mr. isakson: thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. president. let me try to dispel what concern there may be and the concern i heard right before we a adjourned in awtion to why not to extend the loan limits. people were afraid, a understand i understand the fear, that might cause some additional liability and cost to the government and taxpayers. let me make something crystal clear. we're going through terrible foreclosure problem right now not because of loan limits but because of underwriting. and 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 year, since 1966. i have seen a lost housing veetionz go by. i've seen a lost difficulties. this one solicit worst i've every -- this one is the worst i've ever seen. it was cause bid underwriting. as mr. menendez has said, this will pay the government back because the fee associated with the loan in the first place. in the second plashings it will answer the big question we need to start answer

mr. isakson: thank you, mr. president. of it from time to time. but i want to particularly talk about the major employer of the united states: small business, and the leader's reference to the 5.6% surtax. documents show that 392,000 american small businesses would be impacted by a 5.6% surtax in order to pay for the president's jobs bill. records show that 72% of the american people are employed by small business. you have to ask yourself this question -- if you're really interested in creating jobs, why would you target the job creator that creates 3/4 of the jobs in america and put a surtax on them? it just doesn't make any sense. if there were sincerity in that offer, those people would first and foremost be carved out of any punitive surtax and would probably have more employment. i will join any time, anyplace 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 s

mr. isakson right now explaining how that meeting with his sister, mona, went down when confronting the biological running it, who says among other things when she asks how sorry he is, but then says, that he had had another child and mona said what happened to him? he said, oh, i don't know. we'll never hear from him again. and then he says, i wish you could have seen me when i was running a bigger restaurant. i used to run one of the best restaurants in silicon valley. everybody used to come there, even steve jobs used to eat there. and mona sort of is taken aback and bites her tongue and doesn't say, steve jobs is injure son. but she looks shocked and he says, yeah. he was a great tipper. >> steve: oh, man. that close. >> brian: he never had a chance -- he never did to his dying day looked up to his dad. >> steve: that's going to be a big best seller. >> brian: but they had met. >> gretchen: without knowing. the father did not know that was his son. she spent millions running in connecticut. now linda mcmahon is giving it another go for joe lieberman's seat. >> brian: they say duct tape can tap

. >> senator isakson. >> mr. chairman, i agree that leadership at the school level, and particularly the principles is probably the most important effort -- element of all. i addressed this question response to what you're saying about the money. on page 16, line eight of his grant funds should be used to supplement any other federal state or local funds, otherwise available to carry out activities described here. so you are not taken away. i may be misreading it -- >> welcome the school leadership program was eliminated already in the manager's bill. so this was an anticipation of that. >> what do you anticipate the cost? >> well, it's up to the appropriators really. this will be up to the proofreaders. >> this is some amendment? be my guest, the amendment. so, thank you for helping me provide clarification on that. >> one last, senator bennet. just the ranking member -- the ranking members, it generally. this is not what the ranking member was saying, but it just occurs to me that we do -- we do not do a good j

senator sanders, thank you for pointing that out. >> senator isakson. >> mr.chairman, i agree that leadership at school level and administration level, probably the most important effort, element of all. but i have to ask this question in response to what you said about money. on page 16, line eight, grant funds provided under this section shall be used to supplement not supplant any of the federal, state, or local funds, otherwise of able to carry out activities subscribe here in. you are requiring it to add, you're not taking away. i may be miss reading it -- >> well, the school leadership program was eliminated already in the managers bill. so, this was an anticipation of that. >> what do you anticipate the cost of this to be? >> well, it's up to the appropriators, really. this will be up to the appropriators. >> this is such -- >> yeah. it is a such sums amendment. thank you for helping me, for the clarification on that. >> one last. senator bennet? >> to the ranking member. the ranking member's comment generally. i think, this is not what the ranking memb

mr. chairman. >> senator isakson. >> there is currently not a mechanism to track from middle school to high school, so this would -- anybody -- in is going to require anybody applying for these grants to figure out some way to track and figure out what happened to somebody because mr. bennet may know but i don't think there's any existing way you can. you have to create a mechanism to do that which probably means you have to create a person to carry out that tracking. that would be my guess. >> any other -- >> mr. chairman? >> senator murkowski. >> so just to clarify then from senator isakson, if you do receive the competitive grants and you cannot establish it, i guess it becomes a requirement you must establish this tracking mechanism for kids moving up from middle school in order to receive these competitive grants, is that correct? >> yes, i think that's right. in order to receive a competitive grant, as i understand it, yes. i'll let the senator describe it. >> it's a question, senator murkowski, of fracking the records that go from the eighth grade to the high school. so i think it's -- sena

mr. blunt: i object on behalf of senator hatch and senator isakson. officer objection is heard. mr. cardin: mr. president, i certainly understand that my friend from missouri is doing this on behalf other senators, and i just want to express my disappointment that these senators are objecting to the confirmation of william j. boarman, an individual who is eminently qualified to be our nation's 26th public printer and head of the government printing office. president obama nominated bill boreman 18 months ago. the senate committee on rules and administration reported the nomination favorably in july of 2010. the nomination languished because of the republican objections that president obama made a recess appointment on january 3, 2011, and renominated mr. boarman on january 20, 2011. again the senate rules committee reported the nomination favorably by voice vote this past may. the public printer is not a controversial position. previous printers have been confirmed without controversy or dlaivment this obstruction is unprecedented. bill'bill's career in the printg industry spans 40

mr. chairman. >> senator enzi, i appreciate concern isakson's putting this amendment forward. i think it is a really important consideration. i do think some of the and this is to go to some higher number has receded when we are no longer placing the same testing criteria before. what we have done with this bill is moving from looking at failing schools to try to look at kids that are not getting the education that they want. that is a huge change. before, there was a lot of emphasis that if one or two children did not do well on a test, they might fail aip and might be subject to other considerations. i appreciate that we got rid of that over hanging over people's heads but we need to have the concern for the kids, that we make sure they are getting the education that they were promised. i do want to tighten up the aip even though that would be more federal dictation. i do not see the difficulty with the amendment before we had ayp. so i hope there is some consideration given to looking at this. again, i would hope that it could be tied in to some of the computer testing that

mr. isakson: how much time is left? the presiding officer: nine seconds. mr. isakson: it's going to be tough but let me say there is a 15 basis point fee on every loan that goes into this issued by freddie, fanny or f.a.a. takes us back to where we were. it doesn't add additional liability. the presiding officer: who yields time? a senator: i yield one minute. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: mr. president i urge my colleagues to vote against the menendez amendment. if this amendment becomes law taxpayers will be forced to subsidize individuals who make upwards of $200,000 a year so that they may buy homes worth nearly $1 million. that's what this is about. increasing the loan limits will only benefit those who don't need federal subsidies. this is simply not a good use of scarce taxpayers dollars. even the administration does not support higher loan limits here. it's a bad amendment. the presiding officer: under the previous order 60 votes are required for the adoption of the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to