Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Going back to the point of the Senator from Arizona, I hear our friends on the other side say you have used scare tactics, saying there will be Medicare cuts. I ask the Senator, did I not hear the President say he was going to take a half trillion dollars out of Medicare for seniors? There are about 45 million seniors on Medicare and who depend on Medicare, and they will spend it on new programs. Is that not what I heard him say?

Mr. ALEXANDER. As I listen to the Senator, I wonder if the Senator from Georgia is having the same impact. Every single step he said Republicans are for, whether it is getting rid of runaway junk lawsuits, going across State lines to buy insurance, whether it is allowing small businesses to pool resources, or incentivizing prevention and wellness, they are all focused on reducing costs. I ask the Senator from Georgia, I thought this was supposed to be about reducing costs for health care premiums and costs to our government; but it seems to me we are talking about more billions and more debt and more spending and taxes.

Mr. ALEXANDER. May I interrupt for a moment? I often hear it said that you Republicans are not for health care too much. The difference is we have a little more humility than to try to take on the whole health care system at once and fix the whole world. We are ready to go step by step, and that is one of the most important steps--to allow small businesses to pool their resources and offer health care to their employees. I think the estimate is it would add maybe a million new people who could be insured that way.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. We have about a minute and a half left in our time. I wonder if Senator Brownback would conclude.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank Senators Thune and Brownback. Obviously, we believe that instead of a 1,000-page bill, we should do what Senator Brownback said. We should go step by step to re-earn the trust of the American people. For example, permitting small business plans to pool their resources to offer more insurance to a million people; buying insurance across State lines; stopping runaway junk lawsuits against doctors; signing up those people already eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP; and encouraging technology. All of those are steps we can agree on and reduce costs, without running trillions of dollars of new debt, more taxes, and Medicare cuts. I thank the Senators from South Dakota and Kansas for participating in our colloquy. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER. One of my friends said to me after I was Governor: Rooster today, feather duster tomorrow. And I am afraid I am in the feather duster category. The Senator has made a terrific point. I want to go to the Senator from Oklahoma, who has just arrived, to talk about this, one of the physicians in the Senate. But on the first point, we need to read the bill, and there is no bill. Yesterday, Republicans tried to get the Finance Committee to say once there is a bill that at least for 72 hours it would be on the Internet. Then we need to know what it costs because even the President said----

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, health care reform is the agenda for the Nation and it ought to be. We, on the Republican side, want health care reform, but we want the right kind of health care reform. Our focus is on costs. Our focus is on the cost to each American as he or she buys their health care policy; our focus is on the cost of the Government of the United States, for which each American has a responsibility to pay. What we have to do is to reduce costs to make it easier for Americans to afford their health care and to afford their government. Every single one of us knows that unless we reduce the increasing costs of health care we will not be able to pay our bills in Washington, DC. We are in the midst of appropriations bills, and there is well-meaning debate here about whether we should spend more money for national parks and for safe drinking water and other urgent needs we have. That is the bill we are talking about today--clean air. Well, we should spend money on those urgent needs. Americans want us to do that. But we can't have those dollars, as the Senator from Alabama pointed out yesterday, if we continue to increase the debt--trillions in debt--and run up the interest rate bill. We are headed toward a situation where, by the end of this decade, we will be spending $800 billion a year on debt--more than we spend on national defense, eight times as much as we spend from Washington on education this year. So those dollars could either be in the pockets of the American people for them to spend for themselves or we could be spending those dollars to clean the air, to relieve traffic congestion or to provide Pell grants and student loans so Americans can go back to school. Those are the things government ought to be spending money on, not on increasing debt. So health care reform is, first, about cost--the cost to Americans for their own health care policies and the cost of their debt. The President noted this the other night and said in his remarks to us and to the American people that the health care bill couldn't add one dime to the deficit. That is reassuring because the President's proposals are already adding $9 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. He is doubling or tripling the national debt, which means he is adding more to the debt by a factor of two and then three than all the other Presidents put together. So surely we don't want to add more to it with a health care reform bill. But when the President said that, he completely wiped out all the Democratic health care bills that have been proposed so far from the House and from the Senate. The Congressional Budget Office has said the Senate HELP Committee and the bills in the House all add to the debt in the first 10 years and in the years after that. So they should be off the table, according to the President's own standards. Now we are looking at the Finance Committee in the Senate to see what they can do. Mr. Baucus, the Senator from Montana, has worked very hard in a good-faith, bipartisan way to try to develop a bipartisan bill--a comprehensive bill. But as we read the bill, there are a great many things to be worried about. For example, if you don't buy a health care plan, the IRS will tax you. The President and George Stephanopoulos, on a Sunday show--and Senator Graham said the President seemed to be on every Sunday show except the Food Channel--were talking about the definition of tax. So that is the first thing. The second is the Medicare cuts. I see the Senator from Arizona has come, and I would say to the Senator, through the Chair, we have received permission from the Chair to engage in a colloquy between myself and other Republican Senators who might come. I have already pointed out that the President himself has disqualified all the plans our committee worked on, the HELP Committee and from the House, because they all add to the debt. Now we see the Baucus plan coming forward, and I wonder if the Senator from Arizona has had an opportunity to look at--of course, that is not a bill yet. We all understand that. It is just concepts, and we will want to make sure we have time to read the bill and to know what it costs. But I wonder if the Senator from Arizona has had an opportunity yet to form an opinion about whether the Baucus bill does what we had hoped, which is reduce the cost to the American people of what their insurance costs and reduce the cost to the American people of their government in Washington.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I see the majority leader is still on the floor, and I wish to thank him and the Republican leader for organizing last night's reception honoring Henry Clay, a great Senator, whose portrait will be hanging in the stairway outside of here. There was a time in history when Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John Calhoun were better known than the Presidents of the United States. That was in the 1850s, before the Civil War. It was good to take a moment all together, Democrats and Republicans, and think about that history and to honor the man who was known as the great compromiser, who during a time when our Nation was completely split over the Civil War, on three different occasions, found a way to try to bring it together. Of course, he died before the great war. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the Republican morning business time I be permitted to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues Senator McCain, Senator Coburn, Senator Brownback, Senator Thune, and Senator Murkowski, who will be here shortly.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Senator Thune, I see the Senator from Kansas is here. I wonder if Senator Brownback from Kansas or you from South Dakota have been hearing from your constituents about the possibility of shifting costs from Washington to the States when, because we in Washington say it is a great idea to expand Medicaid, then we shift some of the cost of that to the State, the State taxes go up or State services go down. I wonder if you have heard anything from the people of Kansas about that, Senator Brownback?

Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senators from South Dakota and Kansas have joined us. Senator McCain is leading a colloquy on the Baucus bill and health care. I wonder, I ask Senator Thune, if you see the Baucus bill as a bill-- it is not a bill yet--that is likely to reduce costs?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask Senator Coburn, isn't it true that, under the Baucus plan, about half of it would be paid for by Medicare cuts, which would then be spent on a new program?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I would say to the Senator from Arizona, that is exactly right. The Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of the impact of Senator Baucus's plan on insurance premiums. It showed the premiums for those in the individual market would go up. So, to the point of the Senator from Oklahoma, one of the effects of the one remaining bill that is being considered here, at a time when we are trying to reduce the cost to Americans of their policies and their government, is that premiums would go up.

Mr. ALEXANDER. They could let us know what they think of it, and then we need to know what it costs. As to Medicaid, every Governor in America is worried about this. The Democratic Governors and Republican Governors have said to us: If you want to expand the Medicaid Program, which the States pay 40 percent of, you pay for it because we can't raise State taxes or raise tuitions or cut the highway program to do that. The Senator from Oklahoma heard Senator McCain's question. The Senator from Oklahoma and Senator Barrasso the Senator from Oklahoma has delivered thousands of babies, and the Senator from Wyoming is an orthopedic surgeon. They have been touring the country, listening to a lot of doctors and physicians and medical personnel. I wonder if you have a reaction, Senator Coburn, to the questions of Senator McCain?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I believe the National Governors Association chairman, of Vermont, said that all Democratic Governors as well as all Republican Governors said: Don't shift it to us. If you want to expand Medicaid from Washington, pay for it from Washington.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I concur with the remarks of the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. I believe these are good amendments. We are able to clear them with the relevant members and their staffs. I support their adoption. Beyond that, I would like to say to the chairman, I appreciate her willingness to accommodate the amendments and the positions of a large number of Republican Senators who have important issues that we will have a chance to vote on, and for including us in the process. I thank her for that, and we look forward to the rest of the day and concluding work on the bill.

Mr. ALEXANDER. If I may, I know the Senator from Missouri is waiting to speak because he has an important meeting to go to. But if I could take 2 minutes, I think the Senator from Louisiana is making a point that concerns not just him but a number of us in the Senate on both sides of the aisle. Maybe the best way to suggest that is this way. No. 1, the focus should be on the 18 new czars appointed by this President who were not confirmed, never have existed before, and the number of them. No. 2, it was not the Republican side of the aisle that raised these concerns first. Perhaps this would best express the concern that many of us have. It was offered by Senator Byrd, senior Member of the Senate, the constitutional conscience of the Senate, who in a letter on February 23 said--this was a letter to President Obama-- The rapid easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of problematic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials. That would be exactly the point in terms of an environment or energy czar and energy or environment Secretary. As Presidential assistants and advisers, Senator Byrd goes on to say-- these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the President. They rarely testify before Congressional committees-- Et cetera. Then, Senator Collins, on behalf of six Senators, wrote the President a very respectful letter focusing on the 18 new czars who had been appointed by the President simply asking what their authorities and duties are, how they are appointed, whether they are willing to testify, whether they would consult with us. Senator Feingold, the Democratic chairman on the constitution subcommittee, has expressed his concern and indicated he might hold hearings. I think Senator Vitter is selecting a single example of this unusual number of new czars and raising the question of the constitutional checks and balances that is the same issue that Senator Byrd and Senator Feingold and many of the rest of us raised.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in just a few minutes, the Senator from Maine will have the floor. Senator Feinstein has asked those Senators who have amendments which are part of the unanimous consent agreement to come on over and call them up. I think Senator Coburn is probably coming following Senator Collins from Maine. I listened carefully to Senator Whitehouse and to the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I wish to make an observation, if I may, which will take only 3 or 4 minutes, not to prolong the debate. First, what Senator Thune and Senator Murkowski were saying is that the question of climate change is so important that we in the Congress ought to deal with it, not the Environmental Protection Agency. That is the point of the amendment. Second, I am one Senator who believes we need to deal with climate change and who believes humans are contributing to it, and we need to stop stuffing so much carbon into the atmosphere. But while my friends on the other side often speak in great rhetorical flourishes about the inconvenient problem of climate change that my friend and fellow Tennessean Al Gore talks about, they are conspicuously silent about the inconvenient solution, which is nuclear power. Even the President of the United States went to New York this week and made an entire speech talking about our commitment to climate change and lecturing the developing countries of the world about climate change when they are ahead of us on nuclear power and the President, in his entire remarks, didn't mention it once. I simply think that ought to be noted in the midst of this debate. The largest contributors to carbon in the air are China, the United States, Russia, India, and Japan. There are 44 nuclear reactors under construction this minute, almost all of them in Asia. China has 4 reactors under construction and has announced plans for 130 more reactors. Why? Because nuclear power is carbon free. The United States hasn't built a new nuclear plant in 30 years. Russia intends to build 2 reactors a year in order to replace the 30 percent of electricity they get from natural gas so they can sell that gas to Europe at a big profit. Japan is building two nuclear reactors a year. They derive 36 percent of their electricity from nuclear. South Korea gets nearly 40 percent of its electricity from nuclear, and they are planning 8 more reactors by 2015. India is developing thorium reactors instead of uranium. France is 80 percent nuclear and is selling electricity to Germany, which is the only major European country still renouncing nuclear power. And here we sit worried about climate change, having 104 reactors that we built before 30 years ago, which produce 20 percent of our electricity, but 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity, and the President goes to New York and doesn't say one word about nuclear power. He wants to build 186 50-story wind turbines, which will operate about a third at a time, and not at all in our part of the country, instead of taking the greatest technological advance of the last century, which we already use to produce 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity, and say let's do more of that. I am hopeful that as this debate proceeds, the President will say let's double our nuclear production and build 100 new nuclear plants in the next 20 years. We should be able to agree on 100 new nuclear plants and electrifying our cars and trucks. If we do those two things alone, we would meet the Kyoto Protocol by 2030. But we don't hear a word about it. Let's bring up the inconvenient problem of climate change and let's deal with it here. But let's bring up the inconvenient solution of nuclear power. As far as science goes, the chief scientist in the Obama administration, a Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Chu, says nuclear power is safe and nuclear waste--used nuclear fuel--can be safely dealt with for the next 40 to 60 years by having it stored onsite, while we have a mini Manhattan Project over the next 20 years to find the best way to recycle used nuclear fuel that doesn't produce plutonium. This is a good debate. I am glad Senators have come to the floor to talk about this, and this is an appropriate amendment on which to have the discussion. The point of the Republican amendments were, let's do it in Congress, not the agency. If we are going to talk about the inconvenient problem, climate change--and I agree it is a problem and we need to deal with it--let's talk about the inconvenient solution, nuclear power, which today provides 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity, which is what we are debating.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would ask the distinguished assistant Democratic leader if he is aware that the manufacturing czar in President Bush's time was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and testified before the Senate? And I wonder if he is also aware that the AIDS czar was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and testified before the Senate? Senator Collins has been careful--I believe he is aware; I wonder if he is aware--that she is not talking about any czars whom we confirm and the President appoints and who testify, and she is only talking about the 18 new czars under the Obama administration, just as Senator Byrd did in February. I wonder if the Senator is aware of those things?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the assistant Democratic leader for his comments, and I want to especially thank the Senator from Maine. The Senator from Illinois suggested that the waters had gotten muddied because some of us didn't count very well in terms of the number of czars who might exist in the Obama administration. That is why we are so fortunate to have the Senator from Maine, who is always careful, always thoughtful, and always experienced. What she has done is gone back to Senator Byrd's first letter in February, in which he expressed his concern about the constitutional issues here, and then she has counted 18 new czars in the Obama administration. Her letter of September 14 to the President is limited, thoughtful and respectful, and she simply asks that the President identify the specific authorities and responsibilities of those positions, the process by which the administration examines these people, and whether they are willing to testify before us. She is the ranking member of the committee Senator Lieberman chairs and will have an opportunity during the hearings to explore this. Some of us are concerned that the administration is too dedicated to too many Washington takeovers, and the unusual number of new czars is the most visible symbol of the large number of Washington takeovers. I think we are fortunate that we have as thoughtful a Senator as the Senator from Maine and an independent Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, who will look into it. I am sure Senator Byrd will want to weigh in. Senator Feingold may want to have a hearing. So we will have an opportunity to have a thoughtful resolution. I thank the Senator from Maine for her amendment and her leadership on this issue, and I look forward to hearing more from her on it. Madam Chairman, if I could say to the Senator from California, the Senator from New Mexico has been waiting and the Senator from Louisiana has been waiting.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Oklahoma, the Senator from California, the Senator from North Dakota, and the Senator from New Mexico for their work on this amendment. The Senator from Oklahoma stated it exactly right, and that is our intention. I wish to thank the Senators involved.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, the Senator from Oklahoma has asked to be present when we do that, so I wonder if it might not be possible to take up other amendments at this time.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I move to lay that motion upon the table. The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2531

Mr. ALEXANDER. In 60 seconds I would like to thank Chairman Feinstein for being so accommodating working with Republican Members. I would like to thank my colleagues for moving this bill along. Senators Cochran, Inouye, Reid, and McConnell have been terrific. The staff members, Peter and Rachael and Scott; on our side, Leif and Rachelle and Rebecca. We thank you for your hard work.