Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I support the budget point of order that has been raised, but let me just make a point. I had an amendment that would have kept this budget point of order from being a problem. The reason we are where we are is that both Republicans and Democrats had amendments to this bill, and the ones we put forth would have solved this budget point of order, but because my amendment has not been heard, the Senator from Pennsylvania has raised this budget point of order, and the fact is that I hope it will be sustained. But what is the shame of all of this is that both Democrats and Republicans had amendments to this bill. I think the amendment I put forth would have carried the day. It would have allowed the FDIC to actually charge enough money in the difference for these transaction accounts so we would not have the budget point of order that has been raised. But the amendment has not been heard. The leader filled the tree, and therefore no amendments--not Republican amendments, not Democrat amendments-- could have been heard. The other amendment I had that would have helped even more or added to this solution is we could have made this program voluntary so that if there are community programs around the country that wanted to participate in this program, they could have done so on a voluntary basis. So there are two amendments--one that would have forced the FDIC to actually charge enough money to make this account actuarially sound, and that amendment is not being heard, and an amendment to allow this to be voluntary so that if there are community banks that are struggling and feel as though they need to protect these accounts and still keep them in their banks, they could have paid the actuarially sound amount to make that occur. But neither one of those amendments has been heard. I would say to everybody in this body who is tired of this place not working because neither side of the aisle has the opportunity to vote for amendments, to have amendments heard and voted on, I say to both sides of the aisle that we absolutely should vote to uphold this point of order and hope that when we come back next year, both Republicans and Democrats will have the opportunity to represent their constituents back home by offering amendments that can actually be voted on in this body. I thank the Senator for raising the point of order. I wish we could have made this work for our country in an appropriate way, but what we are going to have today is just a simple vote. I will just say this--and I probably shouldn't--the only reason we are voting on this amendment is that my friends on the other side of the aisle know Dodd-Frank has hurt community bankers throughout this country. They are trying to throw a bone out to community bankers across this country, and they are trying to get us to vote against it. That is not the way this place should work. I have amendments that would have fixed this bill, made it work for community bankers, and we could have gone forward. The only reason we are doing it this way is because my friends on the other side of the aisle know the provisions in Dodd-Frank are hurting community bankers and they are trying to throw a bone. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am here to introduce a bill that would address entitlement reforms and the debt ceiling called the Dollar for Dollar Act. I continue to hope Speaker Boehner and President Obama will negotiate a deal north of $4 trillion before year end. However, I think we should also prepare now for the possibility that they will not, especially based on recent conversations. The next opportunity we have to make the structural, transformative reforms to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that will save these programs and put our country on a path to fiscal solvency will be during the debt ceiling vote which will come up after the first of the year as soon as we get back. I am introducing the Dollar for Dollar legislation that will raise the debt ceiling by roughly $1 trillion in exchange for roughly $1 trillion in reforms to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This puts into legislative language many of the concepts laid out in a bipartisan Simpson-Bowles and Domenici-Rivlin proposal. This meets our obligations to older and younger Americans. Young Americans expect us to solve their fiscal issues so they are not saddled with debt and robbed of opportunity for the American dream. Seniors expect us to honor the commitments we have made to them. If we act now, we will be addressing the debt ceiling more than 3 months before we reach it. Let me walk through those changes that are well known to policymakers and Congress and the administration. I will begin with Medicare. Medicare's trust fund has $27 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and it is expected to be insolvent by the year 2024. According to an Urban Institute study, an average income of a married family will contribute about $119,000 in payroll taxes to Medicare in today's dollars over their lifetime and consume about $357,000 in today's dollars in Medicare benefits. Obviously, this is unsustainable. Everybody in this room knows this. The pages in front of me know it. Medicare needs to be structured in a way to provide care for current and future beneficiaries in a fiscally responsible manner. This bill would structurally transform Medicare, keeping fee-for- service Medicare in place forever, while having it compete side-by-side with a reformed Medicare Advantage program called Medicare Total Health. Seniors would maintain the option of choosing fee-for-service Medicare or a private plan as they do today. I think most of us know that about 25 percent of the people in our country who are on Medicare are in a private plan today. The competition created by these reforms would significantly reduce Medicare costs by $290 billion--and this is very important--without a spending cap on the program. This proposal is similar to one backed by Alice Rivlin, former Budget Director for Bill Clinton. In addition, this bill would update cost-sharing requirements to reflect 21st-century health care practices, such as capping out-of- pocket expenditures for beneficiaries and unifying deductibles and coinsurance structures. This bill also would improve solvency by requiring higher income beneficiaries to pay more for their premiums. Finally, it would raise the eligibility age incrementally from 65 to 67 by the year 2027. Moving to Medicaid, the bill would provide increased flexibility for States to achieve Medicaid savings by establishing a waiver process for States to better manage their Medicaid programs. It also would eliminate a massive ``bed tax'' gimmick used to bilk Federal taxpayers out of $50 billion over a 10- year period. Next, let me walk through Social Security changes. Although some have suggested we should ignore the impending crisis in Social Security funding, we should address it now because it is already beginning to cause the Federal Government to spend more than it takes in, and the Social Security trust fund is projected to be exhausted in the year 2033. It also will be much more painful to make these adjustments to achieve solvency in Social Security if we procrastinate. In order to return the program to long-term solvency, the bill would enhance the progressivity of benefit calculations. In addition, it would adopt chained CPI in measuring inflation to calculate annual cost-of-living adjustments. Chained CPI is the Bureau of Labor Statistics most modern and most accurate measure of inflation. By the way, the bill would apply chained CPI government-wide, which would also affect revenues, and it would reflect revenues in a positive way as it relates to our budget deficits. It would slowly raise the retirement age to better reflect longevity increases. Finally, the bill would strengthen the disability insurance program by moving beneficiaries into Social Security insurance at an earlier age. This part of Social Security will go bankrupt by the year 2017 if we do nothing. In conclusion, I am offering a bill that would implement structural entitlement reforms and, in exchange, it would raise the debt ceiling dollar for dollar. Dealing with this now would avoid facing a crisis next year when we hit that debt ceiling in February or March, which would rattle financial markets and generate tremendous uncertainty in our country and around the world. We need to get our fiscal problems behind us so that businesses, investors, and all of the American people can have confidence about the future. If we do that, the economy will truly take off. So if I could, if one of the pages could take this to the desk, I am introducing this bill. I hope Senator Reid will put in place a process through regular order for bills of this nature to be introduced and go through the appropriate committees. I hope when we deal with the debt ceiling in this coming year, we do so on a dollar-for-dollar basis, just as has been recently established this last year--the precedent has been set--that during this fiscal dilemma we are dealing with, when we raise the debt ceiling, we actually lower spending by a dollar. Up until this point, almost all the things we have talked about have been through discretionary spending. Thus far, we really haven't addressed entitlement reforms. Again, let me reiterate that I hope the President and Speaker Boehner come to some accommodation over the next couple of weeks that actually deals with some maybe $4 trillion in size that would actually put this in the rearview mirror. But as the conversations continue, and not much substance is coming forward, that is looking doubtful. So I hope as we end this year and move into next year we will begin to put in place an open process whereas we move toward the debt ceiling and use the same precedent we have already used this last year, so that when we raise the debt ceiling by a dollar, we will reduce spending by a dollar. We have all said we need revenues and we need entitlement reform. What I have done today is to lay out a way--and I know other Senators will have ideas, and I hope they will bring them to the floor--for us to raise the debt ceiling by around $1 trillion and in return have entitlement reform on a dollar-for-dollar basis, saving and reforming these programs, so that seniors in the future certainly will have the opportunity to continue these programs they depend upon so much, and the young people who are coming behind us will have the certainty that we, as mature adults, I hope, have dealt with these issues in an appropriate way.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am here to introduce a bill that would address entitlement reforms and the debt ceiling called the Dollar for Dollar Act. I continue to hope Speaker Boehner and President Obama will negotiate a deal north of $4 trillion before year end. However, I think we should also prepare now for the possibility that they will not, especially based on recent conversations. The next opportunity we have to make the structural, transformative reforms to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that will save these programs and put our country on a path to fiscal solvency will be during the debt ceiling vote which will come up after the first of the year as soon as we get back. I am introducing the Dollar for Dollar legislation that will raise the debt ceiling by roughly $1 trillion in exchange for roughly $1 trillion in reforms to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This puts into legislative language many of the concepts laid out in a bipartisan Simpson-Bowles and Domenici-Rivlin proposal. This meets our obligations to older and younger Americans. Young Americans expect us to solve their fiscal issues so they are not saddled with debt and robbed of opportunity for the American dream. Seniors expect us to honor the commitments we have made to them. If we act now, we will be addressing the debt ceiling more than 3 months before we reach it. Let me walk through those changes that are well known to policymakers and Congress and the administration. I will begin with Medicare. Medicare's trust fund has $27 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and it is expected to be insolvent by the year 2024. According to an Urban Institute study, an average income of a married family will contribute about $119,000 in payroll taxes to Medicare in today's dollars over their lifetime and consume about $357,000 in today's dollars in Medicare benefits. Obviously, this is unsustainable. Everybody in this room knows this. The pages in front of me know it. Medicare needs to be structured in a way to provide care for current and future beneficiaries in a fiscally responsible manner. This bill would structurally transform Medicare, keeping fee-for- service Medicare in place forever, while having it compete side-by-side with a reformed Medicare Advantage program called Medicare Total Health. Seniors would maintain the option of choosing fee-for-service Medicare or a private plan as they do today. I think most of us know that about 25 percent of the people in our country who are on Medicare are in a private plan today. The competition created by these reforms would significantly reduce Medicare costs by $290 billion--and this is very important--without a spending cap on the program. This proposal is similar to one backed by Alice Rivlin, former Budget Director for Bill Clinton. In addition, this bill would update cost-sharing requirements to reflect 21st-century health care practices, such as capping out-of- pocket expenditures for beneficiaries and unifying deductibles and coinsurance structures. This bill also would improve solvency by requiring higher income beneficiaries to pay more for their premiums. Finally, it would raise the eligibility age incrementally from 65 to 67 by the year 2027. Moving to Medicaid, the bill would provide increased flexibility for States to achieve Medicaid savings by establishing a waiver process for States to better manage their Medicaid programs. It also would eliminate a massive ``bed tax'' gimmick used to bilk Federal taxpayers out of $50 billion over a 10- year period. Next, let me walk through Social Security changes. Although some have suggested we should ignore the impending crisis in Social Security funding, we should address it now because it is already beginning to cause the Federal Government to spend more than it takes in, and the Social Security trust fund is projected to be exhausted in the year 2033. It also will be much more painful to make these adjustments to achieve solvency in Social Security if we procrastinate. In order to return the program to long-term solvency, the bill would enhance the progressivity of benefit calculations. In addition, it would adopt chained CPI in measuring inflation to calculate annual cost-of-living adjustments. Chained CPI is the Bureau of Labor Statistics most modern and most accurate measure of inflation. By the way, the bill would apply chained CPI government-wide, which would also affect revenues, and it would reflect revenues in a positive way as it relates to our budget deficits. It would slowly raise the retirement age to better reflect longevity increases. Finally, the bill would strengthen the disability insurance program by moving beneficiaries into Social Security insurance at an earlier age. This part of Social Security will go bankrupt by the year 2017 if we do nothing. In conclusion, I am offering a bill that would implement structural entitlement reforms and, in exchange, it would raise the debt ceiling dollar for dollar. Dealing with this now would avoid facing a crisis next year when we hit that debt ceiling in February or March, which would rattle financial markets and generate tremendous uncertainty in our country and around the world. We need to get our fiscal problems behind us so that businesses, investors, and all of the American people can have confidence about the future. If we do that, the economy will truly take off. So if I could, if one of the pages could take this to the desk, I am introducing this bill. I hope Senator Reid will put in place a process through regular order for bills of this nature to be introduced and go through the appropriate committees. I hope when we deal with the debt ceiling in this coming year, we do so on a dollar-for-dollar basis, just as has been recently established this last year--the precedent has been set--that during this fiscal dilemma we are dealing with, when we raise the debt ceiling, we actually lower spending by a dollar. Up until this point, almost all the things we have talked about have been through discretionary spending. Thus far, we really haven't addressed entitlement reforms. Again, let me reiterate that I hope the President and Speaker Boehner come to some accommodation over the next couple of weeks that actually deals with some maybe $4 trillion in size that would actually put this in the rearview mirror. But as the conversations continue, and not much substance is coming forward, that is looking doubtful. So I hope as we end this year and move into next year we will begin to put in place an open process whereas we move toward the debt ceiling and use the same precedent we have already used this last year, so that when we raise the debt ceiling by a dollar, we will reduce spending by a dollar. We have all said we need revenues and we need entitlement reform. What I have done today is to lay out a way--and I know other Senators will have ideas, and I hope they will bring them to the floor--for us to raise the debt ceiling by around $1 trillion and in return have entitlement reform on a dollar-for-dollar basis, saving and reforming these programs, so that seniors in the future certainly will have the opportunity to continue these programs they depend upon so much, and the young people who are coming behind us will have the certainty that we, as mature adults, I hope, have dealt with these issues in an appropriate way.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. So I thank the chair. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I notice the Chamber is empty today, and I guess most of us are waiting to see if there is going to be an arrangement made between the President and Speaker Boehner on our fiscal cliff that is coming up in just a few weeks. I know all of us want to see that happen. I think each of us knows the very best thing that can happen for the economy in New York or Tennessee or any other place is for us to get this behind us and for businesses to begin this next year knowing that Congress and the White House have worked out an arrangement to put this fiscal issue in the rearview mirror. I know we are moving, hopefully--what we would like to do is move not just beyond the fiscal cliff but have a fiscal reform bill in place that is in the $4, $4.5 trillion range so we can at least for a period of time put this issue in the rearview mirror. So, Madam President, I want to tell you that I am hopeful that is going to occur. I know there have been a lot of discussions in our caucus, in the Acting President pro tempore's caucus about that happening. On the other hand, it is my understanding that these negotiations really are not moving along very rapidly. We only have a few weeks left in this year, and it is beginning to look as though, at a minimum, if there is an arrangement made, it is not going to be one of the size that all of us would like to see happen. I know one of the issues all of us have talked about is the middle- income citizens in our country. I know at some point both Chambers will come to the rescue of 98 percent of the people in our country and pass some resolution dealing with the tax issues for 98 percent of our people. I would say, the sooner we do that, the better. Actually, that alone would move us beyond this fiscal cliff at year end. Again, I know there are a lot of discussions taking place in both Chambers about the best way for that to happen. But what I guess I am leading to is that it looks as though, based on where the negotiations are right now, this issue is going to move into next year and that we are still not going to be at the dollar amount I know the Acting President pro tempore has talked about and I have talked about and that we are still going to have this issue to deal with. As a matter of fact, what it looks like may well happen is that all we do this year is, hopefully, move beyond the fiscal cliff. I know over in the House there are discussions about, when do you do this? Do you do it on January the 3rd or do you do that in this calendar year? I would argue the very best way for us to deal with this would be to deal with it prior to year end and go ahead and take our responsibility seriously, make sure we rescue the 98 percent of the people in our country before year end so they go into the new year knowing that has been dealt with, and then there are other ways we can deal with the other 2 percent. I know in New York, for instance, $250,000 a year is not considered to be extremely wealthy. So it may be that we deal with the other machinations other than what has been laid out in public by the President. But I think we are going to deal with this issue. I wish to come to the debt ceiling. Everyone in this country knows what damage was done to our country when we pressed right up against the debt ceiling two Augusts ago. I do not want to see that happen again. I do think the arrangement that has been created between the White House and Congress during this fiscal dilemma, where we raised the debt ceiling by $1 for every $1 in cuts that are made--I think that is an appropriate arrangement for us until we get through this fiscal issue. Again, what I would rather see happen is that we just deal with that all right now, and we start off next year with people knowing that is done. Since it looks like every day that goes by, it looks like it is increasingly unlikely that is going to happen, I wanted to offer a proposal for the leadership of the Senate; that is, since it looks like the debt ceiling could be coming up early next year--as a matter of fact, it may coincide very closely with the continuing resolution. There are two, if you will, moments in time where we have to make big decisions for our country. I would offer that we go ahead and begin the process of the debt ceiling. I would make the proposal that the first roughly $1 trillion-- $900 billion to $1 trillion in raises in the debt ceiling are accompanied by $900 billion to $1 trillion in cuts in entitlement spending to actually cause those programs to be solvent. I think all of us want to make sure seniors in this country are protected. We know we have to make some adjustments to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, which deal with the poor, to make sure these programs over time are solvent, are not a huge drain on the States that support them in the case of Medicaid. What I am saying is why do we not go ahead and get started. I know most of us did not particularly like the process last time, where basically these discussions took place in private and at the last moment we understood what the deal was. Then, after that, if you remember, we had a process, a supercommittee that was put in place, six Republicans, six Democrats, highly qualified folks. But they did not come to a resolution so we have ended up with sequestration. What I would propose is instead of doing things in private such, let's go ahead and address the issue now in regular order. What I would like to propose to the leadership of the Senate and offer to the House also is that since we know the debt ceiling is coming up and since none of us--none of us wants to jeopardize the credit rating of this country, I would propose we finish our work at least 1 month in advance of the debt ceiling needing to be raised. That way everyone in the world knows we have solved this problem. I would also propose we do it through regular order in the committee process so people can see how we are moving along. Are we making progress? Are we doing the things that are necessary to be able to raise the debt ceiling during this period of time when we have so many fiscal issues? My third suggestion is that 100 percent of the first raise all be oriented toward entitlements. We all are taught to lead by example. My daddy used to tell me: Son, never ask someone to do something you would not do yourself. What I plan to do over the next couple days is to offer a piece of legislation that would cut and reform Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid by $900 billion to $1 trillion. I hope to do that over the next couple days, offer that as one suggestion as to how we raise the debt ceiling by $900 billion to $1 trillion. I know that again is going to be coming up in February or March. I know we are going to have the issue of the CR coming up. But if the President and Speaker Boehner are unable to come to an arrangement, I do not think there is any question that people around here are going to become very focused on the debt ceiling and certainly the continuing resolution. What I would say is let's get busy. Let's not wait until the last minute. Let's not have closed-door meetings. Let's work this through the committee process. Then, when the Senate passes their bill and the House passes their bill, let's have a conference and let's deal with the legislation that is necessary to make sure we continue the precedent that, by the way, the President set this last time with Congress; that is, for every $1 we raise the debt ceiling, we reduce spending by $1. We know this precedent is not going to continue forever. But I think that where we are in the country, we know we have tremendous fiscal issues. We have $16 trillion of debt right now, and it is rising. I know all of us know that is the No. 1 threat to our Nation. In fact, every developed country in the world knows the greatest threat to America and, candidly, to the world right now is our solvency. Economists on both sides of the aisle have said the greatest threat to our country is solvency. Let's face it. We are probably going to deal with the revenue at year end. We all know that. We can kid around, we can put our heads in the sand, but we know we are going to be dealing with a portion of the revenue issue at year end. At some point we have to rescue the 98 percent. What I would say to my friends in the House is that, candidly, if we are able to rescue the 98 percent and then we dealt with the other 2 percent either with rates or by tax deductions--I am open to both, and we even protect the small businesses as so many people on both sides of the aisle have suggested--I would say to my friends in the House that the revenue figure that would accompany these changes is much smaller, candidly, than maybe the first offer that was made from the House to the President. This is actually a better way for those of us who believe spending is the issue. There is a better way to cause revenue to be at the appropriate mix level, if you will, in solving our fiscal issues. We have had a lot of talk about entitlement reform. Let me stop for a minute before I go there. People all over the world know this is the No. 1 threat to our country. Economists on both sides of the aisle know it is the No. 1 threat to our country. I think for that reason, what we have been doing is saying we are not going to voice vote debt ceilings any more. I know we have a lot of people on Wall Street and other places who talk about how the credit rating of our country is so important. Believe me, I know that well. I could not agree more. So the last thing we need to do again is to get in a situation where we wait until the last minute and the whole world is wondering whether we are going to default on our debt and people are all shaken up about where America is. I would say, since we know that if the President and the Speaker do not agree to a large deal, since we know the debt ceiling is likely to be the next event, if you will, the next forcing event that causes us to come to terms with the solvency of this Nation--the way I know the White House has said certain things about the debt ceiling, what we may want to do is make sure the CR and the debt ceiling stay tied together and working along together at the same time so we have both those forcing moments happening together. But in order to make sure we do not threaten the credit of this great Nation, let's go ahead and work now. As a matter of fact, what I am going to do in the next couple days is I am going to offer a bill to raise the debt ceiling of our Nation. Think about that. A Republican, I am going to offer a bill to raise the debt ceiling of our Nation. I am going to offer a bill that is going to raise the debt ceiling by $900 billion to $1 trillion. I am going to offer that bill in December. The debt ceiling is probably not coming until maybe February or March. In order to raise that debt ceiling by that amount, it is going to be accompanied by entitlement changes in equal amounts. It is the same precedent the President and the Speaker agreed to last year and this body agreed to. I think we are going to follow that formula likely into this next year, unless there is a large deal announced soon. What I would say to other Members in the House: Look, I am just one Senator. I am just one Senator. There are other Senators here who certainly have as good or better ideas. So why do we not start the process of formally offering on the floor entitlement reforms. I would suggest that is the place we start. I mean, what we have done around here is we have done discretionary cuts. We created sequestration. At the end of this year, in some form or fashion, whether we embarrass ourselves and wait and go over the cliff in the next year or before this year ends, we are going to offer revenues. I do not know how anybody can believe revenues are not coming. What I would say to everyone here: Let's move to entitlement reform. That is the only thing, candidly, that has not been talked about in this debate. No one--no one--has offered publicly concrete entitlement reform in legislative language in the Senate. Nobody has done that in the House. That is what has been missing in this debate. In order to kick off this debate in what I consider to be an appropriate way, I am going to offer a debt ceiling increase bill. I am going to offer it in the next 24 to 48 hours. I may offer it today. It is going to have dollar-for-dollar entitlement reforms. That will save this Nation from catastrophe and make sure seniors have these benefits down the road. What I would ask the leaders to do is to consider putting in place a process through regular order to consider these bills, to deal with the debt ceiling so we can do it way in advance and everybody can see the process and see the debate and watch our Nation function in an appropriate way so we get this done well in advance of the Treasury Secretary telling us the debt ceiling needs to be raised. Let me close by saying, the best thing that can happen to this Nation, even though it is odd, I have to tell you it is odd, is we turn on the television at night or we read the paper in the morning, we see where the President called Speaker Boehner or maybe Speaker Boehner called the President, and there is drama. None of us knows what is said. I have a pretty good idea. But our Nation is sitting here while this silly debate--here is the Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world. What are we doing? We are hearing about the discussions on the telephone. By the way, if that solves the problem, I am all for it. I am all for a solution that comes that way. Candidly, I hope it is a big solution. I hope it is a $4\1/2\-trillion solution that they come to. But I am doubtful that is going to happen based on where we are today on December 12. So I am going to offer a debt ceiling bill to move us on. It will move us toward fiscal solvency. It will keep us from jeopardizing the credit of this Nation. We can move those things through regular order. I ask the leadership of the Senate, Majority Leader Reid, to hopefully set up a process soon. Because, candidly, we are probably going to need to drop debt ceiling bills soon, probably January 3, to make the dates that are necessary to actually raise our debt ceiling and not have the credit implications we had last August. I have been a little bit despondent about this process because it just feels as though things are not moving ahead in a way that we are going to be able to put this in the rearview mirror and start this year--this next year with tremendous economic growth because people know we have solved this problem. I have been despondent about that. But I woke this morning with almost a eureka moment thinking that, you know what, if they are not going to deal with this issue, we know we have to deal with the debt ceiling, we know we have to deal with the CR, there is great opportunity for all of us to put out entitlement reforms on the floor, for all of us to debate in committee and to pass legislation so, dollar for dollar, we can raise the debt ceiling way in advance of any time to cause any kind of credit problems for our country. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the bill before the Senate, a 2-year extension of the TAG Program. As everyone knows, this will be the second 2-year extension of a program that was put in place as an emergency measure taken during the height of the financial crisis. It was also meant to end once the crisis passed. I have exceptionally high regard for community bankers in Tennessee, as I know you do for those in Pennsylvania. They have had to deal with the financial crisis of 2008, a recession that had been left in its wake, and if that is not bad enough, since the passage of Dodd-Frank, they have had to deal with an onslaught of new regulations. Many of these regulations, no doubt, were ill-conceived. If we remember, a lot of those were put in place as aspirational goals. All of them have dramatically increased the compliance burden of being in a small banking institution. Yet none of them has been on the table to be fixed or improved by us in the Senate since 2010. Obviously, there are a lot of reasons for this, but from a standpoint of community bankers, there is no doubt this has been a shame. I am very hopeful that in the next Congress we will have a meaningful dialog about striking a better balance in terms of bank regulation, particularly as it relates to our community banks. Some of what we passed in Dodd-Frank makes a great deal of sense, but much of it does not, and it is for us to devote energy to fixing and improving the law where there are flaws. If we want to help community banks, this is where we should focus our energy, and I know there are a lot of bipartisan ideas around about how we can do that. I think all of us have heard from community bankers in our States about the onslaught of regulations they have, some of which was meant to deal with some of the bigger institutions. Again, that, to me, is where we can focus in a bipartisan way to give some relief to our community banks. Giving out limitless deposit insurance, though, I suppose some people have decided is a consolation prize, and I hate that. That is too bad. We should fix Dodd-Frank if we want to help our community banks. But the vote in front of us today is a TAG extension, so I wish to speak a little bit about that specifically. There are a series of policy reasons why it is time to end the TAG Program. I will go through a couple of them. First of all, the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund, or the DIF, is undercapitalized. This is a fund of reserves meant to protect taxpayers against an unexpected law stemming from bank failures. By law, the DIF is required to be at a 1.35-percent of total outstanding deposits. It is, however, only at .35 percent today. I do not see the wisdom in extending an insurance to $1.5 trillion in transaction deposits at a time when the Deposit Insurance Fund is already undercapitalized. Second, there is ample liquidity in our banking system as to support loan demand. In fact, the ratio of loans to deposits is at a historical low. Liquidity to make loans is not the problem; slow economic growth is the problem. Extending insurance to keep these deposits around then fixes a problem that simply does not exist. Third, the overwhelming majority of TAG deposits are actually with the largest banks. Some small banks have said they want an extension, but this is largely not a small bank product. Seventy-one percent of TAG deposits are in the largest banks. Sixty percent of TAG deposits are held by just the top five banks. I do not see the wisdom in leveraging the FDIC and the taxpayer to insure the deposits sitting in our country's largest financial institutions. Fourth, extension of the TAG Program raises serious moral hazard issues. It encourages large deposits in banks that may be troubled with no market discipline. Moral hazard is why, throughout the history of deposit insurance, it has always been limited. I think Washington has contributed quite enough to moral hazard problems over the last 5 years--several years--and I think it is time for us to stop. Finally, if we want to help community banks thrive and succeed, our focus should be on dialing back Washington's desire to micromanage our banking institutions. The regulatory pendulum of Washington trying to micromanage these institutions has absolutely gone too far and our focus should be on getting the pendulum back to a more reasonable place. Extending limitless FDIC insurance for these transaction deposits does not further that policy objective. In fact, it takes us in the other direction. Let me put it another way: How can we ever get DC out of the business of telling banks where and when to lend if we are having DC guarantee all their deposits? The answer is we cannot. I am offering a couple amendments that help insulate the taxpayer. Although, in reality, it is time to fully end this program. Even more important, it is time for us as members of the Banking Committee to take up the real challenges still facing our financial system. I wish to say one other thing. I know all of us are watching as the President and Speaker Boehner and others are looking at dealing with the fiscal issue; we call it the fiscal cliff. I think all of us know what we need to do to deal with the fiscal cliff. We need a true fiscal reform package that I hope would be in the range of $4 trillion to $4.5 trillion, so we can put this issue behind us and begin this next year with it in the rearview mirror and our economy taking off. Then we would show the world we have actually dealt with these issues, and people in our own country would have the confidence to invest in our country because they know we in Washington have been responsible in that way. One of the big discussions taking place right now is revenues. I think, at the end of the day, we are going to come to a conclusion very soon that it is probably time for us to go ahead and rescue the 98 percent of the country that have been caught up in all this. My sense is we are going to have some resolution to that in the very near future. What I have found--and one of the reasons we don't have a solution-- is that people on both sides of the aisle are focused on the revenue side, but so far there has been almost no discussion on the entitlement reform side. Candidly, I think it is uncomfortable for many in Congress and even at the White House, obviously, to deal with this issue. As a matter of fact, on this issue, what I would say--and I know there is a difference of opinion--here we have a country that every developed nation knows its greatest threat is fiscal solvency. Economists on both sides of the aisle have said the greatest threat to our country is us not dealing with the fiscal solvency and the $16 trillion debt we have, which is growing. Yet, in fairness, we have a President who so far has not been willing to lay out a plan to deal with this issue. While it pains me to bring this up--because I think we as elected officials and the White House should sit down and deal with this issue because we know it is the biggest issue our Nation faces--it appears to me it is very possible we may move through the end of this year only dealing with rescuing the 98 percent of the people who have been caught up in this debate. So there is a moment--I hate to use this word, but there is another moment coming--which probably will force us to deal with another issue in other ways; that is, the debt ceiling. While I don't think it is mature that we have to have a line in the sand to force us to sit down and deal with this issue, it is where we find ourselves in this Congress and in dealing with this White House; that is, needing a point of leverage to focus these discussions. I hope we will sit down and come up with a $4 trillion, $4.5 trillion package to put this behind us--one that has both revenues and entitlement reforms--a solution that again would put this in the rearview mirror. But where I see us going is it is possible that by the time year end comes, all we will have done is rescued the 98 percent of taxpayers who have been caught in this and then moving to the debt ceiling as the next line in the sand that will be a forcing moment to cause us to deal with this issue. I think that is where we are headed unless something happens. I hope something big happens that I can support. I will tell my colleagues this: I have been through this process. We all have. The 112th Congress knows more about this fiscal issue than any Congress in the history of man. We have been through two dry runs. We know what the cost of each change is. We know how much it saves Congress and saves our country if we deal with these issues. One thing I wish to say is I cannot support another process that leads us to another fiscal cliff. Again, I hope the President and Speaker Boehner will come up with a solution that puts this behind us. We all know what we need to do. What we have lacked around here is the political courage to sit down--both sides of the aisle have issues; I understand that, but we have lacked the political courage to sit down and deal with this issue. It appears to me, again, that where we may be headed is toward the end of this month rescuing the 98 percent, putting that issue over to the side, and then using the debt ceiling or the CR as that forcing moment to cause us to finally come to terms with this fiscal issue. I regret we are in a place in our country where we have to have these forcing moments, but that is where I believe we are headed. I can say to everybody in here, what I cannot abide by, one Senator--since we know what all the solutions are, we know the changes that need to be made, we can sit down and go through columns on either side, including revenues and changes, to get us in a place where we need to be, but we haven't done it, and I am afraid we are heading to a place where we are going to have to have another forcing moment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor and I note 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 strongly support the policy Senator Nelson has laid out. As a matter of fact, I have voted for it every single time he has brought it to the floor, and I thank him for pointing out this problem that exists. However, circumstances are different this time. We are all operating under the Budget Control Act. The Nation is watching as we try to deal with fiscal issues that are before us. The amounts that are in the Budget Control Act are counted as it relates to dealing with our deficit and, unfortunately, this is not offset over the next decade, and that violates the budget by $7 billion. For that reason, the pending measure, amendment No. 3073 to S. 3254, the National Defense Reauthorization Act, would cause the underlying legislation to exceed the authorizing committee's section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority for outlays. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the measure pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. I encourage all of us who want to solve this problem before the year ends to vote against it. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to thank the great Senator from South Carolina, the State where I was born. I do want to say the committee makes those decisions. I don't want anybody to be jumping the gun with the kind of statements made earlier about future situations. First of all, I wish to speak to the resolution brought forward on Iran. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for that and for the tremendous work he has done to bring so many of us on as cosponsors. I think it is a strong signal to Iran, but also to people in the neighborhood, about our beliefs. So I thank the Senator from South Carolina for that. I wish to speak mainly, though, about the Paul amendment. First of all, I wish to say to the Senator from Kentucky that I understand the sentiments that drive people to look at foreign aid the way a lot of people around this country are looking at it today. I wish to remind people that our total foreign aid budget is 1 percent of what we spend each year, but that doesn't mean we don't need to look at it in a very different way. We haven't done an authorization bill on foreign aid since I have been here. I have been here almost 6 years now. I know the Senator from South Carolina is the ranking member on Foreign Operations, and I know they spend a lot of time looking at things in an appropriate way. But there is no question that as a body we should be looking more closely at how we generate foreign aid to other countries, and I hope we are going to be doing that in this next Congress when, hopefully, we will begin to function in a much better way. I wish to say the purpose of foreign aid at the end of the day, in many cases, is to keep our men and women in uniform from having to be deployed in other places because of unrest that is against our national interests. So I would like to point that out. In this particular case, regarding Libya, Egypt and Pakistan, I would just like to point out three things: No. 1, the people of Libya are very thankful for our intervention. However, people have come in and created a travesty in Benghazi around our consulate, and these are people who are trying to undermine what we are doing there. So the way the Paul amendment is drafted, if terrorists in any country we are aiding happen to do something at one of our embassies or consulates, then we withdraw aid. So what that means is that basically, terrorists--people such as al-Qaida, the Taliban, and other groups--are deciding what we are going to do as it relates to foreign aid. That would be a real big step for the Senate to say that in the future, everything we do relating to foreign aid will be determined by terrorists. I don't think that is what we want to do as a body. So let me set Libya aside and say this was obviously something that wasn't a popular movement. It was done by premeditated terrorists. It was terrible. We all loved Chris Stevens, and we thank him for the work he has done for our Nation. But this is not the way for us to react to a country that is trying to evolve into, hopefully, a functioning democracy and, hopefully, a country that in some way down the road will create even more stability in that part of the world. Let's move to Egypt. I was just in Egypt and sat down with the military leaders. One of the things we continue to talk about is the Camp David Accords. The aid we send to Egypt is to reinforce, in many ways, the Camp David Accords. That is very important to Israel, which is one of our major allies, one of the biggest allies we have in the world. So I don't know why we would decide to cut off all aid, which would totally undermine the Camp David Accords, which would totally undermine the security of a country that is one of our biggest allies. Now, do we need to take into account the response in Egypt to what happened at our embassy? I think we should, and I think it should affect the negotiations we have with them regarding our foreign aid. I mean, let's face it. We have had decades of relationships with their military, and even though there have been a lot of changes in the country, the military is still there and, candidly, they did respond exactly the way we would like for them to respond. They are a great ally. The President was a little hesitant to respond. I understand the fine line he is walking. He had just been elected. I understand the country hasn't been through this process, and I understand he didn't respond exactly the way we would expect him to respond. He, since that time, has, but I still think it should affect our negotiations and we ought to go slowly. It is my understanding that the Senator from South Carolina, working with his counterpart, has taken those things into account as it relates to this next year, and I thank them for that. So in Egypt, it looks to me as if we are slowing this down a little bit. We are making sure the relationship we have with Egypt is appropriate under the circumstances, and I thank the Senator for helping to make that happen. But withdrawing all aid would basically totally undermine the Camp David Accords, which most of us in this body believe to be something that is very important. So let me move to Pakistan. Pakistan is a place where probably most of us are most disappointed. We understand the relationship the intelligence agencies in Pakistan have with the Haqqani network, and that has been disappointing. We understand the trouble we have had trying to close down some of the ammonium nitrate plants that are there and that are actually helping to create some of the IEDs that are used to dismember and harm and kill our men and women in uniform in Afghanistan. So we are disappointed about a lot of things in Pakistan. Obviously, one of the most disappointing things--or maybe one of the things that is most difficult for us to understand--is the treatment of this physician who aided us with Osama bin Laden. Yet there is a legal process that is underway there, and I think we sometimes forget that, and there is a court of law there and, hopefully, that will have an outcome that ends up showing that it has been handled in a judicious way. Let me just speak to Pakistan. We are getting ready to leave Afghanistan. We are going to have all of our troops out of Afghanistan, or a big part of our troops out of Afghanistan, by 2014. I met yesterday with General Dempsey. He was telling me that in order to meet that timeline, we have to move a truckload of equipment out of Afghanistan every 7 minutes between now and the end of 2014--every 7 minutes. Well, what is the major route we use to move our equipment out of Afghanistan? Pakistan. Now, if we want to cut our nose off to spite our face, I would say let's close off that route, let's create enmity between us, more enmity than already exists. I think most of us realize we have a very transactional-oriented relationship with Pakistan. It is not quite the way those of us in America would like to see it be, but the fact is there are some valuable things there that have a lot to do, by the way, with the safety of our men and women in uniform. If we have to take another route out in getting all of this equipment and material out of there, we are probably going to take a route that doesn't work quite as well for our men and women in uniform. So, again, I understand the sentiment. Our phone is ringing off the hook with people who share the same sentiment. I understand it. When we see on television people rising up in these nations against us--by the way, these countries are not monolithic. It is not unlike here. We have groups, such as Occupy Wall Street, that are able to express themselves, but they don't represent my viewpoint. These countries are in some ways like ours. I mean, they have people who protest and do things. That doesn't mean the whole country feels that way. These are countries that have had strong men leading their countries in some places and aren't used to understanding what it means to be able to express themselves, and they don't understand how to operate in a society that is more open than it has been in the past. So that certainly doesn't quell my strong feelings about what has happened in Benghazi, nor does it for anyone else here, I am sure. But the fact is we need to look at foreign aid in a different way. I think we have taken some steps to do that. We need to continue to improve. We need to make sure there is accountability. What I do know is the Paul amendment is not the way to do it. Again, I appreciate the energy the Senator has brought to this body and the many good points he brings forth. But I know this: We do not want an amendment to pass that says if terrorists attack an embassy or consulate anyplace around the world, aid is taken from that country. I do not want a terrorist determining what our relationship is going to be with that country, and I think all of us know that our withdrawal from the Middle East will leave us in a world that is vastly unsafe for our citizens and for people around the world. While I know our engagement needs to continue and evolve, I know this amendment is not the way to make that happen. I strongly oppose it, and I will vote against it if we ever get a vote on this amendment. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, this year we will spend over $3.5 trillion, 60 percent of which is taxpayer money, 40 percent is borrowed. Over the next 10 years we will spend $45 trillion. We have not had a budget in this body for 1,240 days. Not only is this dysfunctional--and America looks at us as a dysfunctional body--it is an embarrassment. The fact is that we are one fiscal reform package away from being able to focus on being a great nation again. Yet many around the world look at us as a nation in decline, which affects everything from people hiring and producing jobs in this country to the activities we see overseas as they relate to our foreign relations. What we need in this Nation is new leadership in November that has the courage and the will to address the most major issue this Nation faces, which is fiscal reform. With that, we will put this malaise in the rearview mirror and again be able to focus on being a great nation.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, this is a great Nation. I was interested to hear the comments of our two leaders today, and I am saddened, as are all of us here, regarding the news of Ambassador Stevens and three other hard-working public servants who represent us. We are a great Nation. This is a great Nation. People such as those individuals demonstrate the exceptionalism of Americans all around the world. That is why it saddens me to come to the floor today, on the eve of hearing about whether the Federal Reserve, which will decide tomorrow, is going to print more money. Our markets are volatile each day, trying to figure out and read the minds of what our central bankers are going to do. Two days ago I spoke with one of our leading administration officials--someone whom I respect greatly--who had just attended a meeting in the Asian area where Christine Legarde was speaking to a small group of folks. She is the head of the International Monetary Fund. She stated that the real difference in how the world is going to evolve over the next short term and how the economies of the world are going to react is based upon whether people in Europe and people in the United States of America are going to rise up and deal with the problems they have internally. I look at what is happening on both sides of the Atlantic, with central bankers printing money to buy debt of great nations--nations that have evolved, that are sophisticated, that are democracies. They pave the way for other cultures to evolve and develop economically themselves. Yet we wake up in a world where because politicians in Europe and politicians here in the United States of America have not risen to deal with the fiscal issues within their own countries, the central bankers are left in a situation where they are printing money and buying debt in order to move a crisis further away from the day we now live in. I know the majority leader talked about negotiations that are taking place regarding sequester and I know everybody in this body has been involved in some meeting of some kind to deal with the fiscal issues our Nation faces. I realize that over the next 60 days there is likely nothing that we as a body are going to do. I understand that. I don't think anyone in America expects that is going to happen over the next week and a half. We will figure out a way to move out of here and hopefully not do any damage to our country. What I hope will happen is when we come back after the election, during a lameduck session or shortly thereafter, all of us will get serious about dealing with our Nation's fiscal issues. The majority leader spoke to the economy. I want our economy to do well. I want citizens in Tennessee and New York and all across our country to do well. Yet what we have done over the course of the last year and a half or so is passed silly little bills that have nothing whatsoever to do with sustaining a long-term economy, and we find ourselves again waking up on the eve of finding out whether the Chairman of our Federal Reserve is going to print more money to buy our debt to make it less painful for us and cause us to be in a position where we put off making the tough decisions. I hope the Federal Reserve Chairman tomorrow is going to show the humility he needs to show, that monetary policy has its limits, and it is up to us now to do our job. So I am saddened today about the news of some wonderful public servants having lost their lives. I wake up every day with a tremendous sense of privilege to serve in this body and to represent people such as those who died, who are living in tough circumstances around the world, to make sure that all of us here are safe. I hope what will happen in this body is that Republicans and Democrats alike will honor the sacrifices, as we honored them yesterday and we today solemnly think about, that people make around this world on our behalf to keep us free and safe, and that we as a body, Republicans and Democrats, are going to rise and do the things we need to do to put in place a real fiscal reform package that will not rely upon the sugar of the Federal Reserve, but that we will do the things we need to do to create a sustained economy. I believe--and I think most people in this body know it when they think about it--we are one fiscal reform package away from being able to focus on being a great Nation--we are a great Nation--but to be able to focus on that. When we look at where we are as a country, with the tremendous energy resources that 2 years ago we didn't even realize we had in this continent; when we look at the technology breakthroughs that are happening in this great country; when we look at the pharmaceutical breakthroughs that are happening and saving lives around the world, we are one reform package away from putting this problem in our rearview mirror and focusing on the greatness of this Nation. So, again, I know we are not going to do anything over the next week and a half and we are not going to do anything over the next 60 days. But I hope Senators from all around this country and House Members from all around this country will come back after this election and have the courage that has been demonstrated so often by so many Americans to make the tough choices that are necessary to put our fiscal woes behind us, to cause this economy to grow, to allow the standard of living of Americans to rise and, candidly, to help lift hundreds of millions of people around this world out of poverty. That is what people are depending on. It is an embarrassment to find ourselves in this position where we are being diminished around the world, because people are looking at us--the great example to the world of free enterprise and limited government and democracy--and knowing that we don't have that courage today. So I am hopeful we are going to come back and deal with these issues, we are going to do it in a bipartisan way, and then as a Nation we can continue to focus on our greatness and we can help not only uplift our own citizens through economic growth but help continue to be a beacon to the world. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to second what the great Senator from Tennessee Lamar Alexander said. I want to speak for a moment about the same nomination, with the same amount of energy, and the fact that I am very excited about this person being nominated. When the White House began looking for someone to fill this position, I talked to numbers of people down in Shelby County about Judge Fowlkes, and people whom I respected, people who have been involved in the community for years. I can tell you, from every single person I talked to, they talked not only about his record but also the kind of person he was. He has served in many positions. He has been a public defender, a district attorney, a U.S. Attorney, he was the chief administrative officer for the largest and most populous county in the State of Tennessee. Now he serves as a criminal court judge. At every stop, he has excelled and earned a reputation for professionalism and integrity. I think his experience certainly makes him very well-prepared for this position and the responsibilities he will carry out. I am glad to join with Senator Alexander, Senator Leahy, and others. I hope we have an overwhelming vote today for this nominee, who I believe will be an outstanding Federal judge. I ask all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this person, who, again, I think will be exemplary on the bench, as he has been throughout his entire life.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section----

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois. I am going to speak for about 2\1/2\ to 3 minutes if that is okay.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friends from New Hampshire and Arizona and South Carolina regarding the sequestration. I will say the reason we are in this sequestration mode is that six Republicans and six Democrats could not figure out a way, over a 10-year period, to cut $1.2 trillion in spending out of $45 trillion that is going to be spent by the Federal Government during that period of time. So I do hope there is a way to resolve that. But I am here to speak about something related, but in some ways very different. Today we are getting ready to vote on some legislation dealing with flood insurance, dealing with student lending, dealing with highways. And these are all very popular programs. What people who are listening, who may be paying attention to what the Senate is doing today, what they may not know is that for the third time, in a bipartisan way, this body is getting ready to spend more money than was deemed by the budget that was ultimately created by the Budget Control Act last year when the country almost shut down trying to save a mere $900 billion over the next 10 years. So a vote today for this piece of legislation is basically a vote to say the Senate cannot be entrusted to carry out what it laid out last August to keep us from spending money we do not have. I know there are going to be some budget points of order that will be brought forth at some point later today. I want to say as one Senator from Tennessee, it continues to be unbelievable to me that this body does not have the courage, does not have the will, does not have the discipline to even live within a very modest budget that was laid out last August. Today I am certain we are going to pass legislation that spends billions of dollars more than we agreed to in the Budget Control Act and especially the deemed budget that came after that, the deemed budget that was put in place as a result of what we passed last August. I would say all those who vote for this today are basically saying we do not have the discipline to live within our means. The problems our Nation faces fiscally are only going to get worse. I think this is a very sad day for our country if that, in fact, is what happens within the next 2 or 3 hours on the Senate floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, the pending measure, the conference report to accompany H.R. 4348, would exceed the aggregate level of budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 2012, as set out in the most recent budget resolution deemed by the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if I could have everybody's attention, according to CBO, this is paid for the old way, where we spend all the money in a year or two and then it is paid for over 10. This body came together last August in a bipartisan way to put in place the Budget Control Act, and this bill violates the deemed budget by $2.5 billion. This will be the third time we violate the Budget Control Act deemed budget. For all of those people who are meeting in the evenings, meeting in groups in rooms trying to solve our Nation's fiscal issues, a vote to waive this motion says we don't have the discipline, the courage, or the will to do what we told the American people we would do to try to get our fiscal house in order. I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to waive right now. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CORKER. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 311(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I rise to thank both the majority and minority leaders of the bill for their great effort. I am pleased to speak about a provision in the FDA Safety Innovation Act that addresses a growing public threat in Tennessee and Connecticut and across the Nation. Several months ago, Senator Blumenthal and I introduced the GAIN Act, which is a bipartisan provision that provides a meaningful market incentive and reduces regulatory burdens to encourage development of new antibiotics that will help save lives and reduce health care costs. Drug-resistant bacteria, or ``superbugs'' as we call them, are becoming harder to treat because we lack new antibiotics capable of combating these infections. Not only do these infections take a toll on patients and their families, but they also run up health care spending to the tune of $35 billion to $45 billion annually. It is crucial that these new antibiotics are discovered in order to stay ahead of the growing trend of drug resistance. Drug discoveries do not happen overnight, so we must act now to ensure that we have lifesaving medications when we need them. The GAIN Act is a straightforward, commonsense bill that provides market incentives to encourage innovation without putting Federal dollars at stake, and it is included in this FDA reauthorization. Antibiotic resistance is a growing issue that we need to address now to properly prepare for the future. Dr. William Evans, director and CEO of St. Jude's Hospital in Tennessee, wrote a letter supporting this bill, which says: We don't want to find ourselves in a situation in which we have been able to save a child's life after a cancer diagnosis only to lose them to an untreatable multi-drug resistant infection. I thank Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut for his leadership on this bill. I especially thank Senators Harkin and Enzi for working with us the way they have to include this provision in the FDA Safety and Innovation Act. I think I have stayed within my time limit. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. On the bill.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I understand I have 3 or 4 minutes to speak about the GAIN Act.

Mr. CORKER. Three minutes.

Mr. CORKER. About 3 or 4 minutes.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.