[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1703-1704]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       SURFACE TRANSPORATION ACT

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for his leadership. I am 
here today to appeal to this body. I think the Presiding Officer, I 
know myself, and a whole host of folks in this body have been concerned 
about where the country is going. I know many of us have talked about 
ways of reforming our Medicare system at some point, which I realize 
may not happen this year, and our Medicaid system, and to move our 
country to a place where it works fiscally for all Americans. We have 
talked about all kinds of things. Shoot, I think there have been over 
50 or 60 Senators involved in trying to reach consensus on those 
issues.
  Today, we are debating a highway bill. I know we have had a lot of 
great work that has taken place in EPW, a lot of great work in the 
Commerce Committee, in the Banking Committee, and in the Finance 
Committee. What we have done in this bill--and I so appreciate our 
leadership allowing us to look at this bill in this way--is to move to 
one portion of the bill and then adding other portions on to the bill. 
So I thank the leadership of the Senate for letting us look at the bill 
in this way.
  I know there are provisions in the Finance component that are being 
worked out now before the Finance piece comes to the floor, and again I 
appreciate the people working on that. But it was my understanding--and 
I think I am right--that the major components of that Finance work were 
not supposed to change, yet here we are and what we are getting ready 
to do with this highway bill is pretty unbelievable.
  All of us want to see infrastructure in this country built. I know 
the Senator from Maryland is a strong proponent of that and has lobbied 
heavily for that. I was the mayor of a city at a time when it seemed we 
had nothing but orange barrels, so I thought it was very important we 
had proper infrastructure.
  But with all of the consensus that has developed in the Senate around 
trying to solve our big issues, here is what we are doing. And many 
people on the other side of the aisle--my friends--can remember the 
debate during health care. One of the things that many people on my 
side of the aisle argued was a problem with the health care bill was 
that we were going to use 6 years worth of cost and 10 years worth of 
revenue. That was one of the things that actually got a lot of people's 
attention and concerned people on both sides of the aisle. What we are 
doing with this bill is even more egregious. What we are doing with 
this highway bill is we have 2 years' worth of cost and 10 years of 
revenue.
  Again, I know all of us want to see a highway bill put in place. I 
think most of us want to see a long-term highway bill put in place. But 
let me explain what is happening. The Senator from Maryland and I, 
every year or so, have to deal with something called SGR. It is the 
sustainability growth rate for Medicare. We put a formula in place back 
in 1997, but we haven't owned up to that. So what we do every year and 
a half or so is we kick the can further down the road and we create 
what is called a financial cliff at the end of it. Every time we deal 
with that, it gets more and more expensive.
  I understand people here in the Senate don't want to support 
physicians across their States, so we keep kicking the can down the 
road and not finding a way for a long-term solution that all of us know 
needs to be in place. I personally understand how people are concerned 
with how we reform Medicare. It affects a lot of seniors in our States, 
and we want to make sure we do that in the right way.
  What I don't understand is why on this highway bill, which has a 
trust set up--and by the way, it doesn't have the same type of 
constituency. I shouldn't be talking politics, but it doesn't. We deal 
with all of our Governors back home. But why on this highway bill are 
we creating exactly the same problem for our highway program that we 
have with SGR? What we are effectively doing, if we pass this bill in 
the way the Finance Committee has come up with paying for it, is we 
have created exactly the problem we have with SGR. I cannot imagine why 
anyone in this body wants to see us take one problem and transfer it to 
something else that so many of our Governors and people across our 
country depend upon.
  So here we are, in a situation where we all know our fiscal situation 
is not sustainable, we know we have to make changes--and I realize it 
is very unlikely those changes are going to happen this year--and yet 
we would go ahead and do what I think is unbelievably irresponsible, 
which is that we would go ahead and pass this highway bill where we are 
going to spend all the money in 2 years and pay for it over 10. So I am 
here to appeal to people on both sides of the aisle.
  This is a bipartisan issue. It is a bipartisan bill. This isn't one 
of those things where one side of the aisle is trying to pass something 
over the objections of the other side of the aisle. But I want to 
appeal to the conscience of the people in this body, to the moral high 
ground that sometimes this body can exhibit in representing the 
American people, that we not do the same kind of thing we have done 
with SGR--the doc fix and Medicare--to the highway bill. We ought to 
spend the amount of money we have coming in. If we don't think that is 
enough money to pay for it annually, we ought to change the way the 
revenue structure is coming into the program.
  There is no way in the world households in Maryland or Tennessee or 
any other place would possibly consider doing this. We know fiscally 
this doesn't work. Financially, it doesn't work. So I am hopeful enough 
people in this body will put aside expediency, put aside making 
everybody feel good back home in the short term, and not create a 
crisis.
  By the way, at the end of 2013, if we pass this bill as it is laid 
out now by the Finance Committee--even with the tweak they are looking 
at on IRAs--what we are looking at doing is putting in place a $10 
billion cliff.
  Again, I think it is unbelievably irresponsible that we would 
transfer the same woes we have in our entitlement programs to the 
highway program. We ought to either spend the amount of money that is 
coming in annually and reduce the amount of outflows or we ought to do 
something different with the gas tax or some other revenue stream. But 
we should not put our heads in the sand and say, even though we know 
this doesn't work, it is an election year and we want to get a highway 
bill behind us. We know it is

[[Page 1704]]

going to be bad news for our country down the road, but it is good news 
for us today. To me, that is irresponsible. So I am appealing to both 
sides of the aisle. I am appealing to all those people who have been to 
numerous meetings trying to figure out a bipartisan way--not as 
Republicans or Democrats, but in a bipartisan way--we can deal with our 
country's financial problems in an appropriate way, a pragmatic way, 
that doesn't jerk the rug out but gets us where we need to go over the 
next 10 years. I am appealing to all those people who act very 
sincerely in these meetings and speak with passion about where our 
country is going. I am appealing to their goodwill. I am appealing to 
their conscience. I am suggesting that we take the moral high ground 
and not let a bill pass like this--a bill that uses the same budget 
gimmickry we have used for so many years and that has put us in the 
place we are now in.
  I hope, in a bipartisan way, we will say, no, stop. Let's do this in 
the appropriate way that reflects the trust the American people have 
placed in us to handle their finances, their tax money, and this 
country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________