Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. That is correct.

Mr. CORKER. That is correct.

Mr. CORKER. That is correct. I don't know of anybody who has proposed a tougher measure, when we look at it all combined, than the measure that hopefully will be on the floor in the very near future.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I wish to thank the Senator from Wyoming for his outstanding leadership on this issue. I know it is something he has worked on for a long time, and finally we have it on the floor for debate. I am a strong supporter of the Marketplace Fairness Act. I thank all involved on both sides of the aisle for getting it to this place. As the Senator just mentioned, I do hope we will have an amendment process soon which will allow people to improve the bill as the will of the body sees fit. I come from a State, the State of Tennessee, where we have no income tax. We generate funding for education and health care through a sales tax. That is the way our citizens like it. What we found in the State over time is that more and more sales are coming into Tennessee residents over the Internet. In many cases what is happening is people are going into the brick-and-mortar stores that are all part of the fabric of our community. They are going into brick- and-mortar stores where people have made investments in land, buildings, roofs, and operation. They go in and try on goods, see how it looks, and then they order it on the Internet. Obviously, those sales proceeds, the sales tax that normally would come with that, are therefore bypassed. What we have done over time because of the tremendous success, which I am thankful for, of the Internet is, there is actually a system that has been created to get around State laws that exist all around our country. This bill has nothing to do with imposing any kind of new tax or revenue generator. This law allows States that already have laws on the books to carry out their implementation. Again, our citizens have no income tax. If the country and if society continues as is and sales tax continues to erode because of Internet sales coming in from other places, what eventually could happen in our State is we will have to move to an income tax. Our citizens like it the way it is. I am glad this legislation is where it is. I hope it is going to become law because I believe it is something that creates fairness, if you will, in the marketplace so all of those who are creating and selling goods in the State of Tennessee and other places are treated exactly the same. I have heard some arguments from my friends in the financial community talking about this opening the door to some kind of financial transaction tax. I deal with a lot of these individuals. I am on the Banking Committee, and we discuss a lot of issues relative to financial institutions and transactions. I know of no reason anybody should have any fear of that. There is nothing in this bill that creates a different arrangement within State or local governments that allows them to do something different than they already are doing. I don't know of any precedent that has been set in State and local governments as it relates to transactions regarding financial activities. I don't know of anything in this bill that should cause people fear of that occurring down the road. Typically, when a piece of legislation such as comes up, we have all kinds of groups who come forward to try to poke holes in it. Some of them, by the way, are legitimate. Hopefully, the amendment process we have will help address some of the issues people may be concerned about. A lot of times there is just fear generated to keep anything that may exist from changing. I hope when we have a debate, when we actually begin having amendments on this issue, what we will do is stick to the substance, as was mentioned, and that we will try to improve this bill in a meaningful way. As it sits, again, I wish to thank the Senator from Wyoming. I wish to thank the senior Senator from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, whom I know has worked very closely with the Senator. I am an original cosponsor of this bill. I think it is an issue whose time has come. I hope the Senate will pass this piece of legislation after our debate concludes. I hope the House of Representatives will do the same. To me, this is about fairness, fairness in the marketplace so those people who are involved in sales transactions, whether they are brick and mortar or whether they are Internet and being shipped out of someone's garage or shipped from a warehouse, I hope we will achieve a balance that is appropriate for our country and fair to all those involved. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, we saw during this last CR that there is a process called ChIMPS where you can take money out of mandatory spending temporarily and spend more in discretionary spending, which over the last 2 years has allowed us to spend $35 billion more than the Budget Control Act allowed. Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby both agree that there is a problem here. They have agreed to try to work toward a solution to keep this gimmick from being used in the future. I will say that this came over from the House this way. It is not something that originated here in the Senate. But because they have agreed to work toward a solution, I withdraw my amendment and thank them for their cooperation.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the vote we are going to have today at 2:30 regarding sequestration, and I wish to strongly support the notion of giving the executive branch the flexibility it needs over the next 7 months to work through this situation in a more graceful way. To put this in perspective for the American people, we are going to spend $47 trillion of your money over this next decade. It was incumbent upon a bipartisan group about a year ago to try to come up with about $1.2 trillion in savings over that 10-year period. Believe it or not, that didn't happen. The sequestration was a method to ensure that at least there was some reduction in the growth of spending. I do want to say that there have been a lot of discussions about reductions in spending. The overall effect of sequester over this 10-year period is not to reduce any spending but to slow the growth of spending over the next 10 years. We are one of the few entities in the world that don't budget off of last year's spending. It is not like your city, your county, your State government, your household, or your business. We budget off of projections and growth. The task a year or so ago was for six Republicans and six Democrats to come up with $1.2 trillion. It is beyond belief that this did not occur. The sequester was put in place as a mechanism to ensure that there at least was some slowing of growth. The first 7 months of the sequester is the most ham-handed portion of it. It is cut at the PPA level. It is across the board and focused on two important categories. I agree that it is ham-handed, and the only thing worse than sequestration, in my opinion, would be kicking the can down the road on some much needed fiscal discipline here in Washington. I hope what we will do today is get behind a very thoughtful proposal that would say: Look, we are still going to reduce spending by this amount, but we are going to give the executive branch, because this first 7 months is handled so differently that what happens after that-- by the way, appropriators live within a top-line number, but they are able to weigh in on how that money should be spent, again, in two more specific categories than just the overall budget. So it is just this first 7 months. I was at home last week in Tennessee and spoke with diverse groups of citizens. Democrats thanked me for being willing to give some flexibility to the President to work through this. Businesses obviously held this as incredibly intelligent. They need to deal with these kinds of issues right now. Many of them over the last several years have had to do the same kind of thing. Obviously, to them, it is very intelligent to give the executive branch a degree of flexibility where they have some transfer authority to work through this in a more graceful way. Republicans thanked me because it was a way for us to at least begin turning the curve in a different direction and certainly still having the cuts that are necessary in growth, I might add, not in real spending. That is where we are. We have a proposal, the Toomey-Inhofe proposal, which gives the executive branch the flexibility to work through this. It is my understanding they don't want that flexibility. I can't imagine being President of the United States and having something that I thought was a little bit ham-handed and having Congress say: Look, we will candidly defer to you to make some transfers. I have spoken with some of the folks in our security apparatus in this Nation. They said this to me: Corker, look, we understand we are going to have some reductions, but if you would just give us some flexibility, we could work through this gracefully. We could live within these constraints. Speaking of these constraints, I want to say that there is a number that has been thrown out of $85 billion over the next 7 months. Again, know that this is Washington's language. We are really only talking about half that in real expected outlays. We have budgeted amounts and then we have outlays. We do things very differently than do most people back home. This is not nearly the amount of reduction people are talking about as far as real money flowing out. I strongly support the Toomey proposal, the Inhofe proposal. I hope others will join in and at least move to debate this issue. I have a sense that is not going to be the case today. Maybe next week when some things happen, some others will be open to doing this. I can't imagine why anybody in this body, if they think draconian things are happening in a specific area and some judgment could be used to really alleviate that, I can't imagine why anybody in this body would not want to give administrators of these various agencies the ability to have some degree of transfer authority to make it work better. I don't imagine there is a business in our country, whether it is a one-man shop or a large corporation, that wouldn't want that flexibility. I can't imagine a Democrat or a Republican really thinking it is a bad idea to give the administration the ability to be more graceful in dealing with this. Today it looks as though we might have a partisan vote. It is a shame. Again, this is ham-handed. We can make it work better. Hopefully, on March 27, if we continue on this course until that time--obviously, to me, the only thing worse than this ham-handed approach is not enacting the $1.2 trillion in cuts. This needs to happen, in my opinion. Maybe on March 27 when the appropriators come forth with a continuing resolution, they will have shifted this around to a degree that we end up with the same amount of spending reductions. This is the way regular order should work here, the way the Senate should work, the way the House should work. It is not that far down the road. As a matter of fact, I am understanding that if the Appropriations Committee wanted to, they could pass out an omnibus--not a CR but an omnibus--that has already gone through the checks. I think the two staffs have been working; I am talking about at the House and the Senate. It is my understanding that they could pass something out in a week. I think maybe there are going to be some discussions about this later in the majority leader's office. Hopefully, he will give the green light to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee to move ahead with something like this, which would be very sensible, in my opinion. I think most people around here would love to see something actually happen under regular order. These reductions are necessary, in my opinion, to get our fiscal house in order. Much more needs to be done beyond this $1.2 trillion-- much, much more. I don't think there is anybody who doesn't believe that deficit reduction greater than $1.2 trillion needs to occur. Right now we are focused on the cuts side. We focused on the income side at the end of the year. As we move ahead and are able to deal with these issues under regular order, where committees have looked at the impact, this is the best way to go forward. Again, sequester will kick in tomorrow. I think we all understand that. There is a better approach. There is a bill that would allow the executive branch to have the flexibility it needs to work through this in a way that is least harmful to the American people, and if that doesn't work, another step with a continuing resolution in 3 or 4 weeks--there is another way of hitting this in an intelligent way. I hope we have the opportunity to work this out in a way that is better for the American people. At the same time, I hope we will not back away at all from at least $1.2 trillion in spending reductions. I wish we would move later this year into real tax reform, which is really where all the money is. To the American people, the reason we are moving to sequester and the reason we are cutting discretionary spending is we don't have the courage in the Senate to deal with entitlements. When the word ``entitlement'' comes up, everybody runs for the hills. They know where the money is--62 percent of our spending, which in 10 years, combined with interest, will be 90 percent of our spending. The reason we are here today is this body has not come to terms with the fact that we need to reform entitlements for them to be here for future generations and certainly people who are getting ready to retire. This situation is a shame, and so we are going through this pain again due to a lack of courage in the Senate to address the real issues of the day. That is a shame, and what you are going to see playing out is solely because of that. I have a bill which would deal with that. Lamar Alexander, my colleague from Tennessee, is a cosponsor. It was based on Bowles- Simpson, Domenici-Rivlin--bipartisan concepts. For some reason, when it comes to dealing with the real issues of America, this body runs for the hills. Hopefully, soon we will be brought back together and we will deal with this in a mature way, deal with the real issues our Nation is dealing with, solve them, put it in the rearview mirror, and all of us will come together and focus on those things that would make our country stronger. I ask unanimous consent that all quorum calls before the votes at 2:30 p.m. today be equally divided.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I came to the U.S. Senate in 2006, and I was the only new Republican elected to the Senate that year. Many people considered that a great accomplishment. But my greatest accomplishment of 2006 was convincing Ramona Lessen--who is sitting with us today--to put off retirement for a few more years and stay on as my scheduler and executive assistant. And after 6 years in Washington, I know without a doubt that the biggest success of my first term is that Ramona did not fire me--until now. Ramona is retiring this week after 34 years. I am told that she violated child labor laws by starting work when she was 5 years old. Ramona came to the Senate in 1979 to work for Senator Larry Pressler from her native South Dakota. She worked for Senator Pressler for 16 years, plus 2 more when he was in the House. When Ramona began working in the Senate in 1979, Jimmy Carter was President, Robert Byrd was the majority leader, and Howard Baker was the Republican leader. And probably most relevant to Ramona, ESPN started broadcasting, Post-It notes were invented, and one of the most popular songs was Gloria Gaynor's ``I Will Survive.'' She has not only survived but thrived in the U.S. Senate for more than three decades. In 1994, she took another new Tennessee Senator named Bill Frist under her wing. She worked for Senator Frist for 12 years. And then, in 2006, I convinced her to work in our office for just 1 year. That year has turned into 6. In that time, Ramona has learned a lot about me, but I have learned a whole lot about her. I have learned that Ramona loves music. In fact, her first job was as a high school band director. She is a great piano player. She has played the piano in my home and at staff gatherings. She plays for her church. Ramona loves country music, and I think that is a big reason she has adopted Tennessee as her second home State. I have learned that it is not too hard to know where you stand with Ramona. Occasionally, I will make a request or a suggestion, and Ramona responds with a certain expression--it is a polite term for a look of disapproval. I know exactly where I stand and sometimes--candidly, often--I recalibrate my position or request. I have learned that Ramona is a huge sports fan. If the Masters or the U.S. Open is on, I am not going to interrupt her. She also loves football, and that is appropriate because I have also learned that she is a master of the audible. In 2008, I was heavily involved in an effort to bring Volkswagen's U.S. production facility to Chattanooga. Just before one of the final meetings in Tennessee, a plane full of decisionmakers was stuck on the tarmac in Germany without clearance to land in the United States--some kind of paperwork issue. Anybody who has been involved in a major recruitment effort knows that in something like this, even a small glitch can be a major setback. The Volkswagen folks called me. I talked with Ramona. I am not entirely sure what she did, but I know it was all totally legal and aboveboard. At one point, she was sitting there jockeying several phone calls on the switchboard and literally talking the plane off the runway in Germany. What I do know for sure is that the Volkswagen executives landed in the United States highly impressed with Ramona Lessen. And shortly thereafter they chose Chattanooga for their U.S. production facility. That was a home run, no doubt. But I think Ramona's greatest contribution is her ability to make a staff a family and an office a home. Ramona makes sure we are celebrating each other--babies being born, people getting married, and life in general. At Christmastime, she makes sure the office is decorated and filled with Christmas music. Her favorite moments in the office are when someone brings in a baby or a child. That child learns quickly, as we all do, that Ramona keeps a basket of candy on her desk. And there is a good chance that child's picture is on Ramona's cherished bulletin board. Her loud, infectious laugh is a staple at staff gatherings. It will be sorely missed. There is a memorable scene in the movie ``The Queen'' where Queen Elizabeth tells Prime Minister Tony Blair: ``You are my tenth Prime Minister, Mr. Blair.'' I am proud to have been Ramona Lessen's third Senator. Senators come and go, but for 34 years Ramona Lessen has been a constant in the Senate. The Senate is better for it. Our country and Tennessee are better for it. I know Senator Pressler and Senator Frist are better for it. Our staffs are better for it. And I am better for it. Ramona, I thank you for taking pity on a new Senator and for showing me the ropes over the past 6 years. I thank you for your friendship. I wish you and Joe the very best in the years to come. I know when the time comes, Tennessee, your second home State, will welcome you to retirement with open arms. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am here today to introduce the Federal Reserve Mandate Act of 2013 in an effort to begin returning our country to the right place in monetary policy. Senator Vitter is joining me in this effort. The objective of our bill is simple. Our Central Bank, like other Central Banks around the world, should be focused on creating an environment of price stability. This should be the guiding principle of monetary policy decisions. This is neither a radical nor a new idea. Most economists argue that the proper role of the Central Bank is to serve as a lender of last resort in a time of crisis, to supply payment distribution and clearing mechanisms, and to manage the money supply so that inflation stays in check. Managing unemployment is a completely separate task and not appropriate for the blunt tools of monetary policy. That is why almost every developed country's Central Bank has as its mandate the maintenance of price stability. In other words, we are an outlier. This is not to say that a focus on price stability means the Fed is abandoning unemployment. In fact, just the opposite is true. Monetary policy can and should create an environment where jobs can grow and thrive by giving the economy certainty that prices will remain stable over the long term. We have strayed a long way from traditional Central Bank actions. We have lost sight of the proper role of monetary policy in our economy. With roughly $3 trillion in assets--and I think the Presiding Officer knows that by the end of this year it is projected we will have $4 trillion in assets--sitting on the Fed's balance sheet, there is no question that the Fed is distorting financial markets with multiple rounds of quantitative easing. At a minimum, we have completely lost price signals from instruments such as treasuries and mortgage-backed securities. It is likely, however, we are doing more damage than just that. We may be creating asset bubbles elsewhere as money moves into investments that are risky. We are also punishing savers. Purchasing assets to drive down rates forces pension funds and retirees to shift money into asset classes that may not be best for them. We are creating ``Fed addicts'' in our markets. Equity markets go through cycles where they become almost Fed obsessed. In these environments, good news is bad for equity markets because it means less QE buying. Meanwhile, bad economic news is good for markets because it means more easy money is on the way. Now we risk the perils of unwinding this policy. Economists are beginning to discuss the likelihood that the Fed will take significant losses on assets it has purchased. We just had one of the Fed Governors in our office last week sharing with us that as we begin unwinding these balance sheets, it is very likely, as the Presiding Officer can imagine, as interest rates go up and the Fed begins to buy these securities, we are going to lose money on those assets. So it is likely the Fed is going to take significant losses on the assets it purchased. Since the Fed is buying these bonds at record low yields, they will likely sell them down the road at higher yields. I don't think there is anybody right now who disagrees with that probability. The effect of this is a permanent increase in monetary supplies. This is an incredibly perverse situation we have now locked ourselves into. The employment mandate at the Fed has not always existed. A lot of people believe it has. It was added with the passage of the Humphrey- Hawkins Act in 1978. Humphrey-Hawkins was passed in a moment of self- congratulations, like a lot of things around here are passed. Congress patted itself on the back for ``ending unemployment.'' Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. The Fed cannot end unemployment by printing money. The Central Bank should be tasked with maintaining price stability. We must return to this core principle. This is the reason we are offering this piece of legislation today.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Senator Corker pertaining to the introduction of S. 215 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I notice the absence of a quorum, and I thank the chair for the time.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am here today to introduce the Federal Reserve Mandate Act of 2013 in an effort to begin returning our country to the right place in monetary policy. Senator Vitter is joining me in this effort. The objective of our bill is simple. Our Central Bank, like other Central Banks around the world, should be focused on creating an environment of price stability. This should be the guiding principle of monetary policy decisions. This is neither a radical nor a new idea. Most economists argue that the proper role of the Central Bank is to serve as a lender of last resort in a time of crisis, to supply payment distribution and clearing mechanisms, and to manage the money supply so that inflation stays in check. Managing unemployment is a completely separate task and not appropriate for the blunt tools of monetary policy. That is why almost every developed country's Central Bank has as its mandate the maintenance of price stability. In other words, we are an outlier. This is not to say that a focus on price stability means the Fed is abandoning unemployment. In fact, just the opposite is true. Monetary policy can and should create an environment where jobs can grow and thrive by giving the economy certainty that prices will remain stable over the long term. We have strayed a long way from traditional Central Bank actions. We have lost sight of the proper role of monetary policy in our economy. With roughly $3 trillion in assets--and I think the Presiding Officer knows that by the end of this year it is projected we will have $4 trillion in assets--sitting on the Fed's balance sheet, there is no question that the Fed is distorting financial markets with multiple rounds of quantitative easing. At a minimum, we have completely lost price signals from instruments such as treasuries and mortgage-backed securities. It is likely, however, we are doing more damage than just that. We may be creating asset bubbles elsewhere as money moves into investments that are risky. We are also punishing savers. Purchasing assets to drive down rates forces pension funds and retirees to shift money into asset classes that may not be best for them. We are creating ``Fed addicts'' in our markets. Equity markets go through cycles where they become almost Fed obsessed. In these environments, good news is bad for equity markets because it means less QE buying. Meanwhile, bad economic news is good for markets because it means more easy money is on the way. Now we risk the perils of unwinding this policy. Economists are beginning to discuss the likelihood that the Fed will take significant losses on assets it has purchased. We just had one of the Fed Governors in our office last week sharing with us that as we begin unwinding these balance sheets, it is very likely, as the Presiding Officer can imagine, as interest rates go up and the Fed begins to buy these securities, we are going to lose money on those assets. So it is likely the Fed is going to take significant losses on the assets it purchased. Since the Fed is buying these bonds at record low yields, they will likely sell them down the road at higher yields. I don't think there is anybody right now who disagrees with that probability. The effect of this is a permanent increase in monetary supplies. This is an incredibly perverse situation we have now locked ourselves into. The employment mandate at the Fed has not always existed. A lot of people believe it has. It was added with the passage of the Humphrey- Hawkins Act in 1978. Humphrey-Hawkins was passed in a moment of self- congratulations, like a lot of things around here are passed. Congress patted itself on the back for ``ending unemployment.'' Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. The Fed cannot end unemployment by printing money. The Central Bank should be tasked with maintaining price stability. We must return to this core principle. This is the reason we are offering this piece of legislation today.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I wish to thank the chairman for holding the business meeting the way he held it today and the hearings last week for this confirmation. I know a lot of people think that because of the way partisan politics are here in Washington, sometimes we can't be happy for someone on the other side of the aisle when they do well. Nothing could be further from the truth. I just want to say that I thought Senator Kerry acquitted himself exceptionally well in the hearings we had last week. I thought they were wide-ranging, and I think he had the opportunity to display the depth of knowledge he has on many issues. I don't know of anybody who has lived a life that has been more oriented toward ultimately being Secretary of State than John Kerry, and for that I also am happy for him and his family and the fact that very soon he is going to be able to express himself on behalf of our Nation in this way. I think most of you know that his dad was a Foreign Service officer. I know that you know he certainly made a splash. Some people thought it was negative, some people, positive, but he certainly made a splash here during the Vietnam era and from that point on has been very, very active. So, again, I thought he acquitted himself exceptionally well. There are four points I want to bring out. I know that he knows--and many of us have seen recently just because of some of the things that have happened in Libya--we have a State Department that needs some oversight, and we haven't provided it. Neither side of the aisle has provided it now for over a decade. I know he sees the need for the Senate, through its authorization process--and the House doing the same--to be involved and to be partners with him as we try to cause this organization, which over the years has just built into a sporadic stovepipe entity, to be assisted. A lot of times when a political person comes into an organization, the bureaucracy tries to wait it out until the next person comes along. I don't think it can happen any more in any agency than it does in the State Department. So I look forward to working with the chairman in whatever way he ends up deciding we are going to work together on this particular issue to really look at the State Department. I know Senator Kerry certainly welcomes that. We most recently had a hearing with Senator Clinton on Benghazi, and there have been Accountability Review Board recommendations that have been put forth, and I know Senator Kerry has said he is certainly going to see those through and make sure they are fully implemented. I know we talked a great deal in the hearing--and certainly we have done so personally--about our nuclear posture and nuclear modernization, which is a big part of what we discussed during the Start Treaty--something I supported and worked with him on--and I found his comments about where we need to be in that regard certainly reassuring. I also think he is very clear-eyed as it relates to the threat we face as a nation, especially in north Africa now but in many places as it relates to terrorist groups such as al-Qaida. As a matter of fact, I look at Senator Kerry as a realist. While we have not always agreed on every issue, as the chairman just mentioned, I have always found him to be someone who is open to discussion. I think he wants only the best for our Nation. There is no question that as he moves ahead over the next several years, I am sure he will take positions that in some cases I and others--maybe Senator Menendez--may view as not exactly the course of action that ought to be taken on behalf of our country. But my sense is that he will be open to listening, and I think he will be willing to sit down and talk about that as we move ahead. He came out of the committee today by voice vote unanimously. As the chairman mentioned, I think he is going to receive a very strong vote of support today here on the Senate floor. As the chairman mentioned, I think that it is good for our Nation, as he goes out across the world representing us, for people to understand that this is someone who received overwhelming support from the Senate. All of us know we live in a dangerous world. We live in a world that is changing dramatically. We live in a world in which things come over the transom on a daily and weekly basis that are unexpected. I mean, we look at what is happening right now throughout the country of Egypt, which we might not have expected to occur a week ago. To have someone like Senator Kerry, who has spent a lifetime on these issues and understands the history and institutional issues that have bound us or separated us from these countries--having someone like him representing us will be a very good thing. I join the chairman in supporting him. I know numbers of people will have comments regarding his service here in the Senate but also his future service, and I look forward to listening to that. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, it is appropriate that the Senator just said what I have said, and I thank him for his comments. This, again, leads me to what I see is the rub. In his comments a minute ago, the President alluded that the tax arrangements have all been agreed to and the things Americans most care about have been agreed to. In a late request this morning, the President wanted to do away with the sequester--the $1.2 trillion in cuts--by paying for them with revenues instead of trading out other cuts, which is unbelievable to me with the amount of debt we have in this Nation. The fact is we have agreed to additional revenue. Now, at the last minute, what has happened is the sequester is getting ready to kick in because we could not agree to other revenue cuts. By the way, it was not part of this deal but to supplant what we did back in August 2011. We all know the sequester is going to kick in. For some reason people think it is being done the wrong way and should be done in a different way, which I actually agree and hope we will do. Instead of reducing that spending, the President wants to add revenues to that to keep that from happening. Now, let me explain what that means. We have this tax increase that is getting ready to happen--by the way, I would support that--and instead of reducing the deficit like the President campaigned on, what he wants to do is use those revenues to supplant spending reductions we have already agreed to, so we are not reducing the deficit. We are using this revenue, which has been campaigned on for a year, not to reduce deficits but to keep spending cuts that have already been agreed to from happening. I don't think there are many people on either side of the aisle who would think that is a very good idea. Now, what the President is doing is holding this agreement on taxes for all Americans hostage to keep from doing the spending reductions we have already agreed to. I don't know if most Americans who listen to us quite understand what is happening. I listened to the President yesterday speaking with David Gregory, ``Meet the Press,'' and I know he talked about the $1 trillion in spending reductions he has offered up, which by the way I applaud. The problem is I have never seen them. I don't think the Presiding Officer has ever seen them. As a matter of fact, there is not a soul in this body who has ever seen the spending reductions that the President has offered up because they don't exist. I know there were broad contours that were talked about; I know that. The people in this body know that last week Lamar Alexander and I offered a bill on the floor to raise the debt ceiling by having $1 trillion in entitlement reforms so we don't end up in a situation where the credit of our country is in jeopardy. Today people are paying one- third of the cost of Medicare. There will be 20 million more Americans on Medicare over the next 10 years, and we are paying for one-third of that. It is a time bomb. We have offered reforms to cause Medicare to be here for future generations. We have done that in advance so the debt ceiling is raised in a way that does not jeopardize the country's credit. At the same time, we reformed these programs so they will be here for the future. Yesterday the President said on television that he has offered $1 trillion in cuts. I have never seen them. What I would say to the Presiding Officer is, if they exist it would be helpful if we could see those because that would help us with this debt ceiling debate. It may be that some of those are similar to the reforms and reductions that Senator Alexander from Tennessee offered with me. That would be highly helpful. Once the pep rallies are over maybe the President could send a list of those reductions and reforms that he says he has offered that no one I know of has ever seen. I think it would be helpful to us in the debt ceiling debate. As a matter of fact, my guess is we might agree with a lot of those. What we could do is maybe take the President's reductions that he says he has offered, which he has never offered, and we could use those to help raise the debt ceiling and alleviate some of the issues that my friend from South Carolina was mentioning a minute ago. Mr. Presiding Officer, my friend, I will tell you that I am disappointed where we are today. I thought 2 years after we began this process we would end up with something that would cause us to have this viewed from the rearview mirror. In other words, this would be behind us, and we would begin 2013 in a situation where the economy was ready to take off and people in this country would know that we dealt with our issues, and, candidly, people around the world would know it as well. We have not done that. We are talking about the kick-the-can- down-the-road deal. Everybody knows that. Everybody in this body knows that by the time this agreement takes place we have done nothing to reduce a penny of debt in this country. People know that, and that is a shame. The American people are watching us. We have turned ourselves into the laughing stock of the world because we cannot sit down and just solve these problems. Candidly, I don't know why we cannot do this on the Senate floor. It has been empty over the last week. I think we could have brought a bill to the floor to deal candidly with this. I think most people on both sides of the aisle think the same way. We have not done it. Surely, we should not let this happen again. I want to close by saying that I am disappointed with what I think is about to happen on the sequester. It looks like we are going to use revenues to substitute for spending reductions that have already been agreed to. What that means to the American people is that the tax on the wealthy, which I support in the form that I have understood it to be, is not going to be used to reduce our deficit but to keep from putting in place the spending reductions we have already agreed to. I don't know many Democrats or Republicans who would think that is a particularly good idea, especially with everything we went through and everything we put the world through in August 2011. Much of that will be dissipated and watered down today. Not only are we not making progress if that happens, we are actually going to be setting ourselves and our country back. I think this will make it even more difficult to overcome the debt ceiling that is coming up in 75 days. I am obviously making this speech to, hopefully, help influence the outcome over the next couple of hours. I hope that what the President said over in the Executive Office Building is not what he means. I doubt there are many people in this body who agree with the comments made by the President, and I hope the negotiators will take that into account. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Kentucky. I think most people would rather listen to him than to me. I yield the floor for the moment as he makes his comments.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I just listened to the President, and my heart is still pounding. I was very disappointed to hear what the President just had to say in front of a pep rally--something very unbecoming of where we are at this moment. It is my understanding that most of the tax issues have been worked out--should have been worked out on the floor in regular order. I think most of the Senate is very distressed that we are in a situation where the negotiations are taking place all of this time and it is not being done through regular order, but that is the way things are today in the Senate. But I just heard the President say that in dealing with the sequester that was put in place to reduce spending--it was part of a $2.1 trillion package to reduce spending so that we could raise the debt ceiling back in August of 2011. No one ever thought we would end up in this place where the sequester would be enacted, but it was done so that we would reduce spending. I notice my friend from Arizona is here. He has been one of the best there is to focus on defense spending and how it should be done, and I know he would like to see things happen in a very different way in that regard. But I just heard the President say that the way we are going to deal with this sequester is in a balanced way, through revenues and through reduced spending. I just want to go on record here on the Senate floor--I know there are negotiations that are taking place, but the sequester was to be dealt with and substituted with other spending reductions, not through revenues. I hope all those who are involved in bringing this together understand that even on the Democratic side, that was the understanding. Not only was it to be dealt with through spending reductions if these were considered to be ham-handed--and they are, and we should deal with them in a different way--but they were to be dealt with in the same time period. In other words, we weren't going to reduce $100 billion of the sequester and pay for it over 10 years; it was to be done during the same amount of time. So I know the President has fun heckling Congress. I think he lost probably numbers of votes with what he did. He didn't lose mine; I am not that way; I am going to look at the substance. But it is unfortunate that he doesn't spend as much time working on solving problems as he does on campaigns and pep rallies. But I just want to say that I am very disappointed in what the President had to say, and I am one Senator. I just want to go on record that it is absolutely unacceptable to pay for the sequester with revenues. Yesterday we had a meeting that broke down because all the money was being spent. The President campaigned for a year on raising taxes on the upper income. We have acquiesced to that. We know it is going to happen. But yesterday the deal was that all the money was going to be spent. There was going to be no deficit reduction. It is unbelievable-- unbelievable that all of the money was going to be out the door as soon as it came in. As a matter of fact, before it came in, it was going to be spent. I just want to say that I know the President enjoys heckling and having pep rallies to try to get Congress to act instead of sitting down and actually negotiating, but I hope that is what is going to happen, is we will end up following through on the reductions in spending that need to take place to replace the sequester. I will also add just for what it is worth that the last time we extended unemployment insurance, we paid for it. The last time we did not cause the doc fix, the SGR, to go into place, we paid for it. And I hope that as this negotiation goes forward, we keep the same principles in place that we have had. This country is over $16 trillion in debt. The sequester was put in place because we couldn't reach an agreement on reductions, but we knew they had to take place. Mr. President, I hope we will continue to honor the fact that the sequester--the $1.2 trillion that we don't like the way it is being implemented--will only be adjusted through other reductions. If that is not the case, count me out. I think most people in this body consider me to be a semireasonable person, but if that is not what we do, count me out. This country has a spending problem and a revenue problem, I agree with that. I am willing to support revenues to deal with this problem, the overall problem. But what I will not agree to is using revenues to replace spending reductions that were part of the Budget Control Act; that, candidly, we need further reductions in place to totally get this country where it needs to be. With that, I know we have other Senators on the floor. I don't know what their response is to what just happened at the White House. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Arizona, South Carolina, and Georgia for the comments they have made. I already addressed the issue of the speech. I agree with the comments made by my colleagues here. I want to address the substance of this. We get caught up in terminology around here and sometimes talk beyond each other. I don't know what most people are doing today, but the country almost came to a halt in August of 2011 as we negotiated some reductions in spending-- $2.1 trillion worth. Most people believed that was not enough. I know everybody in this body has been contacted by the Fix the Deck folks and others who think we need to have a $4.5 trillion to $5 trillion deal, and I agree with that 100 percent. I thought that was what we were going to be doing. As the Senator from South Carolina said, had we done that, we could focus on the tremendous potential this country has. We are not going to do that. Let me go back to August 2011 when we agreed to reduce spending by $2.1 trillion. We implemented some things and we put some things off to what we call the sequester, which is what I am talking about now. The sequester was supposed to kick in on January 1 if we didn't reach an agreement on other spending reductions. I had hoped we would come up with other spending reductions. I know my friend, the Presiding Officer, felt the same way. But we have not done that. Here is the substance of what the President just said in his speech; that is, since we did not come up with an agreement on spending reductions, we are going to deal with the sequester that kicks in tomorrow--the $1.2 trillion.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, very briefly--I know the Senator from Ohio wants to make some comments--I very much enjoy working with the Senator from Alabama. He has been outstanding on the Banking Committee, and I agree with almost every criticism he has made regarding the FHA. As a matter of fact, we have stood together trying to cause the housing industry to work much better than it is for not just those trying to purchase homes but, obviously, the American taxpayers to whom he just alluded. But I wish to also point out something that was just said. One of the main reasons the FHA is in the problem it is in is the loans that were made in 2006, 2007, and 2008--long before this nominee was there. I agree this nominee needs to be more aggressive in making changes, and I agree that, even more so, this Congress needs to be more aggressive in making changes. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the nominee to myself regarding reforms that are being implemented between now and January 1 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak behind the distinguished Senator from Georgia. He has more experience in the housing market than any Senator in the Senate and always speaks with eloquence and balance. I would like to second what he said. I spent a lot of time with the nominee, Carol Galante. She is technically very proficient. Over the past 2 weeks she has put in place reforms that are very strong. It is just a start. I know a lot more needs to happen at FHA, but she has put in place some very significant reforms. I know we have been losing billions of dollars at FHA--and I think seniors have been taking advantage of it--on something called a full- draw fixed-rate reverse mortgage. The advertisements for that have been on TV. The FHA has been losing its shirt over that program. She ended that program--or will end it by the end of January--on her own, along with doing some other things relative to debt-to-income. That is one example of why I think she is technically very proficient. I know there are Members of this body today who may work against her because they are very dissatisfied with what has been happening at FHA. Candidly, much of that is due to us. We need to pass some legislation to deal with FHA, and we have been resistant to do that. I know Johnny Isakson, David Vitter, and others in our body have been pushing for us to address that. I know the Presiding Officer serves on the Banking Committee with me, and we know reforms need to take place. Here is what I would say. The main reason FHA is in the problem it is in is due to loans that were made back in 2006, 2007, 2008, and the beginning of 2009. What is happening is that the losses from those loans are just now kicking in. There is no question that FHA has some issues relative to their economic value, but there have been five increases in rates at FHA recently to try to get it back to where it needs to be. So what I would say to my friends on this side of the aisle is that if we think the FHA can get better by not having a Commissioner, I find that to be kind of strange. She has been the Acting Commissioner since David Stevens left. It seems to me we would be much better having somebody in that position who is actually accountable and able to bring permanent staff with her. They know the issues that are going to need to be dealt with at FHA. Again, I think I have spent about as much time with her as anybody in this body. I know Senator Isakson has done the same. I find her to be very technically proficient. Over the last few weeks I have seen her do some bold things relative to the debt-to-income ratio with some of the FHA participants. We need to do something about the loan amounts at FHA. They are at 729 now. At some point, they probably need to drop down once we get the rest of the market working in the fashion it should be. I wholeheartedly support her in this position. There is a lot of work that needs to take place at the FHA. I think she is somebody who has the ability to carry that out. The biggest issue with FHA right now is this body and the folks down the hallway. We need to pass legislation to deal with overall housing finance. I know Senator Isakson from Georgia is going to be very involved with that. I hope to be involved, and my guess is the Presiding Officer is going to be involved as well. My sense is that we need to have someone who is running the FHA to help it to work better. I hope my colleagues on this side of the aisle--hopefully many of them--will join in giving her strong support today and work closely with her to help the FHA to be the kind of place it ought to be. I agree with the Senator from Georgia in that it should not have the market share it has today, but a big part of that has to do with our inaction in this body and our inability to thus far deal with GSE. I hope many Members will join in supporting Carol Galante. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Again, I wish to thank the Senator from Alabama for his comments regarding FHA. I agree; a lot has to change. I just think we are much better having a Director there to try to make those changes happen than not. With that, I yield the floor and see the Senator from Ohio in the Chamber.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I will be a little more brief this time. I thank the Senator for the point of order that he made and also his comments. We have some people on our side of the aisle who I know--due to things that have happened in this body previously--have had some amendments. I know some people feel as though we are harmful to banks which they may have supported in the past and maybe this is a way to do something that sort of makes it even, if you will. I will just say to my friends on this side of aisle that may have some of those feelings, we have two amendments--there are actually multiple amendments--that will make this bill work. One amendment would cause the FDIC to charge the rate necessary to take into account the losses that are going to occur. I think it might pass by unanimous consent. I cannot imagine why people in this body would not like the FDIC to have to charge the appropriate amount. Secondly, it would make this program voluntary. There are a lot of banks that candidly don't want to participate. They don't want to pay the fee. We can make this voluntary. To my friends on this side of the aisle, I just want to say: Look, if we could hear these amendments, we could make this bill work for everybody. I don't like these kind of guaranteed programs, generally speaking, but I would be willing, if my amendment is passed, to support this bill. I wish to go back to the last point. A point of order has been raised. The way this bill is now constructed, it violates the Budget Control Act. This body has voted to uphold budget points of order on some pretty tough issues. I think the point the Senator from Pennsylvania is making is we are going to violate a budget point of order to create a bailout for banks. I don't know. In my opinion, that is not exactly what we need to be doing. We can fix this if we could hear our amendments to make it so it is not a bailout for the banks by just making it actuarially sound and know they are covering their costs themselves, but the majority leader will not let us do that. Candidly, I hope my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle would vote to uphold this budget point of order, knowing that if we could consider all the amendments today, we could actually make this sound. I hope we would unify the body and say to the majority leader: Enough with filling the tree and not allowing the Senate to operate. Let's get beyond that. Again, I hope we will support the budget point of order. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his comments, and I will yield the floor to the Senator from Pennsylvania. I have a couple more comments, and when appropriate, I will make them.

Mr. CORKER. Absolutely.