Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I would like to just interject, with tremendous respect for my friend from Arizona, this letter is something that actually I have been seeking too. I know a number of us have asked the President to send this letter. I am glad he sent it. I am going to support the McCain amendment and wish this was not in the preamble. I talked to General Cartwright yesterday who, by the way, has reiterated about what was said about the missile defense system. The preamble in no way limits it. But I wish to say this letter is something I am glad was sent. I asked for this letter, as numbers of people on our side have asked for.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I would say I was here last night on the floor. I think the Senator was, too, when discussions took place around the CR. I think emotions around here were slightly frayed, and I think everybody wants this session to end. It is my hope it will end with us doing what is necessary on the START treaty. I think it would be good to clear that up. I think the last thing we need right now is confusion over that. It seems, instead of taking each amendment at a time--I am not up to any trickery here, I am just trying to clear this up--I think it would be much better--again, this is maybe beyond my pay grade at this moment--if the two bill managers would go ahead, by unanimous consent, and ask for that and move on with it. That way there is no question about whether people have the ability to try to amend either one, and we can move on so people cannot come down here later and say they were blocked from offering certain types of amendments.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I have, I guess, a parliamentary inquiry. Maybe the Senator from Massachusetts, through you, might answer. I think we are at a point in time where it is time for amendments to be offered. I encourage people, on our side of the aisle in particular, if they have amendments, to offer them. At present, I have no amendments personally. I was able to be involved in the resolution of ratification that Senator Lugar and I drafted early during the committee. But I know a number of my colleagues have been wanting to offer amendments. It seems like there is a lot of time for that to occur today. That ought to be forthcoming so we can get on. I have some comments I would like to make about the treaty and I guess concerns I have that we would introduce in the middle of this debate some political issues regarding the military that are unnecessary at this moment in time. That can be said later. But it is my hope we can move this along. I would like to ask the Senator from Massachusetts, through the Chair how the amendment process is working. I know there has been some question on our side about whether amendments to the treaty and amendments to the resolution itself can be offered at the same time. I think it would be helpful--because everybody is impatient. They are wanting to see the amendments come forward and let's move forward with this process. It would be good to know how that process actually would work. There has been a question about the cloture vote and how that impacts pending amendments. I think, in order to help move this along, it would be good if that could be answered.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am not sure it is my role, because of the way the managers manage this bill, to ask for unanimous consent in that regard. I think that is probably something that either the two leaders should ask or the two managers of the bill. But it would seem to me that would clear up any questions people have about the process itself. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, through the Chair, if that is the way it should work, to get that unanimous consent.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I would agree.

Mr. CORKER. So, Madam President, I know the senior Senator from Connecticut is getting ready to speak, someone we all respect. I just want to say, as I said 3 hours ago, as someone who has worked closely with the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I think I would say in a very constructive way, I think the decision to take up a House measure in the middle of this debate--which I have to say that today there are not many things on the Senate floor that--well, I shouldn't say that. This is one of the more interesting matters I have heard on the Senate floor, where lots of serious issues are being brought up. This is not one of those filibuster kinds of debates. The fact is, we are in the middle of this and we haven't voted on the first amendment and the leadership of the Senate has decided to pivot off that on to something that is totally unrelated to eat up the rest of the weekend. I just wish to say one more time, I can sense it has totally changed the nature of the debate and people's seriousness or feeling of seriousness about this whole debate. So I thank you.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I do think there are getting ready to be some amendments coming forward. I had the opportunity, working with Senator Lugar, to help write the resolution of ratification with the chairman. I don't personally have amendments, but I do think amendments are coming forth this afternoon. I know I and others are encouraging that process to begin. So I think that is getting ready to take place. My sense is there will be a number of very substantive amendments that come forward. I wish to make a comment. I think I have helped this process along, and I have enjoyed it thoroughly. I watched something happen last night on the floor of the Senate with our majority leader, whom I respect, coming down and filing cloture on more campaign promise types of issues. I am one of those who absolutely believes that when it comes to foreign policy, when it comes to military issues taking place overseas, partisanship absolutely should stop at our Nation's shore. That is why I have enjoyed this process so much. I wish to say to our Presiding Officer that what has happened over the course of the last 12 hours is--by filing cloture last night on don't ask, don't tell and on the DREAM Act during a lameduck session in the middle of the START treaty, what it says is, Republicans--and I don't even like to use partisan labels--but, Republicans, you all need to rise up above partisanship and deal with foreign policy in a bipartisan way, but in the midst of that, we are going to throw some partisan issues in here that are campaign promises we made over the course of this last year when we ran for election. I have to tell you what that has done. I have watched it. I have been in three meetings this morning. What has happened is it is poisoning the well on this debate on something that is very important. I don't want to see that happen. I am not one who comes down here and says fiery things or tries to divide. I am just hoping that saner minds will prevail and that these issues that have been brought forth that are absolutely partisan, political issues, brought forth to basically accommodate activist groups around this country, I am hoping those will be taken down or I don't think the future of the START treaty over the next several days is going to be successful based on what I am watching. I can understand human beings reacting the way they do to what happened last night at 7 o'clock, but I am hoping that is going to change. I am going to continue to work through this, and I am encouraging people to bring amendments forward. I know Senator Lugar is doing the same. But to ask Republicans to rise up above--and I think we all should rise up above. I think foreign policy and nuclear armaments--there are actually real differences in this case, but I think we should try to work together to resolve those. But to say--to do that in the midst of throwing in political things that are strictly there for political gain doesn't add up. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. I have a few questions, Madam President, through you to the Senator from Massachusetts. It is my understanding we have a cloture vote in the morning and should cloture be reached, we would then be on that matter for a couple days; is that correct?

Mr. CORKER. So to talk about--I just want to get it straight. There is not going to be any debate on START, should one of the two matters that will be taken up in the morning pass cloture; the whole weekend will be spent on other issues?

Mr. CORKER. Let me ask a second question.

Mr. CORKER. OK. Go ahead.

Mr. CORKER. Secondly, Madam President--I appreciate the answer to the first question. My guess is, though, just based on the nature of the topic, I wouldn't be surprised that most of that time is used. But when a message comes over from the House, when they pass something, whatever one characterizes that as, we don't automatically have to take that up. That can be sent to a committee or left at the desk. We don't have to vote on things that come over from the House of the nature that we are going to be voting on in the morning; is that correct? That is a decision that is made, not something that is automatic.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Missouri for her work in setting the ceiling that was adhered to. I don't support this bill, and I didn't ask for any earmarks, and I know the Senator from Missouri did not ask for any earmarks. I think there have been a lot of frayed feelings, no question. I think we all know that even at the levels--and I would say that I think the appropriators did agree to a number that was passed out here on the floor. But I think we know that even at those levels, spending is higher than it should be. What I would ask is that the Senator from Missouri and I continue to work together. I know we have an amendment that was going to be a part of whatever passed to really cap spending and drive it down to the appropriate level of spending relative to our gross domestic product. I know it is going to take both sides of the aisle to do that. I know we have had a deficit reduction commission that has just reported and has done some great work. The Senator from Illinois, to his credit, courageously supported that. So there are a lot of frayed feelings right now. There is a lot that has been attempted to be done here at the end. I know that has created a lot of conflict. The page is going to turn here soon. The year is going to end. The holidays will come, and we will be able to share a few moments with our families and then come back. What I hope is that in spite of all that has happened--and again, I did not support this piece of legislation for lots of reasons--many, many reasons. I do agree, though, there was a ceiling that was set. I agree this is going to cause some damage. But it was the right thing. It was the right thing for this bill not to go forward, and I hope what we will end up with and have is a continuing resolution that will take us for several months. Then I would say to the Senator from Missouri that I look forward to working with her. I look forward to working with the Senator from Illinois so we can put in place a construct so that we know where it is we are going. Each year, it is not just that the appropriations bills don't necessarily come forward, and it happens--it has happened in years past. I understand that. They don't necessarily come forward in a way that allows us to spend time with them--one a week or maybe two a week or whatever. But it is also that we don't really know where it is we are going. We don't really have a construct that is taking us to a place over time. So it is my hope that we will either vote on something bold relating to deficit reduction and tax reform or that we will put in place a construct to take us where we need to go. I don't think it does any good to cast blame, candidly. We are where we are. I think the Senate is taking actions that are appropriate and responsible by moving to a short-term CR. The thing I think is most beneficial to us about that is it allows us to very quickly, in February or March, start moving toward a downward trending line that I think is much better for our country. I see the Senator from Missouri standing. I think there is a lot we as a body have to work on together. That, to me, is the most important thing before us, and I hope when we come back we will all work very hard to make that happen.

Mr. CORKER. I also thank the Senator from Illinois. I thank the senior Senator from Tennessee, who is always doing and saying the right thing from the floor and leads us in such a great way. I say to the Senator from Illinois, through the Chair, I hope there is some way that we don't let what happened over the course of the last 3 months on the deficit reduction commission go to waste. I fear that what is happening right now is that people are beginning to talk about some kind of situation where we then revisit all of these things for the next year or so. I know I am not privy to all the details that all of you worked on for so long, but I do think when this debt ceiling vote comes up, which will be in April, May, or maybe the first week in June, it seems to me that is the next moment in the Senate. I talked with some of the members of the deficit reduction commission on my side and certainly look forward to talking to the Senator from Illinois about the same thing. I hope there is a way that we actually vote on something that is real and not kick this down the road with some meaningless resolution that makes the American people think we have done something, when in actuality we have done nothing and just kicked it down the road. I thank the Chair and I hope that is the case. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I know the START treaty is going to be before us soon. I realize we had a motion to proceed to that today. I think I have indicated a willingness to support the treaty if all the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted on modernization. I know there are a number of commitments that are forthcoming from the White House and other places regarding modernization. My hope is the same on missile defense. I am very concerned we are doing this in the middle of an omnibus, which is a 1,924-page omnibus. I am very concerned about a treaty of this substance, this seriousness, dealing with nuclear arms, being taken up in such a disconcerted way. I voted against the motion to proceed. I do hope, as the leaders indicated, all of those who wish to offer amendments--and I know there will be a number of serious and thoughtful amendments that matter--will be heard. I am still skeptical that can be done in an appropriate way. Again, I think this treaty, with the t's crossed and i's dotted, with the appropriate time allotted, whether it is now or it ends up being in February, and if the resolution is not weakened in any way, is still something I will plan to support. But I am very skeptical we can do that appropriately during this lameduck session, with this omnibus before us. Let me turn to the omnibus because that is what the American people are most focused on today. I cannot tell you how disappointed I am that an appropriations bill of this size--one that has an increase in spending and over 6,000 earmarks--as a matter of fact, I know the Chair is aware of this because we had a great conversation this morning about spending. We had a large number of people on the Senate floor yesterday talking about our concern for fiscal issues. But the bill is 1,924 pages long. These are just the earmarks. These are just the earmarks, not the bill itself I am holding. I am stunned that, after the message that was sent during this last election, Congress will basically say--or many Members--to the American people: We understand you are very upset and that you have concerns that are true concerns about the country's fiscal condition. Yet we don't really care. Mr. President, it is my hope that what will happen is that saner heads will prevail and that what we will do is pass a short-term CR--a continuing resolution, for those who may be listening in and don't know what that is. That would give us the ability to operate the government through February or March so that people such as the Presiding Officer, who was just elected, and myself and others who care so deeply about the fiscal issues of our country would have the ability to put spending constraints in place. I think everyone knows our country faces--and these are not rhetorical issues--a crisis as it relates to these issues. The world markets are watching us. I think we have seen our interest rates on our bonds rise pretty dramatically even since the tax bill came out. And that was a tough vote for me because, again, in order to create certainty and to ensure that the economic prosperity of this country resumed and that we continue on the pace we are on today, I felt it was important to go ahead and get that behind us. But I always thought and I hoped--and still do--that what we would move to very quickly is really driving down spending in relation to our country's gross domestic output. I have offered an amendment to do just that, as I did that on the tax bill. I plan to offer the same on this particular discussion we are having now. But I am unbelievably disappointed that we would even consider punting the spending issue for a year. That is what we would be doing. In essence, if this omnibus bill were to pass, we would be passing a huge spending bill. Again, let me go back. Typically, appropriations are handled one bill at a time. There are typically 12 appropriations bills. What happens when we do that is we are able to pick out wasteful programs here on the floor and maybe defund those, and we are able to really scrutinize all of the programs of government, which is what the American people want us to do. Instead of that--especially in a climate where the American people almost revolted at the polls, and I know you know this very well--instead of carefully considering our spending, what we are being asked to do is to vote on 1 bill that has all 12 of those appropriations bills packed into it, again with 6,000 earmarks, and we are asked to vote on that here in the next few days. I think it is reprehensible, and I say that respectfully. I know people on our Appropriations Committee have worked together in a very serious way over the last year. I know they have. And I know the Appropriations Committee is a committee that probably has the most bipartisan spirit of any committee in the Senate. So I can understand their desire to want to finish their work. But it is being done inappropriately. This is not the way serious people conduct their business. They take up these bills one at a time. Sometimes there are two or three, when they are very small appropriations bills, that are banded together. That is called a ``minibus,'' if you will. But to do this all at once flies in the face of everything we know to be good government. All of us know this is not the right way to fund government. A much better way for us would be to pass a short-term continuing resolution bill, as I just mentioned, to kick this down to February or March and allow us to look at something like the amendment I have offered where we take spending that is at an alltime high of 24 percent of our gross domestic product today and over the next 10 years take it down to our 40-year average of 20.6 percent. Claire McCaskill and I are cosponsoring, in a bipartisan way, a bill or an amendment--depending on how it is offered--to do just that, and there may be other things. We know the deficit reduction commission just spent a tremendous amount of time--and I know the Presiding Officer has talked personally to leaders multiple times--they spent a tremendous amount of time this year looking at what we as a government need to do to be responsible; to make sure people around the world view our credit as something in which they are willing to invest; to really make sure that, for these pages who sit in front of me and who work so hard here, we are not, in essence, living a life and layering debt upon debt on top of the balance sheet they will have to deal with. I cannot believe that, in the atmosphere of just having that report come forward, having us look at how Draconian the problem is and some of the tough decisions a courageous Congress would need to make to put our country back on the right path, we would even consider passing this massive piece of legislation that, in essence, would kick the can down the road for a year and basically let the wind out of this momentum that has been building for us to actually do the right thing. I can't imagine we would do that. I know the Chair knows our debt ceiling vote is going to be coming up soon. It is going to happen sometime in April, maybe May. Maybe it will drag out as long as the first week in June. That is a vote where we vote to raise the amount of debt this country can enter into. I know a lot of people say it is irresponsible not to vote for a debt ceiling increase because we have already spent the money. It would be like going out and running up a credit card bill and then not paying it. But I think it is irresponsible not to act responsibly prior to taking that vote. What I am so disappointed in is that a vote on this omnibus bill before us probably prevents us from going ahead and doing some things this spring that we know are responsible and will really drive down the cost of government to an appropriate level. So I know there is a lot of pressure, probably, in the caucuses-- maybe the caucus on the other side of the aisle that meets at lunch; I know there is a meeting again tomorrow--I know there is a lot of pressure to get this out of the way. But I know with every cell of my body that passing this omnibus right now is absolutely the wrong thing to do for the country from the standpoint of good government, and I absolutely know it is the wrong thing to do to all of those citizens across this country who became involved in this. I know there are people on both sides of the aisle who care deeply about the future of this country, and I know there are people on both sides of the aisle who have some commonality as to what the path forward is in making sure this country lives up to its obligations to the American citizens, that we don't just live for today. That is what, by the way, we would be doing by passing this--living for today and passing on those obligations to the future. I hope that by the time we take the vote on this bill, it will be defeated and that people who deeply care about the future of this country will come together, pass a short-term continuing resolution-- which I think most of us in this body know is the responsible thing to do--and that we will begin to work after the first of next year, when this lameduck session ends, doing the things this country needs most, and that is all of us having the courage to make those cuts and do what is necessary to get our country back on a sound footing. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair for the time.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I rise to speak on the topic that has been discussed over the last hour. I thank my colleagues for focusing on this issue. Yesterday's and tonight's votes are tough votes for me. I think they are tough votes for each of us. We have a bipartisan compromise that has come forth. There are things in this bill that trouble each of us for different reasons. But I think all of us understand our deficit issue is the biggest threat to our country's economic security and in many ways to our sovereignty. Over this summer I had 46 deficit presentations around the State of Tennessee. I think what people walked away with from these meetings-- and they were large meetings--was the severity of this issue. Most Americans have not focused on the severity of our debt issue. Most Americans think it is going to affect a neighbor, might affect another generation. I think a lot of Americans think if we would do away with things such as earmarks--and I don't earmark--we would solve our problems. That is what I hoped to accomplish this summer in Tennessee, was to make people aware of how big this issue is and that the steps we are going to have to take are Draconian. I applaud those who have been involved in the process that has just taken place at the deficit reduction commission. I am hopeful that sometime very soon, in the next few months, we will have the opportunity to vote on something similar in nature that deals with real spending constraints. I think all of us know spending as a percentage of GDP is at an all- time high in modern history. I think we know spending has to come under control. At the same time, we understand in our Tax Code each year we give away $1.2 trillion. I think that shocks people. If we were to eliminate those--I know Senator Wyden and others have worked on this-- if we would eliminate those, everybody's tax could be less. We could lower individual rates, we could lower corporate rates, we could help our economy and spur it on. I know it is irresponsible, when a debt ceiling comes before us, to not vote for a debt ceiling in that it is like running up a credit card tab and not agreeing to pay the bill. But I heard a great Senator getting ready to retire, and I won't say what his name is, say it is also irresponsible to not be responsible prior to voting on a debt ceiling increase. It is my hope that sometime between now and April or May or early June, whenever this vote has to take place, instead of us just talking about this today--and I applaud all of those who are; I thank them for that--we actually vote on something of substance that deals with this issue in a real way and does not kick the can down the road. This is the issue that could create the greatest crisis in our country, something that, by the way, is totally within our control. Many of the problems we face as a country we cannot deal with solely ourselves; it involves lots of other people. This is one of those issues that we have totally in our control, and all it takes is the courage to deal with this issue. The reasoning, that we are not going to get everything exactly the way we want it, but as a group, we have got to have the courage to actually deal with it. So I hope that we move more than just to a construct but to a real vote. I have a bill on the floor, and I am thankful that Claire McCaskill has agreed to cosponsor an amendment to actually this tax bill, that I know is not going to pass, probably is not even going to have a vote but to build momentum toward there actually being a construct in place that sequesters spending to drive us from where we are today to a more responsible place, a place where we have been over the last 40 years. I thank the Senator from Illinois, who I respect. Thank you for your forbearance. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the Senator from South Dakota allowing me to speak for about 60 seconds. I don't give long speeches on the floor. I seldom use notes. I know Senator Gregg knows this, but I have been here 4 years, and I can honestly say one of the greatest highlights of my 4 years has been being able to serve with Senator Gregg. I know of no one in the Senate whom I hope to be remembered even close to as far as my service. I know of no one whom I think creates a better example for those of us in the Senate. I know of no one whom I respect more than Senator Gregg. I know he knows that. I know his wonderful wife Kathy knows that. I think, upon his departure, there will be a tremendous vacuum. I think all of us understand what each of us is going to have to do to try to fill a component of the shoes of the Senator from New Hampshire or the example he has set. So I just want the Senator to know he certainly has raised my thinking as to what it means to be a Senator in the Senate. Each of us have frailties and each of us have strengths. There are always going to be occasions when Senators cause us to rise because they inspire us. They do things that are inspirational. There are always going to be times when Senators disappoint us because we are human beings, and that is the way human beings are. But I can say that you, more than anybody in the Senate, have caused me to want to be better more times than anyone and have disappointed me fewer times than anybody in the Senate. I will miss you. I wish you well, and I thank you for being my friend.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object and say, as is the Senator from New York, the Senator from Illinois is most eloquent, and I always enjoy listening to his comments. I agree with him that many attributes regarding the senior Senator from Tennessee are all true--and many more, I might add. He is a multitalented person. But I say the President's commission on deficit reduction actually is addressing this issue. And they have actually made many bold steps in trying to address the many deficit issues, the tax expenditure issues which cause our country, in many cases, not to be as competitive as we could be around the world. So knowing that it is imminent, that this group is meeting on Friday, I object. I would like to say for the C-SPAN watchers that there is not really much happening on the floor right now that matters. I would agree with the Senator from Tennessee, the senior Senator, that there is a great negotiation that is taking place, and I applaud the President for bringing members of both parties together. I think there is a lot of activity. I just came in from the hallway. I know one of our negotiators was rushing to a meeting. I know that in a meeting about an hour ago, he had to step out because the President had called regarding this very issue we are talking about regarding taxes, regarding keeping the government operating. So I think there is work taking place in the Senate. I know there is work looking at nuclear modernization, and there is all kinds of activity throughout the course of this building and other buildings adjacent. It is just that here on the floor, we have somewhat of a charade taking place while that is occurring. So I look forward to fruitful activity. I think most Americans realize that on Friday, our government is going to shut down, and I think what Republican Senators have said is that we think it is important that we deal with actually funding our government so it continues to operate past Friday. We think it is important to deal with the tax issues since forms are going out across our country--some have already gone out, as a matter of fact--and Americans want to know what they are going to be paying as it relates to tax rates. And actually, what the letter said is any legislative item. I think the Senator from Illinois, whom I greatly respect, knows full well that things such as the START treaty are not legislative items, they are executive items. That was excluded in our letter on purpose so that in the event the START treaty wanted to be brought to the floor by the leader, it could be brought to the floor. I know the President has said this is something of great national interest. So all we are trying to do is prioritize. We know any debate that is taking place on the floor right now over taxes has no real meaning. The real debate will take place after these negotiators finish their discussions. I think, again, they are being done in a very fruitful and earnest manner, and after that the debate that takes place will be real. We will be talking about something we have given leaders of each party the ability to negotiate. So that is when the real debate will take place. I hope the C-SPAN watchers who were alluded to will actually tune in at that time. All of this discussion now is really not nearly as relevant as what is happening in other places. I think there is a lot of work taking place. I would just add that I think all of us on our side have been watching as the majority party has met for hours and hours and hours each day trying to figure out what they feel should come to the floor. And we understand that. But I think what we have said is that instead of debating things that could be well debated next year, that do not have the urgency of causing government to continue to function, when you have two wars underway and you have all kinds of issues that need to be dealt with, we have said: Please, we ask you to prioritize. Let's deal with those most important issues first. If you want to bring up the START treaty, that is not a legislative item, that is an executive item, bring it up. But let's deal with those issues that are most important to the American people first. If there is time to deal with all of these other issues, certainly after that is done, we would be more than glad to stay as long as the other side would like to debate all of those issues. I thank you for the time to speak. I thank the Senator from Illinois for all of the kind comments he has made about the senior Senator and me. I thank him. I thank him for the leadership he shows on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if I can just briefly indulge, I wish to thank the Senator, and actually, based on his closing comments, I think he may have actually signed the letter himself had it been presented, because I agree that we should fund the government, we should deal with the tax issue, and that if we did that, there would be ample time to deal with the START treaty. It is not to say we do not want to deal with all of those other issues; it is to say: Let's prioritize based on those things that are of most national significance. The issue he recalled regarding homeland security was of national significance at the time. I think most Americans would agree that making sure the government functions beyond this Friday is of national significance. So I thank him for his comments. I thank him for his good humor and tone. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes. My understanding is that Senator Thune is coming to the floor in a moment to offer an amendment to the continuing resolution that would reduce spending in the continuing resolution by 5 percent on discretionary items that are nondefense oriented. I want to say that I just came from a meeting with Chairman Bernanke talking about our debt situation. I know we have a Deficit Reduction Commission right now that is working on that and will have a report due on December 1. But I think everyone in this body understands it is a huge issue for our country and that right now the markets have allowed us to have lower interest rates because we are considered to be a safe haven. But the fact is, at some point in time we all understand this is going to disconnect and, in fact, we will pay higher interest rates because of our lack of ability to control our spending. I think a great first step for us to be able to walk into--hopefully, something constructed by the Deficit Reduction Commission and, if not, by our own actions this next year, where we know the No. 1 issue that threatens our economic security in this country--and by virtue of threatening our economic security, it threatens our national security--is the huge amount of spending that is taking place. I think we have all seen throughout the country what I would say is a very centered and deep concern about the amount of money we spend here in Washington. I want to say, anybody who thought last year's appropriations bills were far higher than they should have been should support the Thune amendment. The fact is, what we are actually doing by virtue of the CR that has been offered is we are actually continuing spending at 25 percent of our gross domestic product, which is a full 5 percentage points above our historic 50-year average of 20.3 percent. I think the Thune amendment is an appropriate first step. I think all of us in this body know that over the course of the next couple years we are going to have to take Draconian steps to rein in spending, which has been out of control. We are operating this year without even a budget. I do not cast blame. I just want to focus on solutions. The very best way we can start walking toward a solution that ensures continued economic security in this country is to support the Thune amendment. I am here to talk for a few minutes. I know the Senator from Arizona has just stepped on the floor. I think the Thune amendment is thoughtful. I hope all of us on both sides of the aisle will consider it thoughtful, and that we will get behind it. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to talk about our Nation's indebtedness. I know very few people watch these presentations. But to my friends on the other side, before they turn their monitors off, this is not a partisan presentation. Hopefully, it is a presentation to cause us, together, to look at our Nation's indebtedness from a different viewpoint and, hopefully, when we get to real business in January, we will focus on this in a way that brings us together and does not separate us. I wish to start by looking at where our country is today as it relates to debt to our gross domestic product. Most countries in the world look at the amount of debt they have as a country in relation to the gross domestic product the country has. That is the sum of all the output. For a lot of businesspeople who may be tuned in today, it is not unlike a company that looks at its revenues and compares the amount of debt the company has to those revenues or gross profits. So, today, our country's debt-to-GDP is at 62 percent debt to gross domestic product. I think most of us understand the problem we have as a country today is that we are very rapidly moving to 146 percent of debt to GDP within the next 20 years. I would like to point out the reason this dot is here. That is where Greece was when the European Union had to come in and bail it out. It was at 120 percent of GDP. I do not wish to compare our country to Greece. Greece is very different. I was just there visiting with the Prime Minister, their Finance Minister, and several bankers. There is much about their economy that is very different than ours. But I do think it is important to look at the fact that they were at 120 percent of debt to GDP when they had to be bailed out by European Union members. We are quickly moving beyond that over the next 20 years. This is a slide I hope everybody who may be tuned in will focus on and remember. There are three important components. It begins by looking at the revenues, which is the blue line. The spending is the red line. There are three elements of this that I would like for people to focus on, if they would. For those people who think Republicans and Democrats cannot work together, I do wish to point out a period of time when we had a Democratic President and a Republican Congress, and the line actually passed. We had revenues that were higher than our expenditures. I do want to say that the fiscal issues during that time were far different than the ones we have today. Where we are today, in 2010, is far different. We have a huge gap between spending and revenues. People might say: Well, during a recession, maybe there are some extraordinary things that may occur. Maybe the spending rises tremendously, maybe revenues drop. Here is the problem. Here is the part of the slide I hope almost everybody will focus on into the future; that is, that gap never goes away. Where we are today is at 1.47 more in spending than we have in revenue. The problem is, where we are as a country is that this gap never goes away. In 2020, we still are spending $1.25 trillion more than we are taking in. In Tennessee, the average household, in most recent data, earned about $43,000 a year. If they used the kind of logic we are using today in Washington, the average Tennessee household would spend $74,000. In other words, the average Tennessee household would borrow 40 cents for every $1 they spend. Fortunately, that is not what is happening in Tennessee, or at least not with most families. I think when you look at a problem, you need to sort of look at trends that have taken place. If you look back at 1970, 62 percent of what we spent as a country was on what is called discretionary spending, things such as defense, highways, and education. Only 31 percent of what we spent at that time was on mandatory spending, things such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and only 7 percent on interest. But if we fast forward to today, obviously that pie chart has changed dramatically. Today, we are spending, in 2010, 56 percent of what we take in on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Only 38 percent is going to discretionary spending: defense, highways, and education and, again, 6 percent in interest payments. However, if you fast forward on the present trend, you see mandatory spending actually becomes crowded out. It is 49 percent of what we expend in 2035. By that time, because of the large amount of borrowing that is taking place, 25 percent of what our budget will be made up of is interest payments, something that has absolutely nothing to do with making our country stronger. As you can see, only 26 percent of our spending would then be on things such as defense, highways, education, things entitled ``discretionary spending.'' This year we spent $187 billion on interest payments, which greatly dwarfs what we spent in the area of transportation, $69 billion; homeland security, $49 billion; Department of Education, $45 billion. The problem is, if you fast forward to 10 years, this is a timeframe that is not way out into the future. This is something most Americans can focus on; that is, a decade from now. In 10 years, $916 billion will be going out of the Federal coffers to pay interest; again, hugely dwarfing the expenditures on transportation, on homeland security, and education. I used to borrow a lot of money in my business. I built and owned buildings around our country. It was always important to know whom I was borrowing money from and to have a proper relationship with them. It is also interesting to look at our country and where we are borrowing the money we are spending. If you go back and look at 1960, Americans loaned the American Government money. Our parents--maybe some of you in the audience--loaned the money to the Federal Government by buying Treasury bonds. As a matter of fact, back in 1960, only 5 percent of the money we borrowed in this country came from foreign holders. But if you look at today, the picture is very different. As a matter of fact, today, 47 percent of the public debt we borrow is held by foreign holders. Look, I understand about international trade and global transactions and certainly support that. I have been a part of that in the past. The reason I point this out is that, again, a big part of what we are borrowing is from others. China holds almost 10 percent of our debt. I think most of you saw recently where they slightly depressed the amount of holdings they had in the United States, dropping it from about $870 billion to $844. I do wish to point out something that former Treasury Secretary Paulson talked about in a book he recently wrote about the crisis. I used to talk with him sometimes on the weekends. Obviously, he was working 7 days a week, as do I and most of us in this body. I talked to him for a great deal of time. I remember him telling me during the time of the crisis that he was concerned about China. He was concerned about China. In the book, he talks about feeling that there was a scheme that Russia was trying to get China to engage in, to get them to stop buying our securities, during the period of time that we were most destabilized, in order to put greater pressure on our country during a time of great turmoil. Obviously, that did not happen. But all of us say, I think it is important, when you are moving into a range of having more indebtedness than you can handle, it is very important to know and understand you are borrowing money from people who may not have the same interests that we as a country have. This is something you do not see often in this body, but I hope everybody will focus on this slide. The fact is, there is plenty of blame to go around. We do a great job in this body, especially a few weeks before an election, of pointing fingers at each other, talking about whose fault it is that our country is in the situation it is in. But as it relates to our country's indebtedness, I can assure you there is plenty of blame to go around. What I learned in my business, where I spent most of my life, whenever we had an ox in the ditch, it did not do a lot of good to try to point fingers at how we got there. It was better to try to focus on how we solve that problem. I certainly knew that as mayor of the city of Chattanooga. I can tell you, in this body, as soon as we begin devolving into pointing fingers, we quickly move away from solving some of the major problems we have as a country. I think as we look at trying to deal with this issue, it is good to look at the way things have been. Over the last 50 years, our government has spent about 20.3 percent of our GDP. Over that same period, the revenues into the Federal Government have been about 18 percent. There are economists on both sides of the aisle who say as long as the economy is growing, we can continue that in perpetuity. Coming from the background I come from, this is not a comfortable situation. I would rather see us take in the same amount of money we expend, but certainly there are academicians and economists on both sides who have different points of view. What is the right amount of spending? I think everybody is aware that President Obama has put together a deficit reduction commission. It is chaired by two individuals. One of those is Erskine Bowles, chief of staff to Bill Clinton. He is a Democrat. He ran for the Senate from North Carolina. I talk to him extensively on the phone. He certainly has a lot of sound ideas. The other is Alan Simpson, former Senator from Wyoming. They are chairing a deficit reduction commission the President has put together. A great breakthrough occurred recently when Erskine Bowles said he believes the Federal Government ought to spend about 21 percent of our country's GDP. Our average over the last 50 years has been 20.3 percent. Our revenues over the same period have been 18 percent. Bob Corker, because he is more conservative on that front, or would like to see balance--a balance a lot of people on both sides would like to see--my number might be 18 percent. Erskine Bowles has thrown out the number of 21. But to me, somewhere between 18 and 21, there is a deal. I want to say to everybody that I am open to negotiation. I would love for us to agree as a country as to what percentage of our gross domestic product we all agree is the right number for us in Washington to be spending. If we can focus on this first, page 1, we can move away from many of the issues that separate us. This is something on which I hope everybody who may be tuned in will focus. The fact is, I don't think we have thought about this deficit issue as something that is anything more than academic. We have thought about it as something that will affect a Congress down the road, maybe our neighbor, but not us. In order to get to Bob Corker's number over the next decade, which is a period on which most of us can focus, we would have to cut spending by $6.7 trillion. That is a lot of money. To get to the number Erskine Bowles has thrown out--for which I am open to negotiation--over the next decade we would have to cut $3.4 trillion in spending. To get where we have been over the last 50 years over the next decade, we would have to cut $4.5 trillion in spending. The reason I point this out is, this is a huge number. Even by Federal Government standards, these numbers are draconian. I realize this is something that is probably not attainable. To get $6.7 trillion in cuts we would have to cut $670 billion a year over the next 10 years. To put that in perspective so people can digest it, this is more money than we spend each year on Medicare. This is more money than we spend each year on defense with two wars. The type of cuts it would take to get to where we have been as a country for the last 50 years, those cuts are draconian. I don't think we as a Congress have quite come to terms with that. What we need to do is fundamentally change the way we do business in Washington. I don't care what side of the aisle one may sit on or what gimmicks each side of the aisle may put forth to look at trying to constrain spending. All of us know we have absolutely no construct to contain spending. We are operating this year without a budget. We have had problems with spending for decades. There is nothing here that causes us to focus on it in the right way. Again, both sides have had great problems in this regard. What we need to do as a body, as a Senate, is to create a construct that forces us to cap spending and incentivize growth. I plan on offering legislation later this year. I realize this is a political season and nothing serious will be taken up. What I want to do as a body is to focus on the amount of spending we deal with in Washington as a percentage of our gross domestic product, as I have been discussing, and to develop a construct that causes us over time to move to that cap. I realize we will not be able to do it overnight, but it seems to me if we can adopt that kind of thinking where we look at governmental spending as a percentage of GDP--Erskine Bowles, who is working right now as head of the deficit reduction commission, has made a major contribution by throwing out a number, and I am open for negotiation--to me, if we can focus on that kind of construct, then it is in everybody's interest to hope the gross domestic product grows. As the gross domestic product grows, as our economy grows, and the types of issues we face as they relate to cutting spending are less difficult to deal with, we would be unified toward getting to a point that is appropriate as it relates to spending so our indebtedness does not put us in the same kind of situation in which Greece found itself. But at the same time, after we have done that, then we could agree on policies that actually incentivize growth because as the economy grows, it is easier to deal with this issue. I will come to my conclusion. The fact is, this is becoming a cliche. I realize it is said over and over again, but we are, in fact, the first generation of Americans in a situation where we likely, if we don't change our course of action, will leave the country in lesser good shape than we found it. As a matter of fact, we will leave the country in worse shape.

Mr. CORKER. I appreciate the cue. The fact is, I don't think there is anybody in this body who would consciously wake up and spend every day of their life taking lavish vacations, going to nice hotels, eating out at night, running that up on a credit card, and then leaving that for their heirs to pay. There is nobody in this body who would consider doing that. But that is exactly what we are doing right now in Washington because of the way we are handling our fiscal affairs. We are running up a tab that our grandchildren, some of the children in this audience who have come in as students, will be left to pay. I believe in American exceptionalism. I think we are, in fact, the greatest country that ever existed and ever will. I think the role we play in this world creates all kinds of gains as it relates to citizens' ways of life throughout the world. I would hate to see us as a country end up so diminished not only because of the tremendous impact it would have on our citizens--we have seen what has happened with this financial crisis and the distortions it has created throughout the economy, the hardships it has created for so many Americans--but I would hate for us to be so diminished because of our indebtedness, so diminished so that we had to talk to lenders about those austerity measures we had to take as a country for them to continue to loan us money, for us to be so diminished that we did not continue to play the exceptional role we play in the world, the exceptional role we play in continuing to raise up Americans' dreams and wishes and continue to allow them to actually pursue. I plan on offering legislation. I have a nine-page bill. I know there are no bills around here that get seriously considered that are nine pages. Others, I know, will weigh in. But I sure hope to work with people on both sides of the aisle. I plan on offering legislation later this year or the first of the next Congress. I hope we as a Congress will deal with this issue in an appropriate way. I am looking to work with people on both sides of the aisle. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. If the Chair will let me know when I have 2 minutes remaining.