenths of 1 percent in interest rate advantage--is because the capital markets believe their investments in these banks are not very risky because the markets believe these banks are too big to fail because they have the government backup for them. So if they have no risk, people are willing to lend money to them at lower interest rates. That is why the Huntington Bank in Columbus, OH, a large regional bank with about $50 billion in assets, or Key, a larger bank in Ohio--still, though, a regional bank--or banks in Coldwater, OH, or Sycamore, OH, or Third Federal in Cleveland--banks that maybe own only a few tens of millions or even up to $1 billion in assets--do not have that advantage. They pay higher interest rates when they borrow because the people who lend to them know they are not going to get bailed out if something bad happens. It is only these six largest banks that have that advantage. So because they can borrow money from the markets at a lower rate, they are, in effect, being subsidized because we have not fixed this too- big-to-fail problem for the Nation's banks. So it is not a Senator or a conservative Republican or a progressive Democrat from Louisiana or Ohio making this case that they are getting this advantage; it is the capital markets that have decided, yes, these are too big to fail, so we are going to lend them money at lower rates than we would lend to the Huntington or Key or Third Federal or FirstMerit in Ohio. Fundamentally, that is the issue; that it is our actions or inactions that have given these banks a competitive edge that nobody through acts of government--whether you are a liberal or a conservative--should believe it should be part of our economic system and our financial system. I thank Senator Vitter and yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Throughout this month, students across my State, across Ohio, are reciting speeches by Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to commemorate Black History Month. Dr. Carter Woodson started what was originally called Negro History Week in February between the birthdays of President Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. Dr. Woodson initiated the weeklong tribute to incorporate the legacies, images, and historical contributions of African Americans into the greater American story. Today, people throughout the United States celebrate African-American History Month to ensure all American stories are recognized. Ohio has been the scene for which many of these chapters were written. In Mount Pleasant, OH, the first antislavery gazette newspaper in the United States, the Philanthropist, was published in 1817. The Ohio Anti-Slavery Society was founded in Zanesville in 1835. My home State has played a rich role in American history, as have so many Ohioans. Every new U.S. passport includes the words of a formerly enslaved Oberlin College graduate Dr. Anna Julia Cooper. If you have a passport, you will see her words: The cause of freedom is not the cause of a race or a sect, a party or a class--it is the cause of humankind, the very birthright of humanity. In Yellow Springs, OH, a young music student at Antioch College, Coretta Scott, would later work alongside her husband, Dr. Martin Luther King, for social and economic justice in our country. Former Wilberforce University student Bayard Rustin was the lead strategist of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. The only living American with a Nobel Prize in Literature, Toni Morrison, was born and raised in Lorain, OH. Akronite Rita Dove served as the Poet Laureate of the United States. Today, in classrooms and communities across the State--and across the Nation--the next generation of Ohioans is starting to make its mark on American history.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I rise in support of a great sport with a great tradition in our Nation, especially in Ohio. Unfortunately, the sport of wrestling may be put on the sidelines at the Olympic games. Citing ``an effort to ensure the Olympic games remain relevant to sports fans of all generations,'' the International Olympic Committee-- the organization that controls the Olympics--voted to eliminate wrestling from the summer games after the 2016 Olympics. They want to end wrestling, one of the original Olympic games, while keeping other games that, frankly, lack the central role wrestling has played in its accessibility to all athletes wherever they live. Many of these are young people who lack access. Many of them want and do compete in wrestling at the high school level, the intercollegiate level or perhaps at the Olympic level but lack access to fancy equipment or specialized training. They simply want to compete at a sport perhaps almost as old as humanity. Wrestling has opened doors for working and middle-class youngsters from Ohio and around the country. That is why I recently introduced a Senate resolution opposing the elimination of wrestling from the Olympics beginning in 2020. On behalf of thousands of high school students and two 2012 Olympians with Ohio connections, I am asking the Olympics committee to reconsider putting a stranglehold on one of the original Olympic sports. Wrestling has been a sport far longer than the International Olympic Committee has been in existence. In addition to the ancient Egyptians and Greeks and Romans, our Nation has a long history with wrestling. President Lincoln was a wrestler, and two Ohio-born Presidents, Ulysses S. Grant and William Howard Taft, were wrestlers. One of our former colleagues--beloved in many ways--my friend Paul Wellstone of Minnesota was inducted into the National Wrestling Hall of Fame in 2000. At the time of his induction, he said: Wrestling has always been a big thing for me. I've had a love affair with the sport for most of my life. It helped me as a kid. I got in some trouble, then I found a sport I was good at, and that transferred to better things in other areas. The same is true for some 11,000 high school wrestlers and students at 4 universities with 17 NCAA wrestling programs in my home State. From youth wrestling camps to high school meets such as the renowned J.C. Gorman Invitational in my hometown of Mansfield, to the NCAA tournaments, students from Ohio learn the strength, the discipline, and focus that allow grapplers to exceed both on the mat and beyond. Wrestling is accessible for working-class athletes, unlike some of the sports protected in the IOC's decision. Wrestling has a proud tradition in my State, in the United States, and has a proud tradition around the world. The IOC should not ratify this preliminary decision by its executive board. It should continue its efforts to remain relevant for all athletes and communities around the world. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I was concerned when I saw a number of my colleagues are again trying to block the appointment of Ohioan Richard Cordray to the consumer agency. That agency has already played a significant role in saving tens of millions of dollars for consumers who have been wronged in a checking account transaction, who have been nickel-and-dimed, and then some by bank fees. Former Ohio Attorney General Cordray has done an excellent job as the Director of that consumer bureau. But what troubles me is this is only the second time in the history of the Senate, at least as far as the Senate Historian can figure, when a group of Senators from one party has blocked the nomination of a Presidential appointee because they do not like the agency, because they oppose the construct of the agency itself. The first time that ever happened was just a couple of years ago with Richard Cordray in this position. The creation of the consumer bureau went through regular order. It was passed by the Senate Banking Committee, on which I sit. It was part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill, and it went to the House of Representatives. It went to conference committee. All that happened was regular order to create this agency. Many people didn't like the agency. I submit I agree with that. I understand that. I don't agree that it is not a good agency. They don't like the agency in large part because it stood up to Wall Street, and it stood up to some of the bank abuses that put us in this financial situation as a country with the damage it did to our economy. Even with that, if you don't like the agency, as I said, never before in history except these two times--with the same appointment process, the same appointee, the same designee, the same nominee of the President--has this happened whereby my colleagues said: Even though he is qualified, we are not going to vote to confirm Richard Cordray because we don't like the agency. If you are not willing to change the agency, we are not willing to support a director. Imagine the kind of precedent that sets where if you don't like an agency, you are never going to let the President confirm a leader of that agency--in any agency of the Federal Government. If you don't like food safety, then you are going to block the appointment. If you don't like transportation, something in the Transportation Department, you don't like something else, you are going to vote against somebody taking the job to run the agency. Government can't run that way. The government will be dysfunctional if this precedent is set and is ongoing, in addition to the fact that Cordray is right for the job. Also, this agency is important for the middle class, for working-class people, and for low-income people who need these consumer protections. It sets a very bad precedent for this body. I am hopeful some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will think clearly about this and move ahead on the nomination and confirmation process.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, last week the House of Representatives passed a plan to prevent the risk of another credit rating downgrade. By ensuring that the United States will not default on its obligations, the House made the responsible decision to stop playing politics--at least for a while--with our Nation's creditworthiness and to prevent self-inflicted harm on our economy. Despite this effort, the House couldn't pass up the opportunity to try, while doing the right thing, to score at least one political point. We are now considering the measure they passed. This legislation, the No Budget, No Pay Act, coming directly off a campaign document, insists that congressional pay be linked with the passage of a budget by April 15. I am fine with that, that we should do that and if we don't, we don't get paid. But let's not forget that the Senate passed something even stronger than a budget for the past 2 years; we passed the Budget Control Act, which reduced the deficit by $2 trillion. Despite this, House Republicans have no problem misleading the American people with their language, preventing Senators from being paid until we pass a budget. I have no problem with no budget, no pay, but why stop there? What about no jobs bills, no pay? In 2011 the Senate passed my legislation, bipartisanly cosponsored with Senator Graham and a number of other Republican Senators, including Senator Burr, and a group of Democratic Senators, we passed my legislation to punish China when it cheats, when it manipulates its currency. The bill could create more than 2 million jobs, mostly in manufacturing, knowing what happened in places such as the Presiding Officer's State of Massachusetts and in my State of Ohio with lost manufacturing jobs. Despite the clear evidence that leveling the playing field with stopping currency manipulation would create jobs, despite the clear evidence of an overwhelming vote in the Senate and, 2 years ago, an overwhelming vote in the House on the same issue, this legislation has languished in the House for the past 2 years. But why stop at the budget? Why not a no farm bill, no pay bill? Congress is obligated to pass a farm bill every 5 years. The Senate passed our bipartisan farm bill, which, among other things, saves some $20 billion of direct savings by eliminating the longtime-discredited direct payment program. It would save $20 billion, but, again, the House refused to act. What about my legislation linking the age at which Members of Congress can collect their pensions to the age at which working Americans are eligible for Social Security? Some people, especially in the House of Representatives, want to raise the retirement age for Social Security, yet for themselves--ourselves, if we retire earlier-- collect pensions before that age. If people here are going to raise the eligibility age for Social Security, nobody here should be able to collect any retirement benefits until that same age. Citizens in my home State of Ohio in places such as Middletown, where workers have watched paper factories get priced out of the market because of unfair competition with places such as China; in Cincinnati, where call center workers are watching their jobs get contracted to the Philippines; and in Worcester, where there are too many cases of shutdown plants, moving overseas, simply or mostly because of currency, not to mention tax breaks that encourage companies, that allow companies to deduct the cost of moving their plant overseas against their Federal tax, those are the kinds of things average Americans are waiting for the House of Representatives to act on, legislation that will make a real difference in their lives right now. I am fine with the No Budget, No Pay Act. We should pass a budget. We should move forward on that. We need to raise the debt ceiling and stop playing politics with this, but let the House of Representatives get moving on the issues that affect everyday Americans. That is all about jobs. That is all about this economic recovery.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. BROWN

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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 20, submitted earlier today.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bryan Seeley, a Department of Justice detailee on the Judiciary Committee staff be given Senate floor privileges for the remainder of calendar year 2013.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 14, and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

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

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, January 30, 2013; that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for 2 hours with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the majority controlling the first hour and the Republicans controlling the final hour; further, that at 2:30 p.m. Senator Kerry be recognized for up to 30 minutes for the purpose of delivering his farewell address.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I congratulate the Presiding Officer on becoming the senior Senator from Massachusetts in almost record time. We hope to complete consideration of the debt limit legislation before the end of the week.