Johnny Isakson

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Busiest in the world.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall vote No. 3 on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 2038. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' for rollcall vote No. 3 and I ask that the Record reflect that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ISAKSON

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ISAKSON. I would further ask to be recognized as if in morning business.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. We are back. Tonight, I understand, the Presiding Officer and I will be sitting together at the State of the Union event, which I am pleased to do. It is always a historic and seminal moment in our legislative process when the President of the United States talks about and lays out his plans for the future. From watching this morning on television and from reading some of the accounts of what is thought will be said tonight--I don't know what is going to be said yet--one of the overriding themes is going to be that of fairness. I think that is an important point for us to focus on in a second, particularly with regard to our spending, our debt, and our deficit, about what is fair to the American people. Last night--and I brought some notes--I did a telephone townhall meeting back to Georgia. We had thousands of people listening in on the call. I was able to take 17 questions in the course of an hour and one of the questions was from Fred in Barnesville, GA. Fred is a small businessperson. He asked this question: Senator, you were a small businessman; I am a small businessman. We had to operate within a budget. Why is it the U.S. Government doesn't have a budget? I think today is the 1,000th day we have been operating without a budget. That was a fair question. So if we want to talk about fairness for a minute, my contribution to fairness is going to be: What is fair to the American people, the American businessman, the American employer, the American employee? Let's think about it for a second. A budget is a guide by which we try to live under. It is an appropriation of our priorities for the future based on what we think we will need to accomplish our goals. But if we are without a budget, then we have the tendency to do what America has done over the last 3 years; that is, exponentially increase its debt and its deficit. What that has done is put a pall on the recovery and a pall on the economy. I would suggest the fairest thing we can do in the Congress and the fairest thing the administration can do is to see to it that we have a budget submitted, that it come to the floor of the House and Senate, that it be adopted, and then, more important, that we change our pace around here and live within that budget. I have some suggestions as to how we do that, but first and foremost I urge the White House to submit a budget this year. I understand, from this morning's announcements, it will be delayed until February 13. That is fine with me. But the quicker we get it to us, the better we are. Then, let the Budget Committees of the House and Senate act, and let us end up with a framework--not just for 1 year but, as the Presiding Officer knows, for 10 years--because we forecast out those budgets and those complications of those budgets for 10 years. But we have a broken system. We also have a broken will to do what is most important for the American people when it comes to spending their money. I wish to suggest how we change our habits and become a fairer legislative body and a fairer governing body for the American people. Senator Jeanne Shaheen and I introduced a bill 1 year ago called the biennial budget. It amends the Budget Control Act of the United States of America and changes the way we do business. It portends that, in the future, instead of appropriating and budgeting for 1 year, we will do it in 2-year cycles, and we will always do our appropriating and our budgeting in the odd-numbered years so, in the even-numbered year of reelection, we are doing oversight and fiscal responsibility. I think everybody in this room will admit we make an effort at oversight, to a certain extent, but practically speaking not near the oversight the American people have to do. It is ironic that our country, our people, our families, our retirees, our business folks, our employees the last 4 years of the recession have sat around their kitchen table lots of times. They reprioritized what they could afford and what they couldn't. They reallocated their resources to take care of their family and their children and they have been frugal and they have been conservative because they have to. They can't deficit spend. They can't borrow themselves into oblivion. They can't print the money and they can't write the checks. Don't you think the government of the people who are having to do that ought to have to at least live under the same set of circumstances? We need for this room to become a big kitchen table, big enough for 100 people of good will to sit down together. We need a White House that will submit a budget we can then argue about and set the priorities of this country and try and put a governor on what we are spending, try and put some type of accountability for where we are going, try and forecast into the future what it is the American people can expect of all of us. So when tonight the President talks about fairness, I hope one of his quotes will be: It is only fair to expect me, the President, to submit a budget to the Congress, and it is only fair for me, the President, to expect the Congress to act on that budget--because, after all, everything else flows from that. In the absence of budget responsibility, budget restrictions, budget projections, and a calculus for the future, we are spending without any governor or guide. It is akin to trying to drive from here to Alaska without a roadmap. I couldn't get there. I would probably have a wreck. I would probably run off the road because we don't know where we are going and we don't know how we are getting there. Unfortunately, of all the institutions in America, there is only one that doesn't know where it is going and how it is getting there, and that happens to be the government of the United States of America. So my message, this day of the State of the Union and this statement of fairness, let's be fair to the American people. Let's ask of ourselves what they are having to ask of themselves because of high deficits and high debt. Those living on fixed incomes are seeing interest rates of 0.25 percent--almost negligible. Markets have been flat in terms of investment. Real estate values are down 33 percent nationwide. I saw last night in Tampa, where the Presidential debate was, it is 52 percent. The worst it got post-1929 was 31 percent. We have the most significant, serious financial crisis in the history of the United States of America, and it is impacting our families and our people. So let's ask of ourselves, let's ask of our President what every American family has had to ask of itself--sit around our kitchen table and budget and prioritize. I would submit Senator Shaheen and I have a roadmap that works for process. It says do it in 2-year cycles, so we are committed to spending in 1 year and we are committed to savings, efficiency, accountability, and repealing out-of-date programs the other year. Wouldn't it be a great change in the body of politics for you and for I to be campaigning in even-numbered years, talking about what we are looking to save and cut, rather than what we are going to do to bring home the bacon? I think the day of bacon coming home reckoning is here, and it is time for the next bacon to be brought home to be a sound budget and fiscal policy for the people of the United States of America. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, this morning it was announced that the former officers of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are going to be prosecuted, or cases have been filed, for their misrepresentation of the liabilities that both of those institutions posed to the American Congress and American taxpayers. Last year when we passed the Dodd-Frank amendment on mortgages and on risk retention, we exempted Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from the liability that every other company in the country had to go through. We find ourselves today in a place where Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have cost the American taxpayer at least $171 billion. That number is rising because of the exemption from Dodd-Frank; Freddie and Fannie, other than FHA, are the only act in town. A week ago I introduced a piece of legislation to deal with this issue. It is a piece of legislation that will terminate Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and create a bridge, or a transition, from where we are to a privatized mortgage securitization and guarantee program. I want to briefly address how that takes place because in the end it will pay back the American taxpayer. It will put Freddie and Fannie out of business, and we will have a robust mortgage market available to the American people as the housing market begins to recover in this country. First of all, the legislation creates a new entity called the Mortgage Finance Agency. It is an agency with directors that are appointed by the President with advice-and-consent approval by the Senate. Its directors are members of the government that deal with financial institutions and financial regulations. It will have advisory groups for people affiliated with housing, and it will be established with the following goals: Within a year it will be up and running so it can be a guarantor of quality residential mortgages--and I underline QRM, quality residential mortgages. The mortgage disaster America has today was a failure of underwriting. We didn't make good loans. We made high-risk loans because they had high coupon paper and securitized it on Wall Street. People made a lot of money, but America lost and today our economy suffers because of it. The new mortgage finance agency would be able to guarantee and wrap high-quality residential mortgages. In those wraps and in those guarantees they would receive a fee which would go into a catastrophic fund to back up the risk on those mortgages. In addition to that, the QRM requirements would make it essential that no loan was made 95 percent loan-to-value. Any loan above 70 percent would have private mortgage insurance on the amount up to 95 percent, and within 36 months the agency would be required to have supplemental insurance coverage to take the risk down to 50 cents on the dollar. It would be required by the fifth year to have a game plan established and a plan of liquidating the asset and privatizing the guarantee to the private sector. That is a very important process because it is the bridge to the end of Freddie and Fannie and the taxpayer guaranteeing of residential mortgages. We would have a situation with a downpayment of 5 percent, private mortgage insurance of 25 percent, and supplemental insurance of 20 percent, and the risk to the government would be 50 cents on the dollar. In the great recession values fell 31 percent. In this recession they have fallen 33 percent. So the government's coverage would be 17 percent in addition to the liability that exists today. It is a very good place to have the government and to build an entity that brings us back to a mortgage market in the United States of America that is viable and that works. I don't like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and I don't like what happened, but it has happened. I know everybody wants to terminate them, and I do too. But we have a difficult housing market in America that will only come back when this robust capital is flowing into the mortgage markets, and that will only take place when we get ourselves out of the current dilemma and on a path toward privatization. The American private sector is a tremendous entity. It has proven in many ways they can find a solution to most all problems we have, but we have to create a bridge to that privatization. We have to create an entity that works, an entity that is self-sustaining, and change some of the principles of lending back to the way it used to be in this country so that when people borrow money on their houses, they really have a job, and it is verified, and their credit score indicates they can make the payments they are going to be required to make; that their credit history is a good history, and the house appraises and the underwriting is sound. Most importantly of all, the borrower has skin in the game, and there is insurance on the mortgage above 70 percent and supplemental insurance down to 50 percent. When we do that, we have qualified residential mortgages, an entity that in the beginning can secure those and can guarantee those and can, at the end of 10 years, have an institution that can be privatized. Here is the real kicker. Upon privatization, the money that is made by the government on the sale of the entity goes to pay back the taxpayer for the $171 billion or more they lost, and any excess money, which more than likely there would be, goes to reduce the national debt. So I hope everyone in this body will look at the Mortgage Finance Agency proposal I introduced last week. When we come back next year, instead of griping about the problems we have had, let's start looking to the solutions that will take us back to the America we love economically and the housing market that is absolutely critical to our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following my remarks, the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, be recognized.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. With no objection from me.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I appreciate the time. I first thank Senator Hatch from Utah for 16 continuous years of work on the balanced budget amendment. It was his fight in 1995 that brought that amendment to the floor within one vote of passing in the Senate, and it is his fight today to bring it back for another vote. I have listened to a substantial number of the speeches, and I come back to three points. Facts are stubborn, and there are three facts: First, we are spending too much; second fact, we are promising too much to our people; and third fact, we are borrowing too much. I ran a real estate company for 22 years. Real estate is all about borrowing and leverage, but you learn a lesson in real estate and you learn it very painfully. There is such a thing as good leverage and there is such a thing as too much leverage, and our country is at the breaking point on leverage. We have a process problem in the Senate and the House. We can't deal with our financial fiscal affairs, our promises to our people or our borrowing, and it is time we change the paradigm. I support a balanced budget amendment because if it is ratified by three-fourths of the States and becomes a part of the Constitution, it forces the Congress to just say no on spending when we are spending too much, it forces the Congress to look at entitlements and recognize that we can only promise that which we can afford, and it forces us to look at debt and recognize when we are in too much debt and we have become overleveraged. I want to put in a plug for something Senator Shaheen and I have been working on for a long time, and it is a fundamental process change called a biennial budget where you appropriate in odd-numbered years for 2 years, not 1, and you spend that even-numbered year, the election year, overseeing your expenditures and your programs to find savings, to find waste, and to try to balance your budget. If we changed our process and forced ourselves to do something like that, we wouldn't be facing the catastrophic consequences we are today. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for being on the floor and recognize her for her leadership on the issue, also, as one from a State that does biennial budgeting, as do 20 of the 50 States in the United States of America. I will tell you an interesting story about biennial budgeting. The nation of Israel got in financial difficulty 4 years ago. They were borrowing too much, they were spending too much, and they were going in debt too much. Israel asked around the world: What should we do to change our fundamental process? And they changed to a biennial budget. Two years later, their GDP was better, their deficit ratio was down, and GDP had gone up about 7.5 percent in 2 years, all because they got their fiscal house in order. So while some will argue that you can't do a balanced budget because it won't work, some will say 18 percent is too much, some will say you just can't do this and you just can't do that, there is one thing we can't do anymore; that is, spend beyond our means, borrow beyond what is good for our children and grandchildren, and promise to our seniors and those in poverty that we can deliver more than we can deliver. If we face the day of reckoning now and we reprioritize our entitlements, if we put our Tax Code on the table and reform it and we cut spending where we can, we can come up with a trifecta that will take this debate to ancient history, and we will begin getting the United States of America back in good fiscal soundness. That is what a balanced budget amendment starts, and I hope the end of it is that process and a biennial budget as well. I thank the President for the time, and I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I see the distinguished majority whip on the floor. I would like to propound a UC, and if he disagrees, please tell me. I would like to be recognized for 5 minutes, followed by Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire for 5 minutes, followed by Senator Enzi for 5 minutes.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. I thank Senator Hoeven for the recognition, and I thank the leader for his remarks. I just want to confirm what the leader just said by quoting from two recent articles. The first is from an article about Minister Oliver, who is Canada's Minister of Natural Resources, on his trip to Shanghai. Here is his quote: My mission to China is clear. I have come to raise awareness of the strength of Canada's natural resource sectors--as both an outstanding source of quality products and an attractive destination for investment. Let me read one other quote that occurred shortly after that speech was made by the Canadian Minister of Natural Resources: A unit of China Petrochemical Corp., [known as] Sinopec, agreed to buy Daylight Energy Ltd., a Canadian oil and natural-gas producer, for 2.2 billion Canadian dollars . . .--China's second [purchase and second] foray into Canada's oil patch in [the last year]. So to confirm what the leader has said, and to confirm what Senator Hoeven has acknowledged, this is not something we might fear happening later on. This is something happening now. If we default on the Keystone XL Pipeline now, we are giving a wide open year for the Chinese to come back to Canada, make those investments, tie down that oil, and encourage that pipeline to go--not to Houston, TX--but to Vancouver, Canada, and then on ships to China. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of both of these articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. ISAKSON. Just to thank the Senator for his leadership; the Senator's leadership on this issue has been outstanding.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. I appreciate the opportunity to share a few moments with Senator Chambliss on the floor of the Senate to pay tribute to a great Georgian, Larry Munson. Larry Munson was born in Minneapolis, and after the service he got a scholarship at a broadcasting school, and he got a job at the University of Wyoming. He worked his way to Tennessee, where he announced for the Vanderbilt basketball and football programs. Then, when the Braves moved from Milwaukee to Atlanta, he was brought in to be one of the announcers for Atlanta Braves baseball. Shortly after that, the voice of the Georgia Bulldogs retired and went to another job, and Larry Munson was asked to take over broadcasting at the University of Georgia. He was a Yankee, an outsider, not one whom many people thought much of when he started. Well, he became a legend in his time. He is a revered person in our State. It is said that Southeastern Conference football is not a game, it is a religion. In that analogy, if it is a religion in the Southeastern Conference, Larry was the high priest. He was the man whom everybody looked to to make the call nobody else could. The greatest tribute I ever saw to Larry Munson was on SEC football on an afternoon, at 3:30, when, a couple of years ago, before he retired, the announcer for CBS television brought in Larry Munson's radio play by play and set themselves aside because he was that good. He brought the game to life. He brought a spirit to the game you just could not find. He was a hometown boy. There was no question whom he worked for, no question who signed his ticket. He was always fair but always friendly to the Dogs. It was his spirit that brought the University of Georgia from the doldrums of the 1960s to the height of college football--the national championship in 1980, four SEC championships in the last 12 years, and, hopefully, an SEC championship this Saturday night. Larry Munson passed away a few days before Thanksgiving in his beloved town and hometown of Athens, GA. Although he started in Minneapolis, MN, and went to Wyoming and later to Tennessee, he finally resided in Georgia, and he died in Georgia. He is esteemed in our State. On this day, let me, on behalf of the people I represent in my State of all persuasions when it comes to college football, pay tribute to a man who gave every single measure of himself to make sure every person who listened to his voice saw a game, whether they were blind or could see, because he brought life to a game like nobody else could. He was a great Georgian and a great American. He will be missed. I can promise you this: His view at Stanford Stadium today is far better than the view he used to have in the broadcast booth because he is high over the stadium, where he made his living and where he will always be remembered. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to address the Senate as if in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate for the fifth time in the last 3 years to discuss this administration's relentless pursuit to modify and change the labor laws of this country that have served us well for in excess of 70 years. A particular instance that is going to take place tomorrow causes me to come one more time to discuss this subject. A few days before Thanksgiving last week, the National Labor Relations Board posted a notice that they would meet at 10 a.m. on Wednesday morning to discuss passing a rule that will change a 75-year precedent in labor law, a rule that will reduce the time period between the filing of a petition for a union organization and a vote to as little as 10 days. Historically, in our country, it has been an average of 38 days from the filing of the petition to the vote as to whether to organize. For no cause or reason, other than unleveling the playing field, NLRB has decided to rush this rule through in an ambush-type of event. If we pull the facts back and look, it is quite easy to see what they are trying to do. Craig Becker, who is on the National Labor Relations Board as a recess appointment of the President of the United States, was denied approval in the confirmation process in the Senate. The President chose to appoint him in a recess appointment which expires at the end of this December. Therefore, in the waning hours of his service on the Board, at a time in which the majority has a 2-to-1 vote, they are going to rush through a change in an amendment to the labor laws in the United States of America that have served us for 70 years. It is not right. It is not fair. At a time of high unemployment and distress in our economy, the worst thing to do is change the rules of the game that have served the country so well. I will fire a warning shot also. I think there is something else that will probably happen before the end of the year, and that is there will probably be a posting of a rule to make microunionization possible. It has already been discussed by the NLRB. It is a process whereby we could take separate departments in the same company and let them unionize one at a time. Take a Home Depot, for example, or a Kroger grocery store. Let the butchers unionize and then let the bakers unionize and then let the detergent salesmen unionize and then let the janitors unionize and let the shop end up having 15, 20, 25 different union organizations in the same store. That has never been able to be possible and it is not right. It should be across the board within the company. So I come to the floor to let everybody know at NLRB that I know what is going to happen tomorrow morning. I know it is a rush to judgment and it is a bad judgment and it is a mistake. We have great labor laws in this country. In fact, if we take this petition and change it down to 10 days, we are not recognizing the fact that of all the elections that have taken place in the last couple years, the unions have won 67 percent of the time. There is no problem with the organization laws, and there is no reason to compress the time from the filing of the petition to the vote. Fair is fair. A company that has an organization petition filed against it ought to have a reasonable period of time to assess the grievances that are advertised against them rather than compressing the vote period and having a rush to judgment. I hope tomorrow the NLRB will recognize that a rush to judgment is wrong. It is not good for the country, it is not good for our economy, and it is not good for the American people. I will oppose it and do oppose it today, as I will oppose microunionization should they attempt to do the same before this year is out. I yield back my time and notice the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today, I highlight yet another assault on private-sector employers by this administration and its appointees. Rather than empowering businesses to help bring us out of this economic downturn, the White House continues to tilt the scales in favor of its allies--the labor unions. Nowhere is this more evident than the recent actions of the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB. For the past 77 years, the NLRB has recognized a bargaining unit as all the employees of the employer, a facility, a department, or a craft. A bargaining unit had to be a sufficient size to warrant separate group identification for the purposes of collective bargaining. This standard was developed through years of careful consideration and congressional guidance. On August 26, 2011, the NLRB decided to recklessly disregard this longstanding precedent. In its ``Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile'' decision, the NLRB decided that unions can now handpick a small group of employees doing the same job in the same location for organization purposes. For instance, cashiers at a grocery store could form one small union separate from the baggers, produce stockers, or deli butchers. Unions have found it much easier to organize three employees rather than 30. Employers, especially retail chains, fear that this could create several dozen unions all within the same store location--making it easier for unions to gain access to employees and nearly impossible to manage such fragmentation of the workforce. Let me be clear: I do not oppose efforts by employees to unionize if they choose to do so. I do, however, oppose the government interfering in the principles of a democratic workplace and tipping the scales in favor of one party over the other. I am proud to stand up today, along with 28 of my Republican colleagues, to introduce the Representation Fairness Restoration Act. This bill will reinstate the traditional standard for determining which employees will constitute appropriate bargaining units. The NLRB's actions are yet another clear example of how President Obama's appointees at this ``independent'' agency are clearly playing favorites at the expense of the American worker and our economy. We need to send a message to the administration that the NLRB's decisions are only adding to the pressure and uncertainty facing businesses today. This runaway agency must be reined in and I stand by private-sector employers by helping restore fairness to the workplace.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today, I highlight yet another assault on private-sector employers by this administration and its appointees. Rather than empowering businesses to help bring us out of this economic downturn, the White House continues to tilt the scales in favor of its allies--the labor unions. Nowhere is this more evident than the recent actions of the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB. For the past 77 years, the NLRB has recognized a bargaining unit as all the employees of the employer, a facility, a department, or a craft. A bargaining unit had to be a sufficient size to warrant separate group identification for the purposes of collective bargaining. This standard was developed through years of careful consideration and congressional guidance. On August 26, 2011, the NLRB decided to recklessly disregard this longstanding precedent. In its ``Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile'' decision, the NLRB decided that unions can now handpick a small group of employees doing the same job in the same location for organization purposes. For instance, cashiers at a grocery store could form one small union separate from the baggers, produce stockers, or deli butchers. Unions have found it much easier to organize three employees rather than 30. Employers, especially retail chains, fear that this could create several dozen unions all within the same store location--making it easier for unions to gain access to employees and nearly impossible to manage such fragmentation of the workforce. Let me be clear: I do not oppose efforts by employees to unionize if they choose to do so. I do, however, oppose the government interfering in the principles of a democratic workplace and tipping the scales in favor of one party over the other. I am proud to stand up today, along with 28 of my Republican colleagues, to introduce the Representation Fairness Restoration Act. This bill will reinstate the traditional standard for determining which employees will constitute appropriate bargaining units. The NLRB's actions are yet another clear example of how President Obama's appointees at this ``independent'' agency are clearly playing favorites at the expense of the American worker and our economy. We need to send a message to the administration that the NLRB's decisions are only adding to the pressure and uncertainty facing businesses today. This runaway agency must be reined in and I stand by private-sector employers by helping restore fairness to the workplace.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, tomorrow I will join with what I hope will be every American in paying tribute to our veterans who have served us over 200 years to protect the liberty, the freedom, and the peace that all of us enjoy--our veterans from the Revolutionary War, veterans who created this great Republic, to our veterans who serve today in Afghanistan and the war on terror. In the history of our country, every generation has been called at a time of trouble, and in America's good fortune every generation has responded. There are significant dates in the history of our country that remind us of the great military victories that we have had and the great sacrifices our soldiers have made: December 7, 1941, the terrible attack on Pearl Harbor; June 6, 1944, when Americans bravely stormed Omaha Beach and began the invasion of Europe which ran out Nazi Germany. We all remember, with horror and with terror, 9/11/2001 when New York, Washington, and all of America and all peace-loving people were attacked by al-Qaida, and just a few days later, September 20, when we began and initiated our effort to go after al-Qaida wherever it was, and now recognizing, a little over 10 years later, terrorists have been disrupted, bin Laden has been killed, and America and the world are a safer place. In the financial and economic history of our country, there have also been significant dates which we should remember and significant responses which we also should recognize: the tragedy of October 1929 when the market crashed and the Great Depression began, the difficulty of Black Friday in 1987 when the markets had a terrible crash. Those were all memorable times, and we hated to see our financial and economic stability upset. Well, there is another critical day coming in America's history, and it is coming 13 days from today on November 23, 2011, when the select committee we in this Senate and the Members of the House created to address our troubles economically in this country, which are rooted in our spending, rooted in our tax system, and rooted in our entitlement system--the select committee is to come back with at least $1.2 trillion in cuts, revenue increases, or reform of entitlements over a 10-year period of time, to be matched with the $900 billion that we cut in August to, hopefully, get us on some type of a track that will be a sustainable recovery in getting our balance back in line. But there is fear that a deal will not be reached, and that is a failure that is not an option, in my judgment. Yesterday, there was an offer put on the table that involved revenues, involved the reform of entitlements, and involved spending cuts put on the table to begin the discussion to find common ground to have $1.2 trillion or more in cuts. Unfortunately, as I understand it, the conversation ended, and they are not back at the table yet, and there are 13 days left to go. As just one Member of the Senate, but as the father of three and grandfather to nine, someone who has lived in this country almost 67 years, I implore my colleagues on the select committee, and all of us in the Senate, to be supportive of their effort to get back to the table, to put all issues back on the table, and understand that failure is not an option. Today in Greece, in Italy, in Spain, and in the European Union there is great fear. There is a search for leadership in those that can control their debt, control their entitlements, and control their spending. America, as it led on D-day on June 6, 1944, as it led in the battle against al-Qaida and terrorists, must lead economically at this time more than ever. It is time for us to put forward a plan that gives us a chance to recover our economy over time, lower our debt and our deficit over time, and reduce our spending over time. It is not an instant, 1- day cure that we seek, but it is an amortization of our liabilities to get our leverage down and our hopes and our prosperity up. So as one Member of the Senate, I implore our members of the select committee to come back to the table, to put every issue on the table, to forthrightly discuss them, and understand that November 23, 2011, is going to be a historic day in this country--historic because we found a solution and began a process or historic because we as Americans for the first time looked the other way. As one Member of the Senate, I don't want to look the other way. I want to look my constituents square in the eye and say that I was willing to look at spending; I was willing to look at entitlement reform; I was willing to look at revenues. I am willing to find a path forward so America can remain in the future what it always has been; that is, a beacon of economic security in a troubled world. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. ISAKSON. It is going to be tough, but let me say there is a 15- basis point fee on every loan that closes on this that goes into the credit that is issued by Fannie, Freddie or FHA; it makes the taxpayer whole, plus $11 million. It is right for the housing market. It takes us back to where we were. It doesn't add any additional liability.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me try to dispel what concern there may be and the concern I heard right before we adjourned in August as to why not to extend the loan limits. People were afraid--and I understand the fear--that it might cause some additional liability in cost to the government and the taxpayers. Let me make something crystal clear: We are going through a terrible foreclosure problem right now in this country, not because of loan limits but because of underwriting. Underwriting today, because of the ramifications of the real estate collapse, is the most pristine underwriting I have ever seen. I was in the business for 33 years--since 1966. I have seen a lot of housing recessions go by. I have seen a lot of difficulties. This one is the worst I have ever seen, but it was not caused by the amount of loans made. It was caused by underwriting. As Senator Menendez has said, this will pay the government back because of the fee associated with the loan, in the first place. In the second place, it will answer the big objective we need to start applying in this country, and that is doing no more harm. A lot of the problems that have been manifested in the real estate industry have been manifested by our doing the harm, either in what we imposed on Freddie and Fannie or what we did not allow to have happen. The restrictions now on mortgage underwriting under Dodd-Frank and the requirements that are now true in all of our underwriting agencies are so strict that the underwriting of loans is so pristine that only the best of the best is being made. The unintended consequence of not extending these increases in August caused a number of real estate transactions that were made to never close. Because the limit went down, therefore, the loan went down. No one in this body should confuse the amount of a loan with its ability to be repaid. They need to understand, it is the underwriting of the loan that ensures the repayment. This, as the Senator said, will add an income to the U.S. Government. It will not add additional pressure on the U.S. taxpayers. It will at least give us breathing room in a housing industry that is still struggling terribly. So I would ask any of our Members who were objecting back in August to these loan limits being restored, please come see me. I do not know a lot about many things. I know a whole lot about this because I made my living in this all of my life. I have no interest anymore, so there is no self-interest, except to know we are in deep trouble in our economy. You are never going to get 9 percent unemployment down until you bring construction back. You are never going to get the American consumer to have more confidence until they feel as though the value of their homes is secured. Those things are not going to happen if a reluctant Congress continues to pass suppressing legislation or keep these loan limits down rather than doing things that will do no harm and help the housing market. So I lend my full support to Senator Menendez and what he has done. I ask for favorable consideration by our colleagues in the Senate.

Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, for his leadership on this issue. I ask to be recognized.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. The Senator from Mississippi jogged my memory, and I want to jog his. He was in the House of Representatives in 1994, if I am not mistaken. I got here in 1999. But I remember the first year of the Clinton administration, when they put a luxury tax on yachts, yacht construction went out of business and thousands of jobs were lost. I don't know if Trinity is a sub S, an LLC, or a sole proprietorship, but it is probably one of those three types of corporations, and I am sure it is a small business. They are going to have a 5.6-percent surtax on their income because of what is in the proposal of the President, which is, allegedly, to pay for a jobs bill. So this is deja vu all over again. The administration is imposing more taxes to pay for government jobs that take money out of the pockets of small business that creates the jobs in America. Trinity Yachts--and I will do some research to find out if that is true, because I don't know the company--I will bet is one of the ones that pays their taxes as if they were an individual, and they would be affected by the tax the President is proposing, just like the yacht industry that was put out of business in 1993 because of the Clinton tax. So the Republicans took over in 1994 and reformed the Tax Code and cut Federal spending.

Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his stories, which are true and to the point. My story was about two small businesses. And I thank the Senator physician from the great State of Wyoming, and I would ask if he has any additional remarks.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to, first of all, kind of tag on to the remarks of the leader for just a second. One of the things I wish we would do in this body is get out of the business of demonizing certain segments of our population. Both sides are guilty of it, from time to time. But I wish to particularly talk about the major employer of the United States--small business--and the leader's reference to the 5.6-percent surtax. Documents show that 392,000 American small businesses would be impacted by a 5.6-percent surtax in order to pay for the President's jobs bill. Records show that 72 percent of the American people are employed by small business. We have to ask ourselves this question: If we are interested in creating jobs, why would we target the job creator that creates three- fourths of the jobs in America and put a surtax on them? It does not make any sense. If there were sincerity in that offer, those people would first and foremost be carved out on any punitive surtax and we probably would have more employment. I wanted to make that point. I will join anytime, anyplace, anywhere with the leader to work on creating jobs because that is job one for the United States of America. I was a small businessman for 33 years, ran a small business for 22 years. I understand the heart and soul of small business. Today I come to the floor to talk about two small businesses in Georgia and the effect of regulation on those small businesses and the decisions they have made this year that impact employment and the economy. One is a lovely lady named Susan Kolowich. Susan is a dear friend of my wife's. My wife worked for her for 13 years, has not worked for her in the last 5 or 6 years. She opened a shop in East Cobb County, in Marietta, GA, 23 years ago called C'est Moi--``It is I.'' She loves France. She would go to France every year and buy, and she would bring back gifts which she sold in her gift shop. It was a successful small business for 23 years, so successful that her husband Jim, who had been a Subway sandwich shop owner, decided to open a restaurant called Cafe de Paris and join it with her C'est Moi shop so people could come and shop and eat and get a flavor of France. For 10 years he ran the restaurant and for 23 years she ran the store successfully. It was difficult in the last 3 or 4 years because of the economy, but they stayed in business. But finally she threw in the towel and sold the company. She sold her shop, and Jim, her husband, sold his restaurant. They sold them because they were up to here with the oppressive regulation of our government and the continued threat of things exactly like the surtax on their small business at a time in which sales are very difficult. That is not an abstract story, that is the truth. I am sure it is happening in Mississippi, and I am sure it is happening in Wyoming. Let me talk about a little bit larger small business, Hennessy Jaguar and Hennessy Land Rover over in Atlanta, GA. One of the principals in it is a guy named Steve Hennessy. Steve is a good friend of mine. On January 3 of this year, I went to the OK Cafe in Atlanta to join a couple for a meeting about some legislation. It is kind of the watering hole for breakfast in Atlanta. Everybody who is anybody kind of goes there. It is a great place to eat. When I walked in the door and walked past the cash register, where you can see out into the cafe, to see if my guests I was going to meet with were there, Steve spotted me. I was not going to meet with him. He jumped up and said: Johnny, I need to talk to you now. He ran across the restaurant. I thought he was going to give me a bear hug, he looked so excited. He got up close, and he put his index finger right on my chin. He said: I just fired a salesman and hired two compliance officers to comply with the credit requirements of Dodd-Frank. So regulation did create two jobs. It created two compliance officers, but it cost a salesman. Well, if you are punishing the salesman and rewarding the compliance officer, the economy is going to go straight down because you are punishing productivity, you are punishing job creation for the sake of regulatory compliance. Now, some regulation is good. I believe our job as legislators is to see to it that we mitigate risks for the American people. But this administration appears to think its job is to eliminate risk. Well, if you eliminate risk, you stay in bed--when you wake up in the morning, you stay there until night, you do not do anything because you do not take a risk. Capitalism is about risk. Risk and reward are about our economy. So when people talk about regulatory oppression, those are two stories in Atlanta, GA, where regulation has actually caused two businesses to be sold and jobs to be lost and another business to hire two people to comply with government regulation and fire someone who was in sales. It is backward at best, and it is wrong. So I say to the leader, who did make an acknowledgement that he wanted to mitigate regulation, let's sit down and let's find out what we need to do. Let's call a timeout. Let's do what Senator Collins from Maine said. Let's take a timeout for a year. Let's try to digest and absorb the regulations we have passed without continuing to put more threatening regulations on top of businesses at a time when we have 9.1 percent unemployment in America, and in my State we have 10.2. It is time for us to be proactive on taking the shackles off American small businesses, not threaten them with surtaxes and not oppress them with regulation. Instead, let's work to empower small businesses to help us come out of this recession. I think my dear friend Senator Barrasso, the physician from the great State of Wyoming, wants to address precisely the same subject I am.