Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORKER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, because of the tremendous cooperation of the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Arizona--obviously, my goal is to call for this amendment to be adopted--I did not provide a lot of context because I know they both support this amendment. But I want to thank them both for their comments. I do not think there are two Senators who can better articulate the issue we face in Afghanistan with Pakistan, which is both a friend and a foe on many occasions. None of us who have traveled to Afghanistan--I know these two Senators have probably more than most, but all of us who have been there have heard our generals talking about the fact that they are fighting a war in Afghanistan that is really being led and directed out of Pakistan. So basically we have an issue here. I think the two Senators have articulated the issue very well. The fact is, we need to know, first of all, if what we are doing in support of the Pakistan military is effective for us, and the two Senators have outlined that is a big issue. The second piece is how we are actually reimbursing. If you talk with folks at the State Department, we literally are going through reams of invoices and documents, looking at how many bullets they have used, how much food has been supplied to the military, what is going to be counted, what is not going to be counted. We are spending more time, in many ways, accounting for this than we are really looking at how effective the aid is. This amendment would deal with both of those issues. I thank the Senators for putting this in the proper context, and I do hope, with the Senators' support and the support of the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, that this is an amendment we can voice vote. I thank both Senators for their leadership on this issue but also for putting this in the appropriate context. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly about this amendment. I think most people in this body understand we are reimbursing the Pakistani military for efforts they are putting forth on behalf of what we are doing in Afghanistan in Enduring Freedom. We have crafted an amendment that asks for certain reporting to take place from the Pentagon and for them to look at ways of diminishing this reimbursement over time as we wind down our operations in Afghanistan. This amendment has been drafted in such a way as to not further escalate tensions between us and the Government of Pakistan. This is a good-government type of amendment that asks the Pentagon to begin looking at ways of decreasing the support we are giving to the Pakistani military on our behalf regarding Afghanistan as we wind down our operations there simultaneously. It is my understanding that both the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee have accepted this, there is no hold from the majority on the Foreign Relations Committee, and I hope we will have an opportunity to vote and pass this by voice vote very soon. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a modification to amendment No. 1172 be accepted.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Well, I don't think there is any question. I know the Senator from Arizona has been a reformer all of his life. What we find in this body is we end up having a corporate welfare system built around many of the things we do here. As much as I hate to say it, both sides of the aisle through time empowered this organization to be what it is. We have built an industry in our country around ensuring that the status quo stays in place. It is unfortunate. As the Senator from Arizona knows, as well or better than anybody in this body, the taxpayers are bearing the brunt of this. To me, it is way past time for us to deal with this. I know many people say, Well, in the height of the housing crisis, this is not the time. But the fact is, the way this bill is crafted-- and it sounds as though the amendment of the Senator from Arizona, which I remember supporting strongly--generally would have phased out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over a period of time. I think we have gone to tremendous extremes to phase this out in a way that makes sense and allows the private sector to come back. If we think about the type of finance that takes place in this country around all types of complexities, there is no reason, as long as we create the proper structure for the TBA market for the private market to function, there is no reason that the private sector cannot do this on its own. It is amazing, when we think about what has happened with low interest rates. Most homeowners in our country look at the payment they are going to make. When you have artificially low rates, what happens? The price of housing actually goes up, so we end up in a situation where we have this bubble and prices drop tremendously, and then what happens? The taxpayer ends up bearing the brunt of it. I could not agree more with the Senator from Arizona, who has always taken on tough issues, and maybe I am responding longer than he wants me to. This is one of those issues where I know that many people back home--candidly, there is a whole industry that is built around this, and I know a lot of times people don't want to take on something, don't want to change something like that because they know it is tough back home. I am glad the Senator from Arizona has championed this issue the way he has. As he mentioned, we have done a lot of work on it also. I think this is a sensible bill that will allow our country to get back where it needs to be. I know the Americans the Senator from Arizona so well represents and cares so deeply about these transgressions on our citizens--I know they will support this if we will allow this type of legislation to come to the floor and be voted on.

Mr. CORKER. It is interesting, when we have a bubble that is taking place, a lot of times the private sector becomes very concerned that a bubble is developing and they begin to slow down the process. They begin to see that, wait a minute, there is a lot of risk here, it is getting pretty frothy. The housing prices in Arizona and California and other places are getting awfully high. Maybe we should be cutting back. But as long as there is a government entity on the other side of that that is going to take all the risk and they can dump it off to them-- all it is is a machine, and the more they do, the more money they make. That is what is missing in this current formula. There is no gauge there to slow the process when the bubble is becoming overheated. That is one of the huge contributing factors that I know the Senator has talked about a great deal to what we saw. Candidly, the reason the Senator is offering this jobs bill today is because we have been through such a financial crisis and it has brought our country to its knees. On top of that, we have had a tremendous amount of regulation that has enhanced the slowdown even more. But the fact is, I would say to the Senator from Arizona, he might not be offering this piece of legislation that he has done such a great job leading on today had it not been for this bubble that was created. He might not even be here today. We might be talking about a totally different subject on the Senate floor. I thank the Senator for his leadership and for his time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill we introduced called the Residential Mortgage Market Privatization and Standardization Act. I wish to speak briefly on this bill that deals with the pressing issue that I know the Senator from Arizona probably as much as anybody in the Senate has spoken about and has championed for many years. The current dynamic permit conservatorship is not sustainable with Fannie and Freddie and the GSEs as they are today. There has been discussion about various things happening with these organizations. The FHFA, which actually regulates Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, is begging Congress for direction but, in their words, is only getting mixed signals. Today, we introduced a bill to give a very clear direction as to what ought to happen to these major GSEs. Together, they sit atop $5 trillion in obligations, plus hundreds of thousands of our REO properties--in other words, properties they have taken back and are now overseeing throughout America. With a $5 trillion book, any mistake they make is very expensive, and obviously the taxpayers of this country know full well that billions of dollars continue to flow in these organizations to keep them afloat. Yet these organizations today are lameduck organizations with no clear guidance on their future. They really have no idea what the future holds. The organizations themselves basically are treading water. Over the most recent decade, Fannie and Freddie became corporate welfare schemes for mortgage banks. There is no question that what was happening was the governance balance sheet was helping fund corporate welfare programs or basically mortgage brokers could sell off to Fannie and Freddie mortgages they had put in place and have them guaranteed. As they raced to the bottom to lower guarantee fees so they could take a bigger market share for the biggest mortgage originators, they actually helped fuel the housing bubble that has led us to where we are today. There is no question about it. So many people talk about Fannie and Freddie and say that without them, we would not have affordability in housing. Well, at the end of the day, Fannie and Freddie don't make housing more affordable. What they do is simply make interest rates too low. What that actually does is push up home prices. That is the exact equation that occurs in this process. Housing affordability is determined by your monthly mortgage payment. Fannie and Freddie make interest rates cheap, but the price of housing ends up being more expensive as a result of that. So, in effect, the taxpayer is suddenly on the hook for losses when these housing prices are pushed up, and the fact is we end up having a bubble like we have had. The market can and will take over the functions of mortgage credit risk if we make the transition in an intelligent way, and that is what this bill does. Our plan phases out Fannie and Freddie over 10 years, but it does so in a way that allows for feedback from the markets. Gradually reducing the guarantee share of new mortgage-backed securities allows us to see the market's price credit risk. We also add transparency to the market by making the valuable data at the GSEs publicly available. One of the things that has happened in both Fannie and Freddie through the years is that they have developed, obviously, more expertise than any entities in the country because they, in essence, have been almost monopolies in this process. So what we would like to do is make that data publicly available to folks who will be doing this on the private side. Uniform documents managing the servicing process will give investors and homeowners alike certainty in how they will be treated by their service. This is part of the plumbing of a system that needs to be addressed, and our plan does that. In other words, this plan not only phases down Fannie and Freddie over a 10-year period through a process that gives market signals so we can understand what is happening in the marketplace as it is occurring, but it also creates a mechanism for private investors to come back into the market. Ten years from now, under our plan, we will have a housing finance system based more on market fundamentals free of taxpayer risk and more able to price credit appropriately. The idea that the private market cannot price credit risk is a total red herring. The biggest risk in a 30-year fixed rate mortgage is the prepayment risk. This is called convexity in bond market parlance. The private market has already figured this out. We have homeowners throughout our country who constantly prepay mortgages and the market has figured out a way to price this. So private lenders can and will price credit risk. We have just been very accustomed to the government selling this too cheaply, but the market can easily price this. All we need to do is put those mechanisms in place that allow the private sector to be able to do that. It is time to move beyond Fannie and Freddie. We cannot pretend this problem away. Our plan is thoughtful, and it will earn back private capital over time. We have offered a piece of legislation that we think is something that can receive bipartisan support. It allows Fannie and Freddie to be phased out over time. It allows us to see market signals as they are occurring. It allows--and the Presiding Officer and I know because we have worked on this and looked at these things in the Banking Committee itself--it allows us to actually put in place those mechanisms that will allow the private sector to come in and backfill as the guarantee continues to diminish over time. I am offering this bill hopefully to be a marker. If people want to change it and talk with us about things that they think might enhance this bill, we are open to that. But we believe at this time, a year and a half after Dodd-Frank passed, it is time for us to actually begin looking at a real way to phase down Fannie's and Freddie's involvement in the marketplace. I hope Republicans and Democrats will join with us and try to make this bill better if they wish to do that, but certainly move us in a direction of doing something that is thoughtful and will move us along toward a private market in residential finance. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I know we are rotating right now. What I thought I might do is yield just a couple of minutes to Senator Blumenthal, and then let him yield back to me if that would be OK. But I do want to thank Senator Carper for his leadership on this issue. We have looked at this bill and others, and we are glad they have been able to come to an agreement between each other. Obviously, the issue of the Postal Service is one of the big issues we need to deal with. I agree with him. I think that is something we can do now. I thank him for his leadership. I yield back for the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. CORKER. With that, I yield the floor for my good friend, someone with whom I have thoroughly enjoyed working on this issue. I thank him again for his leadership on a very important issue that matters to all of us.

Mr. CORKER. Thank you, Mr. President. I am sure the Chair is familiar with us going back and forth, and I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from Connecticut. I know he mentioned the Senators who have joined us in this effort, as well as the House Members on the other side of the Capitol, in a bipartisan way. First, I thank him for his leadership on this issue and for approaching our office about it. I know the public watches Washington and wonders if there is ever anything that is done in a bipartisan way. There are actually lots of efforts that are undertaken that way, and I am very glad to be working with him and his staff who have been very professional and, hopefully, this bill can become law. The problem is that we have these drug-resistant bacteria called superbugs. All of us have read and heard about them. They are becoming harder and harder to treat because we lack the new antibiotics capable of combating these infections. It is actually scary when we think about what is happening in many facilities across our country. So it is obviously crucial to discover new antibiotics so we can stay ahead of this growing trend of drug resistance. Drug discoveries, obviously, don't happen overnight. Action is needed now to ensure that we have access to these lifesaving medications when we need them. These are serious infections. They are definitely life threatening to the patients, especially children and the elderly. In fact, the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control, has named this antibiotic resistance as one of the top public health concerns in our country. According to the Infectious Disease Society of America, 100,000 deaths and 360,000 hospitalizations result from antibiotic-resistant infections each year in the United States. In my State of Tennessee, nearly 2,000 cases of MRSA are reported annually. MRSA is a common and very dangerous type of antibiotic-resistant bacteria often found in hospital settings. Again, I am sure all of us know of cases where this has happened to loved ones, friends, and others. The financial impact of these infections is also staggering, costing our health care system $35 billion to $45 billion annually. This problem is also threatening the health of our troops abroad. One particular type of bacteria, known as a Ramibacterium, is striking hundreds of wounded soldiers coming back from Iraq. Since 2003, more than 700 U.S. soldiers have been infected or colonized with this life- threatening bacteria. While bacterial infections continue to become more resistant to traditional antibiotics, innovation of new antibiotics capable of combating these infections has slowed by an alarming rate. FDA approval of these new antibiotics has decreased by 70 percent since the 1980s. Between 2003 and 2007, there were five new antibiotics approved by the FDA compared to 16 new antibiotics from 1983 to 1987. This bill, the GAIN Act, provides meaningful market incentives and reduces regulatory burdens to encourage the development of new antibiotics that will help us save lives and reduce health care costs. Specifically--and I appreciate the way the Senator from Connecticut has approached this--the bill provides 5 additional years of exclusivity to new drugs developed to treat these superbugs. The bill also gives these antibiotics priority status during the FDA review process so they can move through more quickly. It encourages the FDA to revisit the clinical trial guidelines for antibiotics. By encouraging a more robust antibiotic pipeline, we can help ensure patients have access to lifesaving treatments while also reducing health care spending. The GAIN Act is a straightforward, commonsense bill that provides market incentives to encourage innovation without putting Federal dollars at stake. Antibiotic resistance is a growing issue that we must address to properly prepare for the future. Dr. William Evans, the director and CEO of St. Jude Children's Hospital in Tennessee, recently wrote a letter supporting this bill. Many of my colleagues know of St. Jude and the wonderful work they do for children across our country. Here is his quote: We don't want to find ourselves in a situation in which we have been able to save a child's life after a cancer diagnosis, only to lose them to an untreatable multi-drug resistant infection. I wish to thank my colleague again, Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut, for his leadership on this bill, and I look forward to working with him to ensure it gets proper consideration in the Senate. Also, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record from the following organizations: St. Jude Children's Hospital, Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, and East Tennessee State University Quillen College of Medicine.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, my understanding is that unanimous consent would be very unlikely considering the fact there are a number of folks who actually do not want to see these trade agreements pass. The evidence is, if we were to get on the jobs bill--and I thank the leader for talking with me about this--it is very unlikely the free-trade agreements will pass in the time all of us would like to see prior to the President of South Korea being here. I yield the floor and thank the majority leader for letting me have this dialog and for having the dialog we had on Thursday evening.

Mr. CORKER. I would like to ask a question, if I could.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that--first of all, I think most people in this body know it has been 995 days, and the free-trade agreements are just now coming to the floor. I had a very good conversation today with the majority leader, and I thank him so much for his courtesy. But it is my understanding, for all those who want to see the free-trade agreements ratified prior to the time the South Korea President comes on Thursday to make his joint address--for all those who want to see that passed and in hand in advance of that-- if we were to get on the jobs bill, as I understand it, we would have to stay on the jobs bill for 30 hours. So by getting on the jobs bill, it would actually preclude us from being able to successfully pass those free-trade agreements in the time that all of us would like. I would like for that to be verified by the leader, if that is possible.

Mr. CORKER. I wonder if the----

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to talk a little bit about the conversation we just had on the floor. There is no question that in the State of Tennessee and all across our country, I think the biggest item on anybody's mind is our economy and people having jobs in each of our States. I still believe the very best thing we can do to create a sound economy is for this deficit committee to do what it needs to do in November and December and for us to show the American people we have the ability to deal with the big structural issues our country faces. I believe that with all my heart. I don't think there is a business in our country today that is looking for some sugary stimulus bill that will be here and gone, leaving us with lots of debt and increased taxes down the road. I believe that. I guess I am disappointed that again we are in a situation, just as we were last Thursday night, where we are really not here to solve problems--neither side, candidly--we are here to have some political stunt take place. I do want to say to my friends on both sides of the aisle that there are numbers of people here who have worked hard to get the free-trade agreements in the place they need to be, and I think we are all expecting them to pass tomorrow. I think all of us who support these three free-trade agreements that have been languishing for 995 days--by the way, that includes lots of Senators on both sides of the aisle. I think what we just heard the leader say--that if we were to get on this jobs bill, as he is advocating we get on today, the likelihood of us actually taking up these free-trade agreements and passing them tomorrow is almost nil. I mean it is not going to happen. We know there are people who oppose the free-trade agreements, and I doubt very seriously that we are going to see a unanimous consent to move off a jobs bill that everyone knows is really for show on to something that is serious, such as the free-trade agreements that some people oppose. So I have had lots of conversations with Senators on both sides of the aisle over the course of the last 72 hours regarding the need for us to have a real debate on jobs. I hope that at some point we will actually have a real debate on a real jobs bill that people really want to pass. I would say that to make that happen, that would actually mean the Republican leader and the Democratic leader would actually have to sit down and craft a piece of legislation on which there is common ground. Of course, that is not what is happening, and we know that. And for all of us who have things we have done in life that are productive, and we have chosen to come serve our country in this way--we have the ability to be productive in other ways--for all of us to come up here and to watch this continual charade taking place in this body is disappointing. It burns up a lot of time, and we accomplish nothing for the American people. So, candidly, I want to have a debate on jobs. I know that, again, moving to the jobs bill tonight would negate the opportunity for the only thing we could do recently to actually create jobs, which is passing these three free-trade agreements, and what they will do is enhance American manufacturers' ability to make and sell things overseas, enhance farmers across our country and their ability to sell their goods overseas. It is a one-way positive street for us because these countries already have low trade tariff barriers in our own country. So it lowers those barriers for us into their country. I am going to vote against proceeding to the jobs bill. I am disappointed that we cannot do things--we know we have a Republican House, and we know that to pass something that is good for this country, it requires a negotiation between all of the players. So each time we bring up these bills that are totally crafted in partisan ways, we know all we are doing is wasting time. I do have one glimmer of hope; that is, this deficit reduction committee. The fact is that this committee was put together with six Republicans and six Democrats, so this committee has the ability to do some things that no one can blame the other side for. I mean we are talking about something that is totally split. I will say one other thing. This committee was put together and solely conceived by leadership in the Senate and the House. So we had four people, the leaders of the House and Senate, who conceived of this supercommittee, and they are the ones who appointed the members to this supercommittee. They decided who the members of this committee were going to be. They set it up purposefully so that it was equally balanced--six and six. Candidly, the success of this committee is totally in the hands of our leadership. So it appears to me that for the first time in a long time, we actually have within leadership's hands totally the ability to pass something that is great for our country, and anything short of getting to the $1.5 trillion that is laid out in this legislation is totally a failure. What I am sure of is that since this was totally set up in a bipartisan way by leadership on the Republican and Democratic side in both the House and Senate and they choose the members, there is no question in my mind that this is going to be successful or, candidly, be viewed by many as a failure--failure of leadership, candidly. So I am certain we are going to get to $1.5 trillion, and I am hopeful, as are a number of Republicans and Democrats within the Senate--I think we have a list of over 40--that we are actually going to get to a $3 trillion reduction in the deficit, that we are going to go big or, as some have said, we end up with something that is qualitatively equal to that. Many of us know that trying to get $3 trillion in savings over a 10-year period might be difficult. I still hope it happens. I still think it can happen. I think there are numbers of people in this body who have worked to make that happen. But some people have said: Well, maybe we can get some major reforms to Medicare and other kinds of programs in the second 10, and maybe qualitatively that is equally as good. I am certainly willing to look as one Senator at all of those things. It is a waste of time to be bringing up totally partisan bills in this body, knowing that to become law they have to pass the House of Representatives, which means anybody who brings up something in this body today that is totally partisan knows that in advance. That is discouraging to me, discouraging to waste time talking about something we know is never going to become law for campaigns for House Members, Senate Members, and the President to run on. But at least I am hopeful that in November and December we are going to have something big happen because, again, this is totally in the hands of bipartisan leadership, who totally appointed the Members, who totally are working with this group. Again, Mr. President, to me, that is the best stimulus we can possibly create for this country. It is for small businesses and big businesses, for Republicans and Democrats all across this country to see that this body actually has the ability to do something to create some stability in this country and actually tackle the No. 1 issue that can continue to dissipate our country's standard of living, which is our inability to deal with debt. To me, that is the greatest job stimulus we can deal with. There are all kinds of regulatory issues and American energy issues and others that, to me, we can take up in a true jobs bill. It is my hope we will do that soon. All I had to hear today, in addition to knowing this is a partisan effort which, again, I hate to see ever taking place on this floor--the fact is, for any Senator who wants to see the three free- trade agreements that have been languishing, any Senator on the Democratic side, any Senator on the Republican side who wants to see the three free-trade agreements passed into law tomorrow as has been planned, anybody who wants to see that happen must vote no on the jobs bill being debated because, as the majority leader stated today, if we begin to debate the jobs bill, that means we cannot, without unanimous consent--which we know will not happen in this body--pivot and go to the trade agreements. In addition to the fact that I know this is not a serious effort-- although I would love to debate jobs--and the fact that I know if we get on this bill we cannot pass these free-trade agreements in time, I certainly plan to vote no on proceeding to them and hope at a date when we want to take up a true jobs bill, we will have a vigorous debate in this body and actually have the ability to pass something that will create jobs. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to vitiate the quorum.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, thank you for recognizing me. I really do not want to speak. Here is what I want to happen. I think Members on both sides of the aisle believe this institution has degraded into a place that is no longer a place of any deliberation at all. I would like for you and the minority leader to explain to us so that we have one story here in public as to what has happened this week to lead us to the place that we are. That is all I am asking. That is all I want to know. Explain how the greatest deliberative body, on a bill that many would say was a messaging bill in the first place, ended up having no amendments, and we are in this place that we are right now. I would just like to understand that.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the leader for taking the time to explain from his perspective what has happened. I guess what I want to understand is, when amendments are offered, why don't we just go ahead and vote on them? If it is standard procedure----

Mr. CORKER. First of all, I thank the leader for taking the time to explain from his perspective. Here is what I don't understand. We had a cloture motion to proceed on Monday. It is Thursday night. We have had no votes on anything other than a cloture vote. I guess what I would love to understand is, why don't we just immediately begin voting on amendments? We could have been done with this bill yesterday. Instead, everybody cools their heels, waits around, while some negotiation takes place--sort of a self-appointed rules committee. And at the end, something like this happens. I wish to understand from the leader's perspective why we don't just vote on amendments? We could have been done yesterday.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I am here today to say that Senator Bennet from Colorado and myself are introducing a bill that mirrors what has been introduced in the House by Representative Cooper from Tennessee and Paul Ryan from Wisconsin. I have tremendous faith in the American people. I believe when the American people are given facts and transparency, they make good decisions. They help us here in Washington make good decisions when I think they have the information they need. A lot of Americans are very aware of some of the dilemmas we face here in Washington regarding Medicare. But I do not think many Americans are fully aware of the dilemma we face. I think they are aware that the trustees for Medicare have said that in the year 2024 Medicare is going to become insolvent. But I do not think they are aware of the math. Actually I was not aware of the math until we began to look at how we solve the problem. According to a recent study, the average American couple each earning $43,500 a year will pay $119,000 into the Medicare Program over their lifetime. This contribution includes the portion that their employer pays on their behalf. In other words, the family pays in half, the employer pays in half. In 2011 dollars, that means if you paid in 30 years ago, and that money was inflated to today's dollars, that family would have paid in $119,000 over their lifetime. What most Americans do not know is that over their lifetime, the average family takes $357,000 out of Medicare. So obviously the math does not work. I think most Americans did not fully realize this until we got into the situation we're in--I am not sure most people in the Senate understood how off the math is, if you will. Over the next decade, 20 million more Americans are going to be on Medicare. The situation where the average family and their employer are paying in $119,000 into the program and taking out $357,000 is going to be further exacerbated by the fact that over the next 10 years, 20 million more Americans are going to be on Medicare. Then, on top of that, we are going to have fewer people working per retiree than ever in the history of this country. For that reason, today, Senator Bennet and I are offering a bill that says when Americans receive their Social Security letter, which lays out how much they have paid in, they would also receive the information regarding Medicare, so that they will know how much they are paying into the program and, over time, how much they will have taken out. I think this type of transparency allows Americans to fully understand how these programs work. To me, what that will do is help all of us in the Senate, and over in the House of Representatives, make better decisions. I think when Americans are informed they help us make better decisions. A lot of Americans don't fully appreciate this, I think, sometimes. But Congress really does reflect more fully than they think the will of the American people. Again, I think transparency helps us represent the American people in even a more full way. Today we introduce this bill, and I thank Senator Bennet from Colorado for joining me in this effort. I also thank Representatives Cooper and Ryan for their leadership in the House. It is my hope that soon, either through unanimous consent or early action, that this bill will become law. I think as long as Americans understand where things stand, they help us in Congress make good and sound decisions. That is why I am introducing this bill today with the help of Senator Bennet from Colorado. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, while we are issuing compliments, I want to say that all of us want to see to it that Medicare is here for future generations. That will take sound judgment. We have a select committee that is working on, hopefully, the first step to make that happen. I congratulate the senior Senator from Tennessee for this. More than anybody else recently, I think he has pointed out that in this country, as we leave mandatory spending on autopilot, and as we move to a place where these programs are insolvent and not there for future generations, what we are doing is eating our seed corn. The fact is, our senior Senator from Tennessee knows full well what it takes to make a strong country. He sits on an appropriations committee and understands that many of the basic sciences and other types of efforts that are underway with the Federal Government are the very things that will make our country stronger. Yet what we are doing in this country by leaving mandatory spending on autopilot at the rate at which it is growing is causing us to eat into those things that make our country strong. I thank him for his leadership in that regard. As the Governor of Tennessee, he led our State in making it stronger by making the kinds of priority investments that made us stronger. He alluded to that earlier--what he did in making sure investments in our State created higher wages. I think more than anybody else in this body, the Senator understands if we allow things to continue as they are, we are going to continue to invest less and less in those kinds of things that make our country strong--things such as infrastructure, which we all know needs to happen. Yet because we haven't had the courage and the will to take on those mandatory programs, reform them so that future generations will have them, but also so that we can continue to make these investments in our country that are so important, our country's greatness will dissipate. I thank him for his leadership in many ways. I hope he will continue to move ahead with informing people as to what is happening in this country, how that is hurting us, how it causes our greatness to dissipate as long as we don't take on these mandatory spending programs which, in my words, are causing us to eat our seed corn.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I am here today to say that Senator Bennet from Colorado and myself are introducing a bill that mirrors what has been introduced in the House by Representative Cooper from Tennessee and Paul Ryan from Wisconsin. I have tremendous faith in the American people. I believe when the American people are given facts and transparency, they make good decisions. They help us here in Washington make good decisions when I think they have the information they need. A lot of Americans are very aware of some of the dilemmas we face here in Washington regarding Medicare. But I do not think many Americans are fully aware of the dilemma we face. I think they are aware that the trustees for Medicare have said that in the year 2024 Medicare is going to become insolvent. But I do not think they are aware of the math. Actually I was not aware of the math until we began to look at how we solve the problem. According to a recent study, the average American couple each earning $43,500 a year will pay $119,000 into the Medicare Program over their lifetime. This contribution includes the portion that their employer pays on their behalf. In other words, the family pays in half, the employer pays in half. In 2011 dollars, that means if you paid in 30 years ago, and that money was inflated to today's dollars, that family would have paid in $119,000 over their lifetime. What most Americans do not know is that over their lifetime, the average family takes $357,000 out of Medicare. So obviously the math does not work. I think most Americans did not fully realize this until we got into the situation we're in--I am not sure most people in the Senate understood how off the math is, if you will. Over the next decade, 20 million more Americans are going to be on Medicare. The situation where the average family and their employer are paying in $119,000 into the program and taking out $357,000 is going to be further exacerbated by the fact that over the next 10 years, 20 million more Americans are going to be on Medicare. Then, on top of that, we are going to have fewer people working per retiree than ever in the history of this country. For that reason, today, Senator Bennet and I are offering a bill that says when Americans receive their Social Security letter, which lays out how much they have paid in, they would also receive the information regarding Medicare, so that they will know how much they are paying into the program and, over time, how much they will have taken out. I think this type of transparency allows Americans to fully understand how these programs work. To me, what that will do is help all of us in the Senate, and over in the House of Representatives, make better decisions. I think when Americans are informed they help us make better decisions. A lot of Americans don't fully appreciate this, I think, sometimes. But Congress really does reflect more fully than they think the will of the American people. Again, I think transparency helps us represent the American people in even a more full way. Today we introduce this bill, and I thank Senator Bennet from Colorado for joining me in this effort. I also thank Representatives Cooper and Ryan for their leadership in the House. It is my hope that soon, either through unanimous consent or early action, that this bill will become law. I think as long as Americans understand where things stand, they help us in Congress make good and sound decisions. That is why I am introducing this bill today with the help of Senator Bennet from Colorado. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, while we are issuing compliments, I want to say that all of us want to see to it that Medicare is here for future generations. That will take sound judgment. We have a select committee that is working on, hopefully, the first step to make that happen. I congratulate the senior Senator from Tennessee for this. More than anybody else recently, I think he has pointed out that in this country, as we leave mandatory spending on autopilot, and as we move to a place where these programs are insolvent and not there for future generations, what we are doing is eating our seed corn. The fact is, our senior Senator from Tennessee knows full well what it takes to make a strong country. He sits on an appropriations committee and understands that many of the basic sciences and other types of efforts that are underway with the Federal Government are the very things that will make our country stronger. Yet what we are doing in this country by leaving mandatory spending on autopilot at the rate at which it is growing is causing us to eat into those things that make our country strong. I thank him for his leadership in that regard. As the Governor of Tennessee, he led our State in making it stronger by making the kinds of priority investments that made us stronger. He alluded to that earlier--what he did in making sure investments in our State created higher wages. I think more than anybody else in this body, the Senator understands if we allow things to continue as they are, we are going to continue to invest less and less in those kinds of things that make our country strong--things such as infrastructure, which we all know needs to happen. Yet because we haven't had the courage and the will to take on those mandatory programs, reform them so that future generations will have them, but also so that we can continue to make these investments in our country that are so important, our country's greatness will dissipate. I thank him for his leadership in many ways. I hope he will continue to move ahead with informing people as to what is happening in this country, how that is hurting us, how it causes our greatness to dissipate as long as we don't take on these mandatory spending programs which, in my words, are causing us to eat our seed corn.