Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, first of all this morning I would like to thank Chairwoman Mikulski for her willingness to work together in good faith and to introduce the bill that keeps the government running for the rest of the fiscal year. The chair and I have had what I would characterize as a long and productive working relationship. I think this bill is a very clear signal that we intend to continue that relationship for the good of the legislative process and the American people. I believe Congress must learn to deal with the spending constraints that have become a necessary reality for all of us. Much more work remains to be done to secure our fiscal future, including fixing entitlement programs and reforming our Tax Code. However, today we have taken the first step to show the American people Congress can come together on important issues. My hope is we will continue to do so. I am pleased to say Chairwoman Mikulski and I have accomplished three shared goals in this proposed legislation. First, this bill will prevent a government shutdown. Nobody in America wants that. Moving from one continuing resolution to the next only delays our problems and creates added uncertainty. I hope we can return to the regular order of producing budgets and appropriations bills to avoid the threat of a shutdown in the future. Second, this bill will provide more flexibility for the remainder of the year so that government agencies can deal with the reality of the sequester which remains fully in place here. Third, I believe this bill is a product both parties in both Houses can support. It prioritizes spending and aims to steer clear of divisive issues. In addition, discretionary spending is subject to the caps put in place by the Budget Control Act, and this bill complies with those levels. As noted, spending cuts made by the sequester will come on top of these constraints. I support moving forward with this bill, and encourage my colleagues to join together to do the same. Many Americans have lost faith that Republicans and Democrats can work together on anything. I believe this bill demonstrates it is possible, and I hope it will pave the way for a more productive relationship in the future. And while we are sure to disagree on many issues, I remain positive we can restore regular order in the Congress and deal with pressing fiscal matters in a timely bipartisan manner. I think I speak for both of us when I say we are committed--yes, we are committed--to putting the budget and appropriations process back on track. We look forward to working with our colleagues who share that goal and are willing to join us in this effort. This is a new beginning.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I just want to follow up on some of the comments the Senator from Louisiana has made--very positive comments about research and the role of the Federal Government in all aspects of research. She is a very hard-working member of the Appropriations Committee and she has been involved in a lot of this. Whether it is research on health issues--the National Institutes of Health on cancer or you name it--information technology, energy, which the Senator from Louisiana referenced--there are so many good things that come out of this, and I believe, overall, the Senate and the House, on both sides of the aisle, realized this. But with all the breakthroughs in information technology we have had, we have only to go back to the research and development the Federal Government did that basically brought us our Internet to realize that didn't just happen. It was built over many years, with many ideas and research. Look at it today. We have all benefited from this overall. There are threats to this information technology, in everything we use today dealing with energy; for example, our power grid, because a lot of that, as we all know, is computer driven and operated, our banking system's information technology, our military, our traffic control systems we rely on every day, and I am sure our trains and other vehicles we run. There are threats to this today. A lot of us know it as cyber security threats, and they are real. So as we do research in this area, as we continue our research, we cannot forget that. That is a job we all have to work together on, and I believe, on the Appropriations Committee, this is a good start today for challenges in our future to the security of our information systems--our grid, our banking system, our Federal Reserve, and I can go on and on because it affects everything in our everyday life, and we shouldn't forget it. I think we are off to a good start today. Senator Mikulski, the chair of the committee, and I believe this is the first time in a few years we have come to the floor trying to work together on appropriations, and we are determined to make this regular order work. I believe the majority of the Senators on my side of the aisle--the Republicans--and those on the Democratic side of the aisle will, in a few days, bring this to a head and we will do something good for the American people and bring forth some certainty and some good legislation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I think today has been an interesting day here in the Senate. We have been trying--the Senator from Maryland and I--to get the bill we have been talking about to the floor so people will have an opportunity to offer their amendments, to debate their amendments, and we in the Senate will be able to vote them up or down. That is what this process is about. Although I know it is getting late in the evening, I am hoping we can lock in some time agreement with the leadership. I am sure Senator Reid and Senator McConnell are working on that, as well as Senator McCain and Senator Coburn. But if we could get started on this tomorrow and have a healthy debate, there are some issues that ought to be brought up. I wish to take a few minutes to review a few of the outlines of what we hope to accomplish this week--what is in this bill and what is not. What this bill would do is allow agencies the additional ability to address priorities in light of sequester cuts. We all know they were Draconian--good policy, as I said, but bad process. The proposed legislation the Senator from Maryland and I are bringing to the floor, hopefully, is in full compliance with the spending caps required by the Budget Control Act, and it brings, with the sequester, the total to under $1 trillion. So we are doing some serious cutting, but we ought to do it wisely by what we do. Both sides have given in to get to where we are. There is no new funding for ObamaCare, no new funding for Dodd-Frank, no State-specific earmarks. The bill enables the Department of Defense--and we all care about security--to better implement sequester, and it increases the DOD transfer authority for reprogramming, thus mitigating a portion of the national security impact of the sequester and other across-the-board cuts. The bill also ensures that veterans programs receive adequate funding--$2.5 billion above the fiscal year 2012 levels--for VA discretionary spending. So that is a good increase. The bill requires greater accountability of government employees attending conferences, including associated expenses, so that we don't read these horror stories of people going to conventions and living high off the hog while people are struggling to make ends meet. The bill also prohibits the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the United States, among other things. The legislation would provide additional funding for worldwide diplomatic and facility security in the post-Benghazi environment. When we send somebody overseas, we want to make sure, whether it is an Ambassador, an employee, or somebody going temporarily, that they are as safe as we can keep them. We know we live in a dangerous world, and some parts of the world are more dangerous than others. This bill provides over a $3.1 billion increase over fiscal year 2012 in assistance to Israel. Israel is the only democracy--I believe a real one--in that area and is a great friend of ours. The legislation keeps in place the pay freeze for Federal employees for the remainder of this year, the fiscal year ending September 2013. The bill prohibits distribution of any funds to ACORN, its subsidiaries, or successors. It rescinds $50 million from the EPA to restrict its ability to implement certain environmental regulations. It rescinds $10 million from the ObamaCare, as we call it, Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is the rationing board, some people call it. The bill continues a provision to clarify the prohibition of Federal funds being used to lobby State and local legislative and executive authorities. These are just some of the provisions in here, but I think tomorrow we will talk about more. Overall, I think we have put together a worthy and credible package, and I hope the Senate will soon get a chance to start debating it seriously. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, had we been able to move to this bill, we could have probably debated already and voted on a number of amendments because this is very essential legislation. There is a lot in this bill, a lot of good in this proposed legislation. I hope that reason will prevail and that people, even if they have some amendments, will come to the floor, as I said earlier, and offer them. Let's debate them, and let's get to regular order, up or down. That is what it is about. But I think the essentials of this bill are solid and good. We have gone into this, and we will go into it more and more. We want the process to work, but the process is not going to work if we don't get the bill up so we can go to the regular order. So I hope tonight that things will work out and we will get going. This is important legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes this afternoon to explain why I will be opposing the nomination of Carol Galante and why I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. This nomination is not one of the many ``go along to get along'' nominations we do so often in the Senate; this is a nomination that will have a direct effect on our constituents' pocketbooks and it demands, I believe, our serious attention today. Carol Galante has been the Acting Assistant Secretary and Federal Housing Commissioner at the Department of Housing and Urban Development since July 2011. Therefore, this nomination vote, in a sense, will serve as a referendum of sorts on the current management of the Federal Housing Administration. Ms. Galante, in her role as Acting FHA Commissioner, has failed to take serious actions to shore up the solvency and prevent a taxpayer bailout of the Federal Housing Administration that we know as FHA. The latest actuarial report shows that FHA has a negative economic value, and a taxpayer bailout is most likely. Despite these warnings, FHA waited until April 2012 to raise additional premiums, and Secretary Donovan, the Secretary of HUD, has testified to the Senate Banking Committee that it will wait until next year to increase premiums by a meager 10 basis points despite having statutory authority to do more to protect the taxpayers. Ms. Galante has denied the true severity of the problems at the FHA. In a New York Times piece last year, Ms. Galante said: ``[there] is no evidence or widespread prediction that home prices are going to decline to the kind of levels'' that would require a bailout. Really? Yet although some prices have risen slightly, the FHA's financial position continues to deteriorate. Several experts now conclude that a taxpayer bailout is simply a matter of time. The 2012 actuarial report and the disastrous state of FHA's finances led the Washington Post editorial board to conclude: Right now the critics are starting to look pretty prescient. . . . Affordable possession of one's own home is the American dream. Government support for excessive borrowing has turned into a national nightmare. The FHA's capital reserve is still well below the level determined by Congress to be the bare minimum to cover FHA's future losses. Even though FHA narrowly avoided a bailout this year, dangers remain in the years ahead due to its over $1 trillion exposure to risky loans and precarious economic conditions. Most of the FHA's recent actions have only concealed these dangers. For example, instead of adequately raising insurance premiums over the life of the loan, FHA has increased upfront premiums to simply cover losses in the short term. Also, upfront premiums can be rolled into the mortgage principal balance, thereby decreasing equity for borrows who, in most cases, have little equity to begin with. Increasing the upfront premiums could make FHA loans even riskier for both the borrower and the taxpayer who stands behind the mortgages. I believe it is time to face the reality that the Federal Housing Administration is dangerously undercapitalized, and because of the lack of serious reform FHA teeters on the brink of a bailout, as I have said. Andrew Kaplan, a New York University economics professor said: They [the FHA] are doing very badly . . . there's no two ways about it. Over the next five years, there won't be enough of an economic recovery to fix FHA's finances. Not a chance. A study by a Wharton professor estimates that an FHA bailout could cost between $50 billion and $100 billion and warned that only a ``quick and substantial economic and housing market recovery'' can avoid ``substantial losses for the American taxpayer.'' Data from the actuarial report shows that the serious delinquency rate for all FHA loans is 9.6 percent. The delinquency rates for loans originated in 2006, 2007, and 2008 are between 20 and 30 percent. Approximately 739,000 loans are seriously delinquent, an increase of over 100,000 loans from last year. If the borrowers of these delinquent loans all default on their mortgages, it would result in $57 billion in claims to the FHA. We hope that would not happen. The FHA's latest quarterly report shows capital resources of $32 billion. It also states that cash flow from operations, which largely consists of premium revenues, covered only 80 percent of net claims last quarter. The latest actuarial report in 2012 confirms that FHA's finances are dramatically worse than last year. FHA's capital ratio has gone negative for the first time since 1991, and economic value is in excess of negative $16 billion. Last year the report projected a $9.4 billion value, representing a decline of $24.9 billion. FHA's delinquencies continue to rise and continued high loan limits keep FHA's role in the market very broad. The projected loss on outstanding business is at an all-time $39 billion. FHA is leveraged at 422:1--422:1--and has a sparse $2.55 billion equity cushion on its over $1 trillion portfolio. Think about it. FHA has underestimated its loan losses every year for the past 3 years. In addition, since the Treasury Department already has so-called permanent and indefinite authority to provide funding for the FHA, a bailout of the FHA could occur without, as the Presiding Officer knows, any congressional vote. This is not a vote today to determine whether we support the President. This is also not a vote to determine whether we can vote in a bipartisan manner. I think this is a vote to determine whether we support the American taxpayer. I believe Ms. Galante has demonstrated her inability to identify the multitude of problems at the FHA, and I believe it is incumbent upon us, on behalf of the American people--the taxpayers--to reject this nomination and demand real reforms at FHA and a nominee who represents and appreciates the urgency of this situation and a willingness to address it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss legislation that I introduced to make technical corrections to the Dodd-Frank Act. Two and a half years ago, Congress rushed to pass the 2,300 page Dodd-Frank Act and, like any large and complex piece of legislation, it contains numerous technical errors. For example, section 742(b) of Dodd-Frank amends the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act by citing to section 206(e) of that act when, in fact, Gramm-Leach-Bliley does not have a section 206(e). Another example is that Dodd-Frank abolished the Office of Thrift Supervision, but failed to take out references to the OTS in at least 20 statutes. These are the types of errors that should be corrected. While I strongly opposed Dodd-Frank and do not believe that it should have become law, I nevertheless believe that we should at least attempt to clean up the errors found throughout the legislation. Accordingly, the legislation I have introduced focuses purely on technical corrections of non-substantive inaccuracies and omissions in the final Dodd-Frank bill. The bill I introduced could have been many pages longer, but I sought to keep it to only those changes that were purely technical. There are many other technical changes that could be made that also involve policy judgments. I decided not to include those changes in my bill because I wanted to introduce a bill that could garner broad bipartisan support and serve as a starting point for forging additional compromises on other problems with Dodd-Frank. If Congress is ever going to be bipartisan, this is the bill. We should at a bare minimum be able to agree that a law with numerous technical errors should be fixed at least to the extent of those technical issues. While the issues addressed in this bill are technical in nature, they also take into account the realities with the ongoing implementation of Dodd-Frank. For example, this legislation extends for one year the deadline for completing and issuing the regulations, studies and reports required by Dodd-Frank that have not been met by the date specified. This provision does not aim to delay or undermine the rulemaking process in any way. On the contrary, it is meant to address the flawed rulemaking process stipulated by Dodd-Frank, which directs financial regulators to complete an unprecedented number of rulemakings in very short time frames. Presently, our financial regulators are in violation of the law because they have not completed scores of rulemakings by the times prescribed by Dodd-Frank. This is not how the world's leading democracy should function. Congress's laws should be followed, especially by the agencies it has created. Congress should either hold regulators accountable for not making statutory deadlines or should grant regulators more time so that they are not in violation of the law. In this case, extending deadlines is the appropriate and reasonable approach. While I offer this bill to technically improve Dodd-Frank, my views about the substantive provisions of Dodd-Frank have not changed. I continue to believe that it is a flawed and poorly conceived piece of legislation. It expanded the scope and power of ineffective bureaucracies, created vast new bureaucracies with little accountability, and seriously undermined the competitiveness of the American economy. Moreover, Dodd-Frank did all that without accomplishing what it set out to do--make our financial system safer. Instead, Dodd-Frank preserved and codified preferential treatment for large financial institutions. It solidified the close relationships between regulators and big banks by maintaining their pre-existing prudential regulators. Dodd-Frank also protected the big banks from bankruptcy by creating a new resolution mechanism to ensure that large financial institutions do not fail. In addition not one regulator was held accountable in the wake of the crisis. To add insult to injury, the very same regulators that missed the warning signs were then closely consulted on how to draft Dodd- Frank. Accordingly, many provisions in Dodd-Frank should be reexamined and replaced with language which would actually address the serious problems in our financial regulatory system. This bill, however, does not address any of my substantive concerns with Dodd Frank. In fact, I made a conscious effort to avoid any substantive recommendations, and to focus exclusively on technical corrections. My hope is that this bill will form the foundation for a more comprehensive debate on Dodd-Frank in the next Congress. Therefore, I intend to reintroduce this bill when we return in January. By working together to revise Dodd-Frank, I believe Congress can not only make our financial system safer, but also foster economic growth and job creation. One would think that we could reach a bipartisan consensus on that.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss legislation that I introduced to make technical corrections to the Dodd-Frank Act. Two and a half years ago, Congress rushed to pass the 2,300 page Dodd-Frank Act and, like any large and complex piece of legislation, it contains numerous technical errors. For example, section 742(b) of Dodd-Frank amends the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act by citing to section 206(e) of that act when, in fact, Gramm-Leach-Bliley does not have a section 206(e). Another example is that Dodd-Frank abolished the Office of Thrift Supervision, but failed to take out references to the OTS in at least 20 statutes. These are the types of errors that should be corrected. While I strongly opposed Dodd-Frank and do not believe that it should have become law, I nevertheless believe that we should at least attempt to clean up the errors found throughout the legislation. Accordingly, the legislation I have introduced focuses purely on technical corrections of non-substantive inaccuracies and omissions in the final Dodd-Frank bill. The bill I introduced could have been many pages longer, but I sought to keep it to only those changes that were purely technical. There are many other technical changes that could be made that also involve policy judgments. I decided not to include those changes in my bill because I wanted to introduce a bill that could garner broad bipartisan support and serve as a starting point for forging additional compromises on other problems with Dodd-Frank. If Congress is ever going to be bipartisan, this is the bill. We should at a bare minimum be able to agree that a law with numerous technical errors should be fixed at least to the extent of those technical issues. While the issues addressed in this bill are technical in nature, they also take into account the realities with the ongoing implementation of Dodd-Frank. For example, this legislation extends for one year the deadline for completing and issuing the regulations, studies and reports required by Dodd-Frank that have not been met by the date specified. This provision does not aim to delay or undermine the rulemaking process in any way. On the contrary, it is meant to address the flawed rulemaking process stipulated by Dodd-Frank, which directs financial regulators to complete an unprecedented number of rulemakings in very short time frames. Presently, our financial regulators are in violation of the law because they have not completed scores of rulemakings by the times prescribed by Dodd-Frank. This is not how the world's leading democracy should function. Congress's laws should be followed, especially by the agencies it has created. Congress should either hold regulators accountable for not making statutory deadlines or should grant regulators more time so that they are not in violation of the law. In this case, extending deadlines is the appropriate and reasonable approach. While I offer this bill to technically improve Dodd-Frank, my views about the substantive provisions of Dodd-Frank have not changed. I continue to believe that it is a flawed and poorly conceived piece of legislation. It expanded the scope and power of ineffective bureaucracies, created vast new bureaucracies with little accountability, and seriously undermined the competitiveness of the American economy. Moreover, Dodd-Frank did all that without accomplishing what it set out to do--make our financial system safer. Instead, Dodd-Frank preserved and codified preferential treatment for large financial institutions. It solidified the close relationships between regulators and big banks by maintaining their pre-existing prudential regulators. Dodd-Frank also protected the big banks from bankruptcy by creating a new resolution mechanism to ensure that large financial institutions do not fail. In addition not one regulator was held accountable in the wake of the crisis. To add insult to injury, the very same regulators that missed the warning signs were then closely consulted on how to draft Dodd- Frank. Accordingly, many provisions in Dodd-Frank should be reexamined and replaced with language which would actually address the serious problems in our financial regulatory system. This bill, however, does not address any of my substantive concerns with Dodd Frank. In fact, I made a conscious effort to avoid any substantive recommendations, and to focus exclusively on technical corrections. My hope is that this bill will form the foundation for a more comprehensive debate on Dodd-Frank in the next Congress. Therefore, I intend to reintroduce this bill when we return in January. By working together to revise Dodd-Frank, I believe Congress can not only make our financial system safer, but also foster economic growth and job creation. One would think that we could reach a bipartisan consensus on that.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, earlier today a lot of us, Members of the Senate, joined the family and friends of our great colleague who passed away earlier in the week, as they brought his body into the U.S. Capitol. I rise here this afternoon to extend some of the tributes that we have made to the memory and to the life of Senator Inouye. For the past 26 years I was privileged to serve alongside Senator Inouye in this Chamber. I came to know him as a wise counselor, a skilled legislator, a formidable negotiator, and a trusted friend. His unassailable reputation as an American hero, however, had been forged long before any of us here ever met him. Senator Inouye did not demand respect. He commanded it. The reasons for this are many. In 1941, he witnessed firsthand the horror at Pearl Harbor. As a Red Cross volunteer, he cared for his fellow citizens injured in the attack. Not long thereafter, he joined the 442nd Regimental Combat Team. He was determined to serve his country despite the fact that he, like all Japanese-Americans, had been deemed an ``enemy alien'' when the U.S. declared war on Japan. As a young military officer in 1945, Daniel Inouye led his unit in a successful attack against a Nazi fortification in northern Italy. The valor, courage, selflessness, and determination he displayed during the battle are the stuff of legend, and would later earn him the Medal of Honor. During this attack he sustained serious permanent injuries that served as constant reminders of his sacrifice for our country. Senator Daniel Inouye began his political career as a member of Hawaii's Territorial House of Representatives in 1954. Almost immediately, his colleagues tapped him as the majority leader of that body. His tremendous leadership ability was already apparent. He then ascended to the Territorial Senate in 1958, and became Hawaii's first U.S. Congressman upon the granting of statehood in 1959. Only 3 years later, Daniel Inouye became a U.S. Senator. He was elected to a staggering 9 consecutive terms, continuing to serve until his passing. It is a testament to his effectiveness as a Senator and his devotion to his State that no challenger ever mounted a serious threat for his seat. Through his hard work in the U.S. Senate, Senator Inouye helped to ensure that Hawaii's economy and people prospered. As a member, and later chairman, of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye skillfully secured myriad infrastructure, natural resource, cultural, job training, and agriculture projects for his State. As a member of the Appropriations Committee I learned valuable lessons by observing Senator Inouye over the years. He understood the art of the deal, always operating out of mutual respect toward shared interests. And I can not recall a time when he did not deliver for the people of Hawaii. While he never lost focus on the interests of his State, he also maintained eternal vigilance on matters of national security. As a war hero, his attention to veteran affairs and military needs was unsurpassed. In addition, Senator Inouye served as the first chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence. As a former Chairman of this committee, I was honored to carry forward the rigorous oversight example he set. By the time his career ended, Senator Inouye had become the second longest serving senator in U.S. history. His list of accomplishments and honors is seemingly unending. In fact, it is among the most impressive compiled by any who ever set foot in this Chamber. Senator Inouye never talked about any of this. He was not brash or boastful or domineering. Rather, he carried himself with quiet reserve and firm resolve. Senator Inouye's life story speaks for itself and demonstrates a faith in and devotion to our country second to none. He was one of the most decent and inspiring people I have ever known. I am proud to have served with this great man and to have called him a friend. I offer my deepest condolences to his wife and family during this difficult time. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Dr. Taylor Lawrence, Jr. who, on Friday, October 12, 2012, was honored as one of four ``Hometown Heroes'' at the City of Montevallo's 2nd Annual Mayor's Breakfast Honoring Hometown Heroes. Taylor, who grew up in Montevallo, AL, was the keynote speaker at the event and was honored along with former Montevallo Mayor Sharon Anderson, World War II veteran Grady Parker, and former University of Montevallo English professor Dr. Elizabeth ``Libbie'' Rodgers. He graduated first in his class from the California Institute of Technology with a bachelor's degree in physics and from Stanford University with a master's degree and doctorate, both in applied physics. Taylor has had an accomplished professional career in the defense field and has held positions as vice president of Raytheon's Engineering, Technology and Mission Assurance and a vice president and general manager for the C4ISR and Space Sensors division for Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems. He served as my staff director when I was chairman for the Select Committee on Intelligence and prior to that position, as the deputy director of the Information Systems Office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Currently, Taylor serves as the president of Raytheon Company's Missile Systems business, the world's leading producer of weapons systems for the United States military as well as allied forces of more than 50 countries. In 1996, Taylor was awarded the Secretary of Defense Medal for Meritorious Civilian Service due to his exemplary work in his field. He is a former member of the Defense Science Board and vice chairman emeritus of the Air Force Studies Board of the National Academies, as well as a fellow at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Taylor is extremely bright, highly respected, and committed to excellence in his field. I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to work with him during his time as my staff director in the Senate, and am proud to represent a State that so many of today's professional leaders, Taylor included, also call home. I congratulate Taylor on his ``Hometown Hero'' award, and know that it was well-deserved.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Paul Davis, who passed away in his home on Sunday, September 23, 2012, at the age of 74. He was an award-winning journalist whose contributions to the journalism industry him the deepest respect from his peers and community. I am grateful that I was able to call Paul a longtime friend and mourn his passing. Born on September 3, 1938 in Clanton, AL, Paul enjoyed a long career as not only a journalist and publisher, but as an advocate for those who did not have a voice. He served as the owner and publisher of the Auburn Bulletin and Tuskegee News for 25 years and for many years authored a Sunday column in the Opelika-Auburn News. Under his watch, the Auburn Bulletin and Tuskegee News won dozens of awards for their quality news coverage. One of Paul's greatest achievements was his impeccable reporting on cases of negligence and abuse of mentally disabled patients at the Partlow School and Bryce Hospital for the mentally ill. His stories on these injustices led to a decision by the Federal court that required patients with disabilities receive an equal standard of care. For this work he was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize and appointed by Governor Bob Riley to the Alabama Department of Mental Health Board of Directors. Throughout his life and established career, Paul was honored with numerous awards, among them the Alabama Press Association's Lifetime Achievement Award, the Community Service Journalism Award from Auburn University, a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, and the Meritorious Service Award from the Auburn University Chapter of the American Association of University Professors. Outside of the newspaper business, Paul was one of the founding members of the Food Bank of Lee County and served as the president of the organization for 2 years. He continued to serve on its board as it expanded into five additional counties. He was also a member of the Auburn Church of Christ. Paul was one of my most trusted friends. An outstanding writer, thorough reporter, and advocate for the less fortunate, he was a man of the highest integrity and was an inspiration to me and to many in the journalism and mental health communities. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends, especially his wife, Gayle, his children, Alan, Susan, and Chris, and his stepchildren, Roger, Keith, and Scott, as they mourn the loss of this irreplaceable man. Paul's legacy will no doubt live on in the community and in the hearts of those who knew him. His contributions to journalism in Alabama and to the causes that he believed in will forever be remembered.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Robert H. Harris, who passed away in his home on Thursday, August 2, 2012, at the age of 82. Bob was a highly respected attorney for whom I had the deepest respect. I am grateful that I was able to call Bob a friend and mourn his passing. Born on June 9, 1930, in Columbus, GA, Bob spent the majority of his childhood in Goodwater, AL. He graduated from Auburn University in 1951 and from the University of Alabama Law School where he was an outstanding student. Bob was first in his class and was a member of the Law Review, Farrah Order of Jurisprudence, and the Order of the Coif. Bob went on to graduate from the University of Virginia Judge Advocate General School in 1955. He began practicing law when he was discharged as a captain after serving for 3 years in the U.S. Army from 1954 to 1957. He made significant contributions to the Decatur, AL, legal community and was admired for his diligence in his profession. I had the great privilege of serving with him in the Alabama Senate. Not only was he a well-respected and talented attorney, but he was an excellent legislator as well. Bob served two terms in the State senate and was named Outstanding Freshman Senator, Hardest Working Senator, and Most Outstanding Senator. He was appointed as the chairman of the committee that revised the Code of Alabama in 1975 for the first time since 1940. Beyond his contributions to the legal community, he was an active member of the First United Methodist Church where he taught the men's Bible class. He was also extremely dedicated to academia and served as a member of the Auburn University Board of Trustees for a decade. Additionally, he served as the Founding Director of the First American Bank. Bob was an inspiration to me, a caring father and husband, and a valuable asset to his community, his church, and to Auburn University. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends, especially his wife Betty Sue Harris and his children, Laurie, Amanda, Bobbie, Robert, and Parks, as they mourn the loss of this admirable man. I am honored to have called Bob a friend and colleague for more than 40 years. His contributions to the Decatur legal community, his church, and the State of Alabama will forever be remembered.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation to reauthorize the surface transportation bill, and, in particular, the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2012, which is the transit amendment before us today. While we are nearly 3 years beyond the September 2009 expiration date of SAFETEA, I am pleased we are finally moving one step closer to legislation that would allow infrastructure investments to move forward. Chairman Johnson and I worked together to produce bipartisan legislation that eliminates outdated, inefficient programs and promotes greater efficiency and effectiveness in public transportation systems all across America. The Federal Public Transportation Act passed the Banking Committee with unanimous support. This legislation before us reflected in the amendment currently under consideration maintains funding for public transportation programs at $10.5 billion a year. Unlike previous reauthorization bills, the committee was unable to provide an increase in the baseline funding amount for public transportation. We were, however, able to provide a substantial increase to existing programs by eliminating the bus discretionary program which previously contained earmarks totaling $984 million. In fact, we did not just eliminate one account that included earmarks, we eliminated all earmarks that were previously included in the reauthorization bill. These reforms have allowed us to provide public transportation systems with an increase in their guaranteed formula funding over the next 2 years. In addition to providing a stable source of funding, I believe we must institute a system that ensures greater accountability and encourages real investment in maintaining our aging public transportation infrastructure all over America. This issue, also known as state of good repair, is extremely important for public transportation, and our amendment makes it an integral part of the transit programs. The new starts process has undergone significant reforms in order to streamline and to improve delivery of capital investment projects. It also includes a new pilot project with the sole purpose of expediting project approval and attracting private investment. Setting aside, for a moment, the specific issues related to this amendment, I wish to speak briefly to what I believe is the most significant issue surrounding the reauthorization of SAFETEA--the solvency of the highway trust fund. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the mass transit account of the highway trust fund will end in 2013 with $2.8 billion--$6 billion short of what it will need to continue to meet its obligations resulting from this reauthorization bill before us. While the Senate is considering a 2-year authorization bill, others have advocated a longer term reauthorization. The length of the reauthorization is not as important, however, as the need to pay for all this spending before us. I believe most Americans would agree that a reauthorization bill that leaves the program insolvent or near insolvency upon its expiration would be irresponsible. I hope this is not what we are doing with this bill. Infrastructure spending is essential to our long-term economic stability and growth in this country. Nevertheless, this country cannot continue to deficit spend its way out of its problems for infrastructure or anything else. Therefore, I think we must begin this discussion with the realization that difficult decisions are going to have to be made, and for our part I believe the Banking Committee has begun to make some of these difficult decisions by providing level funding and eliminating unnecessary earmarks from the program structures. I look forward to continuing this debate and moving one step closer to completing a responsible and paid-for reauthorization bill. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SHELBY

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

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise again today to speak on behalf of fairness. We have heard quite a bit from the President on the campaign trail about fairness. But it appears there is no interest in fairness when it comes to transparency for the executive branch. The bill we are currently debating in the Senate will subject Congress to additional reporting requirements for certain financial transactions. The goal is to ensure that Members of Congress and congressional staff are not using their unique access to confidential information for personal gain. That goal is worthy. I believe this is an appropriate goal, and one I fully support. I do not understand, however, why the additional reporting requirements do not extend to members of the executive branch who arguably have even greater access to such confidential information than Members of Congress and their staffs do. It only seems fair that executive branch officials, who are already required to file annual financial reports, as we are, also be directed to meet the same additional reporting requirements being imposed on the legislative branch. I have yet to hear a compelling argument against equity between the branches. Some people have argued that the executive branch has other ways to deal with insider trading. Think about it. But none of those will subject executive branch employees to the same public scrutiny as this legislation would. I believe what is good for the goose, it seems to me, should be good for the gander. We have heard that all of our life. I understand there is a willingness on the other side to expand the reporting requirements, but it would fall far short of parity. Some have said here it would cost too much. But if we are willing to expand the population of executive branch officials required to report publicly, then any further expansion will only present marginal additional costs. Currently, less than 1 percent of the executive branch workforce is required to file financial disclosure statements. The other 99 percent are not. My parity amendment will not expand that universe. It will only require them to meet the same reporting standards that will apply to the Congress itself. As I understand it, the Democratic alternative to my amendment would produce some bizarre results. For example, a Senate office administrator who meets the reporting threshold would be required to report publicly as directed in this bill, but the head of enforcement at the Securities and Exchange Commission would not. That is bizarre. A Senate scheduler may have to make additional public disclosures, but the General Counsel of the Federal Reserve would not. This is not fair, and I believe it is unacceptable. My amendment simply says if you are an executive branch or independent agency official and you currently file financial disclosure reports, you will have to comply with the same public reporting requirements contained in this bill that we plan to impose on the Congress. My amendment also contains the same military personnel exemption that the Democratic alternative does, as well as the same 2-year implementation provision. My amendment is simple, fair, and deserves the support of every Member of this body. If my friends on the other side of the aisle believe in fairness, this would be a very good way to show it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, the Lieberman amendment is a side-by- side with the Shelby amendment. This Lieberman amendment would create loopholes, disparity, and it undermines the true transparency. I encourage my colleagues to oppose it. On the other hand, my amendment would be a side-by-side, and it creates parity, fairness, and true transparency. Without transparency the American people will be left in the dark. Also, the Senator from Connecticut is talking about who would have to file these. It will be the same people who have to file disclosures now. Why should they be exempt? My amendment would make it a level playing field. It makes a lot of sense. It is fair, it is honest, and the executive branch should not be excluded for any reason I can think of. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Maine. She is urging people to vote yea on the Shelby amendment. I appreciate that. It is a good amendment, and I will do the same thing: Vote yea. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SHELBY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHELBY

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

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up my amendment No. 1491, which is at the desk.

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the amendment that I have offered, No. 1491, to the STOCK Act. Right now, the STOCK Act, as it is written, does not apply to the public disclosure requirements to the executive branch or independent agencies. The amendment that I have offered this morning ensures the public disclosure of all trading by senior government officials. Yes, I will say it again. My amendment ensures the public disclosure of all trading by senior government officials. This is a very reasonable amendment, as it is limited to the executive branch and independent agency personnel who are already subject to the reporting requirements. My amendment merely expands the enhanced disclosure requirement under the STOCK Act to these current filers. Without this amendment, it would be impossible for the public to know whether the executive branch officials are complying with the STOCK Act. The public should be able to monitor trades of all executive and legislative branch officials in the same manner. Let's not make Congress transparent while leaving the executive branch and independent agencies in the dark. Ironically, the disclosure provisions of the STOCK Act currently do not apply to the Securities and Exchange Commission, their employees, and so forth, which is the body that will be responsible for enforcing such provisions on Congress. That is nonsense. The SEC, which has access to vast financial markets information, should be held to the same standards it has been charged with enforcing. My amendment will apply the disclosure provisions of the STOCK Act to all branches, ensuring transparency for all in government. I appreciate the willingness of the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to work with me. I look forward to working with them more to improve public disclosure for both the executive and legislative branches. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

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

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Richard Cordray to be the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Earlier this year, I and 44 of my colleagues sent a letter to the President expressing our concerns with the unaccountable structure of the Bureau. It is now 7 months later and the President has yet to respond. The majority has called for a vote they know will fail today. It is evident the White House and the majority have decided to place politics ahead of good policy. They have chosen to fabricate a political issue rather than do what is in the best interests of consumers. Nonetheless, they claim this debate is about consumer protection. There is no disagreement, however, that consumer protection, as the Acting President pro tempore knows, needs to be enhanced. The only real point of contention is whether the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection will be accountable to the American people. If we believe regulators never fail, then the current structure of the Bureau is just fine. Yet we all know regulators do fail and their failures harm consumers. Members of the majority, I believe, have repeatedly made this point with their criticism of the Fed's failure to regulate subprime mortgages and the OCC's preemption of State consumer protection laws. I strongly agree with the majority that our regulators failed to do their jobs in the lead-up to the financial crisis. But the lesson we should learn from the financial crisis is not that we need more unaccountable regulators. Instead, all of our financial regulators need to be held more accountable. Just as banks should be held accountable for their failures, regulators should also be held accountable for theirs. After all, if regulators know Congress can hold them accountable, they will have a far stronger incentive to do their jobs. That will be good, as we all know, for consumers. That is why, if the Bureau is reformed, the biggest winners will be the American consumers. Today, however, the majority will show that they are now more concerned with insulating bureaucrats from accountability and rewarding political allies than looking out for consumers. The administration and the majority will try to argue that the Bureau already is accountable. Indeed, they will say it is more accountable than any other financial regulator. But let's look at the facts. The facts tell a different story. First, it is necessary to appreciate the amount of power placed in the hands of the Director of this Bureau. No bureaucrat will have more power over the daily economic lives of Americans than this Director. The Director, in effect, will decide which Americans can access credit to buy homes, purchase cars, and pay for college. The Director will regulate not only financial companies but also tens of thousands of Main Street businesses. Also, the Director will unilaterally decide how the Bureau spends its up to $600 million budget. Despite the vast power vested in the hands of the Director, there are no effective checks on the Director's authority. To truly understand just how unusual the structure of the Bureau is, one need only compare it to other independent agencies. Unlike the Chairman of the SEC, the CFTC, and the Federal Reserve, the Director of the Bureau does not have to obtain the agreement of other board members or other government officials before acting. Unlike other consumer protection agencies, the Bureau is not subject to the congressional appropriations process. Indeed, other consumer protection agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, are both subject to appropriations and are governed by five-member boards. To further ensure against one party domination, the FTC and the SEC can have no more than three members from the same political party. Another important comparison is with the Consumer Product Safety Commission. This agency actually served as the template for Professor Warren when she first advocated for the creation of a consumer protection agency in an article several years ago. How is the Consumer Product Safety Commission structured? It is, first, funded through appropriations, and there is a five-member commission. Opponents of accountability have sought to justify the structure of this Bureau by pointing to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Once again, the facts refute their argument. First, the Comptroller can be removed at any time by the President for any reason. In contrast, the President can remove the Director of the Bureau only for limited grounds of ``inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance.'' This means the Director of the Bureau cannot be removed even if the Director pursues policies that are harmful to the American people. How is that good for consumers? As for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, its Director is far less powerful than the Director of the Bureau. The Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency oversees the regulation of only 14 financial institutions. He does not have sweeping powers over all consumers and tens of thousands of Main Street businesses like the Director of the Bureau would have. It should be common sense that the more power an agency has, the more accountable it needs to be. Moreover, rather than attempting to point to other regulators to justify the structure of the Bureau, a more responsible approach would be to make all of our financial regulators more accountable. And we should begin right here with the Bureau. To make the Bureau more accountable, we have proposed three commonsense reforms. First, the Bureau should be led by a board of directors, as I have said. This is such a commonsense measure that the President and the Democratic-controlled House originally called for the consumer agency to be structured as a commission. Second, the Bureau's funding should be subject to congressional appropriations. Currently, the Federal Reserve is required to transfer up to $600 million to the Bureau each year. These are funds that could otherwise be remitted to the Treasury and used for deficit reduction or other things. Diverting this money to fund an unaccountable Federal agency sets a dangerous precedent of using the Federal Reserve as an off- budget mechanism for funding programs. It had not happened before. In addition, funding the Bureau through the Fed removes any check on runaway spending. I believe the fiscally responsible way to fund the Bureau is through the congressional appropriations process just as every other consumer protection agency is funded. Our third reform proposal is to create an effective safety and soundness check for the prudential bank regulators. Some have said the Bureau already has a check under the so-called Financial Stability Oversight Council veto. But this veto was designed so it would never actually constrain the Bureau. The council can only overturn a rule in an extremely rare case: The rule must put at risk the safety and soundness of the entire U.S. banking system or the stability of the U.S. financial system. Under this construct, a rule could cause the failure of multiple banks, but the council still would not have standing to alter the rule. Additionally, the procedure is rigged to prevent the council from acting. It takes an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the council's members to set aside one of the Bureau's rules, and the Bureau's Director is a voting member of the council. In addition, only 3 of the council's 10 members are actually bank prudential regulators. This veto is not a check on the powers of the Bureau. It is a sham that they have today. We need to change that. Recent history shows that taxpayers are ultimately on the hook for bank failures. For this reason, consumer protection needs to be carefully coordinated with bank regulation to prevent against unnecessary bank failures. As presently structured, the Bureau can ignore any advice offered by banking regulators, even if it undermines the safety and soundness of banks. Unless this structural flaw is remedied, a real possibility exists that the consumer bureau will one day cause bank failures that end up harming consumers, taxpayers, and our economy. In light of the reasonableness of the reform proposals we have requested, the question remains: Why are the administration and the majority so insistent that the Bureau be unaccountable? Clearly, they want to use the Bureau as a political issue. A second reason is that they believe nonbank financial institutions are not currently regulated. But this is false. The Federal Trade Commission, the State attorneys general, and State financial regulators all have authority over nonbanks. A more likely reason for today's vote is that the Bureau will provide funding to key liberal activists, such as ACORN. Other agencies must return to the Treasury funds what they receive from enforcement actions. This consumer bureau, as now structured, is allowed to dole out money it collects from fines and penalties to liberal consumer groups. This reveals why the administration and the majority want so desperately for the Bureau to be unaccountable. They want the Bureau to be a permanent funding machine for their political allies. Finally, we are going to hear that our methods to achieve reform are unprecedented in the history of the Senate. It has been said: Never before has the consideration of a nominee been conditioned on a change in the law. This, of course, is ridiculous on its face. It is nonsense. Nominees are held routinely in the Senate by both parties, for any number of reasons, including the desire to make changes in existing law. The only thing different in this particular case is that it is completely transparent. No secret backroom deals. We are right here in the open. After all the harm caused to consumers by financial regulators, it is time the majority stops using consumer protection as a political football and starts taking actions that actually help consumers. We can take the first step by reforming the Bureau to make it accountable to the very consumers it purports to protect. Until that time, however, we cannot, we should not, and we will not move forward on the nomination of the Director to lead this massive and unaccountable bureaucracy. I urge my Democratic colleagues to stop obstructing reform and join with us to move forward on real consumer protection. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY. I yield back my time. Cloture Motion