Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Obviously, Mr. President, I was being humorous in talking about that. The Senator is right. The Senator from Virginia and I both know that in our businesses, we were the last ones to be paid. Everyone else was dealt with and our obligations were dealt with first. I agree with the Senator from Connecticut. Something certainly went awry after the country had basically made these companies whole. It appeared to me the conduct was very unseemly. I agree with the Senator from Connecticut. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I appreciate so much the comments from the Senator from Connecticut. I would like to sort of summarize the way I see things today. I, first of all, would say, I think last week--or over the last short period of time anyway--probably has been the lowest point in my Senate career of 3 years and 4 months in just hearing all the rhetoric on both sides of the aisle, candidly, about this bill. I continue to hear it, unfortunately, in the evenings from this floor. The fact is, this is a serious issue, it is complex, and there are a lot of substantive issues that need to be addressed. I guess the thing that frustrates me most about this body--it has nothing to do with having been a mayor or a businessperson--is the outlandish things people can say on both sides of the aisle just to try to cut herds out of Americans. So Americans who are busy raising their families or doing what they do on a daily basis--and, candidly, what we are doing is just a long way away and they hear pieces of it--it is just to sort of divide up our country. I do hope on this bill we can focus more on the facts, and we will see if that occurs. It certainly would be the first time in a long time if that were to occur, but I hope that happens. As I look at this bill, first of all, on the too-big-to-fail piece, my sense is, the Senator from Connecticut is going to work with the Senator from Alabama and pretty well fix that over the course of this weekend. I have a feeling a manager's amendment is coming forth. There will be people on both sides of the aisle who think a resolution mechanism is not appropriate, I realize that, and there will be a push toward bankruptcy, which I know the Senator from Virginia and I wanted to strengthen in big ways. There are some committee issues that sort of keep that from happening as elegantly as it might happen. But I sure hope we will do everything we can to strengthen the bankruptcy laws so the default position for a major company is to go into bankruptcy. OK. That is the way our country works when a company fails. But in some cases, I do believe there is a need for a resolution mechanism. My sense is, the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Alabama will come to terms over the next several days with ways of ensuring there are not those gaps. The administration gets a little involved in a bill, and they want to create some flexibility. I understand that. If I were on their side, I would want to do the same: Hey, I will take the power and we will solve everything. We need to sort of close that up so the things we intend to happen actually happen in this bill, and my sense is, I say to the Senator, you all are going to fix that over the weekend. So then we have the issue of the derivatives, and I think all of us want to see derivatives cleared. There have been some issues, I know, that came forth out of the Ag Committee. This 106 issue is something that I think my friends on the other side of the aisle are going to figure out a way to solve and get back in the box, and I look forward to the debate you all will have amongst each other doing that. That will actually be humorous to watch. But I think the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Arkansas will figure out a way to get that one back in the tube, if you will. So the derivatives issue, my sense is, will get to a place where it probably works. I know Judd Gregg and Jack Reed--smart guys on both sides of the aisle--have worked on this. Their work at some point will bear some fruit. I know Saxby Chambliss and Blanche Lincoln have worked heavily on it. I think we are going to get that right. So at the end of the day, I think we know the issue that probably is going to divide this group, if we do not work it out--I am talking about this Senate body--is the consumer protection piece. Look, I want to see consumer protection take place. I do. I know the Senator from Connecticut knows I was serious about trying to resolve that issue in March. It is my hope we can come to terms on that. It is my hope we can create a balance, an appropriate balance, so the consumer protection piece is in balance with prudential regulation. For people who do not do this on a daily basis, I am talking about those people who make sure our banking system is safe and sound, that our financial institutions are not at risk because of the rules and those kinds of things. Hopefully, we can get that in balance. I do not know if the Senator from Connecticut wishes to speak to this, but that is the one issue I know has a lot of people concerned. I think many of us are concerned about an agency that, as it is written today, I do not think has appropriate checks and balances, and with the wrong kind of leadership, over time, could end up being something very different than even possibly what the Senator from Connecticut intends for it to be today. Again, over the course of the debate, I hope we have the ability to deal with consumer protection in a way that achieves that balance, where people across this country, who awaken on a daily basis and are not necessarily directly involved in the financial industry, have no fears of this sort of reaching out and becoming unnecessarily involved in what they are doing. So that is the one issue, and I know the Senator from Connecticut realizes that. I will digress slightly. I know the Senator from Connecticut referred to Canada and the large institutions Canada has and a much smaller GDP. One of the reasons they did not get into the same difficulties we had as a country is they have underwriting mechanisms there that determine what is appropriate for people to do as it relates to borrowing for their homes. Their underwriting standards are very different than exist in this country. I know the Senator from Connecticut has an approach to it--the 5-percent risk retention with securitizations. I have a little different approach to it and feel as though we shouldn't be securitizing loans in the first place that are written to people who can't pay them back. I wish to get at the very base of this issue, and I hope that over the course of this debate we will figure out a way to merge what the Senator from Connecticut has proposed and maybe some real underwriting so that when the loans are written in the first place and end up getting spread across our country, we have made sure these loans are written in such a way that we know the people who have taken out these mortgages can pay them back. Again, that is why Canada had no issues whatsoever as it related to this because in their country they have different underwriting standards. People there actually put down 50 percent, generally speaking, when they purchase their homes. I know we don't want to be overly proscriptive in this body. I hope the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Connecticut and all of us can sit down and figure out a way to address that in a slightly different way. But candidly, as it relates to this issue, it is hard for me to believe that we have a financial regulation bill and are not addressing that, the underwriting piece. But, again, as the Senator from Connecticut mentioned, we are not going to deal with everything. We cannot deal with everything. We know we have to come back around very soon and deal with Fannie and Freddie. I hate it that we are not dealing with that now. I think all of us would like to be dealing with that now. The fact is that at some point we ought to come back around and deal with that, have another bite at the apple to deal with many of these issues, when that issue is taken up. Back to consumer protection. I think as a body we have a chance to pass a serious piece of legislation--a serious piece of legislation-- that a lot of thought has gone into. A lot of hearings have taken place. We have a chance to pass a serious piece of legislation in this body with potentially an overwhelming vote if we can figure out a way to come together on the consumer protection piece. I think the Senator from Connecticut knows where most Republicans wish to be on that issue. If you look at a 10 scale, if you will, I think where Republicans wish to be, or at least many on this side of the aisle, is an 8 on a 10 scale for people who care about and who think consumer protection is the issue. It seems to me that as a body, instead of trying to score political points and say if you vote against this bill, you are voting for Wall Street, which is ludicrous, all of us care. I have something every Tuesday called Tennessee Tuesday. The Senator from Tennessee, Senator Alexander and I, greet people from Tennessee. I have to tell my colleagues, there are not any Wall Street bankers there. They are community bankers and credit unions who come to see us. Those are the folks who I think most of us care about as it relates to constituents in our State. I know these provisions that are in consumer protection are what scare them most about what that might become down the road. So, again, instead of making this an ``if you are with us, you are against Wall Street; if you are against us, you are for Wall Street,'' I hope what we will do is at some point--I know these bills all sort of have a life and they ebb and flow and there is a time maybe when these kinds of negotiations can take place in a serious way, but I hope what we will do, instead of dividing this body over an issue we all care about, is unite this body by maybe figuring out a way to merge that issue a little bit more fully. I realize there is a way that a bill can pass out of this body on a 62-vote margin. I realize that is possible, that there will be a couple folks who might have different sensibilities about particular issues and things. I realize that. As a tribute, actually, to the Senator from Connecticut, who has been here many years, who is leaving this body at the end of this term, I hope what we do is figure out a way to have an 85-vote bill and come together on this one issue that I think ultimately has the potential to divide us--a piece of legislation that leaves this body on a party-line vote almost, or maybe it doesn't even leave because it is so divisive, but leaves on a party-line vote that I don't think this country respects much. I think they are over that, and I think they wish to see us work together in a way that solves things. I am getting ready to yield the floor because I am beginning to talk way too long. I thank the Senator from Virginia. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I hope within this body we are able to do something that seeks the appropriate balance and seeks to do something that truly is a bipartisan compromise that will stand the test of time. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I know there will be a number of people talking about regulatory reform. The Senator from Virginia and I worked on a number of issues together in order to create a bill we think is solid and will stand the test of time. I hope that spirit continues. One of the things many Members have been talking about is the size of institutions. There has been some movement to arbitrarily decide what size an institution ought to be. Everybody is frustrated by what occurred a couple years ago. There are a lot of ideas coming forth to try to prevent the same types of things that occurred a couple years ago, or a year ago, from happening again. What I hope people will keep in mind is that the reason our large financial institutions are the size they are is because we have companies that need to be large in order to be competitive. Obviously, if it is a large company doing business throughout the country, what they want to ensure is that they have a financial institution that covers the entire geographic map of the country. They want to be able to do business in every State in a way that is easy and allows them to do what they do competitively. Then we have to remember, especially as we continue to talk about other countries and the tremendous growth taking place in countries such as China and others, that we live in a global environment. In that global environment, some of the great companies that have been founded in this country need the ability to operate and do so in a way that creates American jobs. We need to have a banking system where we have institutions with the ability to operate throughout the country. Then we need the ability for these institutions to compete on a global basis. What that means is, we have large, highly complex institutions that are able to do all the things necessary for companies to compete. I hope as people look at arbitrary downsizing, as people look at lines of business in which banks can or cannot be involved, that they take into account that of the 10 largest financial institutions in the world--let me start with the top five financial institutions in the world--a place where companies have to compete. We have not one bank in that category. We have the largest gross domestic product in the world, the most competitive business environment in the world. Yet we do not have one institution that ranks in the top five in the world. As a matter of fact, if we take it down to the top ten, we only have two financial institutions, two banks that are in the top ten, and they are toward the bottom of that ranking. I know it sounds great to say we are going to take on Wall Street, but I think we need to remember that we may be taking on the heartland. For instance, if you are in Indiana or Ohio or someplace like that, and you are making some product out of metals, you probably want to know, if you have long-term contracts, that you have the ability to hedge the risk of metals going up or, if you are dealing with another country where you have a lot of shipments going, you want the ability to know that if you are selling it for what you think is a U.S. dollar, that U.S. dollar stays constant by having currency swaps and those types of things. One of the great things about America--we talk about the American dream--is that people in this country have the ability--such as the Senator from Virginia. There is no better example. The Senator from Virginia had a dream he realized early on. I think he started with maybe $5,000 and might have lost that quickly. Then he had to reload again and figure out a way with small amounts of money to create a great company. He did that. He did it over and over again. The reason he was able to do that was in this country, we have the ability to bring capital together around entrepreneurs. You don't have to be born in this country with a silver spoon in your mouth. I know I started exactly the same way with $8,000 when I was 25 years old. We have the ability in this country to have a dream and to accumulate ways to build around that dream with capital formation that creates jobs. This debate is interesting. I know people can score political points; it is great to take on Wall Street. But what we have to be careful of is cutting our nose off to spite our face. The fact is, what makes this country great is all the companies across the country where people got up this morning and went to work. Some entrepreneur had an idea, built a company, and now it is employing people which I know all of us realize is probably the most important thing for all of us to care about. Heads of households then have the ability to raise their children, to pay for their education, to do the kinds of things that improve our standard of living. So I am a little concerned, as I hear night after night after night, people coming down to this floor and they are bashing Wall Street. By the way, there are some things that certainly need to be corrected, and I know the Senator from Connecticut is trying to do that with portions of his bill. I know the Senator from Virginia and I worked on portions of the bill we hope will do that, but just arbitrarily saying we are going to create a system in this country of small banks--banks that do not have the ability to aid companies that deal around this world so we as a country can be globally competitive--that concerns me. I hope that, again, in the name of political points, we will stop much of this discussion and we will all come to our senses. Well, I should not have said that; everybody has strong opinions and that was a misstatement by me. I hope we will look at the end results of our actions and what that may mean to the good people of this country who get up every day and work hard and depend upon--depend upon--those people who are willing to take risks for their families to be able to put food on their table, to educate their kids, and to live a life in America we can all be proud of. I see the Senator from Connecticut. I know there is no one else on the floor. I will actually pause for a second. This may be the second longest speech I have ever given on the floor. So I will stop and take my breath. I yield the floor, if that is all right, to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I want to take a moment of the Senate's time to recognize the leadership and contributions of Jimmy Wayne to the State of Tennessee and the United States of America for his remarkable efforts to combat homelessness. Jimmy Wayne began his ``Meet Me Halfway'' on January 1, 2010. He plans to walk 1,660 miles from Nashville, TN, to Phoenix, AZ, to raise awareness about the plight of homeless youth in our country. He knows firsthand about the challenges of being homeless. Jimmy is a product of the foster child system who grew up in a variety of foster homes, and he occasionally found himself homeless as a teen. He was fortunate to be given a second chance at the age of 16 when Bea and Russell Costner gave him a home and a new start. They gave him a place to stay but only if he agreed to ``meet them halfway,'' by following the rules of their house. It is fitting that Jimmy Wayne is using his ``Meet Me Halfway'' campaign to not only raise awareness but to raise funds for organizations that benefit homeless youth. I thank Jimmy Wayne for his work, and I look forward to congratulating him once he finishes this campaign.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I rise today to address the financial regulation proposal that is before us right now. I wish to talk about some of the conversations that are taking place about our status. No. 1, I think everybody in this body knows that people on both sides of the aisle would like for us to come to an agreement that makes our country's financial system stronger, protects consumers, and tries to insure us against the kinds of things we have all witnessed over the last couple of years. I think on both sides of the aisle there is tremendous desire to see that happen. There has also been some discussions, though, about the process leading up to this. I know the Senator from Nevada has talked a little bit about the fact, for instance, that they negotiated with Senator Corker for 30 days. This bill is 1,400 pages long, and I think by all accounts most people felt as though we were almost completed--the analogy that is being used is, we were on the 5-yard line and the lights went out. Somehow or another, taking 30 days to try to discuss a 1,400-page bill and get it right has been discussed as taking a long time. I don't consider that a long time at all. As a matter of fact, I think it is remarkable the kind of progress we have made when we actually sat down as two parties trying to reach a compromise on something that is as important to the American people. So I wish to say that a lot of us on this side of the aisle have dealt in good faith, have actually gone out on a limb to deal in good faith--as a matter of fact, have broken protocol, in some cases, to try to deal in good faith. When statements are made that if you try to negotiate and you get to the 5-yard line but for some reason the White House and people on the other side of the aisle decide to go on because they are losing some Democrats--which, by the way, I would assume in a bipartisan negotiation you lose some Republicans, you lose some Democrats, because you have reached a middle-of-the-road piece of legislation. So to categorize that as making that much progress and then: Well, we are losing a few Democrats so we have to stop and go our own way--which has been publicly stated by my friends on the other side of the aisle as to what happened--to talk about that as if that is a problem on our side of the aisle creates a little bad faith, just to be candid. I mean, for the next person who comes along and tries to work something out with my friends on the other side of the aisle and this happens, I think it is going to discourage that from happening in the future. So I hope we will tone down those kinds of things. Then they talked about the fact that we went through the committee with this bill. At the time it was only a 1,336-page bill. It has expanded since that time. But we voted this bill out of committee in 21 minutes with no amendments. This was not a real vote. The understanding we all had was that the makeup of the Banking Committee was such that it would be difficult to get to a bipartisan agreement there and that we might harden ourselves against each other by offering amendments. I filed 60 amendments myself, none of which were messaging amendments. They were all technical amendments, and others, to try to fix this bill. But for some reason, the rules changed and we weren't going to be able to do that in committee, and we didn't want to harden ourselves against each other, and we were going to fix it before it came to the Senate floor. Now we file a motion to proceed to the bill without it being fixed before it comes to the floor. It just seems as though there is this little shell game where we keep moving the goalpost to such a point where, again, we are going to end up with a situation where a bill comes to the floor, but there has been no bipartisan consensus. Now, I will say this: I do think Chairman Dodd has tried to do some bipartisan things, and I know I personally have had an effect on this bill. I thank him for that. I thank Senator Warner for the work we have been able to do together, and Senator Reed and Senator Gregg and others. But the fact is, we haven't reached a bipartisan agreement. So I hope some of the statements that are being made about where we are and how we got here and the revisionist history that is being created to sort of make one side of the aisle look worse than the other side of the aisle will cease. It doesn't do any good. The fact is, there are people on both sides of the aisle who want to see financial regulation take place. This whole notion that if you are against this bill as written, you are for Wall Street, and if you are for this bill as written, you are against Wall Street, is an unbelievably silly argument. The fact is, I think everybody in this country knows when major regulation takes place, the big guys always do best. They have the resources to deal with compliance and all of those kinds of things. As a matter of fact, I doubt there are many people on either side of the aisle who are hearing much from Wall Street right now. Who they are hearing from is their community bankers who are concerned about a consumer protection agency that has no bounds and has no veto. All of a sudden, it is used potentially as a social justice mechanism in this country. They are concerned about that. They are probably hearing from manufacturers who actually make things and buy hedges or derivatives to make sure their material prices can be hedged again down the road so they don't lose money fulfilling a contract. When we talk about that either you are for this bill and against Wall Street or vice versa, that is just a low-level argument. It has nothing to do with the facts. The fact, from where I sit, is we have a lot of people in this body who want a good bill. It seems to me the best way to get to a good bill is to at least get the template of the bill agreed to in advance, to get the bill agreed to as it relates to orderly liquidation. I think we all want to make sure that if a large organization or any organization fails, it fails, but certainly with these highly complex bank holding companies, we want to see that happen. Make sure we deal with revenues in such a way that most of the trades go through a clearinghouse, so at the end of the day, people who are making money bad, make money good so we don't have an AIG-type situation again. Yet we have an appropriate end-user exclusion for people using these derivatives to actually make their businesses safer. We want to make sure we have appropriate consumer protection. We want to make sure that is done in balance; that a consumer protection agency doesn't undermine the safety and soundness piece; that those people are making sure that our banks and financial institutions are sound; that people who do business with them know they are going to be sound; and that we don't have a consumer protection agency undermining that by trying to, again, use financial mechanisms as a way of creating social justice in this country. Those are three big titles. It seems to me, if we can get agreement there, before the bill comes to the floor, then we can then do all kinds of amendments on the floor. I think there are a lot of good ideas that my friends on the other side have. I think there are a lot of good ideas that would come from this side of the aisle. It seems to me that the best way to have a great debate is to start with a template that is bipartisan and then let people change it in ways they see fit. We can vote on those. To me, that is the best way to go. I hope that instead of the tremendous interference that is taking place at the White House--I have never seen such involvement in what appears to be the actual drafting of legislation, sending it straight to a committee, and it being voted out. I have never seen such involvement. I hope we can tone that down, that we can tone our rhetoric down as far as trying to blame the other side for how we ended up in this position, when there are a lot of people on both sides who have exercised good faith in trying to get here. It just pushes people apart when these realignment of history discussions take place, when that is not what has happened. Let's give Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby some time to work through these issues. That is what needs to happen. They and their staffs need to finish working through these issues, with input from other Members, and then let's have a great debate. I know we have a weekend coming up and the floor will shut down in the next 24 hours or so. I hope the staffs and these two Members will continue to work through the weekend and try to get this bill right. I hope we will quit throwing accusations back and forth and that we will cool down the rhetoric, and I hope we have an opportunity to begin again with a bipartisan template that we can amend and then create some great legislation for this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, typically when we come to the floor to speak, we don't like to wait for another Senator who wants to speak; we want to speak and go back to what we were doing, but today I am so glad I had the opportunity to hear the remarks of the Senator from Texas. Both of the Federal Reserve leaders in Kansas City and Dallas have added tremendously to this debate. No one has been more of a supporter for community banks than the Senator from Texas. I could not agree more with everything the Senator said regarding the Fed keeping community banks. My sense is that by the time the bill comes to the floor, it will either have that in it, or let me say to my colleague right now that I will cosponsor the amendment the Senator brings forth, because I think the Senator is absolutely right, that the Federal Reserve should keep the smaller State-chartered Fed members. The fact is this rearranging the deck chairs serves no purpose, so I could not agree more. I also agree with the Senator regarding derivatives. I notice the Senator from Texas has a microphone if she wishes to comment. I am going to speak based on what the Senator said on derivatives, but if it is OK, I would like the Senator from Texas to be able to respond.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, that brings me back to where I want to be. The fact is, there are a lot of people coming to the floor and a lot of things are being said in the press. First, I think we are going to end up with a bipartisan bill before the actual vote to proceed takes place. I believe that is being led by Senators Dodd and Shelby. They are the point people. You cannot have eight negotiators. I believe that is where we are headed. So when I hear a lot of the rhetoric on the floor and other places, I think it is just rhetoric; but at the end of the day, I think we will end up with a solid bipartisan bill. I hope it is one I can support. Obviously, I am giving input on that. That leads me to this. There have been folks who have come to the floor talking about the Republicans supporting Wall Street by not supporting the Dodd bill in its present form. That is ridiculous. What is happening--some reporter made comments yesterday about Republicans and that I slammed the Dodd bill. That is not true. I was emphatic about two things: One, Republicans are not representing Wall Street. Candidly, when I look at the bill--and my friend from Delaware will actually agree with this--there is not much in this bill that is very offensive to Wall Street, to be candid. This bill focuses on three topics. What I have said to my colleagues is this: Whenever we have regulations, the big guys get bigger, right? The small guys are the ones who bear the brunt of regulation. What we are all trying to do, as Senator Hutchison laid out, on our side of the aisle is make sure this legislation deals appropriately with community bankers and manufacturers in Iowa, Texas, and other places. In fact, there are issues with the bill that we need to work out. Candidly, to say that Republicans are representing Wall Street could not be further from the truth. There is not much in this bill that is very offensive to Wall Street, to be candid. I am not saying we should go out of our way to be offensive, but anybody who looks at what this bill says would know there is not much in the bill that is that offensive. The fact is, we are putting derivatives on clearinghouses, which I hope happens. I think that is a good thing. I think we need to get as much of that done as possible, where if somebody's money is bad, they have to put money up that day. It alleviates some of the systemic risk. We deal with resolving a firm that fails. I think that is appropriate. Hopefully, we will get consumer protection back into the middle of the road. By the way, that is a section of the bill that, if it is not handled properly, won't affect the JPMorgans and Citigroups and Banks of America. It will affect community bankers. All we are trying to do on our side--and this is what I was emphatic about yesterday--is trying to make sure this bill is in balance. I think we can do that. Look, there is not much in this bill that is particularly offensive to Wall Street. To say that those of us who want to get it right for everybody else in the country are defending Wall Street was way off the mark, not true. Second, there are many things in the bill that are good. There are some things that aren't so good that I think are being worked out right now. That is typically what happens when we have a bipartisan discussion. Each side brings their particular strengths to a bill. We all represent different points of view and, when we work together, we end up with a good bill. One of the things that troubles me--and I was very emphatic about it yesterday, and will be again today and tomorrow, as I have been for a long time--is that this bill doesn't even deal with underwriting. At the end of the day, at the bottom of this upside down pyramid, the crisis began because we had a lot of mortgages in this country that should have never been written in the first place. Then we had firms that were way overleveraged that were doing that. Then we spread the pain through $600 trillion in notional value around the world. It started with the fact that a lot of loans were written that should not have been written. I don't think this bill even addresses that. I think that is a little bit of an issue. If we come to the floor with a template that deals with consumer protection, systemic risk, and derivatives, I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join in with many Members on this side of the aisle to correct that. At the end of the day, if we continue to write loans that should not be written, and we continue to securitize them, and if we continue to spread them around the world, we have not done much in this legislation. So I have been emphatic about that, and I have wanted these two pieces of the legislation to balance as it relates to the rest of the country, making sure our underwriting is done appropriately. Do I believe those are things that are important? Yes. Do I think we are going to address those? I hope so on the underwriting, but I am not sure. I cannot tell if people are willing to make sure that Americans across this country have to live in a semidisciplined way as it relates to mortgages. I hope we get there because I think it is important. In closing, in spite of all the rhetoric about bailouts and not bailouts and Wall Street and not Wall Street, I think what is happening in rooms and offices around the Hill is that negotiations are taking place that will get us to a place where we at least have a template, a piece of legislation that can be embraced in the beginning in a bipartisan way, and then what I hope will happen--I know my friend from Delaware will be highly engaged in this, because he has been focused on this for a long time--what I hope happens, after we get the base template together, is that we have a vigorous debate on the floor about where we need to go from there. There are other pieces--I would consider them to be central--but I am OK with legislation coming to the floor where we have a balance between resolution, derivatives, and consumer protection. Then let's go from there and have the kind of debate I think our country would love to see us have in public, focused not on rhetoric--because we have plenty of substance on this issue--but on substance, and let's do something that will stand the test of time. I think we are going to do that. As a matter of fact--and I know my time is up--I think this bill has the opportunity in the next few days, and once we begin debate on the floor, which I hope will happen in a bipartisan way--I think this bill is potentially the beginning of us being able to function in an appropriate way in this body. That is what I hope happens. That is why for weeks and months I have been saying that I think at the end of the day we are going to end up with a bipartisan bill. I hope it has some important elements in it, such as the ones I mentioned, that will allow me to support it. Whether that happens--and I hope it happens--or not, I hope we have a vigorous debate and end up with a good product. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I need about 4 minutes, but if the Senator from Texas wishes to go first, that is fine.

Mr. CORKER. I understand we might extend, with permission, for 10 more minutes, is that correct?

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, could I make an inquiry as to the time remaining? I see Senator Hutchison is here.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from North Dakota, because I, too, for what it is worth, have been very distressed about the conversations around financial reform. I don't think either side of the aisle deserves a badge of honor as it relates to the way this has been discussed. I agree with him that this is something way beyond using poll-tested language and should, in fact, be dealt with in a serious manner. So although I didn't hear all the Senator's comments, I agree with him that we ought to deal with this in a serious way. Mr. President, you and I have had a number of conversations over the last weekend regarding financial reform. We have had a lot of conversations over the last year regarding financial reform. As I have watched the public discussions over the last several days, I have been greatly distressed. As a matter of fact, I spoke this morning to a large number of businessmen in Nashville, TN, and, candidly, became so angry thinking about the way this debate has evolved that I had to think about coming here today and controlling that and using that in a productive way. I have noticed throughout the day that maybe the rhetoric has changed a little, and I know that my friend and colleague from Virginia and my friend and colleague from Connecticut had a press conference earlier today to talk about some of the issues that are being talked about rhetorically. Let's face it, what is happening right now--and it is unfortunate for the American people--is that both sides of the aisle are trying to herd up folks with language that in many ways I don't think does justice to this issue, which is very important, is very difficult, and something that is very much needed in our country. There has been a lot of discussion about this funding mechanism--this $50 billion bailout fund, if you will. Those are someone else's words, by the way, not mine. The American people are probably tuning in, and in some cases they are wondering how we are jumping into the middle of this on the Senate floor without a lot of free dialogue. The fact is, we have a financial reg bill that I hope comes before us soon that will deal with orderly liquidation so that when a large institution fails, it actually fails. I think that is what the American people would like to see happen. So there has to be a mechanism in place. If a firm is systematically important to our country, there needs to be the tools in place to make sure it actually goes out of business. I don't think people in Tennessee like seeing that when a community bank fails it actually goes out of business, but when a large Wall Street firm fails we prop it up. I wish the Senator from Virginia, who happens to be presiding, were on the floor so we could have a colloquy on this because the fact is, this is something that needs to be dealt with in legislation. We need to know we have a process where we deal with derivatives and we don't have a lot of people building up a lot of bad money, instead of doing it on a daily basis and they end up in a situation where there are huge obligations. We need to deal with some of the issues of consumer protection. So, Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion about how we create something called debtor-in-possession financing, so that when the FDIC comes in and seizes one of these large firms that fails, it has the money to keep the lights on and to make payroll and those kinds of things while it is selling off the assets of the firm. The fund that has been discussed in this bill--and that is going to be changed, I know, and I am fine with that and think that is perfectly good--but this fund that has been set up is anything but a bailout. It has been set up in essence to provide upfront funding by the industry so that when these companies are seized, there is money available to make payroll and to wind it down while the pieces are being sold off. Now, a lot of people have said this is a Republican idea. There is no question this is something that Sheila Bair has proposed. The FDIC wants to see a prefund. The Treasury would like to see a postfund; they would like to see it come after the fact. At this point I want to digress for one second and say I hope the reason that Treasury wants a postfund is not because, in lieu of having a prefund of $50 billion from these large institutions, they want to see a bank taxed. As a matter of fact, I am going to be surprised if after Republicans argue against a prefund and it is changed, and the administration comes back and Chairman Dodd comes back and we end up with postfunding--both of which do the same thing, I might add, and both of them work--but it will be interesting to see whether that argument basically leads to Treasury then having the ability to come back and do a bank tax. I think at the end of the day that is something they have been wanting to achieve. So it is interesting how this debate is evolving. But let me go back to this prefund. At the end of the day, I think what all of us would like to see happen is to see these institutions go out of business. So do we put the money upfront to take them out of business or do we put it up on the back end where, in essence, what is happening is we are borrowing money from the taxpayers? Would we rather the industry put up the money so the taxpayers are not at risk or would we rather that not happen and during a downtime, when it is procyclical, we actually get the firms to put up the money after the fact? I think both of those, by the way, are nice arguments to have, and I think they should have been debated in the committee, and we can debate it on the Senate floor. But at the end of the day, to make the total debate about whether it is pre or post--neither of which are central to the argument because both work--it really doesn't matter. Either way we have to have some moneys available as working capital to shut down a firm. We can borrow it from the taxpayers, although I don't know if the taxpayers would like that very much. We can do it after the fact, as I have said, or we can put it in upfront by the industry. Either way it is going to be paid back by industry. I will say that in the Dodd bill today there is postfunding; that if there are any shortfalls the industry will pay that back. So, again, it is kind of a debate that ends up being silly. The fact is, I know it is going to be changed. The essence of the bill, though, is the fact that we want to make sure these firms unwind and they go out of business. Let me just talk about some of the arguments that are being made: Prefunding of resolution creates a system where certain participants are effectively designated as a protected class as a result of them paying into the fund. I think that is ludicrous. That is a ludicrous argument. Now, what we could do, if it would make everybody happy, is instead of getting large firms to pay, we could get community banks to pay too. I don't think there would be many people who would be interested in that, but if we want to get everybody in the country and get the community banks in Tennessee--I am not interested in that, and I don't think the Senator from Virginia is interested in that--but if we want to do that, we can ensure nobody is part of the protected class. So I find that to be a ludicrous argument. There is another argument: This allows such firms competitive funding advantage over smaller institutions such as community banks. So, in other words, if we are saying these large firms, if they fail, are going to go out of business, and it is going to be more painful than bankruptcy, that somehow they are protected or have a competitive advantage, I find that to be kind of ludicrous, and I hope that argument is not used again. It probably will be, but I hope it would not. Here is one I read recently: The fund is a signal to credit markets that the U.S. Government stands ready to prop up, bail out, and insulate large financial firms. Now that is an interesting one. The fact is, we are talking about orderly liquidation. The existence of the fund allows managers of large financial institutions to conduct riskier practices, therefore counterparties will not feel obliged to perform due diligence because, in the event of stress, there is such a financial slush fund available to bail out unsecured and short-term creditors. You have to be kidding me. That is absolutely the opposite of what is intended. Now, let me say this before somebody tunes out. I think this bill has problems, and I think there are issues that need to be resolved around orderly liquidation. The Senator from Virginia and I both know what they are, and there are some flexibilities that have been granted to the FDIC, to the Federal Reserve, and others that need to be tightened. There are some words that instead of saying ``shall'' say ``may.'' That is a very important word when you are telling an agency what they have to do or what they ``may'' do. So there is much in this bill that needs to be fixed. I want to say that as the Dodd bill sits today, I could not vote for it. I absolutely cannot support the bill. But what concerns me is the rhetoric that is being used to talk about something that is very important to our country, and it is being used on both sides, I might add. On one side they are saying the Republicans want to protect Wall Street firms. Well, I can tell you this: I think there are very few Republicans who do not want to see financial regulation take place. I think there are very few Republicans who don't want to see it done the right way. Candidly, I think most Republicans and Democrats are listening to community bankers. They are not listening to Wall Street. That would be my guess. So that rhetoric, to me, is off base. The rhetoric on my side of the aisle saying this orderly liquidation title basically keeps ``too big to fail'' in place, the central pieces of it, is not true. Are there some things around the edges that need to be fixed? Yes. My sense is, as I have said on the Senate floor, we can fix those in about 5 minutes if we just sit down and do it. I do not understand why the rhetoric has gotten to where it is. I would like to see us pass a bill that makes sense. The kind of thing we should be talking about is not the fact that this is a bailout fund. By the way, whether it is ``pre'' or ``post,'' that debate doesn't matter to me. The fact is, we have to have some debtor-in-possession financing available to wind these firms down, sell off the assets, make sure the stockholders are absolute toast, make sure unsecured creditors are toast, make sure it is so painful that nobody ever wants to go through this. We absolutely need to do that. The American people need to know we in Congress are not going to prop up a failed institution, that they are going to live the same life in capitalism that everybody else has to live. People in Tennessee, when they fail, they fail. The kind of thing we ought to be talking about and have been talking about and I think can solve is that I think we ought to have more judicial involvement in the process. We ought to improve the bankruptcy process so that these large institutions have a more viable route through bankruptcy. I think we ought to deal with the disparate treatment of similarly situated creditors. The fact is, the way the ``post'' funding in this bill is now set up, we do not. If a creditor receives more money than they should, that money is not recouped. We know how to fix that. I know the Senator from Virginia and I both know how to fix that. Those are the kinds of things we need to be talking about. Creditor prioritization--there is no question that right now in the bill, certain creditors can be treated differently by the FDIC than others. We need to be looking at bankruptcy stacks so that people understand how much they are going to be paid back, and they are going to be in the same order they anticipate being in. We need to be tightening the definition of a financial firm. Right now in the bill, the way it reads, an auto company could end up being part of this. Right now, it is not tight enough. An auto company may be a stretch, but something other than a financial firm could be dealt with, the way the language is now reading. And certainly for sure Fannie and Freddie need to be treated the same as any other financial firm. We need to have a solvency test to make sure regulators--that does not allow regulators the flexibility to protect firms in crisis. We need to make sure there is a duration. In other words, if the FDIC comes in and has to take over, after due process--three keys being turned--take over one of these firms that has posed systemic risk, we need to know there is an end date. I know the Senator from Virginia and I absolutely agree that conservatorship should not be on the table. This is only a receivership and those firms should go out of business, and that, no doubt, should be language added. It is not in there right now. There are a number of things like this. I could go on and on. I am probably boring much of the watching audience, if there is any, with some of these technical issues, but those are the kinds of things we in this body ought to be talking about. They are important. They matter. But to use up time with rhetoric that, in essence, is used to sort of brand something in a way that really isn't the way it is, to me, is not productive. I did not come here to do that. Again, I think both sides of the aisle tried to cast the characters in certain ways. It is this herd process that happens around here. Everybody wants to get everybody on the same team. What we do is we use rhetoric that charges people up and gets everybody on the same team. I do not like that process. I do not want to be a part of that process. I have joined with other Republicans to try to make sure this bill gets in the middle of the road. I have done that on the basis that both sides are going to deal in good faith. I know the Senator from Virginia knows we went through a process with this bill where we voted it out of committee in 21 minutes--a 1,336- page bill we voted out of committee in 21 minutes with no amendments. The stated goal was to make sure that both sides did not harden against each other and that we could negotiate a bill before it came to the floor--came to the floor--we would negotiate a bipartisan bill. That is why it was stated that we did that. How can responsible Senators, 23 Senators, all of whom have problems with this bill--how can you vote something out of committee in 21 minutes with no amendments unless you know that a negotiation process is going to take place afterward to create a bipartisan bill? Nobody in their right mind would have agreed to do that. What I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle and what I would say to the folks at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, who seem to be turning up the rhetoric--I take it as a commitment from my friends on the other side of the aisle that we are going to negotiate a bipartisan bill and we are going to do it in good faith. But I also expect the same on my side of the aisle, that we are going to negotiate in good faith to get a bill and that before it comes to the floor the major template pieces will be worked out, the issues around consumers, the issues around orderly liquidation, and the issues around consumer protection. As I have mentioned, there are a number of issues we need to debate here on the floor that, to me, are outside the realm of the template itself. I hope this body--I know the Senator from Virginia and I have worked together a great deal. I know we both came from a world that was different from this. I have become greatly distressed. I get distressed at both sides of the aisle when we have an important issue such as this and we turn it into sound bites. I hope, again, over the next several days--this bill has been through so many iterations. Everybody who has worked on it understands what is in it. Everybody understands what the points are on which we disagree. As a matter of fact, if we do not end up with a bipartisan bill, it is not going to be over philosophical issues, it is going to be over the fact that the two sides just decided they didn't want to do it. It is going to be over the fact that it takes both sides. The fact is, the White House can make an issue out of this. I know things are not going particularly well in the polling areas. I know my friend from North Dakota talked about polling data and testing things and all that. I realize things are not going particularly well. Maybe this financial reform bill can be something that changes that. Maybe if you push the bill as far to the left as you can and you dare Republicans to vote against it, maybe that is a good thing. That is not what I came here to do. I do not think that is what the Senator from Virginia came here to do. I know that if Republicans brand this bill as prolonging too big to fail--that is what we are doing--then we might be able to keep the bill from passing that way too. I hope all of us will sit down and do what we came here to do, and that is to create good policy for the American people. I am very distressed about where we are today. What I hope is happening is that this is just a bunch of buzz and that our committee staffs and the chairman and ranking member are actually sitting down, having serious discussions, and that very soon we are going to come forth with a bill that is bipartisan, where we can debate it on the edges and end up passing legislation that stands the test of time. I hope that bill will deal with the very core issues that got us into this crisis. And we can castigate all kinds of people. There is enough blame to go around. You almost couldn't find a regulator, a credit rating agency, a firm, management that was not in some way involved in helping create this crisis. There is a lot of blame to go around. But I hope the bill, at the end of the day, will also address, as I have stated every time I have come to the floor on this bill, the whole issue of underwriting; the fact that at the end of the day, at the bottom of this, whether you read what happened supposedly with Goldman on Friday, you read about these synthetic CDOs where they were not even really underwriting mortgages there--in reality, they were just doing something that reflected what certain mortgages would do--at the end of the day, it still was about the fact that in this country, we wrote a bunch of mortgages that couldn't be paid back. You can talk about this all you want, but the underwriting, the bad loans that were written, at the end of the day, are what created much of this crisis. Candidly, I don't think much of this bill addresses that. I hope we will address that more fully before this bill comes to the floor. With that, I think I have taken up my allotted time. I thank the Members of this body for their patience. I hope we will do the work that needs to be done here. As I mentioned, at this point I don't think either side of the aisle deserves a badge of honor, but I hope over the next several days that will change. I hope our rhetoric will be tempered. I hope our discussions will center around those things that really matter and will not be used to basically get people in the public off on rabbit trails or try to herd our teams together. Mr. President, I look forward to working with you as we try to complete this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I do want to say that Tennessee has lost a great human being in Dr. Benjamin Hooks, and I want to join with my friend and colleague from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, in being part of a resolution to talk about his wonderful life. I know we will be having ceremonies in Tennessee this Wednesday, but certainly he was a wonderful individual who did much to benefit our country, and we all are saddened by his passing.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. You had one, and that is all you asked for when you started. I do not want to reiterate that. I never said I could speak for anybody but myself. And I did not leave the table. I never left the table. So the fact is, the bill took a partisan turn on March 10. There is no denying that. You would not deny that and look at me with a straight face. There are some bipartisan solutions in this bill, I grant that, and I thank you for those inclusions. But there is still work to be done. And I would say to you that what Republicans are trying to do is say, let's finish that work before it gets to the floor. You have said this, and I do not think I am betraying confidences. I would never do that intentionally. This is a complicated piece of legislation. What we need to do is get the template--at least bipartisan in the beginning. And then you are right, there are issues such as the Volcker rule and there are governance issues that are going to be amended back and forth. But let's at least get the main parts of the bill right in the beginning--close to right--not the way you would want it on your own, not the way I would want it on my own. That has not happened on a number of the titles, in fairness. I would urge everyone--there has been a lot of work done. You have done a tremendous amount of work in this committee. Let's finish that work over the next 10 days. Let's quit yelling at each other, and let's finish the work the American people sent us to do. I am not lecturing. I say all this respectfully. Let's finish what we started.

Mr. CORKER. I will respond respectfully that I think the course of action that is trying to get underway is to finish the bipartisan-- let's face it. You and I went a long way. Then we stopped. On March 10 it ended. I understood that, look, you were losing Democrats on your committee.

Mr. CORKER. I am glad to listen, as I have often.

Mr. CORKER. I have repeatedly publicly thanked the good Senator from Connecticut for going through that process, and there is no question it is a much better bill. As a matter of fact, I think it is a very amendable bill. Here is what I would say. I think things are being said that--there is no question some of the attacks on the order to liquidation have been over the top. On the other hand, there is no question that Treasury and the FDIC created some loopholes. That is what executive branches do because they want the flexibility to do whatever they wish to do. I would do the same thing if I were them. But there are some things that need to be tightened up, and I think we could do that in 5 minutes, I really do. I talked with the Treasury Secretary yesterday. It is obviously more of a committee-committee level deal now, and I understand that. But I think we could resolve that. But I think the thing, if I could--I know there have been discussions about this letter. The fact is, I think what we are trying to do is say let's get this template done over the next couple weeks. Let's do not slow it down. I know you talked about entering a bill on April 26. I know there have been talks about maybe sliding a week because there are some other cats and dogs that need to be dealt with. But we can do this. I think if everybody would calm down, and if everybody would quit exaggerating how bad things are--there has been a lot of cooperation. I just met with the ranking member. I left his office. I think there is a strong desire to reach a bipartisan agreement. I hope that--I am not blaming anybody, but I think the White House is stirring around on this. You have all kinds of forces going on. I think the good Senator from Connecticut wants a bipartisan bill that will stand the test of time. I know I want one. I know the ranking member wants one. I think most every Republican wants one. I think if we could quit shooting things over the transom and get settled down, I think, without even slowing down the introduction of this bill--not slowing it down 1 day; if we get serious as adults for the next 10 days or so, a week--I think we could finish. And I believe that. I would ask--I would ask all my colleagues--and I ask this respectfully of my colleague from Connecticut--look, things did not get where they needed to be, and I understand what happened, but I still relish the fact that we came close. I think we can get back there. I do. I do not think anybody is trying to subterfuge this. I do not. I met with all my colleagues yesterday on the Republican side. We may have a few folks who do not want a bill, but just because they do not like laws. I am making that up slightly over the top myself. But I think most people want a good bill. And I say to the chairman, I think what you did in December demonstrated that you want a good bipartisan bill. I do not think it is right--I will get into a little bit here--I do not think trying to call one Republican Senator to pick him off, two Republican Senators to pick them off--I do not think that is a bipartisan bill. Let's get back to the table to finish it.

Mr. CORKER. No question.

Mr. CORKER. Not by this Senator.

Mr. CORKER. I will.

Mr. CORKER. I came to the floor of the Senate because my friend from Connecticut, who is my friend, made numerous comments about the process. I hope that possibly he would be willing to enter into a colloquy. I will give a preamble, if I may. There is a lot of rhetoric that has gone on around this financial reform bill. I appreciate so much the chairman of the committee engaging me for 30 days to try to reach a bipartisan agreement. We voted a 1,336-page bill out of committee in 21 minutes with no amendments. We did so with the understanding--at least it was my understanding--that the best way to reach a bipartisan deal was to vote a bill out of committee--we knew it was going to be a party-line vote--to not stiffen opposition by having a bunch of amendments debated and maybe get people pulled further apart. Then what we would do is try to seek a template for a bipartisan bill before it came to the floor.

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about financial reform. I know we have a number of issues before the body right now, and it will be a couple of weeks, maybe 3, before this body takes up what I think is a very important piece of legislation, financial reform. It is something the Banking Committee has been having hearings on now for about a year and a half. It is an issue that I think is very important to our country and Americans from all walks of life. At present, the bill that has come out of the committee is a partisan bill. It came out of committee on a 13-10 vote; came out of committee, believe it or not, a 1,336-page bill, came out in 21 minutes with no amendments, on a party-line vote and no debate. I could talk a lot about this function and activities on both sides of the aisle that may have put us where we are today. But the fact is, we have a very important piece of legislation that is getting ready to come before this body. It is one I believe we need to deal with in a bipartisan way. The stated reason by the chairman of the committee as to why we handled the bill the way we did in committee a few weeks ago--not to have amendments, not to debate the bill--was to, after the bill came out of committee, negotiate a bipartisan bill before it came to the floor and then have a debate on some of the smaller issues. There has been a lot of rhetoric flying around here over the last couple of weeks, some of which came from the White House, some of it came from the Democratic leadership, some of it came from our side of the aisle. It is evident that what is happening right now, instead of seeking a real bipartisan bill, what is happening is, one member, two members, two members on the Republican side are being reached out to to try to snag somebody and to make that, in fact, a bipartisan bill. That is not my understanding of what a good bipartisan bill is. That certainly was not my understanding as to why the Banking Committee handled the bill the way we did. Again, I want to say one more time, a 1,336-page bill, coming out of committee in 21 minutes with no amendments. The reason that was done, or the stated reason, was so the two sides would not harden against each other, and that before the bill actually came to the floor, we would reach a true bipartisan amendment. I came here to try to solve problems for our country and put in place good policy. I think everybody knows I have worked hard, along with others on our side of the aisle, to reach a real, solid, good bipartisan bill, a bill that ends too big to fail. I think everybody in this country, on both sides of the aisle, of all walks of life, wants to expunge from the American vocabulary the fact that any company in this country is too big to fail. The bill that has come out of committee tried to address that. There are many good provisions in the bill under the title of ``Orderly Liquidation'' that deal with that. But what happened at the very end was, as one would expect, Treasury got involved, the FDIC got involved. They wanted to create some flexibility for themselves, as any agency or administration wishes to have. But in creating that flexibility, that foam on the runway, as some would call it, what has happened is we actually have a bill that does not end too big to fail. It is my belief--and I had a colloquy with my friend from Virginia yesterday, Senator Warner--that we could solve that in about 5 minutes. Maybe that is an exaggeration, maybe it is 15, maybe it is 30. But the fact is, there are provisions that we know could fix this piece of legislation so that it ends any chance of a company seeping through, if you will, and actually being bailed out. My guess is, if we again sat down as adults we could solve that problem. As a matter of fact, I think some of that activity, some of those discussions actually began yesterday. I think all of us want to make sure that consumers are protected. There is no question, both sides of the aisle understand that in many ways there needs to be more transparency, there needs to be more accountability. I had some great negotiations with Senator Dodd from Connecticut. We reached a middle ground. I will say that again. We reached a middle ground. We had an understanding that leadership on our side of the aisle was in agreement with. What I would say is let's get back there. Let's get this consumer protection, let's get this new agency back in the middle of the road, let's protect consumers, and let's make sure at the same time that it does not undermine the safety and soundness of our financial system. We can do that. We can do that in 2 or 3 or 4 days. It can be done. It is not that complicated. We have worked through many of the issues. On to revenue. I could not agree more that we need to make sure that we use, to the extent we can, a clearinghouse to make sure when companies are trading in derivatives, and they are money baths at the end of the day, they settle up. They get back into a position where they are even. They put up collateral. They put up cash to make sure they are not money baths, so that we do not end up in the same position we were when AIG had not done that, had not trued up on a daily basis, and they found themselves with huge liabilities that they could not own up to which destabilized our financial system. That is not where we need to be. But we know what we need to do. Look, this is a very complex piece of legislation. There is no doubt. It is intellectually challenging to try to work through it and try to make sure that you do not have unintended consequences by not fully seeing what a piece of legislation or a sentence may do. But the fact is, we can do this. This is not that heavy. It is my understanding that the chairman of the Banking Committee plans to bring this bill forward on April 26, maybe a week later. It is my understanding we may deal with some other issues. Maybe it is the first week of May. What I would say to everybody in this body, and anybody who may be watching, is we can easily reach a bipartisan consensus on this. We have to have the ability to sit down and do that. I consider it not a good-faith effort to, instead of sitting down with many of the principals who have been involved in this from day one, the chairmen and ranking members on the committees, instead of sitting down and creating a template--it doesn't have to address every single issue but a template on the floor that deals with it--instead of doing that, reaching out and trying to find one person to come over, I don't consider that a good-faith effort. I am sorry. I hope that type of activity will end. That is not what has been stated as to how we can reach a bipartisan bill. Let me go back to the template. This is complex, this piece of legislation. To me what we need to do is sit down together. We could have it done in a week. We need to sit down together and work through the main issues in this template. Let's deal with derivatives, with consumers. Let's deal with systemic risk and orderly liquidation. There will be issues of Members on our side of the aisle where there is no way we could reach agreement on in our own caucus, and I know there are issues on the other side of the aisle on which their caucus will not be able to reach agreement, having to do with governance, some of the security issues that may exist in title IX. Let's debate those issues on the floor. My guess is that if we did that, there are going to be some amendments adopted that I don't think are particularly good ideas. There will be some amendments adopted that my friends on the other side of the aisle would not think are particularly good ideas. But at the end of the day, we would have come to the floor with a template that on the big issues we have reached bipartisan agreement, and then we could have amendments to debate on the floor, some of the other issues that may delve down into details that don't necessarily change the entire bill but address issues that Members in this body think are important. I consider it an honor to serve in this body. I have enjoyed this more than any issue we have dealt with, trying to reach a consensus on this financial regulation bill. There is plenty of fault to go around on both sides that does not need to be rehashed at this moment. The fact is, we are where we are. We are getting ready to deal with a major piece of legislation. There are numbers of people on both sides of the aisle who have spent a lot of time trying to understand the complexities of these issues. I am proud of the work Members on both sides of the aisle have done to try to understand these issues in a real way. Let's get those folks together. Let's sit down and work out the template. Let's bring a real bipartisan bill to the floor, not a bill where they go out and make a deal with one person and bring them over, and maybe there are other things going on at the same time. That is not what I call a bipartisan bill. Let's bring it to the floor. Let's debate it. Let's do what the people all across this country have elected us to do. Let's come to the floor and act like adults. Let's tone down the rhetoric. Let's don't exaggerate the pluses or the minuses. Let's do what the Senate was created to do. We were supposed to be the cool heads. We were supposed to be the people who took some of the red-hot activities that sometimes come from the other body and sat down with cooler heads and resolved the issues like adults. We can do that. As a matter of fact, I would say, if we cannot do that on financial regulation, an issue that doesn't have any real philosophical bearings to it--there are some differences in points of view, but at the end of the day, we all want to make sure we address financial regulation in an important way, that we do what we can to alleviate risk in the system without stifling innovation. I think everybody still wants this country to be the world leader in financial innovation. But we want to do so in a manner that doesn't create risk, that doesn't upset our economy, that doesn't have periods of time where we have such risk and instability that people are unemployed. We all want to do that. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I believe a commitment was made. I took it as a real commitment that after this bill came out of committee, we were going to sit down like adults and reach a bipartisan agreement on a template that would be brought to the floor and debated. I took that as a commitment. I expect that commitment to be honored. I look forward to that process beginning. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I want to speak for 60 more seconds and then stop. I thank the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Florida for allowing me to do this. I want to be clear and say we have had a great partnership, numbers of us have. Some of the claims in this bill about preserving too big to fail are legitimate because of some changes that occurred about 10 days before the bill came to committee, maybe a week. But the fact is, they can be very easily fixed, and I think we all know how to fix them, and they can be fixed very quickly. The prefunding issue is an issue that, to me, is a legitimate debate. If it needs to go to zero, the framework, as Senator Warner just talked about, is still intact. It still works exactly the same way. It is a debate as to whether you want to absolutely make sure taxpayers are protected. But if people think this prefund is something that looks like a bailout, let's drop it, let's get rid of it, let's end it. Let's let borrowing capacity at the FDIC be the only avenue. But my point is, these are all--in the scope of things, they are being made into really big things, when, in essence, a couple of semithoughtful people could solve these things in just a few minutes and we could move on to other aspects of the bill that do need to be corrected. The one place I think the Senator from Virginia and I might differ more greatly is that I do think there are other issues in this bill that create problems that need to be resolved, and I hope the spirit we have shown with each other will emanate on both sides of the aisle--I think it will--and that we will work through those, too, and end up with a good bill. I yield the floor.