Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I think you know I spend very little time talking on the Senate floor, and I plan to keep it that way. But I do want to spend a moment paying tribute to my great friend, Mel Martinez. I have had the privilege of sitting beside him on the Banking Committee. We commiserate about many things that happen in this body. I love working with Mel Martinez, and I am going to miss him. I consider Mel to be the epitome of decency in this body. I think he is a person who truly wants to do what is best for this country. I have seen him many times tormented over decisions we all make, which are very difficult to decide from time to time: What is best for our country over the long term? I value that in him so much. I think this body will be diminished with him leaving. Having people like Mel, who, again, have such a sense of decency--which is, as Senator Chambliss mentioned, one of the reasons he will be departing soon--will be a loss for this body. I have not met anybody here who I think is a finer individual, nor anybody who I will miss more than Senator Mel Martinez. So I am happy for Kitty. I am happy for his family. I am sorry for us. But I am glad I have served in the Senate with somebody I consider to be such an outstanding person as Mel. So, Mel, thank you. Thank you for the many confidential conversations we have had through the years, the frankness with which we have been able to talk about so many things. Each of us brings something to this body that is unique. I think that is why it functions the way it does. I think your insights into our relationships with the countries of Latin America, to many of the things that were happening there from the inside because of so many of the relationships you have has helped all of us make decisions that are more sound. So that peace will go with you as you leave. Surely somebody else over time will help fill in that vacuum, but I value the many things you have shared with me that have helped me to think in a more thoughtful manner, and I look forward to talking to you in the years ahead about what is happening in your life. I thank you for what you have done in mine. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has an impressive background and an inspiring American story. She is a testament to the power of a strong work ethic and a focus on education and is a role model to many Americans as a result. I enjoyed meeting with her in June and found her to be very intelligent and eloquent in expressing her thoughts. I let her know I would reserve judgment on her nomination until the conclusion of a fair and thorough hearing process. After much deliberation and careful review, I have determined that Judge Sotomayor's record and many of her past statements reflect a view of the Supreme Court that is different from my own. I view the Supreme Court as a body charged with impartially deciding what the law means as it is applied to a specific case. I believe Judge Sotomayor views the Supreme Court as more of a policymaking body where laws are shaped based on the personal views of the justices. Unfortunately, nothing I heard during Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearing or in my meeting with her in June sufficiently allayed this concern. For this reason, I am disappointed to say, I will not be able to support Judge Sotomayor's nomination.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, this is an amendment to deal with the ownership that I think many Americans have concerns about in private companies. What this amendment would do is for any company that the U.S. Government owns more than 20 percent of, it would place--such as, by the way, General Motors--what it would do is place those companies into a trust and that trust would be managed by three very professional individuals known to be leaders; people such as, I would hope, Jack Welch and others who have shown--Warren Buffett--people who have shown the ability to actually look at assets of this nature and they would manage this particular stock ownership through December 24 of 2011. They would dispense these assets in a way that benefits the U.S. taxpayers. In the event that at that time they were able to come to Congress and let us know it was not in the taxpayers' interests for this to be done, then we could certainly grant an extension. The point is to make sure the taxpayers benefit from what has happened but at the same time keep all of us--as the Senator from North Carolina alluded to the other day, 100 people in suits--from actually being involved and keeping the administration from being involved, in any way, from managing these companies. I think all of us are very concerned about governmental ownership. This amendment, again, would allow the taxpayers who were sold TARP on the basis that they would get a return on their investment--and, in essence, this company--for instance, General Motors has over $50 billion in taxpayer money in it today. What this amendment would do is it would separate the line between government and these companies but at the same time allow the taxpayers of this country and our U.S. Government to recoup those moneys to pay down this ever-building debt that our country has. Other companies would come into this category once we got to the 20- percent level: Citigroup, AIG, obviously, would fall into this category. This amendment solves the issue for the long haul because as companies such as General Motors and others come into ownership by U.S. taxpayers--again, we are uncomfortable with that--it separates that ownership and puts it into a trust. It would be something the administration and this Congress can have nothing to do with. Yet the taxpayers' assets, these companies that we put lots of money in, are managed to the best interest of the U.S. taxpayer. With that, I thank my colleague for letting me call up this amendment. I realize this will be set aside, and we will be moving to other business. I hope, at some point during this debate, we will have a vote on this amendment. I thank you very much for the time and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORKER. I thank the Chair. If there is no objection from the managers, I might expand on the amendment one more time, since there is no activity on the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments. What I have tried to do in this amendment with Senator Warner--both of us serving on the Banking Committee--is to create a solution that solves the issue of us having U.S. Government ownership in companies, which I think makes most everybody in this body very uncomfortable. At the same time, we can deal with the issue of this massive Federal deficit. I mentioned earlier that the taxpayers of this country were sold the TARP package, and we voted it into activity last fall on the fact that this $700 billion that was being invested in financial institutions at the time--as we know, it evolved to General Motors and other companies--that money was going to be invested in these companies, and 100 percent of the repayment was going to be used to pay down the Federal deficit. That is what we all thought we were doing at that time. That bill passed out of this body with 74 or 75 votes, with all of us present in the Chamber. Again, the American people and all of us in this body have become concerned about what types of political activities can take place when the U.S. Government owns a bank or automobile company. I have seen it up close and personal, and I understand that political decisions can be made that are not in the best interests of the company and certainly not in the best interests of the taxpayers. How do you solve that, create a scenario where these companies are separate from us, where Representatives and Senators are not calling up trying to help the companies decide what transactions they are going to be involved in but at the same time make sure the proceeds of sales from these companies or the securities we own in them actually end up reducing the deficit? This is a balanced approach. Senator Warner has joined me in this, a bipartisan effort to, again, move away from this body, move away from the administration and the House of Representatives any ability to affect these companies politically but at the same time to ensure that any proceeds coming from the sale of these securities ends up going to pay down the Federal deficit, which I think all of us are concerned about. We are all aware that under the 10-year budget that is proposed, our deficit doubles from what it has been the entire history of our country--doubles over 5 years and triples over 10 years. I think people around this country, rightly so, are worried. I got a townhall phone call last night, and people are concerned about the deficit. We are all concerned. This bill will help solve that, not make it worse, and at the same time remove us from any kind of politicization of these companies. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 1865, which I called up earlier, be modified as presented at the desk.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, in no way to disrupt the order--to come back to that.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his agreeing to let me do this. I wish to call up amendment No. 1865.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I rise to speak about where we find ourselves today. This is a momentous time in our country's history, as all of us in both bodies on both sides of the aisle find ourselves focused on the issue of health care reform. In the middle 1990s, I had the tremendous honor of serving the State of Tennessee in a position that allowed me to oversee the State's Medicaid Program and many other programs in our State that focused on the needs of many of the underserved. Since that time, I have been convinced that we, all of us, have a moral responsibility to do everything we can to ensure that Americans of all walks of life have the opportunity for affordable, quality private health insurance. I have probably attended 50 meetings in the last 90 days working with others toward that end. I am convinced that there are at least 90 people in this body who share the goal of ensuring that Americans of all walks of life have the opportunity for affordable quality health care. It is my hope that we will end up with a bipartisan solution. I have been disappointed in the results, though, of legislation that has come forward thus far. My sense is that the House of Representatives is promoting a bill that does not meet the mark. The HELP Committee just passed out, on a party-line vote, a bill that, again, does not meet the mark. What concerns me is there are so much that we could agree on, yet we tend to focus on what is out of bounds and does not take us to the place we would all like to be. It is to that end that I rise to talk about this issue. All of us know that our country has seen unprecedented debt levels. The leader of the Senate Republicans just spoke about that issue. The President in some ways found himself in this place, but on the other hand, since being in office, he has accumulated debt on top of debt for future generations. All of us understand that our biggest obligations exist in entitlements, with Medicare and Social Security. Most of us thought, as we came into this Congress, that one of our major focuses would have to be to get entitlements under control so that while we are doing this unprecedented short-term spending, which I oppose, at least the world community would realize we are trying to tackle our long-term obligations so they would continue to buy our bonds in order that we could go on here in this country. I hoped strongly we would focus on that, and last Congress we had a bipartisan bill, by the way, supported by Republicans and Democrats, to do that. What has happened, though--and this is pretty unfathomable to me--is that during health care reform, what has been focused on is Medicare, which has a $38 trillion unfunded liability, a program where the trustees have said that it is insolvent and is going to go into the hole in a huge way in 8 years. What is being discussed in this body, and what has already been agreed to by many on the House side, is taking money from Medicare, a program which is insolvent, one that, instead of taking money from, we should be trying to make solvent, but we are taking money from that program to create a whole new set of entitlements that will add incredible amounts of debt to our country's balance sheet. It is almost unfathomable to believe that people in this body would be looking to make a program that is insolvent even more insolvent by leveraging it to create another program. For that reason, because I know the Finance Committee is in meetings, in small groups but also as a committee, to try to figure out a way to solve this health care problem--and it is my hope that they will do it in a way that makes sense, in a way that builds bipartisan support--I have delivered today to the majority leader a letter signed by 35 Senators making this body, making the President aware of the fact that we will not support further jeopardizing the Medicare Program by using it to leverage a new entitlement. It is my hope that in delivering this letter, while we have 35 signatures at this moment, there will be more added. While these are all Republican signatures, I actually think there are many on the other side of the aisle who question leveraging an insolvent program for a new program. I have delivered this letter in the hopes that the Finance Committee, the leadership on the Democratic side of the Senate, and the President will seek a solution that is different than taking money from this insolvent program that aids our seniors to create a new entitlement. One of the most discouraging issues is, it is my understanding--and I hope I am wrong--that the folks who are talking about using Medicare money to create a new entitlement are not even dealing with SGR. Every 18 months, we sit down and discuss the doc fix. Doctors all across the country call us wanting to make sure that their payments are not going to be cut by 21 percent this year. So each year we kick the can down the road and solve that for a year, year and a half, because of budgetary constraints. It is my understanding that what is being discussed at this moment is taking money from Medicare, leveraging a new program which will add increasing debt, and not solving that problem even during the 10-year budget window this legislation will deal with. Again, I have attended every meeting I have been asked to. I went to the White House yesterday. I met with a bipartisan group last night. I believe that this country does need to figure out a way so that all Americans can access affordable quality health care. I know all Americans are concerned about the cost of health care. I stand here as one Senator committed to doing that in the right way, but I also stand here with 35 other Senators saying that to do that and make another program that exists more insolvent is not acceptable. I oppose that. I hope that is not used to create a new entitlement. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if I could talk back to the respected leader, I thank him for bringing it forward. I do think it is important we work through eight bills before the recess begins, and I hope over the next couple of hours he and the distinguished Senator from South Carolina can reach some resolve that is an accommodation and we can move through this. I thank the Senator very much for his patience. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the leader for reading the letter I sent to him some time ago. I thank him for actually trying to bring forth an appropriations bill. I hope we can figure out some resolve. I think it is very important to our country that we actually go through an appropriations process that is thoughtful. I thank you for doing that today.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak, briefly, about a bill Senator Warner from Virginia and I are introducing today. The title of the bill is the TARP Recipient Ownership Trust Act of 2009. This bill intends to deal with the issue that our government finds itself in a position of large ownership in companies--something I think none of us ever imagined would be the case some time ago. This piece of legislation only deals with TARP recipients. But what it does is solve the unease in the problem that many of us have in the Senate and in the Congress with the fact that we have such large government ownerships in companies. What this bill would do would be to set up a trust for all TARP company ownership to be put in when stakes are larger than 20 percent of the company. What it would do is give the administration the ability to appoint three trustees to have a fiduciary obligation to the taxpayers of this country. It would be my hope that these trustees would be people such as Warren Buffett or Jack Welch or people similar to them, whom we--all of us in our country--respect and consider to certainly be knowledgeable market participants. These trustees will be paid no money. They would do this as a duty to our country. While their objective would be to look at these companies with a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers, they also would be given the direction to unload these ownerships by December 24, 2011. I think this would go a long way toward giving all of us more comfort that there was not a political agenda with any of these companies, that these companies were being dealt with in a way that is fair and appropriate to the taxpayers. I think this is something that, while it is not perfect, would do what is necessary to make us all feel a lot more comfortable about where we are. No. 1, we would have three neutral, well-respected businesspeople looking after our taxpayers' interests. Hopefully, that would shield as much as possible any kind of political involvement in those companies. Secondly, obviously, they would be given the directive to unload this ownership by December 24, 2011, as I have mentioned. They can come back at that time. If they feel, for some reason, this is not in the taxpayers' interest, they can come back to us at that time and seek additional time, should they think it is in our interest as taxpayers to extend that period of time. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation. This is not done with any kind of ax to grind. This legislation is being offered, truly, just to solve this rub we all find ourselves in, that the American citizens find themselves in, where we have large ownership stakes. Specifically, today, because of the ownership stakes that exist, the three companies that would be affected would be AIG, Citigroup, and, of course, the automobile company, General Motors. There could be additional companies that, through conversions to common equity, might be affected by this. I think this is a very commonsense piece of legislation that I hope will have broad bipartisan support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak, briefly, about a bill Senator Warner from Virginia and I are introducing today. The title of the bill is the TARP Recipient Ownership Trust Act of 2009. This bill intends to deal with the issue that our government finds itself in a position of large ownership in companies--something I think none of us ever imagined would be the case some time ago. This piece of legislation only deals with TARP recipients. But what it does is solve the unease in the problem that many of us have in the Senate and in the Congress with the fact that we have such large government ownerships in companies. What this bill would do would be to set up a trust for all TARP company ownership to be put in when stakes are larger than 20 percent of the company. What it would do is give the administration the ability to appoint three trustees to have a fiduciary obligation to the taxpayers of this country. It would be my hope that these trustees would be people such as Warren Buffett or Jack Welch or people similar to them, whom we--all of us in our country--respect and consider to certainly be knowledgeable market participants. These trustees will be paid no money. They would do this as a duty to our country. While their objective would be to look at these companies with a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers, they also would be given the direction to unload these ownerships by December 24, 2011. I think this would go a long way toward giving all of us more comfort that there was not a political agenda with any of these companies, that these companies were being dealt with in a way that is fair and appropriate to the taxpayers. I think this is something that, while it is not perfect, would do what is necessary to make us all feel a lot more comfortable about where we are. No. 1, we would have three neutral, well-respected businesspeople looking after our taxpayers' interests. Hopefully, that would shield as much as possible any kind of political involvement in those companies. Secondly, obviously, they would be given the directive to unload this ownership by December 24, 2011, as I have mentioned. They can come back at that time. If they feel, for some reason, this is not in the taxpayers' interest, they can come back to us at that time and seek additional time, should they think it is in our interest as taxpayers to extend that period of time. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation. This is not done with any kind of ax to grind. This legislation is being offered, truly, just to solve this rub we all find ourselves in, that the American citizens find themselves in, where we have large ownership stakes. Specifically, today, because of the ownership stakes that exist, the three companies that would be affected would be AIG, Citigroup, and, of course, the automobile company, General Motors. There could be additional companies that, through conversions to common equity, might be affected by this. I think this is a very commonsense piece of legislation that I hope will have broad bipartisan support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I would like to mention one other issue in closing. A large number of Senators signed a letter to the leader asking that we do our business in a very thoughtful way as it relates to appropriations. Each year we find ourselves in a position where we end up with an omnibus bill that most of us feel very uncomfortable signing into law. We ask that the appropriations bills be passed in such a manner that we have eight of them passed individually by the August recess. I know, today, we are stuck on a bill, and I realize there is some stalling that is taking place. I have to question why we are focused on a tourism bill today when we still have not begun our appropriations process. So I will say to the leader, I hope he will move on with doing the appropriations in an appropriate order so, as I have mentioned, we will have at least eight of those passed by the recess so we can do our citizens' work in the most appropriate manner. Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank you for the time.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that we call up amendment No. 1173.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Lugar, Isakson, Collins, and Bennett be added as cosponsors to this amendment.