Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, may I ask the distinguished Senator from Connecticut: It was my understanding that all TARP funding was to be used for things the taxpayer would get back. In other words, these were supposed to be investments for which the taxpayers knew they would get 100 percent of their money back and more. So to use this money, is this not taking away from the very essence of what TARP was to be used for and now spending money we know the taxpayers will never get back?

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, after listening to the Senator from Alaska, I certainly would love to have her advocating on my behalf, and I know you two will make a great team in advocating on behalf of the people in Alaska, certainly seeing that they have been sent an injustice. I thank you for the opportunity to listen to that. Again, it is great to be here with the two Senators from Alaska.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 11, I voted ``aye.'' I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote to ``nay'' since it will not affect the outcome of the legislation.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak as in morning business, and I thank the chairman for allowing me to do so. If someone comes in to speak on the subject matter, I will defer. As is the Senator from California, I am very concerned about our economy. I know there is going to be a stimulus package forthcoming. I am very concerned about that. I am afraid what we are doing right now as a country is addressing the recession--a severe recession--in the standard way people like to respond to recessions. I think we are potentially doing that without addressing the real issue, which is the credit markets in our country. I know over the last 6 months we have wrestled with ways of dealing with the credit markets in our country. I wish to tell my colleagues it is my belief the boards of banks throughout our country are in boardrooms today and are in conversations throughout the country talking about the fact that their banks are actually insolvent. They know they are insolvent, but because of the way gap financing accrues to banks who make whole loans, they are able to actually meter those losses out over quarters into the future, knowing that today they are insolvent. What we have done through TARP funding is put money through capital injection into these banks. In their intelligent self-interests they have hoarded that money because they know they have losses coming in the future that would cause their banks to be insolvent if they recognized those losses today. What concerns me is our country is quickly getting to the point where our resources are limited more than they have ever been, where we are borrowing huge amounts of money--and certainly we have been doing that for some time--and we are getting to a point in time where there is not a lot of power left for us to solve problems. So what I hope will happen over this next 30 days as we wrestle with this issue--which is serious and which is affecting people throughout this country; which is harming households and people who are just trying to work for a living--is that we will solve the root cause of this problem, which is our credit problem. It is my belief we have trillions of dollars that are going to be lost in the credit market. Much of that is being driven by housing. These two issues have to be dealt with together. I fear we are going to look at a spending package that candidly isn't going to make its way into the economy until long after many predict this may be over. In the interim, what we are going to do is create a zombie banking system where, in essence, banks are just there metering out losses but not doing the productive things that need to occur. It is my belief we have a number of banks in this country--large banks, banks that we know and respect--that need to be seized, that right now need to get down to a base level where normal investors would be willing to invest in these banks. The longer we put this off, the longer we are going to be away from actually solving the root cause of this problem. This President is inheriting these problems. I in no way assess these problems to him. Many Presidents--most Presidents--deal with issues they had no idea they were going to deal with. I know this President is looking at a spending package. Candidly, there may be some need for capital investment in infrastructure. However, if we do not deal with the root issue--and that is the fact that much of our banking system is insolvent and recognize that as adults--and cause the assets to be written down to their real level as we do with derivatives, but we do not do that on whole loans--we give banks a break, if you will. We let them meter those out. If we do not deal with that, everything we do here to deal with our economy, in my opinion, will be for naught. It will be a total waste. What concerns me is we are quickly getting to the point again where we are going to have fewer and fewer resources available to deal with that. The United Kingdom just recently realized that the policies they were putting in place were causing their currency to devalue rapidly. I realize we are not there yet today as a country. I hope what we will do as a body--and as a country--is tell the American people we realize many of our financial institutions are insolvent. We realize the problem could be trillions of dollars, and until that issue is dealt with in a serious and real way, anything else we do for the economy is for naught. It takes a functioning financial system for every small business--for every barbershop, beauty salon, for every large business--for all of us to get our payroll checks processed; it takes that for this economy to function. In order for our financial markets to stabilize, we have to deal with the issue of housing, which we have not yet done. It is my hope this body will take up this serious business. I have to say, in deference to the chairman who has been on the floor talking about our new Secretary of State, I listened to his comments today in the Finance Committee and I thought his comments were dead on. I know he referred to some editorials that were written over the weekend that said exactly the kinds of things we are talking about right now. I talk to investors on Wall Street who are involved in these institutions in major ways. They know they are insolvent. They know we are just pushing this down the road. I think we owe this to these young people up front whose last day is tomorrow. We owe this to Americans across this country who depend upon us to do mature and adult-like things. We owe this to the country, to face up to the realities of these major losses, these major insolvencies, its effect on the economy for years to come, and do something about that first before we deal with things that will possibly stimulate the economy if, in fact, we actually had a functioning financial system. We all know of small businesses all across this country that are being denied loans. We know of businesses that are actually doing the right things, but banks are calling letters of credit and other things because they want the money in so they can again meter out the losses. So I thank my colleague for allowing me to speak as in morning business. I know we have important business at hand. I look forward to supporting Secretary of State-designate Clinton later today. I thank my colleague for his courtesy, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I would like to speak on the joint resolution that is before us. I would like the Presiding Officer to let me know how much time is available.

Mr. CORKER. OK. Madam President, I wonder if the Chair might let me know when 120 seconds is left.

Mr. CORKER. Thank you, Madam President. I rise today to talk about a very important vote that will take place this afternoon. It is regarding the TARP funding. Many people in our country have come to know it as the financial rescue package, the bailout--a number of different terms. I was a supporter of TARP funding, and based on the information we had at the time, I think that vote I made regarding supporting funding to credit markets was a good vote. This afternoon, we are going to vote on the next tranche of that funding, the next level, another $350 billion in funding. Let me just say that I have great respect for those who are coming in in this new administration. I have spent a great deal of time--based on the time allotted--talking to Larry Summers. I appreciated the dialog we had last night as a caucus with Rahm Emanuel and Mr. Summers. I spent time talking with Tim Geithner. It is my belief that should he make it through the process of being confirmed, we have a team of people here who I think will be very responsible and will serve our country well. I look forward to working with them in every way I can. I believe the credit issue, along with the issue we have of housing, is the 90-percent issue our country is dealing with today economically. As a matter of fact, as we look at economic stimulus issues, to me, much of that, candidly, is window dressing. Most of that is wasteful. Most of that is unnecessary. And most of that will do nothing whatsoever to stimulate this economy based on the things that have been put forth today. The credit issue, though, is, in fact, in my opinion, the 90-percent issue we need to solve as a country to really move us ahead. That, combined with doing what is necessary so that housing is stabilized, is of utmost importance. So that puts me in a very big dilemma today as it relates to this vote at 4:30. We have had several months now to understand what is happening in the credit markets and to understand what the problem is. I know our Secretary today, the Secretary of Treasury, Mr. Paulson, has, in many ways, had to go about this in an ad hoc way. I do not say that to criticize. He was faced with a problem. He had to move through it. He had to make decisions and try to solve problems as he saw them. But now, today, several months later, we have a more full understanding of the problem. The issue I have today with this vote-- and I urge the incoming administration to solve this problem before the 4:30 vote--is I would like for them to tell us, to diagnose the problem, to tell the American people what the problem is in our credit markets and then to tell all of us what they are going to do with the $350 billion that is now being sought. I know they are not yet in office. I have had very good conversations with them. But I do think it is incumbent upon them to tell us what the problem is and how they are going to solve it. I think there are hundreds of billions of dollars of losses left in our banking system. My guess is it exceeds trillions, it exceeds $1 trillion. The problem is that most banks in our country that hold whole loans--not the derivatives that are mark to market but whole loans--are sort of metering out their losses. Each quarter, they write down just a little bit more based on the loan losses they are seeing in a particular category. They know hundreds of billions of dollars are coming, and what they are doing is taking our U.S. taxpayer dollars--I might say, intelligently for their self-interest--they are hoarding those dollars because they know there are massive losses that are coming down the road. The best way to solve this problem would be for us to recognize that, to get down to that level today, which would mean serious recapitalizations, and then build back from a base that is real. But right now, our banking system is operating almost like a zombie. There are losses that are coming that they know they have to recognize. They are not willing to do that. So we are in this period of time where basically U.S. tax dollars are, in many ways, being frittered away because we are investing in these companies, and then they are using those because they know of the losses that are coming. So I would like for the administration to state that they know that, and I would like for the administration to come forth with a plan that solves that predicament that is going to be with us for many years. I want to work with them. Whether I vote this afternoon for TARP or not--and unless they come forward publicly--it does not even have to be done legislatively--if they will come forth publicly and define the problem and tell us how they are going to spend the money, it is possible I will support this. I want to work with them in this regard. I hope that will be forthcoming. We spent a lot of time on the automotive debate. All of us came together, and we diagnosed the problem. We laid out what the problem was, and we actually put forth a solution. We debated that, and unfortunately we did not get it done. But the fact is, the American public and all of us in the Senate understood what that problem was, and then we talked about a precise and prescribed way of solving that problem. That is exactly the thing that needs to take place as it relates to this issue. One of the things I think we have to understand as a country: There is going to be less lending. Trying to force people to make loans in a climate when our society is overleveraged is not responsible. The fact is, there needs to be less lending, which brings me to the next point. We have to acknowledge in this country that many banks are going to fail. Many banks are unnecessary. One of the greatest fallacies of what has occurred over the last several months--and I say that with no criticism but just as an observation--is that we are unwilling to let bad banks fail. Because of what we are doing today, we again are wasting taxpayer money, in combination with the fact that regulators are on the ground, both at the FDIC and the OCC--again, well- intentioned people who are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in our States by virtue of the fact that they are forcing banks to do things that are not in the best interests of this economy. So let me say, I want to support solving this credit problem. I want the administration to come forth and explain to us as a country and us as a Senate their perception of what the problem is and their prescription for solving it; otherwise, what we are doing today, with huge amounts of taxpayer money, is treating the symptoms, we are not treating the core problem that exists in our credit markets. We are not doing that. I think today probably this TARP funding will pass. I hope the administration will come forth. There is 2 minutes remaining. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. CORKER. One hundred twenty seconds. Thank you. I think this probably will pass this afternoon. Again, I am hoping that over the next 3 hours this administration will come forward and say publicly the things I have asked to be said. I do not criticize them if they do not. I just need to know what we are going to do on behalf of the taxpayers I represent in the State of Tennessee. But I want to say to them that even if this passes today and they continue on the route we have been, I know they are going to come back. They are going to come back and they are going to ask for more money because on the route we are going right now, we are not going to solve the problem and it is going to continue. This is what I think will occur. What I want to say to them--to the new President, who will be sworn in next week, to Larry Summers, to Tim Geithner, to Rahm Emanuel, to all involved--I want to work with you when you come back. I want to work with you with legislation that analyzes the problem and diagnoses it and puts in place a prescription to solve the problem. I am hoping over the next few hours that will occur. If it does not, I am one Senator who stands ready to work with this administration that has very capable people in place to solve what I believe is the most major issue affecting our economy, and that is credit and that is housing. Madam President, thank you for your courtesy. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Reserving the right to object, what will happen to floor time thereafter? Where many of us have time to talk about TARP later on, will we still have that time set aside prior to the TARP vote at 4:30?

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I want to express my deep gratitude to Chris Dodd for all the work he has done over the last week, to Senator Durbin who joined us in meetings, and to all the people who have been involved in trying to reach an agreement. I do want to say this is a highly technical matter. It involved volunteer employed benefit accounts, it involved bonds, it involved all kinds of discussions that were technical in nature. We had the United Auto Workers representative in the room. We had three companies in another room. We were talking to bondholders on the phone. We were certainly talking to our colleagues. We are about three words, three words away from a deal. What my colleagues wish to see is a date certain when something is going to occur. We offered any date in the year 2009, any date. Any day. Just when will we actually get there? I think what we have offered is incredibly reasonable. I think there is a way for us to get there. I still do. There are an awful lot of bright people in this room. This is an important issue. We have solved everything substantially, and about three words keep us from reaching conclusion tonight. Again, we offered any date in 2009. We were not able to get a definitive day. And I think there is still a way to make this happen. By the way, I want to say, if this happens, this is so much better than what is before us on the floor. These companies are going to be able to go forward with only one- third of the debt level they now have--one-third. They are going to be able to pay half of their VIVA, $21 billion to GM, half of it in stock, so it is not cash. Those companies will be stronger than they have been in 40 years if we are able to reach this agreement or they will be in Chapter 11 because there are date-certain things that have to occur. This is a very responsible piece of legislation, and I think people on both sides have acted responsibly. But we are three words--maybe two, maybe four, somewhere in that range--away from having what I believe is a landmark piece of legislation, landmark, historic, that would actually allow those companies to go ahead with strength they have not had in my lifetime. I regret that, but I thank all of those who have been involved. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about where we are in this auto bailout. In essence, it is show time here. A bill came over from the House last night. It is the end of the year. There is an impending crisis we are dealing with here in the country. So today we will be debating that and hopefully in the next few days take a vote. I spent a lot of time in the committee talking with certain and various parties involved. I spent a lot of time outside the committee doing the same thing. There is no doubt we are going through an economic time that is very difficult for the auto industry. It is also difficult for businesses and families all across this country as they try to make their budgets work out. As we have looked at this issue, I know there has been a lot of negotiation that has taken place between the White House and House Democrats. I really think the product that has been developed is a very poor product. I don't blame that on my Democratic colleagues who negotiated because the White House is actually at a point where they are looking for the next flight out of town on January 20. Basically, they want to kick the can down the road and let some other administration and some other Congress deal with this issue. All of us are going to be here next year. It is our responsibility to deal with this issue in a professional and a competent manner and actually solve the problem. I say to my colleagues on both the left and right, on the Democratic and Republican sides, we have a historic opportunity to actually solve this problem. The solution is very simple. I have looked at this legislation that has come over. It is similar to so many things we do around here. It is akin to a three-humped camel. You couldn't make it more ineffective and more complicated. We have put in place a czar. It seems like with everything we do around here, we try to find a person who can save us from the crisis that is happening. We did the same with the financial rescue package not long ago. I have looked at the actual responsibilities of this czar. I said yesterday I had a banking staff person who actually could fulfill those responsibilities. She read that in the paper this morning and came in and said she is overqualified, that in essence this is not something she would want to take on. I think we can use some help, certainly, from the outside, and there may be a role for somebody such as this. But what we are looking at is a fairly simple transaction. It is a lot of money, a fairly simple transaction. Here is what we have. We have three companies. Two of the companies are on the verge of bankruptcy. As a matter of fact, I would say two of the companies are in bankruptcy. I know Chrysler, today, is meeting with their supplier group. I know if they don't win concessions today, they are in great trouble. General Motors has told us if they don't receive funding by the end of this year, they will have to file bankruptcy. I believe that. We have a lot of Republicans who would like to see that happen, would like to see chapter 11 occur and to see them go through the laws that exist for reorganization in a way that is clean and allow them to move ahead in a financially stable way. As a matter of fact, many Republicans would actually agree to something called debtor-in- possession financing after that occurred so these companies could evolve. There are people on the other side of the aisle who have decided that is a cost that is too great to bear. I started out along the path that I believed the best way for us to solve the problem was to actually cause these companies to go through reorganization and any role we might play as the Federal Government would be in the way of debtor-in-possession financing. After listening to the testimony and after talking to people all across the country who are involved, I do believe the supply chain is in great stress. They are undercapitalized. The three companies have already been utilizing the supplier chain for financing by paying late and carrying payments for lengths of time. I do think the supply chain is fragile. What I have tried to do is figure out a way to create a piece of legislation that is elegant, simple, actually solves the problem, and causes these companies to be in great shape and for us to be able to move ahead and know that has been done. There are a lot of times I have heard people say: We are from the Government, and we are here to help you. When people hear that, they usually run for the hills. This is a case where if we will take a moment, we can actually do something that is great for these companies. We have a big stick. These companies cannot get financing anyplace except from the Federal Government. So we have an opportunity to sort of thread the needle in a simple way and cause these companies to be successful. Let me say, other than the economic issues, these companies have three major issues. Each one of them is different. We know that basically we are talking about General Motors here. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it weren't for General Motors. Chrysler would not be here if it weren't for that. They are in serious trouble but wouldn't have the clout to be able to talk to us in this way. Ford has money today because of refinancing they did back in 2006. They are not even part of the discussion today. They might be down the road, but today they are financially viable, although burning cash at a rate that is almost equal to that of General Motors. We are talking--to make this clear to people-- about three entities we need to talk to: General Motors, Cerberus or Chrysler, and the UAW. There are three things that are basically causing these companies difficulty. One is the capital structure. The debt these companies have is not sustainable. It doesn't matter how much money we were to put into General Motors; with the $62 billion in debt they have today, there is no way they can sustain their company. They cannot. GM only has a market cap today of around $2 billion. Toyota has a market cap of $130 billion. BMW has a market cap of $14 billion. So this is a company that has a huge amount of debt and very little value. Chrysler probably has no value. They are privately held. So we have two companies we need to deal with in a similar way, as it turns out. Let me lay something out. Right now the capital structure in both places is too high. Cerberus and Chrysler can't withstand its debt. GM cannot withstand its debt. Secondly, the labor costs are out of line. I know there is a lot of talking about the UAW. Candidly, I will admit, in some cases they get a bad rap. A lot of the people who are my friends would not like me saying that, but in some cases they actually get a bad rap as to the way the comparisons go. The third issue is the dealership issue. I don't think we can deal with that today. There are two issues we can deal with in this loan and solve the problem. One is the capital structure. The other is the labor issue. Here is what I propose. We will be putting this forward, as Senator Reid mentioned. We have some alternative legislation. I hope it is something both Democrats and Republicans can embrace. It is very simple. Let's go ahead and fund the money. Let's fund the money that has been requested. To Republicans, that is like debtor-in-possession financing anyway because these companies are basically bankrupt. To Democrats, the funding is in place to cause these companies to be whole. Let's go ahead and fund the request that has taken place. Let's have three covenants. We can do this with a very short bill which we drafted. The first covenant is that by March 15, the outstanding indebtedness at the two companies that are going to apply for this has to be reduced by two-thirds or the companies have to file for bankruptcy on March 15. That gives the companies, the bondholders, which we have talked to on the phone, plenty of incentive to make sure the debt is reduced by two-thirds so these companies have a capital structure that allows them to go forward. This is the only way they will be successful. We have had plenty of people testify that if we put our money on top of the $62 billion in debt GM has, there is no way they can be successful, even if we are selling 20 million cars a year. Today, we know, we are selling at a 10 million rate. That is No. 1. Give them the money. If by March 15 they haven't reduced their capital structure in that regard--and we have talked to people on all sides who believe this can happen, but it can only happen with the stick of Government, meaning we are going to force them into bankruptcy if they don't do it. That is the first covenant. The second covenant is, I have listened to Mr. Gettelfinger's testimony and talked to him on the phone this morning. He says the only way the UAW can make concessions is if they see the bondholders have done so first. This legislation makes that happen by March 15. So, secondly, after the UAW has seen that the bondholders have taken a ``haircut,'' a word that is used around here a lot, they have to do two things: No. 1, they have to convert half the VEBA obligation, the Voluntary Employee Benefit Association obligations. They have to convert half those to equity. If the company goes bankrupt, these future payments are never going to happen anyway. Again, that reduces the debt at GM by another $10.5 billion, and it gives the UAW equity in a company that actually has value now because the debt by the bondholders has been reduced. That is the second covenant--very simple. The third action they have to take is at that same public meeting where they take a vote, they have to agree to have a contract in place that puts them in parity with companies such as Toyota and Nissan and Volkswagen and other companies here. Before everybody goes crazy over that, that is as certified by the Secretary of Labor. That is not something we prescribe. I realize there will be subtleties in that. There are comparisons that have to be made. To my friends on the left, that would be a Secretary of Labor by the Obama administration who has the ability to look at the various differences and nuances to actually certify that. I have talked to Ron Gettelfinger this morning. Because of the debates we have had recently, I am probably not on his Christmas card list this year. I realize that. But he actually is talking with his leaders about this. I have talked to the COO at General Motors last night and this morning. He was the former chief financial officer. He agrees this will work. This gives the stick to the Government to make them have to do the things they need to do to actually cram down their bondholders. I have heard a lot about Main Street and Wall Street. For those people who want to take an ounce or a pound of flesh from Wall Street, those are mostly the people who own these bonds. They will be taking this huge haircut, two-thirds. In GM's case, it is about $20 billion that would be converted to equity and take away a face amount of debt. I plan to be here all day today. I would like to take 30 minutes off from 12:30 to 1 to give a talk someplace. But I would ask any Democrat, any Republican to please come down to the floor, call me, e-mail me, tell me why we couldn't put in place these three covenants which are very reasonable. They are the only actions that can happen in real time to make these companies successful. Let's pass a bill that causes these companies to be strong, gives them the money to breathe. By the way, we had somebody testify the other day in Banking who said that if we give money to these companies in the form they are in today, we will end up giving $75 to $125 billion. I talked to the President of GM this morning. He says if we can make this happen--of course, the bondholders say we can, he says we can--that they will be limited in their request to only what they have asked for. They do not believe any more U.S. dollars will be required. I ask my colleagues, why would we not take a simple piece of legislation, put it in place. It acts like debtor-in-possession financing. It does what we need to do to make sure the bondholders and the UAW themselves do the things they need to do to make the company whole. Management is already hamstrung by the bill. It lays out the items management must forgo for these loans to be in place. Let's leave here having done something that actually causes these companies to be healthy, vibrant, able to go into the future in a strong way for the first time in 30 years. We can do something great today, if we will only sit down and do it. I ask my colleagues to do one other thing. We have tried to make this so complicated. There are three groups each of you can call to see if this will work. Call Chrysler, call General Motors, call the UAW and ask them if this will work. If there is a sentence we need to change, a comma we need to put in place, let's do it. But it is very simple. We have drafted a bill as if we are saving the world. We are talking about three companies alone, actually two companies today alone and three covenants can solve this problem, put them on a solid foundation, move them ahead. We will have done the right thing for the American taxpayers. We will have done the right thing for these companies, and we will have acted responsibly together in concert, doing something that, again, is right for our country. Mr. President, thank you for the great length of time. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will come down and tell me why this will not work. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Yes.

Mr. CORKER. No question. I say to the Senator from Georgia, they have come in our offices and actually--they have advisers. Their financial advisers have told them that they need for us to craft this legislation this way so they have the hammer they need to make the bondholders reduce their debt so they can be healthy. Without this kind of hammer, nothing is going to happen. Look, you have read this bill. This bill says they have to have a plan to show a net present value in place by March 31--a plan. It does not say when it has to be accomplished. We can solve this problem so simply for them, for the United Auto Workers, for the State of Michigan. By the way, for the record, I want to say I have a General Motors plant in my State. It is very important. It is modern. It has been invested in. We have a Nissan plant, and we have a Volkswagen plant coming. The automobile industry is very important to me, as I know it is to you, I say to the Senator from Georgia. I thank him for that question.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, my understanding was that if possible--I made some calls earlier today that that may be waived and that I go up to 25 minutes.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to be back here this week. I hope the Presiding Officer and his family have a wonderful holiday season when we leave tomorrow. I rise today to talk about the proposed automaker bailout. I have tremendous empathy for all of the people involved. I spent most of my life in business. I am sure these CEOs and others leading these companies are going through tumultuous times. I empathize with them. In my beginning period, I was a card-carrying union member. I know there are a lot of workers who are very concerned about their future. I have tremendous empathy for them and their families. This is actually a very serious time in our history. Regardless of where you are, people are concerned about the future. I was in other parts of the world last week. All around the world, people are concerned about the future. I do want to speak to the speech of the Senator from Maryland regarding the financial component. Many of the car dealers who have called into our office actually are far less concerned about the Big Three. What they are more concerned about is having financing for consumers who are coming into their dealerships. Like her, I want to see people throughout our country be able to operate their businesses. I am certainly not here to defend any of the Secretaries or anybody else. I will say that I did have a conversation yesterday with Secretary Paulson and with Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke. They are putting in place a facility to deal with consumer finance that hopefully will be in place by year end to help deal with some of the financing components that are stressing the automakers. I wish to specifically address the request by the automakers. I was privileged to be part of a hearing the other day in banking where the three CEOs and the leader of the United Auto Workers testified. I was struck by the lack of coherence, the fact that we had three leaders in corporate America whom I actually have a degree of respect for. I was in some ways embarrassed for some of them. They evidently had no plan. They felt in the Senate and in the House today the time was good for receiving moneys from taxpayers. It was sort of a ``get here while the getting is good,'' if you will. It was embarrassing to hear their testimony and the lack of thought that had been put into place as it related to the request. They had come up with a number of $25 billion. They were actually hesitant to tell us how, as a pact, the three of them had decided to divide this money. After a lot of probing, we were able to get them to say that they have decided to divide the money based on their proportional share of the auto market. I pressed them to find out if we did, in fact, agree to loan them this $25 billion, would that be it? It was evident that, no, this was a downpayment and that they had done nothing whatsoever to think about what might happen after the taxpayers invested in them. One of the questions I wish to ask is: Why would we address these three automakers as some homogeneous group? They are three different companies. They are in three different circumstances. It is interesting to me that the head of the United Auto Workers knows that they are in three different circumstances. What he said was that Ford was actually in good shape. They had made some tough decisions and done some things back in the year 2006 that have put them in place to actually survive. They have about $23 billion of cash right now. He said he had been in to look at the books and Chrysler was actually in second place. I would have thought that Chrysler actually would have been the weakest of the three. Their books are not public because they are a private company. He laid out the fact that actually Chrysler was in a stronger position but that GM was a company that was in more disarray. So as we look at this, I find it so irresponsible that we would actually even talk about a rescue package, looking at these companies as a group. They are three very different companies that have addressed their issues in three very different ways. I find it incredibly irresponsible to even consider looking at them as a group. I wonder, in a market with 10 million cars being sold, why we need three domestic automakers. I wonder whether we would be better off if possibly we had two or we had one that was strong. Again, that is something that the market can decide. One of the greatest disservices we could actually do to these automakers and to the many people who depend upon them for employment, whether they be direct employees or tier 1 or 2 suppliers, is to grant them this money. That would be a major mistake. These companies have all kinds of legacy issues they have not been able to deal with. Let me point out one. General Motors has 7,000 dealers. They probably need about 1,500 dealers. What the dealers did years ago is, they went around and got States to pass laws that said that GM could not do away with their dealerships. We have had the strong dealers actually calling our office and telling us they actually have hurt themselves by putting these State laws in place, because there are so many dealers that each of them is having trouble making a profit. It would be a tremendous disservice for us to grant money to these companies without causing them to reorganize. There is something we have in this country called bankruptcy protection. There is something that allows companies to go in and reorganize, to put their strengths in order, do away with their weaknesses and actually carry on. I do hope as we debate this--I realize nothing is going to happen this week; this was kind of a preapplication; that we will probably be dealing with this in January-- but I do hope we will look at this in a mature way and realize that these companies have not done the things they should have done, maybe that they could have done, and that possibly we can be of service to them by making them do the things they need to do. Another example: Chrysler Company has a situation where when they idle a plant, they actually, in some cases, are obligated to pay the workers of those plants for up to 4 years beyond the time the plant is idle. I don't know of any business in the world that can survive in a healthy fashion with those types of obligations. I have tremendous empathy for the people involved. One of these companies has a plant in our State. But I say to my colleagues, the worst thing we could possibly do in this situation is to acquiesce to this request that lacked coherence, lacked thoughtfulness, lacked a plan as to how these companies would be successful in the future, and let them go about their business in the way that they have been going about it. They will be back, if this money is granted. I hope we will stand firm, that we will be responsible with taxpayer moneys, and that even though I am opposed to this, even if the money ends up being granted in some form or fashion, we will cause them to make the decisions that need to be made for them to actually be successful in the future. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, there are a number of distinguished Senators who are leaving this body this year. I know there have been a number of tributes given to all of them and their service. Senator Warner is a very distinguished Senator whom I have known, it seems from afar, almost all of my life. I have watched him with great admiration, and I have watched him lead us on the Armed Services Committee. Chuck Hagel, who exercises this tremendous independence, somebody with whom I have really enjoyed serving on Foreign Relations; Wayne Allard from Colorado who is honoring a two-term pledge to leave this body after two terms to go back to the people of Colorado, he has been distinguished in his service on the Banking Committee; Larry Craig of Idaho who, again, in the energy area, has offered great counsel and made sure that wise decisions were made in that particular committee--I honor all of them. I wish them well. I think we are all better having had the opportunity to serve with them. Pete Domenici There is one particular Senator with whom I have spent more time than the others just because of committee assignments, and that is Pete Domenici. Pete is the ranking member on our Energy Committee. I have loved listening to his many insights. He has with him Frank and Scott who, hopefully, will stay with us and who, together as a group, I think have offered wise counsel to all of us on that committee. There is something about Pete, though. His kindness and his encouragement to me as a person have been most unique. As Chairman Dodd mentioned earlier, I am one of the most junior Members here, but Pete has constantly encouraged me to step out, to make my positions known, to go ahead and forget the fact that I am positioned where I am here in the Senate and to take on a leadership role where it is important for me to do so. There is a special place in my heart for people such as Pete Domenici who encourage all of us to step out and to try to exercise our full potential. I will miss him greatly. I know he loves this body. I know that in many ways he will be lost as he leaves this body. But I want to assure him today that as he leaves, this is one Senator he has encouraged, he has caused to be a better person, and Pete Domenici will always be a part of the Senate service I offer in this body. So I wish him well. I wish the others well.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I say to the Senator: Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for those comments. I want to tell you, I have been in the Senate now for about a year and 9 months, and the way the Senate has responded over the last 10 days I am very proud of, and I thank you for your leadership on the Banking Committee. I think the negotiations that took place right after the, quote, Paulson plan came forth have created a vehicle that will be successful. I know your leadership was there, with your demeanor in dealing with people on both sides of the aisle, in making sure all good ideas were heard, but then, at the same time, shepherding forth a bill we can vote on tonight--one that is steeped with taxpayer protections, steeped with oversight, and gives the citizens of our country what they need to ensure they are protected. I know, as you mentioned, all of us are angry at the situation. I know each of us hears the phone ring in our front offices and knows the number of people across the country who are upset we, as a country, are where we are. But, I say to the Senator, what you have done, Mr. Chairman, and what those who have worked with you at the table and people throughout this Senate have done, is to put aside blame, not let the anger cloud our judgment. Certainly, there are things we want to deal with when we come back in January to ensure this does not happen again. But I think what you have done and what Kent and others in this body today have done, sitting at the table and in meetings and building support, was to let cooler heads prevail. Let me say to you, thank you for letting me serve with you. I want to thank everybody in the Senate for the way everyone has responded to this critical situation. We can spend a lot of time talking about how we got here, and I know there are colleagues who are bringing out old news articles about certain things that were said years ago to try to sort of express, if you will, their frustration. But, obviously, the matter before us is to solve this problem, to make sure we deal with it in a way that is appropriate to the American people. I have been on the phone this week with bankers across our State. I was just on the phone with businesses across our State. Many of them are already dealing with this credit crisis. Many of them are very aware of how this can overwhelm the citizens of our State. Obviously, our care in pursuing this rescue package is to make sure that those hard-working people all across this country who wake up every day and do the things they are supposed to do--save for retirement, save for their children's education--are not tremendously adversely affected by excesses that have occurred in our financial systems. A lot of people are having difficulty sort of comprehending, if you will, what has happened with our financial institutions. We have had a lot of discussions about technical issues, regarding the derivatives and regarding toxic assets and those kinds of things. But we have an adage in Tennessee talking about our farming community, our agriculture community that has to do with something called being land poor. In other words, people have assets, but those assets are not usable, if you will, to pay the monthly mortgage and to pay other kinds of things. Right now our financial institutions have assets on their books they cannot transfer. They cannot create liquidity. This is seizing up, if you will, the credit markets throughout our country. There is a lack of trust that exists between our financial institutions. My fear is if we don't do something prudent and drastic at this moment in time, again, those very hard-working people across our States will be very adversely affected. Look, there are a lot of ways we can deal with this problem. There are a lot of ideas about how we place equity back into our financial markets. They all end up at the same place, and that is we have to create a cure, if you will, for the lack of liquidity, having those frozen assets on the books of these financial institutions. I believe if the Treasury Secretary and those around him who are properly overseeing this carry out their responsibilities in an appropriate manner, with any degree of prudence--and I believe they will with the oversight measures we have built in--this is something where the taxpayers will not only get their money back but should, in fact, get a return. As all of us know, all of this money is coming back into the Federal Treasury to be spent to reduce our Federal deficit. So let me say tonight, to me, is critical. It is something that is an unpleasant task because the general public sees this as something, in some cases, other than what it is, and that is something that is directly helping the people across our country. I think there is a reason for their anger. I, too, share that anger. But at the end of the day, this is something I believe needs to pass. Upon passage, the next step that needs to occur is that the Treasury Secretary and all of those working with him need to put in place a very prudent, a very transparent process so that all of us can see the value of these assets that are being bought in real time. So tonight's vote is very important. The next phase is also very important as it relates to making sure this vast amount of money we are talking about actually comes back into our Treasury. Then there is a third component we all need to be committed to, and that is when we come back in January, we need to work together, as we have during this crisis, to be sure this never happens again. I know the chairman of our Banking Committee and all of us have been stunned at the fact that financial institutions could own hundreds of billions of dollars of assets outside the knowledge of regulators. So tonight, to me, this vote in this body is the first step in a three-step process; that is, immediately giving the Treasury Secretary the ability to deal with this crisis in a way that is prudent, that gets our banking systems back in more of an orderly process, ensuring that payroll checks are cashed, that home mortgages are obtainable, and that student loans are obtainable. The second step is staying involved in ensuring that the Treasury Secretary implements prudent policies in making sure the taxpayer money comes back. And the third step is making sure we reform this process so these types of excesses never happen again. Let me say in closing on that topic, I started out very skeptical. When we began talking to Secretary Paulson in our banking hearing, I was skeptical of his three-page bill. I think this body, working with the House, has exercised the right amount of due diligence and oversight. I think we have a bill tonight we can be proud of. There will be human mistakes made down the road. But we have a bill in place we can be proud of. I urge my colleagues to strongly support this legislation to help our country avert what I believe will be one of the greatest fiscal crises, financial crises, we will have dealt with as a country in modern times. I wish to thank Chairman Dodd for his leadership in this crisis, and his steady hand, which I believe with all my heart is going to make this country stronger. Madam President, if I could have 2 minutes with unanimous consent to speak as in morning business, I would appreciate that.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I would like to follow on with the assistant majority leader's comments and say that I agree that we need to gather to solve this problem. And I sense, from the administration and in 5 hours of banking hearings yesterday and phone conversations I have had throughout the evening last night and today, I sense a willingness to alter the plan in such a manner that accountability, that those kinds of things, oversight and other matters we want to address are addressed. What I would say to the assistant majority leader and to others who want to see something happen is, let's work through the weekend. Let's not have some artificial deadline of leaving here Friday until we get it right. I think there has to be a structure that comes together very soon that allows both the House and the Senate to be negotiating together. I think the worst that could come out would be for one body to send to another body a message and then that be the vote. The assistant majority leader and others who are in the leadership here, I hope what you will do is bring us together as two bodies to try to solve this extraordinary problem together. I have a lot of people in Tennessee who are very frustrated with what has happened on Wall Street. I understand that frustration. I realize there have been lots of excesses there that need to be punished and penalized, but the fact is that Wall Street is inextricably tied to Main Street. I am also getting calls throughout the State of Tennessee from businesses, from people involved in small businesses, people who are involved in household issues, who are having very difficult issues with getting credit. So what I would say is, look, I think all of us agree that something needs to occur. I think all of us agree that something drastic needs to occur in order to jolt this system. There is a lot of debate over what is the right and wrong thing to do, but I believe we as a body should be responsible. I believe we should come together as two bodies, with the leadership of both bodies working together to try to get this legislation right. The hearings that are taking place today in the House have been most illuminating. The 5-hour session we had yesterday in Banking was most illuminating. Most of us have been able to spend time with Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson to talk through this issue. One of the responsibilities and privileges we have here in the Senate is that we have access to information most people throughout the country do not have access to. People ask us to make judgments, to use the wisdom we garner from talking to these people to try to do the right thing for our country, and I hope that sometime between now and Sunday we will come together, solve this problem, do so in a way that is prudent for our country, that protects our taxpayers but at the same time causes the financial system in our country to operate as it should. I want to mention one other thing. If we do this correctly, which is what I have been trying to encourage--I know the President has done the same thing in hearings yesterday--if we do this correctly, the money, whatever money that is expended, is actually something that is an investment. These securities Secretary Paulson is talking about investing in have a market value. If they can set up a mechanism to buy these at proper value, the taxpayers will, in fact, have a return. I believe that whatever we do is not going to be 100 percent correct. We will make mistakes. We will look back on whatever it is we pass in the next week or so and we will realize we had some issues that were not dealt with properly. But I do think it is incumbent upon us to work until this is done. I think the markets are watching us. I think actually that while we might have taken another week or two to solve this problem, an artificial line has been drawn in the sand for this weekend because the markets now expect us to do something. And I want to say to the assistant leader, to our minority leader, and to others who have been on the floor that I certainly stand ready and available to work with others, to work with people on both sides of the aisle and in both bodies to make sure we solve this problem, we solve it prudently, and we do so in a timeframe that allows our financial markets to get back to somewhat normal operations as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. The senior Senator from Tennessee provides tremendous leadership and certainly has done that on the issue of energy. He has spent time on the Energy Committee and knows of the great things happening in the State of Tennessee in this regard. What I would say to the Senator from Tennessee, someone who is a great friend, I worked hard to come to this body. You saw the tremendous effort I put in place to come to this body. This is the biggest issue the American people are dealing with today. I did a townhall meeting the other night on the phone, which had about 1,200 people, and almost every question people called in about was: Are we going to do anything as it relates to energy? So I know this is a major issue. I know it affects people. I go into retail stores, for instance, where somebody is working behind the counter, and I know they are not making a very high wage. They tell me: Please, is there something you can do to solve this problem? In my family, we are having to make decisions I thought we would never have to make, and I am concerned about what is going to happen this winter. So, yes, to get back to the Senator and sharing reflections, it is hard for me to believe we have a body of 100 adults, we have the biggest issue our country is dealing with, and one Senator--one Senator--has decided no one can offer amendments. I think it is a lack of responsibility to the American people. I do feel remiss that you and I both are not able to represent the people of Tennessee to do something they know makes sense; and that is, produce more and use less. I thank the Senator for this time.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, today I praise the efforts of ThanksUSA and two of Tennessee's outstanding songwriters, Leslie Satcher and Monty Holmes. This weekend, these parties will join together to perform a charity concert for our country's Armed Forces. ThanksUSA is a nonpartisan charitable endeavor to encourage Americans of all ages to ``thank'' the men and women of the United States Armed Forces by providing academic scholarships for their children and spouses. ThanksUSA offers two interconnected programs: the national treasure hunt and the military family scholarship program. The treasure hunt raises awareness and money for the scholarship program. This weekend's charity concert would not be possible without the talent and performances of Ms. Leslie Satcher and Mr. Monty Holmes. In the traditional Tennessee spirit, Ms. Satcher and Mr. Holmes have volunteered to perform their own country music hits to entertain the attendees. With dreams of making it big in country music, Satcher moved to Nashville to put her song writing skills to the test. After a church friend encouraged her to show her work to Larry Strickland and Naomi Judd, Satcher's career in country music officially began, and her dreams became a reality. Leslie is no stranger to charity concerts as she is frequently found on stage performing for benefits with other country music celebrities. Another gifted songwriter and performer, Monty Holmes, will join Satcher in the evening's benefit concert. At a young age, country music was instilled in Monty Holmes. With a grandfather who played the fiddle, guitar and piano, Monty grew up with a love of music. As a young adult, Holmes moved to Nashville and quickly gained a reputation for both his voice and his words. Writing songs for some of country music's greatest artists, Holmes quickly earned a prominent place in country music. It is a privilege to serve in the Senate on behalf of Tennesseans such as Leslie Satcher and Monty Holmes, who personify the voluntarism and patriotism of Tennessee. Leslie and Monty have shared many stories, memories, and inspirations through the mouthpiece of country music. I thank them and ThanksUSA for their efforts. I cannot think of a more valuable way to express our gratitude for our troops than with the gift of education.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. Presdient, today we remember and celebrate the life of the great Senator from North Carolina, Jesse Helms. Senator Helms dedicated much of his life to serving his country and the people of North Carolina. He developed a lasting legacy as a man who held to his convictions and championed the causes he believed in so deeply. He began his career in the U.S. Navy during World War II, where he was assigned as a recruiter. After the war, he became involved in North Carolina politics and campaigned for Senator Willis Smith, later serving on his staff. Senator Helms continued to establish himself, working as a political commentator for local Raleigh newspapers and radio stations. In 1957, Senator Helms was elected to the Raleigh city council, where he served with the same conviction that he would later bring to the Senate. He was first elected to the Senate in 1972 and was reelected four more times, making him the longest serving U.S. Senator in North Carolina history. He quickly became known for his unfailing dedication to uphold traditional American values and protect freedom. He said, ``The challenge is always before us. Whenever we lose sight of the principles that mattered to our founders we run into trouble.'' During his tenure in the Senate, Helms served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and was chairman from 1995 to 2001. Under his leadership, the committee played a powerful role in setting U.S. foreign policy. Senator Helms will be greatly missed and remembered as one of the most influential Senators of his time.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. If you wouldn't mind letting me know when 60 seconds remain.

Mr. CORKER. I thank the Chair for your courtesy, and I now yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. So for 1 minute 15 seconds I will talk about supply and demand again, something that I think most of us understand. I will say again to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that I am willing to look at every possible amendment that has to do with conservation, that has to do with green technology, that has to do with additional production, so that over the next 10 years, we don't send $10 trillion overseas. We talk a lot about the oil companies in this country, and I know there are some things that can be said pro and con, but the fact is they are public companies and they do operate in the light. It seems to me that when we argue about big oil--and we do that in a negative way sometimes--what we forget is that every year--this year $700 billion-- and again over the next 10 years, under present trends, we will send $10 trillion overseas to countries that, in many cases, wish us ill.