Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, my late friend, the late Alex Haley, the author of ``Roots,'' lived his life by these six words: Find the Good and Praise it. I am here today to praise a remarkable hero who served in one of the most difficult battles in our Nation's history and who today at 90 years old lives a quiet life in Memphis with his family. Wilbur K. Hoffman, or ``Bill'' to his fellow Rangers, was a member of the Dog Company of the 2nd Ranger Battalion, which in 1944 was among the select few companies that stormed the cliffs at Pointe du Hoc on D- day and turned the war around for the Allies. Forty years after Bill Hoffman and his fellow 2nd Battalion Rangers clambered up the rocky cliffs on the shoreline of France, President Reagan returned to the windswept spot to pay tribute. President Reagan called them ``the boys of Pointe du Hoc.'' The President said: These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war. This is Bill Hoffman, a hero who helped free a continent and end a war. Bill volunteered to join the Army in 1942. A year later he volunteered to join the Rangers, a select group that were charged with special missions. Bill says that because of all of their special training, they would simply ``get the mission done.'' Bill got out of the Army in 1945, after the war, but took a look at the job market and said, ``I think I'll go back in.'' Bill served in the Army for 24 years. Bill likes to say, ``Everything that happened, I volunteered for.'' And if you happen to ask how he feels when he looks back, he will say just as plainly, ``No regrets.'' This year the Army has awarded Bill a Purple Heart. But not for the first time. During World War II, the Army tried. But Bill, in an Army ward surrounded by soldiers who had lost arms and legs in fighting, believed his wounds did not measure up, and so he said, ``I don't think so.'' Bill's son David, more than 60 years after his father first declined the Purple Heart, contacted the Army about trying again. Capturing his father's humility in declining the medal decades ago, David calls his dad ``the nicest guy you'll ever meet. Friendly and outgoing but by the same token, he doesn't like to talk about himself'' says the son. Bill is the father of seven children, and nearly all of them who could join the service did or married someone who did. Bill is not a native Tennessean. He was born in Newark, NJ. He came to Tennessee first as a Ranger in training. The Rangers came from all over the country and assembled in Camp Forrest in Tullahoma for training. Bill's wife came down to visit him there for a couple of days during training, and it must have had a real effect on her, because more than 30 years later, after Bill was out of the Army after 24 years of service, and they were living in New York State, Bill's wife said to him, ``I want to go to Tennessee. I like it down there.'' So they packed up the U-Haul and moved to Ashland City, along the Cumberland River. Today Bill is one of only three Rangers left from the original 2nd Battalion Dog Company. While the Ranger reunions used to occur once every 2 years, the guys are getting old, Bill says, and now they are doing them every year. ``Good bunch of guys,'' Bill calls his fellow heroes. ``They say Ranger friendships are forever. It's true.'' Bill turns 91 on Friday. It is an honor for me to wish this American hero a happy birthday. Congratulations, Bill Hoffman. We're proud of you. Your Nation is proud of you. ``Find the good and praise it.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas for his leadership. I will answer his question to the best of my ability. I suppose some people may be watching and say what we are talking about is a lot of ``inside baseball.'' Well, it would be like telling a bunch of people that talking about singing at the Grand Ole Opry is ``inside baseball.'' This is what we do. I went out to see Johnny Cash at the House of Cash when I was Governor of Tennessee many years ago, and I didn't know quite what to say to him, and so I said: Johnny, how many nights do you appear on the road? With that big-old deep voice of his, he said: Oh, about 200. I said: My goodness. Why do you do that? He looked at me and said: That is what I do. Well, this is what we do or at least what we are supposed to do. I mean, we are elected by the people from Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, and all over this country expecting us to get results. They sent us up here to put the country first, put our States next, and try to lead us in the right direction. We have our partisan differences, but in the end one of the things we are supposed to do is to appropriate dollars. It says in the Constitution, section 9, article I, that ``no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.'' That is us. So this is what we do. In addition to that, we are supposed to oversee the spending of that money. This is not the whole budget, this is only about 38 percent of it, but it is over $1 trillion. And at a time when we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, maybe the people of this country have a right to expect that we take up each one of these 12 appropriations bills, that we have our hearings on them, and that we oversee the spending. If we want to add to nuclear modernization, we vote on that, and if we want to cut Solyndra, we vote on that, but we do our job of appropriations, and we do our job of oversight. Now, Senator Pryor, the senior Senator from Arkansas, asked me what my reflection was upon this Senate. I have seen it for a long time. I came here in January of 1967 as a very young man with a newly elected Republican Senator from Tennessee, Howard Baker, and I watched him for a long time. There are many lessons in having watched the Senate for a long time, but one of the lessons is that the leaders cannot lead without any followers. This is a body that operates by unanimous consent. If one of us wants to grease the tracks, the train runs off the tracks. That is the way it works. So the leaders are not going to be able to complete what their stated intention is, which is to take these 12 appropriations bills, bring them through the committees by late April, early May--the House is doing the same thing, we understand--and then bring them to the floor so that we have a chance to consider them, to expose them to the light of day, amend them, vote on them, and pass them or reject them. That is what we do, as Johnny Cash said about his 200 nights on the road, and we should be doing it. The idea that we have not taken these 12 appropriations bills and brought them to the floor but 2 times since the year 2000 is a bad commentary on this body. It means it doesn't function the way it should function. I do think it functioned better in the 1970s and 1980s. When Senator Byrd and Senator Baker were the Democratic and Republican leaders, they would get unanimous consent agreements to bring bills to the floor. The minority would allow that, and the majority would allow a lot of amendments until people got tired of voting. But they could not have done that just by themselves. Senator Byrd and Senator Baker were very good leaders, but they could not have gotten that done if the Senators themselves didn't make it possible for the leaders to succeed. So I am delighted to see this discussion. I see the Senator from North Carolina is here, and I would be interested in her comments. My feeling is that there are a large number of Republicans--and I believe a large number of Democrats--who prefer to see the Senate work together to get results. I mean, we worked pretty hard to get here, and the people of Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina expect us to get results, so here is a chance for us to do that. I believe our leaders are saying: OK, let's get this done. And we are saying: Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Senator Inouye, Senator Cochran, we are going to help. We know it will not always be peaches and cream. There will be problems, but, as Senator Warner talked about a volunteer fire department, maybe when the bell rings and we all show up, we will make the Senate more effective and we will be more effective. Let me stop my remarks for a moment and yield to the Senator from North Carolina, who has been a regular participant in the discussions we have had about how we can make the Senate be a more effective institution.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, before we go back to the Senator from Arkansas, I have a question I wish to ask the Senator from South Carolina. First, I am not sure he was here when I referred to the Grand Ole Opry. I haven't been doing that because it is in Nashville. But it has occurred to me over the last several months that there is a lot about what we do that is like the Grand Ole Opry. I know a lot of performers of the Opry, members of the Opry. They sing and pick in every little bar in the South for 20 years until finally, by skill and by accident, they get an invitation to join the Grand Ole Opry. What would they think if they joined the Grand Ole Opry and then they weren't allowed to sing? That is kind of the way we are in the Senate. We are lucky to be here. We are political accidents in a sense. But we worked hard to be here--almost all of us on both sides. So the idea of coming here, working hard to be here, being elected by the people who sent us, and then not being allowed to amend or vote or debate is unacceptable. That is what we want to do with these 12 bills. The Senator from South Carolina reminded me of a specific example of that--the deep ports in the United States. If we are going to export American-made goods and create more jobs in our country, we are going to have to have deep ports. We have a real problem in the way we finance that in the Federal Government, and we would be a stronger country if we could discuss that in the Appropriations Committee. If we don't fix it there, we should bring it to the floor and have amendments and have a debate and let people see what is going on. Would the Senator agree that would be a perfect example of what we should be doing?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, some of the Senators on the Republican side have other appointments to make, so I am going to defer my remarks until the end of the colloquy. What I will do is first state why we are here; second, go to Senator Isakson, then we will go to Senator Pryor, and then back to Senator Collins, if we may. Madam President, our leaders--the Democratic leader, the majority leader and the Republican leader--sometimes get criticized. They have hard jobs, and we recognize that. We also recognize that they can't do their jobs unless we do our jobs well. So tonight what some of us thought we would do, on the Democratic side and the Republican side, is apply a management principle that is called ``catching people doing things right.'' We believe the majority leader and the minority leader, Senator Inouye, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and Senator Cochran, the ranking member, are doing things exactly right when they say it is their intention to try to move all 12 of our appropriations bills through the Appropriations Committee and get them to the floor so we can deal with them before the next fiscal year starts. We are here not just to compliment them but to pledge to them our support in helping them achieve that goal. There are many important reasons we should do that, but basically it is our constitutional responsibility to appropriate money. It is a time when we need to save every penny we can. This is our best opportunity for oversight, and it is also good management, and it allows the Senate to do what the Senate ought to do, which is consider legislation, have a hearing, ask questions, cut out what ought to be cut out, add what ought to be added, vote on it, bring it to the floor, amend it, debate on it, and pass it or defeat it. That is what we should be doing. Only twice since 2000 has this Senate actually considered every single one of the 12 appropriations bills. Only twice, in 2001 and 2005. So it has been 7 years since we considered every single one of the appropriation bills, which is our most basic responsibility: appropriate and oversight. That is why we are here tonight. Our leaders have said this is what their intention is. We are here to say: You are right. Congratulations. We compliment you, and we are here to help you succeed. Because it is very difficult for our leaders to succeed if they don't have any followers making it possible for them to achieve their goals. I would defer to Senator Isakson and then to Senator Pryor.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Arkansas. The Senator from Maine is here. She has another appointment, and I await hearing what she has to say.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I see the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, has arrived. He, with Senator Pryor, has been very active in the last several months in working across party lines to try to make the Senate function more effectively. I would leave it to Senator Pryor as to what comes next.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I congratulate the Senator from Virginia, who has worked in many different ways to try to get a result here. People say: I see your goal is to try to be more bipartisan. My goal is not to be more bipartisan, my goal is to get a result. I learned in the public schools of Maryville, TN, how to count, and if you need 60 votes to succeed and we have only 47 over here and only 53 over there, we have to find some things we agree on if we are ever going to get a result. We can start with these appropriations bills, which are our basic work. Not only is the senior Senator from Arkansas here today, having been a part of these discussions to try to help the Senate be a more effective institution, so is the other Senator from Arkansas. I look forward to hearing his remarks. I thank him for his leadership.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, before we go to the senior Senator from Arkansas, I wish to thank Senator Boozman for his comments and his attitude. I am not a bit surprised that, since he arrived here, he has been a very constructive force in the Senate, interested in results. He was a member of the University of Arkansas football team back in the early 1970s, and he knows what a team is. He knows that if the quarter back calls a play and everybody runs in a different direction, nobody scores. It is good to have him here. He is an excellent Member of the Senate. I thank him for his participation tonight and yield to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from South Carolina for his leadership in helping to make the Senate work and for his good example and for his giving us a specific example--the deep ports--as to why it is important that we set out to do what we are elected to do, which is to say, the Port of Charleston and the Port of Savannah have to be deepwater ports if we want to keep our jobs. That needs to be said in the Senate. It needs to be said in the subcommittee and in the full committee, and it needs to be said on the floor. It is encouraging to me when Senators such as the Senator from North Carolina and Arkansas and Virginia from that side of the aisle, and the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Maine and the junior Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Georgia on this side of the aisle--I think we would all say firmly that while we are only several Senators, the words we speak are the same feelings that a large number of Senators on both sides of the aisle feel. We want to get results. We want to do our jobs. We want to create an environment in which our leaders can succeed. We know that if we want to, we can do that. And we should do it because it is our constitutional responsibility, because oversight is our responsibility, because it is lazy management if we allow it to go to the end of the year and end up with a great big pile of bills in an omnibus or a continuing resolution, which is worse. We need to go over spending item by item. I am on six subcommittees. All three of us are on the Appropriations Committee. We will probably have 30 hearings in the next 2 or 3 months. We will have a good opportunity to go through $1 trillion of discretionary spending and try to spend it wisely and to save money wherever we can. One last thing: When these spending bills come to the floor and we debate them and approve them, we can show the American people that discretionary spending is not the biggest problem we have with spending in this country. Discretionary spending is 38 percent of the budget, and according to the Congressional Budget Office it is scheduled to go up over the next 10 years at the rate of inflation. The rest of the budget, which is largely our entitlement programs, is scheduled to grow up to four times the rate of inflation. If it does that, we will be a bankrupt country after about 10 or 12 years. So there is every reason in the world for us to bring these bills to the floor. My concluding sentence is this: We congratulate the Democratic and Republican leaders and the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. We believe our job is to bring all 12 bills through committee and to the floor and pass them before the fiscal year starts. We, on both sides of the aisle--those of us who have spoken and many others who feel the same way--pledge our support to help our leaders achieve that result. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Pryor and I and designated Senators be allowed to speak in a colloquy.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am here to talk about another subject, marketplace fairness. But before I do, I want to acknowledge the importance of what the Senator from Arizona has had to say and his leadership in the whole area of our nuclear doctrine, but especially in the area of nuclear weapons modernization. I think he is correct to say that the discussion about section 1251, which he described--which is the goal for the amount of money we need to modernize our nuclear weapons that we have in this country--may not have been the reason that the New START treaty passed. But I doubt the New START treaty would have been ratified without it. So it is an important part of that debate, and it is an important part of the debate today. I am one of those Senators who is right in the middle of the discussion. I worked with the Senator from Arizona on the last appropriations bill, and he worked harder than anyone to try to get the amount of appropriations closer to the 1251 number. We made some progress but still fell short. This represents a substantial challenge to us. I think he has put his finger on a very important problem. When we talk about reducing defense spending--or sequestering defense spending--this is the kind of thing that we end up having to deal with because, even in the last year, both the administration and the Senate Appropriations Committee moved some money from defense over to this account to try to increase the money for nuclear weapons modernization, and still there was not enough to meet the 1251 commitment that many of us agreed to at the time the New START treaty was announced. I thank him for his comments. I look forward to working with him on that important question. I would like to talk about marketplace fairness, which ought to be an all-American subject in the Senate. It has turned out to be one that attracts strong bipartisan support. In November, Senator Enzi of Wyoming, the Democratic whip, Senator Durbin, and I introduced, along with seven other Senators--an equal number from both sides of the aisle--what we call the Marketplace Fairness Act to close a 20-year loophole that distorts the American marketplace by picking winners and losers, by subsidizing some businesses at the expense of other businesses, and subsidizing some taxpayers at the expense of other taxpayers. My colleagues and I keep talking about it because we strongly believe, as do many people across this country, that now is the time for Congress to act. Many Americans do not realize when they buy something online, which we increasingly do today, or order something through a catalog, which we have done for a long time, from a business outside of our own State that we still owe the State sales tax. So what we are talking about does not even rise to the dignity of a loophole. What we are talking about is a law that says you owe the State sales tax even if you buy it online and even if you buy it from a catalog from out of State. The law already says, if you buy it you owe it. This is not a problem only for big retailers such as Amazon and Walmart. It is a problem that is killing small businesses in Tennessee and across our country. Last month, Gov. Bill Haslam of Tennessee and I spoke with small business owners from Knoxville and Oak Ridge, Chattanooga, Johnson City, Nashville and Memphis about this problem. Every single one of those business owners shared personal stories about how this loophole has hurt their businesses. Basically, this is what they said happened. I remember the story of the Nashville Boot Company. I talked to the owner. The customer came into the store, tried on a boot, got advice from employees about the boot, and then went home to buy the product online in order to avoid paying the State sales tax, which the customer owes. The State law already says you owe the tax. The problem is, when you buy something at the Nashville Boot Company, or any other local store, the Nashville Boot Company collects the tax from you, adds it to your bill, and then sends the money to the State. That is how it has always worked. But if you buy the same boot or the same other item online or through a catalog, that business does not collect the State sales tax, even though you owe it. So the result is that similar businesses selling the same thing are being treated entirely different. That is not right, and it is not fair. Most Americans who have looked at the issue agree with that. So how did this happen? Well, in 1992, when most of us could not possibly have imagined how the Internet would have changed the way we shop for things, the Supreme Court said States could not require out-of-State catalogs or online sellers to do the same thing States require of stores up and down Main Street. What was the reason? It was too complicated for an online seller such as Amazon or a catalog seller to figure out what the sales tax would be in Tennessee, and then how much to add on Maryville, which is the town in which I live. Well, 20 years ago, I might have agreed with that. But today technology has made it easy for catalog sellers or online sellers to do the same thing Main Street sellers are required to do. Let me give an example. This morning I wanted to know what the weather was in my hometown of Maryville, TN. So I opened my computer, went to Google, I typed in my ZIP Code, I typed in ``weather.'' It told me the weather. The software now exists to provide to catalog sellers or online sellers the same sort of easy way to find out sales tax. If I were to buy a TV set online in Maryville, TN, I could just type in that city, the price, my name, and it would tell me the tax. I think it could even send the tax on to the State. In fact, it is about as easy--with this software that under our law is going to have to be provided by the State to out of state retailers--it is about as easy for them to find out what the tax is as it would be for the Nashville Boot Company when someone walks in and buys the boots in Nashville. Some people have asked why should Congress get involved because nothing is preventing States from going ahead and collecting those taxes. That is true. If I were to buy my boots online and not pay the sales tax, the Governor could come knocking on my door and add the sales tax onto the purchase price of the boots. But that is not going to happen in a practical world. I mean, the State cannot do that for millions of purchases that are made every year online; and no one wants the Governor and his agents knocking on their doors about that. So there is a simpler way to do it. Congress should make it easy for States to be able to do that because we should recognize the loophole is unfair, that it is anticompetitive, and it is distorting the marketplace. As a Republican Senator, I believe our party should oppose government policies that prefer some businesses over other businesses and some taxpayers over other taxpayers. I believe in States rights. Our bill gives States the right to make decisions for themselves. If Illinois or Tennessee or California wants to prefer some businesses over others, wants to prefer some taxpayers over others, they can do that. That is their State's right. But we ought to make it possible for them to make their own decision. A number of conservatives have been outspoken supporters for our legislation. At times, conservatives were reluctant to support it over the years, because it was complicated and because it ``sounded like a'' tax. Well, it is about a tax, but it is a tax that is already owed. Here is what Al Cardenas, chairman of the American Conservative Union, says. He supports our legislation and says: There is no more glaring example of misguided government power than when taxes or regulations affect two similar businesses completely differently. Former Governor Haley Barbour also supports our bill. He said: There is simply no longer a compelling reason for government to continue giving online retailers special treatment over small businesses. Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana said a similar thing. Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana, a well-known conservative Congressman, said: I don't think Congress should be in the business of picking winners and losers. Inaction by Congress today results in a system that does pick winners and losers. That is what Congressman Mike Pence had to say. At CPAC this past weekend, in a gathering of conservative activists, there was a panel of leaders and industry experts talking about this issue. The general agreement was that Congress should act to solve the problem. The solution, the panelists said, should be fair, something people can understand, and meet the needs of States, consumers, and retailers. I believe our legislation accomplishes all these goals. In the first place, it is a rarity in Federal legislation, because it is only 10 pages long. You can actually read it in a few minutes. It is fair because it gives States the right to decide for themselves how to enforce the States' own laws. It protects businesses and consumers by requiring States to adopt basic simplifications. It exempts small businesses that sell less than $500,000 in remote sales each year. That is very important. I used the example of the Nashville Boot Company. The owner sells online and he sells out the front door. He said never in his history has he sold more than $400,000 worth of revenue from his boot sales online. And when he began, he was at least one of the larger online boot sellers. So the $500,000 exemption for small businesses from this legislation should go a long way to meeting the concerns of those Senators on both sides who want to make sure we don't impose some sort of new rule on very small entrepreneurs. Another reason Congress should act now is that States and local governments will lose an estimated $23 billion in uncollected sales tax revenue in 2012 because of this loophole. Here is what former Governor Jeb Bush had to say about that: It seems to me there has to be a way to tax sales done online in the same way that sales are taxed in brick and mortar establishments. My guess is that there would be hundreds of millions of dollars that then could be used to reduce taxes to fulfill campaign promises. Uncollected sales taxes could be used to pay for things our States need to pay for now. They could be used to reduce college tuition. They could be used to pay outstanding teachers. But they could also be used to reduce the sales tax rate or to reduce some other tax, or to avoid a tax altogether. In Tennessee, where we don't have a State income tax, we want to avoid one. ``State income tax'' are probably the three worst words in our vocabulary, and collecting tax on sales from everybody who owes it could not only reduce our sales tax but help us avoid a State income tax. Governor Haslam of Tennessee, who strongly supports our legislation, says: It's just too big of a piece of our economy now to treat it like we did 20 years ago. Governor Haslam is right. Online sales set new records last year. And while the growth of e-commerce is very good news for our economy, our local businesses are getting hurt because they are not competing on a level playing field. That is why our legislation has the support of the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Counties, to name a few. About the only ones left who are complaining about our legislation are taxpayers and businesses who are being subsidized by other taxpayers and businesses because the playing field isn't level. Amazon, a huge online seller, strongly supports our legislation. Over the years, they have opposed legislation like this. Now they believe we have solved the problem. Why? Because they say our bill makes it easy for consumers and easy for retailers to comply with State sales tax laws, and it helps States without raising taxes or new Federal spending. Some people will tell you we are talking about taxing the Internet. That is not true. Our legislation doesn't create a new tax. It doesn't tax the Internet. The Senate debated Internet access taxes several years ago. I was in the middle of the debate. It led to a moratorium on Internet access taxes. That moratorium is still in effect today. We are talking about state taxes that are already owed, and the moratorium on an Internet access tax will stay in place and not be altered. It is very hard to see how anyone can say with a straight face that giving States the right to collect taxes that are already owed is a tax increase. I have spent a lot of time talking with my colleagues about making the Senate work more effectively. One way to do that is to make sure Senators have an opportunity to thoroughly consider important legislation. On January 31, a few weeks ago, over 200 businesses and State and national trade associations sent a letter to the Senator from Montana, chairman of the Finance Committee, asking him to cosponsor our bill and to address the inequity this year. Senator Enzi and the bill's cosponsors have also urged the Senate Finance Committee to hold a hearing on our bill as soon as possible. The House Judiciary Committee has already held a hearing. Their hearing on November 30, gave House Members of both political parties the opportunity to learn more about the issue and express their support for it. I hope the Senate Finance Committee will seriously consider our request and soon find time so Senators can have the same opportunity that House Members have had. Ten years ago, the bills we considered to try to close this loophole simply weren't adequate to solve the problem. The legislation we introduced in November does solve the problem. It is simple, it is about States rights, it is about fairness, and it solves the problem. It doesn't cost the Federal Government a dime, it doesn't change Federal tax laws, and it doesn't require States to do anything. It simply gives States the right to decide for themselves how to enforce their own laws. This is a 20-year-old problem that only the Federal Government can solve. Unless we act, States will continue to be deprived of their right to enforce their own tax laws and businesses will not be allowed to compete on a level playing field. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Hatch from the 12 Senate bipartisan cosponsors of this legislation of January 31 asking for a hearing on the Marketplace Fairness Act, quotes from conservatives on this issue, and another memo with quotes from the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes, and I would ask the Chair to please let me know when 8 minutes has expired.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, there are reports in some of the newspapers this morning that there is an effort to try to slip into the negotiation about extending the payroll tax break for the next year a big loophole for the rich and for the investment bankers and for most of the people President Obama keeps talking about as people whose taxes he would like to raise. What I mean by this is I have heard there may be an effort to put into the payroll tax agreement a 4-year extension of the so-called production tax credit, which is a big tax break for wind developers. I cannot think of anything that would derail more rapidly the consensus that is developing about extending the payroll tax deduction than to do such a thing. We are supposed to be talking about reducing taxes for working people. This would maintain a big loophole for investment bankers, for the very wealthy, and for big corporations. We hear a lot of talk about Federal subsidies for Big Oil. I would like to take a moment to talk about Federal subsidies for Big Wind--$27 billion over 10 years. That is the amount of Federal taxpayer dollars between 2007 and 2016, according to the Joint Tax Committee, that taxpayers will have given to wind developers across our country. This subsidies comes in the form of a production tax credit, renewable energy bonds, investment tax credits, federal grants, and accelerated appreciation. These are huge subsidies. The production tax credit itself has been there for 20 years. It was a temporary tax break put in the law in 1992. And what do we get in return for these billions of dollars of subsidies? We get a puny amount of unreliable electricity that arrives disproportionately at night when we don't need it. Madam President, residents in community after community across America are finding out that these are not your grandma's windmills. These gigantic turbines, which look so pleasant on the television ads-- paid for by the people who are getting all the tax breaks--look like an elephant when they are in your backyard. In fact, they are much bigger than an elephant. They are three times as tall as the sky boxes at Neyland Stadium, the University of Tennessee football stadium in Knoxville. They are taller than the Statue of Liberty in the home State of the Presiding Officer. The blades are as wide as a football field is long, and you can see the blinking lights that are on top of these windmills for 20 miles. In town after town, American residents are complaining about the noise and disturbance that come from these giant wind turbines in their backyards. There is a new movie that was reviewed in the New York Times in the last few days called ``Windfall'' about residents in upstate New York who are upset and have left their homes because of the arrival of these big wind turbines. The great American West, which conservationists for a century have sought to protect, has become littered with these giant towers. Boone Pickens, an advocate of wind power, says he doesn't want them on his own ranch because they are ugly. Senator Kerry, Senator Kennedy, Senator Warner, and Senator Scott Brown have all complained about the new Manhattan Island sized wind development which will forever change the landscape off the coast of Nantucket Island. On top of all that, these giant turbines have become a Cuisinart in the sky for birds. Federal law protects the American eagle and migratory birds. In 2009, Exxon had to pay $600,000 in fines when oil developments harmed these protected birds. But the Federal Government so far has refused to apply the same Federal law to Big Wind that applies to Big Oil, even though chopping up an eagle in a wind turbine couldn't be any better than its landing and dying on an oil slick. And wind turbines kill over 400,000 birds every year. We have had some experience with the reliability of this kind of wind power in the Tennessee Valley Authority region. A few years ago TVA built 30 big wind turbines on top of Buffalo Mountain. In the Eastern United States, onshore wind power only works when the wind turbines are placed on the ridge lines of Americas most scenic mountains. So you will see them along the areas near the Appalachian Trail through the mountains of scenic views we prize in our State. But there they are, 30 big wind turbines to see whether they would work. Here is what happened: The wind blows 19 percent of the time. According to TVA's own estimates, it is reliable 12 percent of the time. So TVA signed a contract to spend $60 million to produce 6 megawatts of wind--actual production of wind--over that 10-year period of time. It was a commercial failure. There are obviously better alternatives to this. First, there is nuclear power. We wouldn't think of going to war in sailboats if nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers were available. The energy equivalent of going to war in sailboats is trying to produce enough clean energy for the United States of America with windmills. The United States uses 25 percent of all the electricity in the world. It needs to be clean, reliable electricity that we can afford. Twenty percent of the electricity that we use today is nuclear power. Nearly 70 percent of the clean electricity, the pollution-free electricity that we use today is nuclear power. It comes from 104 reactors located at 65 sites. Each reactor consumes about 1 square mile of land. To produce the same amount of electricity by windmills would mean we would have to have 186,000 of these wind turbines; it would cover an area the size of West Virginia; we would need 19,000 miles of transmission lines through backyards and scenic areas; so 100 reactors on 100 square miles or 186,000 wind turbines on 25,000 square miles. Think about it another way. Four reactors on 4 square miles is equal to a row of 50-story tall wind turbines along the entire 2,178-mile Appalachian Trail. Of course, if we had the turbines, we would still need the nuclear plants or the gas plants or the coal plants because we would like our computers to work and our lights to be on when the wind doesn't blow, and we can't store the electricity. Then, of course, there is natural gas, which has no sulfur pollution, very little nitrogen pollution, half as much carbon as coal. Gas is very cheap today. A Chicago-based utility analyst said: Wind on its own without incentives is far from economic unless gas is north of $6.50 per unit. The Wall Street Journal says that wind power is facing a make-or-break moment in Congress, while we debate to extend these subsidies. So that is why the wind power companies are on pins and needles waiting to see what Congress decides to do about its subsidy. Taxpayers should be the ones on pins and needles. This $27 billion over 10 years is a waste of money. It could be used for energy research. It could be used to reduce the debt. Let's start with the $12 billion over that 10 years that went for the production tax credit. That tax credit was supposed to be temporary in 1992. Today, according to Secretary Chu, wind is a mature technology. Why does it need a credit? The credit is worth about 3 cents per kilowatt hour, if we take into account the corporate tax rate of 35 percent. That has caused some energy officials to say they have never found an easier way to make money. Well, of course not. So we do not need to extend the production tax credit for wind at a time when we are borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar, at a time when natural gas is cheap and nuclear power is clean and more reliable and less expensive. I would like to see us put some of that money on energy research. We only spend $5 billion or $6 billion a year on energy research: clean energy research, carbon recapture, making solar cheaper, making electric batteries that go further. I am ready to reduce the subsidies for Big Oil as long as we reduce the subsidies for Big Wind at the same time. So let's not even think about putting this tax break for the rich in the middle of an extension of a tax deduction for working Americans this week. Let's focus on reducing the debt, increasing expenditure for research, and getting rid of the subsidies. Twenty years is long enough for a wind production tax credit for what our distinguished Nobel Prize-winning Secretary of Energy says is a mature technology. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a film review from the New York Times on February 3 entitled, ``Turbines in the Backyard: The Sound and the Strobes.'' This is about the movie ``Windfall,'' about upstate New York communities that have experienced having these huge things in their backyards. An article by Robert Bryce, ``Why The Wind Is Full Of Hot Air and Costing You Big Bucks,'' an article from the Los Angeles Times on wind farms, and another article from February 2 in the Globe, ``Town turns off wind, opts for solar energy.''

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, since his State of the Union Address, President Obama and Vice President Biden have been talking about their efforts to help students afford to go to college, which is something we are all in favor of. The President's proposals include what he calls a higher education race to the top. It has a familiar sounding formula. Though, in this case, it will impose new rules and mandates and price controls on colleges and universities in States. Unfortunately, this race to the top is headed in the wrong direction. The President should turn around his higher education race to the top and head it in the direction of Washington, DC, to help the federal government compete for ways to stop adding mandates and costs on States that are soaking up dollars and driving college tuition through the roof. Let me be specific and offer three examples of how a race to the top headed toward Washington, DC, could actually help students by saving them money on their tuition. First, Washington could stop overcharging students on their student loans. They are doing that now by borrowing money at 2.8 percent, loaning it to students at 6.8 percent, and using the profit to help pay for the new health care law and other government programs. Second, Washington could help students with lower tuition by repealing the new Medicaid mandates on States that take effect in 2014. These new Medicaid mandates will further reduce State funding for higher education and raise tuition at public colleges and universities, which is where approximately 75 percent of students go to college. Third, Washington could stop prohibiting States from reducing spending on Medicaid at a time when State revenues and expenditures are going down. That forces States to spend money on health care that otherwise would be available for higher education. Let me talk about each of those three ideas. First, this business of overcharging on student loans. I think it would come as a big surprise to most students to know that Washington is borrowing money at 2.8 percent and loaning it to them at 6.8 percent, and using the profit to pay for the health care law and for other government programs. We have roughly 25 million students attending 6,000 colleges and universities in America today, and approximately 16 million of those have Federal loans that allow them to spend that money at the school of their choice. Approximately 70 percent of the Federal funding made available for our higher education last year--about $116 billion--went for those student loans. Under the new health care law, the Department of Education is going to be borrowing money from the Treasury at 2.8 percent and then loaning it to the students at 6.8 percent. So, the government is actually overcharging 16 million students and taking that profit and spending it on new government programs, including the new health care law. According to the Congressional Budget Office, over the next 10 years, here is where the profit goes, approximately: $8.7 billion goes to pay for the new health care law; $10.3 billion goes to pay down the Federal debt; and $36 billion goes to support other Pell grants. So if we really want to help students pay for tuition, why would we not use this profit to reduce the interest rate on student loans? CBO says we could have reduced the rate from 6.8 percent to 5.3 percent and let the students have the savings instead of letting the government have the savings. By reducing the interest on student loans that much, students would save an average of $2,200 over 10 years. That is a lot of money for the average student borrower who has approximately $25,000 in debt. I have proposed the idea of legislation that puts a ``truth in lending'' label on every one of the 16 million student loans, saying this: Beware: Your government is overcharging you on your student loan to help pay for the health care law and other government programs. Here is a second way Washington could help lower tuition rates. Washington could repeal the Medicaid mandates imposed on States that take effect in 2014 and will inevitably drive up tuition rates. This is how that works. The new health care law requires States to expand and help pay for Medicaid coverage. This in turn requires Governors who are making up budgets to take money that, otherwise, would likely go for higher education and spend it instead on Medicaid. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this new expansion of Medicaid will cost States an additional $20 billion over 10 years and add 16 million more people to Medicaid programs. The CMS Chief Actuary says it may add 25 million to the Medicaid Program, costing States even more. We know this is going to happen because it has already happened. For years Medicaid mandates have been imposing huge costs on States, which in turn soaks up money for colleges, and in turn causes tuition to go up to replace that money. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, average State funding this year for Medicaid increased by 28.7 percent compared to the prior year. Where did the money come from? In Tennessee, which had a 15.8-percent increase in State spending on Medicaid last year, at the same time there was a 15-percent decrease in State spending for higher education. That is a real cut, not a Washington cut; that is 15 percent less money. That did what? There was a 7.3-percent increase in tuition at public universities and an 8.2-percent increase in tuition at community colleges to make up for the cuts. In California, where the state enrolls 8.3 million Medicaid beneficiaries, they are expected to gain 2 million more when the new health care law is implemented in 2014. Just over the last year, there has been a 13.5-percent decrease in State support for higher education in California, along with a 21-percent increase in tuition and fees at State universities and a 37 percent increase in tuition at community colleges. Most of those students probably do not know that the principal reason their tuition is going up is because of the Federal health care mandates on the State. From 2000 to 2006, spending by State governments on Medicaid increased by 62.6 percent. This has been going on long before President Obama came into office. I balanced it as Governor in the 1980s. Every year I tried to keep education funding at 50 percent of the State budgets. In those days the States paid for 70 percent of the cost of operating the University of Tennessee or the community college and tuition paid for 30 percent of the cost. We had an implicit deal with the students that if we raise tuition, we will raise State funding by about the same amount. Those days are long gone. Medicaid costs on States are the most insoluble part of the budget dilemma we have here in Washington. I believe Medicaid either should be run 100 percent by the Federal Government or 100 percent by the States. I came to Washington and suggested that to President Reagan in the 1980s. He agreed, but many did not. So it is not new. We should not blame President Obama for the fact that this has gone on for 30 years, but we ought to hold him responsible for making it worse. Here is how he has made it worse in a third way--by a so-called maintenance of effort requirement on States as a condition of continuing to receive Federal payments under Medicaid. The 2009 stimulus bill prohibited States from imposing new eligibility standards, methodologies, or procedures as a condition of receiving Federal Medicaid payments. The new health care law extends the maintenance of effort requirements through 2014. So for 5 years, throughout this recession, while State revenues are going down, the Federal Government in its wisdom has been imposing billions of new dollars in Medicaid mandates on States requiring them to spend more on Medicaid. And what happens? They must spend less on something else. In 2010, New York Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch, a Democrat, eloquently talked about that problem. He said Medicaid is ``the largest single driver of New York's growing expenditures,'' making up more than one-third of the State total budget. New York spends twice as much on Medicaid as California. He said this spending is expected to grow at an annual rate of 18 percent over the next 4 years but that the Federal stimulus and health care expansions have made it harder for States such as New York and California to cut expenditures because of the strings attached. He said: These strings prevent States from substituting Federal money for State funds, require States to spend minimum amounts of their own funds, and prevent States from tightening eligibility standards for benefits. So while the Federal Government is burdening the States with hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid liabilities, the President has made it worse by forbidding States from tightening their eligibility requirements as their economies shrink. The administration and Congress have left Governors with little choice but to cut in other areas, and that usually turns out to be public higher education, where 75 percent of students go to school. So why is tuition going up? The biggest reason is us--Congress, Washington DC. Instead of pointing the finger at States and colleges, we ought to look in the mirror. There is another problem with the President's proposals. His proposals are not likely to affect many students, and if they do they are more likely to hurt them than help them. Here is why that is true. Ninety-eight percent of all Federal money made available to college students goes directly to the students to spend at one of the 6,000 institutions of their choice. The President's proposals would only affect three programs of campus- based aid that eventually affects about 2 percent of all students and impacts about 2 percent of all the federal money available for higher education. What the President would propose doing includes putting price controls on colleges offering those programs and saying that students could not go to the institution if tuition goes up too much. So if a low-income student wants to go to the University of Tennessee or North Carolina or Michigan and tuition goes up more than the Federal Government says it should, mostly because of Federal policies, what happens? The student cannot go to the University of Michigan or the University of Tennessee or the University of North Carolina. Those schools have plenty of applicants. They are going to get their students anyway. So the effect will be to make it harder for a low-income student to go to the college of his or her choice. What should we be doing? I think it is pretty obvious. The taxpayers already are generous with support for students going to college. The average tuition at a 4-year public institution is $8,200. At a 2-year community college, it is $3,000. At private institutions, it may be closer to $28,000 or $30,000 a year. To make it easier, there are 16 million student loans--$116 billion in new student loans last year. There are 9 million Pell grants, supported by $41 billion in taxpayers' dollars. So half our 25 million college students have a Federal grant or loan to help pay for college, and they spend it at one of 6,000 institutions of their choice. Still, the rising cost of tuition is a real problem for American families. Tuition and fees have soared over the past 10 years above the rate of inflation by 5.6 percent a year at public 4-year institutions. This adds up to about a 113 percent increase in tuition over the decade. Colleges and universities need to do their part to cut costs. I have suggested that well-prepared students ought to be offered 3-year degrees instead of 4. The president of George Washington University has suggested ways that colleges could be more efficient. He said he could run two complete colleges with two complete faculties in the facilities now used half the year for one. That is without cutting the length of student vacations, increasing class size, or requiring faculty to teach more. Requiring one mandatory summer session for every student every 4 years, as Dartmouth College does, would improve institutions' bottom line. The GW president said his institution's bottom line would improve by $10 to $15 million a year. Those are just two good ideas. There is nothing wrong with President Obama's proposal to encourage ideas like that, even to give grants and put the spotlight on colleges that are trying those things. The Malcolm Baldrige Award for Quality Control years ago did a lot to improve quality in business and government without spending very much. But mandates and price controls on 6,000 autonomous colleges and universities is not the right prescription. They are more likely to hurt students than help. They are more likely to drive up tuition than lower it. And they are more likely to diminish the quality of the best system of higher education in the world. The reason we have the best system is, for one reason, because generally the Federal Government keeps its hands off those autonomous colleges, and the second reason is that students can choose among those 6,000 institutions with the money we make available to them in grants and loans. Rather than creating new price controls, new mandates, and new regulations of the kind that have already pushed tuition higher, I suggest the President turn his race to the top around. Instead of heading it towards the States and colleges, head it towards Washington, DC. Stop overcharging students for their student loans, stop requiring States to spend more State dollars on health care at the expense of public colleges and universities, repeal the new Medicaid mandates that in 2014 will take already-high tuition and drive it even higher, and let the Federal agencies compete to see how they can stop adding costs that are the main reason college tuition is rising. That would be the real race to the top. That is the real way to help students afford college. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes in morning business, and I ask the Chair to please notify me when I have 3 minutes remaining.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask the President to notify me when I have used 10 minutes.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, last week we Republican Senators had an extraordinary experience that millions of Americans have had and will have in the future: We spent a day at Mount Vernon, George Washington's home, which is not more than about 40 minutes from the Nation's Capital. Even in the middle of winter, it is a beautiful, historic setting. It is hard to imagine why George Washington and Martha Washington would ever want to leave the place. Touring the rooms, we could imagine what life must have been like then. There are many things that impress any of us when we visit there. One thing that especially impressed me was the fact that, despite the beauty of the place and Washington's love for farming, he was gone from Mount Vernon for 8\1/2\ years during the Revolutionary War. He never went home; he was always in the war. Even when he was President of the United States for 8 years, he was only at Mount Vernon 10 times during those 8 years; and after the Presidency, of course, he soon died. So he gave up quite a bit to be President of the United States. There were other things that impressed me about our visit to Mount Vernon. One was the reminder that our Revolution was a revolution against a King. George Washington, as commander in chief of the Continental Army, led a fight for independence from a King whom the signers of the Declaration of Independence stated, had a ``History of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.'' Those were our Revolutionary Founders talking. As President of the Philadelphia Convention, George Washington presided over the writing of the U.S. Constitution which emphasizes, if it emphasizes any one word, the idea of ``liberty'' in creating the system of government we enjoy today. Then there was another aspect to George Washington of which we were reminded which would be good for us to think about today and that was his modesty and restraint. George Washington must have had remarkable presence. He never had to say very much, apparently, to command the attention and respect of his countrymen. He likely could have been general of the Army as long as he wished and President of the United States as long as he wished, but he chose not to do that. It was he who first asked to be called simply Mr. President, rather than some grand title. It was Washington who gave up his commission when the war was over, and it was Washington who stepped down after two terms and went home to Mount Vernon. In fact, that aspect of his character was imprinted upon the American character, that modesty and restraint on the part of the executive branch and a recognition that our system depends absolutely on checks and balances. I am struck by that attitude and the different attitude I see in the administration of President Obama, which has shown disregard for those checks and balances and the limits on Presidential power that our Founders and George Washington felt were so important. This administration, over 3 years, has been arrogating more power to the executive branch of government and upsetting the delicate balance, which the Founders created for the purpose of--what? For the purpose of guaranteeing to each of us as individuals the maximum amount of liberty. I remember Senator Byrd saying time and time again that the purpose of the Senate, more than anything else, was a restraint upon the tyranny of the executive branch of government. That is our purpose as a Senate. This President's Executive excesses were first illustrated by the creation of more czars than the Romanovs had. We have always had some so-called czars in the White House--the drug czar, for example. But now we have approximately three dozen of them. These czars duplicate and dilute the responsibilities of Cabinet members; they make it harder for the Congress, us, to have a supervisory role over exactly what they are doing. It is not only antidemocratic, it is a poor way to manage the government. Equally disturbing to me has been this administration's use of regulation and litigation to bypass the Congress and the will of the people when the Congress has a different point of view. For example, this was the case with the National Labor Relations Board and their decision in the Boeing case; which has now been apparently resolved but which was an enormous--an enormous abuse of power, in my opinion. Then the President is taking to blaming almost everyone for the problems we see in our lives today: First, it was President Bush, then it was the banks, then it was business, then it was the insurance companies, then it was Wall Street, then it was 1 percent of us, and now it is the Congress, which of course is in a government that is primarily run by the President's own political party. The President has taken to saying in his campaign speeches and his State of the Union Address the other day, ``If Congress won't act, I will,'' and he has begun to show that is no idle threat. Because now, on top of these other abuses, with his recent appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to head a new and unaccountable agency, the president has undermined the checks and balances that were placed in our Constitution and that George Washington so respected. This Senate has always been the place--whether it was a Democratic Senate arguing about the appropriateness of President Bush using war powers, this Senate has always been the place that has insisted upon checks and balances and the liberty of the people as guaranteed by those checks and balances. The President's recent actions have shown disregard for possibly the best known and possibly most important role of the Senate and that is its power of advice and consent of executive and judicial nominations as outlined in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. These actions, four appointments during a period of time when the Senate, in my opinion, was in session, fly in the face of the principle of separation of powers and the concepts of checks and balances against an imperial President. Let's look for a moment at the history and precedents of recess appointments. The exact length required for a recess is not defined in the Constitution, but according to the Congressional Research Service ``it appears that no President, at least in the modern era, has made an intra-session recess appointment during a recess of less than 10 days.'' Both parties have relied upon the adjournment clause in Article I of the Constitution to argue that the absolute minimum recess period would conceivably be 3 days. We can also look at the number of recess appointments made by recent Presidents. As of January 23 of this year, President Obama had made 32 recess appointments, all to full-time positions. At the same point in time in his first term, President Clinton had made nine recess appointments to full-time positions. President Bush, at about the same time, had made 35. So they all made recess appointments--appointments while the Senate was in recess. That is provided for specifically in the Constitution as something the President could do. But President Clinton never did it when Congress was in session for less than 10 days. President Bush never did it when Congress was in recess for shorter than 11 days. Now, unfortunately, President Obama has broken that precedent and made 4 appointments when we were in a period of less than 3 days. Why is that important? In 2007, the current majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, decided the Senate did not want President Bush making recess appointments; that is, making appointments while the Senate wasn't in session. So the Senate refused at that time to enter into prolonged recesses. They invented the idea of pro forma recesses every 3 days. President Bush strenuously objected to that, but he respected that. He respected the constitutional authority of the Senate under article I, section 5 to determine when the Senate is in session. On November 16, 2007, Senator Reid said: ``With the Thanksgiving break looming, the administration has informed me that they would make several recess appointments.'' Senator Reid didn't like the idea of recess appointments any more than we do. So he said: ``As a result, I am keeping the Senate in pro forma to prevent recess appointments until we get back on track.''

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair and ask to be notified when I have consumed 3 minutes more. On November 16, 2007, Senator Reid said: As a result, I am keeping the Senate in pro forma to prevent recess appointments until we get this process back on track.'' And on July, 28, 2008 he said: ``We don't need a vote to recess. We will just be in pro forma session. We will tell the House to do the same thing.'' The President is restricted, as Senator Reid indicated, by article I section 5 of the Constitution, which states that ``neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.'' Last December when the House and Senate agreed to adjourn, the Speaker--a Republican--and the majority leader here--a Democrat--agreed the two Chambers would hold pro forma sessions for the express purpose of not going into recess. Yet the President went ahead and made his appointments. This is a dangerous trend. It is a dangerous trend. The major issue before our country is the Obama economy. That is what we will be talking about more than anything else in an election year. But liberty is the defining aspect of our American character. If the President's current actions were to stand as a precedent, the Senate may very well find that when it takes a break for lunch, when it comes back, the country has a new Supreme Court Justice. Because we believe in the importance of that constitutional system, all of us on the Republican side insist on a full and complete debate on this issue. We intend to take this issue to the American people. We will file amicus curiae briefs in all of the appropriate courts and we will take this issue to the most important court in the land and that is the court of the American people on election day. I do not suggest that the President will find, or even should find, his relationship with Congress to be easy or simple. George Washington did not. President Washington once came up here to discuss a treaty with Senators and became so angry that he said, and this is Washington's word, he'd be ``damned'' if he ever went there again. The separation of powers does not mean an easy distribution of powers but it is essential to the American character. We should remember that. A short trip to Mount Vernon would remind us of that. The President's recess appointments not only show disregard for the Constitution, they show disregard for every individual American who chooses liberty over tyranny, President over King. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this omnibus appropriations bill funds the Federal Government through September 30, 2012, at the level of spending agreed to this past August in the Budget Control Act, which reduces overall spending by $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. If Congress continues to follow the terms of the Budget Control Act, discretionary spending--which is 39 percent of the Federal budget--will increase at about the rate of inflation over the next nine years. Unfortunately, mandatory entitlement spending--which is 55 percent of the Federal budget--is out of control and is growing at the rate of 3 to 4 times inflation over the next 9 years according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. There are some good reasons to support this spending bill. One good reason to support the bill is to support House Republicans. Now that they are in the majority, they are changing the priorities of the spending bills in important places, and that is a good start at reducing spending and changing the priorities of the government. Another good reason is that the bill is consistent with the Budget Control Act. The Omnibus brings total discretionary spending to $1.043 trillion, and it brings total disaster spending to $10.4 billion. Both of those figures are consistent with the Budget Control Act and are a good first step toward getting discretionary spending under control over the next decade. The bill also supports several important national priorities: It provides an additional $5.1 billion for defense and a $338 million increase for nuclear weapons modernization; increases border security; fully funds veterans' healthcare; and shows Congress can lead by example by cutting our own budget by 5.2 percent. The bill denies the administration carte blanche on running the government and allows Congress to set priorities as it should in our constitutional system. The omnibus cuts the Environmental Protection Agency's budget by $233 million, cuts the National Labor Relations Board's budget by $4 million, and supports the development of Small Modular Reactors. This year there have been 12 disasters that caused more than $1 billion in damage--the highest on record. Families are struggling to recover from historic tornado outbreaks, flooding, wildfires, and other natural disasters in virtually every part of the country. The omnibus brings total disaster spending for fiscal year 2012 to $10.4 billion. The Budget Control Act allows Congress to spend up to an additional $11.3 billion in fiscal year 2012 for disasters. Although this means there is only $900 million left to address any additional disasters in fiscal year 2012, it shows that Congress is starting to take the issue of spending and debt seriously by living within an agreed upon framework for total spending. Even though the Budget Control Act does not require disaster spending to be offset--some argue that it should be--the Budget Control Act ensures disaster spending is really for disasters and keeps Congress from spending more than the historical average. The House has proposed to offset this spending with a 1.83 percent across-the-board cut to all discretionary spending, excluding defense programs, military construction projects and veterans funding. I do not believe that an across-the-board cut is a wise way to reduce spending. Congress should identify wasteful spending, like the credit loan subsidies we eliminated in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, and find specific ways to cut spending and make government more effective. Any bill of this size will include things we don't support. We do not do enough to reduce duplicative programs, and many programs that should be eliminated are still funded. But there is one provision in the manager's report that I really want to take exception to. I strongly object to the language included in the Interior Appropriations bill regarding Boiler MACT. The Boiler MACT is a regulation that will reduce pollutants like mercury, which is a good goal, but forces reductions in a way that is not realistic for companies to comply. This unworkable regulation could result in the loss of 340,000 jobs nationwide and cost Tennessee companies $530 million. My support for the omnibus bill does not change my position on this issue, and I will continue to push for the passage of strong bipartisan legislation that will overturn the terrible Boiler MACT regulation and find a better way to accomplish the pollution reductions that are needed.