John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. And we could do it all with an environmental safety net. The opportunity has been blocked step by step.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the extraordinary impact of rising gasoline prices, the extraordinary impact it is having on all Americans, and the parliamentary games of those on the other side of the aisle. The airline industry, truckers, ranchers, families who must travel to and from work and school, families going to buy groceries, all of them are experiencing dramatic increases in the cost of energy. These soaring gasoline prices offer a glimpse at the effect home heating costs will have on the American family budget this coming winter. Today's energy crisis is focused on prices at the pump. But the Nation's energy concerns stretch well beyond the pump. In the coming weeks and months, rising energy prices will be seen in the monthly bills for home heating, natural gas, electricity, and heating oil. In fact, this month, in Washington, DC, right here in this Capitol Building, we are operating our own Senate offices under an electric brownout advisory. This is recent evidence that our electric grid is stressed. When it comes to energy, we need it all. We need to develop domestic supplies of oil and gas. We need to develop nuclear energy. We need to develop renewable energy, such as wind and solar. We need to develop America's most affordable, secure, and abundant energy supply, and that is coal. In fact, coal to liquid offers great promise in reducing America's reliance on foreign oil imports. We must also develop concerted policies to promote increased efficiencies, to promote increased conservation, and to reduce waste. In summary, we must find more and use less. On the subject of soaring gasoline prices, I must ask my colleagues: When is enough enough? When will this body be willing to address the underlying issue of both supply and demand. Many are calling for change. Few are offering meaningful solutions. Here are a few examples. Some on the other side of the aisle want to tax their way to lower oil prices. Increased taxes will result in higher prices and less oil and gas production, not more. Taxes will stifle our economic security. Taxes will not encourage economic security. Many on the other side of the aisle think litigation is the way to bring down prices at the pump. The proposals I am cosponsoring choose innovation over litigation. Some on the other side of the aisle claim we can regulate our way to lower prices at the pump. They want to do it by penalizing oil and gas leaseholders. This approach shows very little understanding of the energy development process. This approach offers no help, no help at all with the bureaucratic maze and roadblocks to finding more energy. Some propose restrictions on price gouging by gas station owners, but those same individuals fail to show any actual evidence of price gouging. In fact, the margins for the gas station retailers in this country are being squeezed. Rather than increased regulation, I support proposals that invest in inspiration, in ingenuity, and in productivity gains. I support technology gains that unleash the power of the private sector to develop short- and long-term energy solutions. Some want to impose heavy-handed Government mandates to nationalize the speed limit. Some are suggesting 55 miles an hour. I bring along a copy of a newspaper that hardly ever makes it to the streets of Wyoming. It is the New York Times, and this is this morning's paper. While the people of Wyoming do not read it, reporters from that paper actually went to Wyoming and covered Sheridan, WY. There are five wonderful colored pictures of Wyoming and there is a nice map and it talks about Wyoming. On the front page of today's New York Times, it talks about the Kerns family, a wonderful family in the Sheridan, WY, area. They were at a town meeting I recently had and they were talking about ranching. This summarizes it. When I hear people propose a 55-mile-an-hour limit, talk about ranch families such as the Kerns--conservative, self-sufficient, and wanting mostly to be left alone. That is what it is all about in Wyoming--conservative, self- sufficient, and wanting to be left alone. We do not need Washington telling us how to drive and how fast. We can make those decisions for ourselves. I have the belief in the ability of Americans to choose for themselves. I am confident the people of America, not Washington, will make the right decisions. History has proven that American's self- reliance is an effective tool against rising energy prices. American families right now are conserving in record numbers. They are carpooling, they are cutting back on the miles they drive, and they are purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles. Statistics show that this year the year-over-year gasoline use is down roughly 2 percent. It is the steepest drop in demand in the last 17 years. American families are responding and they are responding without being told by the Federal Government to inflate their tires. Yes, that is what I heard yesterday in an Energy Committee hearing from an official: It is time to inflate your tires. American families are conserving. They are doing so without far- reaching Government mandates. American families are demanding and purchasing more fuel-efficient cars regardless of any timeline for energy efficiency standards Congress may impose. In fact, American families have done much more than simply conserve on energy in the past several months. Some have dealt with serious job losses. Many have struggled with housing deflation. We are all facing inflation at the grocery store. You say: Is that happening everywhere? Wyoming has been in the news today. First, a front-page story in the New York Times and now a large story in the Wall Street Journal today; the headline: ``Want to See Inflation's Pressures? Try Wyoming, and Its $1.14 Bagels.'' There is a nice picture of a friend of mine, a bakery owner, Marsha Asbury, in Casper, and first it talks about this city. It talks about ``this wind-raked city on the plains.'' It tells you we are committed to renewable sources of energy because we have a lot of wind in Wyoming. But they talk about gasoline prices. Gasoline prices, too, have risen sharply as they have across the country. But it is the price of-- Actually it is what Ms. Asbury puts into her bagels that is causing her the trouble because it is causing the inflation. It says: Most of her ingredients are shipped in from nearby states. The prices have jumped dramatically this past year, as suppliers struggle to recoup the high cost of trucking items to Wyoming. Heavy items have increased in price the most. The canned jalapenos and pumpkin that Ms. Asbury uses for her specialty bagels; the canned apples, for strudel; the sugar and flour-- all are up 35 percent in the past year. Butter and milk are up 25 percent. All because of the cost of energy and transportation fuels. As it says: Still, the rising cost at the pump hits hard, because Wyoming drivers put an awful lot of miles on their pickups and sport utility vehicles as they traverse this sparsely populated state. Yes, American families have moved beyond simply conserving. Now many are sacrificing. Despite the resilient response of the American people, there is still no meaningful action from this Congress to address the fundamental supply and demand for foreign oil. The Senate leadership on the other side of the aisle will not allow a debate on bills that will actually increase American energy supplies. Each of the provisions to increase American energy offered by this side would be coupled with measures to improve conservation, to promote energy-efficient measures. To be very clear, I agree with some of the components of the speculation bill before us. In fact, several of these provisions were included in legislation I have cosponsored. Yet, as a matter of principle, I believe the Senate must act on a set of solutions rather than pursue a piecemeal approach. It is not simply the soaring prices, but it is America's reliance, America's dependency on foreign imports. Congressional leadership is opposed to even debating increasing American exploration and production. With more American supply, there is a more secure energy future. We have seen the same old responses from the other side of the aisle. They approach the current energy crisis, such as nearly every other policy challenge, with more taxation, with more regulation, and with more litigation. Rural States such as Wyoming are especially hit hard by soaring prices. Mass transit is not an option. Prices are high and the hundreds and hundreds of letters I received on this issue are a testament to the real pain. Wyoming does contribute greatly to America's energy needs. We are the largest producer of coal in the country; the largest producer of uranium; the second largest source of onshore natural gas; and we have world-class wind resources. The citizens of Wyoming get it. We have been involved in domestic energy production and transmission for decades. The other side of the aisle simply says no to domestic energy exploration; no to American energy. America faces an energy crisis and an economic crisis. Continuing to rely on increasing amounts of foreign oil leverages our country's future. It is time to focus on an American response: American energy efficiencies, American conservation, and, yes, American energy exploration. Our country deserves better and our children deserve better. The massive transfer of wealth that is happening every day, from our country to overseas, is putting our children and our grandchildren's future at risk. When is enough enough? I am asking those opposing American development, how much transfer of wealth is enough? How many hundreds of billions of American dollars must we send to foreign nations to buy their oil? How much of our Nation's great wealth must we transfer before it is acceptable to develop American resources? Is it $100 billion? Is it $200 billion? Is it $300 billion? Apparently not. Some on the other side of the aisle do not want to allow American energy production through deep sea exploration, through oil shale development, through streamlined permitting. Their so-called responses leave America more and more reliant on foreign countries to provide for America's energy. We can do better and we can do so in an environmentally sensitive manner, as we have done for the 118 years we have been a State in Wyoming. There have been extraordinary technological developments in oil and gas exploration and development. Provisions to address excess speculation must be coupled with added supply and added conservation. We must find more and use less. The rhetoric from the other side is all about change. I think those blocking American solutions to foreign energy dependence would do well to change their minds, change their policy prescriptions, and change their approach on energy policy; otherwise, this Congress will only be leaving American families with change in their pockets at the end of each month. I believe Americans want meaningful solutions, not merely change. There is a difference. American energy is the most important issue facing the American people today. American families are sacrificing. At a minimum, at an absolute minimum, those same families deserve real action from this Congress.

Mr. BARRASSO. Most certainly it would be very important to turn that coal into liquid fuel for aviation. If you take a look at this morning's Politico, an issue of the Pentagon, the Department of Defense is the Nation's biggest oil consumer, burning 395,000 barrels per day, about as much as the country of Greece. The Air Force's thirsty planes burn more than half the fuel supplied for the entire U.S. military. It did receive $1.5 billion in new relief from Congress for fuel and still has $400 million left to go. When you look at that and say: What else could we do to help lower that cost, not just for the consumer who fills their tank at home but also for your military, it is converting coal to liquid. The technology is there. People ask: Is there enough coal and how would you do it? There is an incredibly abundant supply of coal in this Nation. To me, coal is the most available, affordable, reliable, and secure source of energy we have in this Nation. Wyoming is the No. 1 coal producer in the United States. There is enough coal in Wyoming alone to help our Nation for centuries, for hundreds of years. Coal is there and the technology is there. Right now under the law, the military is not allowed to make a contract long term to put that coal into liquid. But the technology is there. We have an exciting company in Wyoming, near Medicine Bow, building a plant to do this, to convert the coal to liquid. But it is not only Wyoming As the Presiding Officer knows, and the Senator from Tennessee knows, there is coal all around the United States--coal in West Virginia, coal in Kentucky, coal in Pennsylvania, coal in Illinois, coal in Wyoming, coal in Montana. Everyplace we need energy we have coal. Some folks are saying: What about the carbon dioxide? But the technology is there to get the carbon dioxide, to sequester it, and actually to use it for more oil development. You take an old burned-out oil well where there is not a lot of oil coming out. There is a way to inject the carbon dioxide and get out more oil. So it is not only good because you can use the coal for the liquids, you can also use this carbon dioxide to get even more oil. By that, you are certainly finding more, with something we have here. To me, this is so much about becoming, as a nation, energy self- sufficient. The only way we can do that is to rely on American sources of energy. We are sending hundreds of millions of dollars overseas to people who are not our friends--hundreds of billions of dollars. This is America's treasure going overseas. Why? Because we are not energy self-sufficient. But with all the coal resources we have all across this country, and the technology, we can today start converting the coal to liquids to be used for aviation, to be used for our military. The No. 1 user is our military in terms of the largest user of our energy. It seems to me, to the Senator from Tennessee, that when we have this discussion--and I hear Senator Isakson talking about nuclear, finding more energy that way, I hear Senator Hatch talking about the cars and using less energy that way--this is one more way in this whole portfolio of different ways to use energy as we find more and use less. Because the American people are going to continue to use all the energy, we need all the sources of energy. That is the way we can keep down the price at the pump for people all across our country.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I will withhold the request.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the price of gasoline and diesel fuel, a price that is affecting all Americans. High prices at the pump challenge many Americans who travel great distances for work, for school, or to shop for groceries. This is especially acute in sparsely populated States such as Wyoming. These prices are resulting in dramatic impacts to our economy. America is now importing more than 65 percent of the oil we consume. We are sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas to foreign nations that are not necessarily our friends. It is well beyond time for Congress to act and to adopt meaningful short-term, medium-term, and long-term solutions. As a matter of principle, I believe the Senate must act on a set of solutions rather than pursue a piecemeal approach. I am an original cosponsor of two pieces of legislation that include a range of solutions--S. 2958, the American Energy Production Act, and S. 3202, the Gas Price Reduction Act. Combined, these bills include provisions on advanced technology, on speculation, and on added supply. The bottom line is, we need to find more and use less. Today, I wish to speak on two points. One is limiting market speculation, and the other is increasing domestic production. Based on a range of testimony, it is clear to me that there is dramatic disagreement on the extent to which excessive speculation contributes to the runup in oil prices. As a physician, I am quite concerned that some may have misdiagnosed the energy crisis. In my view, it is a classic misdiagnosis where policymakers focus too much attention on the symptoms of the predicament rather than the underlying causes of the problem. I am absolutely convinced that the fundamental issue here is one of supply and demand. Simply because market speculation is a symptom of that larger problem does not mean we should shy away from addressing it head-on. Dealing with speculation, however, is not the full answer. We must combine these efforts with meaningful action to expand domestic supplies and to encourage conservation and energy efficiencies. On the issue of market speculation, I have concluded three fundamental points: One, American consumers should not bear the burden of those who seek to manipulate markets. Two, the United States should not push our financial services trading to foreign countries. We should not replace excessive speculation with excessive regulation. And three, we should strengthen the futures trading markets. This can be done through investing in additional research, requiring transparency, putting more cops on the beat, and strengthening requirements on foreign boards of trade. Efforts to address market manipulation require a careful balance. Increased visibility into transactions must not turn into onerous regulations. More importantly, steps to curtail speculation must be combined with real solutions to address the underlying fundamental of domestic supply and demand. We must insist on efforts to increase our energy supplies, promote conservation, and encourage energy efficiencies. We would be failing the American people if we did not talk about increasing the domestic supply of energy. I must comment on proposals to punish companies that some believe are not developing leases as quickly as they should. This is a ludicrous argument. Frivolous lawsuits and substantial administrative hoops dramatically delay oil and gas exploration and production even on valid existing leases. These punishing tactics being proposed are akin to leasing an apartment, only to have your landlord withhold the keys and complain about why you haven't moved in yet. Rather than punishing existing operators, we can and should streamline the permitting process. Recently, I was in the part of Wyoming known as the Powder River Basin. It is in the northeastern part of the State. I heard firsthand about the obstacles people are facing when they try to find more oil and gas. American producers are routinely faced with rules and regulations that limit drilling for one reason or the other. Typical restrictions are related to both occupancy of the land and the time during the year American producers can operate. Examples of prohibitions include extensive restrictions for bird roosting, for bird nesting, for migration, and for wildlife feeding. The seasonal prohibitions currently limit exploration to a small fraction of the year in many areas. As we can see from this chart, some areas are off limits to produce for all but 10 weeks of the year, from August 16 through October. This is the only time of the year they can produce. If this calendar represented the blackout dates for using our frequent flier miles rather than the dates blacked out for finding the energy that powers our airlines, I guarantee you that outraged citizens all across this country would be pounding down the doors. Let's take a look. January blacked out. February blacked out. March blacked out, April--go through the calendar--May blacked out, June, July. And the charge from the other side of the aisle is that companies are not producing on their leases fast enough. The bottom line is, there are many reasons why there may not be active exploration and production on lands already under lease. If Congress is serious about producing oil on existing leases, then Congress needs to critically review the process needed to develop oil and gas wells. As of late June in Wyoming's Powder River Basin, there were 2,589 applications to drill that were awaiting approval by Federal bureaucrats. These are on land where the company has already paid for the lease but is not yet permitted to drill. They have paid the rent, but they have not yet been given the keys to move in. The vast majority of the applications face extensive administrative delays. What is the current law? The current Federal law requires that permits be either issued or deferred within 30 days of the day the Government receives the completed application. That is right, the law says Federal bureaucrats must give an answer in 30 days. Well, there are many instances where there is not even the acknowledgment that the submitted application was received. Moreover, the applications sit for months and months, in some cases even over a year, and still Federal bureaucrats have not processed the application to drill. In a small provision that was slipped into this year's consolidated appropriations act, these production companies now have to, in addition to all the paperwork, pay $4,000 every time they request a permit to drill--a permit that is on land that they have already leased and paid for, a permit that is not being processed in a reasonable, timely manner, and a permit that may not be processed for months or even years. There are over 850 drilling permits, just in Wyoming, that have been specifically delayed due to policy development, environmental delays, and even litigation. For people to say that oil and gas operators are sitting on leases without any intent to drill is intentionally misleading. In my State, the producers want to drill and they are waiting to drill. They are simply waiting for the Government traffic cops to give them the green light. For people who claim they want to increase domestic supply of energy on leases that have already been paid for, there is a place you can focus your effort. Focus on the thousands of permits nationwide, and especially in my home State--permits that have not yet been granted, permits that are being held up while waiting for the Government bureaucrats to act. The leases have been paid for, the workers are ready, and literally, today, standing by ready to work. All we are waiting for now is for the Government paperwork. This is no way to run a country. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I think we all agree that balancing environmental with energy goals can be a challenge, but it is a challenge we must confront now. Members of this body have discussed various proposals to regulate the output of greenhouse gases. Some advocate doing it though a cap-and- trade approach. Others have advocated a carbon tax. Such proposals are aimed at limiting future carbon output into the atmosphere. Discussion and debate is not enough. We need action now. One resource often overlooked is coal. Despite the recent pace in developing clean coal technologies, America cannot afford to simply give up on this challenge. Coal is an abundant, affordable, reliable, and secure energy source. It has the potential to become an even cleaner fuel. I believe another solution to protect our environment and our economy can be found in the GEAR Act. This bill takes a new look at climate change by tapping into human potential and the American spirit to develop the technological solutions we need to address climate change. Recently, there was a very thoughtful editorial written by Shawn Taylor which was printed in the ``Wyoming Livestock Roundup'' on July 12, 2008. Shawn is the executive director of the Wyoming Rural Electric Association. I believe he does a terrific job of summing up the feelings of Wyoming people on the need to take action balancing climate change goals while keeping bills affordable. I ask unanimous consent to have the editorial to which I referred printed in the Record.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I am here today to ask the Judiciary Committee to hold a simple vote--hold a vote on the nomination of Richard Honaker, to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of Wyoming. Mr. Honaker was recommended to President Bush by Senators Thomas and Enzi on January 10, 2007. The recommendation occurred following an extensive vetting process in Wyoming by a committee that was formed by Senator Thomas. This committee consisted of a diverse group of attorneys from across the State. They reviewed and they vetted all of the applicants. Nearly four dozen attorneys from around the State of Wyoming expressed an interest in this position. Mr. Honaker was selected from a very competitive and highly qualified pool of Wyoming attorneys. President Bush agreed with the recommendation, and he sent Mr. Honaker's name and nomination to the Senate March 19, 2007--over a year ago. Senators Thomas and Enzi and I all notified the committee over time that the home State Senators support this nomination. Well, the nomination languished in the Senate Judiciary Committee until February 12 of this year. That is when a nomination hearing was finally held. Four nominees were considered that day. Mr. Honaker was the only nominee at the hearing that received the ``gold star'' seal of approval by the American Bar Association, and that is a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating. The American Bar Association interviewed more than 50 Wyoming attorneys and judges to come to the conclusion that Mr. Honaker is well qualified to serve on the bench. Despite this unanimous support of the home State Senators and the American Bar Association, Mr. Honaker continues to be denied a vote in the Judiciary Committee. To put Mr. Honaker's situation into context, two of the other nominees who appeared at that February 12 hearing received a committee vote and were approved by the Senate back in April. Mr. Honaker is an outstanding attorney. He is widely regarded by his peers. It is evidenced by the fact that he is the first attorney in the history of Wyoming, in our 118 years of statehood, to serve Wyoming both as president of the Wyoming State Bar Association and the Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association. He has earned the respect of the legal community. As I mentioned, the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary of the American Bar Association unanimously--unanimously--voted that Mr. Honaker is well qualified. His 30-plus years of legal work is exemplary. There is no question at all that he is ready to fill the seat for which he has been nominated. I know Mr. Honaker. I respect him as an individual. I admire his legal abilities and his passion and his love of the law. That respect is shared by many of Wyoming's finest legal minds. Words I have heard from members of the Wyoming bar to describe Mr. Honaker: bright, fair, civil, ethical, passionate about his clients, and devoted to the law. He expects the same of others that he requires of himself: be well prepared, observe the rules of courtroom procedure and decorum, treat every person in the courtroom--whether lawyer, litigant, witness, or juror--treat every person in the courtroom with the greatest measure of courtesy and respect. There is no more qualified person to serve on the Federal bench in the District of Wyoming than Richard Honaker. You don't have to take my word for it. Ask the attorneys of Wyoming or of the American Bar Association. This outstanding nominee deserves the courtesy of a vote in the committee and consideration by the full Senate. That courtesy is long overdue. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute and express our Nation's deepest gratitude to a remarkable young soldier and his family. I was saddened to receive word last week that on June 8, 2008, Army SSG Tyler E. Pickett of Saratoga, WY, was killed in the line of duty while serving our country in the war on terrorism. Staff Sergeant Pickett died from injuries he sustained when his unit came under attack by enemy forces using improvised explosive devices in Kirkuk Province, Iraq. He was serving his second tour of duty in Iraq, and had also served a tour in Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Pickett served with the 2nd Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, of the 10th Mountain Division out of Fort Drum, NY. He moved to Wyoming at the age of 14 and joined the Army shortly after his graduation from Saratoga High School in 1999. His mother said that serving his country in the Army was always a part of his plan. He came from a family with a strong history of military service, and he knew what he wanted to do. He made friends everywhere he went, and it didn't matter where he was--he was always touching someone's life. He looked forward to retiring from the service one day and spending his life in the mountains of Wyoming. It is because of Tyler Pickett that we continue to live safe and free. America's men and women who answer the call to service and wear our Nation's uniform deserve respect and recognition for the enormous burden that they willingly bear. They put everything on the line everyday, and because of them and their families, our Nation remains free and strong in the face of danger. This past weekend, Americans celebrated Flag Day. Like so many before him, Staff Sergeant Pickett fought under the flag of the United States of America. He fought and died for the Republic for which it stands. Words cannot express the gratitude we owe him. In the book of John, Jesus said that, ``Greater love has no man than this, that he lay his life down for his friend.'' SSG Tyler Pickett gave his life, that last full measure of devotion, for you, me, and every single American. He gave his life defending his country and its people, and we honor him for this selfless sacrifice. Staff Sergeant Pickett is survived by a loving family including his wife Kristin and their children, his mother Sheri Peterson and father Ed Pickett. He is also survived by his brothers and sisters in arms of the U.S. Army. We say goodbye to devoted family man and an American soldier. Our Nation pays its deepest respect to SSG Tyler E. Pickett for his courage, his love of country, and his sacrifice, so that we may remain free. He was a hero in life and he remains a hero in death. All of Wyoming, and indeed the entire Nation, is proud of him. May God bless him and his family and welcome him into his home on high.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the Preserving Access to Medicare Act. It was introduced by the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and I have cosponsored the act. Having practiced medicine for almost 25 years, I can tell you that our Nation's health professionals and our hospitals face tremendous pressures. If these pressures are not addressed, it can and it will impede access to quality health care services. That is why we must act now to stop the upcoming Medicare physician reimbursement cuts. But this is not just a physician issue, it is a Medicare access issue and a Medicare quality issue. If Congress does not act, many Wyoming physicians could be forced not only to stop seeing Medicare patients, some could decide to lay off staff, to restrict office hours, or may even leave rural America and move to the big cities. We, the Senate, must put aside partisan differences and craft a reasonable bill that President Bush can and will sign into law before June 30. But we have to act quickly. Senator Grassley has offered legislation that would allow us to do that. The Preserving Access to Medicare Act provides a \1/2\-percent physician update for the remainder of 2008. It also makes sure doctors will receive a 1.1- percent update in 2009. These payment increases will preserve access to health care for millions of Medicare beneficiaries. But the Grassley bill accomplishes much more. It improves the quality of care and it gives doctors an incentive to report quality measures. Senator Grassley's measure also retains the Physician Assistance and Quality Improvement fund. Congress created that fund specifically to help stop future cuts. The bill that has been defeated eliminates this fund. The Grassley proposal promotes e-prescribing, it promotes electronic health records, and it returns ownership of oxygen equipment to the supplier, not the beneficiary. The bill curbs abusive Medicare Advantage marketing practices, but it does not make large across-the- board cuts to Medicare Advantage. Doing so would disproportionately affect patients in rural areas and it would alter policies designed to maximize patient choice. Most importantly, the Grassley bill protects access to quality health care for rural patients. By now it should come as no surprise that rural health care issues are near and dear to my heart. I practiced medicine in Casper, WY, for almost 25 years, so I have some firsthand knowledge of the obstacles families face to obtain medical care in rural America. I also understand the challenges our hospitals and providers must overcome to deliver quality care to families in an environment with limited resources. In my maiden speech on the floor of the Senate, I made a simple pledge to the people of Wyoming. I promised them I would fight every day, I would fight every day to strengthen our rural hospitals, our rural health clinics, and our community health centers; that I would fight every day to increase access to primary health care services, and I would fight to help successfully recruit and retain health care providers in rural and in frontier America. Over the past year I have kept my word. Working with the bipartisan Senate Rural Health Caucus, I led and joined in several efforts to preserve and strengthen our Nation's rural health care delivery system. I believe the Federal Government must recognize the important differences between urban and rural health care providers and respond with appropriate policy. Senator Grassley's Preserving Access to Medicare Act includes a robust but responsible rural health package. Most importantly, the Senator from Iowa pays tribute to the late Senator Craig Thomas. The bill's rural equity title is called the Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act. As Members of this body know, Senator Thomas honorably served as cochair of the Senate Rural Health Caucus for over a decade. In that position he worked closely with his caucus colleagues to advance rural and frontier-specific health care legislation. Due in part to Craig's efforts, comprehensive rural health care bills have a long history of collaboration and cooperation on both sides of the aisle and at both ends of this building. For example, when Congress enacted the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, it included a broad health care package specifically tailored for rural communities, rural hospitals, and with rural providers in mind. This was the largest rural health care provider payment package ever considered by Congress. The Medicare Modernization Act finally put rural providers on a level playing field with their neighbors in larger communities. With the passage of the act, Congress put into place commonsense Medicare payment provisions critical to maintaining access to quality health care in isolated and underserved areas. Rural and frontier America achieved a significant victory, and there was much to celebrate. The mission, however, is not complete. Several of the act's rural health provisions have expired and many are set to expire soon. The Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act, which is a title included in S. 3118, reauthorizes expiring health care provisions included in the Medicare Modernization Act. It also takes additional steps, steps to address inequities in the Medicare payment system that continually place rural providers at a disadvantage. First, the legislation recognizes that low-volume hospitals have considerably more volatility over time in the demand for in-patient services. This makes it very difficult for those hospitals to set budget and recruitment goals. Many small rural facilities are often backed into a financial corner. They are forced to convert to what are called critical access hospitals in order to make ends meet. This provision will help certain rural hospitals cover the higher cost per patient and stay within the prospective payment system. Second, the bill reinstates the ``hold harmless'' payments to rural sole community hospitals. This is a temporary fix until analysts can find out why some rural hospitals do not perform as well under the Medicare Program. S. 3118 extends the geographic practice cost index work floor. As we all know, Medicare payments for physician services are based on a fee schedule. There are three components to the fee schedule: liability, practice, and work. Physician work is defined as the amount of time and skill and intensity necessary to provide the medical services. Prior to the Medicare Modernization Act, the physician work component was lower in rural communities than it was in big cities. Rural physicians put in as much or even more time and more skill and greater intensity into their work as doctors in the big cities. Rural physicians should not be paid less for their work. This is a simple fairness issue and it is addressed in the Grassley bill. Additionally, the bill would allow independent laboratories to continue billing Medicare directly for certain physician pathology services. Finally, S. 3118 would help rural areas maintain access to lifesaving emergency medical services. Senator Grassley's bill makes sure that rural ambulance providers receive a 3-percent add-on payment. This extra payment is critical and it is critical because rural emergency medical service providers are primarily volunteers. They have difficulty recruiting, difficulty retaining, and difficulty putting the time and effort into educating the personnel. They also have less capital to buy and upgrade essential equipment. The Grassley legislation clearly preserves the achievements gained in the Medicare Modernization Act. It also gives much needed relief to our rural hospitals and to our rural providers. The time has come to move beyond this political wrangling. We need to send a bill to the President that the President will sign. Wyoming's seniors and disabled patients are counting on us to get it right. We must enact bipartisan legislation now that protects seniors, that pays doctors fairly, and that strengthens the rural health care delivery system. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about American energy independence, energy self-sufficiency, and specifically to talk about clean coal and clean coal technology. I have introduced a number of constructive amendments to the Lieberman-Warner climate change legislation. But one of the most important of those was the need to address the future of clean coal technology. If this body chooses to pursue cap-and-trade legislation, we need to ensure that the Senate includes provisions to bring about the energy security our Nation needs. The so-called cap-and-trade legislation would impose greenhouse gas emissions and mandates that are unrealistic in scope and in timing. In a time of high energy prices, in a time of housing deflation, in a time of food inflation, taxpayers cannot afford misguided policies that hamstring our economy. Our competitors--India and China--are not constraining their economies with carbon limits. Global issues deserve global responses. Blindly imposing Government regulations will force heavy burdens on utility consumers, on labor, and on American families. Last week, the record was clearly laid out that this proposal raises consumer prices through Government mandates. I believe most Americans favor policy approaches that balance America's need for energy with environmental protection. In order to avoid substantial economic fallout, Federal funding is not only warranted to help American commerce meet this challenge, it is essential. Despite the recent pace in developing clean coal technologies, America cannot afford to simply give up on this challenge. Coal is abundant. Coal is affordable. Coal is reliable. Coal is secure as an energy source. Coal can also become a very clean fuel. As noted in the May 30 front-page article in the New York Times, America will continue to rely heavily on coal-fired electric generation for decades to come. The New York Times reporters are merely recognizing what is abundantly evident from official Government predictions. The article also aptly notes that coal-fired generation holds great promise for reduced carbon dioxide emissions. America's energy policy must not simply deliver sustainable energy; America's energy future must incorporate a vision for a safer, cleaner, and healthier environment. Clean, coal-fired electric generation must be an integral part. The challenge before us is significant. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired powerplants will be possible through first capturing carbon dioxide emissions and then sequestering them underground. Both will take time and both will take money. In order to achieve this challenge, the Federal Government and private industry must partner in funding research and technological innovation. Timing is critical. America needs to make a serious and substantial investment in research and developing commercial technology. In order to achieve energy security and a clean environment, the Federal Government must demonstrate its commitment with targeted, upfront financial support. We must show leadership, not merely dictate flawed policies and hope for the best. What does this mean? If Congress mandates reduced emissions, it is incumbent upon us to also provide the policies to allow our own economy to succeed. Proven, commercially available, cost-effective technologies must be developed with respect to carbon capture and sequestration. These technologies must be efficient, effective, and allow America to continue to compete globally. The amendment I have filed would direct $50 billion in revenue from emission allowances--$40 billion for the demonstration and deployment for carbon capture technologies, and $10 billion for large-scale geologic carbon storage demonstration projects. This is an enormous investment, but it is also necessary. This amendment is technology neutral. It would not rely on Government to dictate the favored type of carbon capture mechanism. Incentives would be provided by the choice of the recipient as a loan guarantee, through incremental cost sharing, or in the form of electricity production payments for each kilowatt hour produced. This amendment includes aggressive but achievable technological milestones. It also establishes a timeline for new projects over the next 7, 8, or 10 years. This amendment is reasonable, rational, aggressive, and achievable. Making this investment comes down to a choice between two things: one, Congress taking responsibility for the mandates proposed; two, regulating the economy and turning its back on ratepayers, on manufacturers, and on American families. Without investment in coal, it will mean higher heating and higher cooling bills that will continue to ripple through the economy, picking winners and losers. Last week, some Members of this Chamber insisted upon policies that would raise prices at the pump through regulation. Today, they tried to address the runup in gasoline prices by raising taxes. I will tell you that the rising prices of gasoline are hurting the people of Wyoming and the people across this country--truckers, ranchers, commuters, and all American families. I adamantly disagree with the so-called ``solutions'' proposed by the majority, which were higher taxes and more regulation. I urge my colleagues to allow real solutions to today's energy prices, including American exploration and investment in American technology. It is time to enact a prosperous path for the future of America's energy and America's economy. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I thank the minority leader, the assistant majority leader, and Wyoming's senior Senator for taking the time to remember a departed friend and an esteemed colleague. Wyoming's U.S. Senator Craig Thomas passed peacefully June 4, 2007, 1 year ago this week. Craig was surrounded, as always, by his devoted wife Susan, by his family, and by close friends. Wyoming has lost a great man. We have lost many great men and women over the years, but Craig Thomas leaves behind a legacy equal to all of them. Yet Craig would be the first one to question that praise. Craig would say he was a common man, a typical cowboy who wanted simply to work hard and make a difference for the people of the place he loved. One year later, it is appropriate and right that we remember him again in the Senate and also in our own lives. Many of my colleagues joined us in my hometown of Casper, WY, to mourn Craig's passing. The words and presence of Senator Reid and Senator McConnell were especially meaningful to the people of Wyoming. President Bush and Vice President Cheney each extolled Craig's character and devotion to the Wyoming people and Wyoming places. But perhaps more to what Craig really meant to the people was the exceptional outpouring of very personal remembrances that followed his passing. In the halls of the U.S. Capitol, elevator operators, cashiers, janitors, office staff--each would say what a wonderful person Craig Thomas was. His staff, many of whom are now serving with me, speak about his kindness and the family character that was the hallmark in his office. It was Craig's nature. In Wyoming, from all walks of life, so many reflected their experiences with Craig that left each of their lives a little brighter. They recalled his loyalty and his commitment to their future, especially the young people. In Wyoming, after Craig's passing, folks in each town, in each community talked about the personal loss they felt. They wrote about it in newspapers and in messages left online because Craig gave so much of himself. Craig took time each day, every day to talk to you, to say hello, and not to simply pass by. He saw everyone, whoever you are. Because he gave his time to Wyoming and to this body and to individuals who needed help, he is remembered. He gave his passion, he gave his leadership, and his tireless energy to make this a better place. Ronald Reagan said: Some people wonder all their lives if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem. Craig was Wyoming's marine, and we will never need to wonder if he made a difference. Craig Thomas represented honor and dignity. Admired by those who knew him, he has given us a legacy of legislative accomplishment, a brilliant example of what one can do with a life lived with determination, with strength of character, and with vision. To Lexie, Peter, Greg, and Patrick, and all those amazing grandchildren, we again offer our most heartfelt condolences. Susan, today, like each day, we remember Craig for the great man he was and what he meant to Wyoming, for what he accomplished and how he did it, for what he taught us and how he touched so many. Susan has created the Craig and Susan Thomas Foundation. For all of those who miss Craig and want to see the great work in education that she is continuing, I invite you to go to her Web site, thomas- foundation.com. It is important and lasting work in Wyoming that continues the Thomas legacy of making a difference one life at a time. To my Senate colleagues and to the people of Wyoming, remember-- remember that leadership takes courage, as Craig Thomas demonstrated in his remarkable life. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, that is why I introduced the GEAR Act earlier this year and gave a speech from this Chamber at this desk talking about giving the same kind of prizes that allowed people 500 years ago to understand longitude so ships could sail the seas; the same kind of prizes Charles Lindbergh was searching for when he flew across the ocean. It is those kinds of prizes and incentives that say, Let's get our best minds working on this. I don't know what the timetable is. I have talked to the scientists, and I say, Let's put in incentives, and that is why I brought that bill.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, every study--every study--points to lost jobs and higher energy prices, higher gasoline prices, whether it is the Heritage Association or the National Association of Manufacturers. I have looked at study after study after study. I have read the books and visited with experts around the country and around the world, and everything I am seeing and reading takes me in that direction, and that is that gas prices will be going up and jobs will be lost.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, in dealing with climate change, there are certain principles I always apply in assessing the approach to this issue. One is that our Nation will continue to need and depend on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels must be a part of any effort to achieve a cleaner energy future. There is no way we can get there without them. No. 2 is a strong American economy, one that creates jobs, that creates new technologies. That is critical to developing the tools we need to capture and sequester carbon. China and India will not address carbon emissions until such technologies are developed. And No. 3, we cannot afford to hurt the very regions, the very industries, and the very workers who will provide that technology through hard work and innovation. In terms of economic impact, I have serious concerns with the Lieberman-Warner approach as currently written. According to a recent study done by the National Association of Manufacturers, the negative economic impact to the Rocky Mountain West and to my home State of Wyoming is very real and significant. The impact is perhaps the greatest in terms of high gasoline prices for folks all across the Rocky Mountain West. Gasoline prices for western families will increase significantly under this bill. Every day, folks in the Rocky Mountain region are going to have to drive long distances. They do it to get to work. They do it to shop for food. They do it to go to school. The distances, in many places, are much greater than they are in other parts of the country. My home State of Wyoming ranks at the top of the list of all the States in terms of vehicle miles traveled on a per capita basis. I drive these roads every weekend visiting folks in Gillette, Riverton, Cheyenne, and Casper. They are hours apart. Westerners are rightfully upset about how much they are paying at the pump. I am sure my colleagues' constituents are too. Letters come in every day from all across Wyoming asking when Washington is going to help them. Yet we hear in testimony from the Energy Information Agency that gas prices under this bill could go up anywhere from 40 cents to $1 a gallon. Others are predicting it could go up even higher than that. Whichever estimate you choose, whichever one you choose to look at, gas prices are going to go up under this bill. Why will it be even worse in the Rocky Mountain States? Partly because the West and Rocky Mountain West rely on small refiners for their fuel. It is not uncommon in the Rocky Mountain West to have the local gasoline station in these small towns be just across the road from the small refiner. Towns depend on these refiners for their fuel. They provide the fuel for the families of the West. Without the small refiners, Wyoming and the Rocky Mountain West would have to ship our gasoline in from out of State. The small refiners do not fair very well under this bill. They have to compete with the large refineries for a small portion of the allowances. Without additional help, they will go under and an entire region of the country will pay even more significant increases in the price of their fuel. Some may try to lump small refiners in with the big oil companies that actually produce the oil. The small refiners have to buy their oil from that oil producer. These small refiners are paying $125 to $130 a barrel for oil, and it is having a devastating impact on them. Some have suggested that they simply pass along the cost to the consumer. Tell that to the folks in the West who are already being punished at the pump. This part of it is not a partisan issue at all. I plan to offer an amendment I am working on with Members of both sides of the aisle----

Mr. BARRASSO. I will yield, if I may, at the end of the presentation. I want to work with others to offer this amendment because this affects everyone in the Rocky Mountain West. Gas prices have reached the point where people are simply driving less. Family vacations and school field trips are being canceled. People are working 4 days a week but longer hours each day. Why? Because of the high cost of fuel. Some may say: Great, we want people to drive less. Some may say: Hey, have your constituents take alternative transportation, public transportation, such as the subway or bus. As many of you know, we in the West have spectacular, majestic rural areas that many of you enjoy on your vacations. We ask you to come and visit our national parks, our many State forests and monuments. But these majestic natural places come with a cost: there is no subway. High gasoline prices are just one of the many major negative economic impacts to the West under this bill. Job loss is another major factor. The National Manufacturers Association study projects that Wyoming would lose between 2,000 and 3,000 jobs by 2020 and double that by 2030. Montana would lose between 4,000 and 6,000 jobs in 2020, double that by 2030. Utah would lose 10,000 to 15,000 jobs in 2020, double that by 2030. The numbers in the West go on and on. What kinds of jobs will be lost? Jobs in the energy sector, jobs that pay well, jobs with pensions, jobs with health insurance--the kinds of jobs we should be protecting in this country. Westerners are being told by the supporters of this bill: Don't worry, green-collar jobs will replace the jobs lost in the West. Where is that written? What guarantee can you point to in this bill that a family in Gillette or Laramie or Riverton or Cheyenne is going to get a green-collar job? And what is a green-collar job? Will they get the job the minute they lose the one they have now? How long will they have to wait? Will they have to uproot their family and move to find work? Where is it written in this bill that the pay and the benefits of the so-called green-collar job will be equal to the job the bill takes away? The reality is it is not written anywhere. In terms of energy costs, the situation is not very good for the Rocky Mountain States. Wyoming is among the top five States in what are called heating degree days. That is a measure of what it takes to heat a home all throughout the year. If you have been through a Wyoming winter, you would understand why. The most vulnerable people in my State, the seniors, people on fixed incomes, cannot afford to have their energy bills increased. Why are we asking people all across the country to pay more of their hard-earned dollars on high gas prices and energy prices in this bill? I frankly cannot answer that, except to say, That is Washington for you. But it gets worse for Wyoming. According to a National Association of Manufacturers' study, Wyoming coal would face a severe decline. That too would result in lost jobs, broken family budgets, and displacement. As I have said, fossil fuels, including coal, are vital to our energy security. We need to make them cleaner because they will remain a vital part of America's energy mix. Clean coal technology is still a work in progress. It will take time to perfect. The men and the women of Wyoming who are the backbone of the coal industry are essential to providing clean coal technology to America. America simply cannot tolerate the lost jobs and the high energy prices that will come from dramatic decreases in coal production under Lieberman-Warner. As I stated in the beginning, we need to have a strong economy. We need an economy that creates jobs and fosters innovation. That is how to provide the clean energy technologies we need. It is not only the Rocky Mountain West that is going to be hard hit by this legislation. The Energy Information Agency testified before the Memorial Day recess in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the larger price impacts occur from Lieberman-Warner in those regions of the country that are most reliant on coal. So that is also the South. It is also the Midwest. That is rural America. The median income in Wyoming is $46,000 a year. Wyoming family budgets are predicted to lose between $1,000 and $3,000 a year in income over the next 13 years and double that by 2030 under this bill. Many families in Wyoming would have to dedicate $1 out of $5 from their family budget for energy costs under this bill. This is what rural America can expect under this bill. Sadly, it appears the impacts of the bill hit lower income families the hardest. It doesn't have to be this way. I truly believe we can address climate change. There are better ways and more economically friendly approaches, and those ways that can make a real difference. Earlier this year, I introduced legislation to address climate change. I believe overlooked in the debate are greenhouse gases that are currently in the atmosphere--the gases that are currently contributing to the warming of the planet. The best science tells us it is a factor. To what extent, we are not sure. It would seem to me a worthy approach to find a way to remove existing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and permanently sequester them. This is the other end of the problem. Now, to accomplish this, we are going to need to invest the money to develop the technology. The approach my legislation takes is to address this through a series of financial prizes, where we set technological goals and outcomes. The first to meet each criteria would receive Federal funds and international acclaim. The prizes would be determined by a Federal commission under the Department of Energy. The commission would be comprised of climate scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, business managers, and economists. They would be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The awards would go to those, both public and private, who achieve milestones in developing and applying technology, technology that could significantly help to slow or to reverse the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The greenhouse gases would have to be permanently sequestered, and sequestered in a manner that would be without significant harmful effects. I believe this approach is only one example of how we can tackle the problem of climate change in an economically acceptable way without sacrificing real progress. I hope as we begin this debate on this issue, more Members of this body embrace approaches that address climate change while protecting jobs, family budgets, and the industries we count on today. I have repeatedly asked questions during the hearings in both the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on this bill about what the impact will be on my home State. To date, I have not been able to get a straight answer. I am relying on the State-specific numbers that we have available. If you don't like the National Association of Manufacturers' numbers, then try the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is predicting major job losses in the Rocky Mountain West. The study says Wyoming will lose 1,100 jobs by 2025, and Utah will lose over 5,000 by that same year, with Montana losing 1,800. Most of those will be manufacturing jobs. And those are the numbers that predict job losses even if everything in the bill goes according to plan, including full implementation of clean coal technology. It is important to note that gas prices nationally will go up 25 percent under Lieberman-Warner, according to the Heritage Foundation. Another source, the Energy Information Agency, testified at the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and said gas prices would go up 40 cents to $1. As Americans, we have always looked within ourselves for solutions. We have always had confidence in American ingenuity and American creativity to deal with the challenges of the future. Yes, we want to protect our environment; and, yes, we want a strong economy. It just so happens that the one does rely on the other. It has been said that the environmental movement in the United States was born out of America's prosperity. Americans who had benefited from post-World War II prosperity began to become more concerned with clean air, with clean water, and with land management. Since then, a prosperous America has also been an environmentally conscious America. Nothing could be more true in terms of addressing climate change. Let's keep our economy strong, let's use our untapped human potential and American spirit to develop the technological solutions we need. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I believe our Nation's farmers and ranchers--free of government interference and redtape--are the best stewards of the land. Unfortunately in Washington, there are people who don't understand Wyoming. We do not need the Federal Government to regulate mud puddles and wetlands. We know how to manage our lands. We do not take kindly to the ``Washington knows best'' philosophy. We are westerners. We have been living out here for a long time without the helpful hand of the Federal Government. A recent editorial printed in the Wyoming Livestock Roundup on April 5 really hit home. I recommend to my colleagues the editorial by Jim Magagna as reflecting the feelings of Wyoming farmers and ranchers. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Barrasso pertaining to the introduction of S. 3071 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address the reality of the needs of species and the global nature of climate change. Recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided to list the polar bear as a threatened species. The reason for the listing is the loss of sea ice habitat. They say the ice will be subjected to ``increased temperatures, earlier melt periods, increased rain-snow events, and shifts in atmospheric and marine surface patterns.'' Essentially, they are saying it is due to the effects of global climate change. Without the cooperation of other countries, the United States cannot reverse global climate change. If we are truly going to recover species--species that are being impacted by climate change--we would need to have an international agreement in place, an international agreement among all of the major emitting countries. All of those countries would have to comply with the treaty in order for species to receive any tangible environmental benefit. This is what people who care about the polar bear need to see happen. Unfortunately, global warming activists are looking to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and to the Endangered Species Act as a means for widespread regulation. This would be a complete departure from the intent of the law. The Secretary of Interior, Secretary Kempthorne, has stated that he is providing additional guidance to ensure that there are no negative, unintended consequences to the legislation. Unfortunately, such guidance will likely not survive judicial challenge or perhaps even the next administration. For the first time ever, lawsuits could be filed to block economic growth and the creation of jobs all across America. It has been suggested that any economic activity that emits greenhouse gases which then contributes to global warming and to the melting of the polar icecaps must be stopped. Why? Because it might cause polar bears to become extinct. Think about that for a minute: Buildings could not be expanded or built; new roads could not be built or improved; local governments would be forced up to adopt onerous new zoning requirements; energy development projects would be brought to a standstill; and virtually any economic development activity one can think of could be challenged by anyone. Volumes of new rules and regulations from Washington, DC, would control everything we do. This action would harm individual freedom, would raise energy costs, and would affect consumers across the board in all 50 States. This action would dramatically hurt our economy. Frankly, when I see groups publicly stating that they intend to use the polar bear listing as a hammer to stop fossil fuel use, such as even driving your car to work, I am skeptical about their real concern for the polar bear. In a recent Baltimore Sun article, the Center for Biological Diversity said: Once protection for the polar bear is finalized, federal agencies and other large greenhouse gas emitters will be required by law to ensure that their emissions do not jeopardize the species. Some want to limit how much we drive or how we heat our homes. Wyoming residents and Americans in general do not believe in such a culture of limits. That is perhaps why activists need to use and choose to use the courts to impose them. We can provide cleaner cars and be more efficient in heating our homes, but there is a line of individual liberty and personal choice that we should not cross. Yes, we are all concerned about protecting the environment, and as a Senator, I am also concerned about placing dramatic burdens on our economy and on our American citizens. Very soon, without legislative action by Congress, the Endangered Species Act will be transformed from a tool to recover species into a climate change bill. This will not only shortchange truly endangered species, it will also impact working families who are already struggling with high energy bills. The beneficiaries will not be the polar bears. Instead, it will be environmental lawyers who will reap the financial windfall through endless lawsuits. That is why today I have introduced legislation that says that the Secretary of Interior cannot consider global climate change as a natural or a manmade factor in terms of listing species as endangered. Under this bill, no species would be listed as threatened and endangered because of global warming until an international agreement is signed by all the major emitting nations. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency would have to certify that such an agreement is in place and that countries are in compliance with the treaty for such a listing to occur. This bill specifies that China and India would both have to be part of the agreement. This is not designed to give the power of legislating or listing species into the hands of foreign nations. The bottom line is, species will not receive the help they need until other countries comply. Plain and simple. To assert otherwise is to give false hope that those who care most about protecting species actually get protection. We do not need symbolic gestures in addressing climate change. While the symbolism may appease some, it does not address the very real impact of ordinary folks in my home State of Wyoming or anywhere across the Nation. We are saddled with high gas prices and high energy prices already. Lawsuits blocking any new coal-fired powerplants can wreak havoc on Wyoming's economy before we have had a chance to finish developing the clean coal technologies of the 21st century. Clean coal technologies truly will address climate change. Mr. President, all regions that depend on coal, particularly the Midwest, the South, and the Rocky Mountain West, would be the hardest hit. But we need real solutions to address species issues, while at the same time ensuring that we protect working Americans. You want to drive your family to the beach or drive them to the mountains? Don't be surprised that in the not too distant future you need to get a government permit to do so. I urge all Members of this body to consider cosponsoring this important bill.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address the reality of the needs of species and the global nature of climate change. Recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided to list the polar bear as a threatened species. The reason for the listing is the loss of sea ice habitat. They say the ice will be subjected to ``increased temperatures, earlier melt periods, increased rain-snow events, and shifts in atmospheric and marine surface patterns.'' Essentially, they are saying it is due to the effects of global climate change. Without the cooperation of other countries, the United States cannot reverse global climate change. If we are truly going to recover species--species that are being impacted by climate change--we would need to have an international agreement in place, an international agreement among all of the major emitting countries. All of those countries would have to comply with the treaty in order for species to receive any tangible environmental benefit. This is what people who care about the polar bear need to see happen. Unfortunately, global warming activists are looking to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and to the Endangered Species Act as a means for widespread regulation. This would be a complete departure from the intent of the law. The Secretary of Interior, Secretary Kempthorne, has stated that he is providing additional guidance to ensure that there are no negative, unintended consequences to the legislation. Unfortunately, such guidance will likely not survive judicial challenge or perhaps even the next administration. For the first time ever, lawsuits could be filed to block economic growth and the creation of jobs all across America. It has been suggested that any economic activity that emits greenhouse gases which then contributes to global warming and to the melting of the polar icecaps must be stopped. Why? Because it might cause polar bears to become extinct. Think about that for a minute: Buildings could not be expanded or built; new roads could not be built or improved; local governments would be forced up to adopt onerous new zoning requirements; energy development projects would be brought to a standstill; and virtually any economic development activity one can think of could be challenged by anyone. Volumes of new rules and regulations from Washington, DC, would control everything we do. This action would harm individual freedom, would raise energy costs, and would affect consumers across the board in all 50 States. This action would dramatically hurt our economy. Frankly, when I see groups publicly stating that they intend to use the polar bear listing as a hammer to stop fossil fuel use, such as even driving your car to work, I am skeptical about their real concern for the polar bear. In a recent Baltimore Sun article, the Center for Biological Diversity said: Once protection for the polar bear is finalized, federal agencies and other large greenhouse gas emitters will be required by law to ensure that their emissions do not jeopardize the species. Some want to limit how much we drive or how we heat our homes. Wyoming residents and Americans in general do not believe in such a culture of limits. That is perhaps why activists need to use and choose to use the courts to impose them. We can provide cleaner cars and be more efficient in heating our homes, but there is a line of individual liberty and personal choice that we should not cross. Yes, we are all concerned about protecting the environment, and as a Senator, I am also concerned about placing dramatic burdens on our economy and on our American citizens. Very soon, without legislative action by Congress, the Endangered Species Act will be transformed from a tool to recover species into a climate change bill. This will not only shortchange truly endangered species, it will also impact working families who are already struggling with high energy bills. The beneficiaries will not be the polar bears. Instead, it will be environmental lawyers who will reap the financial windfall through endless lawsuits. That is why today I have introduced legislation that says that the Secretary of Interior cannot consider global climate change as a natural or a manmade factor in terms of listing species as endangered. Under this bill, no species would be listed as threatened and endangered because of global warming until an international agreement is signed by all the major emitting nations. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency would have to certify that such an agreement is in place and that countries are in compliance with the treaty for such a listing to occur. This bill specifies that China and India would both have to be part of the agreement. This is not designed to give the power of legislating or listing species into the hands of foreign nations. The bottom line is, species will not receive the help they need until other countries comply. Plain and simple. To assert otherwise is to give false hope that those who care most about protecting species actually get protection. We do not need symbolic gestures in addressing climate change. While the symbolism may appease some, it does not address the very real impact of ordinary folks in my home State of Wyoming or anywhere across the Nation. We are saddled with high gas prices and high energy prices already. Lawsuits blocking any new coal-fired powerplants can wreak havoc on Wyoming's economy before we have had a chance to finish developing the clean coal technologies of the 21st century. Clean coal technologies truly will address climate change. Mr. President, all regions that depend on coal, particularly the Midwest, the South, and the Rocky Mountain West, would be the hardest hit. But we need real solutions to address species issues, while at the same time ensuring that we protect working Americans. You want to drive your family to the beach or drive them to the mountains? Don't be surprised that in the not too distant future you need to get a government permit to do so. I urge all Members of this body to consider cosponsoring this important bill.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, earlier this spring, I introduced legislation to address the challenge of how to deal with greenhouse gases. The bill is called the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Atmospheric Removal Act, or the GEAR Act. Members of this body have discussed various proposals to regulate the output of greenhouse gases. Some advocate doing it through a cap-and- trade approach. Others have advocated a carbon tax. Such proposals are aimed at limiting future carbon output into the atmosphere. Many proposals have been introduced and debated using this approach of dealing with carbon output. We want to protect our environment and we want a strong economy. The way to have both is by thinking anew and acting anew. It is time to use our untapped human potential and the American spirit to develop the technologies we need. The Senate will soon be debating climate legislation. I believe we should identify solutions through imagination, innovation, and invention, not through limits. It is my hope and my goal that the GEAR Act will foster the kind of solutions that we need to address the concerns about climate change. Recently, there was a very thoughtful editorial which was printed in ``Wyoming Agriculture,'' which is published by the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation. The editorial was written by Ken Hamilton. Ken is the executive vice president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau. I believe he does a terrific job of summing up the feelings of Wyoming people on the need to find practical ``real'' solutions to climate change. I recommend it to my colleagues and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. Ther being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record as follows: You Can't Have Your Cake And Eat It Too (By Ken Hamilton, WyFB Executive Vice President) One of the first little sayings you probably heard when you were growing up was that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Generally everyone will agree that this is self evident, but that doesn't stop Americans (and probably people in other countries) from always trying to have it both ways. This is never more evident than the actions surrounding global warming. We are continually being bombarded by pronouncements about man caused global warming (it's hovering around 4 degrees with a 25 mph breeze blowing as I write this). When I was discussing this global warming issue with a friend, he said what people need to do is stop arguing with the activists over whether there is man caused global warming and start asking them what their solutions are going to be. The more I thought about it the more I realized the whole global warming debate is absent any discussion of real solutions. We hear vague pronouncements about a greenhouse gas tax, but not much else. And none have enough details to fully analyze what the impact will be on people. There are numerous shows on television where people are talking about reducing their ``carbon footprint'', but most of these solutions revolve around still living the lifestyle you want while feeling good about using a material someone has pronounced as ``green.'' For instance, one of the new ``green'' materials for flooring in houses now is bamboo. Why someone feels this is greener than oak or pine is beyond me, but nevertheless apparently it is. The interesting thing is that while everyone is talking green, they are busy building a house that's twice the square footage of a generation ago. Our grandparents lived in a house where one or two rooms had heat part of the time. In today's modern homes there is heat running to every room, plus a television set in half of them, a minimum two-car garage (heated of course) and appliances that grandma couldn't even dream about. All of these, of course have some ``green'' marketing gimmick attached to them, so, you guessed it, people can live in even bigger houses while feeling good about doing their part. But if meaningful curbs in greenhouse gases must occur as they profess, then there shouldn't be houses with two-car garages. You don't find those sorts of things in third world countries where the people's carbon footprint is less than here. Dishwashers must go as well as washing machines, dryers, and central heating. In third world countries where they don't have such a big carbon footprint, health clubs are not needed, nor are double ovens. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is in a panic over global warming, should stop driving around in his Humvee. In fact, to adequately address this issue, he should stop driving period. But we don't see any of this happening and probably won't in the future. The people worried about global warming are still driving to work every day. They come home to heated and air conditioned homes, turn on their 42-inch flat panel television while getting their meal delivered by a college freshman in a fuel-efficient \3/4\-ton four-wheel drive vehicle so they don't have to crank up one of those double ovens and hear the latest news about climate change. Recently a weather event caused a power outage in Arnold's state and not once did I hear him say, ``thank goodness, now we can start to do something meaningful about man caused global warming.'' Politicians and proponents of global warming only want to personally do something about global warming if it doesn't mean a cold house in the winter or a hot one in the summer. Health clubs will still be needed because people won't walk to work and will need to get some exercise somewhere. And pine forests will grow old, die and burn while folks feel good about their bamboo floors. Thinking all along that they are getting their cake and eating it too.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel. On May 14, 1948, the people of Israel proclaimed the establishment of the sovereign and independent State of Israel, and the Government established full diplomatic relations. The United States and Israel share a deep friendship and alliance. Our alliance is based on the belief of the United States in Israel's right to exist and our countries' shared values of democracy. Both Israel and the United States understand the values of life, liberty, opportunity, security, and freedom. Additionally, we both seek to address the common threat of terrorism. We recognize that terrorist organizations have denounced the values of freedom, and we are dedicated to ensuring that terrorism does not prevail. Throughout Israel's history, the country has strived to build a democratic nation despite severe obstacles. Yet the people of Israel continue to show great strength and perseverance as they seek peace with their neighbors. I extend my congratulations to our friends, the people of Israel, and I join them in celebrating this occasion.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the American Energy Production Act of 2008 is being offered as an amendment to the flood insurance legislation before us today. I am an original cosponsor of the American Energy Production Act. The thrust of this legislation is expanding American energy supply through many different avenues. I view this amendment as an essential step forward in both addressing the short-term as well as the long-term American energy supplies. I also view this amendment as the right policy to deal with today's high price of energy. America needs to advance its energy policy, and this amendment deserves immediate consideration. There are many excellent provisions of the amendment that is before us. I am particularly interested in a provision to ramp up production of 6 billion gallons of fuel derived from coal. The provision would start with a mandate of 750 million gallons of alternative coal-to- liquid fuels and then ramp up by a similar amount over the following 7 years, beginning in year 2015. Analysts estimate this provision will result in a reduction in the amount of oil America is projected to import. Simply put, coal is an abundant, affordable, reliable, and secure source of energy. Coal can also be a clean energy source. These coal- to-liquid fuels would likely be used first by our military. The Department of Defense would be allowed to sign longer contracts for synthetic fuels. The duration of the contracts would be expanded from the current 5 years to 25 years. By doing that, this simple provision provides great potential because it adds certainty to the market and provides another incentive to develop coal-to-liquid facilities. In a time of soaring prices at the pump, this provision deserves serious debate, serious consideration. The fundamental energy issue before us is one, as we have heard from all speakers, of supply and demand. It is a time for Congress to take action, action that can have a real important impact on America's energy supply. America's coal is vital to our Nation's economic prosperity and our Nation's security. Coal is a crucial part of America's energy portfolio. Coal provides a foundation for a competitive economy, a secure future, and a prosperous information technology sector. Wise use of natural resources drives America's innovation and our economic success. From the steam engines of yesterday to the superconductors of the world, coal has powered this Nation. Now is the time to support the technology and development of coal to liquids. This will allow coal to be an important contributor to America's transportation fuel. After all, coal is strategically found in States throughout the Nation, both in the East as well as the West. The countries competing with us economically--India, China--rely heavily on coal. They are poised to exploit coal's many benefits. In order for us to sustain America's current economic leadership, we must continue to harness the vast potential of coal. Energy sources often face challenges. You know what they are: reliability, security, economic competitiveness, ease of conversion, impacts on food supply, and environmental considerations. Coal provides an essential on-demand energy supply in the United States, and coal is a low-cost energy source. Coal has enormous potential to be converted into transportation fuels. At a time when America faces record prices at the pump, coal should be used to produce gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel. Several provisions in the American Energy Production Act of 2008 move America's use of coal and domestic energy in the right direction. America's energy and economic security will depend on promoting technologies that are related to coal. The time to act to expand America's energy portfolio is now. I urge adoption of the amendment when it comes up for a vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, every spring season brings many demands on the time of farmers and ranchers in my home State of Wyoming. They are busy tending to their livestock, newly born calves and lambs, and planting their crops. Many of them rely on the H-2A program to find seasonal and temporary skilled workers to assist them in their time-honored work. This program is vital to Wyoming's agricultural industry. That is why I joined my friend Senator Enzi in asking the Department of Labor to extend the public comment period on its proposed rule changes to the program. Many Wyoming employers have not had an opportunity to fully review the proposed changes. I recognize that improvement in the program is needed. We must improve its efficiency for both workers and employers. Recently, there was a very thoughtful editorial which was printed in the Wyoming Livestock Roundup on April 12. The editorial was written by Bryce Reece. Bryce is the executive vice-president of the Wyoming Woolgrowers Association and I believe he does a terrific job of summing up the feelings of all Wyoming farmers and ranchers. I recommend it to my colleagues and ask that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I rise to speak about the price of gasoline and the price of diesel fuel, which is affecting every driver in America. My principal message is that Washington policies should not drive up the prices at the pump. At an absolute minimum, Federal practices should not be making prices any worse. According to the American Automobile Association, the average retail price for regular unleaded gasoline is $3.60 a gallon. The average price of diesel fuel is $4.24 a gallon. This is before this summer's driving season has even started. Consumers all across America are hurt by the inflationary pressures at the pump. My constituents in Wyoming know firsthand the huge impact that $110 or $120 per barrel of oil has on their wallets. I visit with them every weekend. The price at the pump in Casper, WY, just 3 weeks ago was $2.91. This past weekend, it was $3.31. Wyoming ranks at the top of all States in terms of vehicle miles traveled on a per capita basis. Because of my State's sparse population and great distances, that means it is not uncommon to commute 20, 50, or even 100 miles round trip to work, to school, or just to buy groceries. Today's current oil prices are primarily due to supply and demand fundamentals. At close examination, there are really several different underlying contributors to today's high prices: rising world demand, especially in India and China; geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, in Venezuela, in Nigeria; limited options for acquiring additional supply; the weakness of the U.S. dollar; environmental regulations; and perhaps even excessive market speculation and manipulation. Recognizing this, Federal Government practices should not--should not--drive prices even higher. That is why I am announcing legislation today, S. 2927, that provides for a temporary suspension of Federal oil purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This Strategic Petroleum Reserve was initially created in the mid- 1970s. It was set up to protect the Nation from oil supply disruptions that followed the Arab oil embargo. I support the goal of protecting America's energy security. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has served our Nation well. This legislation, though, says enough is enough. At today's high prices, this legislation tells the Government to stop putting any more oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--to stop doing it whenever the average price of gasoline is over $2.50 a gallon. This chart clearly shows when we went above the red line, above $2.50, and when it has come below and when it is above. This has been in the last 3 years. This legislation also tells the Government to stop putting oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when the price of diesel fuel exceeds $2.75 a gallon. Currently, the United States is buying about 70,000 barrels, 70,000 barrels of oil each and every day to save and inject underground. The Government keeps buying it every day, regardless of price. When the prices of fuel go up, people try to use less. They carpool, they use public transportation. Not the U.S. Government--70,000 barrels every day regardless of need, regardless of price. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve already contains 700 million barrels of oil. The Administrator of the Energy Information Administration recently testified to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He said taking this much oil out of the market every day does drive up the price for American drivers. He wasn't sure of the amount. He estimated it could be $2 per barrel of oil, maybe a nickel per gallon. A private analyst has argued that continuing to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve could add as much as 10 percent to the price of gasoline--10 percent. While there appears to be a disagreement on the magnitude, it is clear that when the Government is competing with the American driver, it does have an impact. Every day, the Government is pulling 70,000 barrels of crude oil from the market. This is oil which could otherwise be used by airlines, by trucks, or by our neighbors. My bill would also impose fiscal responsibility on future oil purchases. When the Federal Government buys oil at today's prices, it is an expensive proposition for all taxpayers. At current prices, it will cost over $8 million a day for the Government to purchase these 70,000 barrels of oil. Well, that equates to about $250 million a month, nearly $3 billion a year. The impact to the Treasury and to the American driver is real. Currently, the goal is to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with up to 1.5 billion--billion--barrels of oil. At the current rate of putting in 70,000 barrels a day, it will take another 30 years to achieve this level--70,000 barrels a day for 30 years. I recognize that a temporary suspension by itself is not going to bring down the price of gasoline to $2.50 or even $3 a gallon overnight. But I made a commitment to the people of Wyoming. I made a commitment to do what I can to help when it comes to Washington policies that just don't seem to make sense. As a physician, I took an oath to do no harm. As a Senator, I am committed to a philosophy of Government accountability and fiscal responsibility. In addition to temporarily stopping the stockpiling of oil at these high prices, there is a second component to this bill: commonsense steps for fiscal responsibility. This legislation includes simple recommendations put forth by the Government Accountability Office. This bill would require dollar cost averaging when it comes to purchasing oil in the future. We could save taxpayers money if we just purchased the same dollar amount of oil each month rather than the same volume of oil each month. This means you end up buying more oil when the prices are low and less oil when the prices are high. The practice works for individual investors. It is what millions of Americans do every month with their retirement plans. There is an article in this week's Fortune magazine. It is entitled ``Where to Put Your Money Now.'' The article says: With the markets giving off so many mixed signals, use dollar cost averaging. The Federal Government should operate with that same prudence. If the Department of Energy had used this approach in recent years, it could have saved American taxpayers over $590 million. The Federal Government could also save taxpayer dollars by storing heavier grades of crude oil. The Government Accountability Office has pointed out that such a strategy would be more cost-effective and provide more refiners with the kind of oil the refiners can actually use. These are two fundamental steps to improve Government accountability and fiscal responsibility. Many of us complain about Government waste. In this legislation, we have a chance to do something about it. I fully recognize that our energy problems are complex. This body recently adopted new corporate average fuel economy requirements to improve long-term efficiency in our cars and in our trucks. Increased energy efficiency and conservation must be an important part of any long-term energy solution. Other policies worthy of debate include expanded domestic production of energy, and we have also held hearings on excessive speculation and market manipulation. More recently, some have called for a holiday on the Federal gasoline tax. All of these efforts are worthy of debate. A temporary halt on adding more oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is really the low-hanging fruit. If we can't agree on these simple steps for fiscal responsibility, how will we come to an agreement on the more complex solutions to energy security? I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation without delay. With gasoline prices at an alltime high, the American driver--the American driver--should not have to compete with Washington policies that are driving up the price at the pump. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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