[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 37 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1435-S1436]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ACT

  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I rise to speak regarding the highway 
bill. We each come into work daily with different thoughts. I come in 
today very hopeful. The fact is we have a bipartisan bill that 
hopefully will actually have the finance component of it on the floor 
soon. We have had it worked through the various committees of the 
Senate--the Banking Committee, the Commerce Committee, the EPW 
Committee. I think what this body is waiting for right now is the 
Finance Committee package, and I know they are continuing to work on 
that package. The reason I come down here, in a very hopeful way, is I 
think all of us support the highway bill. We want

[[Page S1436]]

to see a bill such as this passed. But I think we also want to see it 
passed in an appropriate way, and some of the earlier renditions that 
have come out of the Finance Committee, unfortunately, have not paid 
for this bill. It is my sense that maybe what is happening right now is 
that there is some work being done to try to make that not the case.
  I know the Senator from New York is familiar with the health care 
debate we had years ago, and one of the issues many of the folks on 
this side of the aisle were concerned about--and I think many folks on 
the other side of the aisle were concerned about--was some of the 
gimmickry used to pay for it. We had 6 years' worth of spending and 10 
years' worth of revenues. Obviously, people around the country--
rightfully so--were concerned about that. What we have at present with 
this highway bill is something that is even worse than that. We have 2 
years' worth of spending and 10 years' worth of revenues to pay for it. 
Everybody in this body knows there is no family in New York and no 
family in Tennessee who could possibly survive under that scenario.
  I had an op-ed published this morning in the Washington Post talking 
about the fact that we have had so many bipartisan efforts here to try 
to deal with deficit reduction. We had the Bowles-Simpson report that 
came out; we had 64 Senators--32 on each side of the aisle--who wrote a 
letter to the President to encourage him to embrace deficit reduction 
and progrowth tax reform. We had another group of colleagues who became 
involved in something called Go BIG, and the whole focus was to deal 
with the fiscal issues of this country.
  I come in somewhat hopeful this morning, but what I fear is happening 
is because this highway bill is so popular that Members on both sides 
of the aisle are willing to kick the can down the road in an area where 
we could--in a bipartisan way--address deficit reduction and get the 
highway bill on a spend-as-you-go basis, meaning that we pay for it as 
we go--instead of doing that, because this is an election year and this 
is a popular bill, both parties--instead of leading on deficit 
reduction--are going to cave in and basically kick the can down the 
road because this is ``a popular bill.'' To me, that is not what the 
American people sent us to do.
  So we have this opportunity to pay for it. I don't know whether we 
are going to get where we need to go. As a matter of fact, even though 
I am hopeful we are going to make progress on this issue, I don't think 
we are going to quite get there. I sense in this body a desire to kick 
the can down the road, to turn our head, to not live up to our 
responsibilities as it relates to this bill.
  So I am going to offer two amendments. One amendment would say: Look, 
we have a highway trust fund. We have had the transfer of $34 billion 
or $35 billion into it from the general fund since 2008. We have a 
trust fund. We ought to either spend the money that comes into it 
accordingly and reduce the amount of spending on highways or what we 
should do is lower discretionary spending someplace else.
  Again, we have not seen the final bill because another negotiation is 
taking place. It appears to me, in order to live up to our 
responsibilities to the American people, that what we would have to do 
is cut about $11 billion or $12 billion out of the discretionary caps 
we agreed to as part of the Budget Control Act to make this 
appropriate. I will offer an amendment once we see what the final 
package is that does just that.
  In other words, if we all think highways and transit bills are 
important--and by the way, I do. I used to be the mayor of a city. I 
know that infrastructure is very important to our economic growth in 
this country. But if we believe spending on highways and transit is 
important and it is a priority, then what we need to do is lower 
discretionary caps and lower spending in another area. For us to do 
anything short of that would be making a mockery of the American people 
and certainly making a mockery of the arrangement that was created 
through the Budget Control Act. So I am certainly hopeful this 
amendment will pass if we continue on this course. I can't imagine that 
in a bipartisan way both sides would show the irresponsibility that has 
led to today anyway. I am still hopeful that by the time we pass this 
highway bill, we will have come together and acted responsibly and 
actually paid for this. But I think the American people understand that 
passing a bill that spends money over 2 years and tries to recoup it 
over a 10-year period is a highway to insolvency.

  So I am committed more than ever to us living up to our 
responsibilities to the American people. I believe there is something 
brewing in this body that says we have to live up to these 
responsibilities. I think the best place for us to start is on this 
highway bill.
  I will close with this. I know the Senator from Utah wishes to speak 
for a few moments also. A lot of people are saying: Senator Corker, 
this is such a small amount of money; and, gosh, this is such a popular 
bill--everybody likes it. Can't we just turn our heads on this issue 
and kick the can down the road and do something we know fiscally is 
totally irresponsible because all of us like highways?
  My response is, look, if we cannot deal with the highway bill that, 
by the way, is just simple math--this isn't something such as Medicare 
reform or something else where we have all kinds of moving parts that 
are very difficult to deal with--the highway bill is just simple math. 
If we don't have the ability in this body to deal with just addition 
and subtraction, there is no way the American people are going to trust 
us with things such as Medicare reform and Social Security reform and 
making sure those programs are solvent down the road for seniors who 
depend upon them.
  So what I would say to this body is we have a great opportunity this 
week and next week to show the American people we are serious about 
getting this country on a solid footing. There is no better place to do 
that than on a popular bill. In other words, if we have to make 
priorities, if we have to make choices, if we have to cut spending in 
other places to make 2 years' worth of payouts equal 2 years worth of 
income, there is no place better to do it than on the highway bill. I 
urge this body to stand tall, to meet its responsibilities, and only 
pass this bill if it is paid for over the same amount of time that it 
is extended. So that means all the money that goes out is paid for over 
the next 2 years. I will be offering amendments to do that if the 
Finance Committee does not in and of itself.
  I thank my colleagues for listening, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.

                          ____________________