Floor Statements

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

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.

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.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

I yield back my time.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I rise to speak regarding the Agriculture- CJS-THUD Appropriations Conference Report that the Senate will be voting on today. I was the only conferee not to sign this conference report and I regret to say that I have serious concerns with provisions in this bill.

The conference report contains language that will raise the loan limits for FHA to over $729,000. I strongly oppose this language for three reasons. First, this change means that FHA, along with the GSEs will continue to crowd out the private sector. The government currently accounts for 96 percent of mortgage-backed security issuance in this country. We desperately need private sector investment to return so that we can finally achieve sustained growth in the housing market. Second, raising the loan limits for only FHA puts further pressure on the FHA and the taxpayer. Just this week, we learned that there is nearly a 50 percent chance the taxpayers will need to bail out the FHA. Increasing the loan limit only increases the risk that the taxpayer will have to bail out FHA. Finally, this will cause the American taxpayer to subsidize homes for wealthy buyers. Helping affluent people buy homes worth over three quarters of a million dollars is directly at odds with FHA's mission to develop affordable housing.

It is a shame that this bill contains these ill-advised provisions, as there is so much worthwhile contained elsewhere within the text. I particularly want to commend Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran, and CJS Subcommittee Chair Mikulski and Ranking Member Hutchison, for the great work they did in supporting the Space Launch System, SLS, NASA's heavy lift rocket. The bill we will vote on this evening provides $1.86 billion to support SLS, $60 million above the President's request. The bill puts us on a path towards regaining our rightful place as the world's lead spacefaring nation. SLS will take us beyond low Earth orbit, where we have been stuck for decades, and once again make the American space program the envy of the world.

It is only as a result of continual pressure from both houses of Congress that the U.S. has not completely forfeited space supremacy to the Russians and the Chinese. The Obama administration's 2009 plan would have abandoned NASA's focus on manned exploration and instead subsidized so-called ``commercial'' space companies to perform endless taxi missions to low Earth orbit. Apollo astronaut Eugene Cernan, rightfully called the Obama plan a ``pledge to mediocrity.''

Fortunately, Congress has pushed back hard. Many of my Senate colleagues and I joined to pass authorization and appropriations legislation requiring NASA to develop a 130 metric ton heavy lift vehicle that will take America's next generation of astronauts to the moon and beyond. In countless hearings and private meetings with NASA and the administration we have come to an agreement that the primary purpose of NASA is to expand human frontiers, not serve as a grant administrator for speculative private ventures. Thankfully, after more than 2 years of continual pressure from Congress and the American people, we appear to have achieved a breakthrough. NASA is moving ahead with SLS and this CJS Appropriations bill will ensure that they have the resources to implement the plans the Administrator has laid out.

It is important to note that the recently announced SLS acquisition strategy goes to great lengths to control cost and technical risk. The strategy makes maximum use of existing contracts and flight-tested hardware from the Constellation and Shuttle programs while leaving room for competition where appropriate. Neil Armstrong recently told a House panel: ``Predicting the future is inherently risky, but the proposed Space Launch System includes many proven and reliable components which suggest that its development could be relatively trouble free.''

Mr. President, SLS is a bold and workable plan with strong support in both chambers and both parties. Although I have serious reservations about the overall legislation, I thank my colleagues on the CJS Subcommittee for embracing American leadership and the promise of American ingenuity through their support for SLS.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Gilbert Calvin Steindorff, Jr. who passed away on Monday, November 14, 2011, at the age of 86. Calvin lived a life dedicated to service to his country, and I am glad to have known and become friends with such an inspirational individual.

Gilbert Calvin Steindorff, Jr. served in the military with the U.S. Army in World War II in European theatre of operations. Upon his return, Calvin was appointed as the tax assessor of Butler County, a role he served for 28 years. He was appointed as probate judge of Butler County in 1975 and served in that role until his retirement in 1995. Calvin had a fierce dedication to public service and was a member of many civic organizations.

A truly selfless individual, Calvin also served as secretary at The First Christian Church, where he was an elder, providing guidance for those in his church community. For his career in public service and the invaluable role that he played in the community, Calvin was named Greenville's ``Man of the Year.''

Calvin is loved and will be missed by his wife, Maxine Darby Steindorff, and his son, Gilbert C. Steindorff, III, and many more family members and friends. My thoughts and prayers are with them as they mourn the death of a wonderful husband, father and friend. Calvin was a role model to many and a compassionate community leader who was devoted to the service of Baldwin County. His presence in Alabama will be greatly missed.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Mr. Emory McCord Folmar, who passed away on Friday, November 11, 2011. Emory lived a life dedicated to service to his country, holding many military and civic leadership roles, and was a true inspiration to many. I am glad to have known such a remarkable individual and fellow public servant.

Emory Folmar was born on June 3, 1930, in Troy, AL. He graduated from the University of Alabama with his B.S. in business and was a member of Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity. Emory's career in the military began at the University of Alabama as well. During his college years he served as a cadet colonel of the Army ROTC. Upon graduating, Emory attended parachute training and instructors' schools and was assigned to the 11th Airborne Division of the 2nd Infantry Division of the Army. During his years of service in the military, Emory received the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, and the Purple Heart during his service in the Koren war. He was a brave defender of

the United States of America and continued his dedication to the military throughout his career as a public servant.

In 1954, Emory moved to Montgomery, AL, where he began a successful construction business with his brother, James Folmar and Henry Flynn. His political career began in 1975 as president of the City Council District 8, and then he served as mayor of Montgomery from 1977 to 1999. As mayor, Emory made great strides in developing the downtown area and improving Montomgery's infrastructure. Staying true to his military roots, Emory worked hard for the wellbeing of Maxwell and Gunter Air Force Bases, which are vital to our national security and to Alabama's economy.

Additionally, Emory worked on the Presidential campaigns of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and ran for Governor of the State of Alabama in 1982. He has earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues, who have referred to him as the ``grandfather of the State's modern Republican Party.''

Emory is loved and will be missed by his wife, Anita Pierce Folmar, two children, Wilson Bibb Folmar III and Margaret Folmar Dauber, and many more family members and friends. My thoughts and prayers are with them as they mourn the death of a wonderful husband, father, friend, community leader. He was a role model to many, and the citizens of Alabama and of Montgomery are very fortunate to have benefited from his commitment to public service as mayor for 22 years.

Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the Senators from Texas and Mississippi and to say that I think a lot of people probably mean well but are often misguided when they say we are going to regulate this sector of the economy or we are going to regulate that.

The market, as you well know, is the driving force in our economy-- not just in the United States but worldwide. It is going to be the market that will decide what we do as far as job creation for our people everywhere, and I believe the Internet is an example of, gosh, let's don't overregulate it. Let it grow, let it do its job, and it will.

I would also like to speak about some commonsense steps that Congress can take right now to help our struggling economy. At a time when job growth is stagnant, Congress needs to lift the regulatory burden that is stifling capital formation. The Senate has before it several bills that would help private businesses raise the capital they need to grow and to create jobs.

This is an issue that should enjoy the support of both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. Access to capital, as the Presiding Officer well knows, is what allows entrepreneurs to transfer new ideas into living companies. Novel products, new services, and, most importantly, good jobs can be created.

Unfortunately, overregulation has made it progressively harder for small businesses to access capital in this country. I will give some statistics. They are clear.

In the 1990s, an average of 547 initial public offerings took place each year, compared with an average of just 192 per year after 1999. Small initial public offerings now make up only 20 percent of the total. In contrast, they made up 80 percent of the total in the 1990s, when we were creating so many small jobs.

In addition, the number of new businesses being launched each year is falling. In 2010, it was the lowest it has been since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started tracking the number in 1994.

The SEC has been slow to address these problems, even though it has the authority to do so. The Chairman of the SEC has spoken of the need for action, but we have not seen tangible results yet.

One year ago, one SEC Commissioner remarked:

My hope is that, as an agency, the Commission will move

beyond talking about small business capital formation and

will take concrete steps that actually foster it.

I believe we, the Senate and the American people, can no longer wait for the SEC to do its job. The time has come for Congress to take action. Our economy cannot afford to wait any longer.

The first thing I believe we should do to improve capital formation is to bring up for consideration several bipartisan bills that would implement important regulatory reforms. One bill would modernize the SEC's regulation A, which was initially designed to make it easy for small businesses to access our capital markets. Unfortunately, regulation A is outdated and rarely used.

Another set of bills would raise the thresholds for reporting so small banks and small companies are not subject to burdensome SEC reporting requirements.

These bills would still leave investors protected and ensure that public companies provide meaningful disclosure. Most important, investors would still be protected by the SEC's antifraud rules. These bipartisan bills represent a few steps we can take right now, but they are not comprehensive by any means.

Much more needs to be done to make sure registration requirements are tailored to the size and type of businesses. The existing one-size- fits-all approach means that small companies have to bear the same costs that large companies do when they go public. These inequities need to be addressed; it stifles job creation.

One would think that we could agree in the Senate on removing unnecessary restrictions on capital formation. Yet for the past 3 years, the majority party has dramatically increased government involvement in the economy. They have imposed one costly mandate after another on businesses. They have crowded out the private sector with massive government programs, resulting in persistently high unemployment and stagnant economic growth.

Basically, I think it is time for a new approach. It is time to revitalize the free markets in America. We can begin this effort by taking these small steps to help entrepreneurs find the capital they need to build their businesses and to create jobs.

I hope my Democratic colleagues will now do more than talk about creating

jobs and that we can work on a bipartisan basis on these bills that have bipartisan sponsorship to create jobs and join us here.

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

Mr. President, this past Saturday evening in my home town of Tuscaloosa, AL, there was quite a scoring event--I think most of the people in the Nation watched it--and that was between the No. 1 ranked football team in the Nation, LSU, Louisiana State University, and the University of Alabama. Senator Sessions and I were there. We had a bet that Senator Sessions and Senator Vitter initiated--and Senator Landrieu and I concurred with--on the outcome of the game. All in fun, but you know we all like to win.

This was a tremendous football game: no touchdowns on either side, five field goals, overtime. LSU won. I congratulate them. I congratulate my two Senator colleagues here today. It was hard fought between two great football teams, and today--people have probably seen me on the Senate floor a number of times--I have never worn the purple tie, but I have one on today because I lost the bet. We lost the game. I will not wear it every day, but out of respect for my colleagues from Louisiana: congratulations Senator Landrieu, congratulations Senator Vitter, congratulations to the people of Louisiana and to the football team and the coaching staff in Baton Rouge.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 45 seconds on this amendment.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Vitter amendment. The amendment will limit the taxpayers' exposure to the bailout of Fannie and Freddie. No more blank checks. We have already spent $169 billion in taxpayer dollars; $200 billion is more than enough. Think about it.

Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Menendez amendment. If this amendment becomes law, taxpayers will be forced to subsidize individuals who make upward of $200,000 a year so they may buy homes worth nearly $1 million. That is what this is about. Increasing the loan limits will only benefit those who do not need Federal subsidies.

This is simply not a good use of scarce taxpayer dollars. Even the administration does not support higher loan limits here. It is a bad amendment.

I yield my time.