Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about one of the top issues facing our Nation: the high cost of energy and how it relates to our national security.

There has been much controversy on Capitol Hill regarding the reason why prices have climbed. My colleagues have introduced various pieces of legislation that attempt to address our energy security.

I am hearing loud and clear from thousands of Ohioans how this crisis is directly affecting them and their loved ones. Ohioans are demanding that the Senate have a lengthy and open debate on the issue of high energy costs. They are expecting that we work together in a bipartisan fashion to craft legislation that will address our Nation's long-term energy requirements and set us down a path towards energy independence.

Their urgency is underscored by the fact that this is no longer just a question about the price of oil but also about national security.

Americans are hurting from our addiction to oil, but I am not sure they fully realize the extent our national security; and indeed our very way of life, is threatened by our reliance on foreign oil.

Every year we send hundreds of billions of dollars overseas for oil to pad the coffers of many nations that do not have our best interests at heart, and to some like Venezuela, whose leader has threatened to cut off oil.

In fact, in 2007, we spent more than $327 billion to import oil, and 60 percent of that, or nearly $200 billion, went to the oil-exporting OPEC nations. In 2008, the amount we will spend to import oil is expected to double to more than $600 billion, $360 billion of which will come from OPEC. Let's take a moment to put those import figures into context. When compared to our Fiscal Year 2008 budget for our Nation's defense, which was more than $693 billion, the $600 billion we will spend to import oil in 2008 is nearly equal to our entire defense budget.

There is no question that our dependence on foreign oil has serious national security implications. In addition to funding our enemies--as I just explained--we cannot ignore the fact that much of our oil comes from and travels through the most volatile regions of the world.

A couple of years ago I attended a series of war games hosted by the National Defense University. I saw firsthand how our country's economy could be brought to its knees if somebody wanted to cut off our oil.

In 2006, Hillard Huntington, executive director of Stanford University's Energy Modeling Forum testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and stated that based on his modeling, ``the odds of a foreign oil disruption happening over the next 10 years are slightly higher [than] 80 percent.'' He went on to testify that if global production were reduced by merely 2.1 percent due to some event, it would have a more serious effect on oil prices and the economy than hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

And our dependence on foreign oil is even more troubling when you consider our Nation's financial situation.

The national debt stands at $9.3 trillion, almost double the $5.4 trillion debt that existed when I came to the Senate in 1999. By the end of 2009, the national debt is expected to have grown to $10.5 trillion.

In July, the Office of Management and Budget projected a $389 billion budget deficit for 2008. And this week even worse numbers came from the Congressional Budget Office. CBO said the Federal Government will finish the fiscal year with a near-record deficit of $407 billion.

These numbers, however, do not include borrowing from the Social Security trust fund and other trust funds to the tune of $184 billion. So the real operating deficit is actually projected at $591 billion-- almost three times the $219 billion deficit projected at the start of 2008.

We cannot overlook our ballooning national debt. Today 51 percent of the privately owned national debt is held by foreign creditors--mostly foreign central banks. That is up from just 6 years ago. Foreign creditors provided more than 70 percent of the funds that the U.S. has borrowed since 2001, according to the Department of Treasury. And who are these creditors?

According to the Treasury Department, the three largest foreign holders of U.S. debt are China, Japan, and OPEC nations. With the debt skyrocketing to 10.5 trillion in fiscal year 2009 and the plight of our financial markets we can expect an even greater involvement by these countries in purchasing our debt.

This is insane and it has to stop. We can not afford to allow the countries that control our oil and our debt to control our future. It is time that we took our future into our own hands.

Let's take a moment to think of our Nation like a business. Our feedstock is oil, and our competitors control the supply and price of our oil. We have debt, but our competitors also control our debt. What's to keep our competitors from raising prices, calling in our debt and running us out of business?

I imagine that many have yet to hear of this, but it has been rumored that countries like China, with large financial holdings in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pressured Secretary Paulson to bail out the corporations, by threatening to reduce their security holdings.

This is a very real example of how not only our foreign policies, but even domestic policies can be stymied due to reckless fiscal policy. I hope it frightens you as much as it frightens me. It certainly has dramatic effects in the present, but portend what it does for our children and grandchildren futures which we continue to mortgage with the irresponsible use of their credit card.

But also keep in mind, that as we sit here and twiddle our thumbs over simply expanding domestic drilling within our own borders, Russia and China are actively and aggressively laying claim to energy resources around the globe.

Russia, the world's second biggest oil exporter, is trying to lay claim to large section of the Arctic seafloor that is believed to contain billion of barrels of fuel equivalent. The country has also made moves to control a larger portion of the world's natural gas reserves. Russia, which has significant reserves of natural gas, is considering the creation of a natural gas cartel similar to OPEC. Venezuela and Iran have expressed interest.

Russia has proven it has no qualms with using energy as a weapon. In 1990, Russia tried to suppress independence movements in the Baltics by cutting energy supplies. In all, Russia has used energy as a tool to further their foreign policy goals on no less than six countries over the last 15 years. And energy is believed to be one of the driving reasons for Russia's military action in the independent nation of Georgia, through which passes a critical oil pipeline.

China as well is moving ahead in securing its energy future. In Africa, China is handing out loans and funding expansive infrastructure projects in an effort to lay claim to lucrative oil reserves. With the help of Chinese investment, Angola recently passed Nigeria to become the largest petroleum producer on the continent.

Can you imagine these countries scratching their heads in disbelief when they see the U.S. with the largest energy reserves in the world debating to drill or not drill?

My friends, we have allowed the environmental lobby to run wild. As a result, we have had a tail wagging the dog environmental policy which has ignored our energy, economy and national security interest.

And why did Congress let them get away with it? Because oil was cheap and some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were afraid of the 30 second commercials that would be run against them if they didn't toe the environmental line.

Now the chickens have come home to roost. Ask any Ohioan about the high price of gasoline. They will give you an ear full. Many of them have told me about how both the price of gasoline and the price of natural gas are affecting them where it hurts, right in the pocketbook and in their quality of life. These are the middle class Americans, the elderly and the poor that my friends on the other side of the isle keep talking about.

Addressing this crisis requires nothing less than a Second Declaration of Independence--to move us away from foreign sources of energy in the near term and away from oil itself in the long term. To do this I believe we must find more, use less, and conserve what we have. As T. Boone Pickens said, ``we need to do it all.''

In order to find more and stabilize our Nation's energy supply we must enact policies to increase responsible development of our abundant American resources.

The fact of the matter is that when you take into account our untapped oil shale reserves, we have more oil resources than any other part of the world. The Department of Energy estimates that America's total oil shale resources could exceed 2 trillion barrels of oil equivalent, and there are currently 800 billion barrels of proven reserves. This is three times larger than the total proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

Further, the majority of conventional resources are locked up due to shortsighted congressional moratoria. Eighty-five percent of our offshore acreage and 65 percent of our onshore acreage is off limits.

I was very embarrassed when our President went over to Saudi Arabia, just a few months ago, with hat in hand to beg for them to increase oil production. And last month I spoke with oilman T. Boone Pickens, who was recently in Saudi Arabia. He said they asked him, ``Why is your country asking us for oil, why aren't you exploring your own?''

The Saudis couldn't have been more right. Rather than begging foreign countries for their oil, we need to be utilizing our own. That means opening up areas like the Outer Continental Shelf and ANWR for oil exploration. And that means capitalizing on our vast reserves of coal, oil shale, and tar sands.

While we must increase our production of fossil fuels to relieve costs and reestablish our independence in the short term, in the long term we must reduce our demand for oil.

And with that goal in mind, it is essential that we explore alternative means to meet our Nation's energy needs.

It is long past time for our government to provide the spark to rekindle

our Nation's creativity and innovation. Following Russia's launch of Sputnik, President Kennedy challenged our country in 10 years to be the first in the world to land a man on the Moon. And it was Neil Armstrong, an Ohioan, who did it. If we can put a man on the Moon, there is no reason why we cannot be the first country in the world to not have to rely predominantly on oil for our transportation needs.

It is time we undertook a similar Apollo-like project to establish clean, reliable and domestically abundant energy alternatives and in turn usher in a new era of American freedom and independence.

And through this new Apollo program, we must encourage further advances in biofuels, electric-hybrid plug-in vehicles and fuel cells.

One of the best shots we have in significantly reducing our reliance on foreign oil is plug-in hybrid vehicles. If half our fleet of 240 million vehicles were converted to electric-hybrids, we could reduce our oil imports by 4 to 5 million BPD. Just doing this could cut our reliance on foreign oil by 40 percent.

Americans today demand action. And they demand we come together in a bipartisan fashion to solve this crisis. I commend my colleagues in the ``Group of 10'' on their efforts to find sensible solutions to this crisis. While their bill is not perfect, it would be my hope that we can continue to work together to move our country towards energy independence.

Regardless of what one thinks of the specifics of the bipartisan proposal, this is the way we should be trying to get things done around here--Senators of good will from both parties coming together, with everyone willing to give up a little of what they want in order to move the country forward. My greatest frustration in the Senate is the partisanship and game playing. We must end the gridlock and put the people's business first.

I honestly believe that the best message we can send to OPEC, those investing in the oil market, and indeed the entire world, is that we are mad as heck and won't take it anymore. We must demonstrate that we are going to find more by going after every drop of oil that we can responsibly drill and that we are going to use less by undertaking a new Apollo program, and continue to conserve and become more energy efficient.

I envision an America where in 10 years we have enough oil to take care of our needs. I imagine an America that is the least reliant nation in the world on oil. An America where our economy is not threatened, an America that has created thousands of jobs by finding more and developing technologies that use less. It will be an America that has gone from the bottom of the barrel to the top. Who's national security is without threat because we have removed the potential of energy being used as a ``weapon'' against us by those who do not share our values?

We must put aside our differences and come together to reaffirm our Nation's independence for a second time. We can usher in a new era of prosperity and a guarantee that in the new global economy we will maintain our position as the greatest military and economic power in the world.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to today in support of S.J. Res. 45, the Great Lakes--St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact. During the course of adoption of the Compact by the respective State legislatures, an issue arose concerning the intent and interpretation of section 4.11.2 of the Compact's Decision-Making Standard relating to the scale and scope of impacts that would be deemed sufficiently significant such to preclude approval of a withdrawal proposal. It is my understanding that the intent of the drafters of the Compact is expressed in a memorandum prepared by Dr. Sam Speck, Chair of the Council of Great Lakes Governors Annex 2001 Working Group, dated December 5, 2005, and I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 2008 with Senator Lieberman.

In 1999, I introduced the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999 with Senators Lieberman, Thompson and Durbin. My good friend from Ohio, Congressman Portman, introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives, and working together we were able to enact that legislation to improve the effectiveness and performance of Federal financial assistance programs, simplify Federal financial assistance application and reporting requirements, improve the delivery of services to the public and coordinate the delivery of such services.

Progress was made under the provisions of the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999, commonly known as ``PL 106-107.'' A 2005 Government Accountability Office, GAO, report noted that ``[m]ore than 5 years after passage of P.L. 106-107, cross-agency work groups have made some progress in streamlining aspects of the early phases of the grants life cycle and in some specific aspects of overall grants management . . .'' However, GAO noted that work remained to be done, and in 2006 suggested that Congress consider reauthorizing the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999. The Act expired in November, and I believe Congress should heed GAO's advice and reauthorize this important law.

The bill I am introducing today with Senator Lieberman reauthorizes the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act and makes improvements to that Act based on the 2005 and 2006 recommendations of GAO. The bill requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, to develop a public Web site that allows grant applicants to search and

apply for grants, report on the use of grants, and provide required certifications and assurances for grants. I believe such a Web site will enhance the transparency required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act that Congress enacted last year.

The bill also requires the Director of OMB to develop a strategic plan for an end-to-end electronic capability that allows non-Federal entities to manage Federal financial assistance and requires each Federal agency to plan actions to implement that strategic plan. Each Federal agency would be required to report to OMB on progress made in achieving its objectives under the OMB strategic plan, and the Director of OMB would be required to report to Congress biennially on progress made in implementing the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act.

In 1999 I said the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act was an important step toward detangling the web of duplicative Federal grants available to States, localities and community organizations. While some progress has been made to detangle that web, work remains to be done, and I hope that Congress will quickly reauthorize this law so that OMB and Federal agencies continue those efforts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 2008 with Senator Lieberman.

In 1999, I introduced the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999 with Senators Lieberman, Thompson and Durbin. My good friend from Ohio, Congressman Portman, introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives, and working together we were able to enact that legislation to improve the effectiveness and performance of Federal financial assistance programs, simplify Federal financial assistance application and reporting requirements, improve the delivery of services to the public and coordinate the delivery of such services.

Progress was made under the provisions of the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999, commonly known as ``PL 106-107.'' A 2005 Government Accountability Office, GAO, report noted that ``[m]ore than 5 years after passage of P.L. 106-107, cross-agency work groups have made some progress in streamlining aspects of the early phases of the grants life cycle and in some specific aspects of overall grants management . . .'' However, GAO noted that work remained to be done, and in 2006 suggested that Congress consider reauthorizing the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999. The Act expired in November, and I believe Congress should heed GAO's advice and reauthorize this important law.

The bill I am introducing today with Senator Lieberman reauthorizes the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act and makes improvements to that Act based on the 2005 and 2006 recommendations of GAO. The bill requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, to develop a public Web site that allows grant applicants to search and

apply for grants, report on the use of grants, and provide required certifications and assurances for grants. I believe such a Web site will enhance the transparency required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act that Congress enacted last year.

The bill also requires the Director of OMB to develop a strategic plan for an end-to-end electronic capability that allows non-Federal entities to manage Federal financial assistance and requires each Federal agency to plan actions to implement that strategic plan. Each Federal agency would be required to report to OMB on progress made in achieving its objectives under the OMB strategic plan, and the Director of OMB would be required to report to Congress biennially on progress made in implementing the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act.

In 1999 I said the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act was an important step toward detangling the web of duplicative Federal grants available to States, localities and community organizations. While some progress has been made to detangle that web, work remains to be done, and I hope that Congress will quickly reauthorize this law so that OMB and Federal agencies continue those efforts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need to

harmonize our energy, environment, and economic policies.

In the midst of summer it is hard to think about our Nation's winter heating needs, but experts say we are at a pace for skyrocketing energy prices this winter that will place even further financial strain on the budgets of too many Americans. The chickens have come home to roost. For 27 years the Federal Government has helped disadvantaged Americans with their heating costs through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. It is one of the programs I supported while I was mayor and then as Governor of Ohio.

Last year in my State alone, LIHEAP assisted some 387,000 Ohio households earning less than 175 percent of poverty on about $37,500 for a family of four. Furthermore, over 188,000 Ohio households were served by the Emergency Winter Crisis Program. This program provides a one-time payment for eligible households whose home heating sources have been disconnected, threatened with disconnection, or have less than a 10-day supply of bulk fuel. The fact that so many Ohioans have utilized these programs demonstrates a need for help.

Congress has not sat idle. Since I came to the Senate in 1999, Congress has increased LIHEAP funding from $1.1 to $2 billion in 2008. That is an 80-percent increase. In 2006, Congress provided $2.5 billion for LIHEAP, a 32-percent increase above the previous year's appropriations.

I have consistently supported these increases, but I have become frustrated that despite the new money in the program, fewer families are getting real help on their heating bills. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reports that despite the increase in the number of households eligible for LIHEAP assistance, climbing energy prices have reduced the number of families actually receiving help.

From 1983 to 2005, the percentage of eligible families receiving aid decreased from 31 percent to 15 percent. The increased funding simply is not keeping up with the rising cost of heating fuel. Our dollars are not going so far. The Ohio Department of Development tells me they are expecting the same rapid increases in costs this coming winter. Natural gas is the best example of what has happened in my State and perhaps in the State of the Presiding Officer. The prices for consumers like me went from $3 an mcf in 2000 to $11 per mcf today. In fact, prices for this June-July are nearly double what they were during the same period last year. And it isn't getting any better. I understand that the Vectren Natural Gas Utility Company in the Dayton area, is so alarmed about the expected spike in the price of natural gas this winter it is warning customers now to prepare for rates to increase by as much as 50 percent. This would devastate a lot of Ohioans living on fixed incomes who already have tight budgets.

Unfortunately, Ohioans are not alone. There is a growing number of families across this country who will need help this coming winter. I understand the need for the safety net LIHEAP provides and support its funding at reasonable levels, but when I look at the numbers, it becomes clear that appropriating more and more money for LIHEAP is not the answer.

The real reason some folks will be having such a hard time this winter making ends meet is our Nation has no energy strategy. For example, large-scale fuel switching from coal to gas began with the implementation of the 1990 Clean Air Act. These requirements continue to be phased in and have become increasingly stringent. One can see a clear correlation between regulation and the increasing cost of natural gas. More utilities are turning from coal to gas.

A major contributor to these skyrocketing energy prices is environmental policies that discourage our use of abundant domestic energy supplies and a failure to harmonize our country's energy, environmental, economic, and national security policies. This has resulted in substantial unintended costs in the form of increased fuel, food, electricity prices and lost jobs, and has contributed to the almost doubling of the LIHEAP program.

Sadly, this is not a new problem. We have know for years that we need a comprehensive energy strategy, and I have been calling for one since I came to the Senate.

But it took us 5 years and 6 weeks of floor debate for Congress to Pass the 2005 Energy Policy Act--a bill that took only limited strides forward. And while the bill encouraged improved national energy efficiency, boosted research and development funding for advanced energy technologies and promoted increased use of biofuels. It didn't go far enough toward increasing our domestic energy supply, which has been hamstrung by moratoria on exploration that would have given us increased oil and natural gas.

We have to make real investments today that will help us achieve our goal tomorrow. If our goal is to help those who are less fortunate with their heating bills, then we should be treating the disease rather than the symptoms. We must increase our supply, reduce our demand through alternative energies, and conserve what we have. We must be also careful to avoid--I like to refer to them as smokescreens that cloud our paths to real solutions.

The debate here in Washington over oil speculation is something that is part of this what I call smokescreen. It is causing us to not face up to the situation where we have to increase the supply if we expect to deal with the problems in oil and in natural gas here in the United States. I firmly believe that we find ourselves in this situation today because of a tail wagging the dog environmental policy. This has paralyzed Congress and polarized us in such a way that we have been unable to find common ground on the most important issue currently facing our nation.

But let's keep in mind that our situation could be much worse. This June, amidst what at the time were record high gas and energy prices, a bill was brought to the floor to attempt to address climate change. While finding a solution to climate change is a goal I share, this bill was a bureaucratic and economic disaster, creating over forty new government agencies and spending programs--constituting a $6.7 trillion dollar tax increase on American families. This bill would have sent ripple effects through the economy.

Indeed, it was estimated that the State of Ohio would loose 139,000 jobs by 2020 as a result of the legislation. And with Ohio consumers paying as much as 29 percent more for gasoline, 50 percent more for natural gas and 80 percent more for electricity, disposable household income could be reduced $1,928 per year by 2020 and $3,522 per year by 2050.

Fortunately, this legislation was defeated. But if we continue to ignore the economic impacts of our country's environmental policies, we will further erode our competitive position in the world marketplace, all the while increasing costs for those among us who are least able to pay.

Few would argue that the economic consequences of those regressive policies fall hardest on the most vulnerable of our population--the poor and elderly. And that is what brings us to this LIHEAP debate.

I agree the program plays a key role in helping our neediest brothers and sisters with the high cost of heating their homes this winter. However, it is disconcerting to me that many of my colleagues who support the increase in LIHEAP, as I have, have also supported environmental policies that have encouraged the use of natural gas, and at the same time prevented the exploration for new natural gas deposits.

Most of us understand that when you drive up the demand for gas and limit the supply, prices will go up. Yet, unfortunately those that support these short-sighted environmental polices ignore the impact rising prices have on all of us, particularly the middle class, the elderly, and poor. Some of the people back in my State say: What do they think we all are, rich? What is worse, as the Band-Aid we use to temporarily treat the symptoms of rising energy prices gets bigger--in this case almost doubling the funding for LIHEAP, as I mentioned over what was appropriated this year--we are adding to our growing national debt. We cannot continue to live in the United States of Denial, borrowing money for programs and passing the cost, including interest, onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.

Instead, those demanding more LIHEAP should also be required to vote on increasing our energy supply or at least give the Senate an up-or- down

vote on lifting the ban on exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf. The Mineral Management Service estimates that the undiscovered technically recoverable resources contained in the OCS, Outer Continental Shelf, could equal 420 trillion cubic feet. This is 40 percent of the total natural gas estimated to be contained in the undiscovered fields in the total United States. So I think we owe it to our children, we owe to it our grandchildren to take care of our larger energy problem and get to its root. Moving forward, we must ensure our environmental policies are not considered in a vacuum. They should be complimentary to--not in opposition to--our country's energy and economic needs.

I probably won't use it. I would like to not have it cut off. That has happened too many times here.

Madam President, I rise to speak today about one of the top issues facing our Nation: the skyrocketing price of gasoline, something both the majority and minority leader have been talking about.

Throughout our Nation's history, our strength and identity have been marked by moments that demanded great action in the face of grave threats. We saw this in 1776 when our Founding Fathers declared their independence from the oppressive hand of a mighty empire, and again in 1961 when President Kennedy responded to the growing strength of the Soviet Union and their successful launch of Sputnik by announcing the Apollo Project to put a man on the Moon in 10 years.

In 2008 we are faced with a grave threat. Today, across America, people are hurting. If you are looking for the root of their pain, you don't have to look any further than their home energy bill or their local gas station. It is not just our people who are in grave danger, it is our Nation as well.

While I know Americans are hurting from our addiction to oil, I am not sure they fully realize the extent our national security--and, indeed, our very way of life--is threatened by our reliance on foreign oil. Every year we send billions of dollars overseas for oil to pad the coffers of many nations that do not have our best interests at heart, and some such as Venezuela, whose leader has threatened to cut off the oil. In fact, in 2007, we spent more than $327 billion to import oil, and 60 percent of that--or nearly $200 billion--went to oil-exporting OPEC nations. In 2008, the amount we will spend to import oil is expected to double to more than $600 billion. Now, let's put that into perspective. In 2008 we are going to spend $693 billion on our defense, and now we are sending $600 billion overseas to some folks who don't like us.

There is no question that our dependence on foreign oil has serious national security implications, and we don't talk about it enough. In addition to funding our enemies, as I explained, we cannot ignore the fact that much of our oil comes from and travels through the most volatile regions of the world.

A couple of years ago I attended a series of war games hosted by the National Defense University. I saw firsthand how our country's economy could be brought to its knees if somebody wanted to cut off our oil. In 2006, Hilliard Huntington, executive director of Stanford University's Energy Modeling Forum, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that based on his model:

The odds of a foreign oil disruption happening over the

next 10 years are slightly higher than 80 percent.

Eighty percent.

He went on to testify that if global production were reduced by merely 2.1 percent due to some event, it would have a more serious effect on oil prices and the economy than Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Our dependence on foreign oil is made even more troubling when you consider our Nation's financial situation. Today, 51 percent of the privately owned national debt is held by foreign creditors--mostly foreign central banks. That is up from 6 years ago. Foreign creditors provided more than 70 percent of the funds that the United States has borrowed since 2001, according to the Department of the Treasury. Who are those creditors? The three largest are China, Japan, and the OPEC

nations. This is insane. It has to stop. We cannot afford to allow the countries that control our oil and our debt to control our future. Think about that. The same people who have us right where they want us in terms of oil now almost have us right where they want us in terms of our debt. If they want to put the two together, they can strike a lethal blow to our economy and to the American people.

I am going to be brutally honest with folks. The future of our country I think is in jeopardy. We cannot continue to transfer our wealth overseas to this degree without expecting serious consequences. Rather than addressing these national security concerns, we have been living the life of Riley and have allowed the environmental movement to run wild. They have gone and sued every which way to Sunday and all the while ignored our energy, economic, and national security interests.

We have let them get away with it. We have let them get away with it because oil was cheap and so Congress felt no urgency to act.

I have to tell you something. Oil is not cheap anymore. For 10 years, I have been a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and for 10 years I have tried to coax the committee into harmonizing our energy economy, environment, and security. The committee has refused to do it. Now, as I predicted, the chickens have come home to roost. Americans, today, demand action and that we come together in a bipartisan fashion to solve this crisis. I am glad we finally have come to an agreement to move forward and debate this issue on the floor. I hope we can continue to work together to address the wide range of amendments that I believe could improve this bill.

I have to say, I didn't follow all of what our leaders were talking about, in terms of how this is going to be handled. I wish to let people know I have been involved in the debate on energy since I have been in the Senate. First, in 2003, we were on the floor for 6 weeks and didn't get anything done. Then we came back in 2004 and spent a great deal of time, and nothing happened. Then we came back in 2005, with the Energy Policy Act, and spent 10 days on the floor and 19 rollcalls and 57 amendments.

I believe the American people want their Senators to debate this issue on the floor of the Senate, give us the right to make amendments, and let's vote up or down on them; let's go at it and have a robust debate. Hopefully, after it is over, some consensus will come back, as we did in 2005 and 2007, so people will feel we have, for the first time, stopped bickering and tried to address our attention to something that will make a difference in their lives.

As you know, oil is not easily found or substituted. It will remain an integral component to our economy in the shortrun. We must make investments today that will help us achieve our goals of tomorrow. I believe this is what we must do: Find more and use less. We must increase our supply, reduce our demand through alternative energies, and conserve what we have. We must carefully avoid the smoke-screens that cloud our path to real solutions.

Some people are saying the speculation bill is a smokescreen. There is legitimate debate about that issue, but that is not the only issue we should be debating. Some smart people are saying that, including Robert Samuelson, who recently wrote:

Speculator-bashing is another exercise in scapegoating and

grandstanding.

Paul Krugman wrote in an op-ed:

The hyperventilation over oil-market speculation is

distracting us from the real issues.

That same issue also came up with Boone Pickens. I was at the hearing he attended in the committee. I think we can all agree this is a complicated issue, with many moving parts. That is why we have to look at the issue comprehensively and find solutions to combat this crisis from all angles. In the end, we must not forget the bottom line is about supply and demand.

Let's talk about supply. In order to stabilize our Nation's energy supply, we must enact policies to increase the development of domestic fuels.

While these resources will not physically come online for a number of years, moves to expand development will send a clear signal to the market that we are serious about meeting our future energy demands and immediately begin to drive down the cost of oil because investors will know that gas will not be worth as much in the future and will therefore sell it off today, lowering the cost immediately.

The fact of the matter is we have more energy resources than any other area of the world. I chaired a committee a couple weeks ago and it was amazing to me. They showed a chart. We have more oil reserves than any other place in the world. Most of that is in the shale oil out in the Western United States. Some say it is too expensive to get, over $100--we are not sure yet. Boone Pickens testified and said that in 10 years, if we don't do so, the cost of oil could be $300 a barrel. The fact is we have to understand that the majority of our oil resources are locked up. Eighty-five percent of our offshore acreage and 65 percent of our onshore acreage is off the table.

It is interesting. I have been saying that if the President goes over to see King Abdallah and says: Give me some more oil, the King should say: Why should I give you my oil? The supply is almost the same as the demand and demand is growing. Why don't you go home, Mr. President, and use the oil that you have in the United States of America? Why don't you drill in the Outer Continental Shelf and move east in the Gulf of Mexico? You have rigs down there right now. Yet with 4,000 of them during Katrina, there wasn't any oil spill during that period of time. I understand you have some shale oil out in the West--800 billion barrels of oil--that is available, and perhaps even 2 trillion, in terms of reserves. You have lots of coal, and you could use that to create oil. You have some friends in Canada who have 185 billion barrels of oil in the tar sands, and someone in your Congress has made it almost impossible to bring the tar sands down from Canada, who are friends, neighbors, and they share your values.

It is interesting; when we talked to Pickens about this, he said: When I was in Saudi Arabia and talked to these guys, you know what they said to me? Go after your own oil. You know, once your oil is gone, that is a great resource. Go after yours.

In a nutshell, I think that we need to go on and do the very best we can, in an environmentally sound way, to get at the oil we have available to us as a country.

I was thinking about this. If, in 10 years, we had this shale oil out in the West, and it proved to be what everybody says it can be, instead of us being at the bottom of the barrel, we would be at the top. We might not have to use it, but we would be able to look out around the world and say: You know what, folks, we have a lot of oil. What you did to us, we could do to you if we wanted to.

But that is not the real answer. The real answer is what I call the second declaration of independence. In the second declaration of independence, we would basically say we are going to be oil independent. Tell your kids and grandchildren that. We are going to do it like President Kennedy did. Remember when the Russians sent Sputnik up and we didn't like it? President Kennedy said to the American people that we are going to get this done in 10 years. By golly, we saw a man from Ohio land on the Moon.

I know this: We have wonderful, smart people in this country. One of the ideas I have, in terms of an amendment, would be that if we did exploration or we lifted the moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf exploration, what we would do is take the lease money and put it into the research we are going to have to do on batteries, which I think, ultimately, are the ones, because you don't need an infrastructure with fuel cells, and even with Boone Pickens' oil or natural gas, you have to have a pump there. But with a plug-in vehicle, all you do is come home at night and stick it in the plug and you are all set. You don't have to worry about whether the gas station will have a pump to take care of it.

The fact is we need more money to do this. The Department of Energy has good programs, but they don't have the money to take care of it. We can say to the American people--on those leases, by the way, we have $9 billion this year, and that is a lot of money--we are going to let you go out and explore,

and you are going to pay us for these leases. By the way, we are going to take that money and use it so we can become oil independent in this country. That sounds, probably, idealistic. But the fact is we have to do something creative around here. We know we don't have a lot of money. The national debt is $9.4 trillion.

But somehow we have to come together and say we are going to do two things: go after what we have available to us, and we are going to do everything we can to be independent from relying upon foreign sources of oil. We recognize this is not just a problem of high gasoline costs; this is a problem about the national security of the United States of America. This is more than just, well, $4 a gallon.

Two years ago, I went over to that National Defense war games. I walked out of there, and I was concerned about what could happen to our country if somebody decided they are going to shut off our oil.

The problem today is, if you look at the demand for oil and the supply, it is about equal. Boone Pickens said that in his testimony. We have the supply about where the demand is and demand is going up and the supply isn't there. So one of the things we have to do as a country is let's do more with our own. Let's find more. We can tell the American people it will not happen overnight, but we are going to do this so that down the road we are not going to be at someone's beck and call or at their mercy. In addition, it is going to allow us to stop sending money overseas to countries that don't like us.

Can you imagine that we get 11 percent of our oil from Venezuela and Chavez down there, who is talking about cutting off the oil and trying to get the South American countries to all organize against the United States of America? This is a big deal.

It is finding more, using less. It is also doing everything we can do for conservation. These are simple things. I have a 2000 Ford station wagon. It has a little dial there that I can tell how many miles I get per gallon. I have to tell you, in the last 6 months, I have been paying a lot more attention to that. I have found that if I drive at about 57 miles per hour, I can get 2 to 3 more miles per gallon. I don't get there as fast, but I am saving on gas. My daughter Betsy-- every time she needed something, she would jump in the car and go out and get it. Now she makes a list, and they only go out once. My son Peter now works 10 hours a day for 4 days a week instead of 5 days. That saves gas. There is a lot that we as Americans can do to cut back on the amount of oil we are now using.

I think it is time we all work together, in a bipartisan fashion, and harmonize our energy, our environmental needs, our economy, and national security. Can you imagine how the American people would rejoice if they saw Republicans and Democrats come together and say we are going to work this out on their behalf? Our numbers are pretty bad. I can tell you--and I am sure the Chair understands this--I am out in Ohio all the time. Do you know what I hear? Why can't you stop the bickering? Why are you so much more interested in partisan politics?

Some have heard me say this before. I was mayor of Cleveland, working with 21 Democrats. I had to work with the most powerful Democratic leader they ever had in the city. We decided to work together on a bipartisan basis. Then I went down to Columbus as Governor, with the most powerful speaker ever, Vernal Riffe, whom they built and named a building for. They put up a bust of him there that I had to genuflect to before I got to my office. We decided to work together and not talk about our differences. We decided to find the things that would bring us together.

Let's go to the environmental groups, let's go to the people interested in the economy, let's go to the people who are interested in energy, let's go to the people who are interested in our national security and say: You know what, we have a symbiotic relationship, you environmentalists, you people over here; let's work together, let's do something special, let's restore people's faith in our system in that we are capable, Republicans and Democrats, Americans, to come together and really do something significant for not only ourselves today but, more importantly, for my children, and more important than that, posterity--my seven grandchildren.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to speak about an issue that weighs heavily on the minds of every Ohioan--the skyrocketing cost of gasoline. There have been many elaborate theories bandied about on the floor of the Senate in the last month as to why gasoline is so expensive. We have heard that investors are driving up the cost of oil by 20 to 30 percent. But businessman Warren Buffett has said ``it's not speculation, it's supply and demand.'' And Paul Krugman wrote in an op- ed, ``the hyperventilation over oil market speculation is distracting us from the real issues.''

Madam President, I will insert for the Record an article which appeared in the July 7-14 Newsweek edition by Robert Samuelson titled ``Let's Shoot the Speculators!'' The quote I want to make as part of my speech is:

Gosh, if only it were that simple. Speculator-bashing is

another exercise in scapegoating and grandstanding. Leading

politicians either don't understand what's happening or don't

want to acknowledge their complicity.

There have also been calls to increase production in the 68 million nonproducing acres that are already leased. Some of my colleagues are claiming that hundreds of small, medium, and large oil companies are colluding to not drill on their current leases because they want to restrict the supply so they can increase profits. At the same time, those same colleagues accuse the industry of wanting to open ANWR and the OCS to more drilling to increase profits by increasing supply. That makes absolutely no sense.

I think we can all agree this is a complicated issue with moving parts. Congress cannot afford to address the factors contributing to the high gas prices individually as we are doing today. We must look at the pieces comprehensively and find solutions to combat this crisis from all angles, and we have to act now.

Over the past months, I have heard loudly and clearly from thousands of Ohioans how this crisis is directly affecting them and their loved ones. In fact, this past July 4 recess I was talking with folks about high gas prices. They are frustrated and angry--frustrated at the high cost of gasoline and angry that Congress wasn't getting off its you know what to do anything about it. They told me about how the price of gasoline is affecting them where it hurts--right in their pocketbook. It is affecting vacation plans for those families who planned to take long trips this summer. It is affecting people who have to drive long distances for a living. And it is particularly affecting people who live on the financial edge.

The truth is, with the high cost of natural gas, and the high cost of gasoline and food, the standard of living of millions of Americans is being impacted substantially.

Other Ohioans have written to me, and one letter I think about quite often was from Mary Keener, who works at the James Cancer Center in Columbus. She wrote to my office to tell me about her concerns for patients living in Ohio's Appalachian region. She says:

Patients call our office and say: ``I know I need this

cancer treatment to live, but I can't afford to buy the gas

to get it. Can you help me?''

Every day, more and more Ohioans contact me and it is becoming clear that they get it. They realize we need to increase our oil supply and develop a comprehensive energy strategy.

Sadly, this crisis could have been averted. We have known for years that we need a comprehensive energy strategy, and I have been calling for one since I came to the Senate in 1999. In 2002, after the Senate failed to pass the provision that would have opened ANWR and dramatically increased our domestic energy production, I said:

As we go down the road, I think those that voted against

this amendment will regret their vote when we face the

sticker shock at the gas pump and the eventual impact that

continued dependency on foreign oil will have on our national

security, economy, and our foreign trade deficit.

Since that vote, gas prices have increased more than 200 percent. Meanwhile, it took 5 years and 6 weeks of floor debate for Congress to pass the 2005 Energy Policy Act, a bill that only provided limited strides forward. And while the bill took modest steps to improve national energy efficiency, boost research and development funding for advanced energy technologies, and promote increased use of biofuels, it did not go far enough toward increasing our domestic energy supply.

For years, the gap in the United States between demand and domestic supply has been widening. In fact, U.S. oil production has steadily declined since 1970, when it was nearly 10 million barrels per day, to 5.1 barrels in 2007. So with less domestic resources available, we have been forced to seek energy abroad.

In 1973, the United States imported 6 million barrels of oil per day, or 34 percent of our total supply. By 2006, net oil imports were 12.4 million barrels per day, or 60 percent of our total liquid fuel use.

This chart gives you an idea of what has happened. Our domestic oil production has gone down and our need for imported oil has gone up. You can see the gap that exists. And the only way we are going to make any progress is to reduce that gap that is so pronounced today.

While Americans understand we need to increase the supply of oil, I am not sure they fully realize to what extent our life is threatened by our reliance on foreign sources of oil. Every year we send billions of dollars overseas for oil to pad the coffers of many nations that don't have our best interest at heart, such as Venezuela, whose leader has threatened to cut oil off to the United States.

In fact, in 2007, we spent more than $327 billion to import oil. Sixty percent of this, or nearly $200 billion, went to the oil exporting OPEC nations. In 2008, the amount we will spend to import oil is expected to double to more than $600 billion, $360 billion of which is going to go to the OPEC nations. Let's take a moment to put those figures into context, when compared to our fiscal year 2008 budget for our national defense, which was more than $693 billion. The $600 billion we will spend to import oil in 2008 is nearly equal--it is nearly equal--to the entire defense budget of the United States.

Our dependence on foreign oil has serious national security implications. In addition to funding our enemies, as I explained, we cannot ignore the fact that much of our oil comes from and travels through the most volatile regions of the world. A couple of years ago I attended a series of war games hosted by the National Defense University. I saw firsthand how our country's economy could be brought to its knees if somebody wanted to cut off our oil, as was done in 1973.

Do you know that 80 percent of the global oil routes flow through unstable countries, such as Iran? Over 40 percent of the world's oil travels through the Strait of Hormuz.

Just to give an idea, this graph reflects where we are getting our oil. Here is Venezuela--Chavez, the dictator down there who is working against our interests constantly in South America. He is no friend of ours. The Middle East. We know what we have over in this unstable part of the world. Our concern about Iran is also impacting on the price of oil, because people are not certain what is going to happen in terms of Iran.

Our dependence on foreign oil is even more troubling when you consider our Nation's financial situation. The decline of the dollar has had a direct effect on increasing prices of gasoline. In fact, many experts say we are paying substantially more to export oil today because of the weak dollar.

We cannot overlook our national debt. Today, 51 percent of the privately owned national debt is held by foreign creditors, mostly foreign central banks. That is up from 6 years ago. Foreign creditors provided more than 70 percent of the funds the United States has borrowed since 2001, according to the Department of the Treasury.

Who are these creditors? According to the Treasury Department, the three largest holders of U.S. debt are China, Japan, and OPEC. This is insane. It has to stop. We cannot afford to allow at this time countries that control our oil and our debt to control the future of the United States of America.

We need to enact an energy policy that broadens our base of energy resources to create stability, maintain reasonable prices, and protect our Nation's security. It must be a policy that will keep energy affordable, and it must be a policy that will not cripple the engines of commerce that fund the research that will yield environmental protection technologies for the future.

We need a second Declaration of Independence to move us away from foreign sources of energy in the near term and away from oil in the long term.

This is not going to be easy. As you know, oil is not easily found nor substituted, and it will remain an integral part of our economy in the short term. But we must make investments today that will help us achieve our goal tomorrow. To do this, I believe we must increase our supply, reduce our demand through alternative energies, and conserve what we already have.

We are trying to get folks to understand that if we want relief from high gas costs, we must begin to make investments today that will help us achieve our goal tomorrow. We talked a lot in recent weeks about finding more and using less. If we had accomplished this 10 years ago, I would not be here talking about the high price of gasoline and the suffering of Ohioans in my State.

In order to stabilize our Nation's energy supply, we must enact policies to increase development of domestic oil. While these resources will not physically come on line for a number of years--and people better understand it--moves to expand the development will send a clear signal to the market that we are serious about meeting our future energy demands and immediately begin to drive down the cost of oil because our investors will know that gas will not be worth as much in the future, and therefore they will sell it off today. It will have an impact on the price.

The fact is, we have more energy resources in the United States than any other country in the world. We are the No. 3 oil producer in the world, but the majority of our oil resources are locked up. Madam President, 85 percent of our offshore acreage and 65 percent of our onshore acreage is off limits. I was embarrassed that we have gone to Saudi Arabia with our hat in our hand to beg them to increase oil production. Rather than begging the Saudi Government, we need to be utilizing our own resources.

The other day I said if I were King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia, I would say to President Bush: Mr. President, why do you come to me asking for more of our oil when you have great resources in your country? You want to use all of our resources. In Alaska you have more than 10 billion barrels of oil. You had a chance to open ANWR to responsible environmentally friendly oil exploration in 1995, but President Clinton vetoed it. Your country could be producing an extra 1 million barrels of oil today, an increase of 20 percent over your current production.

Did you know that Prudhoe Bay, located west of ANWR, has cleanly delivered billions of barrels of crude oil since the 1970s, providing a strong example of the drilling that can be done safely with minimal environmental impact with today's technology and environmental safeguards.

You could also give your States the option of drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. These reserves are believed to equal 8.5 billion barrels of oil, and undiscovered resources could equal 10 times that. That is 85 billion barrels of oil. But a moratorium currently prohibits access to the OCS.

By the way, I commend President Bush for lifting the executive moratorium. I will just keep talking for King Abdallah.

I know some of your environmentalists are concerned, but it is my understanding that there has not been a significant oilspill on the gulf coast for nearly 30 years, and in 2005 Hurricane Katrina passed overhead nearly 4,000 rigs without causing a significant spill.

You could make use of your vast reserves of oil shale. There are currently 800 billion barrels of oil, technically recoverable reserves, in the United States. That is three times larger than the total proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Think of that, three times as much.

The Rand Corporation noted that:

If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of United

States' demand, 800 billion barrels would last for more than

400 years.

Again, you passed a moratorium that prohibits access to these reserves--regulations even to go in there. Your friend up north, Canada, has some of the largest tar sand reserves in the world. A Congressman named Waxman passed a provision that jeopardizes access to those resources.

Don't forget coal. You have 250 years of coal in the United States, more than any other nation in the world. You are being prevented from using coal to liquid. As a matter of fact, in the State of Ohio, Baard Energy is planning a coal-to-liquid and biomass facility that will produce 53,000 barrels a day of jet and diesel fuel and other production from coal and biomass feedstocks.

Advances in carbon capture sequestration technology would lower the greenhouse gas emissions, but again, because of Congressman Waxman, your coal-to-liquid industry has slowed the Air Force's plans to run their entire fleet on synthetic fuel by 2016.

We ought to realize this. How did the Germans stay in the war effort when they had no oil? They took the coal they had, they converted it to oil, and that is how they kept their war machine going. It seems to me we ought to at least give recognition to the fact that we should make sure that our defense has all of the resources it needs in terms of oil.

I think we have to get real. We say to all these other countries that we want them to use their reserves, increase their supply. Frankly, they should say: Why don't you do it yourself? Why don't you do it?

The other thing we have to do is we have to use less. It is long past time for our Government to provide the spark to rekindle our Nation's creativity and innovation. Following Russia's launch of Sputnik, President Kennedy challenged us and said we are going to put a man on the Moon in 10 years, and we did it. By golly, if we could put a man on the Moon in 10 years, we can figure out how we can become the country that uses oil the least in the world. We do need a new Apollo project to encourage further advances in ethanol to cut consumption and the development of more efficient, hybrid electric and plug-in vehicles. I hope my grandchildren will be using plug-in vehicles. They will not be using any oil at all in terms of their transportation. If half our fleet of 240 million vehicles were converted to electric hybrids, we could reduce our oil imports by 4 to 5 million barrels a day.

Last week I chaired an energy forum and had the opportunity to hear from David Vieu, president of A123 Systems, which company is developing American-made battery technology. He explained that this technology is already commercially viable.

We are making some headway. We have to make up our minds that we are going to get the job done. We have to let the world know. Can you imagine what we could do? Let the world know we are going to go after every drop we

have available, in terms of our supply, and we are going to do everything we can to reduce our demand. We are going to do everything we can to conserve what we have. I believe that will send the fear of God through those individuals, and we will see an impact on the cost of oil in this country, even though it is going to happen in the future.

Do you know what is funny. These folks are betting that we will not do what we ought to do because they have watched us. They have watched us. They have seen that we have not used our resources. They have watched us and seen that we have not used the best technology to reduce our demand for oil. They have watched us as we have not conserved as we should have been doing during the last number of years.

I think the chickens have come home to roost. High gas prices are hurting Americans. The problem we have had in this country is, we haven't had an energy policy, but we have not harmonized our environment, our energy, our economy, and our national security. I am confident we can come together on a bipartisan basis and work something out so the American people understand that the Senate and Congress have come together on an issue that is of crisis proportion to our fellow Americans, and that we care more about them and our country's future than we do about bickering with each other.

I go home all the time, and people just say: the reason your numbers are so bad is because we think you guys, men and women, are more interested in partisan politics and bickering than you are in getting together and getting the job done.

I have to say, from my perspective, it is very frustrating. I was the mayor of Cleveland, an 8-to-1 Democratic city; 21 councilmen and the most powerful council president. We worked together. We figured out how to move the city of Cleveland ahead for 10 years.

I became the Governor of Ohio, and Vern Rife was the speaker of the house 24 years, the most powerful Democratic speaker we had. After he discovered I was Governor after 6 months--it took a while--Vern and I sat down and said: You know what. Let's work together and move Ohio ahead.

I think it is time we got together and said: Republicans and Democrats, let's move America ahead. Wouldn't it be great for our children and grandchildren to one day celebrate the time America put aside its differences and came together to reaffirm its independence a second time and rekindled the American spirit of self reliance, innovation, and creativity to usher in a new era of prosperity?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Newsweek article by Robert Samuelson be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, ordinarily I don't come over and speak in morning business. As so with many Members of the Senate, I could be at three places at the same time and justify each one of them. I came today because of the fact that our colleagues and the citizens of this country need to know there are many instances where both Republicans and Democrats can come together and get something done. I have been very fortunate over the years to know the Presiding Officer, a former Governor, to know Governor Carper, now Senator Carper. We worked together in the National Governors Association. I think sometimes we were more effective as Governors getting things done than as Members of the Senate.

The fact is, we came together a couple of years ago and realized that one of the most significant sources of pollution, in terms of particulate matter, were emissions from diesel engines. As Senator Carper pointed out, we now have new vehicles on the road that are much cleaner than anything we have seen before. We also knew there were some 11 million on- and off-road vehicles that would be around a long time and that if we were going to make significant improvement in reducing emissions from diesel engines, we needed a new program. We got together and supported the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, a bipartisan bill. We must have had 25 or 30 sponsors, over 150 groups supported it. That was the fastest bill I have ever seen passed around here. I think we had it done in 45 days.

The program today is currently supported by over 250 environmental, industry, and public interest groups. When DERA was announced, the EPA estimated the 5-year program, $200 million per year, would achieve $10 billion in health benefits. Senator Carper has done a very good job of talking about how these particulates are harmful. As a matter of fact, I am going to check into a program that is being funded by the EPA in Cincinnati, where they are measuring the impact of diesel engines on infants in urban areas. Preliminary information I have received indicates it is a very serious problem. Anything we can do to deal with reducing these emissions is significant. In addition, we talk about doing something about pollution. This legislation, if fully funded, will result in the most significant reductions of particulates of any program in the country. It will help communities, such as mine in Ohio and others around the country, to meet new requirements that have come out for ozone and particulate matter.

The need for this program from fiscal year 2003 to 2005 was great, but EPA was only able to fund 25 percent of the applications under the Clean School Bus Program. A lot of school buses need to have this kind of technology. Without it, they are carting kids around, and when they stop, the stuff is being poured out. It is very significant.

Over that period, from 2003 to 2005, only a third of Ohio's applications were funded, 5 out of 15, but broad support for DERA is changing this situation. People are starting to realize this is a neat program. It is really working. For fiscal year 2008, DERA was funded at almost $50 million. The House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee has acted to increase DERA funding to $65 million for 2009.

The thing that is neat about this is that we look at supporting programs. I always asked the question, as I am sure the Presiding Officer did when he was Governor and Senator Carper when he was Governor: How much more money do you leverage with the money you are spending? In other words, the State puts money in, and how many other people are willing to kick in and make a difference? In this program, we have 50 States participating. In order for the States to participate, they have to create their own State-level programs. States can get more Federal funding by adding State dollars. So if the State matches the Federal allocation dollar for dollar, it will receive an additional 50-percent allocation. This is a real incentive for States to get involved. When we first put this program together, we thought, for every dollar we put out, we would leverage another $3 from State and local government. Also, the private sector is really interested in this program. My State has taken a leadership role in that effort. A coalition of groups have come together in Ohio to use the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, the CMAQ Program, as we know it, to fund diesel retrofits. CMAQ provides State and local governments funding for transportation projects to help meet air quality requirements, and the funds are apportioned to State transportation agencies based on population and air quality programs in the region.

Still more money is needed. Enforcement settlements have been a good source of funding for diesel retrofits. For example, from 2001 to 2006, EPA entered into diesel emission reduction Supplemental Environmental Projects valued at $45 million. In 2007, an enforcement settlement with AEP, American Electric Power, a company in my State, included approximately $21 million for diesel retrofits. In other words, companies that have been fined have been able to take the money they have been fined and put it into this fabulous program that reduces diesel emissions.

Last July, though, the EPA issued a policy that eliminated the use of this money to finance diesel retrofits. It is hard to believe. This policy was based on the Agency's interpretation of the Miscellaneous Receipts Act and prohibits the Agency from accepting SEPs that fund activities for which the Agency received funds through appropriations, a lot of gobbledygook. EPA's inability to enter into diesel emission reduction SEPs has eliminated an important tool for environmental protection. What this bill basically says is, we are going to amend the Miscellaneous Receipts Act and say that in addition to the money we appropriate for this program, they can also use SEP money for this program. Everyone believes this is a very meritorious action we are taking. It will increase substantially the amount of money that is made available.

I am hopeful that in the next several years, we will see one of the most robust programs in the world underway with the diesel emissions program. We pass stuff around here, we debate it, but so often nothing happens. Here is a perfect case of where Republicans and Democrats have worked together on something that means something. It is going to help. It is the kind of program I can go back to Ohio and say, when they are complaining about the ozone and the particulate and what are you doing to help us: We have the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act that is going to make a difference for you and your community. Hopefully, working together, as I mentioned, we will see some significant reductions in emissions and significant improvement in public health, particularly for our children.

Again, I publicly acknowledge the great partnership Senator Carper and I have had. There are so many things we work on. When we finally get to them, such as the Clean Air Act we had a couple years ago, we just missed making it happen. But on this one, we did make it happen. I am hopeful that Senator Carper and I, working in the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, will be able to collaborate on other significant legislation that

will make a real difference for our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I think it is much more than that. If you look at the numbers I used in my presentation, it is much greater than that in terms of the public health benefits that are derived as a result of the program.

Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent then that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the need for fiscal responsibility and to call attention to our ever-increasing national debt. Building on a speech I gave in March, I hope to regularly provide my colleagues and the American people with updates on our growing national debt.

I recently voted against the budget bill that would have allowed the national debt to increase to $11.8 trillion over the next couple of years. We need to be reminded of the fiscal realities in which we find ourselves. We cannot continue to live in the United States of Denial.

Behind me is a chart that shows the accumulated national debt today. As of 2007, the national debt stood at almost $9 trillion. Today it is at $9.4 trillion, with each American owing some $31,000; that is, every man, woman, and child in the country owes $31,000. And the deficit for 2008 will be added to that number, including an average $273 billion a year in interest payments on that debt.

If interest rates increase, the interest payments could be much more, eating up revenues that could be used for other purposes. In January, the Congressional Budget Office projected a $219 billion deficit for 2008, but they did not include the $152 billion economic stimulus package that President Bush later signed into law in February.

With the addition of the economic stimulus bill and other recent changes in the baseline, CBO's updated deficit projection for 2008 is $357 billion. The Congressional Budget Office number also does not include borrowing from the Social Security trust fund and other trust funds to the tune of almost $200 billion.

We only talk about the public debt, but we do not talk about the debt, the money that we are borrowing from our own Government. In addition to all of this, soon we are going to be considering a supplemental appropriations bill to the tune of $193 billion which, again, will be added to the national debt.

So if we are really honest with the American people, the projected real debt for 2008 is $746 billion--$746 billion. That is more than three times the $219 billion deficit projected at the start of 2008.

Now, to get an idea of how much that is, $746 billion is more than we spent on the war on terror, including Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, during the last 5 years. And we borrowed every penny of it.

The Treasury Department in April reported that the deficit through the first 6 months of the budget year to date was $311.4 billion, up 20 percent from the same period a year ago. That was the largest deficit for the first half of a budget year on record, surpassing the old 6- month mark of $302 billion that was set back in 2006.

The Federal deficit through the first half of fiscal year 2008 is an all-time high, underscoring the pressure the budget is coming under as, overall, our economy slumps, spending is higher, tax revenues are lower.

But the deficit only describes the annual difference between revenues and outlays. And that is not what is really threatening our future. We do not talk about it. It is the cumulative ongoing increase in our national debt that really matters, with too many people in Washington pretending this debt does not even exist.

When was the last time you heard the President of the United States talk about the national debt? I cannot remember. And he happens to be a Republican. One of the reasons I am a Republican is that I have always believed in balancing budgets and paying down debt. But we do not even talk about it. It is not even there. It is like it has evaporated. When have we heard the Presidential candidates talk about the national debt and what they are going to be doing about it?

Recently, USA Today reported that the Federal Government's accumulated long-term financial obligations grew by $2.5 trillion last year--$2.5 trillion--as a result of the increase in the cost of Medicare and Social Security benefits as more baby boomers retire.

I think $2.5 trillion is about what we spend on everything in the Federal Government each year. Taxpayers are on the hook for a record $57 trillion in Federal liabilities to cover the lifetime benefits of everyone eligible for Medicare, Social Security, and other Government programs.

If you figure it out by households, that is $500,000 per household in this country. When people come to me and ask me to spend money on a special program that they want me to spend money on, I explain our $9.4 trillion national debt and the fact that each of us owes $31,000. Then I ask them if what they want is important enough to borrow the money and put the cost, including interest, on the back of our children and grandchildren.

It is an interesting question that I pose to people. And they think about it. After a moment, the smiles on their faces vanish, and their answer is no. Unfortunately, however, our political leaders in Washington hide the real budget numbers from the public and fail to even mention the rising national debt.

Most Americans are clueless as to how fiscally irresponsible Congress and the administration have been. The U.S. Government is the biggest credit card abuser in the world. We talk to our kids and others: You have to watch credit. We are the worst example of a credit card abuser in the world.

You know what. The rest of the world gets it, which is why they are covering their bets on the U.S. dollar. So why do we refuse to see the warning signs? A decade ago who would ever have imagined that the Canadian dollar would be worth just as much as the U.S. dollar? I remember when it was two to one. Now the dollar's value has fallen by half.

A few years ago, one Euro was worth barely 80 cents; now it is worth more than $1.50. I think the President remembers when we were in Rome together that the dollar that we had bought 60 cents of a Euro. It is hard to believe. Then, to top it off, because of our deficits, we are forced to borrow money from other countries.

As a matter of fact, 51 percent of the privately owned national debt is held by foreign creditors. It is supposed to be held by the United States; that is public debt. But they have come in and they have 51 percent of it. That is up from 37 percent 6 years ago.

Foreign creditors provide more than 70 percent of the funds the United States has borrowed since 2001, according to the Department of Treasury. Think about it. And who are those foreign creditors? According to the Treasury Department, the three largest foreign holders of U.S. debt are China, Japan, and the oil-exporting countries known as

Mr. President, I would like to comment on the kindness of the Senator from Oklahoma. I think that so often we forget the sacrifice that our American people have made so we could bring some stability to Afghanistan and to Iraq.

Now, 2 weeks ago I attended a service actually on the front steps of the Ohio Capitol Building where we commemorated the lives of 23 individuals from the Lima Company that was extraordinarily hit in Iraq. Tears rolled out of my eyes and everyone else there as a mother of a man by the name of Hoffman talked about her son and the sacrifice that he made and why he made that sacrifice.

I think that too many Americans are not aware of the fact that we have lost over 4,000 people in Iraq and that 30,000 of them have returned, and half of them are going to be disabled. I think it underscores that we need to be very responsible in our future activity in Iraq so that the parents of those young men and women do not feel that their lives were lost in vain.

I am sure, Mr. President, you have mixed emotions, as I have, about where we should be going there. I heard Jim Dobbins today. Jim was at the State Department for many years. He was talking about our next moves in Iraq and how difficult it is because on one hand, we know that we have to move our troops out of there for the benefit of our volunteer Army. Because of the deployments, they are stretched, and they are not getting the re-ups that they need.

At the same time, we want to make sure we do not move too fast so we end up with a civil war there. So it is a dilemma. But the people who get lost in all of that are the folks who have lost their loved ones. And it grieves me that we have spent almost $650 billion on that war, and we have never asked the American people to participate.

The only ones who have participated are the families whose sons and daughters have come back in body bags, and that loss will be with them for the rest of their lives. So I think all of us ought to think about those families and pray for them and pray that those of us in responsible positions will be enlightened by the Holy Spirit to make the right decisions for them, their families, for our country, and for the world.

Mr. President, I rise today to address the impact the freight rail industry has on reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. According to a recent Department of Transportation study, freight traffic is expected to increase 67 percent by 2020--against a backdrop of concerns about global climate change, the stringency of clean air standards, increased traffic congestion, high energy prices, and the need for greater energy independence. Freight rail is the most energy efficient and environmentally friendly mode of land transportation. Today, freight rail can move a ton of freight 436 miles on a single gallon of diesel. U.S. freight railroads have significantly reduced their carbon intensity and fuel efficiency. In 1980, 1 gallon of diesel fuel moved 1 ton of freight by rail an average of 235 miles. In 2007, the same amount of fuel moved 1 ton of freight by rail an average of 436 miles roughly equivalent to the distance from Boston to Baltimore and an 80-percent increase over 1980. Depending upon the type of cargo being transported and the number of cars, a single freight train is capable of being as productive as 500 trucks.

I am pleased that CSX is working with Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania on the National Gateway. The National Gateway is a plan to create a more efficient rail route linking Mid- Atlantic ports with midwestern markets, improving the flow of rail traffic between these regions by increasing the use of double-stack trains. This public-private partnership will upgrade tracks, equipment and facilities, and provide clearance allowing double-stack intermodal trains.

The National Gateway proposes preparing three major rail corridors for double-stack clearance: I-95 corridor between North Carolina and Baltimore, MD, via Washington, DC; I-70/I-76 corridor between Washington, DC, and northwest Ohio via Pittsburgh, PA; and Carolina corridor between Wilmington, NC and Charlotte, NC. The result will be thousands of new jobs, improved railway reliability, and the diversion of heavy trucks from crowded highways leading to reduced emissions and highway maintenance costs and improved road safety.

Since the I-70/I-76 corridor between Washington, DC, and northwest Ohio is a highly traveled route, it is well-located to become an efficient link between the east coast and midwestern markets. Expansion of rail infrastructure in Columbus, OH, and North Baltimore, OH, will help alleviate some of the freight congestion in the Chicago, Cincinnati and Cleveland areas. The National Gateway project would build a new rail terminal in North Baltimore, OH, and expand intermodal capacity in Columbus, creating thousands of new jobs. I look forward to working with the Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania delegations to make this partnership a reality.

Mr. President, I would like to say, first of all, that I share some of the great concerns of my colleague from Texas.

Today, I rise to address the legislative proposal introduced by Senators Lieberman and Warner to address global climate change. Like many of my colleagues, I share the urgency to take proactive steps to address this challenge we have.

That said, I have serious reservations about the proposal. I think it is overly aggressive, vastly outpacing what technology can provide and thus ensuring enormous economic pain on the country, and it is overly bureaucratic and cumbersome in its implementation, representing an unprecedented expansion of Government power and a massive bureaucratic intrusion into American lives that will have a profound effect on businesses, communities, and families.

The EPA has stated in answer to a letter I sent them that this program will take between 300 and 400 people to implement, whereas the acid rain provision takes just under 30.

The major failure of this legislation is it fails to harmonize our country's economic energy and environmental objectives, and the consequences to American interests could be devastating.

The international aspect of this problem is particularly troublesome. The developing world is currently undertaking an intensive expansion of energy infrastructure and escalating industrial and commercial expansion to meet the demands of growing domestic and international markets. The developing nations' combined emissions shortly will exceed the developed nations' combined emissions.

In 2007, ``[t]he International Energy Agency issued a . . . report projecting global energy demand would increase by more than one-half by 2030, and that `Developing countries . . . contribute 74 percent of the increase in global primary energy use . . . China and India alone account for 45 percent of that increase.' ''

China puts on line two coal-fired plants every week--two coal-fired plants every week. In June, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency announced that China's 2006 CO2 emissions surpassed those of the United States by 8 percent. With this, China tops the list of CO2-emitting countries for the first time and, by the way, years ahead of the projections that were made a couple of years ago.

Much like China, those countries with large domestic reserves of coal--and that includes the United States--will continue to use it. It is unrealistic to assume that the world would turn its back on this abundant resource. We must take this reality into account, and this can be done by jump-starting the technology that is needed to produce the energy we need in an environmentally sound manner.

Recognizing the international dynamic of this problem, the Lieberman- Warner proposal attempts to impose a tariff-like requirement to hold carbon credits for goods entering the United States from countries that do not control their emissions. The U.S. Trade Representative has questioned the plan's efficacy, and China, Mexico, and Brazil have signaled that the policy could begin a trade war. Indeed, top officials from the European Union and the United Nations have also raised doubts about whether the U.S. trade penalties would harm the prospects of a new global warming agreement.

But even if the provision is WTO compliant, it will not address the underlying competitiveness issues the United States would face from the higher fuel, feedstock, and electricity prices the bill would impose on U.S. manufacturers.

A better approach is needed. Americans are already struggling with the increase in their cost of living due to higher prices for gasoline, home heating fuel, electricity, food, and health care, and this bill would only make things worse. I wish some of the sponsors would go back into their respective constituencies to hear the complaints from most people--middle-class people, poor, the retirees--whose standard of living is being reduced in the country today because of these costs.

We cannot tolerate policies that harm our economy and drive businesses overseas. If those businesses locate in countries that do not share our environmental objectives, then we are worse off on two counts: Fewer jobs in the United States and no benefits at all to the environment.

Over my strenuous objections, this bill was voted out of the Environment and Public Works Committee without an analysis of the economic impacts on the country from either the EPA or the Energy Information Office. Today, we have at least a dozen analyses of the bill from a wide variety of groups, and they are all about the same.

EPA's analysis predicts that by 2030, annual losses in gross domestic product could be as high as $983 billion, and by 2050, those losses would grow to $2.8 trillion. To put this into perspective,

CBO projects the Federal budget for this year will be $2.9 trillion. That means the potential impact losses from this legislation in 2050 would equal that spent on everything we intend to spend this year from Social Security to national defense. Think about it.

In order to meet the caps of the bill, the analysis assumes aggressive growth in nuclear and other clean energy technologies at rates that are widely regarded as unachievable and, from my perspective, unbelievable. For example, they predict a 150-percent increase in nuclear power by 2050. Today, there are 104 operating plants, meaning that we have to build up to another 150 new plants by 2050. The Energy Information Office said, when they did the analysis, that we would have to build 220 of them by 2030 in order for these caps to be realistic. These assumptions are unrealistic and mask the true cost of implementing the bill.

In regard to nuclear power, I recently published a paper in the Nuclear News on the steps we need to take to launch a nuclear renaissance. I am going to make certain that each Member receives a copy of this paper. But bringing vast amounts of new nuclear power on line will not be a layup shot. For example, there is only one company and one plant in the world that makes the vessels and forges for plants. Recently, we anticipated new plants would cost about $5 billion. The new cost is $7 billion per copy. Today, we have pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 applications for 15 new plants that, if constructed, would not come on line until 2015, 2016, and 2017. Honestly, we are going to be lucky to have 30 new nuclear powerplants by 2030.

In regard to what we call capture carbon and sequestration--the technology that is needed--no commercial experience or testing at scale has been done. DOE says it will take 10 years before the seven large- scale demonstration tests are complete to look at sequestration. DOE said that a more robust geological assessment will not be complete until 2015. Liability and critical infrastructure issues remain unanswered, and DOE says commercial CCS may not be available for 20 years.

The connection between the costs of the program and the availability of clean energy technology is clear. As EIA points out:

The . . . timing of the development, commercialization, and

deployment of low-emissions electricity generating

technologies such as nuclear power, coal with CCS, and

dispatchable renewable power is a major detriment of the

energy and economic impacts of 2191.

I want to repeat that.

The . . . timing of the development, commercialization, and

deployment of low-emissions electricity generating

technologies such as nuclear power, coal with [carbon capture

sequestration], and dispatchable renewable power is a major

detriment of the energy and economic impacts of 2191.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer, which is the largest newspaper in the State of Ohio, this Sunday editorialized on this bill. The title is ``This carbon bill isn't the answer.'' It goes on to say:

The bill, as conceived, will just bore new holes into an

already battered economy. . . .

Coal-dependent states with partially deregulated energy

prices--Ohio, for instance--would take a double hit in

economic dislocations and electricity price spikes, with

barely any financial cushions to make the disruptions more

palatable. The bill also lacks the kind of consumer fairness

and flexibility necessary to avoid fuel-price shocks and

damage to manufacturing nationwide.

I ask unanimous consent to have this editorial printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the paper I have written on the nuclear renaissance.

Mr. President, while coal and manufacturing States pay their neighbors and the Government to stay in business, the bill establishes trillions of dollars in new entitlements, earmarks-- earmarks--with money flowing to over 30 new Government spending programs, constituting, as the Wall Street Journal recently pointed out, one of the largest tax-and-spend bills in the Nation's history.

Based on EPA's analysis, this bill would raise over $6 trillion from the allowance auction from owners and operators of utilities and factories that have to purchase allowances to stay in business. But the cost of purchasing these allowances would be passed on to consumers as higher prices, which will, as the CBO points out, amount to a regressive tax hitting low- and middle-income working families. In my State, they predict that by 2012, the cost of electricity will go up 50 percent, the cost of natural gas 80 percent, and the cost of gasoline will go up 30 percent. Some of my constituents say: How can the cost of gasoline go up? I point out to them that we have refineries that refine oil. With this bill, they are going to have to buy allowances, and those allowances will increase the cost of your gasoline 30 percent. Did you hear that? A 30-percent increase in gasoline costs as a result of this legislation. Give me a break.

Despite the severe economic damage Lieberman-Warner would impose on the U.S. economy, the policy would do little to address global climate change. EPA's--this is not some conservative group out there--analysis indicates the policy will reduce global concentrations of CO2 less than 5 percent by 2095.

Addressing climate change will require a technology revolution centered on the way we produce and use energy. The theory behind Lieberman-Warner is that the more painful it is on business, the faster CO2 reductions will occur. I believe the solution to this problem lies in our ability to increase access to clean energy. Instead of using the power of the Government to increase energy cost, we should use it to decrease barriers to investments and clean energy solutions.

The United States took a lot of flak from countries for our not signing Kyoto, but I am pleased the Bush administration has been moving forward with some new initiatives. And while we didn't sign Kyoto, we do have a base of international activities to build on, and one of them could provide the basis for becoming a multinational effort, giving all countries a vested interest in technology advancement and deployment.

The thing we have to remember is that, above all, the developing world desires sustained economic growth. Slowing down economic development to address climate change is not an option they are willing to pursue, and we cannot force it upon them. If we are going to be successful in addressing the challenge of climate change, we have to set a realistic vision for the developing world, using what Richard Armitage and Joseph Nye referred to as smart power. When they testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 24, 2008, they argued that the world:

. . . looks to the U.S. to put forward better ideas rather

than just walk away from the table.

This was the perception after Kyoto, and it could be the perception again today if we do not find a way to engage the developing world.

They go on to say:

The United States needs to rediscover how to be a smart

power, which matches vision with execution and

accountability, and looks broadly at U.S. goals, strategies,

and influence in a changing world.

And they rightly conclude that our:

. . . challenges can only be addressed with capable and

willing allies and partners.

Without willing partners in China and India, we cannot be successful in addressing climate change. Technologies development and promotion should drive our national climate policy. It is the only rational path forward. It is the only way to deal with emissions from rapidly expanding coal-based economies such as China and India, that readily admit they have no intention of accepting binding emission targets.

The public interest and private sector communities agree that the crucial factor that will determine whether we have an effective climate policy is the extent that policy will encourage the development and deployment of needed technology. Regulation without sufficiently available technology will result in high cost for American consumers while offering little hope that developing nations will answer the call to reduce their emissions.

In conclusion, I agree that we need to act quickly to address climate change, but we must be smart about how we proceed. I am hoping after this year's debate, we can come together--come together--on a bipartisan basis, to draft a bill that doesn't impose unilateral actions that hurt our economy and drive jobs overseas but rather jump- starts technology, engages our international partners through collaborative multinational efforts to develop and deploy the clean energy technologies that everyone recognizes are necessary to solve this global environmental problem.

I appreciate the Chair giving me an extra minute.

Mr. President, I wish to honor John H. McConnell. On April 25, Ohio lost a dear friend and true statesman. Very few people cared as much about Ohio as John did, and his legacy will live on through his tremendous contributions in the state.

Though he found great professional success in his life, John never swayed from his deep-rooted commitment to honesty and integrity in every facet of his life. With just a single load of steel, John founded Worthington Industries in 1955 out of his basement home in Columbus, OH. Since then, Worthington Industries has reached 10 countries, with 63 locations and 8,000 employees. With its main divisions in steel processing, metal framing and pressure cylinders, it generates approximately $3 billion of sales annually.

Above all else, the Worthington philosophy has always been about practicing the Golden Rule. The commitment to good citizenship, civic involvement, and philanthropy is nowhere better represented within the Worthington organization than at the very top level--and that commitment lives on with John's legacy.

Worthington Industries has also been recognized for its unfailing dedication to its employees and their families. In fact, it has been named one of the top 100 best places to work in America. John truly cared about his employees, and that attitude was reflected throughout the entire company.

I worked closely with John when Worthington Industries opened a steel plant in Delta, OH. Honestly, I never worked with anyone more candid and fair than John. When he made a commitment, it was sure--you didn't need a contract with him. He championed public and private partnerships, and as former Governor of Ohio and now U.S. Senator, I found great comfort knowing John was at the head of one of the largest companies in Ohio.

In 2000, Columbus got its first professional athletic team--the Columbus Blue Jackets hockey team. John led the group of investors that brought the team to Columbus, where he served as the team's majority owner. He also established the Columbus Blue Jackets Foundation, which uses the resources of its professional athletes, coaches, and staff to improve the quality of life throughout central Ohio.

John and his wife Peggy were also committed to advancing the care and prevention of heart disease, contributing $7.5 million to develop the McConnell Heart Hospital at Riverside Hospital in Columbus. The hospital still provides exceptional care to those in need and is the leading heart care provider in the Midwest.

John's outstanding leadership has certainly not gone unnoticed. He has been honored with Financial World Magazine's Outstanding Chief Executive Officer of the Year Award, the Horatio Alger Award, the Ohio Governor's Award, the National Football Foundation Gold Medal, the Industry Week award for Excellence in Management, and with a place in the National Junior Achievement Business Hall of Fame.

John was married to his wife Peggy for 59 years, and sadly, they were separated when she passed away in 2005. Perhaps the greatest comfort John's loved ones can take is in knowing that John has been reunited in heaven with his beloved wife. Their enduring love is a model for us all. John will be missed. His family, including his son, John P., daughter, Margaret, and five grandchildren, are in our prayers.