Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, if I could, I would just like to say in response to my good friend from Illinois, it is not the Republican side asking to stall. We only have two Republican Senators who are wanting to push this off. So I do not want that to be mischaracterized. If I could, I wish to say it is my understanding that the reason we are putting this off is because they would like for people around the country whom they have notified to be able to watch. So it is that process of making sure everyone watches that I think is slowing this down. It is not the entire Republican side. I think most Republicans--I know all Republicans other than two would actually like to give the House the opportunity to respond in an appropriate way. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. I agree the Senate rule that is in place allows postcloture votes. That 51-vote majority has been there for decades and generations. It is the same rule we have operated under for decades. Let me just ask this question: We have a bill before us that I support, I think the Senator from Texas supports, the Senator from Utah supports, I think. So my question is: We have a bill that we support. The rules of the Senate have been here for decades, for generations, and for centuries, in many cases. Is the Senator thinking the House of Representatives would like for us to vote against cloture on their bill? If you think that is what they wish for us to do, why is it that they are already developing language and legislation to send back over? It seems to me they have already indicated they view this strategy as a box canyon because they understand the Senate rules. It looks to me as if they are already developing language to send something back over because even though we are in the Senate--I know all three of us are relatively new--somehow or another they knew the Senate rules before they sent it over. So I am a little confused. Tell me what happens if the Senate were not to invoke cloture on a bill that we support? What then happens? I would like to understand.

Mr. CORKER. The thing is, I think the Senator from Texas may be confused. We are not going to be voting on the amendment. We have the chance to vote on the amendment after the vote on cloture. The vote on cloture tomorrow is a vote on ending debate on a bill we support. The amendment that the Senator is talking about----

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I wonder if it would be appropriate if I were to ask the Senator from Utah a question, if he would take a question.

Mr. CORKER. Actually, I appreciate this opportunity. What we have before us is a bill that defunds ObamaCare. It is the bill the House has sent over. So the Senator is right. Tomorrow's vote is a vote to end debate in support of exactly what the House of Representatives has sent over. That is confusing to a lot of folks, but you are exactly right. The House has sent over here policy that I actually support; that is, defunding the health care bill because of the damage it is creating to our country. I wish the CR number was a little number. I wish it was at 967 instead of at 988. But that is exactly right. So we are going to be cutting off debate on a bill that the House Republicans have sent over to us. So the Senator is exactly right. That is an important vote. That is a vote in support of the House. Something in addition. Supporting the House would be getting whatever we are going to do back over to them so they are not jammed. But it is my understanding again, relative to this vote tonight happening tomorrow instead, is that my two colleagues whom I respect have sent out e-mails around the world and turned this into a show, possibly, and, therefore, they want people around the world to watch maybe them and others on the Senate floor, and that is taking priority over getting legislation back to the House so they can take action before the country's government shuts down and, by the way, causing them possibly to put in place again some other good policy.

Mr. CORKER. I am supporting the House of Representatives.

Mr. CORKER. This has been a rather confusing week, I know. I do not think ever in the history of the Senate have we had a 21-hour filibuster and then the persons carrying out the filibuster voted for the issue that they were filibustering. I do not think that has happened in the history of our country. I just want to make sure I understand. I was just over at the House. I talked to Members of leadership there. They would like to get the piece of legislation from the Senate over there as quickly as possible so they could respond. I think all of us on this side would like to see some changes to the CR, changes that we believe to be good policy. Over on the House side, we have a majority of Republicans. I know they would like to send back to us some changes that I think many of us would support. In talking earlier with the Senator from Texas, it is my understanding that the reason he does not want to send the bill over to the House, which could possibly put in place some very good policies for us here, is that he wants the American people and the outside groups that the Senator has been in contact with to be able to watch us tomorrow. I am just asking the question: Is it more important to the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Utah that the people around the country watch this vote or is it more important to us that we have a good policy outcome from our standpoint and actually have a body that has a majority of Republicans to be able to react and send back something of good policy? This is confusing to me because I know the leadership there wishes to be able to respond as quickly as possible. But I am understanding the reason we are waiting is the Senators have sent out press releases and e-mails and they want everybody to be able to watch. It does not seem to me that is in our Nation's interest, nor is it, candidly, in the interests of those who want to see good policy on the conservative side come out of the CR. I wondered if the Senator would respond to that.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman for his comments for a historical analysis of what has occurred and his comments regarding our ability to work together. I do wish to reiterate a point that the chairman made partially through his comments. I do not think any of us know at this time whether the offers that today have been made from Russia and responses that have been given from Syria, I do not think we have any idea whether there is credibility at present. What I do know is there would be absolutely zero conversation about that had our committee not passed an authorization out on a 10-to-7 vote and if we were not taking this up this week. So I wish to commend the chairman for his leadership on this issue. I have enjoyed working with him. I have enjoyed working with him on all the issues relative to Syria and all the other things we have done in a bipartisan way. I think it has been the tradition--I know it has been the tradition of this body, when it comes to issues beyond our shorelines, to set aside partisanship, as was mentioned a moment ago, and do things that are in the best interests of our Nation. There is nothing more important that each Member of this body will take up than the authorization for the use of military force. I sensed it the other day in our committee. I have sensed it with those whom I have talked to since. Each Member is looking at this with a sense of humility and soberness. I truly believe it is up to each Member to make this decision. I will say the issues of Syria are something I am familiar with. I have traveled to the region, as I know the chairman and many others have. I have traveled three times this year. I wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in April regarding what our response to Syria should be. Our committee thankfully passed, on a 15-to-3 vote on May 21, with the chairman's leadership, the Syria Transition Support Act. This was to support the vetted moderate opposition and require the administration to develop a comprehensive strategy. I know Members of this body know I support this authorization. I helped write it with the chairman. I am very comfortable with my position in supporting this and believe what we have done with this authorization we have done in the right and correct way. I will say I have been very dismayed at the administration's lack of response after stating publicly that they were going to support the vetted moderate opposition in certain ways. I have been very frustrated at the response and the lack of support in that way. As I mentioned, I was just in the area 3 weeks ago. I visited the same refugee camp in Turkey on the Syrian border and in Jordan on the Syrian border. I saw some of the same refugees whom I saw there less than 1 year ago. Candidly, I am dismayed we have not supported the vetted opposition in a better way. I know we have urged out of our committee that we have a much more comprehensive strategy. I wish that bill had come to the floor. I wish the Senate had taken action. But, candidly, I also am dismayed this administration has not taken action to do something in a more comprehensive way. No question the introduction of chemical weapons has changed the dynamic tremendously. I think the chairman was very articulate in explaining why this is important. I wish to say to everybody in this body, to me an equally important issue for our Nation is the credibility of the United States of America. I believe our President, whether you support him, whether you like him, I believe the President spoke for our Nation when he established a red line some months ago regarding the use of chemical weapons. I believe it is very important for our Nation's credibility in the region and in the world that we have an appropriate response when we have a dictator such as Asad take the actions he has taken against international norms the way he has but especially when the Commander in Chief of our Nation has spoken the way he has about this issue. To me this is twofold. Certainly, it is about the international norms that have been spoken to eloquently by many, but to me it is also an issue of this Nation's credibility of the response as people are looking on to what we are going to do. That is why I support this authorization. I do wish to go back over a couple points the chairman referred to relative to the substance of the authorization. I think most people know the White House sent over an authorization that to me was very broad. It did not define what we were going to do in a specific way. I know the chairman just talked about the fact that this authorization is tailored. It is specific. Let me go over again specifically what this authorization does. It is specific purposes only: to respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction to dissuade future use, degrade ability, and to prevent transfer, no boots on the ground for combat operations. I know there have been some discussions about that in our committee. Very emphatically, this authorization eliminates and keeps any boots on the ground for combat operations from occurring. This has a time limit of 60 days with a 30-day extension which Congress can disapprove. It is geographically limited to Syria only, which the original authorization was not. It is against legitimate military targets only, which again the original authorization was not. There are a series of determinations the President has to make prior to taking action with this authorization, including that it is in the core national interests of the United States and that he has a military plan to achieve the objectives. In addition, this authorization requires a comprehensive strategy for a negotiated end to this conflict. I wish to refer to something else the chairman mentioned; that is, the type of activity. I know there have been a number of editorial comments in papers and publications around the country referring to this as a pinprick. There have been other concerns by Members of this body as to the duration of this effort, as to how long it will be. I have had the privilege, because of the position I serve in on the Foreign Relations Committee, to be involved in multiple phone calls and personal meetings. There was one last night that lasted at great length with the President and Vice President. I wish to say to every person in this body, I have no belief whatsoever that if military action is taken, it is going to be a pinprick--none. The American military has incredible ability to deal with issues in a forceful way but also do so in a very short timeframe. I do believe, based on the many meetings we have had, both with military and civilian leadership, that to characterize what is proposed as a pinprick or to characterize what is proposed as inserting ourselves into a long-term civil war, I think both of those characterizations are wrong. Obviously, one of the dilemmas people here deal with is that we write policy and then it is up to the administration to carry that out--and no question, none of us will be involved in the direct carrying out. But it is my firm belief that there is not a thread of thinking by the administration that what they are considering is a pinprick. On the other hand, I have not a thread of thought that they are also considering doing something that is going to involve us in a long-term civil war. Obviously, conflicts such as this are complex. In closing, let me say this. Each Senator has to make their own decision. This is one of those things where lobbying is not something that is going to make up the minds of Senators. I think each Senator has to make up their own hearts and minds. What I can say is we are going to have an open process. I know we have talked about the process going forward. I hope Senators will keep their amendments germane. I hope we have a sober debate about an issue that is the most important type of decision any Senator will make. I am thrilled the President decided to come to Congress for an authorization. I know a lot of people have made many comments regarding this. Candidly, I am pleased the President has come to us for a debate. It is my hope the Senate, after hearing the facts and after having a thoughtful debate, will approve the authorization for the use of military force. I couldn't agree more with the chairman that if people wish to see a diplomatic solution--which is the only way we are going to end this conflict--I do not think this conflict ends militarily. I believe we have learned a lot from the last two episodes we have been through. I believe it is important for us to have this authorization because I believe it is the only thing at this point, the fact that we passed it out of committee, the fact that it is on the floor, that might possibly lead to a diplomatic settlement. I also believe it is time for the President to lead. I know there have been a lot of statements over the last week, and the President had multiple audiences in which to speak. I understand this, and I understand reports out of these meetings can come in many ways not to be accurate. The President is coming to the Hill tomorrow. He will be making a major speech to the United States, the citizens of our country, tomorrow night. I know many of them have lives, where all of them, most of them, get up in the mornings, go to work, they raise their families, and they haven't had the opportunity to spend as much time on these issues. That is why we are elected to do this. I will say this. It is very important for the President of the United States to come to Congress and for the President of the United States to make his case to the American people. He is asking for this authorization. I believe it is important for us to give him this authorization. Again, I wish to thank the chairman for working with us to make sure we have narrowed this authorization in such a way that I think it meets the test of what the American people and what all of us wish to see happen. But I do believe now it is up to the President, over the next several days and this week, to make his case to the American people as to why the Senate should give him this authorization for the use of military force, which I hope we will do. I thank you for the time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Perfect.

Mr. CORKER. I will be brief. I know that time may be extended. But let me start by saying I understand how citizens across our country are frustrated. Our country has gone through financial distress. We have economic issues that are impacting people of all walks of life. I know as they look at what is happening around the world, there is frustration, generally speaking, with issues relative to foreign aid. I understand that. I also understand we are a nation of laws. We have had an event in Egypt which is going to cause us to have to deal with that. I think we can deal with that in due time and live up to the laws of this Nation. I also understand, though, that we are the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth. One of the reasons we are the greatest Nation is because of the values we extend around the world and the fact that we have been a voice of calm. We have been a country that has tried to continue to engender peace. I know the Senator from Kentucky and I share Fort Campbell, a place where some of our most outstanding fighting men and women are based. I know the Senator understands that much of what we do with foreign aid is to try to keep those men and women off the battlefield and in training. We do that to try to keep peace and to keep those men and women who protect our country from having to go to war. The distinguished Senator from New Jersey just talked about the importance of Egypt. From the very beginning, when this all began just within the last month or 6 weeks, I have believed that the administration, candidly, has handled this well; that our Nation should be the voice of calmness. We should try to be the steady hand that allows this transition to occur in the right way. At the same time, we should push them toward democracy. I think that is exactly what we are doing. We have had a debate throughout this week in our lunch sessions among Republicans. I know the Senator from Kentucky has made it clear that the poll numbers indicate we should cut off foreign aid. I want to say that we have tremendous responsibilities as Senators. One of the responsibilities we have, no doubt, is to represent our citizens. On the other hand, we know that sometimes we understand that we should sell to the citizens the reasons that we do the things we do on this floor. I think most people in this body understand that just on a THUD bill, having an amendment that cuts off aid to Egypt is not a thoughtful process as it relates to foreign aid. My appeal today is really not to my friends on the other side of the aisle, although I am sure some of them are contemplating what to do. But my appeal is to my friends on this side of the aisle. I have talked to many of them in private. I think many of them know this is terrible public policy. No doubt, without us explaining to the American people why we should not jerk the rug out from under Egypt as they go through this transition; no doubt, without us sharing the importance of that, the American people are going to look at aid to Egypt and see what is happening there and say: No, let's take that money and let's do something else. I think most people on this side of the aisle understand that is terrible public policy. I think most people on this side of the aisle want to stand and to be thoughtful Senators and do not want to have a poll-tested foreign policy. We are going to have plenty of time to debate this issue in September. I think all of us know a lot is going to be happening during the recess. We have two Senators who are traveling to Egypt over the weekend to look at what is occurring there. I am going to be in the area in a few weeks. It seems to me, as the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth, instead of having some poll-tested amendment that may play well in the short term, what we should do as Senators is be thoughtful, understand the greatness of this Nation, understand the millions of lives and livelihoods that are at stake in us being a calm hand in Egypt, understanding the impact that this is going to have on people all around the world and certainly our standing in the world, but our continued ability to help promote human rights, promote democracy, promote peace, promote calm. So I would just urge the Senators on our side of the aisle, we have these things that come up, and we certainly have groups who come forth. I think all of us understand that is a big vote. This is a vote that says a lot about who we are as Senators. This is a vote that gives us an opportunity to step away from those short-term, hot, poll-tested amendments that have nothing to do with furthering the greatness of this Nation. I would urge everybody in this body to stand, to be Senators, and to do what we know is the right thing to do; that is, to be calm, to address this issue as we should in the right way this September when all of us have more information to deal with this issue. I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to speak. I hope this body will rise and conduct themselves as the Senate should on issues of this importance. I thank the chairman for the time. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. I want to go in the appropriate order. I see the chairman of the committee. I would like 5 minutes at some point. But does the Senator want to go ahead?

Mr. CORKER. What is the status of time right now? I think we should bring this to a close soon.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I think most Members of the body realize the THUD bill is not the place to address major foreign policy. I think all understand that in September it is the plan of this body to deal with the legal issues regarding foreign aid to Egypt, so I move to table the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thought last night's meeting was a healthy meeting. I am glad we did what we did. I appreciate the two leaders sponsoring that meeting, and I appreciate the time in which everyone spoke. I think with a lot of phone calls having been made this morning we can and will move past the cloture vote for Mr. Cordray. I have had several conversations with him and others, this morning, but I do want to say this is a gesture of good faith. We will see what happens in a moment when the vote takes place and, obviously, in this body, nothing happens until it happens. I hope Members on the other side will note this good-faith effort that is taking place in a few moments. I hope it is going to happen. I think it may. I hope that over the course of the next 24 to 48 hours we can work in a little more comprehensive manner. I think this would be something to get behind us during this next year and a half so we can move on to solving our Nation's problems. I don't think it is healthy for this body to constantly have potential rules changes hanging over the issues of our Nation, and we do have big issues. We have an opportunity, potentially, to get the immigration issue behind us. I know there are other pieces of legislation we could well deal with. In the event we do move into this postcloture period, I hope Members on the other side of the aisle will take note of that and will work with us constructively toward a solution that brings this place together instead of pulling it apart. I thank the Senator for his efforts. Again, I empathize and sympathize with his family over the personal loss that just occurred. I look forward to working with the Senator from New Mexico as we move ahead. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. First of all, I know there have been a number of conversations, and I appreciate the majority leader allowing me to talk with him recently on the phone. And I know we have an issue here. I would just go back to the question from the Senator from Mississippi. Last night I was on the phone with numbers of Members of high esteem in the Senator's caucus, and when I talk with them about this issue, they have no understanding whatsoever about any background. They just say: Look, I am frustrated, so I am going to vote for the nuclear option. And I would say, to respond to the Senator from Mississippi, that the Senator is right. So we have some things that are coming up here momentarily. It is possible that many of them--maybe all but many of them--will be resolved. But it seems to me, unless we do the thing the distinguished Senator from Mississippi just mentioned, there is going to be a continual gap of knowledge regarding these issues. So I would just say that I think the majority leader knows I do everything I can and the senior Senator from Tennessee does everything he can to try to make this place work. We want to solve our Nation's problems. I think if the majority leader will put the actual votes off to at least Wednesday, there may be some resolve. But I really would please ask that we have that opportunity the Senator asked for so that really both sides--we need to understand the other side's grievances more, and I know very respected Members on the Democratic side need to understand ours. I think that would be very, very helpful, and I really believe it would cause the leadership to be far more productive and worthwhile, and the majority leader could come in every morning smiling the way he is right now.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. One of the things, no question, that many banks and credit unions around our country have been concerned about, even though Freddie and Fannie are 90 percent of all home mortgages today--and very dominant, obviously, because of what has happened but also because of the tremendous market share they have had--is if we are going to wind these down, are they going to be assured access into this market. So we have created mechanisms for them to be able to come in through issuers to do this. One of the things so many of the community banks and credit unions have complained about as a tremendous disadvantage with our system was that there was volume pricing. In other words, if you were a big user of Fannie and Freddie, they gave you a big volume discount--Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan. As they tried to process loans through Fannie and Freddie and this whole system, they got big volume discounts, so they were more competitive. These organizations I mentioned are, obviously, important, but the community bankers who mean so much are the ones who drive things back home. The community bankers are members of the Rotary Club, the Lions Club, and are involved in our communities, and they were constantly at a disadvantage as it relates to housing finance. So one of the components of this bill is not only to ensure they get equal access to the system--and we do that very eloquently in this bill--but in addition to that we ensure there is no mechanism that allows for volume pricing. Everybody is treated the same, as it should be, because in this particular case we end up with an explicit government guarantee that is very different. We don't have a situation where we have private shareholders doing well when things are doing good and the public doing bad. But one of the reasons we felt confident in moving in this direction was the tremendous amount of upfront capital. So we dealt with the smaller institutions. As a matter of fact, we sat down and worked through the many issues they have brought up. We know how important they are to everyone here and everyone in the country. We dealt with that, but we also created enough upfront capital, as the Senator has mentioned, to protect the public. I know, again, that every bill can be improved. We saw that most recently with the immigration debate. As a matter of fact, I think that is a good model. We have introduced something that I hope the Banking Committee will take up soon. It is almost unprecedented to have nine members of the Banking Committee cosponsoring a piece of legislation. Hopefully it will have the opportunity for a markup, for improvements, and we know the chairman and ranking member, obviously, are going to want to put their stamp, as will many members on the committee, on anything that occurs. But I think we have done some of the work that is important to establish a very good beginning place. We tried to address, as the Senator mentioned, the many community banks around our country that are in here constantly and that are so important to the States we represent. We have done that. Again, I know to the Senator and his staff, and many of the cosponsors, that was something that was an ultimate threshold for them, was to ensure the community bankers and credit unions around our country had the appropriate access, and I think we have hit that good place in this bill.

Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator again for all the hours that have been spent. I think we have both realized this is a beginning point, meaning this is a piece of legislation that has a lot of bipartisan support among talented and wise Members--excluding the two of us--and I thank him for joining in and helping make this bill better. Obviously, this is something we think may be taken up sometime this fall, and I do hope we will have the opportunity to make presentations to people throughout the Senate very soon. I want to make two points. The Senator from Virginia, because of his background, was probably more involved in the banking issues than most people here because he brought a lot of background and expertise. I felt fortunate to be involved in some way during that time, and he and I both remember--and I hope Members of this body will remember--back to the big issue that people felt during that time was not addressed were the two GSEs, Fannie and Freddie. Candidly, it was a pretty complex undertaking. There were a lot of other things happening. It was a fair criticism, but at the same time, there was a lot being dealt with. Time has gone by now, the housing market has improved, but we still haven't finished our work. I think most people here understand that this last crisis brought such hardship to so many people across this country, with trillions and trillions of dollars of household wealth going down the tube because we had a system that wasn't stable, a system that was making bets on things it shouldn't have been making. It was excessive. As the Senator has mentioned, between the regulators and some of the rules that have been passed, the system is stronger now, but we still have not dealt with this. I would ask my colleagues to consider later this year looking at something to finish that work so we can shore up the housing market and do everything we can to keep that from happening again. Because again, we know how important the housing industry is to us. Secondly, I think the window is closing. For what it is worth, there are a lot of people throughout our country who have a personal stake in trying to keep the status quo in place, to keep the situation where we have, again, private shareholders the public believes have the government standing behind it and no matter what they do they are going to be bailed out or whatever, placed in conservatorship. People are beginning to see that maybe even though these entities haven't paid back a single dime yet, they haven't reduced the $188 billion--not one penny of capital for the indebtedness has been returned. Certainly, there have been dividend payments. But people are coming out of the woodwork now to try to reinforce the old system. Next year we are going to be moving into an election cycle again. It happens every 2 years around here. We have had a pretty productive year this year so far. I am proud of a lot of work the Senate has done. This is a big and important piece of work, as we have mentioned, that is undone. The timing is right because of a lot of forces out there that, again, would like to keep the status quo. So I want to again thank the Senator from Virginia for his thoughtfulness, the other Members who have cosponsored this and gone through a complex issue and come up with a very elegant solution to this problem, and I hope we will have the opportunity to work together to actually do something that makes our country stronger and causes our housing finance system, which is so important to our economy, to be more sustainable. I thank the Senator. I look forward to coming to the floor with him again and continuing the many meetings we are having with Senators on both sides of the aisle and, hopefully, with a lot of input from others, coming up with a solution the entire body addresses. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Virginia. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with him on this issue. We have been working on it since last fall. We spent a lot of time talking to various groups to try to get this right. We know that every bill can be improved, but we have done our best to present something to the Senate that we hope will be marked up in the Banking Committee, something that, as the great Senator from Virginia mentioned, has attracted numbers of people on both sides of the aisle. I again thank Senators Tester, Johanns, Heitkamp, Heller, Moran, Hagan, and now Kirk for joining us in this effort. This is a diverse group of folks from diverse places around the country who have come together to solve this major problem. All during the Dodd-Frank debate--and we were certainly in the middle of that--all people talked about it seemed was the fact that Fannie and Freddie were not included. Yet Fannie and Freddie were two of the biggest failures that occurred during that time. As the Senator from Virginia rightly mentioned, $188 billion of taxpayer money had to go into these entities. We have dealt with most of the issues around the crisis. I know there are still some rules that are being promulgated. We had some that came out yesterday. But this is the last piece. As the Senator mentioned, the housing sector has been growing and coming back. We understand the importance of the housing sector; therefore, we have designed a bill that transitions over time and moves us to a model that we hope and believe strongly is far more sustainable. First of all, let me mention the five things we have worked on together. I know each of us is going to stress a lot of different things as we move through. I know we plan to come down here at multiple intervals as we move ahead. But No. 1, what does this bill do? First and importantly, it breaks up the GSEs and liquidates them. It does it over time, but our bill does that. Secondly and very importantly--this is something we have talked about a great deal with industry and certainly people from all sides of the aisle--this bill puts 10 percent private capital in advance of any kind of government reinsurance. I want to say to the Senator that one of the reasons we looked at it this way is that if Fannie and Freddie just had 5 percent capital, there would have been no taxpayer losses. But putting this much capital in advance really is a buffer against the taxpayer needing to be involved in it. It fully privatizes a number of functions that are currently performed by Fannie and Freddie. It gets the U.S. Government out of the business of pricing credit, which is something we both have thought needed to occur. It modernizes our system of mortgage-backed securities. But I think the thing we began with--and I so appreciate the Senator's involvement. We realized that one of the major flaws in our housing finance system in the past and even--well, it is not today because the government owns these two entities, but in the past has been private sector gains, public losses. I mean, when you have a situation where you have shareholders, you have the private sector doing well when times are good; they had an implicit guarantee; people figured that the government would come in and backstop these entities if they failed. Obviously their underwriting standards got really terrible. The organizations failed. What happened? The taxpayers came to the rescue, unfortunately, with $188 billion, which has not been paid back. We still have these entities in conservatorship. One of the flaws both of us, coming from the private sector, saw was that this is not right; there is no way we should have entities where there is private sector gains when things are going well and public sector losses. I wish to thank the Senator for joining in, for all of the hours he and his staff have put into this to try to make this bill as good as we can possibly make it to bring it to the floor. I look forward to the input of the entire Senate. I hope we have an opportunity for a markup and a presentation later this fall. But I could not be more grateful to the Senator for his efforts and his willingness to do this and obviously his willingness to work hard to see this go across the finish line.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I understand I have 10 minutes allotted; is that correct?

Mr. CORKER. I want to thank my friend from Alabama, who has been down here vigorously and shows a lot of stamina. I have a sense he is not going to support this legislation. I do want to talk, though, a little bit about this legislation this morning. I was asked yesterday by a reporter about the folks back home in Tennessee and how they feel about the legislation. No doubt there is a lot of controversy around this legislation. There have been a lot of statements made that, candidly, don't pass the trying-to-get-it-right test. What I said to this reporter was that I have a lot of faith in Tennesseans. I believe Tennesseans, at the end of the day, will look at this legislation and study it, not just listen to what has been said by numbers of bloggers and people who are trying to spin things in such a way as to create confusion. At the end of the day, I believe when Tennesseans see what is in this legislation, the majority of them, the large majority of them, will believe this legislation improves the conditions from where we are today. I believe they will believe that. Of course, it is my job to go back home to explain to Tennesseans directly, as I do on all controversial issues, why I support this legislation and why I think this is good for our country. But let me walk Tennesseans and Americans and people here in the Senate through, from my perspective, where we have been on this piece of legislation. First of all, this bill was introduced to the Judiciary Committee months ago, and hundreds and hundreds of amendments were added in the process and dealt with during that judiciary markup. It went through regular order, something all of us around here have been hoping would occur with all legislation, which is that it goes through the committee process and comes to the Senate floor. The bill has been on the floor now for 3 weeks, and I know a lot of people around here are complaining about the number of amendments. But let's face it, for a long time people on my side of the aisle would not let amendments be heard. It is just the truth. I mean, it is what happens with controversial legislation. A lot of times when people don't want to see something pass or see it improved, there are opponents to actually even hearing amendments. So we had this ruse on the floor of the Senate yesterday about all this. Look, I would like to have 100 amendments on the floor. I am all for it. Bring it on. But the fact is, let's face it, both sides have been involved in keeping that from happening, and most recently it has been many of my friends on this side of the aisle. Republicans gathered around the trigger that a Senator offered relative to border security, and it had to do with a 90-percent effectiveness trigger. That is where negotiations around this bill really hung up. But let me talk to people a little about this trigger. When we look at the trigger that was in the border security bill, that I candidly supported, and many folks on my side did, the trigger was so subjective I would call it the Cheetos bag trigger or the granola wrapper trigger or the plastic bottle trigger. I want to make sure people understand the way this trigger was and why it wasn't acceptable to the majority of people in the Senate. The way this trigger works is it uses something called sign cuttings. This is a term that is used to track people through the desert and track them through the mountains. It has been used in the country for hundreds of years, especially in places that are less urban. So here is what was happening with that trigger. Border Patrol agents were going to be able to look at a Cheetos bag or an empty granola bar wrapper or an empty Coca Cola can and say: I don't know, did 10 illegal aliens eat out of that Cheetos bag or did 1? I don't know. And it was that very subjectivity that people realized was going to cause people to be able to move the goalpost. I am making light of it, but it is just true. This is the way, believe it or not, we keep stats on the border right now, in this very subjective manner. How many people attempted to get through? We didn't see them, but we think maybe 10 people went up through that crevice. It reminds me of when I go hunting once a year down in Albany, GA. I have a friend who allows me to hunt on his place, and when a covey of birds flies by, he says: I think there were 12, and he marks that down in his hunt log. Now, I am sure at the end of the year he gets somewhat close to how many birds were on his plantation, if you will, but we are looking at something that was going to matter as it relates to green cards, and it was subjective and was put in place, candidly, in such a way many people thought the goalpost was going to be moved. So Senator Hoeven and myself, working with a lot of others in the body, came up with tangible--tangible--triggers and not triggers some Border Patrol agent could fudge one way or the other. Not that anyone would attempt to, but one can understand, again, when someone is trying to guess how many people came through that they didn't even see--let me say that one more time. One of the denominating factors was the Border Patrol agents were going to have to say how many people came through the border that they didn't see. Let's guess. By the way, let's make it exactly 90 percent. So Senator Hoeven and I came up with an amendment that everybody could understand with 20,000 Border Patrol agents, a doubling along the southern border--20,000 agents. Every American can know whether that has happened. We added $4.5 billion worth of technology, and we listed the inventory. Every American can see whether that has happened. We have a fully implemented E-Verify. We don't want employers paying people under the table. We don't want people hiring folks who are here illegally. So that is fully implemented--fully implemented before a green card. We also have an entry-exit visa program. I think many people know the reason we had the terrorist attack on 9/11. We had people who overstayed their visas. Americans don't want to see that happen. So we have a tangible trigger--a tangible trigger--of making sure we have an entry-exit visa program. We also have another 350 miles of fencing. Now, a lot of people say that is not required, but it is absolutely required. Anybody who would say that hasn't attempted to read the legislation. So these are five tangible triggers. It is not a Cheetos bag trigger--not a Cheetos bag trigger but five tangible triggers that allow people to know whether we have actually met the goals that are in this bill. There was a lot of discussion yesterday about an E-Verify amendment. As has been said, it is an amendment that could have easily been added to this legislation. It is a fine amendment. I would certainly be glad to support it. Candidly, I think it is an amendment, if it made it to the floor, that would be one of those 100-to-0 or 98-to-2 votes. Maybe it could pass by voice vote. It is not controversial. But the fact is the bill has a lot in there relative to E-Verify, and no doubt the House can make that even stronger. Some of my friends are saying this is an amnesty bill. I don't know if people have looked at the provisions about people coming in out of the shadows and having to pay taxes--back taxes--and they will have to pay fines. They will have to pay taxes, by the way, into the U.S. system for 10 years and cannot receive a single benefit from the U.S. Government. That is the reason this bill scores so favorably from the standpoint of generating revenues into the Treasury. But let me just say this. Nobody in this body has offered an amendment that would round up everybody in this country who is here illegally and deport them out of this country. Not a single soul has offered an amendment to do that. Basically, what we have is a situation where we can cause people to come in out of the shadows, pay fines, pay taxes and receive no benefits and go to the back of the line. Everybody who came here properly or who has applied properly would be processed first. It is going to be a minimum of 10, maybe 13, 14, 15 years before people even have the ability to get a green card. The option is to vote against this bill and basically say we are not going to do anything about the people who are here; we are OK with employers continuing to pay them under the table; we are OK with them continuing to not pay taxes, because not a single one of my colleagues has offered an amendment to round up these 11 million people in our country and ship them out. I call that de facto amnesty. Some people have talked about the process. One of my closest friends in the Senate said, I don't like the process. We should have been working with the House from the very beginning. I am not a Member of the Gang of 8, but we had eight Senators who worked for a long time to create a bill. The same thing is happening in the House right now.

Mr. CORKER. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mr. CORKER. The process is that the House passes legislation, if they so choose. They may not choose to take up immigration. My sense is they will not take up this bill; they will take up their own bill. The way the process works is we conference those, and we end up with a better piece of legislation. Fiscally, if this bill passes, we are spending a lot of money on border security--and some people have said it is too much. But, again, I have had no amendments over here trying to lower the standards that were put in place by the Hoeven-Corker amendment. The fact is we would be spending $46 billion on border security to have these five tangible things occur, and we would be getting $197 billion back in the Treasury if we do this. I have never been able to vote for a piece of legislation that had this much fiscal benefit for our country that didn't raise anybody's taxes. Then we have seen the whole issue of the economic growth that is going to be created for our country if we pass this bill. I believe voting against this bill is voting against border security. What that means is that things are going to stay exactly as they are. We are going to have porous borders, no entry-exit visa program, no E- Verify system. I think voting against this bill is voting for the status quo, which is, in essence, de facto amnesty. I believe this bill takes a step forward. I believe it is good for our country in every single way I can imagine, and later today I plan to support this bill. I hope it is improved in the House. I cannot imagine there is anybody in this body who believes where we are today is satisfactory. I came here to make progress, to solve problems, and I appreciate those involved in allowing me to help with that process. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I want to speak today on the amendment. I know the Senator from Texas, my friend and someone I respect, made numerous comments about the bill. But actually the vote we have today is about the border security amendment that has been negotiated and a lot of people have worked on. I know some of his comments refer to some portions of the amendment. Mostly, he was talking about the bill itself. The issue before us today is the border security amendment the Senator from North Dakota and myself and many others worked on. I want to put this in context, if I can. Fifteen days ago in the Republican caucus at what we call our conference lunch, there was a discussion about the ways of trying to make this immigration bill better. The Senator from North Dakota had a base bill dealing with border security, and many of us at the time said what we could do is take a base border security amendment, expand it, and try to accommodate many of the desires of people in our caucus with other provisions in it that many Senators here in this body wanted to see happen. Two Fridays ago, we actually had about 12 offices come together for a meeting to talk about many of those attributes they felt would make this bill better. So over time we developed a 115-page amendment--some people say 119-page amendment--dealing with not just border security but many issues people in this body thought would make this bill better. There has been some dispute about the size of this amendment; I know we have had some discussion from people on the floor. It is unfortunate that sometimes people will come to the Senate floor and say things that are a little over the top in order to make a point. But I will note that today some of my friends on my side of the aisle received multiple Pinocchios, if you will, from a very well-respected publication, because the fact is the amendment is as we have said. Because of the rules of construction in the Senate, when we add a 119- or 115-page amendment to a 1,100-page bill and we intersperse the amendment throughout it, no doubt we come up with a 1,200-page bill, if you will. The fact is, 1,100 of those pages we have had since April. They have been through committee. People offered amendments. So let me say I think the amendment size issue has been totally rebutted. I would say the Senator from North Dakota and myself have certainly carried the day on that issue. I think it is a fact now. We understand the size. We know this amendment has some things in it other than border security. That was part of the process in getting to a place where we enhanced the bill. Some people are talking about the cost, and my friend from Texas was just speaking. If my colleagues noticed--and it is very important around here to listen--he talked about on-budget costs. First of all, everybody in this body knows the problem we have in America today is the off-budget items and that our entitlement programs are what are driving the huge deficits we have in this Nation. So it is the entitlement issues most people who speak about deficit reduction are focused on because we have done so much already on what we call the discretionary side, which is the on-budget piece. CBO has scored this bill and basically they have said--not basically, they have said if this bill were to pass, when we take into account the entitlements and we take into account the discretionary spending, which is what is called on-budget, we will reduce the deficit by $197 billion. One of the main reasons that is the case is when immigrants move into what is called the temporary status, they pay in for 10 years, and one of the toughest provisions in this bill is they cannot receive any benefits for 10 years. Think about that. We have this huge amount of money that is going to be coming into the Social Security Program and coming into the Medicare Program which, candidly, helps people in this Nation because it makes those programs more solvent. We have to listen to the words here. Let's think about it when people talk about the cost of this border security amendment. Yes, it costs $46 billion to implement these items--which, by the way, almost every Republican has championed for years, all of the items in this border surge, if you will--but it costs $46 billion. I will tell my colleagues I have been here 6\1/2\ years and I would put my credentials on focusing on deficit issues with anyone in this body. I have never had an opportunity to vote for a bill that cost $46 billion over a 10-year period but generated $197 billion into the Treasury without raising anybody's taxes and, I might add, also generating economic growth for our country. So I want to debunk that. This is a tremendous opportunity for us to actually reduce our deficit while, at the same time, securing our border. People are talking about process--and I am coming to the end here. It is interesting to me that the very people, I hate to say it, on my side of the aisle who have been raising cain, if you will, about the fact there aren't enough amendments are the very people who are objecting to amendments being offered. Look, this is the old game that is played around here: Well, we think we ought to have 35 amendments. We think we ought to have--but somebody on my side is objecting. Most people in the country don't understand that in the Senate we have something called unanimous consent, and if one Senator disagrees, it cannot happen--one Senator. So we have had this situation going back and forth where we have tried to have amendments. I agree, let's have amendments. There is one amendment in particular I wish we could vote on and pass. I would love to see it. But guess what. I want everybody to know the very people who are saying they want to have more amendments are objecting to more amendments. So understand what is happening here on the Senate floor. There will be some people who say, Well, I am going to vote against this because of the process. I want America to understand what is happening in this body right now. As a matter of fact, I don't know if it is true, but my understanding was the other side was actually going to agree to 35 amendments, and people heard that and they said: Well, my gosh, they might accept 35 amendments. Go down there and file more amendments because we are afraid they are actually going to agree to what it is we are asking for. So we will see. Let me close with this: Nobody in this body can say the amendment we are voting on today does not do anything someone can imagine relative to border security. My good friend from Texas spent a lot of time drafting a border security bill that had 5,000 Border Patrol agents. This one has 20,000--20,000 Border Patrol agents. This amendment calls for 20,000 Border Patrol agents. It doubles the number of Border Patrol agents on our southern border. We are adding $4.5 billion worth of technology that the chief of border control has been trying to get for years, bought and paid for in this bill. We are adding an entry-exit visa program that has to be fully in place. We are adding E-Verify for every employer in the country. We are also adding 350 miles of fencing. People are saying: Well, we don't know if this will ever happen. My colleagues should read the triggers. If it doesn't happen, nobody gets a green card, and every American can see whether this happened. Then people are saying, Well, on the fencing piece--nobody, by the way, debates the 20,000 Border Patrol; nobody debates E-Verify; nobody debates entry-exit; nobody debates the $4.5 billion in technology. But then people are saying, Well, wait a minute. On the fencing piece, though, the Homeland Security Secretary can decide where it goes. Well, my friends in good government--and I happen to be with one of those-- yes, it does say she can decide in section 5 of the bill which places work best. We know the people from Texas don't even want a fence. People in Arizona wish to have a fence. But it still says under the triggers--and people are trying to malign and trying to fool people all out across America because they know what is getting ready to happen. The fact is, without the 350 miles ironclad, in place, there is no green card. So all five provisions have to be in place. I know people try to spin things when they get on television and they try to say things to confuse America. What I would say to America is read the bill. I think Americans would be proud of border security, which brings me to a close here today. Here is what I want to say: On the procedural vote that took place 2 days ago, every single Democrat voted to end debate on this border security measure. We had 15 Republicans who voted for it. The process issue is behind us and today we are voting on the amendment itself. I don't know how any Republican can look a TV camera or a constituent in the eye and not say this amendment strengthens--surges--on the border and makes our border more secure. So if, for some reason, Republicans come to the floor today--a majority of Republicans--and they vote against this border security amendment, what is going to happen is the Democrats are going to own the border security issue, and basically Republicans--whose constituents I think in some cases care more about this issue than many people on the other side--will be giving up this issue. I don't know how any Republican can go back home and say to their constituents: I voted against adding Border Patrol agents and I voted against adding a fence on the southern border and I voted against an E- Verify system and I voted against an exit-entry program and I voted against the technology our Border Patrol chief wants. I voted against it because I didn't like the process. I voted against it because this bill has been before us now for over 2 months and I had a chance to make amendments in the Judiciary Committee and I had a chance to make amendments on the floor but, candidly, I didn't want that to happen, so I kept that from occurring. I would ask my friends: Please, today is about an amendment to a bill that makes it stronger. My colleagues may not like every provision, but we cannot look folks in the eye back home and say this isn't something that those who care about border security would know surges the border, makes this country safer, and I would say makes this bill a much stronger bill. With that, I yield the floor. I hope my good friend and great partner from the State of North Dakota will make some comments. I wish to thank Senator Leahy from Vermont for his generosity with time this morning.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, it is my understanding that Senator Leahy is yielding time--or maybe it is Senator Landrieu who is yielding time. Somebody is yielding time.