Floor Statements

Mr. President, yes, I do. I wish to be recognized for 10 minutes as part of morning business.

Yes, Mr. President, I do. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, yesterday, Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner released language for a legislative approach to address global climate change. The committee also has announced a subcommittee hearing on this legislation for October 24. I understand that the subcommittee intends to mark up this legislation on October 31 and move it to the full committee soon thereafter.

I acknowledge the commitment Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Warner, both of whom I hold in the highest regard, have shown to this issue. However, I am concerned about the aggressive committee agenda for the consideration and markup of this legislation. I would hope that the legislation would proceed under regular order--which for complex environmental legislation establishing new emission control regimes typically includes multiple hearings on the legislative language and ample time for Members to review legislative language.

For example, when the committee was considering multipollutant emission reduction legislation under the Clear Skies Act, the committee held three legislative hearings over a period of 2 months before proceeding to a markup. That process allowed the committee to hear from the Environmental Protection Agency, State and local officials, union representatives, public interest groups, various trade associations, and representatives from financial institutions. This approach provided Members with the input and time necessary for meaningful participation in the committee markup process.

The Subcommittee on Environmental Protection followed a similar process during consideration of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. From September 1989 to the final markup in December 1989, the subcommittee held three legislative hearings, which provided Members with the valuable opportunity to question a wide variety of witnesses on the implications of specific provisions in the legislation.

I also note that, on environmental legislation of significant importance, the committee has a history of expending the time and consideration necessary to achieve broad, bipartisan support before reporting legislation out of committee. In the past, this has ensured that, when moving from full committee to the Senate floor, the legislation has matured sufficiently for consideration by the full Senate body. I believe this front-end work on consensus is even more important given the current demands on floor time and the underlying legislative atmosphere in general.

But this process is also important because we cannot afford to get this wrong. I believe that rushing legislation through committee will not affect a reasonable solution to the problem. We must find a way to harmonize policies that address our Nation's energy, economic, and environmental needs. And the only way we can do this is by taking a detailed look at what has been proposed.

Unfortunately, what we have had in this Nation for many years is a ``tail wagging the dog environmental policy'' that is hurting our Nation's international competitiveness. Here is an example that we are all familiar with: Coal-fired power plants have become increasingly clean, yet they face a daunting number of new air quality requirements. These requirements are duplicative, inefficient, and create considerable uncertainty for an industry that is providing the nation with one of its most critical resources: safe, economic, and reliable power generation.

These policies have resulted in a sharp increase in the use of natural gas for electric power generation--accounting for almost 94 percent of the increase in domestic demand for natural gas since 1992. The demand for natural gas is sending ripple effects throughout the economy because of its use as both a fuel and a feedstock for the production of everything from fertilizer to plastics to heating homes. This has contributed to loss of over 200,000 manufacturing jobs in Ohio alone. And these sharp price increases continue to impair the competitive position of U.S. manufacturing companies in domestic and world markets.

That our Nation's environmental policies have this type of effect on our economy is not a new revelation. But one thing has become clear-- there is a faction of groups that have made it their priority to kill coal. Those that support this objective have illustrated to me that this dialogue is being driven by ideological extremes. This is unfortunate and does nothing to foster an environment where rational policy choices may be made about the serious issue we face.

I recognize that we need to address climate change. But any reasonable climate change policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would also: Promote economic stability--reductions should not cause fuel switching, sharp electricity rate increases or economic dislocation; promote technology development--legislation must provide incentives to advance the pace of technology; provide for reductions from developing countries--we cannot send jobs overseas to countries that don't share our environmental objectives.

These goals are to keep the Nation's economy, and that of Ohio, on a sure footing while decreasing emissions. Coal is the Nation's most abundant, cheap and accessible energy resource. Its strategic value from a national security and economic perspective should not be underestimated. It is simply nonsensical to put a policy in place that would jeopardize this resource. Climate change requires a long term solution whose strategy is fully capable of accommodating the time necessary to get the technology in place that will ensure coal's continued viability.

An analysis released this summer of the Lieberman-McCain climate change bill--a predecessor to this legislation--which capped greenhouse gas emissions at 60 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2050--is illustrative of my concerns. It concluded: Reductions in real GDP over the lifetime of the bill could be in the order of several trillion dollars. The analysis predicted that in 2050 average household annual consumption would be about $1,900 lower; gasoline prices would increase approximately $0.70 per gallon; and electricity prices are projected to be about 25 percent higher. But EPA points out that the impacts may be underestimated. This is because the analysis assumes: One, that carbon capture and storage technologies are widely available at a reasonable cost; and two, a 150-percent increase in nuclear power generation will occur. These assumptions are absurd.

Needless to say, this legislation would cause drastic reductions in the use of coal. Some activists would applaud this, but it could result in the elimination of over 50,000 coal industry jobs. Not exactly a recipe for economic recovery.

If enacting these restrictions would save the world from environmental collapse, as many would have us believe, it might be worth the economic pain. But the proposals, as demonstrated in a more recent EPA analysis requested by Senators Bingaman and Specter, will have little or no effect on global temperatures. In fact, this study concluded that even the most stringent of the policy proposals under consideration would have a net effect on global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 of a mere 25 parts per million.

The point of all this is that we need to take the time to fully understand the costs and benefits of the policies that are being advanced to address the problem of climate change. Yes this is a problem that we need to address, but

recklessly moving forward may result in disastrous economic repercussions, with little or no benefit to the environment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the Underground Railroad is an educational cultural program that we have as a grant from the Department of Education for the purpose of making known to children all over America the history of the Underground Railroad and of the Civil War. It also is a program that is aimed at diversity training that is so necessary. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to name the Post Office in Tiffin, Ohio, after the late U.S. Representative Paul E. Gillmor. It is my honor to introduce this bill because of my close relationship with Congressman Gillmor, and the utmost respect I have for him and his service to the people of Ohio. I would like to thank Senator Brown for his cosponsorship.

Paul and I met four decades ago in 1967 when we began our careers together, Paul as a State senator and I as a member of the Ohio House. Paul was immensely successful and well-respected because he treated others with dignity and respect.

During his tenure as president of the Ohio Senate, he was able to put partisan politics aside and work together with Governor Celeste for the best interests of the state.

Paul had a wonderful knack for being able to work with people to get things done. He led by example, and his enthusiasm and ability always made you want to be on his team. He left an indelible mark on the people he worked with which is a part of his wonderful, lasting legacy.

When I came to the Senate I knew I had a real friend in Paul Gillmor. My only regret is that I did not have more time to spend with him.

Because of Paul's diligent and devoted service to his country, it is fitting that the post office in Tiffin, Ohio, should soon bear his name. Not far from his small home town of Old Fort, Ohio; Tiffin was chosen in concurrence with the wishes of his wife, Karen Gillmor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to name the Post Office in Tiffin, Ohio, after the late U.S. Representative Paul E. Gillmor. It is my honor to introduce this bill because of my close relationship with Congressman Gillmor, and the utmost respect I have for him and his service to the people of Ohio. I would like to thank Senator Brown for his cosponsorship.

Paul and I met four decades ago in 1967 when we began our careers together, Paul as a State senator and I as a member of the Ohio House. Paul was immensely successful and well-respected because he treated others with dignity and respect.

During his tenure as president of the Ohio Senate, he was able to put partisan politics aside and work together with Governor Celeste for the best interests of the state.

Paul had a wonderful knack for being able to work with people to get things done. He led by example, and his enthusiasm and ability always made you want to be on his team. He left an indelible mark on the people he worked with which is a part of his wonderful, lasting legacy.

When I came to the Senate I knew I had a real friend in Paul Gillmor. My only regret is that I did not have more time to spend with him.

Because of Paul's diligent and devoted service to his country, it is fitting that the post office in Tiffin, Ohio, should soon bear his name. Not far from his small home town of Old Fort, Ohio; Tiffin was chosen in concurrence with the wishes of his wife, Karen Gillmor.

Mr. President, as a senior member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I rise today to speak in opposition to the Graham amendment to provide an additional $3 billion in emergency spending for the Department of Homeland Security.

I want to make clear that I agree with my colleagues that we must secure our borders and provide the resources to do it. Let me remind my colleagues that the Department's overall budget has grown more than 150 percent since its creation. Of that total, border security and immigration enforcement represents approximately one-third of the Department's annual spending.

In 2007, Congress provided $12.1 billion in funding for border security. For 2008, the President budget requested $13.5 billion for border security, a 12-percent increase over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2007. The $13.5 billion that Secretary Chertoff requested from Congress was what he felt was needed to continue the Department's efforts to secure our borders. The Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Committee provided a total of $14.9 billion for border security in its mark of the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security appropriations bill, a 23-percent increase over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2007 and a 10-percent increase over the President's budget request for fiscal year 2008.

Earlier this year, the Senate voted in favor of a similar amendment to the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security appropriations bill. The Senate provided a total of $17.9 billion in funding for border security and immigration enforcement, a 48-percent increase over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2007. Because Congress failed to complete action on any of the appropriations bills, this funding remains in limbo.

The Federal Government continues to spend more than it brings in and this amendment continues that practice. If we decide we absolutely need to spend $3 billion on something--and I support adequately funding border security--then we need to either raise more revenue or cut other spending to pay for it.

Thus, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Graham amendment.

Mr. President, I wish to honor and congratulate an outstanding community and business leader from my hometown of Cleveland, OH. Virgil E. Brown, Sr., has become a well-recognized name in Cleveland after serving our community and great State of Ohio for nearly three decades. On August 12, 2007, Virgil celebrated his 90th birthday. Also this year, his lovely wife Lurtissia celebrated her

87th birthday, and together they celebrated an amazing 68 years of marriage. What an accomplishment.

Virgil grew up in humble beginnings. He was born in Louisville, KY, to George and Sarah Brown. He is the eldest of six children. He moved to Cleveland with his parents and siblings when he was 12 years old. He graduated from Central High School in Cleveland in 1937 and attended Fenn College, now Cleveland State University.

Throughout Virgil's long and distinguished career of public service, he has made history and opened many doors through a number of ``firsts'' he attained. He served as the first African-American to be the director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections; the first African-American to be elected as a Cuyahoga County commissioner; and the first African-American to serve as director of the Ohio Lottery Commission.

His political career started in 1966 with an unsuccessful bid for a State representative position. He rebounded quickly, however, and in 1967 he won a seat on the Cleveland City Council, where he served for three terms. In 1972, when there was a breakdown in the countywide election system and the position of director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections became available, Virgil resigned his city council seat to accept an appointment as director of the Board of Elections. He served nearly 7 years in this position, and during his tenure he restored the integrity and efficiency of the election process.

When I left the position of Cuyahoga County commissioner to serve as Lieutenant Governor of Ohio in 1979, Virgil was appointed as my replacement. He was reelected and served three additional terms. While in his last term as commissioner, I was serving as Governor, and I asked Virgil if he would serve as the director of the Ohio State Lottery. Virgil graciously accepted, even though he was planning to retire. I appointed him in 1991, and he remained as director until 1995, when he officially retired at the age of 74.

Virgil has had many notable achievements throughout his life. In 1976, he delivered the nominating speech for President Gerald Ford at the Republican National Convention. He was honored by the Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners when they named their human services building the Virgil E. Brown Center. In 2002, he was inducted by the Cuyahoga County Republicans into the inaugural class of the James A. Garfield Hall of Fame. He was also inducted into the Glenville Hall of Fame, the Senior Citizens Hall of Fame, and the National Forum for Black Public Administrators'--Cleveland chapter--Hall of Fame. He is also a past president of the National Bowling Association.

Virgil has served the greater Cleveland community and the State of Ohio with distinction. Whether it was through his political career, his mentorship of numerous young adults, his tenure on the board of directors for various community based organizations and commissions, through his home church, Bethany Baptist Church, or through his successful insurance company, Virgil Brown has touched and improved the lives of many.

Throughout all of his accomplishments, his loving and supportive wife Lurtissia has been by his side. Without a doubt, she has been his greatest blessing. Together they have two children, Veretta Garrison, who is a businesswoman in Connecticut, and Virgil, Jr., who is an attorney in Cleveland and also a member of the State Board of Education.

Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to thank Virgil E. Brown, Sr., for his exceptional leadership and for serving as a stellar role model. Congratulations, Virgil, on all you have and will continue to achieve. Our lives are better as a result of having been touched by you. May God continue to bless you and your family.

Mr. President, today the Senate considers, as my good friend, Senator Akaka, has mentioned, H.R. 1124 that will reauthorize the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant Program. Senator Akaka and I have been working on this legislation for quite some time and both believe it is one of the most significant efforts the Congress has made to help students of the District of Columbia.

I thank both the majority leader and the minority leader for allowing us to move this bill forward today. This bill passed the House in May by a vote of 268 to 100. Earlier this year, we introduced the Senate companion bill sponsored by Senator Akaka, Senator Brownback, Senator Landrieu, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Warner offering this needed reauthorization. I thank the Senator from Hawaii for his cosponsorship of this legislation.

I understand the special relationship between the Federal Government and the District. Congress shares the responsibility of making certain that the Nation's Capital remains a socially, economically, and culturally vibrant city. As a former mayor and Governor, I also believe that education is one of the most important factors in ensuring this Nation's future. Thus, one can imagine my dismay when I came to Washington, the shining city on the Hill, and learned that only 43 percent of students entering the ninth grade graduated from high school and even fewer go on to college. One would have thought that our Nation's Capital, the most powerful city in the world, would be the home for a first-class education system.

I am very concerned about the dropout rate in our Nation. America cannot afford to have urban schoolchildren drop out of school and become wards of society. Unless this situation changes, we are planting the seeds for social unrest. As the United Negro College Fund says, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Concerned with the future of the District's children, Representative Tom Davis and I crafted the District of Columbia College Access Act which created the DCTAG Program, tuition assistance program. I consider the creation of the DCTAG Program to be one of the most worthwhile efforts I have done since my time in the Senate.

The aim of the DCTAG Program is to level the playing field for high school graduates in the District of Columbia who do not have access to a comprehensive, State-supported education system by assisting them in attending college. Before the DCTAG Program, DC students were the only students in the United States--the only ones in the United States--with a limited State higher education system. As a result, few District graduates went on to attend college.

Beginning in 2000, DCTAG scholarships have been used by District students to cover the difference between instate and out-of-State tuition at State universities. Senator Akaka has already explained the limitations on the program, but it provides up to $10,000 per year for out-of-State tuition, with a cap of $50,000, and $2,500 for private schools, with a cap of $12,500.

Again, the way this has worked out is the District has seen an unprecedented increase, a 60-percent increase in college attendance. No other State in the Union can make this claim. Think about that: a 60- percent increase in college attendance. More than 1,500 DCTAG recipients have graduated from college. In my State of Ohio, there are currently 74 District students attending 11 universities, including Ohio State, Kent State, and Bowling Green State University. I truly believe the majority of the students would not be attending colleges and universities in Ohio without the DCTAG Program.

I am particularly proud of the fact that many DCTAG recipients are the first in their family to attend college. In a survey of students attending the District's H.D. Woodson High School, 75 percent of the respondents felt DCTAG made a difference in their decision and ability to continue their education beyond high school.

I know how important this is because in my own situation, my father was raised by foster parents. It didn't look as if he would have a chance to go on to college. His principal and social studies teacher came out to see the man who was the foster parent, who wanted my dad to quit school at 16 and be a laborer. The principal and social studies teacher said: No, keep your George in school. They found him a job at night. Then they also helped him obtain a scholarship from Kroger. He went on to Carnegie Tech to become an architect. I don't know what would have happened if it had not been for those teachers intervening and for that Kroger scholarship. His life would have been quite different.

Sixty-five percent of the kids indicated that the existence of the program enabled them to choose a college that would best suit their needs.

Erica, who attends Virginia State University and is supported by her grandparents living on a fixed income, said:

Without the help of DCTAG, I would not be able to attend

college.

And Randa, a full-time single working mother, said:

The support I received is unmatched. DC-TAG made my future

come true. Before hearing of the grants that existed, I had

no intention of pursuing higher education, let alone

attending a private school that ranks in the top 10 across

the Nation. This contribution to my life has inspired me to

help others as I have been so richly blessed.

These stories and many other successes of the TAG Program have resulted--and this is really important, Mr. President--in the private sector taking a vested interest in improving opportunities for the kids in the District.

A public-private partnership modeled after the Cleveland Scholarship Program, called the District of Columbia Access Program, or DC-CAP, was established in 1999 by Don Graham of the

Washington Post and other Washington area corporations and foundations to assist the District high school students with their enrollment in and graduation from college.

DC-CAP is privately funded, a nonprofit organization. It provides full-time counseling and financial assistance, available throughout their college career, to students who otherwise might never have the opportunity to go on to college.

To date, DC-CAP has disbursed more than $10 million, funded 5,300 students, and provided counseling services to 71,000 people. Similar to the population served by the DCTAG Program, the majority of students served are from low-income, minority, single-parent households, with many the first in their family to attend college.

It is important to understand that without the DCTAG Program, we would not have the DC-CAP program. They were so impressed with the fact that we were willing to step up and do something and give these kids an opportunity for higher education that they said the private sector ought to step in, and they created the public-private partnership.

Building on the success of the DCTAG and the public-private CAP program, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced this year a $122 million grant program aimed at improving urban education in the District. The program, known as the DC Achievers Program, represents one of the foundation's largest investments to date in education, with the intention of becoming a model for other communities throughout the United States. They chose the District because of the fact that we had DCTAG and the CAP program.

The scholarships are designed to jump-start the low high school and college graduation rates among students living in certain DC neighborhoods. They are going to concentrate their attention in two regions of the District where there is a 66-percent dropout rate. Think of that. I am hopeful that with these programs continuing, we are going to really make a big difference in the District.

In addition to the programs I have just mentioned, we have America's first federally funded scholarship program that was created as part of the DC Choice Incentive Act of 2003. Under this program, each District scholarship student receives up to $7,500 per year for tuition, transportation, and fees so they may attend a nonpublic school. Last year, more than 1,800 kids participated in this program at 66 nonpublic schools in the District, and a number of these students have used the DCTAG tuition grants to help their dream of a higher education become a reality. And it was available to them.

In 1996, we created the charter schools in the District. Today, over 13,000 students are attending 34 charter schools in the District. In other words, we are really starting to make some progress. Supporting the Charter Schools Program is the Federal City Council, a nonprofit organization composed of and funded by approximately 200 local businesses and educational leaders. It is chaired by former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating. Members of the President's Cabinet and a number of key Federal officials serve as trustees. That council has spearheaded the business community's support for reforming the District's public school system. In other words, we are bringing together tremendous resources today where we are going to try to make a difference in an urban district in this country--there are about 65,000 kids today in the District--make a difference in their lives so that maybe in the next several years, we can start talking about an urban education system that actually works.

That is why this reauthorization is so very important not only to the District, but it could be the model for the rest of the United States of America. We have to break this dropout rate we are having in urban school districts or this country is in deep trouble.

So I say that it is successful because we have brought together the public and private sectors to make a difference. That is what it is. In other words, we realized that the District's school system is just one thread in this community, and if it is going to be successful, it is going to take their Federal partner and it is going to take their private partner working together to make a real difference for the kids in this community.

The Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka, mentioned the fact that we brought on Michelle Rhee, who, by the way--I tell you, if it wasn't for DCTAG, if it wasn't for CAP, if it wasn't for the Gates Foundation, if it wasn't for some of the other efforts, I do not think we would have been able to land her. She is terrific. She sees this potential--this young woman, dynamic as all get out--she sees the potential.

I yield the floor, Mr. President. The Senator from Oklahoma has an amendment.

Mr. President, the Senator from Hawaii and I have accepted the amendment that limits the participation of people in this program to those who earn less than $1 million, but the fact is what we tried to do when we put this program together was to mimic what we were doing in States today around the country. In my State, we have a very robust higher education system, but we do not have an income level that establishes who can participate and who can't. I suspect there are people in Ohio who have kids at Ohio State University who are subsidized and who may make over $1 million or make $350,000. But our State has chosen not to have an earnings limit as a matter of public policy. I suspect if you go around the country, you will find that is the case just about everywhere you go.

Let me finish, and then I will yield for a question.

Second, in terms of the private colleges, we looked at what we do around the country, and if you are in the State of Ohio and you are a resident of Ohio, we have a special program that says if you go to a private school, you don't get the full subsidy you would get if you go to a public school, but we provide the private schools up to $2,500 so you can attend a private school. When we put this program together, we had a limitation saying, as we have in the State--and we took certain areas of Virginia and Maryland and brought them in as part of a State-- and we said if you go to the University of Maryland, if you go to the University of Virginia, then you can participate in this program. But what we realized at the time was that the number of people trying to get into Maryland and Virginia was so large it wouldn't give these kids the chance they needed to have so they could get into school, and so we opened it up to public colleges all over the United States of America. As Senator Akaka says, there are people in Hawaii, I am sure we have people in Pennsylvania and all over America, in Oklahoma, and we are trying to do what a State would do.

The other thing we did, which was unusual, is that because we have historical Black colleges around the country, we provided a special program that at those private colleges, even though they are outside of the region of the District of Columbia, the children would be able to receive up to $2,500, and that lays out why this whole program came together. What the Senator from Oklahoma is making mention of is that he wants everybody to get the same amount of money. If we provide equal funding for private and public colleges, as proposed by the amendment, we would be limiting the reach of what is, by all accounts, a very successful program.

The current level of funding of the DCTAG is about $33.2 million. If we expanded that to allow District schools to receive grants of up to $10,000, funding would have to be increased significantly to serve the existing population served by the DCTAG. As mentioned earlier in the debate, the average grant amount per student is $6,500. They do not get the $10,000, they get the average of $6,500, and the difference of $3,500 would have to be made up somewhere. Of the 6,400 students enrolled in the DCTAG today, 886 are attending private colleges. These students are receiving about $2 million. If this amendment were to pass, funding would have to increase by over $5 million to cover these students, or the District would have to reduce the number of students attending public universities by 875 students. So it is a matter of money and dividing it. My guess is that would result in fewer students attending college because the pool of available money would shrink.

I would hope none of my colleagues is willing to ask 875 students not to attend college. This program has been an unprecedented success since the first grants were handed out in 2000. There is an old saying, and I have believed in it my entire years in Government--over 40 years--``If it ain't broken, don't fix it.'' This program is not broken. This program is one of the most successful programs in the United States of America to reduce dropout rates and increase the attendance of youngsters to get a college education. I hope my colleagues who are listening and paying attention right now will vote against this amendment because I don't think it is going to add one iota to this program except to take away from it.

I am glad to yield.

Yes, and I am sure the people in the District of Columbia are paying higher income taxes to the United States of America.

Mr. President, I would like to say--and I am pleased the junior Senator from Oklahoma is talking about a Federal program where he wants to see more money spent. I think that is terrific. The fact is, he does agree this is a very special program. I would like to point out so do the appropriators, because year after year, they have provided more money for this program.

Initially, it started out at about $17 million. They are up to about $33.3. In their consideration of the importance of this program, they have, in fact, provided more money for it because it is a very worthwhile, successful program. The fact of the matter is we all believe that if we evened it out across-the-board, fewer of our youngsters, the socially deprived kids in the District, would be able to take advantage of the program.

Again, I wish to emphasize we tried to copy what we do in States such as Ohio, where we say to the private schools: You are here. God bless you. And we give them, not the total subsidy, $6,500--they get up to $2,500 for those students.

If you are thinking about kids who need help, I know in my State if you have a youngster who has some potential--by the way, these youngsters who have the potential are taking advantage of the college assistance program the private sector set up here, set up by Don Graham over at the Washington Post. So they come in with this little extra money for them. We also have the Pell Grant Programs available to these individuals.

I can tell you this. If we had a bright kid in the District who was qualified to go to Georgetown--we mentioned a young lady who is at one of the top universities. They have special programs that reach out and say here is a youngster--such as my dad--who is bright, hard-working, and we are going to give them some extra, such as dad got at Carnegie Tech so he could go on to get his architectural degree.

I think we are talking about reality here. We are talking about a program that is making a difference. I respectfully say I think the proposal doesn't help the program but rather takes away from it.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I had the same problem the other Members had. If I were here, I would have voted no.

Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee for giving me this opportunity.

Yesterday, when I heard the Senate was considering passing an additional $3 billion in emergency spending to secure the border, I looked into the situation very carefully and calculated that, with the funding level the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee recommended, we are already going to be increasing budget authority for border protection and enforcement by roughly 23 percent over fiscal year 2007. The President's budget had recommended $13.5 billion, an 11 percent increase in border protection budget authority over fiscal year 2007. The Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, in their wisdom, decided to increase it by another $1.4 billion, which takes it to a 23 percent increase over fiscal year 2007. If the Graham amendment passes, we will have increased budget authority for this priority by almost 47 percent over what we appropriated last year.

I let the majority leader know that I objected to having this amendment for $3 billion in emergency spending considered by unanimous consent. I thank him for the opportunity to object to it on the basis of a unanimous consent, and I am pleased this will be scheduled for a rollcall vote, I believe at 11:30.

Mr. President, as a senior member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and former chairman and now ranking member of its Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia for the last 8 years, I rise today to speak against the proposal to allocate an additional $3 billion in emergency spending for the Department of Homeland Security.

First, I want to make clear that I agree with my colleagues that we must secure our border and provide the resources to do it. Had it not been for the fact that the previous administration and former Congresses failed to provide the money needed for border security, we would not have the illegal immigration problem now facing our country.

That being said, this administration has religion and in the past several years has taken seriously the need to

secure our borders. The President has recommended the funding necessary to get the job done.

Let me remind my colleagues that the Department's overall budget has grown more than 150 percent since the Department's creation merging 22 disparate agencies; while total homeland security spending has more than tripled since 2001. Of that total, border security and immigration enforcement represents approximately one-third of the Department's annual spending.

Since 2001, Congress has more than doubled funding for border security, from $4.6 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $10.4 billion in fiscal year 2007. Including the $14.9 billion recommended by the Appropriations Committee, this figure would jump to a more than 220- percent increase in border security spending since 2001.

Through the Secure Border Initiative, a comprehensive and multi-year strategic plan funded by Congress, the Department of Homeland Security is making substantial progress. I would like to take a moment to share with you the achievements to date.

The number of border patrol agents has already been increased by nearly 40 percent, from about 9,700 in 2001 to 13,360 today. Congress has appropriated funds to hire a total of 2,500 new agents this year, bringing the anticipated fiscal year 2007 year-end total to 14,819 agents. The fiscal year 2008 budget we are considering would provide funds for an additional 3,000 border patrol agents, bringing the fiscal year 2008 year-end total to nearly 18,000 border patrol agents. By the end of fiscal year 2008, we will have doubled the size of the border patrol since 2001.

As we continue to ramp up the number of border patrol agents, 6,000 National Guard personnel have been deployed to the Southwest border as part of Operation Jumpstart. These personnel continue to assist Customs and Border Protection's efforts to secure the border.

The Department of Homeland Security has already gained effective control of 380 miles on the southwest border, plans to achieve effective control of 642 miles by the end of calendar year 2008; and has a strategic plan in place to gain control over the entire southwest border by 2013.

The Federal Government has effectively ended the practice of ``catch and release'' through a combination of tough enforcement and increased detention capacity.

We have more than doubled the number of immigration investigators.

The Federal Government has increased detention bed space by 46 percent.

We would all like to see these efforts move more quickly, but the reality is that it takes time to build fences, it takes time to build radar towers, and it takes time to hire and train quality border patrol agents. The executive branch has made clear that border security is a high priority and has developed a strategic plan to accomplish these goals as quickly as realistically possible.

Today, while the Senate engages in debate, Customs and Border protectorate agents will apprehend roughly 2,617 people crossing illegally into the United States. Immigration and Customs enforcement personnel will house approximately 19,729 aliens in ICE detention facilities. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center will train more than 3,500 Federal officers and agents. These daily statistics are further evidence that progress is being made.

I recall the February 2007 hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee when Secretary Chertoff presented his budget request for fiscal year 2008. The Secretary asked for $13 billion to strengthen border security and immigration enforcement.

In justifying the administration's request, I can assure you that Secretary Chertoff was quite clear that he took very seriously his responsibility to secure the border. His testimony detailed the progress he had made, while outlining the Department's multiyear strategic plan for continued improvements. In recognition of the challenge, the Secretary acknowledged that we still had a long way to go to objectively say to the American people that the border is secure. The amount recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee in the base bill ensures these goals will be met.

The Appropriations Committee reviewed the Department's budget request and in its wisdom decided that the President may not have provided ample resources to the Department of Homeland Security. As a result, the Appropriations Committee recommended $1.4 billion above the President's request for border security and enforcement, at a total of $14.9 billion, which is a 23 percent increase over fiscal year 2007. If you include 3 billion more it will amount to a 47 percent increase.

I am confident that in addition to believing more money was needed for the Department, the Appropriations Committee wanted to send a signal to the American people that we have heard their cry to secure the border.

The Department of Homeland Security requested $35.5 billion for fiscal year 2008, but this bill provides $37.6 billion, more than $2.2 billion above what the Department says it needs. But now, the Senate is proposing to increase that amount by yet another $3 billion, so that the total budget authority would surpass $40 billion. Some Senators claim that this is OK because that $3 billion has been designated ``emergency spending,'' as if using the emergency label is like waving a magic wand so that it doesn't actually cost us anything. That is not true. At the end of the day, this amendment will increase the national debt by $3 billion, regardless of what label you put on it.

I might add that the President said he would veto this bill because it includes an ``irresponsible and excessive level of spending.'' Irresponsible and excessive--words we in Congress disregard too often. Obviously from his perspective, the $35.5 billion in net budget authority for fiscal year 2008 that Secretary Chertoff requested from Congress was what he felt was needed to fund the Department of Homeland Security and continue the efforts to secure the border. I know the President wants to assure the American people that he has moved with urgency to secure the border before he leaves office. Border security will indeed be part of this President's legacy.

In the simplest of terms, the Federal Government continues to spend more than it brings in, and both the amendment and the underlying bill continue that practice. Over my 8 years in the U.S. Senate, I have watched the national debt skyrocket 60 percent--from $5.6 trillion in 1999 to $9 trillion today.

No one talks about the national debt anymore. But running the credit card for today's needs and leaving the bill for future generations should not be the policy of the U.S. Congress. It represents a recklessness that threatens our economic security, our competitiveness in the global marketplace, and our future quality of life. If we decide we absolutely need to spend $3 billion on something--and I support adequately funding border security--then we need to either raise more revenue or cut other spending to pay for it. Simply adding it to the national debt makes our country less secure in the long run.

How does continuing to borrow and spend make us less secure? Today, 55 percent of the privately owned national debt is held by foreign creditors--mostly foreign central banks. That is up from 35 percent just 5 years ago. Foreign creditors provided more than 80 percent of the funds the United States has borrowed since 2001, according to the Wall Street Journal. And who are these foreign creditors?

According to the Treasury Department, the largest foreign holders of U.S. debt are Japan, China, and the oil-exporting countries known as OPEC. Borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China and OPEC puts not only our future economy, but also our national security, at risk. It is critical that we ensure that countries that hold our debt do not control our future.

Why are we taking the fiscally irresponsible act that will add to our unbalanced budget and national debt? I am glad that the administration and Congress have placed the needed focus on this important priority, but I want to ensure that we do not go too far in simply throwing money at this problem; money that cannot be effectively spent in fiscal year 2008--which begins in October.

This money is not needed in light of the money the Appropriations Committee has recommended, including the

$2.2 billion in additional spending over which the President has threatened a veto. The Department is already spending one-third of its budget on border security and immigration enforcement--a clear reflection of its priorities.

Next year, the Senate will review the President's budget request and the Appropriations Committee will recommend funding levels. If next year, we determine that more needs to be spent to continue to improve border security and enforcement, fine. But let's not simply toss an additional $3 billion out the window for fiscal year 2008.

I have the deepest respect for my colleagues, but I respectfully disagree on appropriating an additional $3 billion in emergency spending. They know and I know that the sole reason for appropriating these funds would be to convince the American people that Congress cares about securing the border--even though we know this additional spending exceeds what can possibly be spent in the 2008 fiscal year.

The question I ask is: How dumb do they think the American people are? Don't they realize that the American people will see through this charade and realize we are pulling a fast one on them?

How cynical can we be? The American people want us to work harder and smarter and do more with less and will be very angry that we are simply throwing money at a problem in a manner designed to make them feel good in the short term. This is the type of game playing that has caused our approval ratings to slump to all-time lows.

When something comes along that we decide we must spend more money on--and border security could very well be one of those things--then we need to be prepared to pay for that additional spending by either bringing in more revenues or cutting other spending. I ask my colleagues not to support this fiscally irresponsible act that will surely diminish our credibility with the American people.

I thank the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security for this opportunity. I hope some of my colleagues have an opportunity to understand why I think what we are doing here today is absolutely fiscally irresponsible. I am extremely pleased that this administration and this Congress is taking border security seriously. This attention is long overdue. I know all of us are trying to convey to the public that we are finally acting to secure the border. There is no one more ardent about that than I am. But let me remind my colleagues that the Department of Homeland Security has presented this Congress with a multiyear strategic plan for improving border security and enforcement, called the Secure Border Initiative. The Appropriations Subcommittee recommendations have fully funded the Department's request for what they believe they can accomplish in fiscal year 2008.

I have been on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee since I came to the Senate. I was part of creating the Department of Homeland Security. I have spent many hours with Secretary Chertoff and other Department officials. I really believe the money that has been recommended by the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee is adequate to get the job done during fiscal year 2008, in line with the Department's multiyear strategic plan. And we will reevaluate this situation for fiscal year 2009, and fiscal year 2010, and so on. But I do not think we should go through the charade of making the American people believe we are really sincere about securing the border by spending another $3 billion of emergency spending when the substantial funding that has already been recommended for fiscal year 2008 will get the job done.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to honor and congratulate my friend and long-time civil rights activist, the Reverend Dr. Otis Moss, Jr. The church which he currently pastors recently celebrated 75 years of service to the Cleveland community. In July 2007, Reverend Moss will celebrate 32 years of pastoral service to the Olivet congregation.

Reverend Moss pastors the Olivet Institutional Baptist Church in the Fairfax neighborhood of my hometown of Cleveland, OH. Since 1931, Olivet has been more than a place of worship and Christian fellowship in the African-American community. It has been dedicated to preaching, teaching, and practicing the unconditional love of Jesus Christ. And as a centerpiece of the community, it has nurtured leaders who have championed civil rights and equality for the poor, and it has worked to increase awareness about poverty, health care, employment, education, and human rights.

A native of Georgia, Otis Moss, Jr., was born on February 26, 1935, to Otis and Magnolia Moss. He earned his bachelor's degree from Morehouse College in 1956 and his master of divinity degree from the Morehouse School of Religion/Inter-denominational Theological Center in 1959. He also completed special studies at the Inter-denominational Theological Center from 1960 to 1961 and earned his doctorate in ministry from the United Theological Seminary in 1990.

Reverend Moss's tenure as pastor began in 1954 in LaGrange, GA at Mount Olive Baptist Church. While leading Mount Olive, Moss also served as pastor of Atlanta's Providence Baptist Church from 1956 to 1959. He then headed to Ohio, where he was the pastor for Mount Zion Baptist Church in Lockland. In 1971, Reverend Moss served as copastor with the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr., at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. Olivet Institutional Baptist Church extended the invitation to Reverend Moss to be their pastor in December 1974. He was installed as pastor in 1975.

Reverend Moss has been involved in advocating civil and human rights and social justice issues for most of his adult life. Having been a staff member for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., he formerly served as a national board member and trustee for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Non-Violent Social Change. His work in the international community has taken him around the world to Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and Israel.

Moss is the recipient of numerous awards, including the Role Model of the Year Award from the National Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Development in 1992, the Leadership Award from the Cleveland chapter of the American Jewish Committee in 1996, and, most recently, he was inducted into the 2007 Class of the International Civil Rights Walk of Fame located at the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site in Atlanta. He also holds six honorary degrees from colleges and universities in Ohio, Georgia, and Arkansas.

His political and civic engagement runs deep. Moss has served as chairman of the board of trustees at Morehouse College and as a member of the board of trustees at the United Theological Seminary in Dayton, OH. He was an advisor to former President Jimmy Carter at Camp David and was the special guest of President Bill Clinton at a peace treaty signing between Israel and Jordan in 1994. Former Ohio Governor Richard Celeste awarded Moss the 1983 Governor's Award in Civil Rights, and I had the honor of presenting Reverend Moss with the 1993 Governor's Award in Civil Rights.

His service to Ohio and the Nation has also been recognized by the Ohio House of Representatives, Ebony Magazine, Cleveland Press, the Black Professional Association of Cleveland, the American Red Cross of Greater Cleveland, Project Love: Remember the Children Foundation, The Cleveland Jewish Committee, and Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. He is a life member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peoples, NAACP, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., and Sigma Pi Phi, Boule, to name a few.

University Hospitals Health System honored Reverend Moss with a special medical center partnership bearing his name. In 1997, the Otis Moss Jr.-University Hospitals Medical Center was established in conjunction with the Olivet Institutional Baptist Church. The center offers a wide range of primary and specialty care medical services and features an on-site laboratory.

Reverend Moss and I share a passion for helping our children reach their full potential and lead our Nation and world into the next century and beyond. In 2003, I had the privilege of touring and visiting with Moss and his staff at the Medical Center to see how a program called ``Reach Out and Read'' is administered.

Reverend Moss enjoyed an abiding friendship with the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In fact, Dr. King visited the pulpit of Olivet Institutional Baptist Church on several occasions and performed the wedding ceremony for Reverend and Mrs. Moss.

Perhaps the greatest connection I share with Reverend Moss is the love and appreciation we both have for our wives. Reverend Moss is married to the former Edwina Hudson Smith, who is accomplished in her own right and is the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions. She is recognized for her outstanding commitment to service as a member of the National Board of the American Red Cross. Their love is a model for us all. Sadly, Reverend Moss and I also share in the loss of a young child.

As someone who has had the pleasure of knowing and working with Reverend Dr. Otis Moss, Jr., I have seen how far his works have reached and benefited others. He has made significant contributions to his community, the State of Ohio, our Nation, and our world. Reverend Moss has shown that he lives in accordance with his strong faith in God. He is someone all of us would do well to emulate, and I am pleased and proud to salute him, his wife, their children, and grandchildren.

Thank you, Reverend Moss, for your outstanding commitment and exceptional leadership to our community. Our lives are better as a result of having been touched by you. Congratulations again to you and your Olivet family for your devotion and commitment to the Cleveland community.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and colleague Senator Cornyn in introducing the United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2007. This legislation would create a bipartisan commission to make recommendations to Congress on whether to reauthorize, reorganize, or terminate Federal programs. It would establish a systematic process to review unauthorized programs and agencies, and, if applicable, programs that are rated as ineffective or results not demonstrated under the

Program Assessment Rating Tool, PART. The Comptroller General and the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, would serve as ex- officio members, bringing their knowledge and experience and that of their organizations to the process.

Earlier this year, as it does every year, the CBO reported on programs that at one time had an explicit authorization that has either expired or will expire during the current session. This is always a lengthy report that runs 75 pages or more. In recent years, the total amount of unauthorized programs receiving appropriations reported by CBO has ranged between $160 billion and $170 billion annually.

I make this point, not to criticize or to imply that all unauthorized programs should be eliminated. Instead, it is to point out that what we are doing now is not working for us. We know that oversight is an important part of our job, but oversight takes time. How do we explain to our constituents that we do not have the time to distinguish between worthwhile programs and those that have outlived their purpose, are poorly targeted, operate inefficiently, or simply are not producing results?

As a sponsor of The Stop Over-Spending Act of 2007, ``S.O.S.,'' legislation, which includes several provisions from bills I introduced earlier this year, I want to work with my colleagues to pass legislation that allows us to convert some of the time spent on the annual budget cycle into time spent on oversight. A biennial budget cycle plus commissions such as this one and others that I have proposed to examine entitlement programs and increase program accountability all have a similar goal--to provide the time and the tools to reinvigorate congressional oversight.

This legislation does not take away our obligation to make difficult decisions about what programs to continue and those that we can no longer afford to support. What it does do is provide an opportunity to work smarter. I believe by establishing this Commission to do a thorough examination of programs and agencies, using established criteria, and a transparent reporting process, that we can carry out our responsibilities more efficiently and effectively.

I urge my colleagues to support The United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and colleague Senator Cornyn in introducing the United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2007. This legislation would create a bipartisan commission to make recommendations to Congress on whether to reauthorize, reorganize, or terminate Federal programs. It would establish a systematic process to review unauthorized programs and agencies, and, if applicable, programs that are rated as ineffective or results not demonstrated under the

Program Assessment Rating Tool, PART. The Comptroller General and the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, would serve as ex- officio members, bringing their knowledge and experience and that of their organizations to the process.

Earlier this year, as it does every year, the CBO reported on programs that at one time had an explicit authorization that has either expired or will expire during the current session. This is always a lengthy report that runs 75 pages or more. In recent years, the total amount of unauthorized programs receiving appropriations reported by CBO has ranged between $160 billion and $170 billion annually.

I make this point, not to criticize or to imply that all unauthorized programs should be eliminated. Instead, it is to point out that what we are doing now is not working for us. We know that oversight is an important part of our job, but oversight takes time. How do we explain to our constituents that we do not have the time to distinguish between worthwhile programs and those that have outlived their purpose, are poorly targeted, operate inefficiently, or simply are not producing results?

As a sponsor of The Stop Over-Spending Act of 2007, ``S.O.S.,'' legislation, which includes several provisions from bills I introduced earlier this year, I want to work with my colleagues to pass legislation that allows us to convert some of the time spent on the annual budget cycle into time spent on oversight. A biennial budget cycle plus commissions such as this one and others that I have proposed to examine entitlement programs and increase program accountability all have a similar goal--to provide the time and the tools to reinvigorate congressional oversight.

This legislation does not take away our obligation to make difficult decisions about what programs to continue and those that we can no longer afford to support. What it does do is provide an opportunity to work smarter. I believe by establishing this Commission to do a thorough examination of programs and agencies, using established criteria, and a transparent reporting process, that we can carry out our responsibilities more efficiently and effectively.

I urge my colleagues to support The United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2007.

Mr. President, all of us in the Senate will miss Craig Thomas. I got to know Craig when we both served on the Senate Ethics Committee. During that time, I came to admire him as a wonderful human being, a man of character and integrity, and someone who spoke plainly on how he felt about things.

I also admired Craig for speaking up in policy lunch and at the steering committee on so many occasions. He always got to the nub of the problem and never failed to tell it just as he saw it. On many occasions, I sensed he had a great frustration with the system, but he stayed in there and was an encouragement to many.

When he got sick, Janet and I put him on our prayer list. I also looked at some health care alternatives for him in Cleveland, but he felt he had great care at the Bethesda Naval Hospital. The last time I saw him, he looked like the old Craig, full of vim and vigor. We were shocked when we heard of his passing. It is said that it is not the number of years one lives that counts but what one does with those years that matters. We will all miss Craig but know that he is in heaven with our father eternally happy.

Mr. President, I yield 50 seconds of my time to Senator DeMint.

That is fine.

Mr. President, I understand Senator Salazar is waiting here. I will not be long. I appreciate his patience.

First, I associate myself with the words of the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander. I thought he did a fantastic job of outlining why this proposed renewable portfolio standard is not in the best interests of the United States of America. I strongly oppose it because it has not taken into consideration the adverse effects on States that depend heavily on coal, such as my home State of Ohio.

I also mention that we have looked at wind power for our utilities. If they could use wind power they would be using it, because not only would it be something that would be better taken by the citizens of Ohio, but it also would associate them with being more green. They are interested in doing that. But the fact is we do not have the environment for that to occur. So I think even though this proposal is well intentioned, and I share his concern about reducing greenhouse gases, I believe his proposal will cause great economic distress for minimal benefit.

What we need to do when we are looking at these things is ask, what benefit are we going to get out of it, and what are the costs? Figure it out. A one-size-fits-all Federal RPS mandate ignores the different economic needs and resources of the individual States. There are significant regional differences in availability, despite renewable energy resources.

Even among the States that have an RPS, all have chosen to add technologies that are not usually included in a Federal RPS. Because many of the utilities will not be able to meet an RPS requirement through their own generation, they will be required to purchase renewable energy credits from some other company. Thus, a nationwide RPS mandate will mean a massive wealth transfer from electric consumers to States with little or no renewable resources, such as Ohio, to the Federal Government or to States where renewables happen to be more abundant.

In my State of Ohio, we rely on coal. Eighty-eight percent of our electric

generation comes from coal. It is estimated that the proposal would increase retail electricity prices by 4.3 percent, a total of a $12.8 billion cost to consumers by 2030. The 4.3 percent may not seem like a high increase to many, but to a family of four on a fixed income, this is a huge increase. These families may have to make a decision between paying their winter heating bills or putting food on the table for their families.

I recall a couple of years ago, before the Environment and Public Works Committee, Tom Mullen of Cleveland Catholic Charities described the direct impacts of significant increases in energy prices on those who were less fortunate. This is a quote. He said:

In Cleveland, over one-fourth of all children live in

poverty and are in a family of a single family head of

household. These children will suffer further loss of basic

needs as their moms are forced to make choices of whether to

pay the rent or live in a shelter; pay the heating bill or

see their child freeze; buy food or risk the availability of

a hunger center. These are not choices that any senior

citizen, child, or for that matter, person in America should

make.

So, in effect, if we pass this renewable portfolio, for people who live in my State--and maybe I am being a little bit selfish about the people I represent, but the fact is this is going to increase their energy bills. For those who are poor, for those who are elderly and on a fixed income, this is significant.

Another aspect which I think we forget about is Ohio is a manufacturing State. We are on the economic fault line. I wish our economy were as good as the rest of the States in this country. We have the same problem Michigan has. Energy costs are a huge concern of our manufacturers, who use 34 percent of the energy consumed in our economy. Due in large part to increased energy prices, the United States has lost more than 3.1 million manufacturing jobs since 2000, and my State has lost nearly 220,000 jobs.

I will never forget in 2001 when we had the big spike in gas prices. I believe that was the beginning of the recession in the State of Ohio. Many of those small companies never recovered because, for example, in my city, natural gas costs have gone up over 300 percent since 2000. Think about that, the impact that has. Then you add another burden on top of that. Rather than enacting an artificial RPS, which will increase costs to our utilities and consumers, we need to be spending this money on the development of technology to reduce our greenhouse gases.

The cost of the RPS to utilities and ratepayers will be better spent on funding the programs we authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, such as carbon sequestration and IGCC technology, which, as most of us know, are not receiving the appropriate funding today.

It is clear we must get serious about partnerships and strategies that maximize Federal funding. We have got to look at how much money we are going to raise and where can we get the biggest return on our dollars. I do not think RPS does that.

It is critical that policymakers work in conjunction with the scientific community to develop policy solutions that are in the best interests of our State and Nation. For instance, one area requires further research to capture greenhouse gases and sequester carbon dioxide so we can continue to rely on coal for energy. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have 250 years of that supply. For the past few years I have called for a ``Second Declaration of Independence,'' independence from foreign sources of energy, for our Nation to take real action toward stemming our exorbitantly high oil and natural gas prices. Instead of considering them separately, we must harmonize our energy, environment, and economic needs. This is an absolute must as we consider any additional solutions to address global warming and other environmental problems.

I have been here, this is my ninth year. I have been on the Environment and Public Works Committee for 9 years. The problem in the Senate and in the House is that the environmental, the energy, and the economic people don't get together and put each other's shoes on and figure out how we can work together to not only do a better job of cleaning up the environment but utilizing the scarce dollars that are available to make a difference.

This is an idea of the costs for Ohio. For example, American Electric Power which, while I was Governor, put on a $650 million scrubber to reduce their NOx and SOx, it is going to cost them $3 billion between 2010 and 2030; First Energy, $3.18 billion to $4.6 billion; Duke--this is also another provider of energy--$1.6 billion.

Let's take the Timken Company, the heart and soul of Camden, OH. Their incremental cost of electricity under a 15-percent RPS will exceed $20 million per year. They say:

We would not expect to recoup most of this increased cost

through price increases due to the global competition that we

face. Adoption of a mandatory RPS would clearly place The

Timken Company at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis our

foreign competitors, further eroding already slim profit

margins, and placing increasingly more jobs at risk.

We really ought to think about what we are doing here today. I don't think what we want to do is advantage one area of the country by having a cost increase in another part of the country and see a massive shifting of resources. What we should do is look at the big picture and figure out, as Senator Alexander pointed out, where do we put our money where we can get the greatest return on our investment. I sincerely believe this isn't the way to do it. Why would we want to do something that will take a State such as Ohio, that is 80 percent reliant on coal, and basically tell our utilities: Folks, you are going to have to buy renewable energy from somebody else, pay the money out, and then increase your rates, increase the rates to the folks in our inner cities, when they could be taking that same money and putting more of it into, for example, ISGC, the integrated gas-combined cycle. AEP is going to build a 1,000-megawatt plant that is going to cost an enormous amount of money. That is where they should be putting their money. They should be putting their money into technology so that we can capture carbon and sequester it.

Those are the things that would really make a difference. We are fooling ourselves to say we are going to pass this legislation, and it is going to make a big difference. I argue that it is going to make little difference, and we could spend our money on things that are going to make more of a difference in terms of cleaning up the environment and dealing with some of the problems we all know this country faces.

I yield the floor.