Military Voting Protection Act of 2008

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Commercial Truck Fuel Savings Demonstration Act of 2008, which would help address the growing crisis of energy costs for our Nation's trucking industry.

Our Nation faces record high energy prices, affecting almost every aspect of daily life. The rapidly growing price of diesel is putting an increasing strain on our trucking industry. The U.S. average on diesel prices reached $3.50 a gallon in February 2008 and prices have not gone below this amount since that time. The average price of diesel this week is $4.50. Escalating fuel costs are especially devastating in states where the cost of diesel fuel is exacerbated by Federal weight limit restrictions that prohibit trucks that carry more than 80,000 pounds from traveling on the Federal interstate system.

For example, under current law, trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are allowed to travel on the portion of Interstate 95 designated as the Maine Turnpike, which runs from Maine's border with New Hampshire to Augusta, our capital city. At Augusta, the State Turnpike designation ends, but I-95 proceeds another 200 miles north to Houlton. At Augusta, however, heavy trucks must exit the modern four-lane, limited-access highway and are forced

onto smaller, two-lane secondary roads that pass through cities, towns, and villages.

The Commercial Truck Fuel Savings Demonstration Act of 2008, which I am introducing today, will provide immediate savings to our truckers. My bill creates a 2-year year pilot program that would permit trucks carrying up to 100,000 pounds to travel on the Federal interstate system whenever diesel prices are at or above $3.50 a gallon. This legislation does not mandate that each state participate in the pilot program, but gives each state the opportunity, during this time of high fuel costs, to offer relief to their trucking industries.

Permitting trucks to carry up to 100,000 pounds on Federal highways would lessen the fuel cost burden on truckers in three ways: First, raising the weight limit would allow trucking companies to put more cargo in each truck, thereby reducing the numbers of trucks needed to transport goods: Second, trucks carrying up to 100,000 pounds would no longer need to move off the main Federal highways where trucks are limited at 80,000 pounds and take less direct routes on local roads requiring considerably more diesel fuel and extended periods of idling during each trip; and third, trucks traveling on the interstate system would save on fuel costs due to the much superior road design of the interstate system as compared to the rural and urban state road systems.

I recently met with Kurt Babineau, a small business owner and second generation logger and trucker from my State who has been struggling with the increasing costs of running his operation. Mr. Babineau's operation works just east of central Maine on the outskirts of the town of Mattawamkeag. All of the pulpwood his business produces, which is roughly 50 percent of his total harvest, is transported to Verso Paper, which is located in the southwestern part of the State, in the town of Jay. The distance his trucks must travel is 165 miles and a round trip takes approximately 8 hours to complete.

If Mr. Babineau's trucks were permitted to use Interstate 95, this would reduce the distance his trucks must travel to approximately 100 miles and would shave one hour off the time it takes his trucks to make their delivery to Verso Paper, saving his operation both time and fuel.

The results of less fuel consumption from decreased distance traveled would create significant savings for Mr. Babineau's operation. His trucks average 4 miles to the gallon, which calculates to approximately 11.8 gallons an hour. Permitting trucks to travel on Interstate 95 would save Mr. Babineau 118 gallons of fuel each week. The current cost of diesel fuel in his area is approximately $4.42 per gallon, and therefore, combined with time saved on wages for drivers, his savings would estimate to nearly $697 a week.

If you applied this savings to one year of trucking for Mr. Babineau's company alone, it would save his operation over $33,400 a year and 5,664 gallons of fuel over the same period. These savings are not only beneficial to Mr. Babineau's business, his employees, and the consumer, but also to our Nation, as we look for ways to decrease on our overall fuel consumption.

Trucking is the cornerstone of our economy as most of our goods are transported by trucks at some point in the supply chain. Some independent truckers in my state already have been forced out of business due to rising fuel costs and more businesses are facing a similar fate if Congress does not act soon to address our growing energy crisis. The Commercial Truck Fuel Savings Demonstration Act offers an immediate and cost effective way to help our Nation's struggling trucking industry. I am pleased that Senator Snowe has joined me as an original cosponsor of the bill, and I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from Wisconsin and Maryland in introducing legislation to reauthorize the Collins-Feingold Dental Health Improvement Act, which was first signed into law as part of the Health Care Safety Net Act Amendments of 2002. The legislation we are introducing today will extend the authorization of this program, which provides grant funding to States to strengthen the dental workforce in our Nation's rural and underserved communities, for an additional 5 years.

While oral health in America has improved dramatically over the last 50 years, these improvements have not occurred evenly across our population, particularly among low-income individuals and families. Too many Americans today lack access to dental care. While there are clinically proven techniques to prevent or delay the progression of dental health problems, an estimated 47 million Americans live in areas lacking adequate dental services. As a consequence, these effective treatment and prevention programs are not being implemented in many of our communities. Astoundingly, as many as 11 percent of our Nation's rural population has never been to a dentist.

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that our dental workforce is graying. More than 20 percent of dentists nationwide will retire in the next 10 years, and the number of dental graduates may not be enough to replace their retirees. As a consequence, many states are facing a serious shortage of dentists, particularly in rural areas.

In Maine, there is one general practice dentist for every 2,300 people in the Portland area. The numbers drop off dramatically, however, in other parts of our state. In Aroostook County, for example, where I am from, there is only one dentist for every 5,500 people. Of the 23 dentists practicing in Aroostook County, only a few are taking on any new cases.

The Collins-Feingold Dental Health Improvement Act, which is now Section 340G of the Public Health Service Act, authorized a State grant program administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration at the Department of Health and Human services that is designed to improve access to oral health services in rural and underserved areas. States can use these grants to fund a wide variety of programs. For example, they can use the funds for loan forgiveness and repayment programs for dentists practicing in underserved areas. They can also use the grant funds to establish or expand community or school-based dental facilities or to set up mobile or portable dental clinics. To assist in their recruitment and retention efforts, States can use the funds for placement and support of dental students, residents and advanced dentistry trainees. Or, they can use the grant funds for continuing dental education, through distance-based education and practice support through teledentistry.

Congress appropriated $2 million for this program for fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 and just under $5 million for fiscal year 2008.

Thirty-six States have applied for grants from this program, but so far, the funding available has only been sufficient to fund programs in 18 States. Clearly there is sufficient interest and need for this program to justify its extension, particularly given all of the recent reports documenting the very serious need to improve access to oral health care.

Those 18 States that have been awarded funding under this program are doing great things to improve access to oral health services. Colorado, Georgia and Massachusetts are using the grant funds for loan forgiveness and repayment programs for dentists who practice in underserved areas and who agree to provide services to patients regardless of their ability to pay. Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi and a number of other states are using the funds for recruitment and retention efforts. Delaware, Rhode Island and Vermont, which, like Maine, don't have dental schools, are using the funds to expand dental residency programs in their States.

The legislation we are introducing today will authorize an additional $50 million over the next 5 years for this important program. The American Dental Association, the American Dental Education Association, and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry have all endorsed the legislation, and I encourage all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Mr. President, this weekend is the unofficial beginning of summer and the start of the summer driving season. This is as oil hits $135 per barrel and more and more cities and towns all over the country are seeing gasoline prices over $4 per gallon. In the face of these challenges to the American economy and consumer, we have failed to take the steps that are necessary to address this problem either in the short term or the long term.

Last week, the House and Senate voted to suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I voted against that effort as many on the other side hailed it as a major move that would help to alleviate ``pain at the pump.'' Instead, oil prices have continued to increase every day since that measure passed. I think this demonstrates that adding a mere 70,000 barrels a day to the marketplace means little when we consume 21 million barrels of oil per day in this country alone.

Oil shale can be a major part of addressing rising oil prices by potentially bringing over 1 trillion barrels of oil to the domestic market. There are enormous oil shale reserves located in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. Oil shale is energy we can develop here at home to lower gas prices, increase our Nation's security, and improve our balance of trade by keeping money and investment in the United States rather than sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas-- frequently to governments, I might add, that are unstable or whose interests are counter to those of this country. It will also bring in billions of dollars to the States and the Federal Treasury in the form of future royalties.

This bill is necessary because the fiscal year 2008 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill has language prohibiting funds from being used by the Department of the Interior to prepare final regulations and will set forth the requirements for a commercial leasing program for oil shale resources or to conduct an oil shale lease sale as provided in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Without removing this moratorium--and it is a moratorium--companies will not know the rules of the road so they can make investment decisions, things such as what the length of the oil shale leases will be, the royalty rate, and reclamation and bonding requirements.

I have a letter from the Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals at the Department of the Interior, Stephen Allred, dated May 14 in support of removing the prohibition contained in last year's Interior bill on the Department of the Interior issuing oil shale regulations. I ask unanimous consent at this time to have the letter printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Allred points out that issuing these regulations is critical to providing regulatory certainty for these oil shale projects to go forward. With the regulatory certainty these regulations will provide, companies will have an incentive to commit the resources necessary to develop this technology.

I also have a letter from Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne dated December 12, 2007, objecting to the inclusion of this moratorium that was in the House version of the fiscal year 2008 Interior appropriations. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Secretary Kempthorne also indicates the critical nature of allowing the Department to issue these regulations in order to attract the private investment necessary to develop the oil shale resource.

Let me emphasize that this is not an environmental issue. No commercial lease sales are permitted under the provisions of this bill. In fact, commercial oil shale leases are banned for 2\1/2\ years because the technology for oil shale extraction is not yet economically viable on a wide scale. But, as I have said, the companies that invested tens of millions of dollars in this technology already need to have the Department of Interior issue the leasing ground rules so that they know what their costs will be for taking part in the Federal commercial leasing program when the time for leasing comes.

My bill also makes sure there is adequate public comment by requiring that final regulations not be issued for at least 90 days after they have been published in draft form.

When I offered this as an amendment in the Appropriations Committee, it was defeated by one vote and strictly along party lines. I heard from the other side of the aisle that because the Governor of Colorado and the junior Senator from Colorado opposed lifting this moratorium, Congress should not do so. I find this curious and incredibly inconsistent with prior debates over public lands policy. When we have debated drilling in the section 1002 area of ANWR, the other side seems to have little or no regard for the desires of Alaska's Governor, the people of the State of Alaska, or the entire congressional delegation about how they want their public lands managed.

On this side of the aisle--that is, the Republican side of the aisle--we have offered proposals to bring to market billions of barrels of domestic supply that are continually blocked. If we don't begin to put in place policies to enhance our domestic production, prices are only going to go higher and the American people are going to pay the price at the pump as well as suffer the consequences of a further drag on the economy.

In closing, I wish to state that increasing domestic energy production, including from oil shale, will strengthen this country's national security, lower gas prices, keep jobs and investments right here at home, and, in these tight budgetary times, bring in hundreds of billions of dollars to the States and the Federal Treasury through royalty collections.

Congress needs to take a good, hard look at what it has done as far as encouraging further supply of energy for this country. As was mentioned in a number of editorials that have shown up in the papers, it is easy to blame companies and the stock market, and it is easy to blame the futures market, but really the problem starts right here in the Congress. The Congress needs to come up with a solution to relieve the inadequate supply of oil and gas. If that solution is not arrived at soon, Americans are going to be put out of business. We already hear about airlines having to cut back on the number of employees they have because of the high cost of gasoline. So it is going to have a dramatic impact on the economy of this country.

Just think about how much land we have tied up because of previous action by this Congress--the billions of barrels of oil that potentially would be available in ANWR; the huge amount of reserves that we think is in the deep-sea portions that would be available off the coast of this country. We

are the only country in the world that restricts drilling out in the deep sea. There are potential reserves that would be available for consumers of this country with oil shale in Utah and Colorado and Wyoming. Now we have that tied up with a strict moratorium that tells the oil producers of this country: We want you to shut down. We don't want you to be able to move forward.

I think these are huge reserves, and if we had acted, actually, 10 years ago, we wouldn't now have a problem. We are going to have a problem for the next 10 years unless we do something quickly and drastically, and we need to do something more than just saying that the Strategic Oil Reserve can't purchase oil for 6 months or we wait until it drops to less than $75 a barrel.

I am calling on my colleagues to join us because this is a serious problem we are facing in this country, and the Congress needs to do something about it.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, in introducing legislation critical to rectifying not only a serious impediment to the movement of international commerce, but more importantly, will improve safety on our secondary roads and sustain a commercial trucking industry suffering from an astonishing rise in diesel prices.

There are some of our colleagues who believe that expanding upon the current Federal truck weight limitation of 80,000 pounds is dangerous, compromising the safety of passenger vehicles driver who may be faced with a truck weighing as much as 143,000 pounds, the limit on Interstates in Massachusetts and New York. I certainly concur that safety of such drivers is very important, and I have the record to back that up. Yet, in some areas the imposition of this outdated patchwork of weight limits puts the safety of pedestrians and the motor carrier operators themselves at risk.

Take the situation we face in Maine, where we currently have a limited exemption along the southern portion of the Maine turnpike. Many trucks traveling to or from the Canadian border or into upstate Maine are not able to travel on our Interstates as a result of the 80,000 pound weight limit. This forces many of them onto secondary roads, many of which are two-lane roads running through small towns and villages in Maine. Tanker trucks carrying fuel teeter past elementary schools, libraries, and weaving through traffic to reach locations like our Air National Guard station. Not only is that an inefficient method of bringing necessary fuel to Guardsmen that provide our national security, but imagine if you will one of those tanker trucks rupturing on Main Street, potentially causing serious damage to property, causing traffic chaos, and most importantly, killing or injuring drivers and pedestrians.

This is not a far-fetched scenario. In fact, two pedestrians were killed last year in Maine as a result of overweight trucks on local roadways, one tragic instance occurring within sight of the nearby Interstate. So I ask you, is the so-called safety argument truly a legitimate reason for opposition as my constituents and many others across small American communities are taking their lives in their hands when merely crossing Main Street?

As laid out in this legislation, it is obvious Senator Collins has a clear understanding of this safety issue, crafting a strategy that quantifies any potential risks to safety, and places the gathering of that data in the hands of the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. It is my expectation that, like earlier studies that have indicated traffic fatalities involving trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are ten times greater on secondary roads than on exempted Interstates, the data collected by the GAO will point the way to a permanent solution that will enable America to harmonize the myriad weight limits across our Nation's highways.

This legislation also exhibits a true sensitivity to one of the greatest problems facing the domestic trucking industry, particularly our smaller operators: the cost of fuel. This is a problem that cannot be ignored. The price of diesel nationally as I make this statement is four dollars and 49 cents. One year ago today, it was two dollars and 82 cents! We must act.

As a result of this legislation, motor carriers will be able to expand their ability to carry loads when the price of diesel surpasses three dollars and fifty cents per gallon. While this will only affect some states that face a federal interstate system without a weight exemption, it will greatly facilitate the movement of goods across this country. Given that volume of goods projected to enter this country is forecast to increase by over 100 percent, we need a forward-thinking, intermodal plan in place. Having a greater synergy in terms of our weight limits will not only assist our Nation's struggling trucking industry, but will simplify the flow of goods moving across our country and augment our Nation's economy.

I would like to thank Senator Collins for her steadfast efforts and innovative thinking on this legislation as, side-by-side, we will continue to seek a resolution to this issue, which, to my eyes, is a simple matter of fairness.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Nevada, Majority Leader Reid. I originally authored this legislation in 1997, and I stand today to resolve the issue of inequity in prescription drug coverage and to make certain that all American women have access to contraception methods.

Without question, we have made remarkable progress in the number of employer sponsored health plans covering contraception. According to a study released in 2004, between 1993 and 2002, contraceptive coverage in employer-purchased plans covering the full range of reversible contraceptive methods tripled from 28 percent to 86 percent. Conversely, the proportion of employer plans covering no method at all dropped dramatically, from 28 percent to 2 percent. Yet despite these gains, women of reproductive age currently spend 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men. Not surprisingly, this discrepancy is due in large part to reproductive health-related costs.

Women whose health plans do not cover the full range of reversible contraceptive methods often face high out-of-pocket costs. Yet covering prescription contraceptives results in cost-savings not only for women, but for society as a whole. There are three million unintended pregnancies every year in the United States, and almost half of these pregnancies result from women who do not use contraceptives. Equal treatment of prescription contraceptives will reduce costs to Americans by preventing these unintended pregnancies, which can range anywhere from $5,000 to almost $9,000 in medical costs.

The Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act will eliminate the disparate treatment of prescription contraception coverage. Simply put, if an employer provides insurance coverage for all other prescription drugs, they must also provide coverage for FDA approved prescription contraceptives. Our bill will ensure that women have comprehensive reproductive health coverage, and lower costs to society by preventing unintended pregnancies and thus reducing the need for abortion.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in fixing the inequity in prescription contraception coverage to make certain that all American women have access to this most basic health need.

Mr. President, today, Senator Lugar and I are introducing the Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2008, a bill to permit the transfer of certain U.S. Navy vessels to particular foreign countries. All of the proposed ship transfer authorizations have been requested by the U.S. Navy, with the approval of the Office of Management and Budget.

Pursuant to section 824(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994, as amended, 10 U.S.C. 7307(a), a naval vessel that is in excess of 3,000 tons or that is less than 20 years of age may not be disposed of to another nation unless the disposition of that vessel is approved by law enacted after August 5, 1974. The bill we introduce today would provide that required approval for six transfers: a guided missile frigate for Pakistan; two minehunter coastal ships for Greece; an oiler for Chile; and two amphibious tank landing ships for Peru. These would all be grant transfers under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j). If any Member of this body has questions or concerns regarding one or more of the proposed ship transfers, please let us know.

The bill also contains provisions that are traditionally included in ship transfer bills, relating to transfer costs and repair and refurbishment of the ships, and exempting the value of a vessel transferred on a grant basis from the aggregate value of excess defense articles in a given fiscal year.

The authority provided by this bill would expire 2 years after the date of enactment of the bill.

Finally, the Department of Defense has provided the following information on this bill:

These proposed transfers would improve the United States'

political and military relationships with close allies. They

would support strategic engagement goals and regional

security cooperation objectives. Active use of former naval

vessels by coalition forces in support of regional priorities

is more advantageous than retaining vessels in the Navy's

inactive fleet and disposing of them by scrapping or another

method.

The United States would incur no costs in transferring

these naval vessels. The recipients would be responsible for

all costs associated with the transfers, including

maintenance, repairs, training, and fleet turnover costs.

This act does not alter the effect of the Toxic Substances

Control Act, or any other law, with regard to their

applicability to the transfer of ships by the U.S. to foreign

countries for military or humanitarian use. The laws and

regulations that apply today would apply in the same manner

if this section were enacted.

The Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable Donald C. Winter, has added: ``Expeditious enactment of the proposal is in the best interests of the Navy's Maritime Strategy as it will allow us to strengthen the capabilities of partner nations.''

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection

Reauthorization Act of 2008. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act was authored 8 years ago by Senator Brownback and the late Senator Wellstone, and since then, through two re-authorizations, has been a tremendous asset in preventing and prosecuting human trafficking crimes. Today, I am honored to be able to introduce legislation to reauthorize these valuable programs with my distinguished colleague, Senator Brownback.

Human trafficking is a major problem worldwide and the challenges remain great. According to the most recent State Department report, roughly 800,000 individuals are trafficked each year, the overwhelming majority of them women and children. The FBI estimates approximately $9.5 billion is generated annually for organized crime from trafficking in persons. The International Labor Organization estimates that, at present, 2.4 million persons have been trafficked into situations of forced labor.

These victims are trafficked in a variety of ways. Sometimes they are kidnapped outright, but many times they are lured with dubious job offers, or false marriage opportunities. The traffickers capitalize on the victims' desire to seek a better life, and trap them with lifetime debt bondages that degrade and destroy their lives.

Since 2000, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act has provided us effective tools, and in this reauthorization, our aim is to take the successes and lessons of eight years of progress and expand our abilities to combat human trafficking. In Title I, the legislation focuses on combating human trafficking internationally by broadening the U.S. interagency task force charged with monitoring and combating trafficking, and increasing the authority to the State Department Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking. Because of the difficulty in accurately understanding the full scope of the problem globally, we also include provisions to coordinate our multiple federal databases, and set a reporting requirement to address forced labor and child labor.

Today's reauthorization bill also expands our ability to combat trafficking in the United States. We've provided for certain improvements to the T-visa program, which protects trafficking victims and their families from retaliation, so that we can have their help in bringing traffickers to justice, without the victim fearing harm to themselves or their loved ones. We also expand authority for U.S. Government programs to help those who have been trafficked, and require a study to outline any additional gaps in assistance that may exist. Finally, we establish some powerful new legal tools, including increasing the jurisdiction of the courts, enhancing penalties for trafficking offenses, punishing those who profit from trafficked labor and ensuring restitution of forfeited assets to victims.

Human trafficking is a daunting and critical global issue. I urge my colleagues to support this reauthorization and work with Senator Brownback and me to pass it in the Senate as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act

of 2008

Section-by-Section Description

Section 1. Short title; table of contents

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.