Floor Statements

Madam President, I congratulate the Senator from Alabama for his comments and for his proposal, which he described as a Republican proposal. Of course, what all of us hope is that it becomes a bipartisan proposal as our friends on the other side look carefully at it. That is what happened with the big bank bailout provision we worked on yesterday. Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby worked for a while, Senators Corker and Warner had worked before that, and we came up with a conclusion that all but five Senators agreed to. Now we have moved to address two of the other major deficiencies in the Dodd bill that we have wrapped up in one proposal here, and it is really wrapped up with the central issue that is before the American people.

President Obama said in September of last year that the health care bill was a proxy for a larger issue about the role of government in Americans' lives. The President was exactly right about that, and we have seen the issue of government's role over and over again. I don't think it will change between now and the November election. In fact, the President said at our health care summit that is why we have elections, and

I think he is correct about that. We have seen a Washington takeover of banks; we have seen a Washington takeover of car companies; we have seen a Washington takeover of many aspects of health care; we have seen a gratuitous Washington takeover of student loans. In this financial regulation bill, instead of dealing with the high jinks of big banks, we are going to take over Main Street lending and, on top of it, create a new czar or czarina to make decisions about millions of transactions across America that are on Main Street.

So what Senator Shelby's proposal offers--and we hope it receives the same kind of bipartisan consideration that the resolution authority or the big bank bailout discussion did yesterday that we finally agreed on--is that we would like to change this bill in two ways. Republicans would like to say: Let's take Main Street lending out of it. The Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, said it is not in there. But the language makes it look as if it is in there. It looks like we're about to start regulating your daughter's dentist bill, the plumber, and the store owners up and down Main Street who give you flexible credit. In other words, if you say: You can pay me over time--it looks as if Congress is going to start regulating that transaction.

That is going to make credit harder to get because the dentist or the plumber or the store owner is going to say: I'm not going to fool with it. I don't want to be regulated by some Washington bureau, so if you want to buy my goods, go to the bank and get some money or get another credit card.

And you know what that is going to do? That's going to slow down the economy. That's going to make jobs harder to create because it is going to make credit harder to obtain and credit harder to offer.

Making credit harder to get is not what we need at this time. We just had the reports of the economic growth of our country during the first quarter. It was 3.2 percent. That is not very good. I can vividly remember flying on a helicopter with President Bush when I was Education Secretary in 1992, and the economic growth of the third quarter of the year was better than that; it was 4.2 percent. And Bill Clinton beat George Bush, Sr., on the ``It's the Economy, Stupid'' campaign. So 3.2 percent is not going to cut it for our country. Most economists say that if our economy continues to grow over the next year, through 2010, at the same rate it grew in the first quarter, the unemployment rate will not change. The unemployment rate will still be about 9 or 10 percent at the end of this year, as it is today.

What can we do to change that? Well, we have to create an environment for job growth. We have done pretty good in creating job growth in Washington. The one place the stimulus has really worked is in Washington, DC. Salaries are up. Jobs are up. There are plenty of new jobs around here. But out across America, we are not creating enough new jobs, and too many of the things we are doing here make it harder to create new jobs.

The health care bill makes it harder to create new jobs because it imposes taxes on job creators and it imposes taxes on investors. Tax increases make it harder to create new jobs. Running up the debt--the President's budget doubled the debt in 5 years and tripled it in 10 years--makes the economy less certain and it makes it harder to create new jobs. And the threat of creating a czar or czarina in Washington, DC, and a new bureau to supervise and make Main Street lending more difficult and expensive makes it harder to create new jobs. We should take it out of the bill.

If the Senator from Connecticut, who is one of our finest Senators, and is well intentioned, wants Main Street lending out of the bill, let's just take it out of the bill. Let's don't leave in there the possibility that someone might come along and interpret ``significantly'' involved financial activities to include the plumber and the dentist.

This has attracted the attention of a lot of people from Tennessee: community bankers, credit unions, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. They are talking about office suppliers, jewelers, health professionals, and furniture stores who are all concerned with this bill. The NFIB estimates that about 50 percent of small businesses let you pay over time. In other words, they offer you credit. They make special arrangements. They say: OK, we know you don't have all of the cash right now. You might not want to run up your credit card or maybe your credit card is near the limit, so we will sell you whatever we have to sell you or we will provide the service you need. You can pay us in 6 months. You can pay us in 5 months.

Well, under this bill, if you offer payment plans you could be ``significantly'' involved in financial activities. Then this czar or czarina in Washington, DC, is going to be regulating you. You might be a very small business and you might not have a lot of extra money to fill out regulatory forms, but you are going to be filling out forms and suffering more regulations. And you are going to be offering less credit and credit will be harder to get up and down Main Street.

If our real intention in this body on both sides of the aisle is to not interfere with Main Street lending, then let's actually do that. That is what the Republican amendment--which we hope becomes a bipartisan--does.

Then there is the second big idea that is in this Republican amendment. So far as I am concerned--we don't need another czar. This bill is supposed to be about big banks, about financial high jinks on Wall Street, about this recession we are in, and about issues that will change the regulations in a sensible way that will avoid as many future recessions as possible and, at the same time, about creating an environment in which we can grow the largest number of good new jobs. But suddenly, we have this new Washington agency not only possibly regulating Main Street lending but creating an unaccountable person at the top to write the rules and the regulations. When I say ``unaccountable,'' that means she or he is just over here at the Fed. Once confirmed by the Senate, this person has no boss. This person doesn't report to the President, doesn't have to come before Congress for appropriations, and has a steady stream of money and really unlimited authority. There is nothing to keep this new czarina or czar from writing the kinds of regulations and rules that got us into trouble in the first place with housing. Nothing to keep this person from writing rules that might encourage irresponsible home ownership. That is what we had before. So the Dodd bill might encourage irresponsible borrowing.

So the second major idea in the Republican amendment is, let's make this person accountable. The President appoints a Director who is confirmed by the Senate, but this person would be in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. This Director would be accountable to other people appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and would have to come before the Congress multiple times annually to give us a chance to inquire about things.

I have come to the floor today to say we made an important step in the right direction when we worked on the first part of this bill yesterday across party lines. We addressed one of the five issues we need to deal with.

The issue of, what to do with banks that are too big to fail and get the rest of us into trouble, has been addressed.

But we have four more big issues to deal with here and other smaller issues. Two of the big issues are addressed in this Republican amendment. One is: let's not take over Main Street lending and make it harder to loan money, harder to get money, and harder to create jobs.

No. 2 is: let's not create another czar in Washington. The last thing we need is another Washington takeover and another Washington czar.

We hope our amendment will attract significant bipartisan support, and then we can move on to the other important questions in this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, are we in morning business?

Madam President, the business before the Senate this week is financial regulation reform. It is hard to pick what the business should be this week. There is so much going on that is of great concern to so many of us.

We have a briefing this afternoon on the dimensions of the oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Those of us in Tennessee are deeply concerned about the 1,000-year rain--an event that only happens every 1,000 years or so, according to some of the engineers in the Army Corps--that has wreaked havoc on middle Tennessee and which is beginning now to hurt west Tennessee.

Also, we have the Arizona immigration debate, which the distinguished Senator from Illinois was discussing a little earlier.

We have a new START treaty the President has asked us to consider.

Just around the corner, we have a nomination coming for a vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States which will dominate, as it should, the attention of this body for 2 or 3 months or so until it is thoroughly considered.

Of course, the American people would like for us to focus on jobs.

I have great respect for the Democratic Governor of Tennessee who was quoted in the Wall Street Journal yesterday saying the following:

``If I have 100 conversations with people, 95 of them will

be about jobs and none of them will be about cap-and-trade

and none of them will be about bank reform,'' said Tennessee

Gov. Phil Bredesen, a conservative Democrat, in an interview.

That is according to the Wall Street Journal. Financial regulation reform is the current topic and financial regulation is important. The importance of it is that this is a country that produces, year in and year out, about 25 percent of all the money in the world. We sometimes forget how privileged we are in our standard of living. We are just about 5 percent of the people of the world, but 25 percent of the wealth of the world is created here. It is because entrepreneurs have an advantage. They can create new jobs one right after the other.

Our well-being is not measured by the number of jobs we lose. It is measured by the difference of jobs we create and the number of jobs we lose. The problem we have right now is we are not creating enough new jobs in the United States of America. We need to focus on doing that.

One aspect of that is the kind of system of financial regulation we have. All of us were appalled by some of the hi-jinks on Wall Street that helped lead us to the great recession in which we find ourselves and for which we had to take extraordinary action. The purpose of the financial regulation bill should be to minimize the possibility of those [Wall Street] hi-jinks occurring again, but at the same time, to leave an environment in the United States where we can create the largest number of good, new jobs. When I say ``we,'' I do not mean the government. We have had too much attention on creating government jobs.

The one place the stimulus has worked is Washington, DC. Salaries are up here. There are more jobs here. The place where the stimulus is not working is out across the country where, if we continued with the economy over the next year at the rate of growth it had in the first quarter, which was 3.2 percent, we are told the unemployment rate at the end of the year will still be about 9 or 10 percent. Why? Because we are not creating enough new jobs in the private sector.

As we deal with financial regulation, we must be careful to leave an environment in which we can continue to create jobs, which is why there are five major issues that have come toward us. I heard someone on television this morning say: There go the Republicans. They want to slow down the financial regulation bill. They cannot agree on it in the Senate.

What we want to do--especially after the health care debate--is provide some checks and balances to make sure we have a good bill.

These are the issues that are before the American people on this bill: Is there a Washington takeover of Main Street lending? Community banks, credit unions, plumbers, and dentists say there may be. We need to make sure there is not.

The last thing we need to do is make it harder to get a loan in Nashville or Manchester or Knoxville or San Antonio. Because if you cannot get a loan, you can't hire a person, you can't invest in something, and you can't create a new job, and the economy does not move. That is the first issue: Is there a Washington takeover of Main Street lending.

The second issue: What about this czarina or czar? What about this person the President would appoint to be in charge of millions of transactions in the consumer bureau? Unlike our other independent agencies, this person would barely be accountable to the President and would not be accountable to the Congress. Doesn't that lead to the possibility that this person could write some rules and regulations unaccountably and might make the same sort of mistake we made when we encouraged people to buy houses who could not afford to pay for them-- which most agree is the principal event that led us into the great recession that we now have? And that nearly led us into another depression, which brings us to the third issue: Why are we not dealing with the big housing agencies? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have about as much debt outstanding as the United States does, and we taxpayers implicitly guarantee their debt.

In the health care debate, it was said: We do not add to the national debt with this bill. But we did not include doctors--we did not include paying doctors in the health care bill. That would be about like my going to the Congressional Budget Office and saying: Tell me how much it is going to cost to run the University of Tennessee for the next 10 years, and the Congressional Budget Office might say to me: With or without the professors? If I wanted a low-ball number, I would say: Oh, give me a number without paying the professors.

That is what we got in the health care bill. We left out $200 billion or $300 billion. The President's budget says it is $371 billion over the next 10 years because we assumed that we would not increase pay for doctors to serve Medicare patients, which would create for them a 21- percent cut in pay. And for those Medicare patients, it begins to create a health care bridge to nowhere because no doctors are going to see them if they are not properly reimbursed.

We are doing the same thing in financial regulation reform when we leave out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Why are we leaving them out? It is not because they didn't make a contribution to the big recession we are in. Everyone agrees they did. The Democrats are leaving them out because if Democrats

put them in, we would have to deal with the $200 billion, $300 billion or $400 billion cost in the current year. According to the Wall Street Journal today, the Congressional Budget Office says the deficit would be about $291 billion bigger in 2009. So, Congress is going to put them in the drawer or put them under the table or act like they aren't there, and say to the American people: Hooray, we fixed financial regulation, but we're not dealing with housing? When we fix financial regulation without addressing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac it's like not paying doctors when we pass a comprehensive health care bill. That is a third issue.

There are a couple more issues. One is the so-called derivatives issue. The so-called derivatives issue is a complicated issue for many people, but the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation says the bill before us may actually create less regulation for these complicated transactions rather than more. This is an area in which we want to make sure we do not make a mistake.

Then there is the so-called big bank bailout provision. Most Americans don't want a provision in the law that allows or encourages big banks to take risks that cause them to fail and take the rest of us down with them. So, the point of our debate ought to be to make sure in our financial regulation reform that we don't provide incentives for big banks to take imprudent risks that will cause them to fail and hurt us because they are so big.

How are we making progress on this issue? As the Republican leader has said, we have Goldman Sachs and Citibank that have said they like the bill. I would say there are a number of people worried about the bill. I am hearing from community banks, credit unions, auto dealers, dentists, furniture retailers, plumbers, and candy companies with concerns.

A New York Times article says: ``Senate Financial Bill Misguided, Some Academics Say.'' That was yesterday. A Professor at MIT says, `` . . . we need to proceed about this in a much more deliberate and rational and thoughtful way.'' That is what we would like to do.

A professor at New York University says leaving out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from the discussion is ``outrageous.''

FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair warns against new curbs on bank trading that I just mentioned.

My point is that this is an opportunity for us on the Republican side and those on the Democratic side to take an important piece of legislation--not such a visible piece of legislation today because we have issues from immigration to the oilspill to the flooding in Tennessee--vastly important for our country and work together to make it better.

Some progress, I understand, is being made on one of the five provisions. That is the too-big-to-fail provision. We will see what Senator Shelby has to say on that. But that still leaves the question of whether we ought to have an independent czarina or czar. That still leaves the question of whether we are dealing properly with derivatives. That still leaves the question of whether we ought to leave out of a financial reform bill the two great housing agencies that are just sticking there in front of us like a sore thumb, reminding us we have not done our job if we don't include them. And of great importance, why can't we simply have a provision in the bill that eliminates any possibility that we have a Washington takeover of Main Street? It is not the business of this bill to make it harder to extend and get credit up and down Main Street America.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a series of articles.

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

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

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. 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.''

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.

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

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

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, 19 million American families will be interested in this motion because it will reduce the cost of student loans which 19 million Americans have. This is the season of the year when a great many students have been admitted to a college or a community college and are making plans and looking for where they are going to get their money. This motion is aimed at reducing the interest rate on 19 million student loans from 6.8 percent to 5.3 percent. For the average student loan debt of about $25,000, it would save that student $1,700 or $1,800 over their ten-year loan. More specifically, it would not only help the student, but it would prevent the Federal Government from overcharging 19 million American college students on their student loans to help pay for the health care bill and other government programs.

One may say: Wait a minute, I thought we were debating the health care bill. How did we get to student loans? That is a very good question because it just came up over the weekend. Of course, we have talked about student loans. There have been proposals, but there have been no hearings in the Senate, no consideration in the Senate committee of which I am a member. Yet over the weekend, the Democratic majority said: Well, look, while we are at it, let's have another Washington takeover. Let's take over the Federal student loan program. Let's take a program which is working very well, in which 15 million American students have voted with their feet to say they would prefer to get a regular student loan backed by the government, which they get at their college campuses, through their community bank, through a nonprofit institution. Even though they do have an option for a government loan, three out of four students have said they prefer the student loan through the private lender. Yet over the weekend, the Democratic majority has said: While we are at it, let's take over the Federal student loan program.

That means that starting July 1, students have no choice. They go to the Federal Government to get their student loan, all 19 million of them, which is a new experience for 15 of the 19 million.

The way they are going to do it--and this is all going to be set up in a very short period of time--is they are now going to have to go to four Federal call centers. So instead of going to their local lender or to their nonprofit institution, that can help them with their application form and see what their options are and encourage them as they make their plans for college, welcome to the new government loan program. They have no choice. That is what they are going to do.

What are the other aspects of this? Well, other than denying choice to 19 million students on more than 2,000 campuses who prefer the Federal loan program, the Federal Government is going to have to borrow another $\1/2\ trillion in order to make these loans. Let's think about this for a moment. What is the No. 1 issue that most Americans worry about today? It is that we have too much debt. So what did this weekend takeover do? It adds about $\1/2\ trillion to the Federal debt in order to make student loans, at the rate of about $90 billion or $100 billion a year for 4 or 5 years.

So we take away choice, we add to the debt, and we also put 31,000 people out of their jobs. These are a lot of loans, and so we have a lot of people in these organizations, such as Edsouth in my State, a nonprofit organization that helps students get their loans. So all these lenders are out of business and we have one big bank--the Federal Government.

The Education Secretary is the new banker of the year. He is a very good Education Secretary, but I don't know how good a banker he is going to be.

But here is the rub, and this is what my motion is about. The Federal Government is going to be borrowing money at 2.8 percent and loaning it to students at 6.8 percent and taking the difference and spending it on new government programs, including the health care bill. So we are going to be overcharging 19 million students to help pay for the health care bill. And, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office estimates, about $8.7 billion of the overcharged money is going to go to pay for the health care bill.

My friends on the other side have already spent the money, of course. They have announced to everybody that we are going to spend it on this and on that and on this, but what they do not tell you is, where they get the money. Where they get the money is overcharging students-- overcharging students.

These aren't Wall Street financiers we are overcharging. This might be a single mom going to a community college in Tennessee who has a job but who wants a better job and so she borrows some money to go to the community college and the Federal Government is going to overcharge her to pay for some government program. She might not like that.

In fact, I think there will be about 19 million student loan holders across the country who will go to school next year and say: Wait a minute here. You mean you are overcharging me on my student loan to pay for this health care bill and to pay for other government programs? The answer will be: Yes, that is what we are doing, unless my colleagues support this motion.

The estimate by our friends on the other side is that their Federal takeover of the Federal student loan enterprise will save $61 billion. If they are correct, let's give it to the students. Let's reduce their interest rate. I mean, $1,700 or $1,800 per student in interest over 10 years is the average amount of savings, and that is a lot of money. It may not seem like a lot of money to Congressmen and Senators in Washington, but to the single mom going to the community college who is borrowing the money to go to school in order to get a better job, $1,700 or $1,800 is a lot of money.

So in addition to the higher premium numbers, the higher taxes, the Medicare cuts, and the new cost to States, we are going to be overcharging on student loans. Let me use a specific example from Tennessee, if I may. I was at the University of Tennessee earlier this week. This is the University of which I used to be president. The University of Tennessee has 30,000 students, and 37 percent of them--or 11,251--have Federal private loans today. The average student debt is about $20,000. After July 1, all 11,000 students at the University of Tennessee, with these Federal loans from private lenders, are going to have to switch to the government loans, and the government is going to overcharge 11,000 students who go to the University of Tennessee at Knoxville and use that overcharged money to pay for new government programs, including the health care bill.

They are going to do the same thing to the University of Tennessee at Martin. There they choose to use the private loan program. They like it better than the government loan program. They think it is more convenient for the students. They have chosen--3,600 students at UT Martin--have chosen Federal private loans. They are going to be out of those loans by July 1. They are going to have government loans, and the government is going to overcharge them to help pay for the health care program.

Maryville College--I will be there Saturday night to help dedicate their arts center. There, 824 students have Federal loans today. They are going to have government loans. They are going to switch from private to government loans. They will have no choice after July 1. I know a lot of these students. They come from modest families, in most cases. They are not going to be very happy to learn that when they switch to a government loan after July 1, and if they have an average- size loan, which is about $25,000, that over 10 years they are going to pay $1,700 or $1,800 to help pay for the health care program or other new government programs.

In Carson-Newman College, it is 1,259 students. In East Tennessee State University, it is 8,187 students. In all of Tennessee, it is 200,000 students who have student loans who are going to be overcharged an average of $1,700 or $1,800 a year to help pay for the health care program or some other government program, and this amendment would say: No, we are not. If we are going to take over the student loan program, at least we are not going to overcharge the students and use it for the health care program. We are going to give the money back to the students.

The point of my amendment is very simple. We are going to reduce the interest rate we charge on 19 million student loans from 6.8 percent to 5.3 percent and let the students have the savings instead of letting the government have the savings. That is what the other side has not told people about the student loans.

If we had an ample opportunity to debate this in the Senate, if we had a committee hearing on it, if we had taken it through the regular process, maybe we could have pointed this out, but no, we do it over the weekend, put it in the House bill, send it over here, jam it through with great breast beating and protestations: Look what we have done for the country. I am accustomed to that. I used to be a Governor. I remember lots of Members of Congress who would say I did a great thing in Washington and then send the bill to me to pay. And then, as Governor--in this case the health care bill will do the same thing. It will send to the Governors and to the States new costs. Our Governor estimates it is $1.1 billion over 5 years, to $1.5 billion. That is about $300 million a year new costs that State taxpayers will have to pay.

As the Medicaid cost goes up, we will get the second blow to the students of Tennessee because either the State is going to have to reduce funding for public higher education--which I believe this health care bill will help permanently damage--or they are going to have to raise taxes, or they are going to have to raise tuition, or they are going to have to do all three. If I am a student at Maryville College, Carson-Newman, or the University of Tennessee, first this health care bill is going to overcharge me on my student loan to help pay for it; second, it is going to send such big new costs to the government that the Governor is going to have to reduce funding to my college or university and my tuition is going to go up.

All those students in California who are protesting a 34-percent increase in tuition probably do not realize the reason for that happening. The main reason is that over the years the Federal Government has so regulated the Medicaid program that the States pay about a third of, that the State budgets have grown and grown and the Governors, such as Governor Schwarzenegger in California, have had no choice except to cut, knowing that when you get down through the budget process you have had no choice except to cut other programs. Governors know when you get down through the budget process in the State, it usually comes down to Medicaid or higher education. So a great university such as the University of California is on its knees, and if it even hoped to keep its quality, it raises tuition 34 percent.

My amendment will not help that problem. The law the President signed yesterday already will transfer to States these huge new costs that are going to permanently damage higher education and raise tuition. But what my amendment will do is say we are not going to overcharge 200,000 students in Tennessee for their student loans and use $8.7 billion to help pay for health care.

Sometimes I think the motto of the Obama administration is: If you can find it in the Yellow Pages, the government ought to be doing it.

This is breathtaking. While we are taking over cars, banks, insurance companies, while we are taking over more of health care, we will also take over the student loan program, add $\1/2\ trillion to the Federal debt, overcharge 19 million students, cause 31,000 people to lose their jobs and say ``all in a day's work.'' That is what happened last weekend. Over the weekend that is the decision they made. Then over here bragging about how much we are going to do for everybody. We are going to do a little more for everybody if we have a chance to vote on this amendment because when we go home we will have a chance to say either I cut the interest rate on your student loan from 6.8 to 5.3 percent and give you the savings, or I voted to overcharge you $1,700 or $1,800 a year and give the money to the government to help pay for the health care bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my remarks a few communications I received from Tennessee.

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. President, I withdraw my motion.

Mr. President, would you let me know when 10 more minutes has expired, please?

I have a little history with the student loan program. I see the distinguished Senator from Utah is here. When he was the ranking Republican on the Senate Health and Education Committee 20 years ago, I was the U.S. Education Secretary. He even helped me in my confirmation process, for which I have always been deeply grateful. But he and I worked together during that time when the question of having a government loan program or a direct loan program came up. It was widely discussed. We had a Republican President then and a Democratic Congress. We came to a compromise. The compromise was to say let's have both. We will give students the option and help them stay on and keep the organizations on their toes. So if you are a student at the University of Tennessee, University of Utah, you have a choice. You can either say I don't want to fool with all these private lenders or the local bank or the nonprofit organizations in my State or Edsouth or others or the State organization, I want to go straight to the government. All institutions have that choice. That is 6,000 colleges and universities and 19 million students. Only one-fourth of them choose the government direct lending program.

In the United States of America where choice and competition is an important part of our culture, that usually teaches us a lesson. That would suggest to us that most campuses, most students, by overwhelming majorities prefer being in the private market to lining up to go to the government. Otherwise we would have the government grocery store, we would have the government car company. Actually we are beginning to sound like that in this country. We would have the government insurance company and all banks would be government banks. Everything would be in the government.

They used to have a system like that in the Soviet Union. Ours did a little better over time. Generally, our motto has been if you can find it in the Yellow Pages the government should not be doing it. What is happening with this administration and this Congress is the reverse. If you can find it in the Yellow Pages, the government should be doing it.

Here is the situation that developed over the last 20 years. There are roughly 6,000 institutions of higher education in this country. Many people say all higher education is like the University of Tennessee or Harvard or University of California, but there are many kinds of colleges and universities--for-profit, nonprofit, private, public, historically Black colleges, many different kinds of institutions. The genius of our system is that we let Federal dollars, either through Pell grants or through loans, follow the student to the institution of their choice. Choice and competition in our system of higher education has given us by far the best system of higher education in the world.

Of those 6,000 institutions, last year, 2008, 4,421 schools chose to use the regular student loan program. That is three out of four. About one out of four used the government loan, the direct loan program, the one that everybody is going to be made to use now. Currently there are just under 2,000 lenders who participate in the student loan program. They are banks and they are nonprofit institutions such as Edsouth in Tennessee.

Last year nearly $100 billion in student loans was made. Let's keep in mind as the government takes this over we go from a system where we have government-backed loans, which cost the taxpayers very little, to government loans at the rate of $100 billion a year which means we are going to have to run up a half trillion more in debt at a time when our debt is ridiculously out of control. That is this weekend's newest Washington takeover that just occurred.

There is not definitive evidence to suggest that the Federal Government can make these loans better than lenders can make these loans. I don't think the Department of Education has the manpower to do it. I think that by July 1 there is going to be consternation all over the country from families who have applied for student loans and are applying through their Federal call center or through the Internet.

Edsouth, a nonprofit provider in Tennessee, for example, has five regional outreach counselors who canvas Tennessee and provide career training. They made 443 presentations to Tennessee schools to help students understand--remember, we have 200,000 of these students in Tennessee--to help them understand their options. They worked with 12,000 students to help them understand what they could do. They worked with 1,000 school counselors.

The U.S. Department of Education will soon be providing all of these services.

Senator Gregg earlier had written the Congressional Budget Office asking how much money this Federal takeover would save. They came back with an explanation that it is not $67 billion or $61 billion, which is the current number being used today, but more like $47 billion. My own suspicion, and I cannot prove it, but my own suspicion, having been a university president, having been Secretary of Education and having watched this program for 20 years, is that in the real world the Federal Government is not going to make these 19 million loans more convenient for students. It is not going to be able to do it any cheaper. It is just going to deny people choice, run up the debt, throw 31,000 people out of jobs, and the icing on the cake, and it is a sour- tasting icing, is that the 19 million students who have student loans after July 1 are going to be overcharged by the Federal Government, which will be borrowing money at 2.8 percent, loaning it at 6.8 percent, and using the money to help pay for the health care bill and other programs.

Our friends on the other side, they will be saying--they like to blame everything on the bankers or the lenders--well, the lenders are charging too much money. Well, if they are charging too much money, reduce what they get.

You are saying there are $61 billion in savings, much of which comes from the fact that the Federal Government can borrow money more cheaply than private lenders can.

But then you are saying, we are going to take the savings and we are going to spend it. We are going to overcharge these students. I can't believe the brazenness of this, and I believe neither will 19 million students understand it.

So I am glad to come to the floor today and talk about my motion, which I will be glad to introduce at the appropriate time. No Senate bill has been introduced. Our committee has held no hearings. We have not had a markup of this bill. This is a wondrous Washington takeover over the weekend.

We stick into the health care bill another Washington takeover, this time of 19 million student loans. On top of it: Congratulations, Mr. and Mrs. Working Student, you are going to get to be overcharged on your loan to help pay for the health care bill and other government programs.

I hope my friends in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, will see the injustice of this and say: OK, you are right, Senator Alexander. If we are going to take it over, and if we are going to create $61 billion in savings, at least let's give the students the savings. Let's not give it to the government. Let's not overcharge the students, on an average $25,000 student debt, $1,700 or $1,800 over 10 years.

I think we need to have a truth-and-lending stamp that goes on every single student loan starting July 1 that says: Warning. Your government is overcharging you in order to help pay for other government programs.

We will let the single mom who has a job, who is going to school to help improve her circumstances, see what she thinks about the idea of her being overcharged to help pay for other government programs.

So my motion, when it is voted on, will do a very simple thing. It will say to the 19 million students in the country: We are going to reduce your interest rate on your student loan from a typical 6.8 percent to 5.3 percent. That is going to save you $1,700 or $1,800 on an average loan over ten years. It says: We are not going to overcharge 19 million students to help pay for the health care bill.

Before I yield the floor, I see my friend from New Hampshire is engaged in conversation. I wonder if I could address the Senator from New Hampshire through the Chair. Before I yield the floor, I wished to ask, through the Chair, whether that is what I should do.

I will be glad to take the Senator's question.

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.

The Senator is correct.

I will be glad to have a question.

Mr. President, I do not have that letter in front of me, and I do not know what that has to do with my amendment.

What I am saying is, the Democratic majority is deliberately overcharging 19 million students to help pay for the health care bill. Those are the Congressional Budget Office's figures, not mine.

I would ask, through the Chair, to the Senator from New Hampshire, whether I should at this point yield the floor.

I yield the floor.

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

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. 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.

A ``no'' means savings to students.

Mr. President, I was talking with the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Wyoming about Stewart Udall, whom the majority leader also talked about a little earlier. He is the father of Senator Tom Udall and the uncle of Mark, and a great, distinguished American. He lived 90 long, good years, and did so much in our country to focus on conservation and the outdoors. So we remember and celebrate his life and send from our family, and I am sure from the entire Senate, our best wishes to our colleagues Tom and Mark and to their families.

Mr. President, I have been in and out of public life a long time, and I have never had anything affect me in a personal way like the health care debate. I got up this morning in West Millers Cove in Blount County and drove to the Knoxville airport, and almost every single person with whom I talked on the way into the airplane had something to say to me about the health care debate. When I get on the plane, here comes another fellow right down the aisle, hands me a note, and says: Thanks for all your hard work. None of them are for the health care bill passed last night. They are all deeply concerned and deeply worried about it, and they see it as I see it. They see it as a historic mistake.

Unlike the Social Security bill, the Medicare bill, the Medicaid bill, the civil rights bills of 1957 and 1964 and 1968 and later, all those bills passed with significant bipartisan support. But the bill last night was a completely partisan act. The only thing bipartisan about it is the opposition to it. I think it is important that we continue to say why that is true.

The fundamental mistake is that the bill basically expands a health care delivery system that we all know is too expensive at a time of enormous concern about the national debt. In the middle of a great recession, we are expanding a health care delivery system that we know is too expensive; instead of focusing our attention and working together to set as a goal of reducing the cost of the health care delivery system so more Americans can afford to buy insurance. That is the basic difference of opinion.

The Democrats believe we should expand the system we have now. Of course, they make some changes, but basically it is an expansion of a system that is too expensive, and they make it more expensive. We believe what we should do, instead, is to reduce the cost of the American health care delivery system, and by doing so make it possible for more Americans to be able to afford health insurance.

Here is what the bill does now, as we see it. It imposes even larger taxes on job creators in the middle of a recession. It will mean Medicare cuts and premium increases for millions of Americans. The Medicare cuts, it is said, are alright because there is some fraud and abuse in Medicare. We agree with that. But what we are saying is that Medicare, according to its trustees, is going broke by 2010, and every penny of savings in Medicare ought to go to Medicare to help make it stronger. This bill spends almost all the money on a new entitlement, and the bill last night cuts Medicare even more deeply.

Some say: Well, it only hurts providers and hospitals. Well, those hospitals are the ones that may announce, as some are announcing, that we are not going to accept Medicare patients anymore because we are already being reimbursed so little. But it also cuts Medicare beneficiaries' benefits. The Congressional Budget Office says that fully half of those who have Medicare Advantage--and that is one out four Medicare beneficiaries in the country--will see their benefits cut. That is what this bill does.

As far as premium increases go, the President and I had a little friendly discussion about that at the health care summit. I said: For millions of Americans, individual premiums would go up. He said: No, they won't. I said: With respect, Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office says yes, they will, by 10 to 13 percent, on the average. He said: Oh, no, oh, no, they will be getting a better policy. But that is like saying: If the government requires you to buy a better car and it is more expensive, it may be better but it is still more expensive. For a variety of reasons individual premiums are going to go up, and one is the government requirement that you buy a better policy.

Senator Collins, who was the insurance commissioner in Maine, has surveyed her State, and her conclusion is that 87 percent of the individual policies there will be more expensive under this bill. It is true that maybe half of those persons would get subsidies--paid for by taxpayers--but that still leaves maybe 40 percent of the individual policies in Maine where individual premiums will go up. They will go up because we are dumping more people into Medicaid--the State program for low-income Americans--and we don't reimburse physicians and hospitals adequately for those patients.

Today, one-half of doctors won't see new Medicaid patients. So what do hospitals and the doctors do when they do see a Medicaid patient? They transfer part of the cost of seeing that patient--that Medicaid patient--on to someone who has private insurance. So that forces premiums to go up.

When you have a provision in the bill, as this bill does, which says that my policy can't go up much when compared with my son's policy, well, that might keep my policy from going up so much, but my son is going to be paying a lot more. So younger Americans are going to be very surprised as the cost of their policies goes up. Then the provision in the bill with the requirement to buy policies was weakened, and because it is weak, a lot of young people especially may not join the policy. When they do not, that will leave sicker and older people within the system, and that will help drive premium costs up as well. So for all those reasons, for millions of Americans, it is accurate to say that premiums will go up.

I was at the University of Tennessee this morning--a tremendous university. Dr. Chu, the President's Energy Secretary, is visiting there today and tomorrow. I wish I could be with him to talk about the work they are doing, between the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the university and its science program. Senator Bingaman has visited there before. But one of the undercurrent stories in America today is the condition of America's public higher education. State funding for public higher education has been flat for the last 10 years.

Why is that? Because Medicaid costs continue to rise. Governors can't control those budgets or control those costs, and the reason they can't is because we write the program up here and then send them about a third to 40 percent of the bill. They cannot afford it, so what do they do? They cut the amount of money that goes to the University of Virginia or the University of Tennessee or the University of New Mexico or the University of Wyoming and then what happens? Either quality goes down, fewer students are served, fewer faculty are attracted or tuition goes up, which is why the students are protesting in California about the 34-percent increase in tuition at the University of California. They probably didn't even imagine the reason for that

is the Federal Government is causing Medicaid costs to continue to rise and Governors, therefore, make cuts and tuition goes up. This bill will make that worse.

Then, on top of that, you have the last-minute takeover of the Federal student loan program. Suddenly, 19 million students--well, 15 million of those 19 million will go to the Federal Government to get their loan, beginning in July, instead of to 2,000 lenders across the country. The Government is saying we are going to save money. That may be true. But guess what the Government is going to do with its money. They are not going to say: Because the Government can borrow the money at 2.8 percent it is going to cost us less to operate the program, therefore, we are going to give students the savings. They are going to spend the savings. So they are going to borrow it at 2.8 percent and loan it to the students at 6.8 percent. That is overcharging America's students to help pay for the health care program.

These students are not Wall Street financiers. They are working people, some of them pretty grown up, in their thirties and forties, going back to Walter State Community College. They often have a job. They are not going to be very happy when they find out they are paying higher interest. The estimate that we have made in our office is it might be $1,500-$1,700 dollars over 10 years in more interest. That is the amount the Governor is going to be overcharging them to pay for other government programs, including health care.

The action that is being taken may be historic. But we believe that it is a historic mistake and that throughout the rest of this year the debate will not end about health care; but it will change. It will be larger than just health care.

As the President himself said last year, the health care debate is a proxy for a larger debate about the role of government in America's life. We believe that is a debate our country should have, and we believe the country will soundly reject a policy of more taxes, more spending, more debt, and more Washington takeover.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, will the Senator from Arizona take a question?

I thank the Senator, and I will sit down and listen to his explanation on the other issue. But I heard the Senator mention the news this morning, that the new bill--which we have not seen, and which, suddenly, of course, as is usually the case, we have to rush and pass over the weekend before we read it--is going to save the government money. I do not think very many Americans believe that.

But my question is this: I wonder if the Senator knows whether this comprehensive health care bill--which is going to ``save'' the government money; not run up the deficit--includes the amount of money it costs the government to pay doctors to serve Medicare patients. If it does not include that amount--which I believe I heard the Representative from Wisconsin say was $371 billion in the President's budget over 10 years--would that not be like asking the Congressional Budget Office to tell you the cost of a horse farm without the horses? Can the Senator from Arizona imagine a comprehensive health care program that does not include the cost of paying doctors to serve Medicare patients? If it does not, does that not clearly mean that just that one provision will guarantee that the bill will increase the Federal deficit?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Republican Senators be able to engage in a colloquy.