Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. It is rare that I am down here on the floor with the senior Senator from Tennessee, but it is always a pleasure. I certainly appreciate his great leadership and especially today. I enjoyed all of his comments. But his comments about the China currency bill probably should be labeled the China trade war bill, because I think that is where it would lead. (The remarks of Mr. Corker pertaining to the introduction of S. 1655 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the bill that is about to come before us--the China currency manipulation bill, as many are calling it. I want to speak about this bill because I think it is poor public policy. I know back home in all of our States people are concerned about the future; I am concerned about the future. People are concerned about manufacturing jobs; I am concerned about manufacturing jobs. But it seems to me what we ought to focus on are those things that will take us to the place we want to be. I know a lot of times when we are having these types of economic situations, the country turns inward. The country tries to look for other things to blame for the cause of where we are, and I think that is exactly what this bill is doing. Here we have a situation where our economy is slow, we have a financial crisis in Europe that has created tremendous fear in every country in the world. Yet what we are looking at doing in the Senate is creating a trade war with the second largest economy in the world--an economy that is growing rapidly and where our exports to this country grew twice as fast in the year 2010 as it did, on average, with the rest of the world. To me, Mr. President, this is one of those bills where we cut our nose off to spite our face. It is one of those bills where we try to make it look back home as though we are doing something constructive when what we are really doing is hurting the U.S. economy. We have three free-trade bills that are coming to the floor--that have been held up now for over 900 days--and that I think are going to pass. I believe this body is going to embrace them because we know this country is losing market share in the three countries we are reaching an agreement with. We are losing market share in South Korea, we are losing market share in Colombia, and we are losing market share in Panama. In other words, the manufacturers in Tennessee and Virginia and all across this country have a lesser ability to sell their goods into these three countries because these three free-trade agreements are not in place. But it is my sense we are getting ready to do something constructive, in a bipartisan way, and approve these bills. So what is stunning to me is that we would be actually taking up another bill that would likely hurt trade with the fastest growing other economy and the biggest other economy in the world. By the way, China does manipulate its currency. It does do that. It has something called a managed float. Their financial system is antiquated. It is being liberalized. They understand what they are doing with their currency has to change. Over the last 5 years, the Chinese currency has actually appreciated relative to our dollar by 30 percent. China knows it has to do even more of that. The fact is, as the standard of living in China improves, people are going to want even greater access to American goods. So what we ought to be doing, instead of trying to create a trade war with a country we want to create better relationships with, is focus on the real problems that exist in China. There is no question the Chinese Government--the Chinese Government-- needs to open procurement policies. As a government, they are a large purchaser of goods. Right now they have laws in place that cause them to purchase those goods from companies that exist in China. We need to cause them to open. The Secretary General, or the person we believe to be the next leader of China, is going to be here in January. This is something our President ought to talk with him about when he comes to visit and create an opportunity for success for our companies in America to be able to sell goods to China. Secondly, we should focus on intellectual property rights. There is no question Chinese companies take advantage of U.S. companies by stealing intellectual property rights. It exists in almost every area. That is something we certainly should be talking to China about. Thirdly, we ought to be talking about China investing in this country. The fact is, we would like to see more plants created in this country. We would like to see more manufacturing occur. So, yes, we should be talking to China about making investments in this country. Lastly, we should certainly be creating avenues for Chinese consumers to have greater access to American goods. Those are the types of solutions we ought to be talking about, and they can certainly be dealt with at the executive branch level. There are WTO violations we ought to be bringing to the WTO's attention. This bill, in my opinion, is great in optics. It allows Senators to go back home--by the way, the Senate is supposed to be the cooler place. It is interesting the leadership in the House, where we might expect a bill like this to move out quickly--a hot piece of legislation--has already talked about what bad policy this is. So, hopefully, this bill will not gain traction if it passes the Senate and goes to the House of Representatives. The fact is, this is not the kind of thing the Senate ought to be taking up, and certainly not something the Senate ought to be passing. We are now in a situation where we have an economic slowdown, the markets are continually getting worse--and have been, especially since August 2--and we have a financial crisis in Europe where contagion with those financial institutions is potentially spreading around the world. Yet the Senate, in its wisdom, is considering a trade war to add to all of that. This is exactly the kind of reaction and behavior that took place in the 1930s. Again, it is almost as if we cannot learn from the past. Mr. President, I understand that numbers of Senators voted to proceed to this bill, and I understand we ought to have debate on this kind of bill. That is what the Senate is for. But I would encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to have an investment in this bill. Again, I realize there are numbers of cosponsors, but I would encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up and to realize this is terrible policy. I know back home it may sound good, but I hope when Americans understand what we are doing is pursuing the wrong issues in the name of trying to make ourselves look good back home, this bill will not see the light of day. Hopefully, we will not have the 60 votes to have cloture on this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. I do.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I actually am here to speak on another topic, but I was glad to hear the comments of the Senator from Illinois. I will say in general that I think consumers across our country are beginning to see the first of many consequences of Dodd- Frank. Sometimes I think my friends on the other side of the aisle believe money comes from air. But the fact is when you price fix something such as the Senate did through Dodd-Frank, when you price fix something like this, obviously it is going to have the consequences that have been laid out and, unfortunately, consumers across our country are going to be paying the price. It is interesting that most of the major retailers my friend was alluding to are all talking about the profits, the benefits they are going to have from this. At the end of the day it is the consumers who are going to be paying the price, and we are already seeing that play out. While Bank of America--I am not here to defend them. This is just the first of many charges and lack of credit that is going to be part of our American society as a result of Dodd-Frank. But let me say, I came down today to talk about a bill we are getting ready to debate I understand this afternoon at 5:30. It is the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011. I probably won't recite that again, but that is the bill we are going to be having a cloture vote on tonight at 5:30. I understand how people across this country are very frustrated about our economic situation. I am very frustrated. I am frustrated for the people of Tennessee and the fact that our economy is not showing the kind of growth we would all wish to see. I understand how politicians like to respond to things back home by making it look as if they are doing something to benefit the folks back home during this tough economy. I plan to speak at length on this throughout the week that this bill is being debated. The bill that is going to be on the floor tonight is not the answer. I think most of you know that tonight we are going to begin debating a bill that would call China, in essence, a currency manipulator. And, by the way, they are a currency manipulator and I will agree to that. But the response that this bill wants to put in place is to put tariffs on Chinese imports, and what I believe will happen is it will begin a trade war. What I wish to say is this is the U.S. Senate. I understand that sometimes a hot bill will make it out of the House for lots of reasons, due to its makeup. I understand that a lot of times a bill such as this comes forth for messaging. What I would say is we are actually playing with fire here. This is something that is originating in the Senate. It is a place where typically things are to cool and we are to think through things. I am hopeful we will have a vigorous debate on this, and many amendments, because my concern is that at a time in our country when we have had a financial crisis which has led to the type of economy we have here where we wish to see many people in our country have greater and more full employment, at a time when we come off high energy prices a few years ago that sucked a lot of life out of this economy, at a time when the global economy is slowing much due to the financial crisis that is occurring right now in Europe, I think the response we want to put forth is not to create a trade war with China. I think most of us know China has been a currency manipulator. They have a managed float for their currency. We wish to see that rise much more quickly than it has. It has risen about 30 percent in the last several years. So the point is they are making changes. China has an antiquated financial system that has to be changed; it has to be liberated; it has to become more like what we have in this country. And those steps are happening. There is no doubt that importers--there is no doubt that the goods that come here from China come here at a lesser price than they otherwise would because of the currency float they put in place in China. I understand that. But that is changing. And the fact is that with a country of 1.3 billion and as their standard of living continues to grow, we have an opportunity to have even more trade with this country. Our exports to China have grown sixfold over the most recent time. So here we have an opportunity in this Chamber very soon to take up the three free-trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia, trade agreements we have wanted to have in place for a long time. Here we are, the Senate, a body that is supposed to act with cooler heads. And I understand the pressures back home. I have them too. Our State has tremendously high unemployment, much higher unemployment than I wish to see happen. I know when I go to townhall meetings, people talk about China, and I understand that. But I think people may be misreading what is in this bill. I think a lot of people think this bill is sort of a plaything because it actually gives the President a chance to waive tariffs on goods that happen to come here cheaper because of currency manipulation. But that is not the case. That is not what this bill says. A lot of people have misunderstood what this bill says. They think it is sort of a plaything and the President can make it all right. The President, if you will, can be the adult and not create a trade war. But that is not what the bill says. The bill says this country has to put in place tariffs on goods coming into this country, as long as they are not being dumped into this country. If they come in at a competitive advantage, we have to put in place tariffs. Is this what the Senate wants to do today? We have had a tremendous financial crisis. We have high unemployment in this country. We are tremendously overregulated. We are not doing the things within our own country we should be doing, that many of us have been arguing, to cause our economy to grow. We have a financial crisis that is taking hold and taking root and actually moving in parts to this country and hurting us. The markets are down. So the Senate, a body of 100 people who are elected for 6-year terms, wants to put in place tariffs on a major growing country that we have growing exports to, and create a trade war--a trade war between the two largest economies in the world? That is our response, instead of understanding the best thing we can do for this country right now is to deal with those long-term solutions in our own country and ask this deficit reduction committee to go big, to get $3 trillion, to do tax reform, to do entitlement reform. These are the kinds of things we ought to be doing in this country: passing a 6-year highway bill; producing American energy; reducing regulations that are impeding our economy and not helping the country. Those are the kinds of things we ought to do. That is the response from the Senate, from people with 6- year terms who were elected to be the cooling of legislation, not to originate bills out of this body that we know, if passed, will likely create a trade war. It is as though this country has lost its ability to see the fact that we are an exceptional country. It is as though we are cowering down now. It is as though we know what to do but we won't do it, and, instead, now we have got to find a bogeyman. Do I like what China is doing with their currency? No. But is it changing? Yes. Is our country putting pressure on China to change? Yes. Is it occurring? Yes. It is going to have to. The middle class in China is going to want access to the kinds of goods our country produces. It is naturally happening. So why would we as a country tamper at this time of a global slowdown with creating a trade war? I understand and I know many of the Senators in this room hear the same things back home I hear back home. But the last thing we need to do at this point in world history, at this point with the global economy as it is today, is repeat the same mistakes that happened back in the 1930s with Smoot-Hawley. That is exactly the path we are going down. It is as if we don't learn from history. I urge all Senators to think about this. I understand we are probably going to move to this bill tonight. I do hope we have a vigorous debate. I hope we change this bill dramatically, if not kill it. But I think Senators need to understand, in my opinion, we are playing with fire. This is not the right thing for us to do. We need to be focusing on how we make this great Nation, the greatest Nation of all times, grow. We can do that by dealing with our own issues here internally. We know how to do it, and we can do this by courageously dealing with the long-term issues that confront this country. That will be the short-term stimulus this economy needs. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I wish to say to my colleague I certainly have enjoyed his comments, and I am excited for him. I sit very close to him in the Senate, and I am with him a great deal. I do plan on keeping a cane out of the reach of my colleague for a few days. I very much appreciate his service and leadership to the Republican Party in the Senate. I think in his position he has brought out the best in all of us in the best way he could. I am excited for him. I look at this as a great day for the Senate. It is a great day for our country. This is a great day for the State of Tennessee. I can tell my colleague, based on the conversations we have had and the way I know my colleague, the Senate is going to become very quickly a more interesting place to serve. For all of us who have been concerned about our lack of ability to solve our Nation's greatest problems, I look at what the Senator has done today as a step in the direction toward us being able as a body to more responsibly deal with the pressing issues he outlined in his talk. So I thank my colleague for having the courage to step down from a position that many Republican Senators would love to have. I thank my colleague for the way he serves our country. I thank him for the example he has been to so many in his public service in our State and in our country, and I thank the Senator for being my friend.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Utah. I will be very brief. I will actually be propitious in many ways. I am here at a time when the Senator from Virginia is the Presiding Officer. Last night there was a focus on a short-term stimulus. I wish to thank the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Georgia who have led efforts over the course of the last many months to focus on trying to deal with our longer term issues. I think there are many of us in this body, as well as in the House of Representatives, who believe the best way for us to deal with our short-term economic situation is to deal with the long-term structural issues that are affecting our country so much. So I am here today to express hope and to say I feel a tremendous consensus building. I know the Presiding Officer and I were in a meeting earlier this week where I think there was demonstrated a lot of consensus by Republicans and Democrats in the Senate toward using this supercommittee and encouraging the supercommittee. There was tremendous optimism expressed about what this supercommittee is getting ready to do. But we wish to encourage them to look at a number of deficit reduction ideas which may be twice or even more than the original charge and, secondarily, to encourage them to use this tremendous opportunity for tax reform, much like was laid out in many of the Bowles-Simpson concepts, and to have Medicare entitlement reform as part of that; and, thirdly--and this is me speaking individually, although I think there is consensus building around this too--to do something longer term as it relates to infrastructure, such as having a 6-year highway bill. I feel that momentum building in the House. I think it exists in the Senate. The reason I am on the Senate floor today is to say one thing. We have a tremendous opportunity to deal with our long-term issues which will immediately affect our economy now and stimulate it, if we will do that. I hope what we will not do is become sidetracked on issues that are more around the edges, more around the fringe, issues that are short-term in nature. The Presiding Officer, who has created jobs in his lifetime, and I have done the same thing in my lifetime, and I understand it is important to create a long-term environment where people have confidence that we have actually dealt with this country's problems. There is nothing--nothing--that could be more stimulative in the short term than for people to see that this body and the body across the way on the other side of the Capitol have dealt with these issues in an appropriate way. I am encouraging us to stay focused, to stay focused on the supercommittee, to continue to encourage them to do even more than what is their charge. I think there is a lot of consensus around that, and I am thankful to be a part of that encouragement. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank again the senior Senator from Utah for his tremendous courtesy and certainly his leadership on so many of these issues. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I want to speak just momentarily about the legislation that was just passed. I, for the last 14 months traveling my State in almost every nook and cranny, have talked about the situation our country is in, talked about possible solutions, and offered legislation--the only bipartisan, bicameral legislation offered until this point--to deal with our country's deficits and debt. I had hoped that we would figure out a way to deal with $5 trillion to $7 trillion worth of spending and/or savings over the next 10 years, and finally decided that $4 trillion was the magic number. I know the markets had looked at that, the rating agencies looked at that, the people who buy our Treasurys had looked at that number. Over the course of the last few weeks, it became apparent that $3 trillion was probably the most that was going to be achieved, and then now we have ended up with this bill that passed today, and I supported that hoping to achieve $2.1 trillion to $2.4 trillion in savings over the next decade. Mr. President, obviously, like many of us in this body on both sides of the aisle who know our country is in dire straits and we have a lot of work to do, I am disappointed at the magnitude of this legislation. But I am hopeful and thankful that we have taken the first step. I think this is going to be a decade of us having to focus on our country's irresponsibility over the past many years. Both parties, no doubt, have been responsible for putting us in this situation. It is going to take both parties to move us away from where we are. But I think everyone in this body fully understands that on the present course our country's best days are behind us. I think all of us want to ensure that this country's greatness continues; that we can continue to display American exceptionalism not only here but around the world. I look at this solely as the first step. I know we are going to have an appropriations opportunity to look at even more savings at the end of September. I know we are going to have a committee that is going to be looking at this during the months of November and December. I know we are going to have a series of opportunities for us to deal with this. Again, today was just a first step. I learned through a lifetime of business, starting with doing very, very small projects at the age of 25 when I first went in business, that as a company, you can never go broke taking a profit. What I have learned in the Senate is you should never say no to spending cuts. So while these spending cuts are not of the magnitude that I would like to have seen, I think this is a very good first step and is something that we can all build upon. I look forward to working with people on both sides of the aisle to ensure that this is just the first step and that our country continues to have the discipline, the fortitude, the courage, and the will to make the tough decisions that all of us know we are going to need to make over the course of the next many years. That is what we owe these young pages who are getting ready to leave after service to this country over the last month; that is what we owe future generations; that is what we owe Americans; and, candidly, that is what we owe the world as citizens of this world; that is, for us to be disciplined and to know that we have to live within our means and to know the best thing we can possibly do as a country at this moment in time is to show we have that courage and that will. Mr. President, I thank you for the time to speak on this topic. I know all of us leave here and go home to recess. I know many of us will be talking about the vast amount of work that needs to be done as it relates to making sure we rein in this out-of-control spending that has been taking place for many years. I look forward to that. I look forward to talking to citizens back in Tennessee, and I look forward to coming back in September and dealing with folks on both sides of the aisle to make sure we put that thought into action. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. OK.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, it is interesting. I have some of the same concerns, maybe with different outcomes, as the Senator from California, but I agree we have not done our work. Over the course of a little over a year, I have been traveling around the State of Tennessee making citizens aware of the unsustainable deficits our country has. I am sure people on the other side of the aisle have been doing the same. After townhall meetings all across our State in almost every forum my colleagues can imagine--I am sure the Presiding Officer has done the same--people are very aware in my State, as they are across the country, of the fact that we are on an unsustainable course. We are now beginning to have investor publications--the Wall Street Journal this morning wrote an editorial about the fact that no matter what we do regarding the actual proposals before us today, it is likely our country is going to be downgraded. So, here we are, faced with a situation where the types of legislation we are looking at--in both Chambers, I might add, in both Chambers-- probably will take us to a place where our country's debt is downgraded. I wish to first applaud both leaders--Senator Reid for bringing forth a proposal today or over the last few days, and Speaker Boehner, the leader of the House, for doing the same on the House side. What I wish to say about that is while to me they don't meet the goals or don't meet the test our country needs to have met at this time, at least we are finally talking about proposals that will reduce spending in this country and put us back on a sustainable path. So I appreciate the leadership of both bodies. Finally, after many months, we are on the right topic. What I have said all along is that as we approach the debt ceiling, we need to dramatically change the character of spending in this country. My concern is that our work is not quite done. The fact is there is no question of the deadline coming up. Everybody agrees it is, at least the minimum, August 2. I don't think there is any dispute that we have until August 2 to deal with this issue. I also don't think we have yet come up with a solution we need to come up with to dramatically change the character of spending in this country. What I would say is, look, our work is not quite done. The House has a bill that basically reduces spending over the next decade by $1 trillion. Candidly, I think we all know that is not a solution that is going to prevent a downgrade in this country. It does have the goal of kicking this to a select committee of some kind that is going to try to incorporate another $1.8 trillion in cuts. Candidly, that is a big step back from where I think we were a weekend ago, where at least on the cut side--even on the cut side--even the President had agreed to at least $3 trillion in cuts. That is our understanding. So what we have coming out of the House right now is a bill that doesn't cut as much as the President had agreed to last weekend. We have on this side a bill that cuts about $1 trillion after it has been scored. Again, I applaud the leader of the Senate for putting forth a bill that at least begins moving us in the right direction, but, again, it is $2 trillion short of where the President had been with leaders a week ago, or at least that is our understanding, and I am pretty sure that understanding is correct. We also know the general mantra adopted by Wall Street and by people who are looking at our country around the world is that we need to do something that is at least a $4 trillion solution. I would say to the Senator from California who just spoke, I couldn't agree more. We have not addressed this situation the way we should. I don't think there is anything anybody--well, there may be a few--the vast majority of this body does not want to see our country default on its obligations. I don't know of anybody who wants to do that. I want to see dramatic changes in the character of spending for our country, and many people have sought that. Our work is not yet done. What I would say is, let's have a short-term extension. There is no question that we do not want the sovereign debt of this country to be downgraded because we default. Nobody wants to see that happen. We are at least finally on the right topic. We are talking about spending reductions. We certainly haven't done the work necessary to achieve the goal we need to achieve in this body. But I couldn't agree more. Let's have a short-term extension. Let's extend it another week or 2 weeks or 3 weeks. A lot of people say, Well, the fact is that will roil the markets. I don't think it will roil the markets. I think they are used to us waiting until an hour before the deadline to work out a solution. I think that has become customary, if you will, in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. So what I would say is if we don't do the work now--we have a historic opportunity right now. Right now, the whole world, all of our country, all of our citizens are all frustrated. The Members of the House and the Senate are all focused on one thing and that is what kind of a package can we put forth to actually cause our country to be more solvent at this time. We are finally on the right topic, yet we haven't even, in these aspirational bills that are laid out--we know that with all the actuarial assumptions that exist, with Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid, that if we don't touch trying to make them solvent for the longer haul, we haven't even done our work. The bills before us don't even have as an aspirational goal--for instance, the House bill that is coming over with a select committee that I know Senator Reid and Senator McConnell have been involved in--and I thank them for their work--doesn't even lay out that one of the things we are looking at is ensuring Social Security is actuarially sound. The future of these young pages who potentially down the road--not potentially, hopefully-- will benefit from Social Security, I think they would like to know that during this historic time we are actually looking at the real issue. What I am afraid of is we are missing the opportunity for this to be the seminal moment we all thought it was going to be because we don't yet have a product that solves the problem. The product we are looking at in both bodies--and I thank the leaders of both bodies for bringing them forth--does not meet the test. It doesn't dramatically change the character of spending in Washington. It doesn't even stave off a downgrade in U.S. sovereign debt. We are on the brink of actually doing something great for our country. And because we now have our country's focus and everybody in both bodies is focused on this problem, let's have a short-term extension. I agree. Let's don't default. Let's move back a week or 2 weeks or 3 weeks. But let's don't miss this historic opportunity to do something great for our country, which is exactly what we are doing now. It is hard for me to believe, seriously, that what we have before us is a $1 trillion downpayment. It is also hard for me to believe, candidly, that we are going to set up a select committee that is going to report back in 4 or 5 months when all of us know what the issues are. We understand the math. I know we get ridiculed a lot for the way we act in this body, but I think most of us candidly pretty well understand what the solutions are. We all know nobody gets to work on anything around here until there is an imminent deadline. So even with this committee being potentially set up by mutual discussion down the road--I know there are a lot of negotiations--to me they should report back. I agree with the Senator from California. Let's report back at the end of this fiscal year, September 30--there is no reason to wait--and if that type of bill were to pass where we have a two-stage process, let's go ahead and get the work out of the way. I want to go back to the bigger picture for a moment and I will conclude momentarily. We have an opportunity right now where we have never been focused in the way we are right now--in the 4\1/2\ years I have been here--on something as important as this as it relates to us getting our house in order. We have never been this focused. What I am afraid of, in the name of political efficacy--people saying, Hey, look, let's take what we can get and get on out of here so we don't mess up our potential, on both sides of the aisle, for the 2012 elections--take what you have on both sides. Basically, let's think about it. For the other side of the aisle, the way all of the proposals before us are laid out, there is no dealing with trying to make the entitlements sustainable, so they can run in 2012 on the entitlement issue. With all of the proposals laid out right now, we don't deal with spending appropriately, so our country is probably going to have its debt downgraded, so Republicans can run on the fact that we haven't reduced spending enough. So if we look at it, this works well for everybody, except the citizens of our country. Again, we are finally on the right topic, which is a rarity here. We are finally focused on the problem. We have two bills that don't go far enough. Again, I applaud both the Democratic leader and the Republican leader for putting forth proposals. We all know they don't do what they need to do--either proposal. We know the aspirational goals of each proposal don't take us far enough. I would say to all: I agree. Let's don't default. Let's don't buck up against August 3. Let's pass a short-term time extension. Let's take us through the end of August or the first 2 weeks in September, or let's take a week, but let's finish our work in this body. Let's don't miss this seminal opportunity where everybody in this country and everybody in this world is looking at how undisciplined we have been and the opportunity we have before us to actually be disciplined and send a signal to the world that our future is not the future that Greece is seeing today; our future is the continuation of American exceptionalism all around this world. We are squandering that opportunity right now in this body at a time when we are finally focused on the right topic. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER. I was given an 11:10 time and saw that we were alternating. I have a conference call. I am glad for the Senator to finish, but if she could make it even shorter than that, it would be appreciated.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I wish to speak for 10 minutes or so. When I have 2 minutes remaining, if the Chair could tell me, I would appreciate it. Madam President, I am here today with a sense of optimism. I know all of us are very concerned about what is happening in our country with the debt ceiling. I know we are getting lots of calls from constituents. I think we have made remarkable progress over the last couple of weeks. If we think back to just a couple of weeks ago, people were crafting legislation for sort of a political vote, if you will, and I understand that. But here we are today, and we actually have the leader of the U.S. Senate--a Democrat--who has proposed a bill that has to do with spending. The Republican leader of the House has introduced a bill that has to do with spending. Candidly, I am kind of uplifted. We are finally on the right topic now. Candidly, to use a colloquial term from Tennessee, we are beginning to cook with gas. What I mean by that is people are actually now focused on the right issue. We have all talked about this August 2 date. We have talked about the fact that our debt ceiling has to be raised by then. Certainly, there are a lot of ambiguities in the financial markets right now. A lot of them have been watching the Treasury Department and think the Treasury Department has actually made some ways of causing that to last a little bit longer. But I think one thing we can all agree to in this body at present is that we have until August 2. I think everybody would agree with that. Some people think we have longer. I think the one thing almost everyone would agree with in this body is that we have until August 2 to solve this problem, and I hope we will do so. The other thing that I think is becoming part of sort of the mantra and the understanding throughout our country is that many of the financial markets, the people who actually buy our Treasurys, are now not as concerned about the debt ceiling. They want it raised, don't get me wrong, and as I just mentioned, we all understand August 2 is the date we have until to do that. But now they are more concerned about the fact that we may raise the debt ceiling and not actually do what we need to do to actually get our deficits in order. First of all, we have the ratings agencies saying that if we don't get at least $4 trillion in savings in some form or fashion, then some of them are going to downgrade us. But our office over in the Banking Committee--our folks are constantly talking with folks who buy Treasurys, and the actual purchasers of these Treasurys are now telling us in our office that if we don't do something that at least shows $4 trillion in savings, then they believe we don't have the political will to cause our country to be as worthy of a borrower and that we are going to be paying more in the way of rates. The other point I wish to make is that we have a proposal on the floor. Personally--and I may catch some grief back home for saying this--I think Senator Reid has actually tried to put something forward to help solve this problem. I believe that. I think he has been working closely with Senator McConnell. I think Speaker Boehner also--I know he has a different set of circumstances--is trying to solve this problem. Here is the point: We are at a place where we are now actually talking about the right topic, and we now know that if we don't put forth a solution that is at least $4 trillion or in that order of magnitude, we are going to be downgraded. It seems to me that people on the other side of the aisle--my Democratic friends--would not want to support a proposal that extends the debt ceiling that is less than $4 trillion because their President would be presiding over a country that was downgraded while he was President. It seems to me that the Republicans who have worked hard to press this issue--and everybody has gone through tremendous acrimony, and certainly people who are watching this are incredibly frustrated and angry--it seems to me that Republicans who are on the verge of potentially being able to craft something that actually solves this problem would not want to support something that is less than $4 trillion either. In fact, I would make this statement which I think is true: Anybody who votes for a package in this body to address the debt ceiling and our deficits simultaneously that isn't of the order of magnitude that is real and scorable--those are two different definitions, real and scorable--of $4 trillion is actually voting for a package that likely will cause our country to be downgraded. So here is what I think. Senator Reid, has offered a proposal, and I think they scored it at $800 billion. I know it says $3 trillion; his scores at about $800 billion. Speaker Boehner has offered a package, and he, too, has some scoring issues with his package. It seems to me that all of us in this body should be pressing the leaders on both sides of the aisle to at least present a package that is scorable and real in the area of $4 trillion, depending on what we decide to do with that package. But if a Senator voted for a package that was less than that, they would be casting a vote to raise the debt ceiling and at the same time probably cast our country into a situation where we are downgraded, and that doesn't make any sense to me. So we have 6 days left. I know people back home are nervous. I did a tele-townhall last night. We had thousands of people on the phone. People are angry that we have waited this long to actually get serious about this issue. They are concerned about Social Security checks, disability checks, veterans' checks. I understand that. I empathize with them. But we haven't quite finished our work. We actually are on the right topic, finally. Again, Senator Reid has offered a proposal. The House has offered a proposal. Neither one of them is strong enough. For what it is worth--I know the Presiding Officer knows this, but I am talking to people on both sides of the aisle--I think people are reading what the markets are doing and becoming increasingly concerned about considering voting for a package. I know the Presiding Officer comes from the center of the universe as it relates to those kinds of issues. People are rising up. There are a lot of private phone calls taking place, and people are saying: Wait a minute, let's think about this. The markets--which matter, by the way, because they are the ones that buy our bonds--are now saying to us that they know we are going to deal with the debt ceiling--and I think we are--they know we are going to deal with the debt ceiling by the time we have to--and I think we are--but now they are beginning to think we are not going to do something that is actually the real solution. So I am here today to talk to my friends on both sides of the aisle to say let's communicate with our leadership and say that we have 6 days left. We have an opportunity to do something--we have all been saying this--that really does rise to the seminal moment to actually solve this problem. This is not a Republican issue. It is not a Democratic issue. It is something that is going to affect everybody in our country. And we are finally, after all of this time, focused on the right subject matter. I mean we really are. I just met with a group of Senators. I am going to meet with another group of Senators here in a little while. Let's make sure our leadership on both sides of this Capitol understands that we believe voting for a package less than $4 trillion in savings over this next decade that is not real and scorable really isn't getting the job done. I know Senator Reid's approach has been to do it all at once, and maybe there is a way to craft a package between now and next Tuesday that people can vote on that has $4 trillion in real savings. I think that might be difficult, but maybe something is happening behind closed doors that we are not aware of. I know that on the other side of the building, people are concerned about--well, actually, on the other side of the building they are looking at a short-term extension. I know the President has been concerned, candidly, about a short-term extension. In fairness, I think the business community around our country would be concerned about a long short-term extension--in other words, one that carries out months and months and we still don't have a solution to this problem. I understand that creates the kind of uncertainty that many of the people on my side of the aisle and, candidly, people on the other side of the aisle, to some degree, have talked about as it relates to the business environment. So, sure, I would love to vote for something that solves this problem and does it all on the front end. But I assume our leadership, knowing the acrimony that is taking place--but, again, at least we are on the right subject matter, finally--the acrimony that is taking place, I assume they have some really short-term extension in their back pocket that, to the extent we don't come to a conclusion by next Tuesday, they are ready to pull out and they know it is something that can actually pass both bodies. Again, I think we are so close now because we are finally focused on the right thing. I think we are close to getting to something that solves our country's problems for a while, causes people around the world and the country to know we actually have the will and the courage to deal with these issues and at the same time addresses the debt ceiling. Should we not quite get there by this Tuesday--and I know there are a lot of complications, and we have bodies that are made up of two very different groups of people--I would assume our leadership, who understand what is at stake here, have in their hands, in their back pockets, a very short-term extension that could be used as a bridge for the kind of solution that maybe takes us to a place that we can all agree helps solve our country's problems. Again, I have heard people have been coming down to the floor back and forth and criticizing each side of the aisle. I am actually more optimistic today--I am not over the top, but I am more hopeful than I was 2 weeks ago when we were not even focused on the right issues, at that time focused on casting blame. Now what we have is both bodies looking at packages to actually address the deficit we have before us. I hope people on both sides of the aisle will talk to leadership, will let them know they have no desire to support something that does not solve the problem with all we have gone through as a country and as a body over the course of the last couple of months. I am hopeful we will figure out a solution that actually meets that test--in other words, avoids the crisis on Tuesday and, at the same time, avoids the crisis that will occur if people look at our country as a downgraded entity because we have not shown we are willing to at least deal with $4 trillion. I think most people know I wish to do a lot more than that, and I offered a bill that was bipartisan that did a lot more than that. But I think we all now know that baked into the expectations about where our country is today is the fact that it has to be a minimum of $4 trillion. I think a lot of people have worked toward that goal. To even set up a process that is short of that does not make any sense to me. It is kind of as though you have to be kidding me: We are going to go through the aggravation of the next 6 months working toward an aspirational goal that we all know does not solve the credit rating issue? Madam President, I thank you for the time. I hope we come to a successful conclusion soon. I stand ready and am talking with people on both sides of the aisle to try to come up with a solution so we either solve this on the front end or put in place a process, a very quick process, that takes us to a place where we know we have actually dealt with the problem. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, may I inquire as to how much time I have allotted?

Mr. CORKER. I thank the Chair. I doubt I will do this, but if I get up to 8 minutes, if the Chair would let me know so I will have 2 minutes to wrap up. The last time I was on the floor was July 14, and I was very concerned--maybe upset--about the fact that it appeared where we were on this debt ceiling discussion was looking for a political way for everybody to raise the debt ceiling without anybody taking ownership. Obviously, that wasn't what I came to the Senate to do. I came down and had choice words for both sides of the aisle in that regard. I actually come here today with a glimmer of hope. The reason I say that is, to my knowledge, in this debt ceiling debate we may be--I think this is the first time legislation has actually been offered from both sides of the aisle to look at spending reductions over the course of this next year. To me, that is progress. I think we ought to focus on the fact that, finally, here in this body, we are on the right subject. We sort of wandered around in the wilderness for several weeks as this debt ceiling was coming up and focused on many things that were not going to solve the problem. Then, a couple of weeks ago, we focused on trying to figure out a way for us to all usurp--get rid of--our responsibilities in dealing with this. I am kind of uplifted because, as was mentioned, a Democratic Senator has a proposal, a Republican House Member has a proposal, and now, finally, we are on the topic that matters; that is, we have proposals before us that are beginning to look at what we might do to look at spending reductions. The fact is, the reason this debt ceiling debate is what it is is because all of us are concerned about future deficits. All of us are concerned about where our country is going. All of us are concerned about the fact that if we don't deal with this issue responsibly, we are going to end up with a downgrade in our debt regardless, even if we make it. If we had a clean debt ceiling vote, which, obviously, is not going to occur now--if we had a clean debt ceiling vote, we would be right back at the table trying to figure out a way to keep from having a downgrade. So for what it is worth, I am choosing today to come to the floor and to be slightly optimistic because both sides of the aisle are beginning to look at ways of reducing that issue. As to the rating agencies, actually we don't put a lot of faith in them, I know, but smart people who actually buy Treasurys have said the order of magnitude that we need to deal with as it relates to deficit spending over the next short period of time is a minimum of $4 trillion, and that $4 trillion has to be real, and that $4 trillion needs to be accompanied by entitlement reforms. What I would say is, right now, I don't think there is any proposal that is being discussed that is strong enough, and I don't say that to knock any of the authors. There is nothing out there that I am aware of that is being discussed by the media or being discussed in either Chamber that really deals with this issue. Most of us have taken the position that we want to use the debt ceiling vote to force dramatic reductions in deficits, dramatic reductions in spending and, fortunately, we have gotten to that place, finally. We have just gotten there in the last 24 hours. So this is my hope: We know none of the proposals out there now are strong enough. None of the proposals out there--I am talking about in legislative language. There are a lot of people working in other ways to try to come up with a solution, but there is no legislative language out there yet that actually forces us to do the things we need to do to achieve not being downgraded, if you will, after this debt ceiling vote occurs. So it appears we are going to be voting on a proposal the majority leader has offered. It is very apparent to me it is not going to pass. I know there are some activities that may be taking place in the House over the next 24 hours, but at least we have both sides of the aisle talking about the right topic, finally. It has taken us a while to get here. I urge us to sit down and figure out a way to make the proposals that are being discussed real--make sure they don't have gimmicks--and that they force us to do those things we need to do to make sure we don't just kick the can down the road and pass something that looks like we have actually taken action, but to pass something instead that actually will address the issues we have before us. So, again, I have a glimmer of hope. Both sides of the aisle have offered proposals. No doubt in both cases they are not nearly strong enough, but both sides have offered proposals that look at reducing the deficits over the next year or so. So I urge people to sit down--as Members have done recently on other proposals, let's sit down and figure out a way to make some proposal strong enough so we know that not only have we moved past this debt ceiling vote, but we have also put in place those actions that will cause us to make it through this entire next year, in a way that we know we are not going to be downgraded by the credit rating agencies and have other issues. There is not a proposal before us today that does it, but both sides of the aisle are talking about proposals. That, to me, is a sign for a degree of optimism. If we need to extend the debt ceiling issue for a week while we work out the details or whatever, let's do it. But let's don't let this opportunity where we finally have both sides of the aisle talking about the right subject, let's don't let this opportunity go by. Let's solve this problem while the focus is on it. I thank the Chair for allowing me to take to the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. No, I cannot. The fact is, that is why recent polls show Americans have about a 20-percent approval rating of Congress. What I would say, based on what I know, based on what we are getting ready to do on the floor today, 20 percent is way too high. The fact is we do everything we can to avoid tough decisions in public, tough decisions in public where we have to take a stand. That is what we were elected to do. That is what the veterans who receive benefits, if this bill passes, did. That is what we are not doing. My guess is they will be willing to wait until this bill passes--it doesn't fund things until next year--and allow us to make the tough decisions we need to make as we flesh out a budget, as we work out among ourselves to finally come to a place we agree upon in funding this government. I certainly appreciate the leadership of the Senator. I know others want to speak at this moment and I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Thank you, Madam President. I thank the Senator from Alabama for his comments and leadership on the Budget Committee. To the two gentlemen, the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from South Dakota, I thank them for their work in appropriations. This discussion on the floor has absolutely nothing to do with work they have done. I understand actually the top line they are using is within the budget that was passed through the House. The reason I am here today, though, is for this reason: There aren't many Senators on either side of the aisle who believe the Senate is functioning in an appropriate manner. I can't go to the dining room or any other place, walk down the hall, get on the subway, without some Senator saying, Can you believe how this place is operating? Our allowing spending bills to come to the floor and to be voted upon without having budgets basically makes us an accomplice in allowing this place to continue to be dysfunctional. We are having a showdown over the debt ceiling because there isn't any other place to have a showdown. I realize many people have decided that is not the appropriate place, and there has been a scheme concocted to sort of allow both sides to have it as they may and try to fight this out in the electoral process down the road instead of dealing with some of the tough issues we ought to deal with now. But it seems to me that what we do by going on about our business in this way is we act as accomplices to the dysfunctionality of the Senate. It is my belief this Senate, by virtue of the way we are acting, is making this great Nation weaker. That is what we are doing. This Chamber we are standing in right now is causing this great Nation to decline because we are unwilling to come down here. I would say, candidly, leadership on both sides of the aisle doesn't want us to come down and make tough decisions. Either side wants it 100 percent their way. But we realize that to move things ahead, you have got to skirmish, you have got to fight, you have got to debate. Sometimes you have to do some things you don't want to do to move the country ahead. But we are avoiding that, and what we are doing today is moving possibly to an appropriations bill, a spending bill, without a budget. I can't imagine in a country spending $3.7 trillion, 40 percent of it that we don't have, that we are going to move to spending bills without resolving these particular issues. So I am extremely disappointed. I know I have been saying some pretty strong things on the floor, but it is because I am concerned about this country. I know everybody here is concerned about this country. It is not as if those of us who have been talking about this issue are the only ones. That is not the image or perception I am trying to project. I think sometimes we go to sleep at the switch. We go about our business almost as zombies down here, continuing to allow this dysfunctionality to occur. I am all in support of the movement put in place here to basically not allow this to go forward because we don't have a budget. That is the appropriate place for us to be. I hope the Senate, in spite of the fact this appropriations bill funds some things that candidly we all support--we want to see veterans get benefits. But those veterans, many of them, lost limbs doing tough things for our country, and they are watching potentially us not having the courage to do tough things on the floor that might flesh this out, that might cause us to actually take a tough position on the floor. But, oh, that might affect electoral politics down the road, so instead of doing that, we will go 806 days without a budget. Look, I am disappointed. I am disappointed in all of us on both sides of the aisle. I do not think we should be going to a spending bill until we do the tough business that we were sent here to do as Senators. With that, I yield to my friend from Alabama.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I realize a scheme has been concocted on the debt ceiling that allows Democrats to go into this next election continuing to ensure that spending to many of their constituents is at levels that please them; therefore, allowing them to run successfully in 2012, and that scheme also allows Republicans to run in 2012 with spending being the issue. I think we all understand that, look, the debt ceiling is going to be increased, and it is going to be increased in such a way that both sides of the aisle have the ability to campaign against the other respective to their bases. But the fact is, our great Nation is in decline because of the elected leaders in Washington. Our great Nation is in decline because of this body and the way it is acting, the House of Representatives and the way it is acting, and the White House and the way it is acting. This body, as we meet and go on to a spending bill, is helping our great Nation go into decline. Let me explain why. Maybe the debt ceiling was the wrong place to pick a fight as it relates to trying to get our country's house in order. Maybe that was the wrong place to do it. The reason it was chosen is because this body has not passed a budget in 806 or 807 days, and I credit both sides for that. But the fact is the Senate has not passed a budget in over 806 days. I had a dinner this week, Monday night, with six Democrats and five Republicans. I will not mention their names to impugn them in any way. But all of them expressed tremendous frustration with the way this body is being run. Basically, most Senators in this body are nothing but two-bit pawns--two-bit pawns--as a political fight is under way basically to lay out the groundwork, if you will, for the 2012 election. That is what is happening right now in this body, and I think we all know that. Yet yesterday we voted to move to a spending bill where we, in essence, are acting as accomplices. We are accomplices to this--the Presiding Officer and myself. I voted against it. But anybody who votes to go to a spending bill without forcing the Senate to come to terms with a budget is, in essence, an accomplice to allowing the shenanigans that are taking place right now to continue. We are allowing this great Nation to go into decline by not forcing us to make those tough decisions. The reason the debt ceiling was chosen is because there has not been any other mechanism to cause us to sit down and make those tough choices as it relates to spending in our country. Because we were unwilling to do that, many people lined up, as a matter of fact, Democrats and Republicans--there is a Gang of 6 that had been working, with three Republicans and three Democrats. It is my sense that they too had planned to use the debt ceiling vote as a place to try to cause us to come together around something that might be sensible for our country. We have not seen the details of that. I hope we will see that soon. But my point is, both sides of the aisle actually had focused on this debt ceiling vote--or many people on both sides of the aisle--to try to cause us to have the fiscal discipline we need. Obviously, with this new scheme, that is not going to happen. I think we all know the debt ceiling is going to be raised. Blame will be assessed to either side. Both sides will use that in the 2012 election, and then we will move on to another cycle where probably we will continue to be irresponsible. But the fact is, by moving to a spending bill without a budget-- everyone who agrees to do that, every single person in this body who agrees to move to a spending bill, no matter what it is funding or no matter at what level it is funding the things it is funding, every one of us is an accomplice in causing this great Nation to decline, every single one of us. I would urge people in this body who would like to see us actually do our work, cause us to function the way the Founding Fathers had created this body, cause us to function in a way that no longer allows our country to be in decline, I would urge everybody in this body to not agree to go to this spending bill and to say we will not spend any more of the U.S. resources--taxpayers' resources--without first agreeing to those tough decisions. I love seeing some of the masters of the universe on some of these financial programs in the morning. I heard one of them this morning on a particular program I sometimes turn on to see what the markets are doing in reaction to the ridiculous, undisciplined nature of this body, I heard one of them say the debt ceiling is no place--most countries do not even vote on a debt ceiling. What they do is they vote on budgets. In this country, we do not even vote on budgets. Of course, we have figured out a way to not make any tough decision on the debt ceiling vote either, and I understand what is getting ready to happen. But, again, I say to all those folks who are not head of this body, who are not in leadership, who in the bathrooms or in the halls or at dinner or at lunch complain about the fact that this place is dysfunctional, complain about the fact that they do not have the ability to be involved in causing us to function in the way we should, every single one of you, in my opinion, who votes to go to a spending bill today or end debate on a spending bill--in essence, allow us to pass a spending bill--is an accomplice, is an accomplice in allowing this great Nation to go into decline. That is pretty strong, but I believe it. The fact is we make a big deal out of some items around here, but we do not make a big deal when it comes to something we can actually affect and cause us as a body to do the things we need to do. I say to the Presiding Officer, look, I am very disappointed in the Senate. I am very disappointed in the White House. I am very disappointed in all of us. I am very disappointed in the childish behavior this body has continued to exude over the course of this entire year. I am very disappointed we would even consider going on with spending taxpayer resources and not sitting down and making tough decisions. I am very disappointed, candidly, that both sides of the aisle only want it their way. I do not think this great country was created the way it was so one side of the aisle got it exactly the way they wanted it. I think this body was created to be ``the greatest deliberative body in the country.'' Yet we do not do that. We do not act that way. We do not debate tough issues. We hide--all of us--we hide and we let our leadership concoct ways to keep us from doing the tough things we need to do. The fact that we cannot even have a budget on this floor to come out of a committee, when, obviously, there is a majority--and I am not even pointing fingers at the other side; I think both sides are equally problematic in this because both sides, it is evident to me, are going to allow us to go to a spending bill today without a budget, but the fact that we cannot even bring a budget to the floor, when committees are stacked in such a manner that one side does have the majority, to me, is incredible. If we move to a spending bill today without a budget, if we continue to do the things we do here, just without worrying about the fundamentals of what it takes for this country to be great, this body today will move one step further down the path of causing this great Nation to go into decline, to keep us from making tough decisions, to allow committee heads or subcommittee heads in Appropriations to be able to bring forth their fruit, if you will, the things they would like to spend money on. By the way, I support much--I probably support everything that is in this bill. I am not sure. It supports veterans. It supports military construction. But the fact is, actually, the very people this benefits, the people who are veterans, the people who have given their limbs-- some have given loved ones--probably are embarrassed by the Senate too. Even though they would like to receive the benefits at some point in time down the road--when these benefits come to fruition in this next fiscal year, they would like to receive those--they probably would prefer, first, that all of us in this body do our job, that we quit acting like the children we have been acting like this entire year; that we quit calculating what we are going to do around the 2012 elections; that we quit hiding behind our leadership and allowing them to go down and negotiate grand bargains in private; that we quit, again, hiding from tough decisions. I hope others will join with me and that we will not end debate on this bill. Let me put it this way: If we do not do that--in other words, if we proceed with spending in this bill--I sure hope all those who vote to do so will stop talking in private about how embarrassed they are about this Senate, will stop talking in private about how they feel like little pawns in a political game, will stop talking in private about how they would like to see this body start acting in the fashion it should act. We have not done any real business this year. We all know it. We have not done any real business this year because we have not wanted to take on those tough issues. I am embarrassed by that, personally. I am embarrassed about the way this Senate has been conducting its business this year. I am not going to vote for a spending bill until we pass a budget. If we had passed a budget and had the tough debates about revenues and expenditures, we would not be in this no-win situation right now as it relates to the debt ceiling, and we all know that. But we want to hide behind that. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I understand I have 10 minutes to speak on the resolution before us.

Mr. CORKER. Yes, sir. It is my understanding the Senator from Mississippi wishes to speak for 2 minutes.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if the Chair would let me know, if I speak for 8 minutes or longer, when I have 2 minutes left, I would appreciate it.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his comments. As I mentioned, I rise to speak about S.J. Res. 20. I think there has been some misinformation about what we are doing this afternoon. I know the Acting President pro tempore and I were in a Foreign Relations Committee meeting last week and offered several amendments that were not passed. But many people have said what we are going to be debating, possibly this evening--I hope we do not--is something the President has asked for. The Acting President pro tempore, I know, knows differently. The President did not ask for what it is we are going to be debating this evening. The President earlier asked for a resolution of support but not an authorization for this third war we are undertaking right now in Libya. That is not what the President asked for. As a matter of fact, the President, in a very cutely worded letter to Congress, tried to state that we were not involved in hostilities in Libya, and he did so in order to circumvent a law that has been on the books now for many years called the War Powers Act. So the President is not seeking what the Senate is getting ready to debate on the floor at all. As a matter of fact, the President is trying to circumvent the War Powers Act. So there is no question, in my opinion, the President should be made to seek authorization. But then that brings us to the issue at hand. There is no way anything we do on the Senate floor--other than possibly pulling our troops out of Libya, which is not what the resolution is about--is going to affect anything we are doing in Libya one iota. Let me say that one more time. If the resolution we are debating, possibly this evening, were to actually be debated and passed, it would not affect one iota of what we are doing in Libya. The fact is the House has already turned down the same resolution. So, basically, we are burning a week's time on something that is totally irrelevant to what is happening in Libya and certainly irrelevant as it relates to what is before us as a country. As the Senator from Mississippi mentioned, the biggest issue facing our country today is this issue of the debt ceiling and our debt, the fact that we have $14.2 or $14.3 trillion in indebtedness, and we are moving beyond that, the fact that we have $1.5 trillion in deficits this year, the fact that we are spending $3.7 trillion and only have $2.2 trillion, the fact that we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend every day we are here, and that 47 percent of that is coming from people overseas. That is the most important issue before us. That is the reason we are back here this week during the July recess. I am glad we are here. But we need to focus on the issue at hand. To speak to how dysfunctional the Senate is, we are here over the debt ceiling, we are here over the fact that we have huge deficits, and we do not have an agreement to deal with that. But instead of focusing on the issue at hand, which is what most people back in Tennessee or Virginia or some other place would do if they had a problem, we are going to focus on something possibly that is irrelevant and has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand, just to make the American people think we are doing something. I also will vote against cloture this evening, and I am here on the floor to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--I have gotten calls since I landed this morning from Tennessee, from Democratic Senators who want to figure out a way to resolve this issue, from people who understand that our country is heading for a train wreck as it relates to our debt ceiling because there have not been serious negotiations that have taken place. So the Senator from Mississippi is right. Believe it or not, in a body that spends $3.7 trillion a year, we have not had a budget in 797 days. I cannot believe that as a citizen. I certainly cannot believe that as a Senator. I do not think most citizens in our country realize we are spending, right now, $3.7 trillion of their money this year and we do not even have a budget that is passed. One has not come out of committee, a committee that, by the way--not to be pejorative here--has a majority of people on the other side of the aisle who could easily, if they wanted to, pass a budget out to the Senate floor to be debated. I know sometimes things are difficult to get done around here. But certainly it is difficult to address the No. 1 issue we have before us in our country: these huge deficits which are creating this issue of the debt ceiling that ``has to be raised.'' The fact is, again, we are possibly, this evening, getting ready to move to an issue that is totally irrelevant--very important and certainly something that has been mishandled tremendously--but certainly something that, whatever action we take this week in the Senate, is going to be unaffected. It is not going to have any effect on it whatsoever other than Senators feeling good about the fact that they did something that actually ends up bearing no fruit. I urge people on both sides of the aisle to vote against cloture to take up this issue--that we are in a third war, a war the President does not want to call a war by saying we are not involved in hostilities. Obviously we are. We have Predators doing what Predators do. We have aircraft bombing military installations. If North Korea were in our country bombing military installations and using Predators to do what Predators do, I think we would say that is hostilities. No doubt we are involved in hostilities, and that issue should not be left aside and undealt with. But, again, today, the big issue--the issue of the day--is our debt ceiling. The issue is our debt. The issue is we do not have a balanced budget. The issue is we do not have a fiscal straitjacket to cause us to act responsibly. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' this evening for cloture. Let's not take up an issue we will have no effect on, that has nothing to do with the debt ceiling, and let's move to those kinds of issues that will. I know there is not a budget, unfortunately, to debate at present. It is my understanding the chairman of the Budget Committee is going to unveil some plans. That would be wonderful. There are some budget process issues that are at least relevant to the topic at hand. So I urge people to vote ``no'' this evening. Mr. President, I thank you for the courtesy of time and yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, this is very much out of character, what I am getting ready to do, but this morning I was in a Foreign Relations hearing on Afghanistan and Pakistan and my staff tells me the majority leader came down and happened to castigate me for speaking about the fact we had not taken up some of the Nation's most important business this year; that we have spent a lot of time on bills that were not as important as our Nation's debt crisis and other kinds of things. I can't imagine there is anybody in this body who feels, as a Senator, and it being June 23, that we have taken up very serious business this year. I can't imagine there is anybody who is proud of what we have been able to accomplish this year as it relates to addressing our country's most pressing problems. And that was the point of the speech I made yesterday on the floor which, I might add, a number of Democrats have since come up to me and said they could not agree with me more. The point is we need to deal with our Nation's No. 1 crisis today, which is spending. I talked a little bit about what is happening with the Blair House negotiations and the fact that, basically, the goal the Blair House negotiators have attempted to achieve--their aspirational goal--probably is not strong enough for most people on either side of the aisle to support, and so we need to be far more serious about our country's spending problems. However, I know we are not busy, and when we are not busy, sometimes we say things we don't mean and we get ourselves in trouble. It is my understanding, again, that the majority leader came to the floor and found a quote I had made 2 years ago about EDA to try to, if you will, castigate me for the comments I made yesterday, which he said were out of line. I know we haven't taken up a budget in 785 days in the Senate. We have not taken up a budget. Two years ago a budget was passed out of committee, but there was an unwillingness to take up that budget on the floor. This year, the Budget Committee didn't even pass a budget out of committee. So here we have a country that is spending $1.5 trillion a year that we don't have--and borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend--but here in the Senate we are basically hoping others will solve this problem for us. Candidly, I hope that happens. I do hope we come to a conclusion sometime soon. I understand how the majority leader would be defensive. He is the majority leader of the Senate--the greatest deliberative body in the world, some say--and we haven't even taken up a budget to account for the $3.7 trillion we spend of our country's money each year. So I know he is embarrassed; I know he is defensive; and I understand that. But I would say that my words--the essence of what I said yesterday--still stand. This body has not done the serious work the Senate should do. We have a looming crisis coming before us, with a debt ceiling vote coming up on August 2 and, to my knowledge, there has been no public debate about solutions toward that. The Presiding Officer and myself have offered a bill called the CAP Act to try to deal with that. It is the only bipartisan, bicameral act that has been introduced in both bodies. It certainly is not the total solution to our problem, but that, coupled with other fixes--some Medicare fixes, coupled with a 302(a) top line for a couple of years-- to me is the essence of something that might solve our country's problems. I have tried to offer some constructive solutions to our problem. I know the Presiding Officer has tried to offer some constructive solutions. To me, those are the kinds of things we here in the Senate should be dealing with today. The markets, rightfully so--and very soon, as they should--will become very volatile. It is my opinion we are close to a potential trainwreck. I know people have pulled away from the Blair House negotiations, and my sense is the two sides are very much in disarray at this point. There have been numbers of public comments that have been put forth. Again, I come back to the Senate, where we have gone 785 days without even taking up a budget. So again, I know the majority leader is defensive and embarrassed, and I understand why he would be, but I stand by my comments yesterday. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I rise to speak on the same topic the Senator from Illinois was speaking about; that is, the discussions taking place right now around the debt ceiling vote and what kind of arrangement or what kind of agreement can take place. These are called the Blair House negotiations. They are happening between the Vice President of the United States--the actual President of the Senate when he is here--and leaders on both the Republican and Democratic side of the House and Senate. What I wish to speak about today stems from reading some of the public comments. I am concerned the type of deal they may be trying to seek is not something many of us in this body would even agree to if they reached it, meaning it is far more modest than I think most of us have been looking at. It is my understanding they are going to be meeting all week. It is my understanding they had hoped to reach an agreement by next week. So my reason for coming to the floor is to ask the Vice President and those others who are involved in this to publicly tell us by the end of next week what deal it is they are trying to accomplish and in what timeframe. I think all of us are frustrated. We work in the Senate, and as the Senator from Illinois was just mentioning, we have done absolutely nothing in this body this year--nothing. We have voted on a few noncontroversial judges-- maybe we have done slightly more than that, but almost nothing--while our country languishes, worrying about what we are going to do with these budget debates. As a matter of fact, we haven't passed a budget now in something like 770 days. So here we are shelling out taxpayer money each year--$3.5 trillion, $3.7 trillion--and we don't have a budget, which is about as irresponsible as one can be. Actually, there are groups working on other solutions. I think it would be good for this body to know what kind of arrangement is being looked at, what kind of goals are trying to be achieved, and in what timeframe they are going to be achieved so that people will know with some degree of certainty whether there is going to be something achieved to which we would agree. Let me give an example. One of the things I have heard is, we are going to have the same amount of debt limit extension as we do in reductions, meaning we will have $2.4 trillion in debt ceiling additions and $2.4 trillion in cuts. The problem is, the debt extension is over an 18-month period and the cuts are over a 10-year period. So we can see there is a vast discrepancy in what is taking place. The semantics may sound good, but the result, candidly, is not near what I believe the American people would like to see, nor what I believe financial markets would like to see. So if our goal is something we know on the front end is not even acceptable to this body, it seems to me it is not rational for us to be sitting here waiting on this group at the Blair House to make a deal we all know is not good enough. So I hope by the end of next week this group who is negotiating will come forth and tell us what it is they are trying to achieve, the likelihood of achieving it, and in what timeframe. I am also hearing there are discussions that we do not believe we will reach a deal by the August recess. There have been some public comments about short-term extensions. I cannot imagine going home to the people of Tennessee for recess on August 6 and telling them: We are on August recess, and I am here to tell you we haven't done a thing-- not one thing--to reach a deal on how many cuts are going to take place in spending relative to our debt ceiling extension. But I am here in Tennessee to tell you that we are on recess, and we have accomplished nothing. I cannot imagine us doing that as a body. The other thing I am hearing is we may be looking at a short-term extension to move beyond the August recess, to get us back into this fall. Maybe that is a way of dealing with this issue. But, again, if we adopt a short-term extension to try to give us time to reach a deal we all know is unacceptable on the front end, why would we give a short- term extension? So it just seems to me the most responsible happening would be for negotiators on both sides to tell this body--this body which has done nothing of importance this year--maybe a few minor things, not much; We spent no time dealing with serious issues; no time dealing with a budget; no time trying to deal publicly with the issues of deficit reduction--to let us know where they are. It seems to me a number of people in this body are getting very restless. They see what is happening. We have seen this movie before where we bump up against a deadline and we have to make a decision up or down because ``it is going to create havoc in the marketplace.'' It seems to me, again, the responsible thing for the Blair House group to do is to let us know where they are at the end of this next week so if Members of this body wanted to figure out a different route to go because they thought the route that was being taken was not acceptable, not good enough--as a matter of fact, I noticed yesterday where the chairman of the Budget Committee on the other side of the aisle has said the things he has heard are not good enough for him. I can tell my colleagues they are not good enough for me. So the goal we are trying to achieve is not something I would even agree to. So maybe if we cannot get some degree of clarity as to what is happening at the Blair House and some degree of update, maybe there is some other route we should take or maybe the market should know well in advance that this body does not have the discipline, does not have the ability, does not have the courage to deal with what we know is an upcoming calamity--a calamity that is either going to occur because we cannot reach agreement and we do not raise the debt ceiling or a calamity that occurs a little bit down the road because we have not shown the fiscal discipline in this body to put our house in order, knowing that at some point in time the markets will run from us, interest rates will rise, people will no longer be willing to loan us money because we have shown how irresponsible we are and we have a calamity on that end. So let me restate, I am 58 years old. I came to this body to solve problems. If there is going to be a calamity, I want the calamity to occur while I am here so I can deal with it and take responsibility for it versus kicking the can down the road for somebody else to have to deal with the fact that we as a body are irresponsible. In closing, Madam President, thank you for the time. I implore the folks who are meeting behind closed doors--implore them--to come forward and to outline the goals they are trying to achieve and when they think they are going to achieve them so all of us who are sitting around here cooling our heels, doing nothing--doing almost nothing of importance for this country--the Senator from Illinois talked about the EDA bill. We all knew it was not going to pass. Everybody knew that. Everybody knew that bill was offered on the floor to kill time, to make it look as though the Senate was doing something. That is all it was for. Everybody knew that. Everybody working up front knew that. The pages knew that. Everybody knew that. So for people to come down here and act as if it is a shock that cloture was not achieved on EDA when we knew it was here just for a filler is kind of surprising. We knew what it was about. So I would like for us to get on with dealing with the most important issue our country has to deal with; that is, the huge amount of deficit spending, where every day we are spending $4.1 billion we do not have. Every day we are borrowing 40 cents of that from other folks. Every day we are causing this country, because of that, to be in decline-- hopefully, we will rectify that, but to be in decline, lowering the standard of living of all Americans because we in this body do not show the capability, the will, the desire to solve that problem. I am hoping--I am hoping--the Blair House negotiations yield a result. I really do. That is why I think all of us are being patient as they meet in private, sharing no details about what they are doing. But at the end of this week, the end of this work period, I think it is time they come forth to give us a status as to where they are so that if there are other routes that ought to be taken, people have the ability to do that. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.