Floor Statements

Madam President, I move to proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 30.

Madam President, I yield myself up to 15 minutes of the time.

Madam President, on May 11, 2010, the National Mediation Board, the board that oversees labor relations in transportation--in the railroad and airlines industries--finalized a regulation repealing the 75-year-old majority rule. Under the majority rule, a majority of the organizing unit was required to affirmatively vote yes to unionize. The repeal of this rule means that now a minority in the bargaining unit can organize, essentially permanently, the entire organization of the unit.

Today, I am asking this body to pass S.J. Res. 30 to undo this rule change under the procedures created by the Congressional Review Act of 1996. This law allows Congress to disapprove regulatory rules issued by Federal agencies by enacting a joint resolution of disapproval. This resolution will revoke a recent regulation promulgated by the National Mediation Board eliminating the old majority rule that had been in place for 75 years under 12 Presidential administrations.

Under the old rules, a majority of the workers in the organizing unit were required to affirmatively vote yes in order to organize. Under the new rules, however, only a majority of those voting are required to vote yes to organize a union.

Let me give you an example. If an organizing unit had 10,000 employees, under the 75-year-old rule, 5,001 would have had to vote affirmatively for a union. Under the new rule, if only 4,000 turned out to vote, only 2,001 would have had to vote affirmatively to be able to unionize. In fact, in large measure, it seems to me, it is kind of ``card check lite.''

There is no sound legal or policy basis for hastily

changing a rule that has been in

place and upheld repeatedly for 75 years. Throughout this

time, the majority rule has furthered the primary purpose of

the Railway Labor Act, which is ``to avoid any interruption

to commerce or to the operation of any carrier engaged

therein.''

The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the rule not once but twice. The National Mediation Board, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, previously rejected changes to the majority rule on four separate occasions. In fact, the National Mediation Board, under former President Jimmy Carter of Georgia, concluded that only Congress could make such a decision.

Even the Obama administration's own Labor Department defended the soundness of the majority rule, writing on October 8, 2009:

For 70 years, the Board has required, when there is no

representative and just one organization is seeking to be

representative, a majority of the workers in the craft or

class to vote for that organization.

In so doing, President Obama's own Labor Department argued that all past boards ``reasonably construed'' the Railway Labor Act.

As former National Mediation Board Chairman Elizabeth Dougherty wrote in her strong dissent of the repeal of the majority rule, making this change ``would be an unprecedented event in the history of the National Mediation Board.''

She continued:

Regardless of the composition of the board or the

inhabitant of the White House, this independent agency has

never been in the business of making controversial, one-sided

rule changes at the behest of only labor or management.

The majority rule is not unfair to organizing efforts, as over two- thirds of the 1,850 reported elections since 1935 have resulted in a union. Moreover, an average of 72 percent of airline and railroad employees are represented by unions, while only 8 percent of private- sector workers are union represented.

One of the reasons the majority rule was approved is because recognition of a union under the Railway Labor Act is essentially permanent, and I reiterate that. The decision is essentially permanent and irrevocable. Thus, to reference my example earlier, the minority of 2,001 in an employee group of 10,000 could irrevocably unionize an organization and make it permanent.

Quoting the Obama administration's Labor Department again:

Unlike the National Labor Relations Act, the Railway Labor

Act does not provide for a decertification process.

``Does not provide for a decertification process.''

Therefore, the union's certification continues until

another union makes a showing of interest to represent the

respective class or craft. . . . Consequently, it is of

utmost importance that a certified union has the support of

the workers it is certified to represent.

While existing practice allows for a cumbersome and slow ``straw man'' union disillusion process, the Railway Labor Act has no decertification process as there is under the National Labor Relations Act.

The current ``straw man'' union disillusion process is Byzantine and nearly impossible for workers to use. This is how National Mediation Board Chairman Dougherty described the process:

Employees who no longer wish to be represented by a union

must select an individual to stand for election (the so-

called ``straw man''), convince a majority of the eligible

voters in the craft or class to sign authorization cards for

that individual (while attempting to explain that this

individual is not actually going to represent them), and then

file an application with the Board. If the requisite showing

of interest is met, an election is authorized, and the

employees must either vote for the ``straw man,'' with the

hope that he will later disclaim interest in representing the

craft or class, or abstain from voting.

What a ridiculous process that is.

Unfortunately, the new rule allows no corollary process by which employees can choose to opt out of unionization. Thus, the Obama administration greatly lowers the bar for unionization, while continuing to ensure that it is nearly impossible to decertify a union.

In Teamsters v. BRAC, the DC Circuit Court wrote:

It is inconceivable that the right to reject collective

representation vanishes entirely if the employees of a unit

once choose collective representation. On its face, that is a

most unlikely rule, especially taking into account the

inevitability of substantial turnover of personnel within the

unit.

If the Obama administration truly sought to ``more accurately measure employee choice,'' they would have provided a parallel process by which employees could vote out a union in an election conducted in the same manner as the election which resulted in certification of the union in the first place. Of course, they did not do that.

Quoting Chairman Dougherty again:

Apparently, employee choice only matters to the Majority

when it relates to changing the status quo from no

representation to representation and not the other way

around.

The impact of this is dramatic in my State, and it has a dramatic impact on Delta Air Lines, which is headquartered in my State.

On April 14, 2008, Delta and Northwest Airlines announced a merger. Before the merger, Delta was a predominantly nonunion organization. Its pilots were unionized, but flight attendants and ground personnel were nonunion. Delta employees--many of whom reside in Georgia--were and still are some of the most dedicated employees of any company in the United States, and some of the best paid employees in the airline industry, which explains why Delta employees have voted down six unionization drives since 2000 alone.

Some of the former employees of Northwest, which was a much smaller operation than Delta, wish the new Delta to adopt their old labor agreements. Those old labor agreements at Northwest led to a long history of labor strife, lower pay, and burdensome work rules.

I say, leave that decision up to the workers. If the benefits of union representation are so great, then why the need to change the rule? This administration simply refuses to obey the will of the majority of the class and has chosen to side with the union in the passing of this rule.

As National Mediation Board Chairman Dougherty has written, the board's actions are targeted at ``40,000 employees at two major airlines--the largest group of elections in the history of the National Mediation Board. I believe it is harmful to the reputation and credibility of the [National Mediation] Board for it to take a position in favor of a change to our election rules during these elections.''

In short, we are here today for one reason and one reason only: The Obama administration has chosen to tilt the outcome of unionization elections at Delta Air Lines in favor of the transit unions.

Let me discuss the integrity of this process that took place at the Board.

Once confirmed by the Senate, revoking the majority rule was clearly job one for Members Puchala and Hoglander. Only 5 weeks after Mr. Hoglander was confirmed on July 24, 2009, the AFL-CIO requested the rule change on September 2, 2009.

Two months later, on November 2, the National Mediation Board issued the proposed rule. Not coincidentally, the transit unions immediately withdrew their applications to organize Delta, giving Hoglander and Puchala more time to stack the deck in their favor. Public remarks of union leaders from the Association of Flight Attendants have since confirmed their insider knowledge of the proposed rule.

On November 6, the Democratic members of the National Mediation Board told Chairman Dougherty they had prepared a ``final'' version of the proposed rule and she had only 1\1/2\ hours to consider their proposal.

Further, the Democratic majority told her she would not be permitted to publish a dissent in the Federal Register. Of course, publication of a dissent is not prohibited by any agency.

Finally, on May 11, 2010, the Democratic majority issued their final rule, having prevented an honest and forthright debate and comment--all of this from an administration that prides itself on transparency.

Throughout their effort to repeal the majority rule, the Democratic majority and the National Mediation Board intentionally left Chairman Dougherty out of the process. As she wrote in her stinging dissent: ``This rule was drafted without my input or participation.''

I am concerned this course of conduct by two former union leaders plainly reflects a predetermination to proceed with a course of action beneficial to transit unions at the expense of fairness and sound public policy.

Chairman Dougherty is correct when she writes:

Independent agencies have an obligation to avoid even the

appearance of impropriety. The Board's failure to do so in

this instance has damaged the Board's reputation irreparably.

Clearly, this administration is afraid that the Employee Free Choice Act, which it promotes, will not pass the Senate in the near future. As a result, President Obama has repeatedly assured union bosses in Washington that his administration will use the Federal regulatory agencies and Executive orders to implement their radical agenda on behalf of labor bosses in Washington.

We are just beginning to see the impact that former union boss Craig Becker is having as a member of the NLRB. Mr. Becker was rejected by this body on a bipartisan vote. The President responded by thwarting the will of the Senate and extending to Mr. Becker a recess appointment.

Since assuming his position, Mr. Becker has been anything but impartial to the unions. He has refused to recuse himself in cases involving his old employer, the SEIU, and is doggedly attempting to foster card check campaigns at businesses throughout the country.

Last week, President Obama said:

What we've done instead [of getting EFCA passed in the

Senate] is try to do as much as we can administratively to

make sure that it's easier for unions to operate.

The repeal of the majority rule fits into this pattern. It is yet another attempt by the Obama administration to circumvent the Congress of the United States and vilify American businesses.

As the Supreme Court wrote in Russell v. National Mediation Board in 1985:

Employees were given the right under the (Railway Labor)

Act not only to vote for collective bargaining, but to reject

it as well.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration's two Democratic nominees to the National Mediation Board, in repealing a 75-year-old rule without congressional approval or adequate reasoning, have recklessly tossed aside fairness and impartiality to benefit their former labor bosses in the labor movement. In so doing, they have eviscerated the right the Supreme Court articulated.

The Congressional Review Act is the appropriate legislative vehicle for Congress to undo this assault on workers' rights. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval.

I ask unanimous consent that letters supporting this resolution from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Alliance for Worker Freedom, Americans for Limited Government, and Associated Builders and Contractors be printed in the Record.

I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a document entitled ``Letters from Workers.''

Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, let me take a moment to share a few alternative ideas to the distinguished Senator's representation.

First of all, with regard to Ms. Puchala's response to my question in the confirmation hearing that all rules ought to be judged on their merit, I think that is a very good response. But it is coincidental or ironic that in one of the largest union votes in the history of America--the vote that will take place between Delta and Northwest employees on whether to unionize flight attendants--that when they were sworn in as board members, the previous application by the union for an election was postponed to give enough time for the rule change to take place in the first place.

I do not know if that was judgment on merit or whether it happened to be just coincidental timing. I will say it was probably not based solely on the merit of the decision.

Secondly--and I love the Senator from Iowa. He and I are dear friends--if you follow his thought process on not counting ``no'' votes, you have to look at this. Past practice at the National Mediation Board dictated that an absolute majority of workers in the class be required to vote to unionize, and once that union takes place it is a permanent decision. Yes, there is an archaic straw-man alternative. However, if you follow the thought of the Senator from Iowa in its entirety, once we are elected to the Senate, we would not have to run for reelection again. That is because the National Mediation Board has no decertification process. This is essentially a permanent decision by the workers. I do not think it should be a permanent decision when one of us is elected to Congress. That is why we have elections in Congress every 2 years or in the Senate every 6 years.

Let's remember this is a decision. When we change this rule, we are allowing a minority to make a permanent decision for a class of workers. That is a very high threshold. I think requiring a majority vote of all those affected not only makes sense, but the reason it was done was to protect the National Mediation Board's intent in the first place in terms of interstate commerce in the United States of America. Another point Congress had no say in this process, even though Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States allows only us to regulate commerce.

I wanted to add those two points. On the case of merit, I think it is obvious there were some considerations specifically because of one vote, i.e, the vote of the AFA and IAM. That is why the unions withdrew their applications and postponed the vote, to give the National Mediation Board an opportunity to pass the rule and affect a pending vote to organize.

I wanted to make a point with regard to current policy not allowing people to be represented. Under the Railway Labor Act, 72 percent of the employees are unionized versus the 8 percent for all American workers. Nobody is talking about a rule preventing organization. We are only talking about requiring a threshold because of the permanency of the decision. That is very important.

We are not trying to skew the balance between labor and management. We are trying to equalize that balance. To change this rule, given the threshold that has been in place for 75 years, is to skew the process in favor of union bosses over workers' rights. That should not be the intent of the Congress of the United States. That is why the National Mediation Board rules are what they are, and that is why the Supreme Court of the United States has twice upheld it.

Madam President, I am happy to yield 10 minutes of my time to the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum be equally divided between the majority and the minority.

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

Madam President, I yield up to 6 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign.

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

Madam President, I yield up to 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent to reinstate the quorum call providing the additional time used is equally divided between the majority and minority.

Before I introduce Senator Enzi, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota asked a rhetorical question regarding this election being similar to an election to the Senate. I would note one remarkable difference. National Mediation Board elections are unionized under current law as a permanent decision. Senators are elected every 6 years and then stand before the voters once again, so there is a significant difference between those two standards.

Madam President, I will recognize for up to 10 minutes the distinguished Senator from Wyoming.

Madam President, I wish to address the remarks of the distinguished chairman which in many ways validate the reason we should all vote for S.J. Res. 30. I wish to tell my colleagues why.

The chairman said unionization is permanent, but it is kind of not permanent if you make a decision under the National Mediation Board. I wish to clear that up.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the October 8, 2009, letter from Sandra Polaski, Deputy Under Secretary of Labor for the Obama administration, sent to Cleopatra Doumbia-Henry, Director of International Labor Standards Department, International Labor Office in Geneva, Switzerland, who was asked a number of questions regarding U.S. labor law as it affects aviation and transportation.

I will quote from her answer to question 15.

Unlike the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the

[Railway Labor Act] does not provide for a decertification

process.

This is the Under Secretary of Labor for the Obama administration.

Therefore, the union's certification continues until

another union makes a showing of interest to represent the

respective class or craft. In this circumstance, as this

showing requires authorization from at least a majority of

the class or craft, the alleged disadvantage of NMB

certifying method works to the advantage of the incumbent

union.

I didn't say that; the Under Secretary of Labor said that.

With regard to the examples the distinguished chairman used with regard to bond issues and the Missouri plan and things of that nature, I wish to make a few points.

When you do vote for a bond issue, you vote it up or down. Most government bond issues are 20- to 30-year terms, which means in 20, 30 years, they are over. Organization under the National Mediation Board is in perpetuity. Then the distinguished chairman talked about what I think is called the Missouri plan, which is judges, where you can vote up or down on whether to continue a judge. You do that about every 4 years in the State of Iowa; right? Whatever the judicial term is, it is not in perpetuity. This is in perpetuity, with the narrow exception stated.

Then, the chairman talked about the minimum wage. The minimum wage has risen from $1 to its current level because we periodically had elections to change it. This is permanent.

So when we take the arguments he made about being anti-union or not in favor of unions, the National Mediation Board organization essentially guarantees the organization of a union remain in perpetuity, which is why it ought to require a majority of all people covered.

The chairman talked about an Iowa union that had been decertified. Those employees work under the NLRA. We can't have it both ways. The Railway Labor Act should be like the National Labor Relations Act, under which the decertification process is parallel to the organization process.

I am honored and privileged to represent the State that is home to Delta Airlines. I know what kind of an employer they are, and they do not deserve to be vilified by the Obama Administration. I have a letter I have already asked to be printed in the Record, but I would like to read a part of this letter from a Delta employee by the name of Susan Powell of Buford, GA. She writes:

I have invested 31 years into a fabulous career at Delta

[Air Lines] and I feel so blessed to have been able to work

for such a wonderful company all these years. The intentions

of the National Mediation Board are totally transparent and

should not be tolerated by Congress--or any other body or

individual (including President Obama) who claims to embrace

honesty, fairness and ethics. It is abundantly clear to me

that motivation of the newest . . . appointees to the

National Mediation Board is to pave the way for an

Association of Flight Attendants to gain entry into Delta Air

Lines--I see no other justification for imposing voting rules

on Delta flight attendants contrary to the voting rules

applied to union elections at all other carriers.

That is a key point.

I have loved my career at Delta and I am so proud of the

monumental efforts my company and my fellow employees have

made to emerge from bankruptcy and return to profitability. I

watched in horror years ago as the unions at Eastern Airlines

single-handedly brought their own company to its knees--and I

was forever grateful that I had chosen to work for Delta, as

opposed to Eastern. It is my belief that an election in favor

of the AFA will be the ruination of my company and the end of

the blissful career I have enjoyed at Delta.

I have tons of letters from Delta employees--including from many who were employed by NMA before the merger--that are just like the remarks made by Susan Powell. This is a great company, a company where, on one of its anniversaries, its employees raised the money internally to buy the company an anniversary jet for their fleet. Delta Air Lines is a great company that has operated under the National Mediation Board's regulations since it was incorporated as an airline carrier in the United States of America. Those regulations should continue without this pro-union change by the Obama Administration, as they should for everybody else in the 75-year history who has been granted their rights under a National Mediation Board regulation, which has served the industry well, served commerce in the United States of America well, and served transportation well. We should not allow two members of an appointed board to overturn 75 years of history and 75 years of precedent.

I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I keep hearing the argument that you should not count a ``no'' vote; it is undemocratic. Today, at 2:15, the Senate will vote on a cloture motion, and everyone who does not vote is counted as a ``no'' vote as it requires 60 votes out of 100 to get cloture. So we have to make that point from the outset, No. 1.

No. 2, this is not about being antiunion or against unions or promanagement. This is about a 75-year-old history in the United States of America for the essential service of commerce in terms of railroads and airlines. We have historically had the National Mediation Board rule that required a majority of the people who would be affected in the class rather than just a simple majority of those voting for a very precise reason: because it is a permanent decision, as referenced by the quotes in letters from the Under Secretary of Labor.

While I understand the chairman's remark that the Under Secretary of Labor is just the Under Secretary of Labor, she is the Under Secretary of Labor appointed by the President of the United States.

While the chairman says the courts have ruled in favor of this particular ruling of the National Mediation Board, the Supreme Court has twice said they are wrong. Granted, those were in other cases. But twice the National Mediation Board authority has gone to the U.S. Supreme Court, and twice the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld it.

Even all the way back to 1976, President Jimmy Carter, from the State of Georgia, spoke eloquently about the importance of National Mediation Board rules and what it takes to unionize under that versus the NLRB.

So I appreciate very much the arguments the Senator has made, but the facts are quite clear that it is better for the United States of America, it is better for workers in the transportation industry, and it has been historically upheld by the highest Court in the land that the rules of the National Mediation Board serve the people of the United States of America better than any other alternative that was presented.

So with all due respect, I would quote that letter, once again, from the Delta flight attendant who talked about their 31-year experience. Why would you, in the cause of a merger, have a union request for an election pulled out to give a board enough time to change the rules under which that election would take place? It is not fair.

I wish to also say the 1996 Congressional Review Act is very important. Congress ought to have a say-so in the action of boards of the executive branch. We do have a system of three branches of government. We do have a system of checks and balances. But it has obviously been, apparently--as in this case and in others--that this administration has attempted, where it can, to go around the authority of the Senate in advice and consent, by appointing czars or, in this case, to go around the Senate of the United States by using the National Mediation Board.

I would respectfully submit this is a legitimate question--not of whether you are for a union or against one or prefer management and do not prefer a union--this is a debate about extending a 75-year-old precedent which has served the United States of America well and has been upheld in 12 administrations and by the Supreme Court twice. It has been argued favorably by those 12 administrations every time it has been challenged and by the current administration's documentation, which I submitted, which has shown this is a permanent decision at the National Mediation Board.

I would submit, the right thing for us to do is to join together today and vote yes in favor of the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 30. I respectfully urge my colleagues to do that.

I yield back the remainder of the time.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise for a moment to pause and pay tribute to the life and accomplishments of a citizen of my home community, Judge Conley Ingram. In fact, in a few days a number of members of our community, his friends and associates over his career in law and community service, will join to celebrate his life and achievements and his birthday. He is a remarkable person whom I admire greatly because he has been a mentor to me and the example I have tried to follow. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend that particular program, but today on the floor of the Senate, I wanted to memorialize a true storied jurist of the State of Georgia, probably amongst the top three or four from our State in the history of our State. He is a man who stands shoulder to shoulder with men such as Griffin Bell, the former Attorney General of the United States, and former Assistant Attorney General Larry Thompson.

Conley Ingram has done about everything you can do as an attorney and a lawyer. When he graduated from Emory University 59 years ago and went into the service, he taught at the Judge Advocate School in Charlottesville, VA. From there, he went on to be city attorney, special assistant attorney general, juvenile court judge of the County of Cobb, and went on to become

superior court judge in the County of Cobb. He then founded his own law firm and ran it for a number of years until he became a justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia. After leaving there, he went with the storied firm of Alston & Bird and became probably the Nation's most recognized arbitrator and mediator of any attorney in the country. And not to finish and not to quit, for the last 12 years he has been a senior special superior court judge in Cobb County, GA, serving all the time the citizens of our State.

But his greatest service is the example he shows. He has been selected our Community Citizen of the Year. He received excellence awards for the legacy he has left not just for his work on the bench, not just his work as a lawyer, but his work for the betterment of the community, whether it is the Boys Club or the Girls Club, whether it is his church, or whether it is his neighborhood.

But for me, there is one special thing to say about Judge Conley Ingram: He is a man who takes time for everybody. He is a man who is willing to help. He is a man who would rather find common ground in the interest of both parties than have a winner-take-all philosophy of life.

Probably the greatest blessing of Conley Ingram's life is his wife Sylvia, whom my wife Dianne and I cherish as a dear friend.

So this week in which our community will celebrate the many accomplishments of the 59 years of the practice of law of Judge Conley Ingram and his life in general, I am proud to stand on the floor of the Senate and say: Conley, thank you, not just for what you have done for me but what you have done for so many people in our great State and for this great country, the United States of America.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, 50 years ago today, President Eisenhower signed into law legislation that established real estate investment trusts, commonly known as REITs. His action gave the final stamp of approval to what our colleagues in this Chamber envisioned at that time for the general public: A secure and efficient way to invest in high- quality commercial real estate in the United States. I want to recognize the 50th anniversary of REITs and their significant contribution to the overall economic vitality of our Nation over the past 50 years.

As my colleagues know, REITs allow any investor, no matter their financial resources, to secure all of the advantages of investing in real estate in the United States. Prior to 1960, access to the highly desirable investment returns of commercial real estate assets was limited to institutions and wealthy individuals who had the financial wealth to make direct real estate investments. By creating REITs, Congress recognized that small investors should be afforded the same opportunity to invest in portfolios of large-scale commercial properties and achieve the same investment benefits--diversification, liquidity, performance, transparency--as those able to make direct investments in real estate.

REITs are companies dedicated to the ownership and development of income-producing real estate, such as apartments, regional malls, shopping centers, office buildings, self storage facilities, and industrial warehouses. Federal tax law requires that REITs meet specific tests regarding the composition of their gross income and assets. Specifically, 95 percent of their annual gross income must be from specified sources such as dividends, interests, and rents; and 75 percent of their gross income must be from real estate related sources. Similarly, at

the end of each calendar quarter, 75 percent of a REITs assets must consist of specified real estate assets. Consequently, REITs must derive a majority of their gross income from commercial real estate.

While REITs have played a major role in the U.S. economy since 1960, their mark in the investing world has been achieved since passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, a time period many refer to as the modern REIT era. This law removed most of the tax-sheltering capability of real estate and emphasized income-producing transactions, allowing REITs to operate and manage real estate as well as own it. I am pleased that over the years, Congress has adopted legislation to perfect the REIT method of investing in real estate. Among many proposals, these include the REIT Simplification Act of 1997, the REIT Modernization Act of 1999, the REIT Improvement Act of 2004, and the REIT Investment Diversification and Empowerment Act, or RIDEA, passed in 2008.

I am pleased that my home State of Georgia is home to several REIT companies that are engaged in the daily business of creating wealth and employment for many investors across the country and my constituents. These companies include Cousins Properties Incorporated, Gables Residential Trust, Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Incorporated, Post Properties, Incorporated, and Wells Real Estate Investment Trust. In total, there are more than 1,400 REIT properties located in Georgia, with an estimated historical cost in the billions of dollars.

Commercial real estate represents more than 6 percent of this country's gross domestic product and is a key generator of jobs and other economic activities. Today, because of what Congress did five decades ago, anyone can purchase shares of real estate operating companies, and do so in a manner that meets their investments needs by focusing on a particular sector in the commercial real estate world and a specific region of the country. That is the beauty of the REIT method of investing, whose influence has now spread abroad to more than two dozen countries that have adopted a similar model encouraging real estate investment.

In closing, I want to again congratulate the REIT industry on its 50 years of leadership in the real estate investing market. REITs have fulfilled Congress's vision by making investments in large scale, capital intensive commercial real estate available to all investors. I look forward to continuing to work with them on issues of importance to REIT investors.

Mr. President, I am always reluctant to find out that I am following the Senator from Oklahoma on the floor of the Senate. He is always prepared and always eloquent. I commend the Senator on his speech.

But I want to commend him on his questioning in the hearing because he allowed us to gain, and Ms. Kagan to express, important points, important opinions, important judgments, and important statements for everybody in this body to make up their minds. That is really what this Senate is all about, and it is Senators like the Senator from Oklahoma who help us all to do our job, and I commend him very much for his work.

I also commend him for covering so many facts. My speech will be very brief. I announced about 4 weeks ago that I would not vote for the confirmation of Ms. Elena Kagan and expressed at that time the reasons. But I wanted to memorialize that on the Senate floor because it is a serious responsibility that we have to advise and consent on the nomination of the President of the United States.

In response to that, the advice and consent should always be thoughtful and should always be thorough, and mine is generally based entirely on the Constitution when it comes to the Supreme Court and the appointments the Presidents of the United States make because I am well aware my position, the President's position, and the position of all of us in this was a creation of those of our Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution that created the government, that is the United States of America and the three branches of that government that will govern us as a nation: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Executive, as in the President; legislative, as in us; and the judicial, as the jury--the jury not of who is right and wrong but is the Constitution right, is the law right that we passed in relation to the Constitution that created us.

Two things in Ms. Kagan's past concern me greatly in terms of the direction she would go as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. One is the Solomon rule application when she was dean of the Harvard Law School.

When I helped write, along with a lot of other Members in this body, No Child Left Behind, we made sure we covered this issue of military access on campuses of secondary schools and postsecondary schools.

The Solomon Amendment is a simple amendment that says: If you accept Federal funds as a public institution or as a private institution, in terms of Harvard through research or funds such as that, that U.S. military representatives will have access to the campus.

Ms. Kagan made the conscious decision as dean of the law school that that access would not be available at Harvard and, even after direction otherwise, continued in that position until she eventually withdrew. Well, if someone is going to the Supreme Court of the United States of America to be a judge of our Constitution and its application to our legislative and judicial branches, you must remember the first responsibility designated to this Congress and to this government is to protect and defend the domestic tranquility of the people of the United States of America and to constitute an army and a navy to do that.

You cannot draw on that army and navy if you cannot draw on the people in your country. At a time today, a contemporary time such as 2010, where everyone who serves--everyone, not a one is conscripted, every single one is a volunteer--the information about the opportunities, the availability and the promise of a career in the military or a period of service should not be denied anyone who goes to an institution that receives funds from the United States of America and from this Congress.

Secondly, you know there has been a lot of talk about the Citizens United case, and there have been a lot of political arguments about the Citizens United case. But it is a first amendment case. I do not think anybody argues about that.

In listening to the testimony in the Judiciary Committee and reading the record on the Citizens United case, it is obvious, in her expression and her arguments before the Supreme Court, Ms.

Kagan felt that even though you had a first amendment, through either printing or writing or video or audio, the government could restrict political speech.

Well, the first amendment is the guarantee of free speech. To argue a case that, notwithstanding the first amendment, political speech could be run by the government and judged by the government and its timing and its accessibility, to me, flies in the face of the very first amendment, of the first 10 amendments that finally allowed us to pass a Constitution and come together as a nation.

So there are a lot of other issues. The Senators who preceded me have raised a lot of those issues. I commend Ms. Kagan, too, on her complete congeniality and her complete candor before the committee. But in terms of this Senator, in terms of my vote, in terms of my judgment, it is the case and the opinions on the first amendment in Citizens United, and the actions contrary to the Solomon Amendment, and military access that, to me, deliver a temperament that I do not think is appropriate of a Justice of the Supreme Court at this time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I honor in the Record Springfield Baptist Church in Greensboro, GA.

On August 15, 2010, the Georgia Historical Society will place a permanent marker recognizing this historic church as the oldest African-American church in Greene County. Established in 1864, Springfield Baptist Church has been a place of faith, hope, and dreams for its members for almost 150 years.

This isn't the first time that Springfield Baptist Church has been honored for its important place in Greene County's history. On September 8, 1987, the church was listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure and it is a privilege to recognize the Springfield Baptist Church and its contributions to Greene County. I congratulate Pastor James C. Tazel, Jr. and the entire congregation on this historic occasion.

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

Mr. President, I am very pleased to come before the Senate today and commend the Warner Robins, GA, girls softball team that yesterday attended the White House and was honored by President Obama.

The 11- and 12-year-old girls who went all the way last year and this year are in the finals to hopefully do the same thing again. This team of young women is coached by a great group of coaches: Emily Whaley and her assistants, Patti Carriker and Roger Stella.

I commend each one of these young ladies individually: Kaylee Albritton, Sydney Barker, Carson Carriker, Melissa Cox, Sabrina Doucette, Ashley Killebrew, Avery Lamb, Hannah Livingston, Caitlyn Parker, Sierra Stella, Kelly Warner, and Chelsea Whaley.

This is a fine group of young Georgians who went all the way in the Little League level and are about to do it again. In fact, yesterday, as she was leaving the White House, President Obama asked her if there was anything she had to say. Ashley Killebrew said: Mr. President, we are doing really well this year, and we are going to be back next year because we are going to win it again. That is the type of positive attitude in sports that separates the winners from the second-place finishers.

I commend the Warner Robins Little League softball team, young women from Warner Robins, GA. I thank the President for honoring them yesterday at the White House.

Biennial Appropriations

Mr. President, we have been going through difficult economic times as a country, not only in our expenditures but in the revenues of our citizens of our States who face higher unemployment, lower productivity, and very difficult economic times.

As I have watched us on the floor time and again deal with paying for new amendments that have been proposed, we are all of a sudden scrambling to find a savings here to borrow from Peter to pay Paul to patch together an appropriations bill that hopefully keeps us out of debt but unfortunately continues to keep us in a downward spiral of borrowing.

I wish to talk today about legislation I have introduced and have been joined by other Members of the Senate, a bill that has a simple proposition to it, and that is that maybe as a government we should start doing what the people of our country have to do--determining how much we take in, prioritizing what we spend--and get back into balancing our budget, while providing oversight on what we spend to see where savings can come from.

There is a great American who has a syndicated radio show called Dave Ramsey. I don't know how many of my colleagues have ever heard him. He started Financial Peace University. He started it after he went bankrupt in the real estate business. He did a great job in real estate on the way up but leveraged himself all the way, so when times got tough and the leverage was too difficult, Dave Ramsey went bankrupt. After a couple years of struggling, he got himself back together and built himself a large company on the basis of a philosophy of staying out of debt and spending within your means. I commend everybody to look at his proposals, read his book, or attend Financial Peace. It is really an interesting concept because it works.

Dave Ramsey suggested that what you really ought to do when you get

into economically difficult times and you owe more than you take in is sit down and say: All right, what do I make? And you write that down. You write down what you have to spend--utilities, food, whatever it might be--and then see what is left over. If nothing is left over, then you have to take the things you are spending on and don't have the money for and have been borrowing and begin to cut it piece after piece, so that each month and year you live on a budget that is not predicated on going into debt and living beyond your means.

We as a country must do the same. There may be an exception, obviously, for war. There may be an exception, obviously, if there is a significant terrorist attack or a tremendous international incident or a natural incident that takes place that might demand some short-term appropriations. But in the general expenditures of government, we have to get back to the business of spending within our means.

How do we do that? We have 12 individual appropriations bills or an omnibus bill that rolls in at the end of the year talking about spending $3.6 trillion. We cannot do it that way. We have to have a process where we are able to examine on what we are spending money, quantify how much money we are going to take in, and balance the two numbers so we do not go into debt.

My suggestion and what I want to talk about is a biennial budget or appropriations, a change in the way we do business and how we do it, which I believe will result in less debt, more reasonable spending, and a more rational expenditure by the U.S. Government. First of all, it is predicated on appropriating for 2 years rather than 1 year. The appropriations years should be the odd-numbered years, and the even- numbered years should be dedicated to oversight.

I know the distinguished Presiding Officer, as I do, sits on a number of committees. Every now and then, we will have an oversight meeting, but more often than not, oversight gets left out because the focus is on what we are going to spend next or what project is going to be added to what we spend our money on. That process itself builds more debt, builds a bigger appropriations act, and never allows us to do those things we should be doing; that is, focusing on prioritizing the expenditure of our money.

We all know, because from time to time we have found them, there are savings in the appropriations. We know that from time to time in oversight, we find dollars we did not realize we had. We need to make it a part of our culture in the Congress of the United States that when the even-numbered years come, two things ought to be happening: One, Congress ought to be doing oversight of its expenditures, and second is running for office. I would love to see a time when running for office is in a year when we are doing oversight so we are focusing more on what we are saving the American taxpayers than what we are going to spend to try to impress them to get their vote one more time.

We have a serious, difficult problem in our country. We have a debt of $13 trillion. I am going to be the first--not the first who ever said this. I am not going to let this speech end without saying it. I voted against appropriations bills under President Bush, and I voted against them under President Obama. I am not taking a target at anybody. We all have a responsibility, and it is time we focused on a way to start saving rather than continuing to spend.

I would like nothing better than that focus on savings to take place in the same election year where everybody is running to be reelected to come back and do the job. We would change the dynamics and paradigm of Congress toward a focus on savings rather than a focus on expenditures. Will it be difficult? Yes, but it is going to be a whole lot more difficult very soon. Our country owes $13 trillion today and is moving toward a number that could be as high as $19 trillion before the end of the next decade.

To put in perspective how much that is, I will tell a short story. I was in Albany, GA, making a speech at the end of last year, and I referred two or three times to $1 trillion.

At the end of the speech, this farmer raised his hand and said: Excuse me, Senator, can I ask a question?

I said: Sure.

He said: How much is 1 trillion?

I don't know if you ever thought about it, Mr. President, but when somebody asks you a question like that, you try to come up with a comparison to explain, and it is hard to do, and I had a difficult time. In fact, I fumbled around, and I am not sure I ever did a good job of quantifying how much 1 trillion really is.

I got home and talked with my wife. I said: I got stumped today, sweetheart.

She said: What happened?

I said: I was on the stump in Albany and was asked by a farmer to explain what 1 trillion was, and I couldn't quantify it. I didn't know a good comparison.

In her own inimitable way, she said: Why don't you figure out how many years have to go by for 1 trillion seconds to pass?

I thought, that is a great idea. I got a calculator out and multiplied 60 seconds times 60 minutes to get the number of seconds in an hour. I multiplied that times 24 to get the seconds in a day. I multiplied that by 365 to get the number of seconds in a year. And then I divided that product into 1 trillion.

Mr. President, do you know how many years have to go by for 1 trillion seconds to pass? It is 31,709 years. We owe $13 trillion. We are at a point where we are going to go one way or another. Fortunately, we are recognizing that we are at that point.

I submit one of the keys to stopping the growth of debt and improving the plight of our country in the future for our children and grandchildren is to begin spending within our means. And it takes a process such as a biennial budget or biennial appropriations where we combine the responsibility of spending with the absolute responsibility of oversight.

Everybody in America today during these difficult times is looking at where they spend their money, and they are trying to find savings. They are trying to find those places they can better allocate their money so they are not going into debt, not borrowing, and not raising the prospects of debt in the future. The American Government ought to be doing the same thing.

I voted for the supplemental for our troops in Afghanistan last week, and we will do it again. That is a special appropriation for our men and women, who deserve that backing at a time we commit them to war. We are not always at war. War is a special and difficult time, and we ought to give our troops the support they need. But in every other case, it ought to be an expenditure that is based on the priorities of what are the most important things we should be doing. When we find those things that do not meet that test through oversight, that is where we begin the cutting process. Over time, the process is motivated toward savings, motivated against borrowing, and motivated for a balanced budget. I submit that we can talk about it all day long, but until we put it in a framework that brings about that type of process, we will never really do it.

The biennial budget with appropriations in odd-numbered years and oversight in even-numbered years ensures we begin in an election year being accountable to the electorate on what we are spending. And in those off years when we are appropriating, we are doing it based on the previous year's oversight, so we know the effectiveness of the department we are appropriating the money for and whether it was prioritized appropriately the way it should have been.

At a time when we are focusing on spending money, focusing on an appropriations act which will come up this November after the elections, I think we can look this year at going to a biennial budget process in future years so that instead of rolling everything into an omnibus bill after the elections, we have a process that ensures it is done systematically, as it should be, in odd-numbered years for appropriations and in even-numbered years we are doing oversight, so our election is based on accountability of spending money, not how much we can borrow and how much we can spend.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I am honored and privileged to join Leader McConnell and Senator Chambliss to take a few minutes to talk about one of my great friends, Paul Coverdell, and his lovely wife Nancy. Mitch McConnell has done some great recollections of Paul's service in the Senate. Senator Chambliss told some great stories of his relationship with Senator Coverdell. I wish to share some of mine to certify and document that everything they have said is absolutely correct.

I met Paul Coverdell in 1972, 2 years after he was elected to the Georgia State Senate as the fifth Republican to serve there. I was running for the Georgia House of Representatives. Although I lost in 1974, I won in 1976. A few years later, I became the leader of the Republicans in the Georgia House of Representatives, and Paul was the senate leader. The senate had their caucus elections every January after elections. I always loved the senate election. They had five caucus officers and five Republican Senators. So instead of having an election, they drew straws. They drew straws and they drew Paul Coverdell, to which he was forever reelected as leader of Republicans in the Georgia State Senate.

Paul was the most organized guy I have ever known and was the most goal-oriented guy I have ever known.

His goal--when we were outnumbered 10 to 1 in the senate, Democrat to Republican, and 8 to 1, Democrat to Republican, in the house--he dreamed of the day when we were in the majority. As the Republican leader of the house, he would summon me, by kind invitation, on every Monday morning, to the Buckhead Waffle House or the Buckhead IHOP where we would have coffee and talk about how one day we were going to be the majority party in Georgia.

Now, I am an optimist. I was a salesman all my life. I believed we could get there too. But Paul had a step-by-step plan--a plan that in 1976 seemed tantamount to impossible but a plan that was realized with his election to the Senate in 1992, a congressional majority for Republicans in Georgia in 1994 and, ultimately, the first Republican Governor in the history of our State Post-Reconstruction, in 2002.

Paul meticulously was a partisan, but he was, above that, an American. Paul Coverdell was also a man of ideas. Folks have talked about the Coverdell education savings accounts, which he authored in the Senate and are now law. But I remember, in Georgia, in the 1970s and 1980s, when he championed the mandatory seatbelt law. Believe me, in a State such as Georgia where you have a lot of pickup trucks and a lot of rural communities, wearing a seatbelt was not the most popular thing in the world. But Paul knew it was good for saving lives. He knew it was good for lowering insurance rates because he was an insurance man. He fought against a majority that did not want it, but he prevailed and he won, and today many lives have been saved because of the efforts of Paul Coverdell in the Georgia Legislature.

Senator Chambliss told his story of Paul in his dark suit and his red tie and his white shirt. I want to tell mine.

Back in 1982, I was on the beach at Jekyll Island, GA, following a joint house Republican-senate Republican conference. The late Haskew Brantley--then a Georgia State senator--and I were on the beach under an umbrella enjoying the beautiful coast of Georgia on our great island, Jekyll Island. In the distance we could see this figure coming toward us that looked from a distance as having on a suit, walking on the beach with his shoes in his hand and his pant legs rolled up. The closer he got, the more Haskew and I realized: That is Paul Coverdell.

Paul came in his red tie, his buttoned-down white shirt, his dark pin-striped suit but with his shoes in his hand. He sat in the sand with us, talked, got up, walked back to the parking lot, and drove to Atlanta. In fact, I am not sure I ever saw Paul when he did not have on the dark suit, the red tie, and the white shirt.

He was always dressed to the nines, and he was always ready for whatever challenge came. His wife Nancy, who is a beautiful lady I saw just a few weeks ago on the coast of Georgia, actually had her real estate license in my company. So not only did I know Paul, but I knew Nancy, and for 35 years they were as close of friends as I have ever had. But for 35 years they served Georgia day in and day out in whatever capacity they could to make it a better State.

I think it is a great tribute to tell this story: When Paul was elected to the Georgia State Senate as the fifth Republican in history in 1970, for somebody to think a Republican majority could ever have taken place, they would have laughed. But shortly after Paul's death, the legislative office building where every member of the Georgia House and Senate in downtown Atlanta has an office was named the Paul D. Coverdell Legislative Office Building. He went from the bottom in terms of numbers, and he went to the top, but he climbed it one step at a time; he climbed it one commitment at a time, and he never lost sight of the fact that he was an American first and a Republican second but always committed to the values of Georgia and the values and the conservative principles we shared.

So on this day, just 10 years after his passing, we rise to pay tribute to a great American, a great Member of the Senate, and a leader who made it possible for people such as Senator Chambliss and myself to follow in his footsteps and one day, ultimately, serve in the greatest deliberative body in the world, the U.S. Senate.

I pay tribute to Paul Coverdell and his legacy and his beautiful wife Nancy.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I am pleased to join the senior Senator from Georgia, my friend Saxby Chambliss, to pay tribute today to Robert Collins.

This naming of a post office is most appropriate in Tyrone, GA, and it is most appropriate because of the great sacrifice of this young man, whose story, as Senator Chambliss says, is compelling.

One interesting point I wish to make is that he was the son of two lieutenant colonels retired from the U.S. military. His mother, LTC Sharon L.G. Collins, and his father, LTC Burkitt ``Deacon'' Collins, spent more than 20 years in the U.S. military.

His mother said: We never asked him to follow us into the family business--being the military--but he did follow us into the family business in large measure because of what happened on 9/11/2001.

Following that tragic day in American history when he watched the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers, he expressed to his parents a desire to join the U.S. military. His mother responded, along with his father, by making an appointment for him to visit West Point. They dressed him up in his very best outfit and took him to West Point.

Upon leaving Tyrone, one of his friends stopped him before he got in the car to go to West Point and said: Why are you dressed up so well?

He said: Because my mom and dad are colonels.

That is the kind of young man he was--respect for his parents, the U.S. military, and the greatness of our country.

He applied to West Point. Senator Chambliss appointed him to West Point, and he was there with distinction. And later in 2009, he went off to serve the U.S. military. Unfortunately, on April 7, he made the ultimate sacrifice for the people of this country.

It is only appropriate in every way possible that we pay tribute to the young men and young women who sacrifice for us so all of us can enjoy the freedom of our country.

I am pleased, I am honored, and I am proud to join Senator Chambliss in naming this post office in Tyrone, GA, after First Lieutenant Collins, who was a member of B Company, 1st Battalion, 64th Armor Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, GA.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I will be brief. I come to the floor this afternoon in anticipation of the vote tomorrow on the financial regulatory bill and to express the concerns I expressed before its passage on the floor originally, and my continuing concern today about its final form--and I understand it will pass with 60 votes.

Nobody has been more concerned about the economy and the financial markets and financial institutions of our country than I. In part, because of my lifetime in the residential real estate business, I have seen firsthand the sufferings in our mortgage industry, the foreclosures that have taken place, and what the subprime lending industry did in the U.S. economy.

Before we rush to a reregulation of financial institutions, I think we have to stop and reflect on some of the things we have already noted as Members of the Senate.

Senator Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota, and myself introduced legislation over a year ago called the Financial Markets Crisis Commission. We introduced it because we believed everything that had happened in late 2008 through March of 2009 that collapsed our markets on Wall Street, collapsed our securities, collapsed our mortgage-backed securities lending, and hurt our banks both community and national need to be investigated. We need to get to the root problem. We need to try to correct it.

This Senate passed the Conrad-Isakson amendment unanimously. The House passed it virtually unanimously. The Senate and the House funded it to the tune of $8 million. That commission is appointed and working today. It

has subpoena powers that it can issue, and it is issuing subpoenas. It is directed by statute to report back to us by December 31 of this year.

Here we find ourselves in the position of getting ready to pass a financial reregulation bill on the floor of the Senate tomorrow, in the middle of the year in July, knowing that we are not going to have until December of this year the forensic audit of our financial system done by the Financial Markets Crisis Commission which we unanimously funded and demanded. It is like a doctor doing surgery before he does a diagnosis. It does not make a lot of sense.

In particular, there is one part of the bill I want to focus on for a second that I think is rife for continuing problems without any regulatory oversight, and that is Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

I think everyone realizes that the purchase of mortgage-backed subprime securities by Freddie and Fannie created the depository whereby Wall Street went to raise the money to make subprime loans, knowing they could sell them to Freddie and Fannie. Once you create liquidity for those securities, you create a market, and those securities are going to be created to be funded or purchased by those entities.

That is exactly what happened over the 5 or 6 years preceding the beginning of the collapse in late 2007. Freddie and Fannie went from zero holdings in subprime loans to as much as 13 percent of their portfolio. This was not just because they decided to buy them, but it was in part because of a congressional directive for Freddie and Fannie to have a portion of their portfolio in what is known as affordable loans.

These affordable loans became subprime loans. They were securitized on Wall Street. The securities sold around the world, with the legitimacy of those securities based in part on the fact that U.S. Government-sponsored entities, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, were buying them, but also because Moody's and Standard & Poor's rated them AAA. Then all of a sudden we had a tremendous collapse of subprime securities that had devastating consequences not just for the United States but for the world.

Briefly, I want to tell a story to make that point. In August of 2008, I was in Kazakhstan with Leader Reid and other Members of the Senate on a trip that later took us to Afghanistan and finally to Germany. When we arrived in Kazakhstan and landed at the airport, we went into the city in an ambassador's vehicle. As we went by, I saw this beautiful city in Asia, beautiful countryside, large buildings being built, beautiful flowers, obviously a country of great wealth. They do have most of the oil in the old Soviet Union, now the Russian Federation.

As we came into town, I kept noticing vacant, half-finished 20- and 30-story buildings with a chain-link fences around them and razor wire on the fences and a padlock on the doors.

We went to the Embassy and went to a briefing. When it was over, we were asked if there were any questions. I said: I have one. Is today a holiday?

The Ambassador's officer said: No, it is not a holiday. Why do you ask?

I said: We passed 15, 20 buildings half finished, cranes up, 20 to 30 stories, padlocks on the gates, razor wire on the fences, nobody working. What happened?

He said: U.S. mortgage-backed subprime securities.

I said: I beg your pardon.

He said: U.S. mortgage-backed subprime securities. He said: Just 3 weeks ago, Merrill Lynch in America wrote down their portfolio by 78 cents on the dollar. Therefore, the Bank of Kazakhstan, which had bought a number of these securities, wrote down their portfolio as well. They stopped funding construction loans. They stopped making mortgages.

Kazakhstan is 11\1/2\ time zones away from Washington, DC. The reverberations of the subprime security collapse affected not just the United States but the world. Today what is happening in Europe and other areas is, in part in our recession, was a consequence of what began by a mandate by Congress for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to purchase affordable mortgage-backed securities which became the subprime securities that collapsed the marketplace.

I tell that story and I make that statement to make my single important point on why this rush to judgment on the financial regulatory bill is wrong. It is wrong because it excludes Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from any scrutiny or increased regulation. Let me repeat that. The two entities that created the market that bought the securities that fueled the funds for Wall Street to put them together and sell them--the two entities, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae--are exempt from this financial reregulation bill in terms of scrutiny.

That just, to me, does not make any sense. I think when the Financial Markets Crisis Commission reports back to us at the end of this year, it will make it clear that it is a mistake to rush to judgment.

It is critical that we have all the players under scrutiny and all the players under regulation, not just trying to create a feel-good system where we reregulate those who are already regulated, saying we are doing something about the conditions in the market when, in fact, we are raising the cost of doing business, lowering the ability for banks and lending institutions to extend capital and, in fact, in some ways contributing to a contraction of the recession we experience today in America.

When I cast my ``no'' vote tomorrow on financial reregulation, it will not be because I don't think we need to do some things in the marketplace, but it will be because I think it is time we listen to the people we have charged to come back to us with a forensic audit and tell us what we should have done rather than take a rush to judgment in a precarious and difficult time in the current recession in the United States.

I am grateful for the time given to me. My vote tomorrow on the financial reregulation bill will be no. It is my hope that when the Financial Markets Crisis Commission comes back in December, we will find the right answers from that forensic audit to then make the right decisions for the financial markets of the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to my seat today on the floor of the Senate to take a few minutes to share my thoughts on the late Senator Robert Byrd and his tragic death a few days ago. I come with a perspective different than those who served with him for decades because this is my first term in the Senate. I was elected in 2004.

In our caucus, which then was in the majority, we were asked to take responsibility for presiding, just as the current Presiding Officer is doing today. The day I picked was Friday mornings, not knowing we would not be here on a lot of Friday mornings except for a normal business session. But I did it on every Friday morning. For 2 years I presided over the Senate from about 10 in the morning until about 12:30 in the afternoon.

Friday morning is the day Robert Byrd would come to the floor of the Senate and share and reshare some of his great speeches. I was here to listen to the entire speech on the tribute to mothers on Mother's Day. I heard him, oftentimes, talk so wonderfully about his lovely wife. I heard him talk about the Roman Empire, its rise and its fall. I heard him make speeches on the rules of the Senate, the details that no one in this room could ever come close to.

But, for me, the most important contribution of the Senator from West Virginia was the fact it didn't matter how experienced you were or what your party was, if you had a question on the rules of the Senate, you could go to the seat of Senator Byrd and you could get an answer that you could put in the bank. He loved sharing his knowledge. He loved the institution of the Senate. He never saw it from a partisan standpoint, he always saw it from a traditional and an institutional standpoint.

There will be a lot of great tributes paid to Senator Byrd over the next few days and they will all be well deserved. I certainly share in the sympathy that all extend to his extended family for this tragic loss. But many in this Senate today and many who served in the years since he was first elected have benefited from the wisdom and ``gentleman-ness'' that Robert Byrd represented. He is a tradition in the Senate. He is a tradition in the State of West Virginia. He will be missed, but I will be forever thankful to Robert Byrd for what he took the time to share with me, to help me understand the ways of the Senate. He truly was a Senator's Senator and I extend my sympathy to his family and the people of West Virginia on the tragic loss of this great Senator.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise briefly, and with great pride, to commend to my colleagues the confirmation of Marc Treadwell from the State of Georgia to be a U.S. district court judge of the Middle District of Georgia.

Marc is all Georgian. He was born in Blackshear, and he traveled around as the son of an Army officer. But he came back and attended Valdosta State where he earned his bachelor's degree, and then he graduated from Mercer University's Walter F. George Law School in Macon.

After graduating, he came to Atlanta and, ironically, practiced law at the firm of Kilpatrick & Cody, which represented my company for years in Atlanta. It is one of the most distinguished law firms in the State of Georgia.

Marc has been inducted into the American College of Trial Lawyers, and Martindale-Hubbell gave him an ``AV,'' its highest designation.

Marc now teaches at his alma mater, Mercer, and he has written more than 50 publications for Law Reviews and other publications. He is recognized as a leading authority and expert in Georgia evidence law.

Marc is married to his beautiful wife Wimberly. They have two sons, Thomas and John. In addition to juggling his law practice, teaching, and family duties, Marc finds time to be an active member of the Vineville United Methodist Church in Macon.

It is my privilege and honor to thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions for their diligence on this confirmation in the committee.

I commend Marc Treadwell with my highest recommendation for confirmation to the court of the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for yielding. I will be brief.

But I spend a lot of time, as all of us do, listening to the speeches of our colleagues. I spend a lot of time thinking about what they say. I was compelled to come to the floor, as I heard the opening remarks by the Senator from Oklahoma, to tell a little story.

Talking about grandchildren, my wife and I are blessed. We have nine of them. This past Tuesday, June 15, was our 42nd wedding anniversary. Really, the rest of my life is about those grandchildren, to whatever extent I can do it, either as a grandfather or a legislator, trying to make sure we leave them a life that at least has the hope of opportunity as great as was left to all of us by the generations who preceded us.

A few weeks ago, in Albany, GA--actually a few months ago--I was making a speech, as all of us do, and used ``a trillion'' as easily as all of us do in our speeches. After my speech, I opened the floor for questions, and a gentleman at the back of the room said: I just can't quite get my hands on how much a trillion really is. Can you explain it?

I was up there doing the best I could. I got the number of zeroes past a billion, and all this. But I could not quantify it to magnify the gravity of what that number means.

So when I got home that night, my wife of 42 years suggested: Why don't you just figure out how many years have to go by for a trillion seconds to pass? I said: You know, that is a good idea. Everybody would understand that.

So I got the calculator out and multiplied 60 times 60 to get how many seconds are in an hour, 3,600; multiplied that by 24 to get how many seconds are in a day; multiplied that by 365 to get how many seconds are in a year. Then I divided that into 1 trillion. The answer is it would take 31,709 years for 1 trillion seconds to go by.

Thursday, 2 weeks ago, our debt went above $13 trillion. So you can take that and multiply 13 times 31,709 and see how big that obligation is. If you spread it over a lot of people, you can reduce the number down to an amount that does not seem as big, but we are one country. It is our debt. To pay it off we do one of either three things: We inflate the dollar to a value that is so cheap that what everybody has is worthless, and you pay off the debt with cheap dollars, but you destroy your country or you can just look the other way and say: Well, maybe nobody else will care. Maybe they will still buy our debt. We are going to keep spending, which is kind of what appears to be happening now or you can do what American families have been doing all their lives, but in particular the last 18 to 24 months: you sit around the kitchen table--and in this case we sit around the conference table--and you start setting your priorities to live within your means.

I just want to commend the Senator from Oklahoma because his examples about accountability for expenditures, doing away with redundancy and all those things--yes, that is hard to do, and, yes, it is tedious to do, and, yes, it is more fun to talk about other things, but that is what Americans are having to do, and they are having to do it big time right now.

So I just could not help but come to the floor, having just celebrated my 42nd wedding anniversary. Well, I did not get to celebrate it because I was here and she was in Marietta, but we are going to celebrate it this weekend. Thinking about my nine grandchildren and thinking about the challenges of the debt that is rising and the increase that is just in this bill alone--as well as some of the pay-fors in this bill, which actually are going to stunt growth even worse, like carried interest--I thought I would just come and commend the Senator from Oklahoma on being right on point.

We all might have different opinions of what ought to be cut and what ought to be moved and what ought to be removed from being redundant, but we ought to be at the table figuring out what those should be, making agreements we can live with, and making the future for our grandchildren at least as bright, as prosperous, and as free as the one our parents left to us.

I yield back to the Senator from Oklahoma.

That is 31,709 years.

Mr. President, today I honor in the Senate the men's golf team at Augusta State University and congratulate them on their new title--National Champions.

On June 6, 2010, Henrik Norlander, Patrick Reed, Mitch Krywulycz, Taylor Floyd, and Carter Newman won the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I National Championship in dramatic fashion at The Honors Course in Ooltewah, TN. These fine young men played outstanding golf throughout the entire tournament, including wins against the No. 3 seed Georgia Tech and the No. 2 seed Florida State. However, in the final match, they soared and played like true professionals. The team defeated 10-time national champion and No. 1 seed Oklahoma State to bring home the trophy. This is the first of no doubt many national championships to come for Augusta State University.

In addition, on June 15, 2010, Coach Josh Gregory was named Coach of the Year by the Golf Coaches Association of America. Coach Gregory has played such a vital role in the team's success, and I am proud to honor him. Coach Gregory recently completed his eighth year as Director of Golf and Head Men's Golf Coach at ASU and has guided the Jaguars to the best season in school history this year. ASU posted four tournament victories, matched the highest national ranking in school history at No. 2, and registered 10 consecutive top-five finishes to close out the season.

I salute this team on their work ethic, including playing through illness, and their big win as a result of their efforts. I am pleased to acknowledge the great achievement of these young men and to extend my deepest congratulations.

Mr. President, I will be brief. This deals with two amendments, and both do the same thing, except for the way in which they are paid for.

I appreciate very much Senator Reid's interest in this as the leader. I have worked on this issue, as everybody knows, for a long time. We passed unanimously in the Senate last year a home buyer tax credit which ended on April 30 for contract date. Unfortunately, because of the backlog of appraisals and the current FDIC regulation, a lot of people who qualified for the credit are not going to be able to

close by the end of June, and they will lose the credit because we put a June 30 closing date as the deadline for closing the credit earned by the contract of April 30.

Both amendments merely move that June 30 date to the end of September, which gives another 90 days to close the transaction that has already been under contract for 60 days. It ensures Americans they will get what the Senate promised them in terms of the tax credit, if they in fact performed and qualified prior to April 30.

The difference in the two amendments is the pay-for. One is doing away with the deductibility of punitive damages, which is Senator Reid's. The other is mine, which takes it from the unspent $50 billion in stimulus money. And the pay-for, by the way, in both cases, is not a lot of money in the scheme of things. It is a lot of money to me and you, but it is $140 million and not $50 billion.

So I would certainly appreciate support for the Isakson amendment, and I appreciate the support of Senators Dodd and Reid. I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the Reid amendment.

Mr. President, this is a tax credit extension, as with the previous amendment, but with a different pay-for. The previous was deductibility of punitive damages. This one is from the stimulus money. Both accomplish the same thing, which is allowing Americans who qualified for the tax credit by contracting by April 30 to close by September 30 rather than by June 30. The reason we are pushing it forward is because FDIC rules, regulatory rules and appraisal rules, are forcing closings taking as long as 120 days. This doesn't give anybody a credit who hasn't already earned it. It just allows them to take advantage of it by protracting the closing date so they would have enough time to close. I urge a positive vote on the Isakson amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.