Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I thank the Senator from Vermont, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his request. Jane Stranch is a well-qualified nominee. It has long been my position, without going into the history in this body, that a President's judicial nominees deserve an up-or-down vote. She is President Obama's longest pending circuit court nominee yet to be confirmed. She was nominated last August. The committee reported her in November. She has my support, that of Senator Corker. I know it is difficult, with the amount of matters we have on the Senate floor, to schedule anything, including a circuit judge. But it would be my hope that the Republican leader and the majority leader could, before long, set a time certain for an up-or-down vote on Jane Stranch, the President's nominee for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his request. I will not object.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Senator Pete Domenici from New Mexico served in this body for 36 years. During that time, he was the first Republican chairman of the Budget Committee and later chaired the Energy Committee where, more than almost anyone, he helped spur the revival of interest in nuclear energy. He was truly one of the most consequential senators of the last half century. As we mourn the loss of another very consequential Member of this Chamber, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, I thought it was appropriate to share Senator Domenici's thoughts on the passing of Senator Byrd. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Domenici's statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wonder if I could ask the Senator another question. The Senator was talking about the increasing debt. Am I correct that it took the first 43 Presidents of the United States and the Congresses they served with about 230 years to run up $5.8 trillion in debt, but President Obama's 10-year proposal, through 2018, would add another $11.8 trillion? In other words, am I right that the first 43 Presidents piled up $5.8 trillion in debt, and this President's 10-year budget, through 2018, would double that?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask the Senator from New Hampshire, who served as chairman of the Budget Committee of the Senate and is now its ranking member--and there is no one in the Senate more familiar with the numbers in the Senate budget--is it not true that this request by Republican members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, since it comes at a time when many Americans and most Senators believe the level of the Federal debt is at crisis levels and threatens the security of our country and since it comes at a time when the Congress has not produced a budget and it comes at a time when there have been substantial increases over the last year and a half in the 38 percent of the budget that is discretionary spending, would the Senator from New Hampshire, who has long served on the Budget and Appropriations Committees, not agree that the first job of Senate appropriators is not to decide where to spend the money but to decide how much money there is to spend, especially this year when there is no budget?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from New Hampshire would accept a question?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I have one other question, if I may, for the Senator from New Hampshire. I know we sometimes hear the American people say, or commentators say: Well, why don't those Senators work across party lines and get a result? My question to the Senator from New Hampshire, who has years of experience on Appropriations and Budget, is, in the present circumstances where we have a debt crisis, and where we have no budget, no budget for next year, and we will not have, would he not agree that at the beginning of the process, taking a number that has been voted on by a majority of the Senate and has widespread bipartisan support, is a constructive bipartisan approach that ought to be able to gain the respect of Democratic appropriators and Democratic Senators, and that we could work together this year to essentially freeze discretionary spending as a first step toward reining in Federal spending? In other words, sometimes we see amendments around here that are called message amendments, each side trying to score a point. Is this not a proposal that deserves respect as a serious attempt to restrain the debt and that should earn bipartisan support?

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I have a statement that I would like to make, first on a letter and announcement that all the Republican members of the Senate Appropriations Committee have sent to the chairman of the committee today. Because Federal spending and debt are at crisis levels, Republican Senators on the Senate Appropriations Committee are asking our Democratic colleagues to join us in supporting the Sessions-McCaskill freeze on discretionary Federal spending. Every Republican--every one of us--and 17 Democratic Senators already have voted for the Sessions- McCaskill amendment this session several times. The amendment would basically freeze Federal discretionary appropriations--both military and nonmilitary--which constitute about 38 percent of the Federal budget. This action by the Senate members of the Appropriations Committee is especially important this year because the Democratic Congress has refused to produce a budget. Here we are, at a time when almost every American is deeply worried about the level of Federal debt and the level of Federal spending, and the first thing we would expect the Congress to do before it plans for next year is to produce a budget that would be able to restrain this spending--both the discretionary part of it, the kind we appropriate year after year--and begin to deal with the entitlements--the mandatory spending that is on automatic pilot. The Democratic Congress has not produced that budget for next year, and it indicates it will not. So it, therefore, is the first job of the members of the Appropriations Committee to decide how much we can spend. Year in and year out we decide where and how we spend the money. That is the constitutional responsibility of Congress under article I, and that is the job we do. Perhaps we haven't paid as much attention to the first responsibility as we should. Perhaps we have relied too much on the Budget Committee. Well, not this year. What we are saying is, if we are going to be members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and if our responsibility is to deal with Federal spending, then the first question we should decide is how much Federal spending. At a time when Federal spending and debt is at crisis levels, when the President's 10-year budget, up through the year 2018, would double the debt and triple the debt, it is our responsibility to get this under control. So our recommendation--and it is a serious recommendation, and one we hope and believe our colleagues who are Democrats on the Appropriations Committee will be able to accept because it is a bipartisan proposal that has already, as I mentioned, received between 16 and 18 Democratic votes on the floor of the Senate, and every single one of the 41 Republican Senators--is that we essentially freeze spending in the discretionary accounts, both military and nonmilitary, between this year and next year. The Federal debt is a crisis that is imposing a burden on our children and our grandchildren that they will not be able to pay. It is our responsibility to deal with it and to begin to deal with it now. A Sessions-McCaskill freeze on Federal discretionary spending for next year is an important first step. The next step would then be getting entitlement spending under control, which we should move on as rapidly as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the letter from Republican members of the Senate Appropriations Committee which I referred to earlier in my remarks.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, 40 years ago, at the time of the first Earth Day, Americans became deeply worried about air and water pollution and a population explosion that threatened to overrun the planet's resources. Nuclear power was seen as a savior to these environmental dilemmas. It could produce large amounts of low-cost, reliable clean energy. Unlike oil, nuclear power did not need to be hauled in leaking tankers from countries that did not like us. Unlike coal, it did not spew tons of pollution out of smokestacks. Then Three Mile Island and Chernobyl happened. The world pulled back, fearful of nuclear technology--even though no one was hurt at Three Mile Island. In fact, no one has ever died as a result of a nuclear accident at an American commercial nuclear reactor or on a U.S. navy ship powered by reactors. Chernobyl was the tragic result of a flawed technology never used in the United States. Still, the United States has not licensed a new reactor since 1978. Now the rest of the world is returning to nuclear energy. France is 80 percent nuclear and has among the lowest per capita carbon emissions and cheapest electricity costs in Western Europe. Italy, Britain, Finland and Eastern Europe all are exploring new reactors. Russia, India, China and Japan are moving ahead. South Korea is selling reactors to the United Arab Emirates. These countries realize that exploding populations demand large amounts of cheap, reliable electricity to help create jobs and lift people out of poverty. And nuclear power provides just that. The National Academy of Sciences in a 2009 report said that the cost of nuclear power is equal to or lower than natural gas, wind, solar, or coal with carbon capture. Reactors can operate for 80 years while wind and solar last about 25 years. And nuclear reactors operate 90 percent of the time while wind and solar are only available about a third of the time. Remember: wind and solar power can't be stored today in significant amounts. Most people do not want their lights and computers working only when the wind blows. Nuclear plants occupy a fraction of the land required for wind or solar. For example, 20 percent of U.S. electricity comes from 104 nuclear reactors on about 100 square miles. Producing the same amount of power from wind would require covering an area the size of West Virginia with 183,000 50-story turbines as well as building 19,000 miles of new transmission lines through scenic areas and suburban backyards. Nuclear fuel is available in the U.S. and is virtually unlimited. We do not have to drill for it. We do not have to mine it nearly as much as we do for coal. And thanks to technology, we can safely recycle ``nuclear waste'' and turn most of it into more fuel. After recycling, the French are able to store all of their final waste from producing 80 percent of their electricity for 30 years in one room in La Hague. A more recently realized benefit of nuclear power is its ability to combat climate change. Nuclear power emits zero greenhouse gases. Today it produces 20 percent of our Nation's electricity but 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity. Wind and solar provide less than 2 percent of our electricity and 6 percent of our carbon-free electricity today. The United States uses 25 percent of all the energy in the world. At a time when we need to produce large amounts of clean power at home at a cost that will not chase jobs overseas looking for cheap energy, Americans can't afford to ignore nuclear power. I yield the floor, and 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

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I was 12 years old when Senator Robert Byrd was elected to the House of Representatives. I was a senior in Maryville, TN, when he was elected to the Senate. When I came here as a Senate aide 42 years ago, he had just been elected to his second term and was working his way up the party leadership. He was an imposing man. He had a wonderful photographic memory. But, after one got to know him especially, he was a kind man. All of us can be replaced, but it is fair to say the Senate will never be the same place without Robert C. Byrd. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Remarks by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd at the Orientation of New Senators, December 3, 1996 Good afternoon and welcome to the United States Senate Chamber. You are presently occupying what I consider to be `hallowed ground.' You will shortly join the ranks of a very select group of individuals who have been honored with the title of United States Senator since 1789 when the Senate first convened. The creator willing, you will be here for at least six years. Make no mistake about it, the office of United States Senator is the highest political calling in the land. The Senate can remove from office Presidents, members of the Federal judiciary, and other Federal officials but only the Senate itself can expel a Senator. Let us listen for a moment to the words of James Madison on the role of the Senate. `These [reasons for establishing the Senate] were first to protect the people against their rulers: secondly to protect the people against the transient impression into which they themselves might be led. [through their representatives in the lower house] A people deliberating in a temperate moment, and with the experience of other nations before them, on the plan of government most likely to secure their happiness, would first be aware, that those charged with the public happiness, might betray their trust. An obvious precaution against this danger would be to divide the trust between different bodies of men, who might watch and check each other. . . . It would next occur to such a people, that they themselves were liable to temporary errors, through want of information as to their true interest, and that men chosen for a short term, [House members], . . . might err from the same cause. This reflection would naturally suggest that the Government be so constituted, as that one of its branches might have an opportunity of acquiring a competent knowledge of the public interests. Another reflection equally becoming a people on such an occasion, would be that they themselves, as well as a numerous body of Representatives, were liable to err also, from fickleness and passion. A necessary fence against this danger would be to select a portion of enlightened citizens, whose limited number, and firmness might seasonably interpose against impetuous councils. [emphasis added] Ladies and gentlemen, you are shortly to become part of that all important, `necessary fence,' which is the United States Senate. Let me give you the words of Vice President Aaron Burr upon his departure from the Senate in 1805. `This house,' said he, `is a sanctuary; a citadel of law, of order, and of liberty; and it is here--it is here, in this exalted refuge; here, if anywhere, will resistance be made to the storms of political phrensy and the silent arts of corruption; and if the Constitution be destined ever to perish by the sacrilegious hand of the demagogue or the usurper, which God avert, its expiring agonies will be witnessed on this floor.' Gladstone referred to the Senate as `that remarkable body--the most remarkable of all the inventions of modern politics.' This is a very large class of new Senators. There are fifteen of you. It has been sixteen years since the Senate welcomed a larger group of new members. Since 1980, the average size class of new members has been approximately ten. Your backgrounds vary. Some of you may have served in the Executive Branch. Some may have been staffers here on the Hill. Some of you have never held federal office before. Over half of you have had some service in the House of Representatives. Let us clearly understand one thing. The Constitution's Framers never intended for the Senate to function like the House of Representatives. That fact is immediately apparent when one considers the length of a Senate term and the staggered nature of Senate terms. The Senate was intended to be a continuing body. By subjecting only one-third of the Senate's membership to reelection every two years, the Constitution's framers ensured that two-thirds of the membership would always carry over from one Congress to the next to give the Senate an enduring stability. The Senate and, therefore, Senators were intended to take the long view and to be able to resist, if need be, the passions of the often intemperate House. Few, if any, upper chambers in the history of the western world have possessed the Senate's absolute right to unlimited debate and to amend or block legislation passed by a lower House. Looking back over a period of 208 years, it becomes obvious that the Senate was intended to be significantly different from the House in other ways as well. The Constitutional Framers gave the Senate the unique executive powers of providing advice and consent to presidential nominations and to treaties, and the sole power to try and to remove impeached officers of the government. In the case of treaties, the Senate, with its longer terms, and its ability to develop expertise through the device of being a continuing body, has often performed invaluable service. I have said that as long as the Senate retains the power to amend and the power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will remain secure. The Senate was intended to be a forum for open and free debate and for the protection of political minorities. I have led the majority and I have led the minority, and I can tell you that there is nothing that makes one fully appreciate the Senate's special role as the protector of minority interests like being in the minority. Since the Republican Party was created in 1854, the Senate has changed hands 14 times, so each party has had the opportunity to appreciate firsthand the Senate's role as guardian of minority rights. But, almost from its earliest years the Senate has insisted upon its members' right to virtually unlimited debate. When the Senate reluctantly adopted a cloture rule in 1917, it made the closing of debate very difficult to achieve by requiring a super majority and by permitting extended post- cloture debate. This deference to minority views sharply distinguishes the Senate from the majoritarian House of Representatives. The Framers recognized that a minority can be right and that a majority can be wrong. They recognized that the Senate should be a true deliberative body--a forum in which to slow the passions of the House, hold them up to the light, examine them, and, thru informed debate, educate the public. The Senate is the proverbial saucer intended to cool the cup of coffee from the House. It is the one place in the whole government where the minority is guaranteed a public airing of its views. Woodrow Wilson observed that the Senate's informing function was as important as its legislating function, and now, with televised Senate debate, its informing function plays an even larger and more critical role in the life of our nation. Many a mind has been changed by an impassioned plea from the minority side. Important flaws in otherwise good legislation have been detected by discerning minority members engaged in thorough debate, and important compromise which has worked to the great benefit of our nation has been forged by an intransigent member determined to filibuster until his views were accommodated or at least seriously considered. The Senate is often soundly castigated for its inefficiency, but in fact, it was never intended to be efficient. Its purpose was and is to examine, consider, protect, and to be a totally independent source of wisdom and judgment on the actions of the lower house and on the executive. As such, the Senate is the central pillar of our Constitutional system. I hope that you, as new members will study the Senate in its institutional context because that is the best way to understand your personal role as a United States Senator. Your responsibilities are heavy. Understand them, live up to them, and strive to take the long view as you exercise your duties. This will not always be easy. The pressures on you will, at times, be enormous. You will have to formulate policies, grapple with issues, serve the constituents in your state, and cope with the media. A Senator's attention today is fractured beyond belief. Committee meetings, breaking news, fundraising, all of these will demand your attention, not to mention personal and family responsibilities. But, somehow, amidst all the noise and confusion, you must find the time to reflect, to study, to read, and, especially, to understand the absolutely critically important institutional role of the Senate. May I suggest that you start by carefully reading the Constitution and the Federalist papers. In a few weeks, you will stand on the platform behind me and take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and to well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter: So help you God.' Note especially the first 22 words, `I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic . . .' In order to live up to that solemn oath, one must clearly understand the deliberately established inherent tensions between the 3 branches, commonly called the checks and balances, and separation of powers which the framers so carefully crafted. I carry a copy of the Constitution in my shirt pocket. I have studied it carefully, read and reread its articles, marveled at its genius, its beauty, its symmetry, and its meticulous balance, and learned something new each time that I partook of its timeless wisdom. Nothing will help you to fully grasp the Senate's critical role in the balance of powers like a thorough reading of the Constitution and the Federalist papers. Now I would like to turn for a moment to the human side of the Senate, the relationship among Senators, and the way that even that faced of service here is, to a degree, governed by the constitution and the Senate's rules. The requirement for super majority votes in approving treaties, involving cloture, removing impeached federal officers, and overriding vetoes, plus the need for unanimous consent before the Senate can even proceed in many instances, makes bipartisanship and comity necessary if members wish to accomplish much of anything. Realize this. The campaign is over. You are here to be a Senator. Not much happens in this body without cooperation between the two parties. In this now 208-year-old institution, the positions of majority and minority leaders have existed for less than 80 years. Although the positions have evolved significantly within the past half century, still, the only really substantive prerogative the leaders possess is the right of first recognition before any other member of their respective parties who might wish to speak on the Senate Floor. Those of you who have served in the House will now have to forget about such things as the Committee of the Whole, closed rules, and germaneness, except when cloture has been invoked, and become well acquainted with the workings of unanimous consent agreements. Those of you who took the trouble to learn Deschler's Procedure will now need to set that aside and turn in earnest to Riddick's Senate Procedure. Senators can lose the Floor for transgressing the rules. Personal attacks on other members or other blatantly injudicious comments are unacceptable in the Senate. Again to encourage a cooling of passions, and to promote a calm examination of substance, Senators address each other through the Presiding Officer and in the third person. Civility is essential here for pragmatic reasons as well as for public consumption. It is difficult to project the image of a statesmanlike, intelligent, public servant, attempting to inform the public and examine issues, if one is behaving and speaking in a manner more appropriate to a pool room brawl than to United States Senate debate. You will also find that overly zealous attacks on other members or on their states are always extremely counterproductive, and that you will usually be repaid in kind. Let us strive for dignity. When you rise to speak on this Senate Floor, you will be following in the tradition of such men as Calhoun, Clay, and Webster. You will be standing in the place of such Senators as Edmund Ross (KS) and Peter Van Winkle (WEST VIRGINIA), 1868, who voted against their party to save the institution of the presidency during the Andrew Johnson impeachment trial. Debate on the Senate Floor demands thought, careful preparation and some familiarity with Senate Rules if we are to engage in thoughtful and informed debate. Additionally, informed debate helps the American people have a better understanding of the complicated problems which besiege them in their own lives. Simply put, the Senate cannot inform American citizens without extensive debate on those very issues. We were not elected to raise money for our own reelections. We were not elected to see how many press releases or TV appearances we could stack up. We were not elected to set up staff empires by serving on every committee in sight. We need to concentrate, focus, debate, inform, and, I hope, engage the public, and thereby forge consensus and direction. Once we engage each other and the public intellectually, the tough choices will be easier. I thank each of you for your time and attention and I congratulate each of you on your selection to fill a seat in this August body. Service in this body is a supreme honor. It is also a burden and a serious responsibility. Members' lives become open for inspection and are used as examples for other citizens to emulate. A Senator must really be much more than hardworking, much more than conscientious, much more than dutiful. A Senator must reach for noble qualities--honor, total dedication, self-discipline, extreme selflessness, exemplary patriotism, sober judgment, and intellectual honesty. The Senate is more important than any one or all of us--more important than I am; more important than the majority and minority leaders; more important than all 100 of us; more important than all of the 1,843 men and women who have served in this body since 1789. Each of us has a solemn responsibility to remember that, and to remember it often. Let me leave you with the words of the last paragraph of Volume II, of The Senate: 1789-1989: `Originally consisting of only twenty-two members, the Senate had grown to a membership of ninety-eight by the time I was sworn in as a new senator in January 1959. After two hundred years, it is still the anchor of the Republic, the morning and evening star in the American constitutional constellation. It has had its giants and its little men, its Websters and its Bilbos, its Calhouns and its McCarthys. It has been the stage of high drama, of comedy and of tragedy, and its players have been the great and the near-great, those who think they are great, and those who will never be great. It has weathered the storms of adversity withstood the barbs of cynics and the attacks of critics, and provided stability and strength to the nation during periods of civil strife and uncertainty, panics and depressions. In war and in peace, it has been the sure refuge and protector of the rights of the states and of a political minority. And, today, the Senate still stands-- the great forum of constitutional American liberty!' Exhibit 2 Statement of Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), Senate Rules and Administration Committee, May 19, 2010 The Filibuster And Its Consequences On September 30, 1788, Pennsylvania became the first state to elect its United States senators, one of whom was William Maclay. In his 1789 journal Senator Maclay wrote, ``I gave my opinion in plain language that the confidence of the people was departing from us, owing to our unreasonable delays. The design of the Virginians and of the South Carolina gentlemen was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed.'' Our Founding Fathers intended the Senate to be a continuing body that allows for open and unlimited debate and the protection of minority rights. Senators have understood this since the Senate first convened. In his notes of the Constitutional Convention on June 26, 1787, James Madison recorded that the ends to be served by the Senate were ``first, to protect the people against their rulers, secondly, to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led . . . They themselves, as well as a numerous body of Representatives, were liable to err also, from fickleness and passion. A necessary fence against this danger would be to select a portion of enlightened citizens, whose limited number, and firmness might seasonably interpose against impetuous councils.'' That ``fence'' was the United States Senate. The right to filibuster anchors this necessary fence. But it is not a right intended to be abused. During this 111th Congress in particular the minority has threatened to filibuster almost every matter proposed for Senate consideration. I find this tactic contrary to each Senator's duty to act in good faith. I share the profound frustration of my constituents and colleagues as we confront this situation. The challenges before our nation are far too grave, and too numerous, for the Senate to be rendered impotent to address them, and yet be derided for inaction by those causing the delay. There are many suggestions as to what we should do. I know what we must not do. We must never, ever, tear down the only wall--the necessary fence--this nation has against the excesses of the Executive Branch and the resultant haste and tyranny of the majority. The path to solving our problem lies in our thoroughly understanding it. Does the difficulty reside in the construct of our rules or in the ease of circumventing them? A true filibuster is a fight, not a threatt or a bluff. For most of the Senate's history, Senators motivated to extend debate had to hold the floor as long as they were physically able. The Senate was either persuaded by the strength of their arguments or unconvinced by either their commitment or their stamina. True filibusters were therefore less frequent, and more commonly discouraged, due to every Senator's understanding that such undertakings required grueling personal sacrifice, exhausting preparation, and a willingness to be criticized for disrupting the nation's business. Now, unbelievably, just the whisper of opposition brings the ``world's greatest deliberative body'' to a grinding halt. Why? Because this once highly respected institution has become overwhelmingly consumed by a fixation with money and media. Gone are the days when Senators Richard Russell and Lyndon Johnson, and Speaker Sam Rayburn gathered routinely for working weekends and couldn't wait to get back to their chambers on Monday morning. Now every Senator spends hours every day, throughout the year and every year, raising funds for re-election and appearing before cameras and microphones. Now the Senate often works three-day weeks, with frequent and extended recess periods, so Senators can rush home to fundraisers scheduled months in advance. Forceful confrontation to a threat to filibuster is undoubtedly the antidote to the malady. Most recently, Senate Majority Leader Reid announced that the Senate would stay in session around-the-clock and take all procedural steps necessary to bring financial reform legislation before the Senate. As preparations were made and cots rolled out, a deal was struck within hours and the threat of filibuster was withdrawn. I heartily commend the Majority Leader for this progress, and I strongly caution my colleagues as some propose to alter the rules to severely limit the ability of a minority to conduct a filibuster. I know what it is to be Majority Leader, and wake up on a Wednesday morning in November, and find yourself a Minority Leader. I also know that current Senate Rules provide the means to break a filibuster. I employed them in 1977 to end the post- cloture filibuster of natural gas deregulation legislation. This was the roughest filibuster I have experienced during my fifty-plus years in the Senate, and it produced the most- bitter feelings. Yet some important new precedents were established in dealing with post-cloture obstruction. In 1987, I successfully used Rules 7 and 8 to make a non- debatable motion to proceed during the morning hour. No leader has attempted this technique since, but this procedure could be and should be used. Over the years, I have proposed a variety of improvements to Senate Rules to achieve a more sensible balance allowing the majority to function while still protecting minority rights. For example, I have supported eliminating debate on the motion to proceed to a matter (except for changes to Senate rules), or limiting debate to a reasonable time on such motions, with Senators retaining the right to unlimited debate on the matter once before the Senate. I have authored several other proposals in the past, and I look forward to our committee work ahead as we carefully examine other suggested changes. The Committee must, however, jealously guard against efforts to change or reinterpret the Senate rules by a simple majority, circumventing Rule XXII where a two-thirds majority is required. As I have said before, the Senate has been the last fortress of minority rights and freedom of speech in this Republic for more than two centuries. I pray that Senators will pause and reflect before ignoring that history and tradition in favor of the political priority of the moment.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Senator Byrd served long enough to know that, as he put it: As long as the Senate retains the power to amend and the power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will remain secure. He believed that when he was lecturing Republicans in 2005 who were trying to change the rules when there was a controversy about President Bush's appointees to the Federal judiciary, and he said the same thing to young Democrats who grew impatient this year and wanted to change the rules to limit unlimited amendment and unlimited debate. Perhaps his last Senate appearance was before the Rules Committee on May 19, 2010, where his opening statement on the filibuster and its consequences warned against a rules change. I ask unanimous consent to have that statement printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in 1981, after a surprising election, the Republican leader, Howard Baker, became the majority leader of the Senate, and the Democratic leader, Robert C. Byrd, became the minority leader. According to Senator Baker, he walked to Senator Byrd's office and said to him: Bob, I will never know the Senate rules as well as you do, so I will make you an offer. I will not surprise you if you will never surprise me. Senator Byrd looked at Senator Baker and said: Let me think about it. The next morning, Senator Byrd called Senator Baker and said: It is a deal. And that is the way they operated the Senate in those 4 years when Senator Baker was the majority leader and Senator Byrd was the minority leader. They operated the Senate during that time under an agreement where Senator Byrd was careful to try to give every Senator the right of amendment. He thought that was very important. In return, Senator Byrd was able to get unanimous consent agreements on amendments that many Senators thought were frivolous or unnecessary or not germane, which permitted him and Senator Baker to have a fairly orderly management of the Senate during that time. Senator McConnell a few minutes ago talked about the time Senator Byrd reexamined the Constitution and changed his mind on the first amendment and flag burning. Senator Byrd and Senator Baker during that time both read David McCullough's book and changed their minds on the Panama Canal Treaty, at great political cost to both of them. I bring this up today because I never saw Senator Byrd, after I was elected to the Senate a few years ago, when he did not ask me about his friend and colleague Howard Baker. We will miss Senator Byrd's fiddling and his love of mountain music. He campaigned in Tennessee a long time ago for Albert Gore, Sr. who was running for the Senate and who also played the fiddle. Senator Byrd played the fiddle at the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville and came back to Nashville in October of 2008 and sang along with a group of fiddlers who were playing songs at his request. I went over there with him. He knew all the songs and all the fiddlers knew him. A few days later I came to him on the Senate floor and talked to him about an old mountain song called ``Wreck on the Highway'' that Roy Acuff made famous in the 1930s or 1940s, and Senator Byrd began to sing the song--he knew all the words--so loudly that the staff was afraid the galleries would all notice it. We will miss his love of United States history, not just any United States history, but in his words ``traditional American history.'' He was the sponsor of the Teaching Traditional American History Program, which is part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. He has provided nearly $600 million to 1,000 local school districts to improve the professional development of American history teachers. He and the late Senator Kennedy and I were working on a piece of legislation which we have introduced to consolidate all the Federal programs that support the teaching of U.S. history, hoping that our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American. Senator Byrd is also responsible for the celebration of September 17 as Constitution Day and Citizenship Day. Senator Byrd had no time for revisionists who didn't believe America was exceptional. He believed this is one country, unified by a common language and a few principles. He did not want our country to become a United Nations, but always to be the United States of America. He wanted us to be proud of where we came from, but prouder to be American. We will especially miss Senator Byrd's love of and understanding of the Senate. One of the most special occasions I ever experienced was the opportunity as a freshman Senator in 2003 to attend an indoctrination, one might say--or orientation would be the proper description--on what it means to be a Senator. Senator Byrd began by saying: ``You are presently occupying what I consider to be hallowed ground.'' I wish to ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my remarks the remarks of Senator Byrd at the orientation of new Senators on December 3, 1996.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Pennsylvania and I would ask through the Chair--I plan to speak for about 5 minutes. Does that leave him time to make remarks?

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would like to leave by 3, but I will be glad to defer to the Senator from Connecticut if he would like to go ahead.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, countries such as Denmark and Germany have done the same thing. Denmark, which is often cited for its wind power, has pushed its windmills up to 20 percent of its electrical capacity. That sounds good. Many people regard 20 percent as about the theoretical limit that wind power can supply to a total electric grid, even for a small country such as Denmark. Yet Denmark hasn't closed even one single coal plant as a result of all these new windmills. So it is still dependent on fossil fuels, and it has the most expensive electricity in Europe because of all of its renewable electricity. Meanwhile, France, which has gone to 80 percent nuclear power, has per capita carbon emissions 30 percent lower than those of Denmark, and it has so much cheap electricity that France is making $3 billion a year exporting its electricity--mostly from nuclear power--to other countries. So what are we getting into when we say we are going to solve our energy problems by passing a law telling ourselves we have to get 15, 17, or 20 percent of our electricity from renewable sources, very narrowly defined, by 2020? First, it is important to point out that 80 percent of the facilities built to satisfy State renewable standards have been windmills. So a renewable electricity standard is really a national windmill policy instead of a national energy policy. Wind turbines are easy to put up, especially in remote areas. We have built 35,000 megawatts in total wind energy capacity, which represents an increase of more than 100 percent in the past 3 years. But most wind turbines only generate electricity about 33 percent of the time. That is how often the wind blows. The best wind farms--the ones on the eastern and west coast mountaintops or on the windy plains of the Dakotas--operate a little more than 40 percent of the time. That means our 35,000 megawatts in windmill capacity only generates about 10,000 megawatts at best--the equivalent of ten standard nuclear reactors. Moreover, the wind doesn't always blow when it is needed and often blows when it is not needed. The strongest winds are at night or during the fall and spring, which are periods of low demand, while the periods with the least wind are hot summer afternoons, when the electricity demand peaks. Wind and other renewables are not dependable in the terms that utilities need dependable electricity. The Tennessee Valley Authority, in the region where I live, says it can only count on the wind power it produces in Tennessee and even the wind power it buys from the Dakotas about 10 to 15 percent of the time when it is actually needed. That is also what has happened in Denmark. They have to give away almost half of their wind-generated electricity to Germany and Sweden at bargain prices because it comes at a time when it is not needed. The result has been that the Danes pay the highest electrical prices in Europe and still haven't achieved much reduction in carbon emissions. Then there is the matter of subsidies. We hear a lot about oil subsidies in the Senate. I suggest that when we talk about big oil, we also talk about big wind. The U.S. taxpayers are already committed to spending $29 billion over the next 10 years to subsidize the investors, corporations, and the banks that have financed the big wind turbines, and they only produce 1.8 percent of our electricity. If we went to 20 percent of our electricity from wind in the United States, that would be $170 billion from American taxpayers. Windmills are and can be said to be a big success compared to solar electricity at today's prices. California now has more solar electricity than any other State, and in March, the California Public Utilities Commission announced the opening of one of the largest photovoltaic stations in California--21 megawatts. Solar power makes more sense as a supplement to our power by offsetting some of our demand by placing solar panels on rooftops, not large-scale electricity plants. We all hope we can reduce the cost of solar power, which today costs four times as much as electricity produced from coal. These are technologies we are counting on to solve our energy problems. I think we have to exercise some caution here. The assumption is that all we have to do is subsidize these technologies and get them up and running, and they will find their place in the market. That doesn't seem to be true. All of these technologies still have much to prove before they can shoulder a significant portion of our electricity. Biomass facilities need to be placed where they are most efficient and can be used as a supplement to low-cost reliable sources of electricity that already provide the large amounts of clean and reliable energy we need. We already have a proven technology in nuclear power that provides us with 20 percent of our electricity and 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity. We should focus on that. As the President and our colleagues consider our clean energy future tomorrow and the things we agree on, we can agree to electrify half our cars and trucks, and we can agree to build nuclear plants for carbon- free electricity. We can certainly agree on doubling energy research and development to bring down the cost of solar power by a factor of 4 and to create a 500-mile battery for electric cars. But we need to remember, as we think about the next 10, 20, or 30 years, the United States is not a desert island. We use 25 percent of all the energy in the world to produce about 25 percent of all the money, which we distribute among ourselves, 5 percent of the people in the world. We ought to keep that high standard of living. We need to remember we are not a desert island. Someday, solar, wind, and the Earth may be an important supplement to our energy needs, but for today, we are not going to power the United States on electricity produced by a windmill, a controlled bonfire, and a few solar panels. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER. The above-referenced article is entitled ``Net Benefits of Biomass Power Under Scrutiny.'' It is about how the people of Massachusetts are starting to debate the idea that they are accomplishing anything by displacing coal with biomass to produce clean electricity. I am talking here about producing electricity, not biofuels which we use in our cars. Biomass is essentially burning wood and other organic products in a sort of controlled bonfire to produce electricity. The argument for biomass goes like this: Wood is natural. Trees regrow. Burn them up today and more trees will grow tomorrow. Therefore, we won't run out of resources. Moreover, trees are carbon neutral. Burning wood may release carbon dioxide, but trees reabsorb carbon so we can benefit from this natural cycle by generating electricity. Therefore, we are not making climate problems any worse with biomass. Indeed, biomass produces about 50 percent of our Nation's renewable electricity today, according to the New York Times, and by most of the definitions of renewable electricity that we use in proposals in the Senate. But we can't rely upon biomass to replace significant amounts of the fossil-based electricity we get today from coal. Biomass electricity has its place, and can be used to burn forest and other wood waste. In Tennessee we have a lot of pine trees. They need to be removed from the forest, and this is a good way to do that and make a little electricity. However, we cannot and we should not start cutting down and burning our forests to produce electricity. The loss of forest land is still one of the major ecological catastrophes in Africa, Asia, and South America. So are we, the most advanced country in the world, going to talk about going back to burning up our forests for energy? Many environmental advocates are now arguing that biomass should not even be considered to be ``renewable'' or ``carbon neutral'' because of the fact that burning wood releases greenhouse gases. While that is true, so does the natural process of decay, but the carbon is reabsorbed by the growth of new trees. Biomass can be, and should be, an important--albeit a small part--of our electricity portfolio by using excess forest material and industrial wood waste. Unfortunately, the New York Times piece misses out on one of the most important concerns about biomass. Just like other renewable electricity sources, it cannot be the solution for our clean energy needs because of the problem of scale. We would have to continually forest an area 1\1/2\ times the size of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park to replace the electricity created by two standard coal plants or one standard nuclear reactor. Wood has only half the energy density of coal. That means, if nothing else, we have to do twice as much work in hauling it around. There is a utility in Georgia that is using wood to replace coal in a 100-megawatt powerplant. This utility has trucks running in there day and night hauling wood to keep the plant running, and that is only 100 megawatts--about one-tenth the size of one nuclear reactor. For the southeastern United States to meet a 12-percent renewable electricity standard, as called for in the Waxman-Markey energy climate bill, by using biomass alone, we would have to cut down more trees than the entire U.S. paper industry uses each year. I think it is worth taking note of all this as we move toward the idea that renewable resources are the answer to our energy problems. Tomorrow, there will be a group of my colleagues going to the White House to discuss with the President the issue of how to proceed on clean energy. My fear is that we may all be asked to put our differences aside and settle this issue by pushing through a ``renewable electricity standard'' that says all we have to do is choose a number--17 percent by 2020 or 25 percent by 2030--and before you know it, we will have all the energy we need from wind, the Sun, and from the Earth running our highly advanced technological country. In fact, more than half of the States already have adopted some version of these renewable electricity standards, but they haven't accomplished much. New Jersey wants to close down a nuclear reactor and replace it with an offshore wind farm. It will have to build 50-story wind turbines along its entire 125-mile coast, and it will still need to have the nuclear plant or a natural gas plant or coal plant or some other plant to provide electricity when the wind doesn't blow, which is most of the time. To meet its requirement of 33 percent renewable electricity by 2020, California has put up wind farms, developed its abundant geothermal resources, and siphoned methane from almost every landfill in the State, and it still only gets 12 percent of its electricity from renewables. Last year, a Wall Street Journal article cited the California State Energy Commission's warning that the renewable requirement could begin causing reliability problems--that means that when you turn your light switch on, the light might not go on--and increase electricity rates by 2011, which is next year. California State agencies were warning that simply increasing the renewable requirement from 20 percent to 33 percent could cost $114 billion. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Wall Street Journal article from July 3, 2009.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, last week the New York Times ran a story, and I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Would the Chair please let me know when 9 minutes have expired.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, how much time do I have?

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I have listened very carefully to my good friend from Michigan. It is puzzling to me to hear her say what she said because she voted against the amendment by Senator Thune last week which would have extended the expiring unemployment provisions until November and not added a penny to the debt. I want to say more about that in a minute. What we are arguing about, what the debate is about is we want to extend unemployment insurance. We want to make sure the State and local tax deductions continue. We want to make sure tuition deduction and the various disaster relief credits and the research and development tax credits all stay in place. But we want to make sure it is done without adding to a Federal debt that we believe is out of control. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3347 Mr. President, before I speak about that issue, I wish to make a request which I hope is a request to which my colleagues could all agree. It is a bipartisan request on behalf of myself, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, and Senator Vitter of Louisiana to extend the Flood Insurance Program in Tennessee. The largest natural disaster since President Obama took office is the flood of 2010 in Tennessee and a very severe flood in Rhode Island too. On June 1, the Flood Insurance Program expired. This request I am about to make would permit that to be reinstated so small businesspeople could get flood insurance and get their loans. I will speak more about it in just a minute. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 372, S. 3347, a bill that extends the National Flood Insurance Program through December 31, 2010; that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed. What I have done is ask to extend the Flood Insurance Program so that Tennesseans who are recovering from the worst natural disaster since President Obama took office could qualify for flood insurance so they could get their loans so they could operate their businesses again. This does not add a penny to the debt. The money is there; the authority to do it is not. If you are in Rhode Island, if you are in Tennessee, if you are in New Orleans, if you are in any other place where you are waiting for flood insurance, you should know that Republicans just asked to extend the Flood Insurance Program so you could buy insurance, and Democrats just objected. That is a very simple request. It does not add a penny to the debt. It is deeply disturbing to me this cannot be done in a simple way. Tennesseans have not been looting and complaining despite the fact the flood of 2010, as I said, was the largest natural disaster since President Obama took office. Nashville alone had $2 billion of damage, maybe more than that. There were 45 counties the President eventually declared disaster areas. He declared other counties as disaster areas because of agricultural crops that were washed out. Thousands of homes in Nashville alone--people lost everything in their basements. That means their heating and cooling and all of that equipment. But in many places, in Bellevue, in Nashville, in Millington outside of Memphis, in Clarksville, TN, they lost much more than that. Twenty-nine people lost their lives in this flood--29 people. This was a huge natural disaster. The President did not ask for extra funds for Tennessee. No one is complaining about that either. FEMA has done a good job with what it has done, but what good does it do for FEMA to be on the site and available, for small business loans to be available, and for flood insurance money to be available, and for Congress to object to a unanimous consent request to allow new policies to be written? I am deeply disappointed. Let me address a couple of other things I heard said on the floor of the Senate tonight. I heard some talk about jobs. From our point of view, the American people are concerned about jobs, debt, and terror. That is why the ferment in the country. That is why the people think the country is headed in the wrong direction. Jobs, debt, and terror. We have 10- percent unemployment. If we continue to grow at the rate we grew in the first quarter, we will be at 10-percent unemployment in the last quarter of this year. Jobs, debt, and terror. Why do we have fewer jobs? Why do we have 10-percent unemployment? The distinguished Senator from Michigan talks about Republican actions, but I am thinking about what the Democrats have been doing the last year and a half. Every step they seem to take talks about jobs but causes us to have fewer jobs. For example, take the health care law which was passed in this Chamber by a purely partisan vote. The health care law taxes job creators and investors. That means fewer jobs. The financial regulation bill that is being debated today, passing in a partisan way, puts higher tax rates on small business owners. Higher tax rates on small business owners means fewer jobs. The debt is going up. That is the real argument we are having. We reached $13 trillion. There are various ways to describe what has happened, but one way to describe it is this: All the Presidents from George Washington to George W. Bush ran up a debt of about $5.8 trillion. President Obama, in his two terms--if he has two terms--is going to double that debt all by himself. That is what his budgets say. Doubling the debt in 5 years and nearly tripling the debt in 10 years means less credit, higher interest rates, less capital, and fewer jobs. The financial regulation bill I just discussed--one can watch it being dealt with during the day on television. If one listens carefully to what is being said, it amounts to a Washington takeover of Main Street credit; another big Washington agency telling banks and credit unions, automobile retailers, and dentists what to do about credit. What is the inevitable result? They are going to shrink away from providing that credit. It is going to be harder to get a loan, harder to get credit, so this financial regulation bill, which was supposed to be tough on Wall Street, is going to be hard on Main Street because it means fewer jobs. When it comes to jobs, the difference between our friends on the other side and the Republicans on this side is that we are focused on creating an environment for growing private sector jobs. They are focused on creating more government jobs. About the only place the job creation plans and stimulus plans they have enacted are working are in Washington, DC, where incomes are up and jobs are up. But not in the small towns of Tennessee and not in the small towns across this country, people are out of work. They are out of work because of higher taxes, higher debt, higher spending, too many Washington takeovers, too much focus on more government jobs, and not enough focus on an environment in which to create more private sector jobs. I mentioned a little earlier there was talk earlier about the unemployment provisions we want to be extended. Senator Thune will be here in a few minutes to talk about his amendment he offered last week on June 17. Let's be very clear. The Thune amendment, which every Republican voted for and attracted a Democratic vote but Democrats voted it down, would have extended the expiring employment provisions until November. It would have extended for 1 year dozens of tax provisions. It would have extended the State and local tax deduction, the tuition deduction, the various disaster relief credits, the flood insurance provision that was just objected to. It would increase the payment the government makes to doctors for treating Medicare patients. The American Medical Association said a little earlier this week that 30 percent of doctors, family physicians, will not see new Medicare patients. This would have taken care of that. I see the Senator from South Dakota on the Senate floor, and I am sure he will speak more to that when he has the opportunity. In my concluding remarks, let me say one word about debt and spending. Our policies, the policies of this Congress and this government, are shortchanging our children. The Democrats' runaway spending and debt is a serious crisis ruining the future of our children. That is why we do not want to pass even an unemployment compensation bill that adds to the debt. We want to pass it, but we want to make sure it does not add to the debt. Why do I say it piles up a debt on our children? In January of 2009-- if you divide the national debt across each child under 18, in January of 2009 each child's debt was $85,000. By June of 2010, it was $114,000. By January of 2017, it will be $196,000. Because of budgets-- and these are the budgets proposed by a Democratic President--during the next 7 years, each child's share of the national debt will more than double, going from $85,000 to $196,000. Here is another way to think about it. All the Presidents combined from George Washington to George W. Bush took 232 years to build up a $5.8 trillion debt. President Obama's budgets will double that debt in 5 years and triple it in 10. What that means is all 43 Presidents combined, from George Washington to George Bush, ran up a $5.8 trillion debt in 232 years. In 8 years, President Obama will add twice that much to the national debt, tripling the debt. We on this side of the aisle and a growing number of Democrats, I am sure, and I know across this country a growing number of Americans are saying this national debt is a serious crisis. So we are grateful to the Senator from South Dakota and to others who recognize the real needs of this country, whether it is unemployment compensation, whether it is flood insurance, or whether it is important for doctors to be properly paid, reimbursed for dealing with Medicare payments. We can afford that in this country, but we need to pay for it. We need to do it without adding to the debt. So I am deeply disappointed that Democratic Senators have objected tonight to providing flood insurance to Nashvillians and other Tennesseans who need it. The money is here; the authority is not. It could have been given tonight. We could have passed it. Tennesseans aren't looting or complaining; they are helping each other and cleaning up. This is an unfortunate slap in the face to Americans who are helping themselves get out of trouble, and I regret that it happened. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask for another 60 seconds to conclude my remarks. I thank the Chair. When we think about the funding, we need to remember the best things for us to do. They are to stop imposing health care mandates on States, which make it impossible for them to pay their bills; and to properly support public education, especially public higher education, which is going to take a terrible blow because of the passage of the health care bill. Thanks to the health care bill, tuition payments for students are going to rise. Second, we should recognize that the stimulus money passed last year was one-time funding. We created this financial cliff and now we have an unprecedented level of debt in the Federal Government. We do not have $23 billion lying around to send to the States. Whether we are sending $230,000 per teaching job, $76,000 per teaching job, or scaling it back and saying we are only going to send the national average, which is $46,000, the question still remains: From whose grandchildren will we borrow the money? We need to reduce the growth of the Federal debt. We should not be bailing out States with another $50 billion. I thank the Senator from Wyoming and I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair. I see none of my colleagues here.