Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Six will work for me.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I would like to say, just listening to our two leaders, there are certainly a lot of issues that our country needs to deal with. I would say that this body has lost a great deal of credibility as it relates to stimulus packages by virtue of the one we just passed. While I know there will be people throughout our country who will be gleefully receiving checks in this election year, which certainly will make them feel good about us for a week or two, I think most of them realize our previous attempts at stimulating the economy did more to stimulate the good will toward us than the economy. I think all of us should be very slow to try to move toward a stimulus package, in that our past efforts, to me, have lacked the kind of credibility necessary in these difficult times.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I actually rise today to talk about the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I had the tremendous opportunity this weekend to travel to Colombia and spend time in Medellin with our Secretary of Commerce, our Secretary of Labor, the head of our SBA, Mr. Steve Preston, and also a bipartisan group of congressional Members. Mr. President, I know you realize that just this last week, this body passed, on a voice vote, the Andean Trade Preference Agreement, which allows Colombia, along with other South American countries, to actually send goods into this country tariff free. Let me say that one more time. Last week, by voice vote, unanimously, this body agreed to extend the Andean Trade Preference Agreement that was first put in place in 1991 that allows Colombian companies to ship into this country tariff- free products for sale in our country. The Colombia Free Trade Agreement would actually allow American companies--American companies, which employ Americans--to ship goods into Colombia. It is amazing to me we have not been able to vote on this agreement. I realize this has actually been used as a leverage point, if you will, by some of the major unions in our country to leverage us into maybe doing some other things. I realize the other body, on the other side of the building, is the body that needs to take up this agreement. But I think most people realize what is taking place at this point in time. I would like to go back in history and cause the American people to remember that Plan Colombia, where we, as a country, have invested $5.7 billion into the country of Colombia, is something that has been done on a bipartisan basis. This was started under President Clinton with a country that had a very fragile existence due to security, due to narcotics. It was something that was put in place to help our country be more secure. This has been carried through with the Bush administration. Mr. President, I have to tell you, it has been incredible the progress that has taken place in Colombia, especially since the year 2002, under President Uribe's leadership. During that period of time, the country has become far more secure. We were in a city that just a decade ago we would not have been able to travel to. Economic growth has continued; 32,000 members of paramilitary groups have actually put down their arms and come back into civil society in this country. So we are at a point in time where this country has made tremendous strides. This country has made remarkable progress. They focused on human rights. Just in February of last year, they set up special prosecutors to focus on violence as it relates to union officials and have made tremendous progress. As a matter of fact, today in Colombia, a place where union officials in the past had to worry about their safety, it is actually safer--by virtue of violence against union officials--it is safer to be a union official than it is another member of society: a teacher or someone else. It makes no sense for any of us in this body to not want the Colombia Free Trade Agreement to come into existence because today they are able to sell products into our country tariff free, but we are not able to sell products into their country. If this trade agreement were to come about, Colombia would actually be held to international labor standards. So, in fact, the plight of labor there would be lessened. As a matter of fact, to have American companies playing a role in Colombia would also be something that would enhance human rights. Over the weekend, a leader of one of the terrorist groups, FARC, which has wreaked havoc on the citizens there, was killed. It was something that was done certainly to create even more security there. We have seen the reaction today and yesterday of the leader of Venezuela, who has 4,000 to 6,000 troops on the Colombian border--in essence, a threat to that country. Colombia has been a friend of our country for many years. They had people fighting side by side with us in the Korean war. They have been loyal friends. They have lived up to what we have asked them to do and are making even greater progress in some cases than we ever expected. This is about us honoring our friendships. This is about us honoring our commitments. I will just say, as it relates to my own State, we have increased trade with Colombia, even under the arrangements that we have now where our companies have to pay tariffs on goods going into their country. In my own State, we would increase tremendously the amount of agricultural exports going into Colombia if this agreement were passed. In conclusion, we have an ally in South America, an ally that is under immediate threat today but is under continual threat from countries nearby that harbor terrorists who commit terrorist acts against their country. We have worked with them for years and have invested $5.7 billion or $5.8 billion into that country. Trade, we know, is a stabilizing factor. Right now, I think all of us understand that the leadership of the AFL-CIO and other organizations by virtue of their political relationships have been able to keep this treaty from passing, from being a part of our agreement with Colombia. I think it is important for all of us to understand the negative impact that is having on our own States. As I mentioned earlier, farmers in my own State would benefit tremendously. Manufacturers of equipment would benefit tremendously. Chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturers would benefit tremendously. The fact is, in 2006, our trade with Colombia in my own State was up 49 percent, even with these tariffs in place. So I hope the leadership of the body across the Hall will very soon allow the Members of that body to vote their conscience on this particular trade agreement; to not have a vote where they, in essence, direct people to vote against this agreement but allow people to vote for it because this is good for people all across America as it relates to employment. It is good for Colombia in that it shows that they are, in fact, our friend. It is good for our national security. It is important for us to have in South America allies who think like we think and want to see democracy flourish, who want to see free trade, who want to see relationships with our people. I think at this critical time, especially with the turmoil that is existing in that part of the world, it is important for us to pass this Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Mr. President, I thank you for allowing me to express my views today. I hope we, as a body, will have the opportunity to pass this bill in the near future. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to speak for a few minutes this morning. While I would like to speak about health care and on some of the comments made about the stimulus package that is going to be debated apparently in upcoming days, I would first like to make mention of the tornado damage that has occurred in our State. We have officially 32 deaths. That number may rise. Certainly, we have had numbers of people in our State who have gone without housing. They have lost their worldly possessions. They have lost family members. In this time of grief for many people, I think we have also seen something that has been very uplifting. Certainly, after other disasters that have taken place in this country in recent times, there, in some cases, has been a sense of concern about whether our Government is able to meet the needs of these disasters we have seen in various parts of the country and in some cases the world. In the State of Tennessee FEMA, under the leadership of Director Paulison, and TEMA, under the leadership of General Bassham, and then the leadership of various local agencies that deal with disasters have responded in incredible ways. In our State, I think what we have seen is an unprecedented cooperation that has taken place, one that I think is going a long ways toward causing people to see our Government responding in a way that is very responsible. We have also seen numbers of people who have given of themselves to help their neighbors. We have had Red Cross personnel on site, we have had lots of volunteers from various organizations throughout our State helping those in need. It has caused me to feel great about our leadership, Federal, State and local, as it relates to responding to these people in times of need. I know this will continue as 16 counties right now are under the Federal disaster designation; there may be more coming. But my hat is off to all those who have been involved in helping people in this time of need.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I do wish to refer briefly to the stimulus package that was discussed by our majority leader. I have a great deal of respect for him. I was 1 of 16 Senators who voted against the last stimulus package, which I thought was absolutely a waste of money, causing people around America to think we were possibly doing something to help. I noticed all the discussion around this crisis, if you will, we are having in our country, or a correction, as some people may call it, have focused on credit issues. I found it most interesting that as you might expect here in Washington, with help on the way, we would do something totally unrelated to the problem and instead sprinkle money all around America and ask people to spend it as quickly as they could when we have a credit problem. I will say I had hoped we might focus on the stimulus, on the stimulus in an appropriate way, something that would create long-term jobs and investment, not spending by individuals, which causes them, in some cases, to even go further in debt. But I have to say this housing package that is getting ready to be before us, in my opinion, is an unmitigated disaster. I cannot imagine us getting between judges and people who borrow money in such a manner as to alter the relationship that people who borrowed money have with those who lend them the money. This is one of those things that, to me, is unbelievable that we would even discuss altering that relationship certainly on a voluntary basis. This is something that might make some sense. Certainly, companies that can loan money excessively in ways that are inappropriate need to be dealt with. But to unilaterally decide that judges can alter the amount of money people owe, to me, is an unmitigated disaster. I hope this bill will never see the light of day. I hope others will join in making sure this does not happen.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, let me mention the real reason I came down here was to talk about health care. I have noticed all the Presidential candidates who are out there today are talking about health care. I am glad to see that. I know a number of Republicans have gathered around the notion of making sure every American has access to health care. I myself have authored a bill with Senator Burr from North Carolina, a number of others have joined in. I know Senator Wyden from Oregon has joined in with Bob Bennett of Utah, they have authored a bill. But I think we have a tremendous opportunity during this year to help shape the debate on health care legislation, my sense is, in a very bipartisan way, that in this next Congress, in 2009, we are going to have the opportunity to actually create health care legislation that focuses on the private sector, that ensures people have choice in order to maintain the quality of health care they would like to see. But my guess is we have a tremendous opportunity. I wish to say today I would like to join in with other Senators on both sides of the aisle, to ensure we do those things, create the mechanisms to allow people who cannot afford health care today to be able to afford it but to do so in a manner that preserves choice, preserves quality, preserves the doctor-patient relationship that now exists. We have been able to do that in other ways dealing with seniors, we have been able to do that certainly with those people throughout our country who cannot afford health care through programs such as Medicaid. Obviously, the focus of this effort needs to be on preserving the private-sector means of delivering health care. But I wish to say to you I am uplifted by what I am seeing on both sides of the aisle. I know Republicans and Democrats together want to make sure we solve this problem. I know, Mr. President, you have been very involved yourself. I wish to say to you I think this is a tremendous opportunity for us in this body to come together and do something the American people want to see done but do so in a manner that at the same time preserves the best qualities of our health care system. I wish to offer up my efforts to join in with others to make sure this happens. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, as you know, I very seldom come to the floor. Last week, I came to the floor to talk a little bit about the stimulus package that is before us now. Last night, we had a vote that blocked the Senate Finance Committee package. I know that probably sometime during the course of this day--or very soon--we will be voting on the House version of the stimulus package. I have to say that I realize I am a voice in the wilderness--actually more of a voice in the wilderness this week than last--but I continue to be almost shocked at the lack of debate regarding this stimulus package and its nature and effect on our economy. This is a roughly $150 billion package. Most of this package is oriented toward sprinkling, if you will, checks around our country. I know there are many people in our country in need, and there have been attempts to add various groups that ``have been left out'' of the package. I really feel for people around our country who are in tremendous economic distress. But I have to say that, to me--and this is just one opinion, and I have tremendous respect for this body and the various opinions that exist here--this has to be, in my humble opinion, one of the most irresponsible things we have done since I have been in the Senate. I think about all the debate we have had here, for instance, regarding earmarks, the wasteful spending that can sometimes take place over congressional earmarks. I know the public has been focused on that particular item now for over a year, as that issue has been debated on the floor and as people have tried to weed out, if you will, wasteful earmarks. In one fell swoop today--or tomorrow--we are going to be taking $150 billion and, from the standpoint of having an effect on our economy for the long term, in essence, wadding it up and throwing it, for lack of a better expression, into a mud bowl. I have heard no serious economists--and I have not read every economist--speak to the virtues of this stimulus package. I think you know the President just put forth a budget that shows a $410 billion budget deficit next year. All of us know that is not even close to the real number because operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are not fully funded by that budget. We are talking about in 2009 a half-a-trillion-dollar budget deficit, money that none of us will ever, of course, pay for. Mr. President, you and I will never have anything to do with paying back this money. Our grandchildren and their children will pay this back. As I mentioned last week on the floor, $150 billion becomes in a generation, 20 years, $322 billion. We, in essence, are borrowing this money. All of us know much of this money will be lent to us from countries such as China and other places. Most of us know that between the fiscal policy we are talking about today and the monetary policy that has been followed recently by the Fed, the U.S. dollar has devalued. Companies in our country are becoming greater bargains for people in other countries. There has been tremendous investment by other countries buying up companies in our country. Many of the products people will spend this money on, if they spend it on items other than electricity bills and those kinds of items, will be products that are made in other countries. All of us--and, Mr. President, I know you are new to this body as I am--came here recognizing the tremendous recklessness that has occurred as it relates to our country's fiscal and financial matters. I think all of us came here wanting to rectify that situation. I find it truly hard to believe there is such a rush in this Congress to take $150 billion and sprinkle it around America as if we feel that is going to do something to stimulate our economy. I know that much of this--again, I am not saying by any measure this relates to every Senator, but I know much of this is politically motivated, to make sure people in our country think we are doing something, even if it is wrong. I know this is an election year. In some ways, to some constituent groups, this might build political favor. I certainly have not had private conversations with every Senator, so that should be noted. But I have to tell my colleagues, in private, I have not found one Senator--not one--who believes what we are getting ready to do is going to do anything to stimulate this economy. Again, economists around the country are mentioning the fact daily that this will have little or no effect. Recently a well-respected person I know, whom I will not quote, said: Look, this is an awful lot of money. It probably will not do any harm. I think about what $150 billion would do invested in ways that actually created jobs for the long haul, whether it is in research, whether it is in promotion of energy security, maybe doing something to solve some of the health issues we have in our country. Certainly, there are other ways for us to spend $150 billion. I have listened to some of the debates on the floor that go on for days, if you will, over spending $1 billion or over spending $10 billion maybe at a university or something such as that. I realized that in the very near future, this body, without any real debate, is getting ready to spend $150 billion we will never pay back. I will close with this, and I said this the last time I spoke. There are children all over America today in classrooms. We have some who got up this morning who are in front of us--our pages--at 5 in the morning and went to class at 6. They come here every day and work with us. They are looking to their parents, their teachers, their coaches, their Sunday school teachers to help teach them life principles and to help make decisions that hopefully will cause their lives to be more whole and more full, and hopefully from time to time they look to those of us in Washington to do the same--their elected officials. I hope, and I say this with all due respect to the Members in this body who have a different opinion--this is solely my opinion, and I have deep respect for the other 99 Members of this body, but from my own personal vantage point, I hope they are not looking at us this week. I do not think there are many Members in this body who believe this $150 billion these young people and their children will pay back is being spent in a meaningful way. I think many Members of this body realize this is an election-year stunt, if you will, to make it look as if we are addressing a problem when, in my humble opinion, we are not. I do hope that sometime, in a bipartisan way, all of us can work together and address the fundamental fiscal problems which our country has to deal with. I know there is a bill that is going to be debated on the floor, hopefully in the near future, the Conrad-Gregg bill, to get us together and focus on Social Security and Medicare. Again, we have not even begun to see the stresses those programs are going to create for our country. Yet in this next fiscal year, we are looking at half a trillion dollars in a 1-year annual budget deficit. We have been fiscally reckless as a country. As they say back in my home State, the chickens are going to come home to roost. I am tremendously discouraged that we in this body are getting ready to spend $150 billion the way that we are and to ask these young pages and the young people across our country and the young people coming after them to pay the tap on that money so that in this election year, we can act like we have actually done something to solve a problem, when I think there are many in this body who know that is not what we are doing. Obviously, it has been made clear, I am going to vote against the House package, the Senate package, and any other package that focuses on sprinkling money around America in a way we know is not going to affect our economy in any meaningful way. Mr. President, as you know, it is a tremendous pleasure for me to serve with you in the Senate. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I had originally scheduled time to speak a little about the stimulus package and the many frailties I see with this package. However, due to the tragedy last night in Tennessee, I wish to talk on a different subject matter. The senior Senator from Tennessee joins me on the floor this morning, and, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield half of my time to the great Lamar Alexander, the senior Senator from Tennessee, if that would be acceptable.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, thank you for letting me spend a few minutes on this topic that is such a huge issue in the State of Tennessee. I certainly thank our senior Senator for his leadership. Our senior Senator was also the Governor of Tennessee. I know he knows full well what many people across our State today are facing. Again, I thank him for his leadership on so many issues. I know both of us today have spent time talking with county mayors across the State of Tennessee, talking with our Governor, talking with officials at Union University and other places. I know that for all of us our hearts and prayers go out not only to the people of Tennessee but also the Mississippi, Arkansas, and Kentucky people who also are dealing with some very tragic circumstances. I know people in Tennessee are looking to their county mayors and our Governor for leadership, their officials with the National Guard, and FEMA. My understanding is they are providing outstanding leadership and that people have worked throughout the night to make sure that relief has been given, that people have been taken into homes and other places. Today, as they begin to dig out, if you will, and really see the extent of the damage, that will continue. I am very proud to serve with Lamar Alexander and to be with him today. I know both of us want the people of Tennessee to know we are very aware of the tragedy they are dealing with. We are with them and their elected officials at the local and State level. We want to work with them as time goes on to make sure that much needed Federal relief, which will be on the way down the road, is forthcoming. I wish to thank all of those volunteers. I have heard stories of heroic things throughout our State where ordinary citizens have done things to ease the pain and to create safety for many of our citizens in harm's way. Again, our thoughts and prayers are with all of our citizens, especially those who have been so tragically affected by the events of the last 24 hours. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise in morning business today to talk about the so-called economic stimulus package we will be dealing with in this body over the next few weeks. I think the Presiding Officer knows that it is very seldom that I come to this floor to speak. I try to only speak when I have something to say. I realize that today, I am probably a voice in the wilderness and probably will be over the next few weeks. As are many Americans, all Americans who are familiar with being around railroads, I know a freight train when I see it coming. I realize the action taken yesterday in the House, by overwhelming majority sending over to our body a stimulus package to deal with--I realize the winds are blowing, and the fact is that the winds are blowing in the direction of a stimulus package. I am honored to serve in this body. I know that, contrary to much of what the American public thinks, there are many things that happen on this floor that actually show greatness of this body and greatness of individuals. I have seen on this floor both the majority leader and the minority leader do things to cause something good to happen for our country. When I have seen that happen--and most of the time it happens under the radar screen--I have tried to go to them and thank them for taking the positions they did, even if it was a private position to make something good happen. I have seen other Senators take politically courageous votes that were maybe not in their own best political interests but were in the country's interests, and I have tried, too, on those occasions when I have recognized that, to go up and thank them for what they have done. Then, on the other hand, I have also seen occasions when we in this body just bow to the political winds and do things that are expedient because they are expedient, even though in our hearts we know they are really not best for our country. Today, all across America, there are young people, young children gathered in classrooms, and they are learning in those classrooms that which will equip them to be productive in life. They are learning not just about facts and figures, but they are also learning about character. They have teachers whom they look up to. They have parents, hopefully, whom they go home to and look up to, coaches and others, Sunday school teachers, and hopefully some of the people whom they look up to from time to time are us in this body. I know that right now in our country we are going through tremendous economic turmoil as it relates to the markets in general. I think most of us know that it is due to excesses that have taken place in the marketplace, that in our country and in this world we have business cycles that exist. That is what happens in a free market society such as we have. Those excesses work themselves out, and over time, we begin building again. I know in the process of these excesses that in some ways they are beyond the control of the average citizen, and there are people in this country who are hurting. I know they are. My heart goes out to people across this country who find themselves in economic situations that in many cases are beyond their control. They have to do with markets. They have to do with the way we ourselves have conducted ourselves as it relates to fiscal policy. They have to do with things that are happening in other parts of the world. I truly feel for people who go home at night with tremendous economic distress. I am also always happy--just honestly always happy--when I see Americans receive refunds from the Federal Government. That is a good thing, and I am happy for people when that occurs. I really mean that. But in this backdrop, I must say that I find it so odd that today in America we would consider a stimulus package, a package that in essence is built on sprinkling money around America and then encouraging people to quickly spend that money to ignite an economic stimulus in this country. I doubt there are many people in this body--there may be some, and I don't want to in any way criticize anybody because I know there are some who may believe the stimulus package that came from the House yesterday really is going to do some good. There are some, and I understand that, but I bet there are not many in this body who believe sprinkling money around America and asking people to spend it is going to do much, is going to do much to affect the long-term status of this economy. But what I see happening is, all of a sudden, in the name of bipartisanship--and I want to say I have been excited to see bipartisanship taken up, and I want to put on the record that I have exercised, as the Presiding Officer has, bipartisanship in many cases to try to make something good happen. But in the name of bipartisanship, what has happened is we have come--what has come out of the House is a bipartisan bill in the name of economic stimulus that to me is--and I hate to be this crass--nothing more than political stimulus. I hope this body will have the responsibility and the character to deal with our economic situations over the long haul. It may be that this body takes up this stimulus package, and it may be that this body makes changes, and it may be that this body actually passes a stimulus package that is similar to what came out of the House. But what I see in this package is nothing but a political stimulus. It is a stimulus to make the American people think that we as a body are doing something to actually cause the economy to be stronger. So at this moment, I fear we are going through one of those moments where I am less encouraged about what might happen, but I am hoping that somehow or another, we will deal with this in an appropriate way. I think all of us know in our country that we together have been fiscally reckless over the last several years. I think we know that generations who come after us will be dealing with the brunt of our actions. Not to be misunderstood, I am a strong believer in low taxes and creating a structure in this country that people can count on to move ahead and to make investments, but with that has to be the reality that spending has to be under control. Yet there is always a reason in this body and in the other body to spend money we do not have. I can go back and cite example after example, and for some reason I sense that today we are in another one of those situations. I know this package is going to change, and I know some of the components of this package cannot be calculated exactly this way, but what I would like to say is, if you take $150 billion and spent the money today--I look at these pages on the floor who have come here so excited about their work. I want them to know that actually we in this body will never deal, in my generation, with paying for the $150 billion. The next generation might, but I doubt it. It will actually be $329 billion in 20 years at present rates, and in the generation after that, $722 billion. I know my time is drawing to a close. I know I am probably a voice in the wilderness. I am very discouraged about the wind I see blowing at this time. I am very discouraged about a package I think many people, if not most in this body, doubt is going to have any long-term effect on our economy. So I ask that my colleagues consider this, my colleagues with whom I enjoy serving: No. 1, that we call this package for what it is, a political stimulus package; that we begin today dealing in a bipartisan way with the tough decisions we have to make, and if there are anomalies out there we need to deal with where people are truly being hurt, let's deal with them; that we adopt the Conrad- Gregg bill to truly deal with long-term entitlements; and that we ask the administration, when they bring their budget forth on February 4, to bring forth a real budget that lays out to the American people the deficits we will have to deal with in the future. This country has been built on sacrifice. It has been built on us and generations before us making tough decisions and making sacrifice. I hope this body, in a bipartisan way, will do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished colleague from the great State of Mississippi, Senator Trent Lott. As a reformer, a defender and a leader, Trent Lott leaves behind a legacy in the U.S. Senate, the fruits of which we will reap for years to come. In 1996, Trent joined with colleagues to enact an historic welfare reform bill. He pushed for reform again when he supported President Bush's tax cut package early on in the administration. Trent has never been afraid to step forward in faith toward what he knows is right. A champion for a strong national defense, Trent supported the President's military action in Iraq as well as increased defense spending. As a defender himself, Trent understands the importance of a strong military and the value of rewarding those who valiantly serve this country. In 1998, he urged Congress to raise the pay for our military men and women, an act that hadn't occurred in a decade. As the first man to serve as the whip in both the House and the Senate, Trent could not have accomplished any of the aforementioned achievements and many others without his innate ability to lead. Leadership is not easy. The weight of good leadership is often a difficult load to bear, but Trent Lott upheld his roles as senator, majority leader and whip with an admirable level of dignity and integrity throughout his tenure. As a new Senator, I have been touched by Trent's candor, patience, unique charm, and by observing the tremendous relationship he has with his wife Tricia. Professionally, I have benefited greatly from his knowledge and experience about how to effectively make a difference in the U.S. Senate. He is a gifted negotiator, and his strong leadership will be greatly missed. For more than three decades, Senator Lott has been a great public servant to the people of Mississippi in Congress. I extend my best wishes to Trent and Tricia as they begin the next phase of their lives together.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the rural access to care amendment sponsored by Senator Gregg. It is amazing in a State such as New Hampshire, that could not be more different than the State I reside in, Tennessee, that we have a very similar problem. I commend his efforts on this agriculture bill, one that affects so much of rural America, to, in a very surgical and thoughtful way, deal with the issue of access to care. As you might imagine, I spent an inordinate amount of time, in the 2 years prior to being here, in all 95 counties in my State. What was most stunning was to see the statistics and talk to young women as it related to their access to obstetrical care. The fact is we have 91 of 95 counties in our State that are considered to be rural counties. The number of OBs in those rural counties from 1997 to the year 2003 dropped from 179 OBs to 103 during that period of time. In our State, more than 30 of our 95 counties have very inadequate access to obstetrical care. In 15 of those counties, we have no obstetrical access. I know the Senator from Vermont, the senior Senator, talked a little bit about the insurance companies and the role they have played. I respect greatly his views and certainly his knowledge on this subject. But what I found was this: We have young mothers-to-be in our State who lack the ability to access OB care because of the fact that malpractice insurance costs so much in that particular field of care, and, therefore, they have been driven out, if you will, of the rural counties in the State of Tennessee. The fact is this amendment only focuses on rural counties. It only focuses on OB care. It does not in any way affect those States that have chosen to go ahead and address this issue themselves. I wish to applaud him in being so thoughtful and so surgical in his approach to this very pressing issue that, if you will, pits these young mothers- to-be against those who are against any kind of malpractice caps. The fact is this only addresses noneconomic damages. It does not in any way affect economic damages. It does not keep families from getting the most complete care necessary if something bad were to happen. I fully support this. I wish to thank Senator Gregg for offering this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it also. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor an exceptional Tennessean and a pioneer in the civil rights movement. Benjamin Hooks was born in Memphis, TN, in 1925, the fifth of seven children by Robert and Bessie Hooks. He grew up in a loving family who taught him to succeed in both education and life. After high school, Dr. Hooks began his higher education by taking pre-law classes at LeMoyne College in Memphis. Prior to finishing his degree, he was drafted into the Army, honorably serving our country in World War II. When he returned home, he went to graduate school at Howard University and afterwards received a law degree from DePaul University in Chicago. As Dr. Hooks went through life and excelled in various endeavors, there was one experience that greatly molded the future direction of his life: being born into and growing up in the scourge of racial segregation. After Dr. Hooks graduated college, he returned home and vowed to do his part to end racial segregation. Initially, he fought the fight by becoming one of the first African- American lawyers in Tennessee. It was during this time he met and married Ms. Frances Dancy. Frances was a school teacher and guidance counselor. Eventually, her career took a different path, and she became her husband's assistant, adviser, and traveling companion. They had one daughter together, Patricia Hooks Gray. As Dr. Hooks continued to practice law, he was called to fight for civil rights from another forum, the ministry. In 1956, he was ordained a Baptist minister and began to preach regularly at the Middle Baptist Church in Memphis, TN. It was there he joined Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Southern Christian Leadership Conference and became a pioneer in the NAACP-sponsored restaurant sit-ins and other boycotts. Through these efforts, he became a respected voice in the community and in the State. In 1965, Gov. Frank Clement appointed him to become the first African-American criminal court judge in Tennessee history. His efforts as a preacher, judge, and civil rights pioneer eventually led Hooks to Washington, DC, to become the first African-American appointee to the Federal Communications Commission. There he continued the civil rights fight by addressing numerous minority representation issues in the communications industry. In 1976, he was elected as the executive director of the NAACP, where he led that organization for more than 15 years. As a director, he helped to increase membership and fundraising efforts, as well as plan for the organization's future for 17 years. He also broadened the scope of the NAACP by exploring national issues such as energy, the environment, the criminal justice system, welfare, and national health insurance. Throughout his work as a civil rights advocate, he has received numerous awards, including the Humanitarian Award from the National Conference of Christians and Jews, and the Freedom Award from the National Civil Rights Museum. The University of Memphis created the Benjamin L. Hooks Institute for Social Change, honoring Benjamin Hooks. The Hooks Institute works to advance understanding of the civil rights movement through teaching, research, and community programs and put an emphasis on social movements, race relations, strong communities, public education, effective public participation, and social and economic justice. On Monday, I am pleased that Dr. Hooks will receive one more honor, one of the highest civilian awards: the Presidential Medal of Freedom. This medal is given to individuals who have made an especially meritorious contribution to society. Dr. Hooks is a living example of that type of person. His life is an example that even while facing adversity through hard work, you can accomplish revolutionary change. His legacy will not only continue in our State but also throughout our Nation. So it is only fitting that through this award he once again joins the ranks of other civil rights pioneers such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Clarence M. Mitchell, Leon Howard Sullivan, and Roy Wilkins. It is an honor and a privilege to serve in the Senate on behalf of Tennesseans such as Dr. Hooks, who have exemplified the great courage that has not only positively affected our State but our country as well. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I also rise today to speak regarding S. 2233. I am always honored to be in the presence of our senior Senator from Tennessee. I am honored to follow him today talking about the same topic. One of the great points about our country is that we are set up in a manner that we allow States to choose how they govern on issues relating to the way they tax their citizens. As Senator Alexander just stated, in the State of Tennessee, we have decided, after a tremendous amount of debate over decades, that we like being taxed through a sales tax. As you know and as was just stated, Americans all across the country who are in States where they have an income tax or payroll tax are able to deduct that from their Federal income taxes. Again, in order to continue to support the fairness of the way we treat States, certainly those who choose to use a sales tax to raise revenues for roads and schools and want to leave it in the hands of their citizens to decide how much they pay in income tax, those States ought to be allowed to deduct those taxes from their Federal income taxes. This is an issue of fairness. This absolutely is an issue of fairness. I hope today--we have introduced a bill, as Senator Alexander stated--to convince other Senators that this is an issue of fairness and that they should support this bill which will permanently allow the nine States that today use a sales tax as a way of raising revenues for their States to be able to deduct those taxes. As was mentioned, 11.2 million Americans across our country took a sales tax deduction last year. Mr. President, 600,000 Tennesseans took that deduction, and it saves Tennesseans about $400 a year. Since much has already been said, I close my comments again urging Senators on both sides of the aisle to support this bill which indicates fairness for all Americans.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I think everyone is aware that the House today failed to override the President's veto on SCHIP. I think everybody is aware that 18 Republicans joined with Democrats to pass this bill in the Senate. This is a bill to support health insurance for low-income children. It is something I think all of us want to make sure continues to go forward. I haven't had the opportunity since I have been here to vote for a perfect bill. I doubt I will be able to do that during the course of the time I am here in the Senate. I think everybody knows the President's budget, the budget's $5 billion is not enough to cover the program, even going forward as it is. I think everyone would agree we can always trim a little bit out of any bill we put forth. I have a letter here signed by 18 Republicans, the 18 Republicans who joined with Democrats to make sure this bill was able to pass and hopefully to be able to fund insurance for low-income children. What this letter does is asks the leadership of the House and the leadership of the Senate not to simply send back the bill that has already been voted on, but to ask them to sit down with the President and let's negotiate a bill that can cause this program to go forward as we all want it to and discontinue all of the political rhetoric that is centered around this issue. I want to make sure children in America, like everyone else, have the opportunity, as low-income children, to be insured. I encourage the leadership of the House and Senate to sit down with the President and let's come up with a bill that allows this very good program to go forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. That is exactly what the bill is about. There is no doubt--and I think we should all acknowledge this--that there are some cases in some States where there has been an aggressiveness to actually cause some adults to be covered who should not be covered. In this bill, focusing toward 2010, there is an effort to reform that, to cause the focus to return back to children. Also, there is no question that this administration, which offers the fact that they are going to veto this bill, has done more to change the dynamics of SCHIP than any legislation that we could pass. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Yes.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I will try to use less time. I know we have a lot of business today. I rise also to talk about the SCHIP bill we just voted on for cloture, and hopefully, later this evening, we will have the opportunity to vote on final passage. I have been here a short amount of time, and I continue to be amazed at some of the rhetoric that ends up circling much of the legislation we discuss in the Senate. I do not think the SCHIP bill is perfect. I am going to vote for the SCHIP bill. I haven't been in the Senate long enough in 8\1/2\ months to have actually ever voted for a perfect bill. Chances are I may never vote for a perfect bill in the Senate. I know this bill has been threatened to be vetoed. Again, I think about the irony of a bill such as this being vetoed by the administration. The most recent health care legislation that I remember passing out of this body that was a large bill was Medicare Part D. As I remember, that was a bill where nothing was paid for. We added $700 billion to $800 billion in deficits. There was no attempt whatsoever for that to be paid for. It also created coverage for individuals who did not need coverage. It didn't matter. We passed a massive bill. I was not here during that time, but it passed several years ago. The uniqueness of this bill is that there has been an attempt to actually pay for it--something unique in recent times as it relates to health care coverage. Secondly, it actually is health care for people who need it, which is also very different from some of the things we have focused on in the past. So I find it very ironic that this administration has chosen this bill to veto. I have heard a lot of comments about the frailties of this, and one of the most recent red herrings regarding this bill was that it would allow illegal immigrants to receive health care. That is absolutely not true. But based on the standard of this argument that was put forth recently, we certainly need to ensure that immediately we would do away with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid because they would be held, of course, to a standard that cannot be met. That is an argument which obviously is not true. I also heard that this bill had earmarks in it. I have looked and I can't find any earmarks in this bill. There is a hospital in Tennessee, down on the Mississippi-Arkansas border, and it happens to deal with low-income citizens who come there from Mississippi and Arkansas. So this bill allows that hospital to be paid Medicaid reimbursement for the patients it sees from Mississippi and Arkansas. If that is the new standard for earmarks in this body, then I suppose every comment or statement we make will now become an earmark. I have also heard the comment that this is the backdoor to socialized medicine. I really think that one is maybe the most humorous I have heard. I do wish to bring this body's attention to the fact that the Bush administration--the Bush administration--since it has been in office has approved these waivers and state plan amendments: in June of 2004 to California, allowing them to go to 300 percent of poverty, again above the intent of the original SCHIP bill; in Hawaii, in January of 2006, allowed the State, through executive prerogative, to go to 300 percent; in Massachusetts, in July of 2006, this administration allowed that State to go to 300 percent; in Missouri, in August of 2003, this administration allowed them to go to 300 percent; in New York, in July of 2001, this administration allowed them to go to 250 percent; in Pennsylvania, in February of 2007, just a few months ago, to 300 percent; in West Virginia, in December of 2006, to 220 percent. But the one I have left is the one that is most recent. This administration, without any legislative involvement, in March of 2007--a few months ago--agreed to let the District of Columbia go to 300 percent of the poverty level. So for those people to say this bill is a back door to socialized medicine, it seems to me they have not taken into account the front door of the Bush administration, which all along has allowed nine states to expand their programs beyond the original intent of the SCHIP program. This bill actually causes this out-of-control process that has been ongoing during the Bush administration to actually be reformed. It actually causes reforms to take place so this bill will more fully embrace its original intent. So I rise to say there is a lot of rhetoric that is being used in this SCHIP bill. This bill is not perfect. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to see changes in this bill. I would like to see changes in this bill. I think it could have had a more credible debate had the administration initially funded this in their budget with an appropriate amount of money to even allow the program as it is to continue. I will vote for this bill. I am not going to argue to any of my colleagues as to what they should do. I will vote for this bill because I believe it focuses on those most in need--children--mostly poor children in our country. What is actually moving our country toward socialized medicine is the fact that none of us in this body have yet taken the steps to make sure that those most in need have access to private, affordable health care. I know there are a number of bills that have looked at that. I have offered a bill--again, it is not perfect--and I hope Members of this body will actually cause it to be improved by adding amendments. But the fact of the matter is, what will move our country toward socialized medicine is not this SCHIP bill, which focuses on poor children in America, but it will be the lack of action in this body to create methodologies, which we could do, to allow people in need to have access to private, affordable health care.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today during morning business to talk about a trip I made to Iraq. I think the Acting President pro tempore made a similar trip during the August recess. I want to make a few points regarding that trip. I know a lot of people talk about these trips, and they talk about the fact that they are choreographed and short term. I do want to say my comments are in the context of many hours of committee hearings the Acting President pro tempore and I have both sat through in Foreign Relations and Armed Services and many other ways developing the background prior to being in Iraq. I know, again, much is said of these trips. I will say I do not think there is anything--and the Chair probably would attest to the same-- like being there on the ground yourself and seeing firsthand our troops, seeing our military leaders, seeing leaders of the Iraqi Government, and also seeing many of the tribal leaders, the sheiks who actually lead in these various areas throughout the country. I wish to make three points, and then I wish to urge something in conclusion. No. 1, I think the Chair would agree with me the professionalism and commitment of our men and women in uniform is absolutely overwhelming. The way they conduct themselves on our behalf would almost lead you to emotion just in seeing the way they do what they do on our behalf. I have noticed that both in State, as I have traveled the State as our men and women prepare, but certainly even more so on the ground there in Iraq. I am indebted to them. I know the Acting President pro tempore and all Americans are indebted to the way they conduct themselves, regardless of how we may feel about the conflict that is underway. Secondly, I do not think there is any question that we have had military gains on the ground. I realize that is uneven. But I think there is no question what General Petraeus, General Odierno, and others have done on the ground, in beginning the work in a bottoms-up approach, where we work with tribal leaders there on the ground to secure their own areas, is the right approach. I do not think there is any question we are seeing the results of that approach. It seems as if a light has gone on where, No. 1, the tribal leaders, the sheiks, and others there on the ground are realizing that we are there not as occupiers but we are there as enablers. We want to enable them to be able to secure their own destiny. We want to leave that country other than providing the basic support they may need on an ongoing basis. Secondly, the terror, if you will, al-Qaida and some of the other militant groups have wreaked on these villages has caused them to want to band together with us and again try to make sure they do everything they can to cause their villages to be peaceful. For that reason, we no doubt are seeing gains on the ground as it relates to security. I think the third thing we would all agree with is the central Government itself has not made the gains we would have hoped more security on the ground would have enabled them to do. I think most delegations that went there met with various Iraqi officials. I know I met with both a Shia and a Sunni deputy president there on the ground and talked with them about the lack of benchmarks we had hoped they would all meet. Obviously, we also are aware the Prime Minister is meeting with the President and two deputy presidents on a daily basis to try to reach some type of reconciliation so they can move forward on these important issues. But the fact is, those benchmarks have not been made in a way that we here in the Government would like to have seen them approached and progress made. Our soldiers have been outstanding. There is no doubt that military gains on the ground have occurred, and the central Government has not conducted itself in a way that we would have liked to have seen happen. In the next week or so we are going to see a number of reports, but most important, obviously, to me anyway, is the report General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will put forward. I urge my fellow Senators on the floor to listen to what is going to be said. Obviously, there are people here who have a lot invested in various amendments or proposals, and there is a human trait we want to see our own proposal, if you will, be the one people in the Senate and our country adopt. But let me state I do not think there is any question that the Petraeus plan is going to discuss redeployments. It is going to discuss bringing men and women home from Iraq based on the successes we have had on the ground in recent months. I do not think there is any question we have seen a change in mission take place on a province-by- province basis. In other words, one of the things we debated heavily in previous debates this year on Iraq was changing the mission of our men and women in uniform. Yet we are seeing this occurring province by province, as tribal leaders are able, working with our military leaders, to take the lead in their own security. So we are seeing that change in mission. I say to my fellow Senators, let's listen. I think we have an opportunity in the Senate for Democrats and Republicans to come together around a plan that would unify our country in such a way as we are able to bring our country together around what is happening in Iraq. I do not know what the details of the Petraeus plan will be. My guess is he and others today are actually calibrating what the exact redeployment ought to be and what the timing of that ought to be to actually make sure we do not lose the successes we have had on the ground. But my guess is, there will be redeployments, and I think those will be gradual, again, to build on the successes we have had--again, a continual and gradual change in the mission underway in Iraq. I am of hope, of great hope--and maybe it is my newness to the Senate that gives me this optimism still, but I have great hopes that if we will all listen to the reports that are being given, and not to those people who wish to see us divided, I think we in the Senate have an opportunity to come together around a proposal in Iraq that gives us the opportunity to build on the successes we have had and to change the mission of our men and women so over time what we are doing is basically supporting the operations of the Iraqis as they continue their move ahead, hopefully, toward a more secure Iraq. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue. Certainly, Senator Bennett and Senator Wyden, Senator Coburn, Senator Burr, and Senator Martinez and a number of people have joined in this debate, and we have spent a great deal of time talking about the important health care bill, the one we are voting on right now tonight. But the fact is, we all know we need to reform health care so that we have equal tax treatment, so that people have the opportunity to actually buy private health insurance and choose the physicians of their choosing. We can continue to have these short-term fixes--we now have a fix that takes us through 2012 on this program--or we can have reform that really works. I appreciate the chairman and the ranking member having hearings for us to be able to talk about this in a real way. I hope what has happened with Senators Wyden, Bennett, and Burr, and Senators Coburn and Martinez and others, including myself, is that hopefully we will have an opportunity to have a real debate on health care reform so that we can really move toward what this country ought to do, and that is to make sure Americans have the opportunity for affordable, quality health care, and we can move beyond these short-term solutions we are faced with today. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise this evening at this late hour to again talk about the SCHIP bill before us, but even talk a little further about health care for all Americans. I don't think there is anybody in this body who believes that at some point we are not going to extend children's health care coverage. I think everybody in this body realizes what we are doing right now is talking about how, in fact, that is going to be done. Even if the President were to veto this bill, I think all of us realize that again, in some form or fashion, we are going to come back together and we are going to make sure the children of America benefit from the SCHIP program that has been in place now since 1997. I think as we look at the issues we are dealing with on this SCHIP bill, as we look at the many issues we are dealing with involving Medicaid and Medicare, I know of no other moment for us to more fully be able to debate the future of health care in our country in general. I think all of us know, as the Senator from Minnesota said and many Senators before her have said, there are 45 million Americans today who at some point in time during the year did not have health insurance. In my own State of Tennessee, we have 800,000 people in the State who do not have health insurance. The toll is enormous. I think all of us can tell a story about a friend or a neighbor or somebody we have seen in our cities as we go back into the States who does not have health care coverage and the insecurities they feel. We are having one of the most dynamic growths in markets in U.S. history, and yet so many people in America feel insecure. I am convinced one of the main reasons is because so many people feel insecure about their health care coverage. I know that throughout the campaign, in the 95 counties of our State that I visited, I met so many Tennesseans who were concerned about the financial health of their family because they did not have health insurance, and about whether their husbands who might have had seizures would be able to get the proper care they might need. So I believe it is a moral obligation for us here in the Senate and for those in the Congress to deal with this issue in a much broader way even than as we are talking about during this SCHIP debate. I also believe as this Presidential race unfolds, almost every Presidential candidate will have to face Americans and talk about how they plan to deal with the fact that Americans today do not have the health insurance coverage they need. That is why today I rise to join the Senator from North Carolina, Senator Burr, with Senate bill 1886, which is the Every American Insured Health Act. Americans want to control their own destiny. They don't like the fact that an employer might decide what kind of coverage they have, or if they have coverage at all. They don't like the fact that some bureaucrat in Washington may decide that they have coverage or not. Americans like to know they have their destiny in their own hands. There is something about American psyches that is grounded in that particular issue. So what we propose through the Every American Insured Health Act is that every individual in America--every individual in America--who is not now covered by some existing governmental program would receive a $2,160 tax credit, and every family would receive $5,400. This is very different than many proposals in the past where we talked about a tax deduction. One of the things I think we all know we can talk about which are niceties--things that are decent--are health savings accounts. We can talk about other things that sort of nibble at the edges, if you will, as they relate to health care, but the only thing that allows people to own their own health insurance is the money to pay for it. So we, through what is called a refundable tax credit in this bill, caused that to be the case. Unlike the other bills that are being discussed today, and unlike so many other health care acts we discussed, this actually is revenue neutral. This is one of those things that allows every American to be covered with health insurance, yet does not pile on a deficit, if you will, for the children of our future to have to deal with. It is absolutely revenue neutral. Let me tell my colleagues how it works. A lot of people, such as we here in the Senate, receive our health insurance through our employer-- the Federal Government. A lot of people receive health insurance through the employer they work for back in our home States. Let me give a little example. For an individual in Tennessee who might make $40,000 and receive a $5,000 health benefit, whereas now that is not taxable, in the future, if this bill were to be enacted, they would have to actually pay tax on that and their tax bill would be about $1,250. Under the provisions of this act, what we would propose is that every individual would receive $2,160, so they could pay their tax bill, and then have money left over to deal with whatever other health issues they might have. The most important aspect of this, though, is it means that so many Americans today--Tennesseans, Ohioans, Minnesotans--who don't have health insurance, through this proposal would actually have the money, the money timed in a fashion to actually allow them to purchase health insurance. This would mean that virtually everybody in America, through this plan, would have the opportunity to own their own health insurance plan and they themselves would decide who the carrier would be. This would do something that was discussed by Dr. Coburn from Oklahoma. It would do away with what we call cost shifting. Obviously, the 45 million citizens, as the Senator from Minnesota mentioned, get health care; they just happen to get it at the emergency room. Who pays for that? Well, all of those people who go out and buy private health plans or employers who buy those, actually pay for that, because all of those costs are shifted to the other plans. What the Every American Insured Health Act would do is do away totally with cost shifting, because everybody in America would own their own plan and those plans would be paying for their health coverage. This obviously includes a few other attributes. It includes reforms for States so that States can set up pools, so that individuals today who don't have access to other pools of insurance at lesser expensive rates, it allows the States to set up pools so that individuals can buy their insurance through those pools. It also incentivizes States to set up high-risk pools. There are obviously many people, by the grace of God, by the genes they are created from, who have health issues that some of us don't have to deal with, so their health care costs are higher, if you will, than other Americans. This would provide incentives for States to set up high-risk pools so that those people could benefit from the opportunity of being grouped with others. One other attribute and incentive of this is it causes States to actually set up a plan--a plan in their State--that has of the cost 6 percent of the median income of the population of that State, so that you create a basic plan that certainly almost everyone--everyone in their State certainly, by virtue of the plan we are laying out, would obviously be able to afford. This obviously, as I mentioned, would reduce the cost to people around our country who are trying to do the right thing by their employees. It obviously gives people the opportunity--every American--to determine their own destiny as it relates to health care. I know this bill is not perfect; no bill is. I want to say in closing that the reason I have joined Senator Burr and others to offer this bill is I do believe this country continues and continues and continues to have a debate about the fringes, if you will. We talk about children. We talk about other populations. We offer in many ways what I think is empty rhetoric around the issue of health care. This is a solution. It may not be a perfect solution. But I ask my colleagues to please join the debate about health care in a way that ensures that every American has access to health care. We are very fortunate in this body. We have health care. All of us know of people who truly are concerned about the next day and the next day and the next day, about how they are going to survive because a loved one in their family has health care issues that are not covered. So I ask my colleagues, please, don't turn away from this plan. Join the debate and let's make sure that this body puts forth an act, a bill, a solution, if you will, to make sure that every American--every American--has the same benefit we here in the Senate have. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for yielding me time. I just wish to say I appreciate the efforts of all involved in what has happened over the last month. I really do. I have voted three times against cloture and will vote for a fourth time today against cloture. But at the same time, I really have tried to play a constructive role in voting on each amendment based on the merits of that amendment. This bill is about a lot of things. Certainly, people have put a lot of effort into it--based on compassion, based on trying to solve a problem. It also, no doubt, has some more sinister components. I hate to say it: cheap labor, party politics, who is going to gain the majority. So there are a lot of different things at play here. I think we all understand that. But I really do appreciate the efforts of all involved. Today, this is going to get down to four or five Senators. I encourage them to vote against cloture, for this reason: I think this bill is not good for America because I believe America has lost faith in our Government's ability to do the things it says it will do. We have had intelligence gaffs. We have had evolving reasons as to why we are involved in military conflicts. We have seen what has happened at the local, State, and Federal level on things such as Katrina. We have ministers who want to go on mission trips today but who cannot get passports renewed. This is about competence. It is about credibility. I think Americans feel they are losing their country. They are not losing it to people who speak differently or talk differently or are from different backgrounds; they are losing it to a government that has seemed to not have the competence or the ability to carry out what it says it will do. I believe this bill is going to fail. What I would urge people to do is not what they have said today--and that is, to let it pass--but to move, meaning to pass into another time, but approaching it on a more modest basis, where we do the things we say we will do and build a foundation that will cause the American people to actually have faith in this Government.