Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I have no objection if I can have the same.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I will make brief concluding remarks and then we can vote. We are not debating the Iran agreement here today. This is the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill of the Appropriations Committee. We are not even debating the Cotton amendment. It is not even part of the bill. Senator Cotton has filed an amendment that could be part of the bill if the Senate decides to adopt it in our debate after we adopt cloture. He has done that. Just to repeat, over the weekend, the U.S. Department of Energy, without any consultation with anybody in the Senate that I know about-- without the Intelligence, Armed Services, or Foreign Relations Committees--decided it was going to buy heavy water from Iran. The Senator from Arkansas introduced an amendment on the subject. My understanding of the way the Senate is supposed to work is that we save the controversial amendments for the floor. If you can get 60 votes, you pass them. Then, as Senators, if the issue is an important issue about which we disagree, we vote on it and we accept the vote. Sometimes we win, and sometimes we lose. We also listen to each other. So if the other side says this is an especially difficult issue for us, we try to accommodate that. So the Senator from Arkansas has said that he will take 60 votes, although he is entitled to 51. He can force a 51-vote vote on this issue if he chose to do that, under parliamentary rules. He said: I will take a voice vote. He does not have to do that. Then this morning he said: I will modify my amendment. I will eliminate all of the part about licenses. That is the second sentence of this very simple amendment. We will reserve that for discussion by the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and other committees. So all that his amendment says is that you can't use money from this fiscal year to buy heavy water from Iran--except that the Department of Energy has potentially millions of dollars it could use from other years to do that, and it has a revolving fund it could use. In effect, if this President or the next President wanted to continue to buy heavy water from Iran, it could do so. So I think the Senator from Arkansas is entirely within his rights, whether he has been here 2 years or 20 years. I think he is entitled to come up and ask for a vote. I think he has bent over backwards in offering three or four different ways to accommodate the concerns of the others. I think it would be a real shame if we came up with yet one more reason not to have an appropriations bill after we have done all of this work, 80 Senators have made their contributions, and we have adopted 17 amendments. Cloture Motion

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of Senator Schumer, Senator Durbin, and Senator Feinstein, for whom I have great respect. The people who can figure this out are on the floor, and we ought to be able to, is the bottom line. I suspect a big part of the problem is timing. The administration apparently decided to do this over the weekend. We are in the middle of this bill. Senator Cotton would say that he moved as quickly as he could. And there is no question that this is an issue which raises lots of temperatures on both sides of the aisle. There is no doubt about that. We have to have a balance. Senators have a right to take important issues and present them in an appropriate way here in the Senate. In just this bill, there are several times when I was one of only one or two or three Republicans who voted for amendments just so we could get the amendments through and we could keep the bill going. I know how that works, and I intend to keep doing it. But I would say to my Democratic friends: I hope we can put our minds together and think of some way to allow Senator Cotton to make his point, to achieve what is an important objective and do it in a way that, A, is acceptable to the Democratic side, and B, doesn't have the problems that are associated with the timing. This came up on us all of a sudden. There are several reasons for that which we don't need to go into, but let's see if we can't work it out. I would certainly like to do that. I would like for Senator Feinstein and myself to be able to set a good example for the rest of the Senate and get our bill through. The only other thing I would say that is a little different from what the Senators from New York and Illinois said is that I don't really agree that if the President threatens a veto, we should stop our work. I think we would only be here about half a day a week. It is fine for the President to veto a bill if he feels he needs to, and he can send it right back. We consider that and we consider that it takes 67 to override it, and what often happens is we take something out or change some provision and send it back to him. So just because the President says he will veto a bill I don't think means the Senate should stop its work.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Of course.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I agree with the Senator from New York.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, at 11 a.m. we will have three votes on the Merkley, Flake, and Reid amendments. That will bring to a total of 17 the number of amendments we will have disposed of on the floor. Senator Feinstein and I have worked with Members on both sides of the aisle to include many of their policy suggestions and requests in our basic bill. The last count I saw said 77 Members of the Senate had at least part of their requests or policy suggestions in our basic bill. So we are doing very well. Cloture has been filed. There are only a few amendments remaining that are in question. We hope to conclude that quickly and bring the bill to a conclusion. My hope is that when a Senator has a germane amendment, we can have a vote. Sometimes, if they are controversial, they will be at 60. We have done pretty well with that so far--giving Senators a chance to have a say and to have a vote. I would like to spend about 4 or 5 minutes on an amendment we will be voting on at 11, when we will have limited time to talk--unless Senator Feinstein has something she would like to say before I do that.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I want to speak to the amendment from the Senator from Oregon, which would increase the funding for the wind energy program by $15.4 million. This is in addition to the $30 million that our subcommittee has recommended at the request of Senator Gardner of Colorado for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the $50 million Senator Collins of Maine has recommended for offshore wind research. Within the priorities in the bill, we have already put $80 million, and this would add $15 million more. That may not seem like much, but here is my question: I wonder if the American taxpayers wouldn't think that $23 billion is enough to spend on giant windmills--$23 billion. That is the amount the Congressional Research Service has said Congress has spent of taxpayer money to subsidize wealthy people so they can build giant wind turbines across America. That money has been spent from 1992 through 2016 this year. It started out as an effort to help wind turbines get started in 1992, and it has been renewed 10 times. You would think this is a mature industry. In fact, the previous Energy Secretary said it was. What do we get for this $23 billion? Four percent of our electricity is produced by wind turbines in the United States. This is a country that uses 25 percent of all the electricity in the world, and we spend $23 billion for 4 percent of our electricity. Thirty-seven percent of all the subsidies, all the spending we have for different forms of energy produces 4 percent of the electricity. The President of the United States and a number of private people in the United States, such as Bill Gates, have announced they would like to double energy research. I support that. The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and I introduced legislation that would authorize increased funding at the level of 7 percent for energy research this year so we can move more rapidly toward the goal of doubling research for energy. We spend $5 billion a year for energy research for the U.S. Government. We spend nearly $5 billion a year on subsidizing wealthy people so they can build giant wind turbines. We spend as much subsidizing windmills as we spend on all our energy research. If we stop the subsidies, we could double the research, which is what we should be doing. What are we getting for this? We are getting energy--electricity-- that is true, but it mostly blows at night, when we don't need it. It can't be stored for use when we do need it. So it is unreliable. The wind only blows about one-third of the time. In Tennessee it is 18 percent of the time. It can't be stored and we don't need it. We don't need it. At the same time, it destroys the landscape. I am astonished at the environmental groups that would support putting these huge giant turbines in the most beautiful part of our country and then building transmission lines across the country through everybody's backyard. If we replace the 100 nuclear reactors in this country that produce 60 percent of the carbon-free electricity we have--60 percent of the carbon-free electricity--it would take enough windmills to cover a State the size of West Virginia, and I think you would have to have about 17,000 miles, 19,000 miles of new transmission lines. The Presiding Officer is the Senator from Arkansas. In Arkansas, a windmill company is building 700 miles of transmission lines across Arkansas that the State doesn't want and has objected to. Yet the administration is allowing the wind mill company to use Federal preemption for the first time to build transmission lines where people don't want them. Not only is this a wasteful amount of money, not only is it a kind of energy that a country this big cannot rely on, the size of the subsidies create preposterous results. For example, in some cases the subsidy is so large the windmill-producing companies pay the utilities to take their power and they still make a profit. They can pay the utilities to take their power and still make a profit because the taxpayers have spent $23 billion subsidizing wealthy people so they can build windmills. These aren't your grandma's windmills. You can see them for 20 miles away--the flashing lights. They are twice as tall as the football stadium at the University of Tennessee, and only one of these would fit within the football stadium at the University of Tennessee. It would take four nuclear reactors, each taking about 1 square mile, to produce enough electricity to equal the same amount of electricity produced by wind if you strung 45-foot windmill towers along the entire 2,178-mile stretch of the Appalachian Trail. You may say that is a stretch, that will not happen, except that is exactly where the wind towers would be most likely to go--on our scenic mountain tops where more wind blows, and then the transmission lines come down the mountain tops through your backyard. My objection is a very simple one. I think $23 billion is enough to spend on windmills. I have other objections to wind. I think we should focus on nuclear power instead of unreliable wind power. I believe trying to use wind turbines to power a country that uses 25 percent of all the electricity in the world is the energy equivalent of going to war in sailboats when the nuclear navy is available, but I certainly think there is no need at all for Senators to say yes to an amendment that spends more money for wind than our subcommittee recommended. We are already spending $23 billion. The taxpayers have been bamboozled into allowing that to happen, and I don't think they would want us to spend more. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I do, but I will wait until the end.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, can I not reserve the rest of my time?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, don't you think $23 billion is enough to spend on windmills? That is what we have spent since 1992--$23 billion for 4 percent of America's electricity. This is electricity that is unreliable. The windmills blow about one-third of the time, often at night, and it can't be stored. We will spend $5 billion this year and $4.4 billion next year. We could double our energy research spending if we would stop subsidizing wealthy people to build giant wind turbines. Sixty percent of our carbon-free electricity comes from nuclear reactors. Relying on giant wind turbines and new transmission lines to power a country that uses 25 percent of all the electricity in the world is like going to war in sailboats when the nuclear Navy is available. We already have $80 million going to research, which Senator Gardner and Senator Collins have asked us to include in the legislation. It is in the bill. We don't need to spend more. We have already spent $23 billion since 1992. Spending $4 or $5 billion a year is more than enough to spend on giant wind turbines. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Merkley amendment.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this amendment does not increase funding in the bill and the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and I intend to vote for it.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am going to oppose the Flake amendment. The Army Corps of Engineers rebuilds locks and dams, dredges our rivers and harbors, works to prevent floods and storm damage, and builds environmental restoration projects. There is not a funding line in the budget that more Senators seek for their States. Our spending is under control on the discretionary side. It is the mandatory spending, the entitlement spending, that is out of control.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I congratulate the Senator from California. With her usual precision, she has identified the big problem, and she approached it as she usually does--in a very direct way. The picture she presents is not one we can tolerate in the United States of America. The good news is, we have done a good job on discretionary spending. That is what we are working on in these bills. The chart I showed last week, which shows about the same things in a little different way than hers, points out that the spending in 12 appropriations bills has been flat and will be flat for the next 10 years. In other words, if the work the Appropriations Committee is doing on $1 trillion were all that there was to the Federal budget, we would not have a Federal debt problem. That blue line is Federal spending under control. We set priorities. We have oversight. Senator Feinstein and I have eliminated programs. We do that every year. We are getting control of this budget of big cost overruns that persistently happened on large construction projects. So I am proud of that blue line. I am not proud of the red one. That is the one Senator Feinstein is talking about. This is $1 trillion, but on top of that is $3 trillion. That is the automatic spending. There has been very little courage shown on the Republican side of the aisle or on the Democratic side of the aisle. We make big speeches sometimes about the blue line, which isn't a problem, but very few speeches about the red line that are as straightforward as Senator Feinstein's remarks today. We have a responsibility to taxpayers, to ourselves, and to the next generation to deal with this line because that is the line which is causing the Joint Chiefs of Staff to say that our Federal debt is our biggest national security problem, which is quite a thing to say in a world as unsafe as we have today. I thank the Senator from California. Her prestige in the Chamber makes her remarks today even more important. I look forward to working with her to gradually bring this red line under control while we still can. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Murray amendment No. 3813 simply restates an existing regulation, so I have no objection to it. I am going to vote for it. I yield back all time.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from California and myself, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number: Reed, No. 3841; Feinstein, No. 3842; Warner, No. 3851; McCain, No. 3843; Rounds, No. 3844; Murkowski, No. 3808; McCain, No. 3869, as modified; and Carper, No. 3870.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now vote on these amendments en bloc.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on these amendments.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader, Senator McConnell, the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, and my colleague, Senator Feinstein. What we have done is approved eight more amendments by Senators with a voice vote, and we have already agreed to have three more votes at 11 a.m. tomorrow. We are making good progress. We hope to continue to do that and wrap up the bill soon.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 25, 2016, at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following locking in the votes, the Senator from California have an opportunity to speak and then that we move to the vote.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up the following amendments: Franken amendment No. 3833, Coats amendment No. 3814, and Murray amendment No. 3813; further, that following the disposition of the Hoeven amendment No. 3811, the Senate vote on the Coats amendment No. 3814, with a 60-affirmative-vote threshold for adoption of the amendment; and that at 1:45 p.m. today, the Senate vote on the Franken amendment No. 3833; finally, that at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, April 25, the Senate vote on the Murray amendment No. 3813, with no second-degree amendments in order to any of the amendments prior to the votes, and that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote. May I say before the Senator from California speaks, I see the Senators from Michigan are here and the Senator from Indiana. I wish to thank the three of them for working with Senator Feinstein and me toward the goal of making sure that Senators who have a germane amendment have the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote. If we are able to follow that practice generally, we will be able to have an appropriations process and the Senate will function well. They all responded quickly and promptly on issues they feel very strongly about, and I thank them for it.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, in a moment Senator Coats will call up his amendment, the Coats and Toomey amendment. I want to thank the Michigan Senators and others for making the schedule work today. For the information of all Senators, after the Coats amendment, the next vote will be at 1:45 p.m. on the Franken amendment. That will be the last vote today. The next vote will be on the Murray amendment on Monday afternoon. Senators and their staffs have been very good about getting their amendments in. We think we have all the amendments. We have asked to have them by 1 p.m. so we could by consensus finish up on Monday and Tuesday, giving everybody a chance to have their vote if it is a germane amendment and to speak on the germane amendments. My request on behalf of Senator Feinstein and me is that if there are any amendments still out there, we would like to have them by 1 o'clock. Amendment No. 3814 to Amendment No. 3801