Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Nashville and middle Tennessee have been hit with what the Corps of Engineers officials tell us is a thousand-year rain event--in a thousand years, we wouldn't expect to have this much rain--and it is providing enormous hardship to the people not just of Nashville and Davidson County but counties in and around Nashville. I wish to give a brief report on what we know about that, what Senator Corker and I and Congressman Cooper and the other Members of Congress from that region are doing, working together, so the people of our area can know what to expect. There is a telephone number to call, and I would like to give it. It is 615-862-8574. It is a telephone number for people in the Nashville- middle Tennessee area who are concerned about what to do, who have an emergency, and who want information about what help may be available to them--615-862-8574. The Cumberland River and the Harpeth River are the two rivers that are causing most of the problem, and we have been waiting all day for the Cumberland River, which runs through Nashville on up to Clarksville, to crest. That crest hasn't happened yet, and the latest predictions are, it might happen around 7 o'clock. It may be later. In the meantime, the Corps of Engineers, with whom we are working, is trying hard to minimize the damage from the lakes they are responsible for. There are three major lakes in the middle Tennessee region: Old Hickory, Percy Priest, and Center Hill. These lakes hold the water, of course. If the Corps of Engineers releases water from the overflow of these lakes, that puts more water into the Cumberland River and that floods Nashville more. This is the latest report on those three lakes. The Corps is currently not releasing water from Percy Priest Lake, and they have told us they will not release water from Percy Priest Lake until the river crests. This is important information for people in downtown Nashville. First Avenue, Second Avenue both have a lot of water. Some of the big buildings, the Pinnacle Building, has a lot of water. The fact that the Corps is not releasing water from Percy Priest Lake until the river crests is an important piece of information. The water level, on the other hand, at Old Hickory Lake is at historic levels, and the Corps is releasing water from Old Hickory Lake but only when absolutely necessary to maintain the stability of the Old Hickory Dam. Fortunately, the Corps is not having to release water from the third lake, the Center Hill Lake. It has some room to spare. This is an example of Congress and the Federal Government doing something right because, over the last several years, we have added funds to the appropriations bills--I have and others as well--in order to improve the safety of Center Hill Dam. Because up until the last couple years, the water level had to be lowered because the dam was weak. If the dam was as weak as it was 2 or 3 years ago, the Corps of Engineers would have had to be releasing a lot more water from Center Hill Lake into the Cumberland River, causing more flooding in Nashville. Over the weekend, we have been in touch with Governor Bredesen's office and Mayor Dean's office and they are doing a first-rate job. Part of my responsibility is to work with Governor Bredesen, and over the last several years, on disasters as they occur, such as the tornado in Macon County, near Nashville, the tornadoes in Jackson and Madison County. The Governor and the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency--I used to be in charge of that agency when I was Governor--have a first- rate operation there, and they have been working hard ever since the rains hit. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has a liaison stationed at the TEMA--the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency--office, and they are working well together. What those people are doing is using every available resource in support of State and local efforts to try to rescue people, to make life easier, to get the water plant running again, and to begin to assess what the damage is, which is where the Federal Government generally can help. As I mentioned, this is not just Nashville that is involved. Macon County, Williamson County, Montgomery County, Cheatham County--all the counties right around Nashville up to Clarksville are involved. My chief of staff from Washington has been onsite in Nashville since last night, my State field director has been onsite since last night as well, and they are busy dealing with the local officials. I am prepared to go whenever it would be helpful, but there is no need for me to go and get in the way if there is nothing for me to do. Right now, the best thing for me to do, along with Senator Corker and Congressman Cooper, is to stay in touch with the Governor's office and the Mayor's office and be ready to help with a disaster request when it is made. When the Governor makes a disaster request, the procedure is, we then go to work to help persuade the President--and I am sure he will act as promptly as he can--to approve that disaster. There are two or three kinds of help that may be forthcoming. One would be public assistance for debris removal, to repair public buildings that are damaged, water or sewer facilities or infrastructure. For example, one of the major water treatment plants is down, and the mayor has asked Nashvillians to conserve water. That may be an area where Federal support will be available to help. Then there is the matter of private assistance. Temporary housing may be available. There may be loans available to businesses that are hurt and other forms of assistance to individuals and households. This is a major event in our city. The Opryland Hotel--one of the biggest hotels anywhere in America--has had to empty itself, and it has 1,500 residents who are staying in a high school. We are told it may be several months before the Opryland Hotel is able to function again. We hope not because its tax revenues provide 25 percent of all the hotel- motel tax revenues for the city, and that would come at a difficult time. So my purpose on the floor today is simply to express my concern to the residents of the city where we live--in Nashville, TN--and to all others who might be affected in the middle Tennessee area and to let them know I believe Governor Bredesen and the mayor are doing a first- rate job in responding to the immediate requests, that the Federal and State management agencies are hard at work, that there is a telephone number that individual Tennesseans who have questions can call--it is 615-862-8574--and that after getting themselves and their families in order, the best thing to do is to document your losses so when the Governor makes his request for emergency disaster assistance and the President approves it, those losses can be proven and that help can come more quickly. The Governor will move as swiftly as he can on this. Our experience is, it is better to be complete than quick because we want to make sure, when the request comes in, that it involves everybody, that it involves all the claims, that they are properly documented. That has been our experience before. So that is my report to the people of middle Tennessee. I want them to know I care about it, that I am on the phone about it, we have staff members on site, and I believe the Governor and the mayor and the Federal and State emergency agencies are doing all they can and we can hope for the best as the Cumberland River crests, we hope sooner rather than later. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Republican leader. Mr. President, ``We are from Washington and we are here to protect you'' is a promise or an offer that is creating a lot of suspicion around my State of Tennessee, and I suspect around the country. I am hearing from a lot of people who don't like the sound of that--shop owners, auto dealers, real estate agents, community bankers, retailers, doctors, dentists, traders on eBay--they're afraid the so-called consumer protection legislation we are hearing about will make it harder to borrow money. It will take more time to borrow money. It will be more expensive to borrow money. They will have to fill out more forms to borrow money. They will have fewer choices to borrow money. If the shop owner, the auto dealer, the real estate agent, the community banker, the doctor or the dentist, and the traders on eBay can't borrow money, then they can't invest, we can't create jobs, and we can't put an end to this recession. We wouldn't want to pass a piece of legislation, I would not think, that says ``We are from Washington and we are here to protect you,'' and the effect of it, to people up and down Main Street, is to make it harder to borrow money, take more time to borrow money, and make it more expensive to borrow money. Someone said yesterday, I believe the Senator from North Carolina--if the number of forms one has to fill out to buy a house is what it takes to stop a recession or to make sure we don't have one, then we should not be in this one. Anyone who has filled out a mortgage application lately knows one has to fill out a stack that high of consumer protection forms. So just adding another layer of consumer protection forms to buying a house or borrowing money or buying something on credit, what does that have to do with Wall Street? What does that have to do with this great recession? We need to make it possible for community banks to make a loan to a small business who can then hire a person, who can make an investment to help get the economy moving again. Most of us thought this Wall Street bill was about Wall Street, but it is turning out to be more about Main Street. The auto dealer and the community banker and the retailer and the dentist say: Main Street is us. It is about whether we can borrow money, get credit, expand the store, or create a job. ``We are from Washington and we are here to protect you'' sounds hollow to a lot of Americans, and it sounds like another Washington takeover to me. We have already made Washington the new American automotive capital. We have already made Washington the new American health care capital. We have already made Washington the new American student loan capital. Now we are going to move Main Street to Washington, DC, for every little credit transaction up and down Main Street? We need to be careful about that. I don't think Chicago and New York City want to move the great financial centers of this country to Washington. With some of the kind of restrictions we are talking about passing, we may move those financial centers and those jobs to Singapore, to Shanghai, to London, or to other places. But moving Main Street to Washington, what is this all about? Why is this even in the bill? If the bill is about reining in Wall Street, that is a good idea. But why are we going up and down Main Street reining in Main Street when Main Street is having a very hard time these days? The President is in Iowa today talking about Main Street. I hope he is explaining why we have a piece of consumer protection legislation that says ``We are from Washington and we are here to protect you,'' when most realtors, most auto dealers, most community banks, most dentists, most traders on eBay say: Wait a minute. We are not sure we need or want that kind of protection, if what it means is to make it harder to borrow money, take more time to borrow money, make it more expensive to borrow money, to fill out more forms to borrow money, or to have fewer choices to borrow money. If it means all that, we might not be able to create more jobs. Of course, what we are saying on the Republican side is, we want to exercise the prerogative the Democrats offered when they were in the minority, which is to provide some checks and balances to the proposals made here. The majority leader, rather than encouraging that, is already the world recordholder in offering ``no'' motions. A ``no'' motion says no to more amendments, no to more debate, no to more checks and balances. So we will vote on that again today. We want more debate. We want more amendments. We want more checks and balances. We want to exercise the prerogative we have to make sure the people up and down Main Street have a right to see what is in the bill, and so we are well informed about the bill before we pass it. We are writing the rules for the economy of the United States of America. We produce 25 percent of all the money in the world. What we do here affects not just Nashville and Maryville and Main Street American towns, but it affects the entire world economy. We need to be careful. I suppose our friends on the other side think: Well, maybe it is politically smart to offer all these ``no'' motions. We would like to be known as the party--they may be thinking--that wants to cut off, for a record number of times, the opportunity to debate, the opportunity to offer amendments, the opportunity to have checks and balances. I do not think it is so politically wise. I think it is politically tone deaf. The people in my State do not want to see another big bill run through Congress as fast as a freight train without checks and balances. We saw that with the health care bill. And do you know what we got? We got a health care law that over the weekend the Obama administration's Chief Actuary said does just what Republicans said it would do: it increases spending, increases premiums, and will have Medicare cuts. Republicans said all that. We argued strongly that it would be better--instead of expanding a health care delivery system that already is too expensive--to, instead, focus our attention on reducing the cost of health care so more Americans could buy insurance. That was our effort at checks and balances. I think we won the argument. But we lost the vote on the floor of the Senate by one vote. We would like to win the argument here on financial regulation as well, to say: let's rein in Wall Street, but why are we making it harder to borrow money on Main Street, for heaven's sake? We should be making it easier to create jobs and to make investments on Main Street. Why are we reining in Main Street and ignoring the two great housing agencies that were at the root cause of this great recession we are in? Main Street was not the cause of the recession. So we are reining in Main Street lending and we are ignoring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--the two great housing agencies. We have some questions that we want to make sure are answered properly. Does this legislation give big banks an advantage over community banks? Does it make big banks permanently too big to fail? The Republican leader said: Well, Goldman Sachs supports the bill. Well, they may. But yesterday, in my office, the dentists did not, the auto dealer did not, the community bankers did not, the people up and down Main Street did not. So what are we to take from that difference of opinion? So we are here today to say, let's work together. Let's take advantage of this great system of checks and balances that our Founders wrote into the Constitution that says in the Senate we come to consensus. Let's look carefully at this Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, which will have so much independence, which will have a partisan appointment, which can choose what financial products can and cannot be offered, and could regulate hundreds of thousands of nonbank businesses. Let's look at a consumer bureau that could place new burdens on Main Street businesses that had nothing to do with the economic crisis and have very little to do with the financial world. These mandates and time-consuming requirements and these new forms to fill out are not the way to help create new jobs and get the American economy moving again. What we are saying on the Republican side of the aisle is, we think we have a great opportunity. We think, as the President said in his campaign, we can come together, write rules that help to fix the problems that helped create the great recession. We cannot guarantee there will never be another recession, but we can avoid some of the abuses. This all started out in a good way with Senator Dodd, the chairman of the committee, appointing Republicans and then Democrats, dividing them into teams to work on bipartisan legislation, and suddenly, in the middle of the discussions, somebody said: Wait a minute, we won the election, we will write the bill and pass it. We have the votes. We do not need the Republicans. But should we not have learned with the health care law that it is not just a matter of passing a bill, it is gaining confidence in the bill? Do we not want the country to look up at Washington and say: ``I am relieved to see Republican and Democratic Senators are working together on these great issues, and 70 or 80 of them voted yes. We have written the rules for the future for the financial system of the United States, which is in some trouble, and it is not going to be changed whether we have a Republican Congress or a Democratic Congress after November. This is something you can rely on''? Then small businesspeople up and down Main Street, big businesspeople on Wall Street, the commodities market in Chicago--they can say: We see some certainty because of this stability in Washington, and we are ready to make investment decisions. We are ready to create new jobs. I believe this could be a tipping point in the economic recovery. So why would we play politics in the Senate on this? Why would the other side keep offering ``no'' motions that cut off our right to debate, our right to offer amendments, our constitutional prerogative to offer checks and balances on a runaway Washington government? We think most Americans want those checks and balances. And should we have them, and should we demonstrate a bipartisan bill here, we will not only get a good bill, we will not only help create good rules for the future, we can avoid putting handcuffs on Main Street. We can send a signal to our country there is certainty in the marketplace. Go ahead and make your investment. Go ahead and create your job. The world will respond favorably to that, and we can get out of this great recession we are in. I am here to say today there are a lot of people suspicious about this phrase: We are from Washington, and we are here to protect you. They think it is a better idea to say: We would like to see some checks and balances applied to the majority's push for this new consumer regulation legislation. And if we do apply those checks and balances, and come to a bipartisan agreement on the bill, the country will be pleased with the work we are doing here, and the economic recovery, hopefully, will have a chance to move along a little more rapidly. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I wonder if the Republican leader would agree with me, if I may say through the Chair, that it is noteworthy that the legislation we are talking about focuses on shop owners, auto dealers, real estate agents, farmers, community bankers, doctors, and dentists who had virtually nothing to do with this recession we are in, but this legislation completely leaves out the two giant Federal housing agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that had almost everything to do with the recession we are in.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I congratulate the Republican leader on his remarks. Listening to him, I was wondering how Kentuckians would respond to the thought that--as we seem to be hearing now about this so-called consumer protection bureau--``We are from Washington and we are here to protect you.''

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, we will be voting at 5 o'clock this afternoon on a motion by the majority leader, and I can almost hear him now saying something about the party of no as we talk about the financial regulation bill. Well, I would say to my friend the majority leader that he is rapidly becoming the leader of the party of no by offering so many ``no'' motions because the motion this afternoon is one more of a record number of ``no'' motions offered by the majority leader to say no to more amendments, no to more debate, no to checks and balances on a runaway government in Washington. What we on the Republican side have been trying to do on the financial regulation bill is to work with the majority party and the President to help fashion a set of rules and regulations that takes us from the financial crisis we had a few years ago, and which continues today in the lives of Americans everywhere, to complete a bill most of us can support so we can say to America and say to the world: These are our rules and regulations. We have done our job. We have set the rules. Even if Republicans capture control of the Congress in November--which we hope we do--these still will be the rules because we did this in a bipartisan way, the kind of way the President talked about when he campaigned for election a couple of years ago. Well, unfortunately, that is not what has been happening. It has just been one ``no'' motion after another from the majority leader--a record number of them. And he will even bring that up, which I would respectfully say I would not do. Twenty-six times the majority leader has filled the amendment tree. That is a ``no'' motion that says no more amendments. He has done it nearly as much as the last five majority leaders combined. He has the record in saying no more amendments, no more debates, and no more checks and balances on what the Congress is doing. There have been 141 times the majority leader has filed cloture on the same day a measure came up. That is simply another no motion. It says no to more amendments, no to more debates, no to more checks and balances on the legislation Congress is considering. Someone may say: Well, let's get on with it. Why do we need these checks and balances? We were reminded over the weekend of why we need the checks and balances. All of us remember the health care debate resulting in the health care law which passed this Chamber by a partisan majority. We were here day after day after day with the Democrats meeting in secret. The vote came up in the middle of a snowstorm, 1 a.m. in the morning, had to be done before Christmas, nearly 3,000 pages before it all got through. No check and balance on that bill. We were saying slow down. Wait a minute. This bill is making a fundamental mistake. It is expanding a health care delivery system we all know we can't afford, when instead we should be taking steps together to reduce its costs so more Americans can afford to buy health insurance. So over the weekend, a report issued on Thursday by the Chief Actuary of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services--he is the chief health actuary in the Federal Government; what did he say? Lo and behold, his analysis showed it will increase health care costs instead of lowering them. In other words, we will increase--we will increase-- spending on a health care delivery system we all know we can't afford today. Yet off we went with our new $1 trillion bill. It will raise premiums on health care. It will threaten seniors' access to health care. It will threaten access for Medicaid patients, creating, in effect, a health care bridge to nowhere for a great number of low- income Americans who will find they can't get a doctor or, in Washington State, that Walgreens will not fill their prescription. This will make that problem worse. To those who are going to be serving as Governor between 2014 and 2019, it is very bad news because it talks about the increased cost of Medicaid, which is the largest government health care program, and how many of those costs are being passed on to States. I know, in our State, our legislature--Republican--and our Governor--a Democrat--have said we don't see how we can afford this. It is estimated to be roughly $1.1 billion, but potentially could be as high as $1.5 billion. It is going to cause State tax increases, tuition increases at the public universities, and I believe it will seriously damage American public education. Anyone can read this for himself or herself. So over the weekend, the Chief Health Actuary of the Federal Government said the health care law does what we Republicans feared it would. But the psychology on the other side of the aisle was: We won the election. We will write the bill. We will pass it even by a partisan majority, unlike civil rights, unlike Medicare, unlike Medicaid, unlike social security. It was a purely partisan bill, with no checks and balances, and the American people see the results. Here we go again, this afternoon at 5 o'clock. This should be a very different situation. It is a very important bill. It is the financial regulation of this country. This country produces 25 percent of all the money in the world every year. Twenty-five percent of the wealth is created by this country, for just 5 percent of us who are privileged to live here. So one would think we would be as careful as we could be in getting this done. For a long time on this bill, many Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle have been working on it carefully and in a bipartisan way. So why would we bring another one of these record- setting ``no'' motions up today to vote on? Why would we say--in the middle of debate and discussion to improve the bill--let's rush it on through; no, to more amendments; no, to more debate; no, to more checks and balances. There are some pretty big issues to resolve to make sure we have it right. There is general agreement, I think, across both sides of the aisle that we want a situation where we don't have these big banks that are too big to fail. The Senator from Virginia, who is the Presiding Officer today and my colleague, and Senator Corker from Tennessee worked for a year on this. I went to some of their sessions. It is complex stuff, but they were coming up with a bipartisan solution to the problem. One of the advantages of a bipartisan solution is, A, it might be more likely to be right; and, B, it almost certainly is more likely to be accepted. If there is a Corker-Warner or Warner-Corker solution, Republican-Democratic solution on banks that are too big to fail, then the American people might look up here and say: OK, if they both agree on it, maybe they are right. Maybe I will not worry about it, and I will not spend my next 3 years trying to repeal it. Well, the same thing was true on other parts of the issue, and I commend Senator Dodd, the chairman of the committee, for starting out in that direction. He was working with Senator Shelby on this side on consolidating bank regulators and consumer protection. Senator Reed on the Democratic side and Senator Gregg were working on reforming oversight of derivatives. As I said, Senator Warner and Senator Corker were working on systemic risk, the too-big-to-fail issue. Senator Schumer and Senator Crapo were working on securities and exchange issues and corporate governance issues. They weren't coming to an agreement on every single one of these issues--the last one is especially difficult--but they are making some real progress. Even yesterday, Senator Shelby, who is the ranking member, and Senator Dodd said on NBC's ``Meet the Press''--Senator Shelby said: ``We are closer than we have ever been.'' Mr. Dodd added: ``We will get it together.'' Well, if we are closer than we have ever been and we will get it together, why are we having this ``no'' vote today? Why are we saying no to more amendments, no to more debate, no to checks and balances? That is a serious question for the American people. If I were to suppose in my State what the major issue before the people of Tennessee is today, it is that many Independents, almost every Republican, and some Democrats would say: We need some checks and balances on a runaway Washington government. Well, here is an opportunity to have some checks and balances on a runaway Washington government and to get things right. Instead, we seem to have a campaign team at the White House that says, Let's play a little politics and make it look like the Republicans are in bed with the Wall Street bankers. They even said Republicans took contributions from Wall Street bankers, but when the newspapers added it all up, it looks like the Democrats got more contributions from the Wall Street bankers than the Republicans did. So if the race is about politics and if the race is about who took the most money from the Wall Street bankers, the Democrats win. That is not the basis upon which we should be deciding this. I like the way the committee was working on it for the last year: Republican and Democratic teams working to solve big, complex problems for the country that produces 25 percent of all the money in the world and is the acknowledged financial capital of the world. But, instead, we seem to have at least a fraction of the administration that says: We won the election, we will write the bill, and up comes the majority leader with another ``no'' motion, a historic, record number of ``no'' motions. I am here simply to say this: This is a piece of legislation that presents President Obama and our Congress with a historic opportunity to do something right. We are coming out, we hope, of a great recession. We need some signals to our country and to the world that things are stabilizing. Every small businessperson or big businessperson I talk with says: A little certainty would help. We are not going to hire another person; we are not going to invest another dollar until we get a little more certainty in the business environment in America, and people are waiting to see how we are going to deal with this too-big-to-fail issue. Are we going to put up rules that will give big banks an advantage over community banks? Are we going to put in regulations that are so cumbersome that they move the financial capital of America from New York City and Chicago to Washington, DC, or even to London and Singapore and Shanghai, along with the jobs and the prestige and the opportunity for an increased standard of living that goes with it? We have, within our grasp, an opportunity to do as Senator Shelby and Senator Dodd said. We are close to getting it together. We think we will get it together. If we were to get it together, if we were to be able to rely upon the work of Senator Warner and Senator Corker and the others I mentioned who worked together over the last year and stand together with the President and let him say: Republicans and Democrats have been working for more than a year on this. We have taken enough time to develop a consensus in the Senate, a consensus between parties, that this is the right thing to do for our country and we want to tell the American people these are the rules for financial regulation and tell the world that the United States of America is capable of governing itself and writing its rules and doing it in a bipartisan way, think of the signal that would send to this country and to the world. It might be a tipping point in the recovery from the great recession, that kind of signal from Washington, DC. I can't think of a better one. Yet the vote today is the opposite. It is another ``no'' motion. No to debate. No to amendments. No to working together. No to checks and balances. I hope we prevail on this motion and I hope we will say yes to more amendments, yes to more debates and yes to checks and balances and I hope the result is a financial regulation bill affecting this country that all of us can vote for--or at least most of us can vote for; that we can proudly give each other credit for. That is the way we like to work. That is why we came to the Senate. When the country sees that, they will have more confidence in us, in this government, in the economy and the world may, too, and we will have taken an important step forward; and the President will be able to say: Look, this is the way I wanted to do it all along. This is what I campaigned on, and I am glad we have worked together to get 70 or 80 votes in the Senate to get a consensus on a financial regulation bill to get this country moving again. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I can actually speak in morning business, not as if I were in morning business.

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

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my remarks an article from Newsweek magazine by George F. Will entitled ``This Nuclear Option Is Nuclear.''

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Thursday is Earth Day. Actually, it is the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. It is a good day to celebrate by creating a national resolve in our country to build 100 new nuclear power plants in the next 20 years, which would be the best way to create the largest amount of pollution-free, carbon-free electricity. Today, nuclear power produces 20 percent of America's electricity but 69 percent of all of our carbon-free, pollution-free electricity. During 2009, America's national energy policy looked more like a national windmill policy--the equivalent of going to war in sailboats. If we were going to war, the United States wouldn't think of putting its nuclear navy in mothballs. Yet we did mothball our nuclear plant construction program--our best weapon against climate change, high electricity prices, polluted air, and energy insecurity. Although 107 reactors were completed between 1970 and 1990, producing 20 percent of our electricity today--which, as I said, is 69 percent of our carbon- free electricity--the United States has not started a new nuclear plant in 30 years. Instead of using our own nuclear power invention to catch up with the rest of the world, President Obama, in his inaugural address, set out on a different path: America would rely upon ``the sun, the winds, and the soil'' for energy. There was no mention of nuclear power. Windmills would produce 20 percent of our electricity. To achieve this goal, the Federal Government would commit another $30 billion in subsidies and tax breaks. To date, almost all the subsidies for renewable energy have gone to windmill developers, many of which are large banks, corporations, and wealthy individuals. According to the Energy Information Administration, big wind receives an $18.82 subsidy per megawatt hour-- 25 times as much per megawatt hour as subsidies for all other forms of electricity production combined. Last year's stimulus bill alone contained $2 billion in windmill subsidies. Unfortunately, most of the jobs are being created in Spain and China. According to an American University study, nearly 80 percent of that $2 billion of American taxpayer money went to overseas manufacturers. Despite the billions in subsidies, not much energy is being produced. Wind accounts for just 1.3 percent of America's electricity--available only when the wind blows, of course, since wind cannot be stored, except in small amounts. Conservation groups have begun to worry about what they call the ``renewable energy sprawl.'' For example, producing 20 percent of U.S. electricity from wind would cover an area the size of West Virginia with 186,000 turbines and require 19,000 miles of new transmission lines. These are not your grandmother's windmills. These turbines are 50 stories high. Their flashing lights can be seen for 20 miles. An unbroken line of giant turbines along the 2,178-mile Appalachian Trail--except for coastlines, ridgetops are about the only place turbines work well in much of the East--would produce no more electricity than four nuclear reactors on 4 square miles of land--and, of course, you would still need the reactors for when the wind doesn't blow. There are other ways a national windmill policy also risks destroying the environment in the name of saving the environment. The American Bird Conservancy estimates that the 25,000 U.S. wind turbines today kill 75,000 to 275,000 birds per year. Imagine what 186,000 turbines would do. One wind farm near Oakland, CA, estimates that its turbines kill 80 golden eagles a year. To be sure, similar concerns about sprawl exist for other forms of renewable energy. For example, it would take continuously foresting an area 1\1/2\ times the size of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park to produce enough electricity from biomass to equal the electricity produced by one nuclear reactor. A new solar thermal plant planned for California's Mojave Desert was to cover an area 3 miles by 3 miles square, until environmental objections stopped it. At least for the next couple decades, relying on windmills to provide our Nation's clean electricity needs would be like wandering off track from your house in Virginia through San Francisco on the way to the corner grocery store. This unnecessary journey offends the commonsense theory of parsimony, defined by scientist Spencer Wells as ``don't overcomplicate . . . if a simpler possibility exists.'' The simpler possibility that exists for producing lots of low-cost, reliable green electricity is to build 100 new nuclear plants, doubling U.S. nuclear power production. In other words, instead of traveling through San Francisco on your way to the corner grocery store, do what our country did between 1970 and 1990: Build 100 reactors on 100 square miles of space--several of them would be on existing reactor sites-- compared with the 126,000 new square miles needed to produce that much electricity from biomass or the 26,000 square miles needed for wind. Unlike wind turbines, 100 new nuclear reactors would require fewer transmission lines through suburban backyards and pristine open spaces. They would also require much less taxpayer subsidy. At current rates of subsidy, taxpayers would shell out about $170 billion to subsidize the 186,000 wind turbines necessary to equal the power of 100 nuclear reactors. While Federal Government loan guarantees are probably necessary to jumpstart the first few reactors, once we have proven they can be built without delays or huge cost overruns, no more loan guarantees will be needed. In fact, the Tennessee Valley Authority just finished rebuilding the $1.8 billion Brown's Ferry reactor on time and on budget, proving it can still be done. Yet, even if all $54 billion in loan guarantees defaulted--which isn't going to happen--it would still be less than one-third of what we are putting into wind. My concern about the unrealistic direction of our national windmill policy led me to give five addresses on clean energy over the last 2 years. The first, delivered at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 2008, called for a new Manhattan Project--like the one we had in World War II but this time for clean energy independence. Then, a year ago at Oak Ridge, I proposed building 100 new nuclear plants, a goal that all 40 Senate Republicans adopted, along with 3 other goals: electrifying half of our cars and trucks, expanding offshore exploration for natural gas and oil, and doubling clean energy research and development. My concern during 2009 deepened as members of the Obama administration, with the conspicuous exception of Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, seemed to develop a stomach ache whenever nuclear power was mentioned. The President himself seemed unable to mention the subject. Last year, at a climate change summit in New York City, President Obama chided world leaders for not doing more to address climate change, but he didn't mention the words ``nuclear power'' during his entire speech. That is ironic because many of the countries he was lecturing were making plans to build nuclear plants to produce carbon-free electricity and we were not. Climate change was the inconvenient problem, but nuclear power seemed to be the inconvenient solution. Fortunately, with the arrival of 2010 has come a more welcoming environment for nuclear power. In his State of the Union Address, President Obama called for ``a new generation of safe, clean nuclear reactors.'' His 2011 budget request recommends tripling loan guarantees for the first reactors, and in February, his administration announced the awarding of the first two loan guarantees for nuclear power. He has selected distinguished members, both for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and for a new blue ribbon commission, to figure out the best way to dispose of used nuclear fuel. Democratic Senators--several of whom, in fairness, have long been supporters of nuclear energy--have joined with the current 41 Senate Republicans--to create bipartisan support. Last December, for example, Democratic Senator Jim Webb, of Virginia, a former Navy Secretary, and I introduced legislation to create an environment that could double nuclear power production and to accelerate support for alternative forms of clean energy. There seems to be a growing public understanding that nuclear reactors are as safe as other forms of energy production. A nuclear plant is not a bomb; it can't blow up. Our sailors have lived literally on top of reactors for nearly 60 years without a nuclear incident. Nobody in the United States has ever been killed in a nuclear accident. Most scientists agree it is safe to store used nuclear fuel onsite for 60 to 80 years while those scientists figure out how to recycle used fuel in a way that reduces its mass by 97 percent, reduces its radioactive lifetime by 99 percent, and does not allow the isolation of plutonium, which could be dangerous in the wrong hands. In addition, there is a growing realization by those who worry about climate change that if Americans want to keep consuming one-fourth of the world's electricity and we want large amounts of it to be low-cost and carbon-free, nuclear power is the only answer for now. It has also helped, and been a little embarrassing as well, that the rest of the world has been teaching Americans the lesson we first taught them. China is starting a new nuclear reactor every 3 months. France is 80 percent nuclear and has electricity rates and carbon emissions that are among the lowest in Europe. Japan gets 35 percent of its electricity from nuclear and plans 10 more reactors by 2018. There are 55 new reactors under construction in 14 countries around the world--not 1 of them in the United States. I believe we must address human causes of climate change, as well as air pollution that is caused by sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury emissions from coal plants. But I also believe in that commonsense theory of parsimony: Don't overcomplicate things if a simpler possibility exists. My formula for the simplest way to reach the necessary carbon goals for climate change without damaging the environment and without running jobs overseas in search of cheap energy is this: No. 1, build 100 new nuclear powerplants in 20 years. No. 2, electrify half our cars and trucks in 20 years. If we plug vehicles in at night, we probably have enough electricity to do this without building one new power plant. No. 3, explore for more low-carbon natural gas and the oil we still need. No. 4, launch mini-Manhattan Projects to invent a low-cost, 500-mile battery for electric cars and a 50-percent efficient solar panel for rooftops that is cost-competitive with other forms of electricity, as well as better ways to recycle used nuclear fuel, to create advanced biofuels, and to recapture carbon from coal plants. These four steps should produce the largest amount of energy with the smallest amount of pollution at the lowest possible cost, thereby avoiding the pain and suffering that comes when high energy costs push jobs overseas and make it hard for many low-income Americans to afford heating and cooling bills. One day, solar and other renewable energy forms will be cheap and efficient enough to provide an important supplement to our energy needs and can do so in a way that minimizes damage to our treasured landscapes. Earth Day, as it comes Thursday, is a good day to remember that nuclear power beats windmills for America's green energy future. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From Newsweek] This Nuclear Option Is Nuclear (By George F. Will) The 29 people killed last week in the West Virginia coal- mine explosion will soon be as forgotten by the nation as are the 362 miners who were killed in a 1907 explosion in that state, the worst mining disaster in American history. The costs of producing the coal that generates approximately half of America's electricity also include the hundreds of other miners who have suffered violent death in that dangerous profession, not to mention those who have suffered debilitating illnesses and premature death from ailments acquired toiling underground. Which makes particularly pertinent the fact that the number of Americans killed by accidents in 55 years of generating electricity by nuclear power is: 0. That is the same number of Navy submariners and surface sailors injured during six decades of living in very close proximity to reactors. America's 250-year supply of coal will be an important source of energy. But even people not much worried about the supposed climate damage done by carbon emissions should see the wisdom--cheaper electricity, less dependence on foreign sources of energy--of Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander's campaign to commit the country to building l00 more nuclear power plants in 20 years. Today, 20 percent of America's electricity, and 69 percent of its carbon-free generation of electricity, is from nuclear plants. But it has been 30 years since America began construction on a new nuclear reactor. France gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power; China is starting construction of a new reactor every three months. Meanwhile, America, which pioneered nuclear power, is squandering money on wind power, which provides 1.3 percent of the nation's electricity: it is slurping up $30 billion of tax breaks and other subsidies amounting to $18.82 per megawatt-hour, 25 times as much per megawatt-hour as the combined subsidies for all other forms of electricity production. Wind power involves gargantuan ``energy sprawl.'' To produce 20 percent of America's power by wind, which the Obama administration dreamily proposes, would require 186,000 tall turbines--40 stories tall, their flashing lights can be seen for 20 miles--covering an area the size of West Virginia. The amount of electricity that would be produced by wind turbines extending the entire 2,178 miles of the Appalachian Trail can be produced by four reactors occupying four square miles of land. And birds beware: the American Bird Conservancy estimates that the existing 25,000 turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds a year. Imagine the toll that 186,000 turbines would take. Solar power? It produces less than a tenth of a percent of our electricity. And panels and mirrors mean more sprawl. Biomass? It is not so green when you factor in trucks to haul the stuff to the plants that burn it. Meanwhile, demand for electricity soars. Five percent of America's electricity powers gadgets no one had 30 years ago--computers. America's nuclear industry was a casualty of the 1979 meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania, which was and is referred to as a ``catastrophe'' even though there were no measurable health effects. Chernobyl was a disaster because Russians built the reactor in a way no one builds today--without a containment vessel. Since the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Alexander's state has played a special role in U.S. energy policy. The last commercial reactor opened in America is Watts Bar, Unit 1 in Tennessee. And, in a sense, all uses of nuclear power began in that state. In September 1942, the federal government purchased 59,000 acres of wilderness in eastern Tennessee and built an instant city--streets, housing, schools, shops, and the world's most sophisticated scientific facilities. This was--is--Oak Ridge. Just 34 months later, a blinding flash illuminating the New Mexico desert announced the dawn of the atomic age. That is what Americans can do when motivated. Today, a mini-Manhattan Project could find ways to recycle used nuclear fuel in a way that reduces its mass 97 percent and radioactive lifetime 98 percent. Today, Alexander says, 10 percent of America's lightbulbs are lit with electricity generated by nuclear material recycled from old Soviet weapons stocks. This is, as Alexander says, ``one of the greatest swords-into-plowshares efforts in world history, although few people seem to know about it.'' It is a travesty that the nation that first harnessed nuclear energy has neglected it so long because of fads about supposed ``green energy'' and superstitions about nuclear power's dangers.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, on April 15, Benjamin Hooks died in the city where he was born 85 years ago, the city of Memphis. Later this afternoon, Senator Burris, Senator Corker, and I will introduce a resolution honoring the life and achievement of Dr. Benjamin L. Hooks. Benjamin Hooks was certainly one of Tennessee's most distinguished citizens and one of America's leaders in this last half century. He was a patriot, a family man, a visionary, a lawyer, a storyteller, a preacher, and for my wife and me, he and his wife Frances were close and good friends. There will be a funeral service in Memphis on Wednesday. I will attend it and will make remarks there. But I wanted to say a few words about my friend Dr. Hooks on the floor of the Senate today. Ben Hooks was born January 31, 1925. He leaves his wife Frances and his daughter Patricia Gray and two grandsons. He was the fifth of seven children born to Robert B. and Bessie Hooks. Right from the beginning, he was part of a pioneering family. He was the grandson of Julia Hooks, the second Black woman in the United States to graduate from college. Young Ben Hooks went on to LeMoyne-Owen College in Memphis and graduated from Howard. He served in the U.S. Army. He was a patriot. While in the Army, he learned something more about injustice when he found that some of the prisoners of war he guarded had more rights than he did to eat in a restaurant. His pioneering continued when he went back home to Memphis after the war. First, he had to get a law degree. At that time, no Tennessee law school would accept an African-American law student. It was the same in Arkansas. I remember George Haley, the brother of Alex Haley--that is another Tennessee family, the Haleys--George Haley was able to go to the University of Arkansas at about the same time and was required to sit by himself in a separate room because they simply didn't know what to do with an African-American student. Ben Hooks choose to go to DePaul University in Chicago, where he received his law degree in 1984, and came back to Memphis. He kept pioneering. He was one of the few African-American lawyers to set up his own practice in Memphis. He was appointed to the Shelby County Criminal Court by Governor Frank Clement of Tennessee in 1965, making him the first Black criminal court judge in the history of our State. He and Dr. Martin Luther King worked together. He lived to see Dr. King go over from being someone who was reviled to someone who was honored by having a national holiday in his name. In 1972, Benjamin Hooks became the first Black appointee to the Federal Communications Commission. That was at the recommendation of Senator Howard Baker, a Republican Senator, and a Republican President, Richard Nixon. Ben Hooks was able to support leaders of both parties. He supported the 1972 Presidential Republican ticket. He supported Senator Baker in his races. His wife Frances supported me every time I ran for public office in Tennessee, which has been a lot, five different times. Everybody knew that Frances Hooks would not have been supporting me if Ben Hooks did not know about it. In fact, it is hard to think of Ben Hooks without Frances. I cannot think of a time I talked with him when I did not start with her. She was his sweetheart, his ally, his secretary, his assistant, his adviser, and all of us send to her and her family our thoughts during these days. I talked with her for a few minutes a while ago. Benjamin Hooks became best known in this country when he was elected executive director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, in 1976. He served in that role until 1992. During that time the NAACP grew by hundreds of thousands of members due to Ben Hooks' leadership. Ben Hooks was an ordained minister. He delivered sermons for more than half a century. They were sermons well worth hearing. Ben Hooks had the combined gifts of a Southern preacher, a Southern lawyer, and a Southern politician, and he could turn a phrase and turn the audience inside out and upside down with his phrases as well as anyone I have ever heard. One of his most touching speeches was his eulogy at the funeral of a former Tennessee Senator, Albert Gore, Sr., which I heard in Nashville. In March of 2001, Benjamin and Frances Hooks renewed their wedding vows after almost 50 years of marriage. In November of 2007, just about 2\1/2\ years ago, Benjamin Hooks was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor in the United States, by President George W. Bush. He helped to establish, in his hometown of Memphis, the Benjamin Hooks Institute for Social Change at the University of Memphis. In talking with some of the faculty members at that institute a few years ago, one of them said Ben Hooks understands our country is a work in progress. He had seen the hard parts of it. He had seen the injustice of it. Before he died, he was still sad and angry about some of the injustices that exist today. But he had also seen the promise of it as well. Through his lifetime, he had lived through the King days; the sit-ins; the days of the first Black criminal court justice, where it was commonplace for African Americans to graduate from law school; the election of the first African-American President; the rise of the NAACP. Ben Hooks saw the great promise of American life. After he was awarded the Medal of Freedom in 2007 by the President, I hosted a lunch for him in the Senate Dining Room downstairs. Those who come to the Senators' dining room are accustomed to seeing distinguished visitors. In fact, that is why most people go the Senators' dining room--to be seen. But that day Ben Hooks took over the dining room. He was by far the most distinguished visitor there. Some very well known people came to pay respect to him. One of them was the late Jack Kemp, who worked with Dr. Hooks on civil rights issues for many years. But the greatest commotion was caused by the people who work in the Senators' dining room--those who serve, those who wait tables, those who cook in the kitchen. They all wanted to shake Ben Hooks' hand. They wanted to say hello to him. They wanted his autograph. And most wanted his picture. We will miss Ben Hooks' leadership. We will miss his vision. We will miss his capacity to work with Republicans as well as Democrats. Tennessee has lost one of its most distinguished citizens. But we are grateful for that life, and in Memphis on Wednesday we will celebrate the life of Dr. Benjamin L. Hooks.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

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

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. A ``no'' means savings to students.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this is an effort to stop the Federal Government from overcharging 19 million college students to help pay for the health care bill. It would reduce from 6.8 percent to 5.3 percent the interest on their loans. It would save $1,700 to $1,800 on the average of a $25,000 loan over 10 years. Why are we talking student loans during a health care bill? Because we can't trust the other side with the Yellow Pages. If they find it in there, they think the government ought to be doing it. They have taken over the Federal student loan program, and they are running up the debt $\1/2\ trillion to do it. They are firing 31,000 people by July 1. They are going to borrow money at 2.8 percent and loan it to students at 6.8 percent and use the rest to help pay for health care and for the government. CBO has said this is $8.7 billion of overcharging students to pay for health care. So a ``yes'' means don't overcharge.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this has been a debate filled with passion and good intentions and a lot of hard work. Our political parties have come to vastly different conclusions. The President and the majority have said, this is an historic occasion. I agree. But I believe, as do most of us, that it is an historic mistake, and it is important to say why we think that. This is the fundamental mistake, that with the law that was passed yesterday and what the majority has proposed to do in this second bill, to expand a health ObamaCare delivery system that we all know is more expensive than we can afford, instead of stepping back and instead seeking to reduce the cost of that health ObamaCare delivery system so that more Americans can afford to buy health insurance. That is the mistake. I wish to try to say in 3 or 4 minutes what this bill means to Tennesseans. I was listening to the Senator from Montana and the Republican Senators talk about debt. We believe, I believe, that this bill, these two bills, will increase each Tennessean's share of the national debt. The Senator from Montana says: Well, but the Congressional Budget Office says it does not. Well, that would be like going to the Congressional Budget Office and saying: I have got a horse farm here. Tell me how much it costs to operate over the next 10 years. The CBO would say: Would you like me to tell you how to do it with the horses or without the horses? If you tell me how to do it without the horses, it is not going to cost as much. Or, if I have a gas station, would you like me to tell you how to operate that with the gas in it or without the gasoline? That is what we are saying here. They have gone to the Congressional Budget Office and said: Tell us how much this health bill costs. They have said to them: With the doctors or without the doctors? They say: Oh, no, keep the doctors out. Because, according to the President's own budget, that is $371 billion over 10 years. If you put that in, then the whole bill adds to the deficit, so they leave it out. So that is why we say, and I would say, that the first thing this bill does is add to the debt, each Tennessean's share of the debt. The second thing is, it adds $8,470 in new spending for every Tennessean. Thirdly there are 243,000 Tennesseans enrolled in Medicare Advantage, which is about one out of four persons in Medicare who will have their benefits reduced by half, according to the Congressional Budget Office Director in testimony before Congress, whose veracity we have been hearing extolled on all sides. The next thing it does is about 1.4 million Tennesseans making less than $200,000 will pay higher taxes, based on estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Some 300,000 Tennesseans in the individual health insurance market will see premium rate increases of 30 to 45 percent based upon a Blue Cross/Blue Shield study of Tennessee and other analysis. Next, Tennessee's small businesses employing 50 or more people and construction companies employing 5 or more people--that is 5,000 construction companies in Tennessee--will pay higher health ObamaCare costs because of new government mandates. Then here is the other one. This is the one that was just added over the weekend: 200,000 Tennessee students including--I checked--11,000 at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville where I was this week, will be overcharged by $1,700 to $1,800 over the next 10 years on their student loans in order to help pay for the health ObamaCare bill and other programs. Let me say that again. Over the weekend, without any debate in the Senate, they have stuck in this bill--they are going to overcharge 19 million students in America, 200,000 in Tennessee, $1,700 or $1,800 more than it costs the government to borrow the money, because the government is taking over the student loan program. They borrow the money at 2.8 percent, they loan it out at 6.8 percent, they take the difference, they spend it, $8.7 billion of it to help pay for the health ObamaCare program. So that is 200,000 Tennessee students. These are not Wall Street financiers. This is a mom with a child and a job going to school to get a better job. That is 200,000 Tennessee students. And $1.1 billion in costs will be forced on the Tennessee government. That is according to our State Democratic Governor, who said that is the cost of the Medicaid expansion and what happens to the State after the physicians reimbursement expires in 2 years for Medicaid. This will force States, Tennessee for sure, and many other States, to raise taxes, cut services, or increase college tuition. According to an Oliver Wyman study, 30 percent of young people will pay up to 35 percent more in premiums as premiums go up in the individual market. Then finally, of course, the bill does add in Tennessee about 200,000 people to our TennCare or Medicare rolls. But that is not health ObamaCare reform because nationally only about half of doctors will see new Medicaid patients. So we are saying to people, we are giving you health ObamaCare, but it is like saying, we are giving you a bus ticket to a bus line where the bus only runs half the time. When you put these low-income Americans into this program in such large numbers, what that additionally does is create more opportunities for physicians, for hospitals, and for drugstores to say, we cannot serve Medicaid patients any more. That is why we feel this is the wrong course and an historic mistake. What we would do instead is replace this bill with a different bill that focuses on costs. We have said it over and over again. We said it at the health ObamaCare summit. We would start with allowing people to buy health care across State lines; with allowing small businesses to combine their resources to offer insurance to more people at lower costs; with reducing the number of lawsuits against doctors for malpractice. We would step up efforts against waste, fraud, and abuse, expand health savings accounts. All of these were proposals made before the Senate, basically ignored. But the fundamental mistake and the reason we have such a difference of opinion between that side of the aisle and this side of the aisle is that that side of the aisle, which has the majority, is expanding a health ObamaCare delivery system that we all know is too expensive, and we think instead what we should be doing is focusing on reducing health ObamaCare costs so that more Americans can afford to purchase health ObamaCare insurance. I yield back my time to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, could you let me know when 8 minutes has been consumed?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am afraid the Senator from New Hampshire is exactly right. According to the Congressional Budget Office's updated estimate, $8.7 billion of this money that is being overcharged to students will be used to help pay for the health care bill. The other money, except for a small part, will be used for other government programs. So you are right on both counts--one Washington takeover after another. That is why I am saying, I think we ought to hide the Yellow Pages from these fellows because if they find something in there that is being done in the private sector, they are going to say: Oh, we can cut out the profit, we can cut out the business; why does not the government do it? Then, second, I mean this is astonishing to me. These are not Wall Street financiers going to community colleges in New Hampshire and Tennessee, these are people with jobs who are trying to improve their lot. Their student loan levels are already too high. We are worried about that. So we are going to take another $1,700 or $1,800 on a $25,000 average loan over 10 years. We are just going to say: Well, we will overcharge you. We are going to use that in government. The answer is, yes, to your question, Senator; $8.7 billion of the money taken from students by overcharging them on their student loans will go to help pay for the health care bill.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I withdraw my motion.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending motion so that I may offer a motion to commit, which is at the desk.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Montana would permit me to consider that request and then respond to him within a few minutes.

Mr. ALEXANDER. If I may consult with Senator Gregg, then respond. If you will make the request later, I would be grateful.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Here is a letter from Vanderbilt University to Congressman Cooper from the Chancellor which says: Our overarching concern with [this proposal] is that the legislation forces institutions, including Vanderbilt, to switch to direct lending. Here is a distinguished university, one of the top research universities in the world. They have chosen--they believe it is best for their students and for their campus to use the private banks and non-profits. We know better, of course, than Vanderbilt University, what is best for the campus and best for the students. We say no, July 1, only the government. In their letter they continue: Vanderbilt opposes the elimination of the FFEL program. We encourage Congress to carefully study the many alternate proposals. . . . In addition to our concerns about the elimination of choice, competition, and the high level of services, products and debt management we believe would come with this switch, we are very concerned that the proposed timeframe for this mandated conversion is unreasonable. So Vanderbilt opposes that. So does the Baptist College of Health Sciences, so does Maryville College, so does the Middle Tennessee School of Anesthesia, so does Dyersburg State Community College. I ask to have these remarks printed in the Record and an article I wrote in the Washington Post that was published on Sunday, March 7, about the student loan takeover. Exhibit 1 Vanderbilt University, September 10, 2009. Hon. Jim Cooper, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Cooper: The House of Representatives will soon consider H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act which would fundamentally restructure the federal student aid system and funnel the projected savings into a variety of higher education and K-12 programs as well as deficit reduction. While Vanderbilt supports efforts to restructure and expand federal student aid programs, we have serious reservations about this legislation. As you know, one proposed change has to do with the Direct Loan (DL) program, in which the government acts as the lender, and the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, in which lending institutions provide loans to students. Vanderbilt has a long and successful history of participation in the FFEL program which has provided our students with superior loan products, service, and choice in their federal loans for many years. Earlier this year, the administration proposed eliminating the FFEL program, requiring all institutions to participate in DL and using the projected $87 billion in savings over 10 years from this switch to fund a mandatory Pell Grant and expand the Perkins Loan program. [Other estimates have put the ten-year savings figure at closer to $47 billion.] H.R. 3221 seeks to implement those proposals. Unfortunately, the legislation has attracted a host of other education-related provisions which, while perhaps meritorious in their own right, we believe should not be attached to federal student aid legislation. We applaud and strongly support a number of provisions of

Mr. ALEXANDER. I yield the floor.