Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. First of all, we have two things on the floor that are being discussed right now, and I know this is confusing probably to the people in Tehran, but the fact is I agree that Senator Menendez and Senator Kirk have done a great job. I am on the Banking Committee, and we voted this out unanimously. I do hope, with this managers' package being added, that we can work out the details here. My sense, by the way, is that we will do that. My sense is we will do that by the end of the day. So on the sanctions bill, I hope it goes forward. Now I wish to move to something called a resolution. As we saw a minute ago, Senator Reid talked about something not having the force of law. We are not talking about the sanctions bill. It has the force of law and, hopefully, will become law soon. What doesn't have the force of law is S. Res. 380, and I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy, if I may, Mr. President, with the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. CORKER. Sometimes what happens around here, Mr. President--and it happened in Libya, when we passed a resolution at 9 o'clock one night by unanimous consent and somebody over at the State Department decided that was an authorization for force. That was not the intent of that resolution. Again, we are talking now about the resolution, not about the sanctions bill. I wish to engage in a colloquy with the cosponsors of S. Res. 380, because there is a clause 6 in here that says: . . . strongly supports United States policy to prevent the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. There are some wise people over at the State Department who could use that statement as a declaration of war, and I think they acknowledge that. But I don't think the authors of this resolution want that to be the case. So I wish to clarify that in the resolution--not in the sanctions bill--none of the language included in S. Res. 380 may be interpreted as congressional support for military operations in Iran. I hope that should the administration decide kinetic activities are the only avenue available--we all hope that doesn't happen, but believe it can--that if kinetic activities are the only option available to achieve our policy objectives, they will come to Congress for authorization. This is not intended as an authorization of war. I think these two cosponsors of the resolution agree, and if the President does want to go to war with Iran, it is his responsibility to come to Congress. Is that the agreement, I ask my colleagues?

Mr. CORKER. To sort of end this colloquy--and I know Senator McCain and Senator Menendez wish to speak--I fully support every comment that has been made by the Senators from Connecticut and South Carolina. I am not associating myself with the comments of the Senator from Kentucky, which the Senator from South Carolina alluded to. I would love for the Senator from South Carolina to insert that language into it, regarding the fact this is not an authorization for the use of force. But I want to say that is not because I don't support exactly the sentiments being laid out here. I do. I just want us to continue. I want the Senate to be a part of any action that might take place. Hopefully it won't. But if we end up with kinetic activity, I want us involved in that so as a Nation we go forward--if that occurs--in a unified way. What I don't want is for us to end up where we have in the past, having partisan disputes. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wanted to speak for a moment today about the vote we are going to have this afternoon on the Federal Reserve Board members who have been nominated. I have met both of these individuals, and I plan to vote for them today at noon. But I want tell you why I am going to do that. I am very concerned about the overly accommodative efforts that are taking place right now at the Federal Reserve. I think these low interest rates over long periods of time will create inflation in our country. I believe the Fed has been proactive in recent times in ways that make me nervous. As soon as QE2 was announced, I immediately called the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and we had a meeting in our office to talk about the concerns he had and the concerns we in our office have. I would love to see the Federal Reserve have a single mandate like the European Central Bank has and the Bank of England has, where their sole purpose is really price stability. I would also love to see Congress act responsibly and deal with many fiscal and other kinds of issues that are holding down our economy. I think sometimes the Federal Reserve feels as though it is the only entity that is actually acting to try to stimulate our economy. I understand the position they are in, having a dual mandate, which I think is inappropriate and hopefully over time will change. These two nominees, candidly, do not represent the kind of a more hawkish position I would like to see the Federal Reserve take where they are concerned about price stability over the long haul. At the same time, both of these gentlemen are qualified. I don't think there is any question that someone would say that these two individuals are qualified. We do have Fed Presidents from around the country who typically, as far as monetary policy on the Federal Reserve Board, do act in more hawkish ways and probably more represent the way that I would view things as they ought to be in some of the accommodations the Federal Reserve has continued to make. I hope we do not get into a situation where we end up having--you can actually call it QE4. Some people might call it QE3. I hope that does not happen and that we will continue to press the Federal Reserve towards that end in any way we can. I also know that there is going to be an election in November and that whoever the next President is--obviously, as you would expect, I hope there is a change in occupancy at the White House this November, someone who will actually try to solve the problems our Nation has. But whoever the next President is, they will have the opportunity to appoint the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve very soon and also the next Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve. So I guess what I would say in closing is that I am going to support these nominees because they are qualified. I do hope they will press the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to be more concerned about price stability, especially into the future. But I do not want to vote no today because I think it sets a precedent of saying that, look, these guys are qualified--I do not think there is any question about that. And I want the next President--who I hope, again, is someone different than we have today--to have the opportunity with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--if a change is to occur and if the President has the opportunity to appoint a new Federal Reserve Chairman and a new Vice Chairman and he deems them qualified and this body deems them qualified, I hope we are going to have the opportunity to fill those positions. So, again, I plan to vote for these nominees in an effort to continue to cause this place to focus in the way I think it should. They are not ideal, from my perspective, but they are qualified. I might remind friends on my side of the aisle that we did have someone who was nominated several months ago who was not in the mainstream. This person was not in the mainstream of thinking, and this person did not become a member of the Federal Reserve Board. So we have ended up having two nominees who are more middle of the road. They are not as hawkish as I would like to see them be. They are not as focused--they possibly will not be as focused on price stability as I would like to see them be. But they are qualified. They are not out of the mainstream. And I do plan to support them. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I will be very brief. Again, this amendment is very simple and it does two things I would think the Senator from Washington especially would support, after all we have gone through, and especially after her alluding to some of the most recent developments in the financial system. I hope this amendment will receive broad support in this body. The Ex-Im Bank is set up to finance transactions that cannot be financed in the private sector. That is the purpose for its existence. So, No. 1, what this amendment will do is to cause the Ex-Im Bank to certify there is no private sector financing--or at least no private sector financing at a reasonable cost--before any loan goes through the Ex-Im Bank. The second piece I think is very important. The way the Ex-Im Bank is set up right now, there are no capital requirements. The Senator from Washington was just talking about something that happened at JPMorgan. Fortunately, we have put in place since the financial crisis very strong capital requirements at our financial institutions, and what that has done is to make them healthy and to cause them to be able to withstand things that may happen as relates to default rates or other failures. The Ex-Im Bank, believe it or not, is set up to finance things that no other bank will finance, and yet it has no capital requirements other than having to maintain $1 billion. So they are able to loan, per this new legislation, $140 billion but they only have to have $1 billion in capital reserves, which means you are creating with this mechanism 140-to-1 leverage ratios. What we have gone through with our entire financial system is a process to make sure we have adequate capital. What our amendment does is to require that the Ex-Im Bank adhere to the normal sound financial practices we want our financial institutions across our country to adhere to by establishing a 10-percent capital base. Again, I think this is a very goodgovernment amendment. We don't want to see the same happen with Ex-Im Bank that we have seen happen with Fannie, with Freddie, with so many of our institutions in this country that did not have proper capital reserves. I urge strong support for this amendment which will make the Ex-Im Bank something that ensures--or hopefully helps ensure--that our U.S. taxpayers are never in a situation where we have to come to the aid of this institution because it hasn't reserved properly, it doesn't have the proper capital standards in place, that I think people in this body on both sides of the aisle have overwhelmingly supported for the private sector. I would hate to see us be in a situation where we want to create something in government that risks taxpayers' money, when we have just gone through a process of understanding that it is very important for the financial institutions of our country to have appropriate capital standards. Here we are getting ready to pass legislation on this floor which, I am sorry, has almost no capital standards in place because you only have to have $1 billion--that is all--at the Ex-Im Bank, $1 billion against a $140 billion loan base. I think anybody here thinking about this understands those standards are not nearly appropriate, and I hope this amendment will receive overwhelming support. It is my sense that if we pass this, the House would easily pass this. Contrary to what the Senator from Washington was saying, I think this would make the legislation better and, my sense is, receive overwhelming support in the House if added to it. I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator from South Carolina for his tremendous courtesy.

Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator from South Carolina and certainly the Senator from Washington State. I want to say I put my credentials for supporting exports up against anybody here, and I think the purpose of our being in this body is to try to create good policies. I have an amendment I wish to call up. It is amendment No. 2102, which is at the desk.

Mr. CORKER. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, the most important thing this amendment does is establish capital in the Ex-Im Bank. Right now the way the Ex- Im Bank is set up, there is over $1 billion worth of capital against $140 billion in loans. That is a leverage ratio of 140 to 1. This body spent a tremendous amount of time in a bipartisan way to make sure the financial institutions of our country had proper capital ratios. This amendment establishes a 10-percent capital reserve for the Ex-Im Bank. By their definition these loans are more risky than the private sector would make, and that is why the sponsors are trying to extend the Ex-Im Bank. As a responsible body, the very least we can do is to cause them to have the appropriate capital reserved against the loans they are making which are more risky by definition than the private sector loans. I hope this will receive a strong bipartisan vote. My guess is the House will take this almost in unanimous consent.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I rise today to recognize Master Police Officer Lorin Johnston of the Chattanooga Police Department who was one of ten law enforcement officers honored at the White House on Saturday as a National Association of Police Organizations TOP COP. The TOP COPS awards pay tribute to law enforcement officers for actions above and beyond the call of duty. The National Association of Police Organizations states: Officer Lorin Johnston has lived one of a cop's worst nightmares. On a bright spring morning last April, Officer Johnston, along with three other officers, investigated a silent alarm at a pawn shop, indicating that an armed robbery was in progress. As soon as they arrived, they were spotted by the suspect, who engaged them in a frantic gun battle. During the gunfight, Johnston was struck by a bullet in the middle of the back, despite his vest. As the perp tried to flee out a side door, Sgt. Tim Chapin, Johnston's close personal friend, was waiting in his patrol car. The suspect took aim at the car, shooting straight through the windshield. Sgt. Chapin hit the gas and knocked the suspect down, causing him to drop the .45-caliber Glock he was carrying along with a loaded clip of ammunition. Assuming he had disarmed the robber, Sgt. Chapin jumped out of the car and gave chase. Then, without warning, the suspect pulled out a second gun, turned and fired. His bullet struck Chapin squarely in the face, killing him instantly. Just then Officer Johnston came on the scene as the cop-killer was running around the corner, where he was pursued, and ultimately taken down by two other brave officers. Johnston knelt protectively over his friend, shielding him until help arrived. Not until he received medical treatment did Officer Johnston realize he had taken a second bullet to the leg. Johnston's courage and loyalty, despite his own injuries, make him a living testament to the outstanding qualities found only in America's TOP COPS. Lorin Johnston's acts of selflessness and heroism in the line of duty exemplify the meaning of true public service. As a former mayor of Chattanooga, I am particularly proud and grateful for the bravery and dedication of officers like Lorin Johnston who enter into harm's way in order to keep us safe. As we honor Officer Johnston, we also remember Sergeant Tim Chapin, a 26-year veteran of the Chattanooga Police Department, for paying the ultimate sacrifice. I am proud to join my fellow Tennesseans in congratulating Officer Johnston on this well-deserved honor and in remembering law enforcement officers across the country who go above and beyond the call of duty to keep our communities safe.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I would say to the Senator from Wisconsin and everyone, that is an outstanding chart, and I like the one before it even better. But the fact is that it is so easily known, the illumination is so bright that we have a major fiscal issue in this country, and we are watching how that can play out and be so destructive to people's lives right now in Europe as they try to deal with these issues. Our Nation is so large and the economy is so big that there will not be anyone to come to our rescue such as we are seeing play out in some of these other countries. And for us to see what is happening and to know we are participating in this--we are participating in this because spending here in America is on auto pilot. We are going to spend $45 to $47 trillion of the American people's money over the next decade. We have not a single document in place to lay out how that is going to take place. I think it is incredibly irresponsible. It would be an embarrassment to me if I had some ability to run this place and to know that we had no budget and yet we know the calamity that is going to occur if we do not deal with this issue. We understand it full well, and we are doing nothing about it. Instead, we are dealing with all kinds of issues that are all about elections and whether one side can make the other side look bad and is this going to make a tough vote for somebody else, instead of dealing with our No. 1 responsibility. I am hoping that somehow at least 60 folks in this body will be willing to pass a budget to then create a conference between the House and Senate so we can take a major step toward living up to our financial obligations as a country. I thank the Senator so much for organizing this today. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, $529 billion, to be exact. The Senator from Wyoming has brought out over and over the unsustainable growth problem we have, meaning every year we come to this cliff with physicians--and he is a physician and used to practice on a daily basis--and instead of dealing with that issue over a decade, which would have cost about $300 billion, instead, we swept that issue under the rug and took the full $529 billion to help create this entitlement. I think most people in this body know there is no way this bill is going to work the way it is laid out; that the costs are going to be substantially more because in a free enterprise system, people act on their own behalf, in their own self-interest. The subsidies are so high for families up to $88,000 a year, the penalty is so low, what is going to happen is we are going to have millions and millions of people out on this program far beyond the projections that have been laid out. So anyway, because we are talking about Social Security and Medicare, all of us want it to be solvent. That is what we want to see. We want to make sure Medicare and Social Security are here for generations down the road. But we all know--the Medicare trustee has said so--it is going to be insolvent by the year 2024. One way to do deal with it is to put our heads in the sand and just let it happen in the years after we are gone, let it happen to the good citizens of this country. Another solution is to recognize: Hey, this is a big ship, and we need to turn it a little in another direction so these young people sitting in front of us don't have to carry the tab.

Mr. CORKER. I know the Senator from Texas spends a tremendous amount of time on appropriations issues and knows a great deal about this, and she knows more than me if we wiped out all discretionary spending-- which this year will be capped at $1.47 trillion--we still wouldn't wipe out the budget deficit. So the Senator is absolutely correct. We could do away with all defense spending, all educational spending, all research and development, and we could still not cause our budget not to have a deficit. Let me give a stat--and I talk about this a lot back home, and I am so glad the Senator has given me this opportunity. The average American worker earns $43,500 today. So in a two-wage- earner family, that is $87,000. Over their lifetime, in today's dollars, that family will pay into the Medicare Program $119,000, and that includes the part the employer pays on their behalf. So between what they pay in and the employer--and the Senator from Texas has been an employer before and knows about paying the Medicare taxes into the system--that combined amount of money for the average American family is $119,000 in today's dollars. That same family, if they retired, would take out of the system, over their lifetime, $357,000. Now think about that. That is in today's dollars. Again, $119,000 going into Medicare on their behalf and $357,000 coming out of Medicare. I think most people in this body--even people who haven't been in business--realize we cannot make that up with volume. Yet volume is on the way. There are 20 million more Americans over this next decade who are going to be part of that same formula--$119,000 in and $357,000 out. I have been quoting these stats every year, and the numbers get further and further apart every quarter.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's comments, and I see the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Wyoming here also. Look, I think the No. 1 responsibility we have in the U.S. Senate is to pass a budget and to lay out for the American people how we are going to spend the resources that come in. The last time we passed a budget was 1,111 days ago, and we spent over $10 trillion of the U.S. taxpayer money during that time. To be honest, I have quit voting for any spending bills--any spending bills--until we come to a point in time where we at least lay out for the American people how much of their money we are going to spend and what we are going to spend it on. Again, each year we have $3.5 trillion to $3.6 trillion being spent by the Federal Government with no plan. I am embarrassed for this body, candidly, that we have not even tried to take up a budget. I know that the committee itself began to take one up a few weeks ago, and the chairman was asked not to do it because it made no sense to do a budget at this time. Thankfully, the Parliamentarian ruled in this body that it was appropriate for us to take up a budget. Again, I cannot imagine a greater shirking of our responsibility than to not lay out to the American people exactly where their dollars are going. What worries me most is that this is the greatest transference of wealth from these pages--from their generation to my generation--that has existed in modern history in this country. There is a tremendous transference of wealth as we do not deal with the issues of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. What we are doing is actually piling up tremendous amounts of indebtedness so that the people of America will like us more as politicians, as we don't make difficult decisions and don't have to wrestle with the fiscal issues that we have as a Nation. This is the thing that is ailing Western democracies around the world. We are seeing this play out, obviously, in Europe right now, as citizens are rising up in protest over having to deal with the tough issues of the day. There has been this grand bargain in Western democracies--ours being one--where politicians have given citizens what they wish without asking them to pay for it. I think we all understand that this is up now. We have a dilemma in this Nation. We have a dilemma around the world right now because of our inability to deal with this issue. So in the process, what we are doing is basically transferring wealth from that generation to my generation. It is absolute generational theft. I think it speaks to the greatest vulnerability we have as a Nation. If you speak to all of our national security analysts or you speak to anybody in this body, we know our greatest threat is not what is happening in China, it is not what is happening in Iran, it is not what is happening in Syria, but the greatest threat to this Nation is us, ourselves. For some reason, this body has chosen to totally shirk our responsibilities as they relate to dealing with this issue. I know over the next couple of weeks we are going to have the opportunity to vote on some budget resolutions. I agree with the Senator from Wisconsin. I hope there will be at least some way this body can come together and present a budget for debate. If not, I know there will be alternatives put forward. Again, this is the greatest threat to our Nation; that is, our inability to show the kind of discipline we need to show as a Nation. Our country's greatness is dissipating as we continue to shovel this under the rug and not deal with it. I do hope the Senate at some point soon will rise and deal with the major responsibilities we have in this Nation, and that is putting our country on sound footing. I will close with this. I don't think there is anything we can do that would cause our economy to lift off more quickly than for people in this Nation and around the world to know that we actually have dealt with progrowth tax reform and entitlement reform, and passing longer term budgets and discretionary caps that would put this Nation on sound footing. I believe the economy would take off. I hope that is what we rise to do before the end of this year. I yield the floor for my colleague and great friend from Texas.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the student lending program that I understand we may be voting on a little bit later today. I want to first say, like my colleague, I have talked with a number of students in Tennessee and people who used to be students in college who have a tremendous amount of loan obligation they have to deal with. Our hearts go out to folks whose careers start with a large amount of debt, and we hear lots of stories about the size of this debt. So I want to start by saying that I certainly empathize with much of what is happening in the student lending program as it relates to the recipients on the one hand. On the other hand, as it relates to how we deal with this issue, which also relates to these young people--I mean, at the end of the day, these massive deficits we are piling up are also going to be an obligation to them in one form or another. I want to speak to that for one moment. First of all, I want to say that my friend from Tennessee, the senior Senator, has done as good a job as any of laying out what is driving tuition costs in the first place. The reason students are having to borrow so much money to go to college these days is due to what we have done in Washington. What I mean by that is if we look at the Medicaid Programs in West Virginia or Tennessee, what we have seen over the course of the last couple of decades is that Medicaid costs have been rising dramatically in our own States. Because State governments are forced to fund these huge Medicaid costs, they don't have the same resources available to fund public higher education. So what is happening is these State governments, which are compelled by us, by the way, to fund these Medicaid Programs--let me make a point. Most people realize that with the passage of the health care bill a couple of years ago, we are going to have upwards of 25 million more Americans across this country on Medicaid. That was the largest part of the health care expansion that took place. In my own State of Tennessee they have already projected over a 5- year period that it is going to cost them over $1 billion to fund what this Congress mandated as it relates to health care just a few years ago. That is $1 billion that is not going to be available for higher education. So when we campaign around the country and talk about wanting to deal with student lending, I think we ought to be looking at Congress because Congress is actually the one driving the exorbitant tuition rates in the first place by these mandates that we are placing on State governments. It is kind of appalling. As a matter of fact, in our own State, at a time when Medicaid costs rose 15 percent, in order to make our State's budget balance the State legislature invested 15 percent less in higher education. Again, what is happening is young people--such as the ones who are sitting in front of me--are having to pay exorbitant tuition costs because the States around our country are not able to invest in higher education. Therefore, it is being sloughed off on the backs of students as they enter college. Let's talk about the loan program itself. First of all, a loan program that charges 6.8 percent, which is what the program is getting ready to do, loans money to all comers--in other words, everybody who comes to get a loan--and there is no collateral in place. It is not like a home mortgage where there is collateral. There is no downpayment. As we know, these loans don't begin to be repaid until years down the road. The U.S. Government is not even breaking even at 6.8 percent. So this whole notion that this student lending program-- again, as part of the health care bill--was going to create $50 billion or $60 billion to fund a new health care entitlement was wrong in the first place. With the interest rate at 6.8 percent there is no way taxpayers are coming out even. It is not possible. As a matter of fact, CBO issued a report in March that said if they used fair accounting standards at the 6.8 percent level, the Federal Government was actually subsidizing student loans by 12 percent. So this whole notion of saying, well, the U.S. Government's borrowing costs is low, and therefore we ought to be making loans at 3.4 percent--by the way, I would love for us to be able to offer rates as low as we can to students. But the fact is we are already losing money at the 6.8-percent level. There is no way, with no money down, no collateral, payments being made down the road, taking all comers, and default rates that will exist that we could possibly be coming out at 6.8 percent. I think CBO has clearly stated that by virtue of the report that came out in March. Let me come up with a third point. What we are getting ready to do is to discuss a bill that spends $6 billion of our taxpayer money, and Congress is considering spending the $6 billion in this 1 year to give students who apply--futuristically, by the way. This has nothing to do with students who are already in college today and have student lending. But for this 1 year, for loan originations to student lending, we are going to keep the rate at 3.4 percent, which is going to cost an additional $6 billion this year. So what is Congress considering? Congress is considering paying for that $6 billion over the next 10 years. So instead of saying we are going to spend $6 billion and do what most Americans have to do on a daily basis--if we are going to spend a dollar this year, we have to save a dollar someplace else--what is Congress considering? Spreading the cost over the next 10 years. What is that going to do? Accumulate additional tremendous debt. What is that going to do for the students who are now seeking these loans? Candidly, it piles up additional money they are going to have to pay back. Let me close by saying this: I know this is campaign season. I know candidates on both sides of the aisle are around college campuses in this country talking to students about their future. What I find unbelievable--and I think these students, by the way, are a lot brighter than people give them credit for as they are campaigning around on college campuses. But, basically, I think these students understand that as politicians are going around trying to offer them deals, they understand that at the same time Washington is piling up tremendous amounts of debt on these students, and not only are they going to have their student loans to repay, but they are going to have all of the trillions and trillions of dollars of debt that Congress is adding on in order to curry favor with citizens of all walks of life in our Nation. That is what happened in Western democracies. We are seeing it play out right now in Europe. But what I think these students are quickly figuring out is that we are really not giving them anything. Basically, we are taking with the other hand. I think the numbers will carry this out. If, in fact, we do deal with this pending student lending program over the course of the next 6 weeks--and my guess is we may well do that--I hope we will be honest with these college students and at least pay for this expenditure by not spending money on something else so we are not, in essence, giving them something today but taking away something much bigger from them over the long haul. I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I thank the leaders for their excellent work and the people who joined them. I think the policy has been debated well. I do wish to say, at the beginning there was discussion that there be a 60- vote threshold at the end and that some of the amendments might improve the funding aspect. I still want to say one more time that a vote for this bill is a vote to increase our deficit this year by $11 billion and a vote to violate the Budget Control Act that we just passed last year. I appreciate the work. I do wish we had worked to pay for this. We have not done that. I would like to remind everyone voting for this that we are, in fact, adding $11 billion to our deficit, more so than was laid out by the Budget Control Act.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I actually learned a lot sitting here listening. I know energy production is very important to his State and, obviously, to our Nation. I know he has a wealth of knowledge regarding this issue. I candidly enjoyed hearing his remarks, and I look forward to hearing the balance of them at another time. I am going to be very brief. I came down here because I am distressed about where we find ourselves. I want to thank the ranking member and the chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee who is dealing with postal reform. I thank them for working through the committee process and actually bringing a bill to the floor in that manner, something we do not do enough of around here. I thank them for allowing us to have amendments, free-for-all, as it relates to matters pertinent to this bill. I thank them for their work. Personally, I would like to see a lot more reforms take place in the postal bill. There is no question we are kicking the can down the road, and we are going to revisit this in another couple of years. Because of the way the bill is designed, I don't think there is any question that is going to happen. But I want to speak to the fact that the world, our Nation, and all of our citizens watched us last August as this country almost came to a halt as we voted on a proposal to reduce the amount of deficit spending that is taking place in our Nation at a time when the debt ceiling was being increased. There was a lot of drama around that. Both sides of the aisle came together and established a discretionary cap on the amount of money that we would spend in 2012 and 2013. Again, the whole world and certainly most citizens in our Nation were glued to the television or reading newspaper accounts about what was happening. In a bipartisan way, at a time when our Nation has tremendous deficits, we basically committed to pare down spending. What is happening with this bill, and the same thing happened with the highway bill that was just passed, is that people on both sides of the aisle are saying: You know, the Postal Service is very popular. Therefore, what we are going to do is not worry about the budget caps we have put in place. It is hard for me to believe. I know there is a lot of accounting around the postal reform bill that is difficult for people to comprehend. But what is happening with this bill, both the ranking and chair continue to talk about the fact that some money came from the Postal Service into the general fund and now is just being repaid. By the way, I agree with that. But the problem is it still increases our deficit by $11 billion, and it absolutely violates the agreement we put in place last August 2. The responsible way for us to deal with this is say we understand this is money that should go back to the Postal Service, but to live within the agreement we put in place we need to take $11 billion from someplace else. What I fear is getting ready to happen today--and I know there was a budget point of order placed against this bill. I supported that budget point of order. The ranking and chair--whom, again, I respect tremendously--said let's go through this process and see if there are some amendments that actually pare down the cost. That is not happening. So what I fear is going to happen this afternoon is that in an overwhelmingly bipartisan way, Congress is going to say one more time to the American people: You absolutely cannot trust us to deal with your money because we are Western politicians--Western democracies are having the same problems in Europe--and basically the way we get reelected is we spend your money on things that you like without asking for any repayment of any kind. That is what has happened in this Nation for decades. That is what we are seeing play out right now in Europe. We are able to watch the movie of what is going to happen to this great Nation. We have politicians in this Chamber who have agreed to what we are going to spend this year and already, because we have two popular bills, in a bipartisan way people are saying: It doesn't matter what we agreed to. We do not care that the biggest generational theft that has ever occurred in this Nation is continuing. We are basically taking money from our children to keep us in elective office by not making tough choices. I am afraid that is what is going to happen this afternoon on this bill. I am just coming down one more time to appeal to people on both sides of the aisle who are participating in this to say: Look, we made an agreement. We made this agreement just last August 2, where we said how much money we would spend, and we are violating it again on this bill. What I would say is, if the Postal Service is so popular, let's take money from some other place that we do not consider to be the priority this is. We do not do that. Instead, what we are doing is exactly what has happened in Europe, what has happened here for a long time where we have this deal, this arrangement between politicians of this body and citizens where we continue to give them what they want, but we will not set priorities. We will not ask them to pay for it. And what is happening is our country is on a downward spiral. These young pages who are sitting in front of me are going to be paying for it. It is absolute generational theft. This afternoon we are going to take another step in that direction. I appeal to everyone: Look, if we want to pass this postal reform bill, let's cut $11 billion some other place. That is what the States that we represent have to do. That is what the cities that we come from have to do. But we will not do that here. I am not talking about one side of the aisle or the other. What I think is going to happen this afternoon is that people on both sides of the aisle are going to break trust with the American people, violate an agreement that we just put in place, and basically send a signal to the world that they absolutely cannot trust the Senate to live within its means. We would rather do things to get ourselves reelected now than save this Nation for the longer term. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2083.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I too thank the chairman and ranking member of the committee and Senator Carper for bringing something to the floor that is bipartisan. I applaud that and the fact that the committee process is working. But the fact is we did set a top line number when the country almost shut down last August 2. On one of the very first pieces of legislation we passed, the highway bill, we violated that budget cap. It wasn't by much, but we violated it. Now we have a bill that violates it by $11 billion. What I say is that if the Postal Service is that important to this Nation, if it has bipartisan support, should we not figure out a way to deal with the Postal Service in such a way to stay within the budget constraints we have laid out? It seems to me things that are very popular in this Nation are the very things we ought to make choices about and eliminate something else if we want to spend money in this way. I would like to see a bill that is far more reformed, and I think if we did that, the tab on this would not be $11 billion above the budget. What I say to everybody here is, please, our credibility is going out the window. Sixty-four of us signed a letter to the leader and to the President asking that we deal in a real way with deficit reduction. The country almost shut down. The world watched. We established a top line number, and here we are, for something we like, violating that. We are losing all credibility with our citizens--the citizens we represent. We are losing credibility in the world. To me, if we are going to produce a bipartisan piece of legislation, it ought to be one that lives within the bipartisan agreement we had regarding what we are going to spend in this Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, this amendment is a balanced approach that strives to give the U.S. Postal Service maximum flexibility in multiple areas as they work toward financial stability. Here is the best part. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this amendment results in savings of $21 billion over the next 10 years. I do not think we have seen amendments that do this, that save $21 billion. In conclusion, it is clear the Postal Service needs to make drastic changes. I applaud those portions of S. 1789 that allow the Postal Service greater flexibility. But too many provisions in S. 1789 would put more restrictions on the Postal Service, not fewer, and limit the organization's ability to adapt to changing times. I urge support of my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, just 20 seconds, not to rebut anything that has been said. I think the Senator from Maine and I have a very different view about the ways to solve the post office issues. But I just want to thank her for her tone. I want to thank the Senator from Connecticut, too, for the way they continue to work together to try to produce legislation in this body. So I thank them both for being the way they are. They are two of the Senators I admire most here. I thank them. I have a very different point of view on this issue, but I thank them for the way they continually work together to try to solve problems. I look forward to continuing to work with them on this issue.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about amendment No. 2083, which I am offering to the bill that is before us. I think all of us know the U.S. Postal Service is absolutely not sustainable in its current form. Mail volume has greatly declined over the past decade and will continue to do so over the next decade. The U.S. Postal Service has known this for a long time. They knew that mail volume was declining and that the market for their products was changing. But the economic crisis made things far worse than they could imagine. Now the Postal Service is on the edge of financial ruin. But we didn't get here only because of the economic crisis; it is because the U.S. Postal Service's business model is fundamentally broken. The USPS lost $5.1 billion in this last fiscal year and $3.3 billion in the first quarter of the current year. I know some have tried to blame the requirement that the USPS prefund their retirement health benefits for the USPS's financial losses. But the fact is that these recent losses are not due to the prefunding requirement because Congress has allowed the USPS to delay this last year's payment. The U.S. Postal Service has also nearly reached its statutory borrowing limit. Faced with this situation, it is abundantly clear that the USPS must make radical changes in its existing infrastructure and business model. Again, USPS should have, could have, and indeed has wanted to begin making these changes to its outdated, excessive infrastructure, but Congress--all of us here or at least some of us here have blocked these attempts. We should give the USPS the flexibility to meet these challenges and make business decisions on how to deal with the paradigm shift in their primary market rather than further limiting their ability to adapt. My amendment to S. 1789 gives the U.S. Postal Service greater flexibility in three primary areas: facilities and service, pricing, and labor. On facilities and service, it allows the U.S. Postal Service to continue closing post offices using the existing procedures for post office closures--they already exist--instead of creating further barriers to closure, which this bill does. These procedures are well thought out and give ample opportunities for public comment and appeal. It also allows the Postal Service to proceed with its proposed change in delivery service standards--something it has proposed--which is a key component of its 5-year plan of profitability. This amendment also allows the Postal Service to immediately implement 5-day delivery, if it chooses--a move the U.S. Postal Service believes may save nearly $2 billion a year. The underlying bill, on the other hand, requires a 2-year delay and further study of this issue, which the Postal Service already knows needs to happen. Mr. President, we don't need a study to tell us what we already know. The Postal Service needs flexibility in its delivery schedule. A number of interested parties, including the Postal Service and the President of the United States--the President--support moving to a 5- day delivery. Furthermore, my amendment allows the Postal Service to close processing and distribution centers, something the Postal Service has identified as needed action for nearly a decade. On pricing, my amendment removes the arbitrary CPI-based cap put in place by the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. Put simply, this gives the Postal Service more flexibility to adjust their prices as markets change. Current law and S. 1789 actually mandate the Postal Service provide some services at a loss. It is unbelievable the calls we have been receiving in our office that basically point to the tremendous corporate welfare that is in existence--people calling me not wanting these changes because it affects their business. A congressional mandate that the U.S. Postal Service provide certain services without covering their costs makes very little sense. Please note, this would not allow the Postal Service to arbitrarily raise rates at will. They would still be subject to Postal Regulatory Commission--the PRC--regulation. Finally, on labor, my amendment gives the Postal Service greater flexibility to reduce its workforce as needed and negotiate contracts that make sense for its financial situation. Since labor costs make up approximately 80 percent of the Postal Service's cost structure, it is clear that any good-faith postal reform proposal must include labor reform. First, it prohibits the inclusion of a no-layoff clause--and let me underline this--in future collective bargaining agreements. It does not alter CBAs currently in place that contain these clauses. This is only for future clauses. As mail volume continues to decline, the Postal Service must have the flexibility to change the size and makeup of its workforce as needed. Second, this amendment eliminates a provision in existing law that requires fringe benefits for Postal Service employees be at least as good as those that existed in 1971. These benefits represent a huge portion of fixed labor costs which currently place a major burden on Postal Service operations. Eliminating this provision will give the Postal Service more options in contract negotiation rather than hamstringing them. My amendment is a balanced approach that strives to give the U.S. Postal Service maximum flexibility in multiple areas as they work toward financial stability. Here is the best part. According to CBO-- which just contacted us today--this bill saves $21 billion for the Postal Service over the next decade. Let me say that one more time. CBO has just contacted us. The Postal Service is now in tremendous financial straits, and we have a bill before us that hamstrings them and keeps them from doing the things we all know if this were a real business we would allow to happen. My amendment gives them the flexibility to do the things the Postal Service needs to do and that most every American understands they need to do and the amendment saves $21 billion over the next 10 years. It is my understanding, by the way, there is no attempt to offset the cost of this bill over the next 10 years. In conclusion, it is clear the Postal Service must make drastic changes, and I applaud those portions of S. 1789 that allow the USPS greater flexibility. But there are far too many provisions in the underlying bill that would put more restrictions on the U.S. Postal Service, not fewer, and limit the organization's ability to adapt to changing times and so I urge support of my amendment. I thank the Chair for his time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, how much time do I have? I understand it might be 10, 15 minutes.