Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. If the Chair will show me the courtesy of letting me know if I happen to get within 2 minutes of that.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I understand I have 10 minutes to speak; is that correct?

Mr. CORKER

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I arrived today to speak to the McCain amendment. I noticed my colleague from Arizona was just on the floor. I wanted to say I appreciate him offering this amendment. As with the Coburn-Feinstein amendment, I support his amendment. I also wanted to make reference to the comments he made regarding our conflict in Libya. I agree with him--these are my words--that it is bizarre the administration sent over a letter yesterday, referring to the fact that we are not involved in hostilities in Libya. It is really totally bizarre when you look at what is going on in the air in Libya right now. I have no idea why Mr. Coe would have offered this argument. I know we are going to have a hearing in Foreign Relations in the next couple of weeks to look at this issue. Thirdly, I would like to point out one of the reasons we are in this situation right now where Congress has not authorized anything in the administration--I sent a letter to the administration, Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton, 9 weeks ago just asking five questions about our engagement in Libya. I received last week a letter from an Acting Assistant Secretary that gave me half an answer on one of those five questions. I think most people in this body are aware that Senator Webb and I then authored a resolution asking 21 questions of the administration regarding Libya. I thank them for transmitting to us some information on Libya yesterday. We have not yet gotten access to the classified versions of it. We have, obviously like everyone else here, I am sure, read the unclassified version. But I think the reason we find ourselves in the place we are is we just have not been able to get information from the administration regarding this conflict. I know the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Massachusetts are working on an authorization request, a limited authorization. I hope they will potentially wait until we have the answers to all 21 questions, the same questions to which many of the House Members wanted the answer. I share with them the frustration that Congress has not taken any action and would say I am really stunned by the fact that the administration has chosen not to give responses to questions until yesterday. And really this was done in response to I know what they saw was a movement in Congress just wondering why in the world they would be so resistant to answering basic questions regarding a conflict. But then secondarily, again, just the bizarre answer that we are not involved in hostilities--I mean, you can't tell Senators one thing in private, the same Senators, and tell them something else in public and expect Senators to feel any degree of credibility regarding those statements. I thank the Senator from Arizona for the comments he has made. We have had an amicable relationship regarding this discussion. We have had like thoughts on several aspects of this conflict, and we have had probably some differing thoughts, but I am here today to say I agree with him that his amendment is an amendment that needs to be passed. I agree with him that it is incredible that we have not acted as a Congress, and I would say the big reason for that is just the lack of information. For some reason, the administration has gone to seek approval from the United Nations but has not shown any desire to seek approval from Congress. It is just, again, odd. Then thirdly is just the bizarre nature of this administration saying that what we are doing there does not involve hostilities when in their unclassified version that the whole world has the ability to see, there is no way the engagements they have said in an unclassified document are occurring in Libya do not involve hostilities. That is just absolutely categorically not possible. I do hope that very soon Congress will take action. I hope that all the questions we have asked for answers to have been answered, and I think all of us will know very soon when we actually gain access to the classified versions of what has been sent over. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak today on behalf of a Coburn-Feinstein amendment that we will be voting on later. It is rare that people in this country who are receiving a tax credit tell us, as servants of the United States, that they do not want the tax credit they are receiving. I think most people in this room are aware that we are spending about $6 billion a year on something called a blenders tax credit. My understanding is that the blenders who receive this tax credit have shared with us that this is a waste of money, and they would like for this to end. So we have an amendment today--and it is at an especially fortunate time for us, at a time when we are having tremendous fiscal issues in this country--we have an amendment before us today to do away with this tax credit, which seems to me to be only something of common sense. I think most people in America know that years ago in Congress we passed a mandate that requires a certain amount of ethanol to be used. So this mandate is already in place. This mandate forces the use of a certain number of gallons of ethanol in this country. But on top of that, our country is now paying 45 cents for every gallon that is blended. Those people who receive this have told us this is unnecessary, that it is a waste of taxpayer money and they do not want it. So the Coburn-Feinstein amendment does away with it. It also does away with a tariff--importers that import ethanol into our country now pay a tariff--which actually raises the price of ethanol. It actually raises what people are now paying at the pump because they have to pay a tariff to import this into our country. It does away with that tariff. So this is a very commonsense amendment. I certainly thank Senator Coburn and Senator Feinstein for offering this amendment at a time when our country is in such financial straits. It is rare that we have something like this, again, where those people who actually receive this credit would like to do away with it. I know it has been argued that at the end of this last year we all voted for certain tax issues. That is an interesting argument--except what happens at the end of the year is, we do these en masse. There are minor provisions within this package that we have no opportunity to take out. So here this massive group of tax credits comes to us, and we have to vote up or down on a package of them. That is huge and has all kinds of tax provisions in it. So there are some people in this body who have said: Well, but we just voted this in place. Well, we voted a package in place, but many of us for years have argued that this tax credit is redundant. We have argued that it is a waste of taxpayer money. We have argued that with the mandates in place there is absolutely no need for this, and the tariff that goes along with this, where we pay for imported ethanol. We pay more because of this tariff. It is absolutely a burden to American consumers and certainly, again, to taxpayers. I thank the Senators for offering this amendment. I look forward to supporting it. This is one of those amendments--sometimes we vote on things down here that, candidly, are rather mundane. This is one of those amendments that I not only support, I support with tremendous enthusiasm and energy. I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to support this very commonsense amendment that does something that is responsible for consumers; that does something that is responsible for taxpayers; and, obviously, will make our country stronger if it passes. I have a sense it may. I urge those on the Senate floor to please consider it if they are now middle ground and have not made a decision. 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

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am actually glad to have come to the floor after my colleague from Illinois has just spoken. I was in Illinois this week talking with a number of people there in the business community as part of what I do on the Banking Committee. I wish to say that in talking to many of the great civic and business leaders who exist in Illinois, one of the biggest concerns they have is, in fact, this debt ceiling issue and the reduction of debt. I appreciate the work of the Senator from Illinois in trying to reach a compromise. As a matter of fact, I salute anybody who is trying to work to solve this problem. I wish to say, from my standpoint, I know the debt ceiling is a major issue, and for me to be able to support it, we need to have dramatic changes in the way spending is taking place in this country. I think there are numbers of people on both sides of the aisle who feel that way. I have offered the only, to my knowledge, concrete proposal that has bipartisan support in both the Senate and in the House. I wish to mention there are a number of discussions about the Medicare proposal Paul Ryan has put forth, and certainly it is not perfect. I would love to see a proposal made from the other side since everyone knows Medicare is going to be insolvent in the year 2024. The worst thing we can do, of course, is not pay attention. I hope at some point in the near future we will actually hear a concrete proposal from the other side of the aisle regarding Medicare. But let me go back to the State of Illinois and the state of our country and certainly the people in Tennessee. There is tremendous uncertainty out there in the business community. As a matter of fact, in talking to one of our leading economists last night, corporate balance sheets today are flush with cash, but companies are unwilling to invest that cash in long-term assets because they are concerned about what we are going to do here in Washington. They are concerned about whether we as a country are going to actually deal with our debt ceiling, deal with our indebtedness in a way that makes progress. So there is tremendous uncertainty. That is, in my opinion, one of the leading causes of the economic issues we are dealing with, the high unemployment. It has been 777 days since this body even passed a budget. If you can imagine having a country such as ours with 535 people in the House and Senate spending money without a budget for that long, obviously it is a display of an incredible lack of discipline and certainly sends the wrong signal to the business community. So I do think our country is suffering, suffering economically. Every person I talk to is concerned about the uncertainty of whether we as a country are going to be able to deal with our indebtedness, the tremendous amount of debt this country is piling up because we are spending money we do not have. I do look at this August 2 deadline as a line in the sand for us as a country. There is plenty of time for us between now--June 15--and August 2 to actually come to an agreement on these big issues. One of the things I hope will be a part of anything we do is something like the fiscal straitjacket that the CAP Act outlines. I do not think there is anybody in this body who disagrees with the fact that we as a country are spending money we do not have and more money than we should. As a country, we have spent about 20.6 percent of our country's gross domestic product for the last 40 years. That is the post- entitlement period. Today as a country we are spending almost 25 percent of our country's economic output on the Federal Government, and that number is rising geometrically. So we put forth a bill. It is called the CAP Act. Again, it has bipartisan support in the Senate, bipartisan support in the House, that would take us, over a 10-year period, down to the 40-year average and save our country about $7.6 trillion over what is called the alternative fiscal scenario as printed by CBO. There is no doubt in my mind--I do not think there is anybody in this body who would disagree with this--that the signals we are sending to the country and the world about our inability to come to a conclusion about our spending is affecting the economy. I cannot imagine there is anybody who would disagree with that. We have had people come in, economists telling us what will happen if we do not raise the debt ceiling, what will happen if we do and we do not do those things that are necessary to lower the amount of spending that is taking place here in Washington. Again, I have offered something that is practical. People on both sides of the aisle have joined. I know there are discussions that are taking place. They are called the Blair House negotiations between the Vice President and Members of this body, and I am understanding that a fiscal straitjacket is part of that discussion; in other words, making sure that over the next 10 years whatever costs we cut are actually locked in, and more cuts are gotten through the imposition, if you will, of a declining fiscal straitjacket, where we, in essence, get back to the norm as it relates to spending and our economy in this country. I want to say I think one of the greatest things we can do to actually spur the economy--as much as people care about spending in this country today; and there are a lot of people who do--believe it or not, they care, as they should, even more right now about the economy and their own family's situation. I think these two are intertwined. I think if we as a body were to show fiscal discipline, show some certainty into the future, show the business community and the world community we have the ability to have discipline, to act responsibly, I believe it would unleash tremendous amounts of investment. Again, a leading economist last night says he has never seen a situation where this much cash resides on corporate balance sheets, but corporations are unwilling to invest them in long-term assets. What that means, what that translates into is they are not building plants, they are not expanding because they are concerned about policies in Washington, one of which is: Can we control our spending? So I do think that August 2 is a seminal moment in our country's history. There is nothing happening here in the Senate. Let's face it. We are voting on judges we do not even need to vote on. We could pass them out of here by unanimous consent. We have bills on the floor that mean nothing, that are never going to become law, just to fill up time. We know that. It has to be the most boring time in the world for a Presiding Officer. Nothing is happening. The oxygen is taken out of the room over this debt issue, and we are debating things that are never going to happen. It is almost a farce in many ways. So there is plenty of time--it is June 15--for us to negotiate something that is meaningful as it relates to cuts, and certainly plenty of time to act, to put something in place such as the CAP Act as part of the overall need to reform our entitlements and make sure they are here for future generations. Let me state one more time that I feel as if, in many ways, what we are reading in the media about these negotiations is almost a walking down of expectations. In other words, most of us want to see something big happen for this country. We see this as a true seminal moment for our country. But from what I read of the various snippets that are coming out of these discussions, it is almost intended each day to tamp down what our expectations are. I want to say to everybody in this body, unless I see dramatic changes in spending as a result of these negotiations, I absolutely will not vote for this debt ceiling increase. If we are going to have a calamity in this country--and there are economists who say we are going to have a calamity either way: in other words, if we do not act responsibly and pass a debt ceiling, we are going to send a signal to world markets that we do not have the ability to control spending; if we do not raise the debt ceiling, there are those who will say there is going to be a calamity. Here is what I would say. I am 58 years old. I came to this body because I wanted to solve our county's problems or be a part of that working with others. I want to say--I want to go on the record--that I would rather us have a calamity this summer on my watch while I am here so I can deal with it than I would to pass a debt ceiling and not do something that dramatically alters our fiscal situation in this country and pass it along to someone else who may come behind me. I think there is a lot of sentiment in that regard. I hope there is a lot of sentiment in that regard: that all of us--all of us--would rather bear the brunt of irresponsibility while we are here than pass it on down the road. So I am here to talk about a component of a solution which is the CAP Act. There may be some variation of this that makes more sense. Certainly, I have no monopoly on wisdom. But I hope something like this, if it is not exactly the CAP Act as written, is a component of the negotiations. I know during these negotiations this is actually being discussed: meaning, how we cap spending and actually put Congress in a fiscal straitjacket, for lack of a better word. This is a seminal moment. I hope we will not water down expectations. I hope we will rise to the occasion and, as the Senator from Illinois mentioned, deal with this in a responsible way. I hope very soon we will actually have a debate on this floor about what it is that has actually been arrived at, what the deal is, so we can actually talk about it in a responsible way and do those things we all know are very important to our country, very important to our country's solvency, and certainly very important to all those Americans out there who are uncertain as to whether the heads of households, who provide such great opportunities for those people coming under them, have the opportunity for good-paying jobs. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from Virginia, the former Secretary of the Navy, in the introduction of this joint resolution, along with Senator Lee from Utah. I look forward to a debate of this resolution next week which I hope will end up passing both bodies and which calls for a number of answers we have been requesting to come forth. I wish to discuss the ongoing situation in Libya where--specifically U.S. participation in NATO military operations authorized by the United Nations' Security Council resolution passed on March 17, 2011. For those of you listening, you heard me correctly. It was authorized by the United Nations, not the U.S. Congress. We are spending roughly $2 million per day on a mission on which the President has yet to broadly consult Congress. I find it unbelievable that the President would seek the approval of the United Nations and the Arab League for military operations over Libya while sidelining the body that speaks for the American people, not even answering our questions. This is not consultation, nor is the President heeding the concerns of his own constituents. For many weeks now, I and many colleagues, for that matter, have attempted to gain answers to some of the most basic questions about what we are doing in Libya. Through hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee, we have not received these answers. We have asked for specific witnesses and received no response. This is not consultation. In my ongoing attempts to receive answers to these questions, I sent a letter to Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates on April 14, 2011, specifically outlining five questions. I have the letter here and ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, this is unacceptable. This is an unacceptable way to treat a coequal branch of the U.S. Government that is granted certain responsibilities to our Armed Forces by the Founders of our country. Without these answers, Members of Congress are unable to assess critical questions and debate whether we should continue to engage in military operations in Libya. That is why I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Webb and Senator Lee, in introducing S.J. Res. 18 today. This is a joint resolution drawing on language that already passed the House of Representatives last week, and it requires the President to answer 21 questions critical to determining whether engagement in Libya is in the vital national interest of the United States. This joint resolution further expresses the sense of Congress that the President should request authorization from Congress for the continuation of U.S. involvement in ongoing NATO activities in Libya. It says Congress should fully debate and consider such a request in an expedient manner. I can't imagine there is anybody in this body who would not like to debate this issue on the floor, regardless of how they may feel about this conflict. We owe it to every man and woman who puts on a uniform to serve our country and to every taxpayer who funds the operation to be clear that our entry into any conflict has been thoughtfully considered, contains clear justification, a clear mission, and a clear debate of the risks and benefits. The information sought by this joint resolution will help us meet those obligations. I look forward to the Senate considering this joint resolution in the near future--hopefully next week.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, today, 1 day shy of 8 weeks later, I finally received a response. This response did not come from Secretary Clinton. It did not come from Secretary Gates. This response came from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs and only paid lipservice to one of my five specific requests for information. I ask unanimous consent to have this ``nonresponse'' printed in the Record.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, noticing that there is nothing happening on the floor, I want to come down and talk a little bit about the vote that just occurred on the Tester-Corker amendment. Obviously, I was on the losing side of this debate, but as we went back to our office, I did want to say that one of the folks I have worked with a long time noted that this may be the first time in a long time in the Senate where we had a real bipartisan debate, where we had people on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the issue in large numbers. While we came up short from my standpoint on the vote--the other side obviously did not come up short--I want to say that I see a glimmer of hope in that regardless of how the outcome may have been on this particular vote--and again, I worked hard to try to pass an amendment that I thought was good policy--the fact is, if you really look at the vote count, I cannot remember in a long time a vote on a contentious piece of legislation such as this where there were so many people in the majority and minority, on both sides of the issue, just evaluating the policy on the grounds on which it was coming forward. So for what is it worth, I thought that was an interesting observation. I want to say to those people who supported the Tester-Corker amendment that I thank them very much for listening and working with us to try to pass the legislation. And for those people who voted against it, I thank them for the way in which this debate was conducted. Again, it has been a long time since I remember something like this on the floor where you had such a split vote on both sides of the aisle. I think that is progress. I just wanted to note that. Certainly to all of those who were actively engaged in this debate on both sides of it, I think that in itself, while we did not prevail in the legislation itself, from the standpoint of the Senate, not myself, I think that is an accomplishment worth noting. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent to-- --

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I couldn't agree more. It is amazing that we passed this 2,400-page bill a year ago, and on all the tough decisions, we deferred to the regulators. The regulators are now creating all kinds of rules because we knew they had some wisdom we didn't have. Yet, in this case, every single regulator involved is telling us that the way the Durbin amendment was written, we are going to damage the community banks and credit unions and that it won't work. So it is amazing that in this case where the very people who regulate tell us to please change this, it won't work, we are saying no, we are not going to; this is going to benefit Wall Street. That is not the case. This amendment puts the Durbin amendment in the middle of the road where it needs to be, and I hope everyone will support it.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Tester-Corker vote which will take place at 2 o'clock today. I know there has been a lot of discussion about the Durbin amendment which occurred during Dodd-Frank and where we are today. I wish to spend a moment clarifying the fact that the Tester-Corker amendment does not do away with the Durbin amendment. The Durbin amendment will still be the law of the land and a huge victory during the Dodd-Frank regulation--something I did not support but a huge victory for the retail industry, in that for the first time in the history of our country, per the law that was passed, debit cards are going to be a regulated industry. There is nothing about the Tester-Corker amendment that in any way changes the fact that it is going to be a regulated industry. That is going to occur. What Tester-Corker does is to try to bring back into balance how we look at this particular transaction. We are going through this period of time in our country's history where people have been very upset with financial institutions at many levels. It is almost as if the Durbin language is an attempt to basically punish, be punitive, to community banks, rural banks, credit unions, mega banks all across our country for things that happened in the past. There is no question many financial institutions made mistakes. There is no question that government made mistakes. There is no question that Congress has made mistakes. There is no question that consumers across our country, in many cases, have made a lot of mistakes. But we are at a place in our country's evolution where what we need to do is reinforce economic growth in this country and make sure that regulation has the right balance. I feel the pushback against Tester-Corker is an attempt to continue to try to punish, stick a stick in the eye of, do whatever, to get back at the financial industry. Again, I think there has been a tremendous win by the proponents of the Durbin amendment. You have a debit card industry that is going to be regulated. The question is, What is the fair way to regulate them as it relates to what are the allocated costs. So the Federal Reserve has told us the language that exists in the Durbin amendment, which only allows incremental costs, is inappropriate. They are very uncomfortable with it. They are uncomfortable with what that is going to do to community banks, rural banks, smaller banks all across our country. The FDIC has said they are very concerned about the language because the cost of the transaction is not going to be appropriately assessed. They have shared that in public testimony. The OCC has done exactly the same. State bank commissioners across this country have done the same. I know the Presiding Officer is from Minnesota. I know he flies to Washington probably each week. The way the language is now written, it would be as if the Presiding Officer got on a flight in Minneapolis to fly to Washington, the seats were mostly full, but a standby passenger got on the plane at the last minute, sat down in an empty seat, and the airline was forced to charge everybody who flew on their airline only the cost of what that one additional passenger--already the trip was going to take place--what that one additional passenger cost the airline to travel from Minneapolis to Washington. Obviously, that cost is almost negligible because all the reservations, the flight has been fueled, the flight attendants are there, the pilots are there. All those costs are already there. That is the way the Durbin amendment now reads. That is the way the law now is; that the Federal Reserve can only take into account, as they regulate the debit card industry, what that incremental cost is, what adding one transaction to the system would cost. Everybody knows--the retailers that are opposing our amendment know-- there is no way any of them could survive in the retail industry if their costs were only allocated to them on an incremental basis. So everybody knows this is flawed. I do not think there is any debate about the fact that the way we are looking at regulating the debit card industry is flawed. But what people are doing--it is almost sort of a Venezuelan approach. We are angry at these folks, so even though we know that assessing the cost of debit cards and only allowing incremental costs, even though we know that is inappropriate and that no business in America can survive, we are still going to do it because the banks were involved in TARP or the banks did this or the banks were involved in mortgages. It is a policy that does not make sense. It is not an appropriate way, in my humble opinion, for a body such as ours--that hopefully stands above grudges, stands above trying to punish people but is here to put policies in place that will make our country stronger. So what we have added--and I see the Senator from North Carolina who has been highly involved in reaching the place we are--what we have said is: Look, Durbin should stand. Durbin should stand as it is. We should regulate the debit industry. OK. We understand that is going to happen. But let's make sure that when the regulators look at regulating the debit card industry, they are able to also look at the fixed costs, those costs that should be appropriately considered in setting the rates. My guess is the Presiding Officer has some regulatory boards in the State of Minnesota. Maybe they regulate electricity. Maybe they regulate water. Maybe they regulate natural gas. I do not know. We have similar types of things in Tennessee. When they look at regulating those industries, they take into account those costs that are appropriate in regulating the industry. I have not heard anybody debate, negatively, that it is inappropriate--that it is inappropriate--to allocate costs the way Senator Hagan, the way myself, the way others have talked about doing. It has all been about the emotion of trying to do damage to financial institutions because people are upset with them. That is what their argument has been about. It has been an emotional argument about saying: These institutions did some very bad things, and therefore we want to punish them, even though we know the cost allocation is inappropriate. We all know that what is going to happen is, not only are we going to do damage to our community banks, our credit unions, our rural banks all across this country, but in the process of allowing the rules to stand as they are and the direction we give to the Fed to stand as it is, what is going to happen is we are going to have a constriction of credit. I mean right now in our country, we are watching a pause, a pause taking place in economic growth. One of the driving factors--there is no question--is our financial institutions are out there. They are seeing in every way their ability to lend to be clamped down on. Capital requirements are changing. Some of these things were good things that needed to happen, but this is just one more of those. Lots of people have been involved in making this so we get back to the middle of the road, that when we regulate debit cards, we do so truly looking at the cost of the card itself. If this amendment is defeated, it is just one more blow against our economy as we continue to constrict lending in our financial institutions to communities and citizens all across our country. Somebody had a chart up yesterday looking at Canada and looking at Europe. One little detail--and they were talking about the lack of debit charges or, in some cases, the fees were less than they are in our country. One of the details they left out is, they do not have community banks. In Canada, you have a handful of highly regulated almost utilities that are banks--under five. That is a very different scenario than we have, where we have community banks all across the country that are out there lending to innovators, banks all across this country lending to innovators, a very different environment. So, in Canada, they are able to actually generate fees in other ways. Of course, they do not have the community banking system and credit union system that we have across our country. To me, what I hope will happen at 2 o'clock--I know this has been a contentious issue, a vote that candidly a lot of people would just as soon have go away because people have friends who are retailers, people have friends who are bankers, and they hate to ``choose between their friends.'' But I hope what will happen at 2 o'clock is that when people come down in the well to vote, they will look at the policies, and they will say: You are right. The financial industry has been involved in some excesses. You are right. We heavily regulated the financial industry 1 year ago when Dodd-Frank was passed, and you are right; if we are going to set rates on debit cards, let's at least allow the Fed to consider all the appropriate costs--they do not have to take all the costs--but, look, if a bank is offering bonus awards for people, that should not be included. We understand that. But the Fed ought to be able to look at all those costs that are fair. I hope Members of this body will rise above the emotional aspect of this vote. I hope they will rise above the rhetoric. This is anything but another bank bailout. What this is allowing is the Fed to rightfully, as they have requested of the Senate, to rightfully be able to look at all the appropriate costs that go into a debit transaction. Again, if Tester-Corker passes, if Tester-Corker-Hagan-Crapo passes, if it passes, it is a tremendous win for the retailers. They have a regulated debit card industry, something they wanted for a long time. But it also strikes the balance of appropriateness as it relates to us as we look to move ahead with appropriate regulation of our financial industry. I know we are on the cusp. I know this is going to be a very close vote. I do hope our colleagues will look at the policy. If they have not spent time yet with their staffers, look at the language. Durbin still stands if Tester-Corker passes. Durbin stands. All it does is allow the regulators to appropriately--just as happens in every State around this country that regulates industries--allows the Fed to appropriately look at those costs that ought to be associated with a debit card. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of Tester-Corker. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, this is unacceptable. This is an unacceptable way to treat a coequal branch of the U.S. Government that is granted certain responsibilities to our Armed Forces by the Founders of our country. Without these answers, Members of Congress are unable to assess critical questions and debate whether we should continue to engage in military operations in Libya. That is why I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Webb and Senator Lee, in introducing S.J. Res. 18 today. This is a joint resolution drawing on language that already passed the House of Representatives last week, and it requires the President to answer 21 questions critical to determining whether engagement in Libya is in the vital national interest of the United States. This joint resolution further expresses the sense of Congress that the President should request authorization from Congress for the continuation of U.S. involvement in ongoing NATO activities in Libya. It says Congress should fully debate and consider such a request in an expedient manner. I can't imagine there is anybody in this body who would not like to debate this issue on the floor, regardless of how they may feel about this conflict. We owe it to every man and woman who puts on a uniform to serve our country and to every taxpayer who funds the operation to be clear that our entry into any conflict has been thoughtfully considered, contains clear justification, a clear mission, and a clear debate of the risks and benefits. The information sought by this joint resolution will help us meet those obligations. I look forward to the Senate considering this joint resolution in the near future--hopefully next week.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, today, 1 day shy of 8 weeks later, I finally received a response. This response did not come from Secretary Clinton. It did not come from Secretary Gates. This response came from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs and only paid lipservice to one of my five specific requests for information. I ask unanimous consent to have this ``nonresponse'' printed in the Record.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from Virginia, the former Secretary of the Navy, in the introduction of this joint resolution, along with Senator Lee from Utah. I look forward to a debate of this resolution next week which I hope will end up passing both bodies and which calls for a number of answers we have been requesting to come forth. I wish to discuss the ongoing situation in Libya where--specifically U.S. participation in NATO military operations authorized by the United Nations' Security Council resolution passed on March 17, 2011. For those of you listening, you heard me correctly. It was authorized by the United Nations, not the U.S. Congress. We are spending roughly $2 million per day on a mission on which the President has yet to broadly consult Congress. I find it unbelievable that the President would seek the approval of the United Nations and the Arab League for military operations over Libya while sidelining the body that speaks for the American people, not even answering our questions. This is not consultation, nor is the President heeding the concerns of his own constituents. For many weeks now, I and many colleagues, for that matter, have attempted to gain answers to some of the most basic questions about what we are doing in Libya. Through hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee, we have not received these answers. We have asked for specific witnesses and received no response. This is not consultation. In my ongoing attempts to receive answers to these questions, I sent a letter to Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates on April 14, 2011, specifically outlining five questions. I have the letter here and ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. If I happen to go 8 minutes or so, would the Chair let me know when I have 2 minutes remaning?

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I do wish to say that my friend from Montana has been a great partner in this effort. I know lots of times people use a lot of rhetoric down here to talk about what is happening and the fact that anyone who might be proposing this type of amendment might be supporting Wall Street institutions. But I think you can see that my friend from Montana is anything but Wall Street. Certainly, I think all of us are just trying to come up with a solution that makes sense. I wish to give a brief history. Dodd-Frank came to the floor last year. There were numbers of amendments to the bill. One of the amendments that came to the floor was called the Durbin amendment. It was an amendment that had no hearings. A lot of us--people such as myself who are opposed to price fixing--what the Durbin amendment said was that the Fed was going to set prices on debit transactions--were opposed to it. On the other hand, there were numbers of people in this Chamber who supported Durbin because they were frustrated with where retailers were and their inability to negotiate prices with Visa and some of the other companies. So they thought this might be a type of solution to that dilemma of not being able to have appropriate negotiations. I think what all have understood, regardless of where they are on this issue now, is that the Durbin amendment did not actually give the Fed the ability to set prices as it relates to cost on debit cards. It only allowed certain costs--in other words, the incremental cost of a transaction. I think the retailers that I know are very strongly supportive of the Durbin language know--they all tell me this anyway in private--they could not operate under that same scenario. But they are frustrated. So what Tester and I and others--Mike Crapo, who voted for Durbin, I might add; Kay Hagan, who voted for Durbin; Senator Bennet, who voted for Durbin--what people have realized is that the Durbin amendment is way too narrow and does not allow appropriate costs to be considered by the Fed when setting these rates. So my friend from Montana who has numbers of rural institutions--I have the same in my State--we all realized this is going to be highly detrimental to the financial system. So what we tried to do is come up with a compromise that works for both sides. As I mentioned, Senator Crapo, Senator Hagan, Senator Brown, Senator Carper, numbers of people have gotten involved in this and have come up with a one-vote strategy. I know numbers of people want to vote and get this behind them. I understand this is one of those issues where we have retailers on one side, we have bankers on the other side, and we feel, in some ways, we are trying to deal--we are trying to pick between friends. What I think we are trying to do is put a good, sound policy in place, a place that the retailers should be very happy because they are going to end up with a regulated market--something, candidly, I do not support. But I think the Senator from Illinois has been very successful on that front. Basically, the retailers win on this because they are going to end up with something that is regulated. They feel as if they do not have the ability to negotiate with Visa and other institutions. So now the Fed is going to be setting pricing. On the other hand, those Senators--most Senators in this body who understand economics, understand business--also know you cannot run a business if you are only going to change the incremental costs. It would be akin to a pizza parlor selling pizza, literally, and only being able to charge for the dough it takes to make the pizza, not to be able to charge for electricity, not to be able to charge for the other things it takes to actually run that particular place. I think we have come up with something that is a good middle-of-the- road solution. The Fed is directed to consider both fixed costs and incremental costs, something any retailer or any business in America would want to be considered if they were being regulated. We have also come up with a solution that allows the Fed to look back every 2 years and make sure those smaller institutions Senator Tester is so concerned about, and I am so concerned about, that the Fed look at those to ensure that every 2 years these policies that are being put into place do not disproportionately negatively affect those institutions. If so, they recommend--they do not prescribe, they recommend to Congress--possible legislative remedies. As the Senator mentioned, I think we should measure twice, cut once. I think this ends up putting this issue in the place that is fair. I am feeling momentum building around this. I will say the Senator from Illinois is an outstanding legislator. I think he has done a very good job championing this issue. I do not think we would be where we are on this issue without the efforts he has put forth. But I think he realizes possibly that by not keeping in place all costs as it relates to a transaction, what you are doing is limiting the availability of that to the public down the road. You limit innovation. You limit the amount of technology investment that goes toward each transaction. I hope very soon to be paying my bills by just swiping my electronic device in front of a cash register. I think we all see us moving toward this. But what the Durbin amendment does now, in the form it is in, is basically say to these institutions, when you conduct these types of transactions, debit transactions, you are going to lose money every time you do it. I do not think that is where we want to be. Again, there are going to be some unintended consequences whenever there is a bill the size of Dodd-Frank that passes. Surely, all of us can come together and figure out more commonsense ways of solving problems such as this when they arise. I would have so to say that I like the way this body is functioning around this issue. We have people on both sides of the aisle who have realized this policy is one that is detrimental. We have people on both sides of the aisle who have tried to work together. We have three iterations now of Corker-Tester to try to get it in a place that is in the middle of the road, that takes into account the concern of retailers, and takes into account the concern of small credit unions and small banks around this country that are going to be devastated, as all of the regulators have said. This is unusual, by the way. We talk about regulatory overreach in this body. This is a case where we have given regulators the ability to regulate, and they are saying, please, do not make us do this. This is bad policy. That rarely happens in Washington. But it has happened in this case. Out of respect for the tremendous amount of work so many people have put into coming up with a slightly better solution than the Senator from Illinois, who worked so hard on this issue, to put it forth originally, I would ask every Member to please, whether you end up voting with us or not--and I hope you will--please sit down for 10 minutes, just 10 minutes, and allow your staff to at least explain. I know a lot of people have made commitments 10 days ago, 1 week ago, to be on the other side of this. But I think most people have not seen the last iteration that puts this in the middle of the road, that keeps debit cards regulated but gives the regulators the ability to at least consider the costs that any normal business has when it functions. I thank you for the time to talk about it. I thank the Senator from Illinois, who looks like he is getting ready to speak. I thank him for the way he has conducted himself. As a matter of fact, I think we have come up with such a great solution I would hope the Senator from Illinois would consider being a cosponsor. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, 8 minutes max--8 to 10.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak favorably toward the Tester-Corker amendment.

Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator. There was some discussion a minute ago about when it was going to occur. I thank you for that and for your deft management of this bill.