Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to speak very briefly on the Toomey amendment. I know we have on the floor a bill that basically, let's face it, puts off for about 4 years reforms we put into the Flood Insurance Program. It is a $24 billion program. It is a very small, in essence, entitlement program we have in this country. I am very despondent over the fact that we passed these reforms unanimously out of the Banking Committee in 2011. That took place in October of 2013. Our Nation is facing incredible entitlement problems, and we all know it. People on both sides of the aisle have been down here ad nauseam talking about the fact that as a Nation, the No. 1 threat we have is our inability to deal with the fiscal issues we know we have throughout the entitlement programs we have in this country. Here we have a situation where, unanimously, out of the Banking Committee, we passed reforms to deal with the flood insurance program which we know is moving quickly towards insolvency. So what do we do? Maybe instead of being the most deliberative body in the world, we might be described as the most pandering body in the world. What we are doing instead is punting on these reforms. I am discouraged by that. It is amazing. I think we have not shown the ability to really address any of the bigger issues that our Nation has to deal with. Obviously, I would be more responsive to a bill that maybe made tweaks or did some things to make this work in a way that was not quite as draconian. But the fact is we all know the way the program works. It is just not sustainable, and we know that, in essence, taxpayers all across this country are subsidizing folks who are participating in a national program that called for them to have insurance relative to their own property. So in an effort to try to deal with this in a more thoughtful way, Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania has offered an amendment to ensure that the increases in premiums people are facing are done in a way that obviously dramatically reduces the impact on people. Again, I applaud that. I appreciate that. I think there are some homeowners in this country, as well as property owners, who are having--the way the program now works, these increases would take place over the next 4 to 5 years. Instead, the Toomey amendment causes them to not increase--especially for those who make under a certain amount of money--more than 25 percent a year. So if someone has a $200 bill for flood insurance next year, it would go up 50 percent. I think it is a thoughtful effort to try to cause this bill to still be actuarially sound. It has no negative impact on our deficits. I think it is a way for us to deal with this in a much better way than, let's face it, putting our heads in the sand and not taking on this issue. I want to go back one more time and say this is one of the few reforms--it may be the only reform that I am aware of--that has actually become law that has come out of the Banking Committee in several years. It did so unanimously. This is in essence an entitlement program. It is a small entitlement program. I understand it is very important to some property owners around our country. But if we as a body are going to turn away from reforms and not replace those reforms with other reforms but instead delay--in essence what most people believe because of the way FEMA operates--delay this for 4 years, then I think it speaks to a body that just really has no desire whatsoever to take on the issues that are so important to our Nation's citizens. So I think the Toomey amendment is a thoughtful approach to try to deal with the issue, which I think is affecting many people in this body who have people they represent who are going through substantial increases in a way that they feel to be too draconian. So if that is a Senator's issue, I urge people to strongly support the Toomey amendment. By the way, with the passage of the Toomey amendment, which leaves the rest of the reforms in place, I will then believe we have done something in this body that is thoughtful. We will have attempted to make this Flood Insurance Program actuarially sound and, at the same time, we will have solved the issue that I think so many people here are concerned about. Without the passage of the Toomey amendment as a part of this bill, I wish to say one more time, this body will have failed once again. With a very, very, very small entitlement program, we will have failed to rise to the occasion, to put our country, minimally, on a course toward solvency, and instead turned away from this effort which speaks to the fact that there is almost no likelihood that we will ever, within the short period of the midterm anyway, be able to address the bigger issues we all know are looming and are affecting our country in such a big way. I urge strong support for the Toomey amendment. Without the Toomey amendment, I hope this body will vote down this bill which undoes the only real reforms the Banking Committee has put in place in the last several years. With that, I yield the floor, and I thank the Presiding Officer for the time.

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, first, I want to say I appreciate Senator Coburn's work on the PEPFAR Program. He has been a tireless advocate and has made this program better, more efficient, and more focused. PEPFAR has saved millions of lives since President Bush signed it into law in 2003. I was pleased to work with Chairman Menendez and our colleagues in the House on legislation, the PEPFAR Stewardship and Oversight Act, which continues its important work, and I truly appreciate the support Senator Coburn offered to this critical effort. PEPFAR is the single most successful program to date to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa and the largest commitment by any nation to combat a single disease internationally. In fact, due to PEPFAR, almost 6 million people are receiving life-sustaining antiretroviral treatment, millions have avoided infection, and more than 11 million pregnant women received HIV testing and counseling last year. PEPFAR has also provided care and support to nearly 15 million people, including more than 4.5 million orphans and vulnerable children. This is significant progress, but there is still work to do. The PEPFAR Stewardship and Oversight Act renews Congress's commitment to this vital program and ensures this work will continue our progress towards an AIDS-free generation. As my colleague Senator Coburn has stated, a provision in the PEPFAR Stewardship and Oversight Act extends authority from the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde U.S. Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008 that requires ``more than half of the amounts appropriated for bilateral global HIV/AIDS assistance'' be spent on programs that provide treatment and care to HIV/AIDS patients. We included an extension of this authority in the 2013 bill because it is important to ensure the program remains focused on treating and caring for patients. The plain language of the provision requires the ``more than half'' calculation to be made on all ``amounts appropriated or otherwise made available to carry out the provisions of section 104A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.'' We expect this requirement to be followed going forward. I look forward to working with Senator Coburn and the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator to ensure that the provision as intended by Congress is properly carried out.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, the Globe Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has recently made significant improvements and reforms, including building new data collection and reporting mechanisms. S. 1545, the PEPFAR Stewardship and Oversight Act, takes advantage of these reforms and provides for additional public reporting from the Global Fund on import duties and taxes on Global Fund services and commodities under section 4(b)(1)(F). This reporting is intended to identify discriminatory duties and taxes levied upon the Global Fund, and therefore should not be construed to require the reporting of de minimus administrative charges or nondiscriminatory fees. In addition, in order to allow the Global Fund time to develop the data collection systems required to implement this reporting, it is our intention that these requirements become fully effective as soon as is practicable, but no later than the end of the 2015 fiscal year. In the meantime, the Global Fund's efforts to meet the requirements of section 4(b)(1)(F) with additional reporting on these matters should be sufficient to meet the requirements in our legislation.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an outstanding member of our staff, a friend, and a very special person who will soon leave the Senate--after almost 11 years of service--with her family to go to Nashville to begin the next exciting phase of their lives. I first met Laura Lefler when she was a staffer working in Senator Lamar Alexander's front office answering the phones and greeting visitors. I was in Washington to try to decide, like the Presiding Officer, whether running for the U.S. Senate was something I should consider. Seeing her smiling face and listening to her Tennessee accent certainly made me feel at home. Later, after I decided to run, we became involved in one of the most difficult races in the country in 2006. I was the only new Republican to make it through. Toward the end, with the race nationalized and dealing with all kinds of issues, a whole crew of folks descended upon our office to help us get across the top. One of those was young Laura Lefler, who helped us in our communications office. I think she was surprised by the fierceness of a campaign such as this. She took it all very personally--a sign of someone you want to be at your side. Then came the transition. Laura was the first person to open our office, and she helped us interview people and find our way through the daunting task of opening a new Senate office. When it came down to deciding who would lead our communications office, we had gotten down to people who had been here and done it for a long time and Ms. Laura Lefler. She always said I was concerned about whether she should really be the person, and, in fairness, now that she is leaving, I will say I was. She was young. She had never done this before. Certainly I had never done this before. And I wondered whether we needed someone who was more seasoned and had different experiences. Without question, hiring Laura to lead our communications office is one of the best decisions I have ever made in my life. I cannot imagine the last 7 years without Laura in our office, and I know the rest of our staff feels the same way. Laura has been instrumental to our office in every way. No doubt, she has done an outstanding job as a communications director. I think every person in our office, those in other offices, and the media people throughout the Capitol and throughout Tennessee would all speak to the fact that she has been a professional, she has been endearing and a responsible communications director. She has also been instrumental in other ways, such as always ensuring that I have never forgotten where I came from. She has that knack when we are making a decision over a tough vote to slip in toward the end and sit down privately and express her own feelings--something I value greatly. As time went on, I realized something was different about other Senate offices. Most Senate offices center around the U.S. Senator. Our office has never been that way; it has always revolved around Laura. It began with this guy named John Herzog, whom she later married. Was he going to end up having the kind of job that would allow him to know he could support a family? And then when he did, was he going to ask her to marry him? This went on for months and months. Then there was the wedding after he asked. I do not think I have ever seen so many photographs of dresses and flower arrangements, nor have others in our office. Then came the decision about their home purchase. Where would it be? What would it look like? How far of a drive would it be? You know the drill. Then came young Jack. His hair was so perfect when he was born, he instantly was dubbed ``the Weatherman.'' Then, of course, which daycare would he attend? Would it be close enough? Would she continue to be a communications director and a good mom? As we all knew would be the case, she has been exceptional at both. Then more of the same in Tennessee. I remember a townhall meeting in Loudon, TN, where over 1,000 people showed up at the gymnasium--a place where Laura Lefler had been the valedictorian. I remember walking in with such excitement that so many people would be there at this townhall meeting to hear me discuss the big issues facing our Nation, but, not surprisingly, the first thing that was said when I walked in the door was, ``Where's Laura?'' Now, as we all knew would happen at some point, it is time for them to move on to the next phase in their lives. While we have all been a part of her life and lived the ups and downs, she has been a part of all of ours. We will miss her greatly. She knows full well that I would gladly continue to be second fiddle in our office if she would stay. But we all know it is time for her and John, with their wonderful son Jack and possibly others to come, to go back to Tennessee, time to go back and be a part of other people's lives the way they have been a part of ours. She has made life better for all of us over the last 7 years. Her big smile and ability to take ribbing--and also dish it out--have made each day so much more enjoyable. She is a consummate professional, always seeking perfection but with the ability to make it fun along the way. We will miss her, but we are so happy for her, for John, and for Jack. We are happy for her mother, who lives just across the line in Kentucky, and her dad, who lives right up the road in Loudon. We know Nashville will be a much better place with the Herzogs there. We look forward to visiting them often, and we all hope they will continue to involve us all in their wonderful life, their story, and the evolution of the Herzog family in Tennessee. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Hawaii for the way she has dealt with us since she has been here. I rise today to talk about discussions that have been taking place in Vienna over the last four days relative to the Iran P5+1 discussions. I know each of us in this body focuses on different topics based on the committee assignments we have. I wish to point out that reports have come out today and last night that the technical experts who have been meeting around the deal that has been announced still are having difficulties trying to understand how to implement this deal that was written down on four pages. I say this to talk about the fact that there are many in this body on both sides of the aisle who would like to weigh in on this issue. I realize the administration has expressed concerns as to what type of weighing in they think might be harmful to the discussions. I think there are many of us who understand those things and have tried to figure out a way to weigh in in an appropriate way. (Mr. KAINE assumed the Chair.) To bring people's memories back into focus, one of the concerns we have all had leading up to the announcement of this deal has been the amount of time, if you will, that remains before Iran reaches a status of being a nuclear armed state. So it was very important, I think to all of us, as we heard the announcement of this interim deal, that we actually understand the timeframes that were involved. I know many people were alarmed--were alarmed--by this interim agreement because, in fact, there was a tacit understanding that Iran-- which has been a rogue nation--no doubt, if this agreement continues to go through, is going to be a state that will be allowed to enrich uranium, much in the face of the 123 Agreements that we negotiate around the world, trying to establish a gold standard with countries to keep them from doing that. This agreement--let's face it, I think that Wendy Sherman, yesterday, in testimony to the Banking Committee, and, I can assure you, every single Iranian official who has been involved in these negotiations, understand that what the United States of America, with other countries, has agreed to is to allow Iran to be able to enrich uranium at some level when a final deal is actually done. I think one of the concerns that many of us have right now is that this interim deal either becomes the norm or--as the previous nuclear czar to the Obama administration, Gary Samore, has said--that we really just begin a series of rolling agreements and we never get to the place of establishing an end-state. I hate to say this, but yesterday Wendy Sherman--I think many of us have certainly conducted discussions with the White House and have been in classified briefings, and one of the things we have really wanted to put in place--and I think Carl Levin in a meeting at the White House spoke most clearly to this--and that is, in order to alleviate that kind of thing occurring, we need to have a firm beginning date and a firm end date. He said that end date should be 6 months, which is, by the way, what the agreed announcement said. I think what is dismaying to many people in this body is we are now finding out that not only is there not an end date, but addendums that can be mutually agreed to. In other words, there is no end date to this agreement. We are now finding out, based on testimony yesterday from Wendy Sherman, we do not even know when the start date is, that officials cannot even agree as to when the beginning of this agreement is going to be and when the implementation begins. It is pretty amazing to me that we could spend months negotiating over an issue that is so important to us and so important to the world and yet, after it is concluded, we do not even really know when the agreement begins, and we certainly--because of the text of the agreement--know that it does not have an end date. I have tried to listen to the concerns that the administration has. I think I have demonstrated since I have been here that I really want to seek understanding, No. 1, but also try to use that understanding to solve problems. So our office has worked hard to develop an amendment. It is an amendment that establishes a firm end date. But it also describes the end-state. That is what this amendment does. I think people on both sides of the aisle--I do not think it; I know it because of public expressions--have been very concerned that this interim agreement already violates the U.N. Security Council resolutions that this administration agreed to back in 2010, as did the other members of the Security Council. Many people are concerned that if we start with an agreement that, no doubt, expressly violates the U.N. Security Council resolution, and it does not have even a clear start date or end date, there are a lot of concerns, as you can imagine, that we will never get to that place that countries have agreed to back in 2010 as it relates to where Iran's end-state should be. Another concern that people have is, as we begin lifting these sanctions--and let's face it, Congress, the administration, and the international community actually have done a very good job together trying to figure out a way of appropriately implementing sanctions that have put pressure on Iran and have brought them to the place where they now are. But I think the concerns--and as a matter of fact Senator Jack Reed, yesterday, expressed these concerns in a Banking hearing--once you begin to basically say that Iran is not a rogue nation, that they are being brought hopefully into the international community, once you begin lifting even a minor portion of those sanctions, countries and companies around the world are going to clamor to do business because they see that in the very near future additional sanctions are going to be lifted. Just by virtue of that occurring, the sanctions begin to dissipate at a rapid pace. This is something, again, that has been expressed in a bipartisan way. So I have an amendment. I am the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, which means nothing other than I spend a lot of time on these issues and working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find solutions. As a matter of fact, we have not passed anything out of our committee yet that has not been bipartisan. We have coming over, I understand, an NDAA bill that has typically been the vehicle on which we all express ourselves on these kinds of issues. It is my understanding that the majority leader has decided himself--I will say, much to the consternation of my friends on the other side of the aisle, but certainly to the consternation of people on my side of the aisle--that he is not going to allow any amendments, that he himself has decided what is best for this body. So after spending months and months, and just coming from the region recently, working with the Presiding Officer and others on so many diplomatic and foreign policy issues together in a bipartisan way, I am now serving in a body that has the vehicle that typically is used to express ourselves on foreign policy issues and I do not have the right to raise an amendment to it. The body, by the way, may decide they do not support it. That is what happens around here. You debate issues and you decide whether you want to support them. By the way, the amendment I am offering does not add sanctions. All it does is define when the end is going to be, which, by the way, every world leader has stated is very, very important because of what is occurring on the ground in Iran, and it establishes a minimum end-state, which is what the U.N. Security Council resolution already says. I am one Senator, I realize, and there are 99 others, and I am sure there are many people in this body who would like to express themselves on issues that are not deemed to be partisan or deemed to be political, but just to express themselves on policy they believe to be important to the country. But the majority leader, on his own, has decided that is not going to be the case. Yesterday I was riding the elevator with a Senator who I came in with. I came in with nine Democrats and one Republican. I was the only Republican, excuse me. I did not come in with any other Republicans. I was it. We have had a lot of fun, and we get together once a year and talk about that. Candidly, relations between us, generally speaking, have been very good for the 7 years I have been here. This one Senator, who I have actually worked with more than others of the group on so many issues, said to me that what happened on the Senate floor a few weeks ago, where the majority overruled their own Parliamentarian--their own Parliamentarian--overruled with a simple majority vote, which means there are no rules in the Senate anymore-- this person said to me: Look, Bob, it was not personal. What is amazing to me is that the way this Senate is run is not personal to my friends on the other side of the aisle, the fact that, like lemmings, in so many cases, they would just follow, follow the majority leader, and let him decide what this body is going to vote on, and let him decide what policies this Senate is going to put in place. I do not understand that. We have all worked hard to be here, and we all work hard to represent our constituents. I think we all work hard not to disrespect ourselves, not to disrespect the office we hold, not to disrespect--I will not say we have all worked hard not to disrespect this institution because I believe what happened greatly disrespected this institution--and certainly, hopefully, we work hard not to disrespect the citizens with whom we serve. But what I find myself in total dismay over is that my friends on the other side of the aisle do not deem it personal that on the one vehicle that we typically express ourselves most on foreign policy issues--and at a time when we have so many foreign policy issues that in a bipartisan way people have concerns about--that they would decide to just let the majority leader decide what we are going to vote on, when we are going to vote on it, and if it is even appropriate to have a vote at all. So here we are. We have witnessed the many problems that have dismayed both sides of the aisle relative to the rollout of the health care bill. I think everybody in this body would recognize I have not been down here taking cheap shots at that. Look, I am concerned about the citizens of our State and what they are dealing with relative to this policy, and hearing the distress calls of people who have had their insurance canceled and maybe have had a quadruple bypass and are concerned about getting on, and I know all of us are involved in trying to help those citizens who are in dismay and are very concerned they be successful in actually being able to get on the exchanges. But here right now, seriously, we are watching a major foreign policy issue be rolled out by this administration with many of the same problems. We do not have a start date. We do not have an end date. We have not even broached the toughest issues with Iran over what the end- state is going to be. I think that is a tremendous disservice to our Nation. It is a tremendous disservice to the countries with which we work all around the world. It is a tremendous disservice for this body not to express its will. I know that the chairman of the committee had acted as if he wanted to participate in this somehow, making sure that Congress was heard on this in a way that does not blow up the negotiations. I think everyone here wants to see a diplomatic solution--everyone here. I do not know of anybody in this body that does not want to see that happen. But I also know, and I think the administration knows this as well, that the actions of this body, candidly, over the years are the main reasons that we are where we are. But, again, I will close; I know I am getting redundant. Our majority leader in his wisdom--and I know the majority leader decides who serves on committees. He decides who the chairman is of those committees. I realize that with that you have a great ability to keep people from expressing their will or rising and really wanting to do something in a bipartisan way. I am coming to understand, especially in recent weeks, what bipartisan means to our majority leader is whatever he decides is ``bipartisan.'' Even though the majority of the people in this body would really like to weigh in on this policy, to do so in an appropriate way so that we do not, in fact, do something that does something to harm the negotiation, but does something to strengthen our hand in these negotiations. That will not occur. To me, that is a disservice to this body. It is a disservice to this Nation. It is a disservice to every Member. No doubt, when each of us do not have the opportunity to express ourselves through amendments, what that really means is the folks we represent back home have no rights to have their concerns expressed or voted on. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her desire to see this to a conclusion. I appreciate the many ways we have been able to work together on so many issues. Look, I do not rise to blame either side right now. I do not. Let's face it, I have said from day one the effort that was taking place in the House regarding the health care bill was not an effort that was going to lead to a conclusion. It was an overreach. I know that. You know that. They know that. The country knows that. So we have ended up where we are. But in fairness what has happened over the last couple of days is--on the other side of the aisle it has gotten one tick too cute. We had a group of folks who had an idea. I thought it was a good starting place, candidly. We had six Republicans and six Democrats who had an idea of a way to move beyond this. Let's face it. We all know what happens around here. Two nights ago the White House weighed in and leadership on the Democratic side pulled back a hair, asked the 12 folks not to have a press conference yesterday to announce what their efforts were. The fact is we are where we are. Let me say this. I am perfectly happy with the two leaders negotiating a deal, and I want to support the leaders in negotiating a deal. I truly am. But at the end of the day what happened, let's face it, is we have had a little bit of a pullback where House Republicans overreached, no question. What has also happened over the last couple of days is there has been a little bit of a push to overreach and undo what happened with the Budget Control Act back in 2011, where budget caps were put in place, the President signed it, it passed, components of it--it passed the Senate. So just as much as the health care law is law, this also is law. What we have had over the last few days is a little bit of a pullback. I hope it is temporary. What I would say is at this moment in time we have actually had a little bit of a problem on both sides of the aisle. Let's face it. I think we have an opportunity over the next 24 hours for that to be worked out. What I would do is encourage the leadership to continue on this pace. As we all know, it takes 4 days to move anything across the Senate floor. We all know the debt ceiling is this Thursday. What I hope is going to happen is that both sides will admit there is a little bit of an issue, on both sides. I think there is a strong desire by the vast majority of our caucus over here to do something that is a pragmatic, good-government step. At the end of the day, look, these events have always been used in times when you have tremendous concerns about what our financial situation is. They have always been used as a backstop to hopefully negotiate some reforms. We have been on the wrong page for so long, which I admitted to. We may not have even been in the right book, but we have definitely been on the wrong page, and now we are finally on the right page. Let's face it. Not only are we on the right page where we are focused on fiscal issues relative to the debt ceiling and the continuing resolution to fund government, we are finally on fiscal solutions. Not only are we on the right page, we are finally on the right paragraph. We are focused on discussing mandatory reforms. We are on the right subject. We have the two leaders who are now talking to each other. By the way, I think the six Democrats and six Republicans who came together have helped that effort. There has been a little bit of a pullback. I think the White House kind of encouraged--hey, let's see if there is some way we can bust the sequester. In fairness, I am pretty sure that happened. I think the Senators are pretty sure that happened. I know there has been concern by some of the appropriators about the caps that exist, but it is the law. What I hope will happen is that we will end up with an agreement. The time is so short. We are not going to be able to do anything substantial on the mandatory issue. I think we all know that. I hope we will end up with an agreement that at least sets the framework for us to move, leave this behind us, as we should, but sets up the framework to move into dealing with the mandatory issues in such a way as they need to be dealt with. I think it is unreasonable to ask people on our side of the aisle to have a $1 trillion debt ceiling increase and not put some kind of framework in place to look at some of the mandatory issues we know are driving our country into the ground the way they are. I think there should be some framework for that to be discussed over the next 60 to 90 days. The House has looked at 6 weeks. Some people have said that is too short. It seems to me that doing something for the short term to get government up and the threat of the debt ceiling behind us--but doing something over the short term--gives us some time to harness the energy the Senator from Louisiana was alluding to. I know the Presiding Officer has intimated some of the same things. There is some energy in this body to deal with that, but the fact is we have not. A big part of it--as I mentioned--is that we have been on the wrong subject for a long time. We are finally on the right one. Let's come to a place where we can now focus on what we should have been focused on all along relative to debt ceilings and CRs. I think the less we do--and I don't think anybody I have heard in recent time has been doing this--to barb each other at this moment would be in everybody's best interest, because this is a moment where we do need to resolve this issue. This is not a moment to take shots at each other. We know where we have been. We know the path we have been down. It has been winding, it has been in the wrong direction, and we are now in the right place. Let's let the leaders work it out. I hope they will. I hope while the Democrats say this is settled law--the health care bill, the Affordable Care Act--that Democrats and Republicans will say the Budget Control Act is settled law. We have agreed to some caps. There is a more intelligent way of getting to those caps. I think there are probably 70 people in this body who agree. We could do some mandatory reforms and substitute those for some of the discretionary cuts and still end up at the same levels of spending that are in this bill, which would be more intelligent for our Nation, and it would make our Nation much stronger. I think there is a lot of desire to talk about those kinds of things as long as it is done in the right way. There are all kinds of mandatory reforms. They are not the same. I know the Senator from Alabama, who just came into the Chamber, made note of that yesterday. There are all kinds of mandatory changes, and they are not the same; they are not equal. We need to look at those and honor the trusts that have been set up. Look, I think we have finally gotten to a pretty good place. I really do. I think both sides are a little bit at fault. People might discern that one side is more at fault than the other, but now it is time for all of us to focus on the right page, the right paragraph, so we can get this done. I think we can get this done as long as people don't try to--as the Senator from Louisiana mentioned a minute ago--game this out to say which side ends up with a bigger win. I am afraid a little of that stepped in over the last 24 hours. I hope it will dissipate. I hope we will end up in a place that is good for our Nation. That is what we all came here to do, and I think it is going to happen, although I will say I have been a little bit concerned because over the last 24 hours that has not been what these conversations have been about. Hopefully we will get back on the page we were on about 36 hours ago and focus on doing something that is bipartisan, that will stand the test of time, and will go over to the House in such a way that it has a tremendous amount of support coming out of this Chamber, and that it is not something where one side tries to peel off five or six items from the other side. That is not going to stand the test of time. That is not going to take us to a place that solves this problem in time to keep the kind of things the Senator from Louisiana mentioned might happen if we don't. In all likelihood my time is up, and I yield the floor for that reason.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I want to take 30 seconds and say for the Record, I don't want anybody to think that I thought the strategy that was undertaken was the right strategy. I think I have been clear in saying I did not think that took us to a positive place. But the point is we are where we are, and we are finally on the right page. Let's stay there and solve this problem. With that, I will yield the floor. I see the outstanding and distinguished Senator from Alabama is here. He is someone whom I very much enjoy working with, and I look forward to his comments.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Right.

Mr. CORKER. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, I am just looking down to see what the date is, but it seems to me that we have 2 weeks here, and to get to the Senator's comments, hopefully a week. In other words, the quicker we resolve these issues, the better it is for our Nation, the better it is for the world, because at the end of the day, let's face it, what we care about most is the well-being of our citizens back home. We know that uncertainty creates uncertainty in the economy. It affects people's jobs. I would agree. Look, we are at that moment in time where we have all realized the CR and the debt ceiling are probably going to be linked together. They are linked together in essence, and, as the senior Senator from Arizona just mentioned, there is no question we are going to resolve those. So what we ought to do is sit down right now, the President of the United States, the appropriate leadership here in the House and Senate--and whether it is they or their proxies--but to sit down, and let's figure out if there are some reforms we can put in place to make our country stronger and to again get back on the right topic, which is our financial strength. I think we could do that. The fact is that there are no new issues. Every single issue has been litigated. There is legislative language. They are scored. There is not a new issue for us to talk about relative to putting some good policy in place to move ahead. The Senator from Arizona has been so involved in these issues. I just could not agree more. I know the junior Senator from Arizona is sitting in the back, and I know he has been incredibly responsible fiscally. I think we have an opportunity. I think this body should take advantage of it. I think the President should come to the table, take advantage of it, the leadership of the House. Let's do something good for our country. Let's do it in an appropriate amount of time. Let's put this behind us and move on--move on as a nation.

Mr. CORKER. I do.

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

Mr. CORKER. Yes. I did not mean to individuals.

Mr. CORKER. I think everyone understands that is very problematic for markets. Actually, we are beginning to see some volatility now that we have not seen in the past. I would like to respond, if I could, a little more fully to say that I think we have an opportunity--look, we have been in a place that I think people have known. We have known exactly where the discussions in the past were going to lead; that is, to this box canyon. I think the fact that we have ended up in a place now where these two things may merge--and I know the senior Senator from Arizona has been involved in multiple conversations about this--I think we have an opportunity now to begin talking again about those things that strengthen our Nation and looking at some reforms, not to do so in a chicken way, in a way where you have two cars heading at each other, but to use this like previous debt ceilings have been used where adults sit down, they look at the problems our Nation is facing, and we do some things that, candidly, in a bipartisan way, people have been trying to do for a long time. I would like to mention one more time--I know I did this yesterday, and I know the senior Senator from Arizona and myself have spent a lot of time together on this issue--the President, in his budget in April, put forth some mandatory reforms. Many of those are pretty good. I would like to make them better, but they are a pretty good start. We have a few days--a week, 2 weeks--here where we could actually sit down maybe and cobble something together that would mean that while all this acrimony has existed for some time, we might get back on target and back to focusing on making our country stronger. I know today we were in this incredible hearing on Iran, and I certainly appreciated the comments of the senior Senator from Arizona about our concerns there. One of the biggest issues we have around the world right now is just people look at us--as the Senator was alluding to a minute ago--as unable to deal with our fiscal issues. So I look at what has happened. I know it can be viewed in whichever way you want to view it. I look at it as being a glass half full. We have an opportunity over the next short period of time to do some good policy, put some good policy in place, to pass a CR, to pass the debt ceiling, and again move our country ahead toward being stronger. I am sorry to respond with such a long answer.

Mr. CORKER. I would be tremendously honored to take a question from the distinguished Senator.

Mr. CORKER. That is right.

Mr. CORKER. I do not pay as much attention to polls possibly as I should. My understanding, in listening to the senior Senator from Arizona, is they are not particularly favorable.

Mr. CORKER. It will function again.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I did not really expect to come down here and speak. I was just checking on a judge vote, which I understand has been postponed. But I do say this: It appears to me that the CR discussion and the debt ceiling discussion are going to be combined maybe into one effort, and I just want to say that I think that is a great opportunity for all of us. I was down here yesterday talking about the same. Typically, when we have dealt with issues such as this, what we have tried to do together is figure out a way to strengthen our country through making those kinds of reforms that lessen the amount of deficits we are going to have in the future. That is typically what debates such as this have been about. So I think the realization that people have right now--that we could well try to deal with the CR and the debt ceiling at the same time-- could move us back into the kind of constructive conversation we have had for so long around mandatory spending reforms, figuring out a way to keep spending reductions where they are but build upon them, but do it in a way that is more sensible than what we have done in the past. So, again, I was beginning to get worried. And I will stop in a minute. It looks as if the senior Senator----

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, we find ourselves in a very predictable situation, and what is unpredictable is what our response to this situation is going to be. For some time I have talked about the box canyon that we were taking ourselves into, and I think it has now become very apparent to folks on both sides of the aisle that to overturn a central piece of legislation, it takes more than one-third of government to do so. When we have the presiding President over that piece of legislation, it actually takes two-thirds of each of the bodies to make that happen. I think people have realized that. It gives me no joy, but this is something I have obviously talked about for some time. Now we find ourselves in this box canyon. What was also very predictable was that my friend Tom Coburn, the great Senator from Oklahoma, laid out very clearly on the Senate floor that even if there was a government shutdown, the health care bill would continue. I think what Americans are waking up to and seeing-- even though Republicans have strongly opposed the health care bill at every turn--that even with government being shut down, the health care bill is continuing on and people around the country are signing up for what people call ObamaCare. So both of these were very predictable outcomes. What is now unpredictable is what our response to that is going to be. I am speaking mostly to my friends on this side of the aisle. There has also been a number of people on the other side of the aisle who have spent a great deal of time over the last 2 or 3 years trying to focus on ways to reduce spending in the government and making our country stronger in the process. I think to a person over here--as well as many on the other side of the aisle--we understand that our inability to deal with the fiscal situation in which we find ourselves in this country has hurt us economically. People have not been willing to invest in capital investments within their companies and around the world in many cases because they don't know what is going to happen in our country. I know first hand as the ranking member on Foreign Relations--and as I have traveled the world--there is no doubt it has affected us around the world. People really do not understand whether we are going to be able to meet the obligations we have made from a security standpoint. Again, where we are today is very predictable, and I don't want to be crass. Obviously, I know this is creating a hardship for some people who have been furloughed, and it is certainly affecting people around our country, and that is obviously not good. On the other hand, if there is some way for some good policy outcome that strengthens our country over the longer haul, which is why we are all here, then that is a good tradeoff. We will see what happens. Here is my concern: While the situation we are in is very predictable--and many people in this body predicted we would end up exactly where we are today in this box canyon--we knew people would still sign up for the new health care law, which some have tried to defund, in spite of the fact that government has shut down. What I am concerned about is this: We have made great strides as a nation, and in this body, to reduce government outlays we have control over. This has not happened in this Nation since 1955 and 1956. Two years ago we were at $1.43 trillion in annual outlays from a discretionary standpoint, and that is what we deal with in a CR. Last year we were at $988 billion, and this year--if we continue to uphold the law we put in place--we will be at $967 billion. That is a phenomenal result for us to have achieved in this body and for our country--to have achieved to strengthen our Nation. While there may be ways of changing the way those outlays are done--and maybe there is mandatory spending that is substituted for discretionary spending. Maybe there are ways of doing it to make it more sensible to people in this body. It is truly remarkable that Washington figured out a way to reduce the amount of spending that was taking place. I know we can figure out a way to do that even smarter. Let me get to the unpredictable point. Sometimes when people find themselves in a box canyon or in a place that is difficult, they begin doing things that are not in the interest of themselves, and certainly not in the interest of the body that they represent. What I am worried about is that while so many people have been focused on this shiny thing over here and so much of the Nation's focus has been on this shiny thing over here, what people have not been focused on, in the way I would hope, is the gains we have made in controlling spending as a nation. What I worry about--as it looks like we are now beginning to combine the continuing resolution process with the debt ceiling--is that people forget about the tremendous gains we have made in strengthening this Nation. While I am saying this to an empty Chamber, like most of us do when we speak on the Senate floor--and I know people are busy and have other things to do--my talk today is really focused on people in the other Chamber. I know there is a lot that is happening over there. What I am worried about is that as the leadership over there tries to cobble together 218 votes to maybe do something relevant to the continuing resolution, and at the same time do something to the debt ceiling, that somehow or other--because we are in this boxed canyon that was very predictable-- they deal away what we have gained. What I hope we will do on this side--and to all of those--and there are many--on the other side who have fought so hard to try to get the momentum going so we will save our country from huge deficits down the road and do what we can to make sure we leave this country a better place for young people like these interns and pages here on the floor-- of the aisle is keep our focus on the fact that whenever negotiations take place around a debt ceiling, they traditionally and always have been about making sure we are trying to do those things to keep us from having more debt down the road. We need to keep our eyes focused on the reforms that are necessary to keep that process going. To be candid--and this is the first time I have said this publicly-- to look at a continuing resolution at $988 billion--I'm sorry. As it now is, the law says we would be spending--beginning a couple of days ago in this new year--at $967 billion. I know the discussions here on the floor have been: Well, in 6 weeks the sequester--by the way, the sequester is that mechanism that was put in place during the Budget Control Act to continue to put downward pressure on spending--will kick in according to all of the discussions that have taken place. I think most of us who have fought hard to try to save our Nation from these mounting deficits down the road were a little disappointed that we would be looking at extending last year's spending for 6 weeks, and really not taking ourselves down to $967 billion. I realize what has happened. But here is my point to the other side of the building, the House: Whatever you have to do to cobble together 218 votes to pass a bill over there relative to maybe the CR and the debt ceiling, please do not negotiate away the hard-won gains we were able to put in place to reduce spending and help make our country stronger for the young people like those sitting in front of me. That is my message. We are in a place that is very predictable. The outcome is unpredictable, but what I hope the outcome will be is an outcome that causes us not only not to deal away the gains that have been put in place, but to maybe put in place mandatory reforms that we all know need to occur to make this country stronger. There is tremendous bipartisan support. In April the President laid out a budget that had a number of mandatory reforms that he was in agreement with. So what I hope will happen is we will keep the discretionary levels at levels we have already agreed to and we will take up some of those mandatory reforms that the President has already said he thinks are in the interest of our Nation and use those to help us raise the debt ceiling. As a result, we will have an outcome that causes this country to be stronger, causes this economy to grow, and over time causes us to continue to be able to honor the commitments we have made around the world. With that I note absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER

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.