Floor Statements

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

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

Mr. President, later today, President Bush will propose halting growth in U.S. greenhouse gases by the year 2025. In his speech at the White House, the President is expected to place significant emphasis on new technology.

I recently 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.

Overlooked in the debate are the greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere. The best science tells us that the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere are the gases that are causing the warming of our planet. To what extent, we are not certain.

So let's resolve to find a way to remove the excess greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere--remove them and then permanently sequester them.

To accomplish this goal, we are, as a nation, going to need to make a significant investment to develop new technology.

The approach my legislation takes to address this is through a series of financial prizes--prizes where we set the technological goals and also define the outcomes we demand.

The first researchers who meet each criteria will receive not only a financial prize but also international acclaim.

The prizes would be determined by a Federal commission under the Department of Energy. The commission would be composed of climate scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, business managers, and economists.

The commission 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 would achieve milestones in developing and applying technology--technology that could significantly help to slow and even reverse the accumulation of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

The greenhouse gases would have to be permanently sequestered, and sequestered in a manner that would be without significant harmful effects.

This is how it would work. There would be four different levels of prizes.

The first level would go to either the private or public entity that could first demonstrate a design for successful technology that could remove and permanently sequester the greenhouse gases.

Second, there would be a prize for a lab scale demonstration project of the technology that accomplishes the same thing.

Third, there would be an award for demonstrating the technology to remove and permanently sequester greenhouse gases that is operational at a larger working model scale.

Finally, there would be an award for whoever can demonstrate the technology to remove and permanently sequester greenhouse gases on a commercially viable scale.

There you have it--four different levels of development: First, to design the technology; second, a lab scale demonstration of the technology; then for a larger working model; and then, finally, the proven use of the technology on a commercially viable scale.

Well, once the technology is developed, the United States would share intellectual property rights to that technology with whomever invented it.

This bill, as drafted, does not include a specific dollar amount for each prize. Instead, it authorizes such sums as may be necessary.

The commission will be directed to report to Congress 1 year after enactment into law. The commission will recommend the levels of funding that would be necessary to achieve the goals of this act.

I believe prizes can be a unique tool in creating the technological development we need. It only seems natural that if we get all the best scientific minds thinking about the same problem, and working on it, we significantly enhance our chances of solving it.

Historically, prizes have been used to spur all types of technological development to solve big problems.

In 1714, the British Government offered the first prize of this type, and they did it for a device capable of accurately measuring longitude. John Harrison, a clock maker, was awarded 20,000 pounds for designing an accurate and durable chronometer 59 years later. This transformed our ability to sail the seas.

In 1810, the first vacuum-sealed food was produced after 15 years of experimentation. It was driven, again, by a prize offered, this time, by Napoleon. Today, vacuum sealing is still used throughout the world.

In 1909, the first flight across the English Channel was spurred by a prize offered by a newspaper.

Charles Lindbergh was competing for a prize offered by a wealthy hotel owner when he flew the Spirit of St. Louis nonstop from New York to Paris in 1927. Well, that achievement spawned what is a $300 billion aviation industry today.

It is my hope and my goal that this legislation will foster the kind of solutions that we need to address the concerns about climate change.

What I am proposing is that we take a brand new look at climate change. With that new look, our solution will be based on removing excess greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere. We must think anew and we must act anew.

That line--``we must think anew and we must act anew''--is engraved on a scenic overlook along Interstate 80 between Cheyenne and Laramie, WY. It is engraved on the pedestal that holds a large-size bust of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was the one to have the vision for the Transcontinental Railroad.

It is now time for us as Americans to think anew and act anew about the issue of climate change and controlling greenhouse gases. Americans 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. 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.

It is now time for the Senate and for Congress to find a solution to global climate change, not through limits but through imagination, innovation, and invention. I look forward to working with each and every Member of the Senate in achieving this goal.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, 20 years ago today, Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming came to the Senate floor to speak about the tax burden Americans face. He came to the floor because it was April 15, tax day. He came to extend his sympathies to the many, as he called it, ``frustrated taxpayers who were probably at this minute,'' he said, ``sweating bullets over a form 1040 while gnawing through yet another pencil.''

He spoke 2 years after Congress enacted the landmark 1986 tax reform bill, legislation intended to reform and simplify the Code and make the chaos of past April 15s mere memories. That legislation did not reform the Tax Code, and it fell far short of tax simplification.

Senator Wallop voted against final passage, and he knew that history would be on his side.

The same day, he introduced into the Congressional Record a 1988 guest editorial from the Casper Star Tribune, a newspaper in Wyoming. The editorial reflected the sentiments similar to those expressed by Senator Wallop. Less than 2 years after enactment of that 1986 law, tax reform and simplification spawned 2,704 changes in the Internal Revenue Code, 42 new regulations, 65 announcements, 32 revenue rulings, and 48 new tax forms.

The changes were so complicated that in a nationwide study of 50 tax preparers who were given hypothetical identical pieces of information about what a family would do in trying to figure out their taxes, none of the 50 tax preparers came out with the same

result in terms of how much that family would owe. The system was that complicated.

Senator Wallop said that guest editorial summed up the feelings of taxpayers across the Nation. The author of that guest editorial submitted 20 years ago today into the Congressional Record was a Wyoming physician named John Barrasso. That is right, the current occupant of Senator Wallop's Wyoming Senate seat.

The reform envisioned by Congress failed miserably to achieve its desired result. Today, Americans continue the painful experience of frantically attempting to complete their tax returns and write their checks to the Government before the clock strikes midnight.

The Tax Code is even longer today, 6,000 pages and over 2.8 million words, and it is growing. Provisions within the Code regularly expire, and then they are extended on an irregular basis. The IRS estimates that the average amount of time an American taxpayer is going to take to fill out their tax returns in this year is over 30 hours. More than 6 in 10 Americans hire someone to help prepare their returns for them. Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent annually trying to comply with our complicated tax laws.

Many post offices across America will be staying open until midnight tonight. Why? To give taxpayers one last shot to meet the deadline.

It is no wonder that more than 10 million Americans will request an extension this year. The future does not look much better for American taxpayers, both in terms of tax simplification and in terms of tax relief.

Americans work day in and day out to pay for Washington programs that they would not wish on their worst enemy. In too many families, one parent works to put food on the table and the other parent works to pay for the Washington bureaucracy.

The Government is too big. It spends too much. Americans get it. Americans have to balance their own budgets. They have to balance their own checkbooks. The Government should do the same. And the Government should do it the same way that American families do it--by controlling spending.

The current tax system is a mess, it is too complicated, it is antigrowth, and it discourages additional investment in America. The American taxpayer rightfully deserves a system that is simple. The American taxpayer deserves a system that provides certainty. The American taxpayer deserves a system that encourages success and innovation, and the American taxpayer deserves a system that is based on what is in their best interests and not the best interests of Government.

Have you ever wondered why tax day is April 15 and not, say, 6 months later, October 15? Imagine, if you will, if tax day were right before election day. Then the voices of the taxpayers would register loudly and clearly. Maybe this is the solution necessary to ensure that people, not the Government, come first because, after all, the money belongs to the people, the hard-working people of Wyoming and every other State in this country, not to the Government. It is the people's money; it is not the Government's money.

The American taxpayer deserves better, the American taxpayer deserves tax simplification, the American taxpayer deserves tax relief, and the American taxpayer deserves action.

Change the system? Well, it is not an easy undertaking but a necessary one. Four criteria are necessary to make the effective change. It must be fair so people pay their fair share. It must be simple so people can quickly file their own returns. It must be uniform. No matter who you are, the system must be applied equally to every taxpayer. And, No. 4, it must be consistent. Changing the system every year is not good for the economy and is not good for taxpayers.

During his floor speech on April 15, 1988, 20 years ago today, Wyoming Senator Malcolm Wallop said that his vote against the tax reform conference report, as he said, ``was one of the best things I have done since I have been in the Senate.'' He was right on target. His words have survived the test of time. Let us hope that 20 more years--20 more years--do not pass before we get it right.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to express our Nation's deepest thanks and gratitude to a special young man and his family. I was saddened to receive word that on March 10, 2008, SSG David Julian of Evanston, WY, was killed in the line of duty while serving our country in the war on terrorism. Along with four of his fellow soldiers, Staff Sergeant Julian died from injuries he sustained in a suicide bomber attack in Baghdad, Iraq.

Staff Sergeant Julian was assigned to D Company, 1st Battalion, 64th Armor Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, GA. He joined the Army right after his graduation from Evanston High School in 1994. He loved the Army and his country and was serving his fourth tour of duty in Iraq. Following his first tour, he laid the wreath for the dedication of the Fallen Comrade Memorial in downtown Evanston. He was laid to rest in his hometown, where he was remembered by family and friends as a determined and courageous warrior, an honorable soldier, and a loving husband and father.

It is because of David Julian 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 every day, and because of them and their families, our Nation remains free and strong in the face of danger.

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 David Julian 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 Julian is survived by his wife Erin and baby daughter Elizabeth, his mother Bonnie and father Wally, brothers Eric, Chris, and Mark, and sisters Misty, Becky, and Kellee. He is also survived by his brothers and sisters in arms of the U.S. Army. We say goodbye to a husband, a father, a son, a brother, and an American soldier. Our Nation pays its deepest respect to SSG David D. Julian 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 with open arms.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my concerns with the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution. This is a budget that says tax revenue will go up by $1.2 trillion. Most of this is going to come by eliminating tax relief, commonly known as the Bush tax cuts.

Let me be clear: The people of Wyoming do not believe eliminating the President's tax cuts and dramatically increasing Federal spending is the right prescription for our economy. I would go so far as to say this budget does exactly the opposite of what is needed. This budget will send the wrong signal to small investors. The budget will send the wrong signal to ranchers. This budget will send the wrong signal to farmers. This budget will send the wrong signal to small business owners all across Wyoming.

This budget sends a message the Federal Government is going to take more from them. It will take more from them at a time when they believe--rightly so--that they have already been hit too hard. In fact, 43 million American families with children will pay an additional $2,300 out of their pockets each year if these tax cuts are eliminated. Twenty-three hundred dollars is not a small amount of money--not a small amount at all to the working families of Casper or Cheyenne or Rock Springs or Cody or Sundance. Twenty-three hundred dollars goes a long way in Wyoming, a long way toward paying a year's tuition at the University of Wyoming. Eliminating the tax cuts would cost 27 million small business owners $4,100 a year. Now, that is money that could be used for Christmas bonuses or well-deserved raises.

In Wyoming, we believe the best way to achieve economic progress is to have the Government get out of the way. That is the spirit that powers Wyoming.

In Wyoming, there is a monument to President Abraham Lincoln. It is on Route I-80, between Cheyenne and Laramie, and there is a plaque on the monument. The plaque says: ``It is time to think anew and act anew.'' That is what I believe is needed to reform the way Washington works.

In Wyoming, where I served as a State senator, we had a budget session every 2 years. It is another area where Wyoming gets it right and Washington gets it wrong. In Wyoming, it works so well that the budget session lasts only 20 days. The Wyoming way is a much better way to deal with government spending.

In Wyoming, we actually balance our budget every year. The Wyoming way would free up Congress to work on things such as making Washington work better for our country. The Wyoming way would make Washington work on finding solutions to problems, rather than always reaching into people's wallets and pocketbooks.

It is time for Washington to get its house in order. This means extending the President's tax cuts. This is the way to actually bring in more revenue to the Treasury. To get Washington's fiscal house in order also means addressing spending on entitlements. This budget not only fails to do that, it actually makes matters worse. This budget allows entitlement spending to grow by $488 billion over 5 years. This is leveraging our children's future, young men and women of America, such as the pages who work in this very room. We are leveraging this on their future. Now, I do not wish to stifle the progress of future generations, such as these fine individuals, because of the mistakes of this Congress. Let us get Government out of the way so we can unlock the American entrepreneurial spirit. It is that spirit that made this country an economic leader in the first place.

I would also like to take a few moments to discuss three amendments that have been filed. Two amendments have been filed by me, and the third is an amendment filed by Senator Mike Enzi, my colleague from Wyoming, and it is an amendment which I have cosponsored.

My first amendment relates to the issue of Federal mandates. This amendment would provide $50 million to help States comply with regulations of the Endangered Species Act. It is my hope these funds could be distributed to the cities, the counties, to ranchers, to small business owners, all who have to comply with the ever-increasing, unfunded Federal mandates of the Endangered Species Act. The offset is provided through an across-the-board budget cut through function 920.

A vast array of species can be found in my home State of Wyoming. Among these are the sage-grouse, the grizzly bear, the pygmy rabbit, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse, the white and black tail prairie dogs, the black-footed ferret, and the Canadian grey wolf. Many of these species are in the process of either being listed or delisted under the Endangered Species Act. But we have found there is one resource Wyoming doesn't have enough of, and that is Federal funds to protect, to manage, and to recover these species as is required by Federal law.

Trust me when I say the people of Wyoming love our State's natural heritage. We believe we are in the best position to manage and protect our resources without the redtape and the regulations of the Federal Government. But that is not the reality we and other States face today. The Federal Government often, as a result of Federal lawsuits, is placing even additional new mandates on the States. As long as they are, the Federal Government has an obligation to provide funds with those mandates.

I am pleased my good friend, Senator Enzi, is cosponsoring this amendment with me, and I urge its adoption.

My second amendment would provide funding for salt cedar and Russian olive removal along America's rivers, streams, and tributaries. These two plants are nonnative, invasive species that are destroying riparian ecosystems across vast areas of the West. As the arid West continues to struggle with ongoing drought, salt cedar and Russian olive are invading the land and they are replacing native species all along the West's watershed. Entire ecosystems are being dramatically altered. Salt cedar and Russian olive drain valuable water flow from rivers and from streams. It is estimated that one Russian olive tree can use 500 gallons of water a day, while some estimates place water use by a mature salt cedar plant at more than 200 gallons a day.

The Presiding Officer knows that one of the West's most important natural resources--water--is under attack. Removal of these species to protect our water is a monumental undertaking but one we can no longer afford to avoid. Private landowners, local and State officials, as well as Federal agencies have an interest in addressing the problem. Recent pilot projects to eliminate these species on watersheds in eastern Wyoming and western Nebraska have been underway for a few years. Improvements in waterflow and the overall ecosystem and the quality of those areas have been dramatic. Success, however, can only be achieved if all interests in the watershed participate in eliminating these species.

My amendment is simple. Congress has already authorized a program to fight this battle. My amendment would direct money within that program to improve the ecosystem and waterflow along the Platte River. Wyoming is under a Federal decree to provide more acre feet of water from the Platte River to help wildlife in Nebraska. By removing these invasive species that capture so much water from the river, we can help alleviate this Federal obligation on Wyoming's residents.

Water is a precious resource. It is time we begin reclaiming our watersheds from the invasion of nonnatural species. I would encourage all Members of this body to support the amendment.

Finally, I wish to discuss a Federal budget issue about which I am deeply

passionate, as are all the people across the State of Wyoming. The Federal Government should not be picking the pockets of States to balance the Federal budget. I am not talking about Federal commitments to spending programs; I am talking about a Federal commitment to share revenue; specifically, revenue generated from mineral resource development.

The Presiding Officer is very familiar with this. He knows, as do I, that States with Federal mineral extraction benefit from economic development. He also knows these benefits are not generated without significant impacts to local infrastructure and to public services. These revenues pay for vital State and local government services. Revenue sharing has traditionally been a clear 50-50 division. It is a division between the States and the Federal Government. In fact, current Federal law prohibits Federal administrative deductions.

Apparently, that prohibition is not enough. In the fiscal year 2008 omnibus bill, Congress included a 1-year formula change, reducing the amount paid to the States and increasing the amount flowing to the Federal Treasury. The lost revenue for the States came at the expense of funding for local schools, roads, water systems, and other basic services provided by the States.

I am pleased to join my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Mike Enzi, in cosponsoring his budget amendment that addresses this Federal grab. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in this as a matter of principle. I have listened to speeches on this floor all week advocating for increases for one program or for another. Senator Enzi's amendment simply recognizes that States--not Washington--are capable and are well suited to make spending decisions.

State legislatures can provide, if they want to, more for education, highways, and law enforcement. But they cannot make these decisions if the Federal Government continues to withhold the State's share of these revenues.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Enzi's amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak in morning business for not more than 10 minutes.

Mr. President, years from now, young people in Wyoming will talk about the many events that have helped shape their lives-- people such as their parents, their friends, and their teachers, places such as the Tetons, Devil's Tower, and the Wyoming Range, and some will say that Craig and Susan Thomas helped change their lives. They will say there was a foundation. Almost out of the blue they will say that it gave them a scholarship, that it encouraged them to succeed, and that it helped them back into school. And one of those individuals will be able to say: I now have a great job, I have a family, and I get to keep living in Wyoming. These young people will say: If it wasn't for the Craig and Susan Thomas Foundation, I don't know where I would be today.

We know the Craig Thomas who fought every day for the people of Wyoming, advocating before each of you with a Western common sense that is legendary, but on the weekends and on his time in Wyoming, for nearly two decades, the one thing our friend Craig Thomas dedicated himself tirelessly to was the young people of Wyoming. Every kid--top of the class, middle of the class or simply in the class--Craig Thomas would want to meet with them, would want to talk with them, want to laugh with them. He even played Hacky Sack with them in his cowboy boots. He would find out how they were doing, what they were thinking, what they were going to do with their lives. He would tell them to find out what it was they liked to do the best and then do it.

Craig believed everyone should be a good citizen, learn as much as possible, and then have a chance to be happy. But for economic reasons, for family challenges or just a raw deal, we know some of these kids face tall hurdles. Some kids have a harder time, and Craig was always there to help.

Many of my colleagues know Craig also had a wonderful partner in his mission for Wyoming kids, Susan Thomas. A lifelong teacher herself in developmental education, she joined him proudly in reaching out to Wyoming's youth. Together they did an amazing job. I saw them do it. I know many of my colleagues also saw it when Craig would bring members of Susan's classes through the Capitol each year. They would come to watch, to learn, and to be invited in.

Craig and Susan inspired kids across Wyoming and kids right in this area

too. When Craig passed, the letters came streaming in. They came from young adults who said that when Craig Thomas told them they could do something, that they could be anything they wanted to be, when he helped steer them toward achievement, it made a difference in their lives. He inspired and he improved their lives.

Today, March 4, 2008, Susan Thomas is in Cheyenne to launch the Craig and Susan Thomas Foundation. It is a foundation that will reach out, that will search out, that will find the young Wyoming people who need, as Susan says it, a leg up in getting back on a horse after falling off.

Technically, it is a foundation that serves at-risk kids by helping them into programs--programs from cosmetology to culinary schools, votech to high tech, mechanical to anything they are interested in achieving.

The Craig and Susan Thomas Foundation is also ready to identify these young people through many avenues, through the traditional school systems but also through people active in the community. For those people who champion the causes of Wyoming's young people, the foundation will give them special leadership awards.

This is a program for kids who may not qualify for other programs, kids who deserve our attention, kids whom we should not ignore, kids whom our Senator Craig Thomas almost instinctively knew how to help, how to lift up. The Craig and Susan Thomas Foundation will continue to find them, thankfully, and to help them.

This is an exciting day, and congratulations to Susan Thomas, who, with courage and love, carries on Craig's legacy for inspiration, for hope, and for a better life for all of Wyoming's young people.

We miss Craig very much. We are still touched by his deeds. Good luck, Susan, and our very best to you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge Peace Corps volunteers during National Peace Corps Week.

Currently, 25 active U.S. Peace Corps volunteers are from Wyoming. They have joined a unique organization of people who have taken the initiative and make the personal commitment to assist those around the world who are less fortunate.

Peace Corps volunteers are the face of America in many countries. They are often on the frontline in the most primitive of environments, working tirelessly with local leaders to build a better future. Their optimism is often contagious as they assist communities in building infrastructure, developing resources, and improving basic health care, education, and business opportunities.

I commend all the men and women of the Peace Corps for their personal sacrifices. It is not easy to leave behind friends and family and the comforts of home. Yet I often hear that the rewards of bringing aid to those suffering from political unrest, natural disasters, disease, and a lack of economic opportunities are well worth it.

The Peace Corps volunteers' reputation as ambassadors of good will demonstrates the ability of individuals to make a difference in the world. Their firsthand knowledge of the challenges people face on a day-to-day basis give those of us in the United States a better understanding of our world. I applaud their efforts and dedication.

I would like to recognize the men and women from Wyoming who are currently serving as U.S. Peace Corps volunteers: Pamela J. Anderson, Jason N. Arnold, Alexandria L. Blute, Katie E. Boysen, Bria M. Chimenti, Joanne A. Cook, Jenna M. Dillon, Heather Dixon, Jeannie M. Freeman, Annie B. Gierhart, Alexis L. Grieve, Daniel J. Healy, Kevin U. Malatesta, Joshuah C. Marshall, Korie C. Merrill, Michael O. Nielsen, Katherine G. Oglietti, Kathleen F. Petersen, Rachel L. Petersen, Michael S. Quinn, Garrett C. Schiche, Brian M. Steen, Dayna C. Wolter, Angela E. Zivkovich, and Aaron R. Zueck.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside, and I call up amendment No. 3898.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, as a physician I have worked for over two decades to help people stay healthy and to help keep down the costs of their medical care. But health issues go way beyond that of a twisted knee or a painful shoulder.

In my practice I have seen firsthand the obstacles that families face to obtain medical care. Rural hospitals and rural providers must overcome significant challenges to deliver high-quality care in an environment with limited resources.

Our unique circumstances require us to work together to share resources and to develop networks. I think everyone can agree that these same principles are critical to support and modernize the Indian health care delivery system.

The Wind River Reservation, located near Riverton, WY, is the home of 10,415 members of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes. It is the third largest reservation in the United States, covering more than 2.2 million acres.

I recently visited with my friends on the Wind River Reservation. The tribal leaders told me of the hopes they have for their families, their communities, for Wyoming, and for our great Nation. We spent much of the time discussing health care.

Individuals living on the Wind River Reservation have worse than average rates for infant mortality, for suicide, for substance abuse, for unintentional injuries, for lung cancer, for heart disease, and for diabetes. They shared with me how difficult it can be for them to recruit and retain health professionals, to respond effectively to cultural barriers, and to help individuals make better lifestyle changes and choices.

We talked about reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and that is the bill that is now in front of the Senate. This legislation is important. It is important to give Native Americans the quality care they deserve, but it is also important to support critical health facilities that can help drive economic development and job creation.

When Congress debates improving the Indian health care system, the first instinct is to allocate more financial resources or to create new initiatives. Now, this stems from a strong desire from all of us to help. Yet this same helping hand can produce overlapping government programs, and these will be overlapping programs that are all trying to achieve the same goals.

For example, today, neither the government nor Indian advocacy groups can explain exactly how funds are used to coordinate medical services. The Indian Health Service is not like other Federal health care programs. Congress has only limited access to the research data that is needed to improve Indian health care. If we do not know where the resources are being spent, if we do not know the number of programs dedicated to provide various health care services, and if we do not know how health care services are coordinated, then how can we be certain that we are maximizing our ability to help Native Americans and Alaska Natives?

That is why I have offered amendment No. 3898 today. This amendment requires the Government Accountability Office--the GAO--to submit a report to Congress. The report would lay out how these various government and local programs coordinate health care services in Indian country.

The GAO study would focus on programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, children's health insurance programs, and the Indian Health Service. It also would require the GAO to research how these Federal programs interact with efforts by State, local, and tribal groups to deliver the essential health care services that are so vital to these citizens. By identifying any overlaps in spending, as well as pinpointing the service gaps, then we can develop reasonable, commonsense solutions that streamline and improve Indian health care. This way, we can target Federal funds to programs that are making the greatest impact. Then we can focus on additional areas where Native Americans and Alaska Natives need our support and need more support.

The GAO is well known as the investigative arm of Congress, and it is also known as the congressional watchdog. GAO helps Congress improve the Federal Government's performance and ensures programs meet strict accountability standards.

Now, all of that they do for the benefit of the American people. We rely on their expert recommendations, which are unbiased and are set up to make sound policy decisions. This oversight shows us ways to make government more efficient, more effective, ethical, and equitable. It uncovers what is working and what is not working, and it offers valuable advice on how to fix it. But, most importantly, this oversight helps us plan for the future.

Over the years, the GAO has submitted a few reports dealing with specific Indian health issues. Do any of my colleagues recall the last time the GAO completed a comprehensive Indian health care report?

I am certainly unaware of any recent efforts in this area. How many GAO reports have been released regarding Medicare, Medicaid, and the different health professional programs? I think we all know the answer.

We owe it to Native Americans, to Alaska Natives, and to the American taxpayers to adopt this amendment.

Madam President, I wish to make sure that people of the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming, and all Native American people across America, have equal access to quality, affordable medical care.

The Indian Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, will continue focusing on this issue long after this Indian Health Care Improvement Act is reauthorized.

It is essential that our committee have the information it needs to evaluate the current delivery system--exposing barriers that prevent collaboration, that prevent networking, that prevent innovation, and that prevent the sharing of resources.

It is my hope that this GAO report will help all policymakers begin to understand where the delivery system is working, where it is not, and offer the recommendations that are so important and so needed to streamline and to modernize it.

I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on legislation I am introducing to address climate change.

Today, I am introducing legislation to address a major technological challenge that faces all of us. It is the challenge of how to solve the problem of the warming of our planet. This bill is called the Greenhouse Gas Emission 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 tax on carbon.

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 our carbon output. Overlooked in the debate are the greenhouse gases that are currently in the atmosphere.

The best science tells us that the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere are the gases that are causing the warming of our planet. To what extent, we are not certain. So let us resolve to find a way to remove the excess greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere. Remove them, and permanently sequester them.

To accomplish this goal, we are, as a Nation, going to need to make a significant investment to develop the technology. The approach my legislation takes to address this is through a series of financial prizes where we set the technological goals and also define the outcomes we demand.

The first researchers to meet the criteria would receive not only Federal funds, but also international acclaim. The prizes would be determined by a Federal commission under the Department of Energy. The commission would be composed of climate scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, business managers, and economists. The commission 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 would achieve milestones in developing and applying technology. Technology that could significantly help to slow or reverse the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The greenhouse gases would have to be permanently sequestered. Sequestered in a manner that would be without significant harmful effects.

This is how it would work. There would be four different levels of prizes. The first level award would go to the public or private entity that could first demonstrate a design for a successful technology that could remove and permanently sequester greenhouse gases. Second, there would be a prize for a lab scale demonstration project of the technology that accomplishes the same thing. Third, there would be an award for demonstrating the technology to remove and permanently sequester greenhouse gases that is operational at a larger, working model scale. Finally, there would be an award for whoever could demonstrate the technology to remove and permanently sequester greenhouse gases on a commercially viable scale.

There you have it--four different levels of development. First for designing the technology, then for a lab scale demonstration of the technology, then for a larger working model, and then finally, the proven use of the technology on a commercially viable scale. Once the technology is developed, the United States would share intellectual property rights to the technology with whoever invented it. This bill, as drafted, does not include a specific dollar amount for each prize. Instead, it authorizes such sums as may be necessary.

The commission will be directed to report to Congress 1 year after enactment of the law. The commission will recommend the levels of funding that would be necessary to achieve the goals of this act.

I believe prizes can be a unique tool in creating technological development. It only seems natural that if we get all the best scientific minds thinking about the same problem, we significantly enhance our chances of solving it.

Historically, prizes have been used to spur all types of technological development to solve big problems. In 1714, the British government offered the first prize of this type for a device capable of accurately measuring longitude. John Harrison, a clock maker, was awarded 20,000 pounds for designing an accurate and durable chronometer 59 years later. This transformed our ability to sail the seas.

In 1775, the French offered a 100,000-franc prize resulting in an artificial form of alkali being produced. In 1810, the first vacuum sealed food was produced by Nicolas Appert, after 15 years of experimentation, driven by a 12,000-franc prize offered by Napoleon. Today, vacuum sealing is still used throughout the world.

In 1909 the first flight across the English Channel was spurred by a prize offered by a newspaper. Charles Lindbergh was competing for the Orteig prize offered by the wealthy hotel owner Raymond Orteig, when he flew in the Spirit of St. Louis nonstop from New York to Paris in 1927. The achievement spawned a $300 billion aviation industry.

The British Spitfire, the fighter plane that won the Battle of Britain, was developed as a result of the Schneider trophy, a series of prizes for technological development.

More recent examples include the creation of the X Prize Foundation, which gives multimillion dollar awards to the first team to achieve specific goals. The X Prize Foundation began a revolution in private space flight with the $10 million Ansari X Prize.

On October 4, 2004, the Mojave Aerospace Ventures team, led by famed aircraft designer Bert Rutan and financed by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen, captured the Ansari X prize for the historic space flight of Space Ship One to space and back, twice within 2 weeks. Space Ship One is now hanging in the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.

The U.S. Government also offers prizes through NASA's Centennial Challenges program. According to NASA, the awards are made based on actual achievements, not just proposals. The Centennial Challenges seek

novel solutions to NASA's mission challenges from non-traditional sources of innovation in our universities, in industry, and from the public.

Most recently, Sir Richard Branson and former Vice President Al Gore announced the Virgin Earth Challenge, a $25 million global science and technology prize. The prize was established to encourage a viable technology, which will result in the removal of at least 1 billion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year for 10 years.

It is my hope and my goal that this legislation will foster the kind of solutions we need to address the concerns about climate change. What I am proposing is that we take a new look at climate change. With that new look, our solution will be based on removing excess greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere.

We must think anew, and we must act anew. That sentence, ``we must think anew and we must act anew,'' is engraved on a scenic overlook along Interstate 80 between Cheyenne and Laramie, WY. It is engraved on the pedestal that holds a large-size bust of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was the one to have the vision for the Transcontinental Railroad. It is now time for us, as Americans, to think anew and act anew about the issue of climate change and controlling greenhouse gases.

Americans 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. The way to have both is by thinking anew and acting anew.

It is time to use our untapped human potential and American spirit to develop the technological solutions we need. It is now time for the U.S. Senate and for Congress to find a solution to global climate change, not through limits but through imagination, innovation, and invention.

I look forward to working with each and every one of you on achieving this goal.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on legislation I am introducing to address climate change.

Today, I am introducing legislation to address a major technological challenge that faces all of us. It is the challenge of how to solve the problem of the warming of our planet. This bill is called the Greenhouse Gas Emission 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 tax on carbon.

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 our carbon output. Overlooked in the debate are the greenhouse gases that are currently in the atmosphere.

The best science tells us that the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere are the gases that are causing the warming of our planet. To what extent, we are not certain. So let us resolve to find a way to remove the excess greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere. Remove them, and permanently sequester them.

To accomplish this goal, we are, as a Nation, going to need to make a significant investment to develop the technology. The approach my legislation takes to address this is through a series of financial prizes where we set the technological goals and also define the outcomes we demand.

The first researchers to meet the criteria would receive not only Federal funds, but also international acclaim. The prizes would be determined by a Federal commission under the Department of Energy. The commission would be composed of climate scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, business managers, and economists. The commission 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 would achieve milestones in developing and applying technology. Technology that could significantly help to slow or reverse the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The greenhouse gases would have to be permanently sequestered. Sequestered in a manner that would be without significant harmful effects.

This is how it would work. There would be four different levels of prizes. The first level award would go to the public or private entity that could first demonstrate a design for a successful technology that could remove and permanently sequester greenhouse gases. Second, there would be a prize for a lab scale demonstration project of the technology that accomplishes the same thing. Third, there would be an award for demonstrating the technology to remove and permanently sequester greenhouse gases that is operational at a larger, working model scale. Finally, there would be an award for whoever could demonstrate the technology to remove and permanently sequester greenhouse gases on a commercially viable scale.

There you have it--four different levels of development. First for designing the technology, then for a lab scale demonstration of the technology, then for a larger working model, and then finally, the proven use of the technology on a commercially viable scale. Once the technology is developed, the United States would share intellectual property rights to the technology with whoever invented it. This bill, as drafted, does not include a specific dollar amount for each prize. Instead, it authorizes such sums as may be necessary.

The commission will be directed to report to Congress 1 year after enactment of the law. The commission will recommend the levels of funding that would be necessary to achieve the goals of this act.

I believe prizes can be a unique tool in creating technological development. It only seems natural that if we get all the best scientific minds thinking about the same problem, we significantly enhance our chances of solving it.

Historically, prizes have been used to spur all types of technological development to solve big problems. In 1714, the British government offered the first prize of this type for a device capable of accurately measuring longitude. John Harrison, a clock maker, was awarded 20,000 pounds for designing an accurate and durable chronometer 59 years later. This transformed our ability to sail the seas.

In 1775, the French offered a 100,000-franc prize resulting in an artificial form of alkali being produced. In 1810, the first vacuum sealed food was produced by Nicolas Appert, after 15 years of experimentation, driven by a 12,000-franc prize offered by Napoleon. Today, vacuum sealing is still used throughout the world.

In 1909 the first flight across the English Channel was spurred by a prize offered by a newspaper. Charles Lindbergh was competing for the Orteig prize offered by the wealthy hotel owner Raymond Orteig, when he flew in the Spirit of St. Louis nonstop from New York to Paris in 1927. The achievement spawned a $300 billion aviation industry.

The British Spitfire, the fighter plane that won the Battle of Britain, was developed as a result of the Schneider trophy, a series of prizes for technological development.

More recent examples include the creation of the X Prize Foundation, which gives multimillion dollar awards to the first team to achieve specific goals. The X Prize Foundation began a revolution in private space flight with the $10 million Ansari X Prize.

On October 4, 2004, the Mojave Aerospace Ventures team, led by famed aircraft designer Bert Rutan and financed by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen, captured the Ansari X prize for the historic space flight of Space Ship One to space and back, twice within 2 weeks. Space Ship One is now hanging in the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.

The U.S. Government also offers prizes through NASA's Centennial Challenges program. According to NASA, the awards are made based on actual achievements, not just proposals. The Centennial Challenges seek

novel solutions to NASA's mission challenges from non-traditional sources of innovation in our universities, in industry, and from the public.

Most recently, Sir Richard Branson and former Vice President Al Gore announced the Virgin Earth Challenge, a $25 million global science and technology prize. The prize was established to encourage a viable technology, which will result in the removal of at least 1 billion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year for 10 years.

It is my hope and my goal that this legislation will foster the kind of solutions we need to address the concerns about climate change. What I am proposing is that we take a new look at climate change. With that new look, our solution will be based on removing excess greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere.

We must think anew, and we must act anew. That sentence, ``we must think anew and we must act anew,'' is engraved on a scenic overlook along Interstate 80 between Cheyenne and Laramie, WY. It is engraved on the pedestal that holds a large-size bust of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was the one to have the vision for the Transcontinental Railroad. It is now time for us, as Americans, to think anew and act anew about the issue of climate change and controlling greenhouse gases.

Americans 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. The way to have both is by thinking anew and acting anew.

It is time to use our untapped human potential and American spirit to develop the technological solutions we need. It is now time for the U.S. Senate and for Congress to find a solution to global climate change, not through limits but through imagination, innovation, and invention.

I look forward to working with each and every one of you on achieving this goal.

Mr. President, I rise today to join in recognizing Senator Trent Lott.

Less than 6 months ago, I joined the Senate. I was selected to serve out the term of our dear friend, Craig Thomas, and given the responsibility to represent the people of Wyoming.

My experience has only been enhanced by the quality of the individuals with whom I serve. The welcome has been warm, the advice gratifying, and the diversity of my colleagues remarkable.

This morning's session is about the incredible service of one exceptional Member of the Senate, Trent Lott. President Reagan once said, ``I know Trent Lott as one of the most important leaders in the country on issues vital to all Americans.''

Shortly after I joined the Senate, Senator Lott was kind enough to visit with me and share some advice. In addition to his advice on how to deal with the Senate as an institution, it was his advice of a more personal nature that is most inspiring. Senator Lott stressed that to survive the chaos and challenge of serving in the Senate, it was important to never be far from the people you love the most. It was evident from his words that the depth of love for his wife Tricia, his family, friends, and the people of Mississippi was the key to his success in Washington. His inner strength comes from the people who supported him when times were tough and challenged him when he thought all was well. It is a lesson I will remember for as long as I am fortunate enough to represent the people of Wyoming in the Senate.

If he were with us today, Senator Thomas would want to extend his heartfelt best wishes to Trent and Tricia. I know Susan Thomas wishes the entire Lott family many years of happiness and success. I join all of my colleagues in wishing all the best to this remarkable man.

I am proud to introduce the Wyoming Forest and Watershed Restoration Act of 2007. This legislation authorizes cooperative action between the U.S. Forest Service and the State of Wyoming to complete forest health projects on private, State and Federal lands.

Almost half of Wyoming's lands are controlled by Federal agencies. We have over 9 million acres of National Forest lands in Wyoming, including seven National Forests. Our State has a long history of forestry, grazing and multiple use of public lands. Recreation and tourism on our public lands is a pillar of our economy. The people of Wyoming are stewards of our public lands and our State depends on the public lands for our future.

It is my goal to enact common-sense policies that address the needs of Wyoming and sustainable management of our Federal lands. Our forests, like those of all States across the West, are facing management challenges. We have an opportunity to set policies that will encourage forest health.

We face an urgent problem with bark beetle infestation. Forests between Interstate 70 in Colorado and Interstate 80 in Wyoming are being killed by these beetles. We have thousands upon thousands of acres that are dying. On the Medicine-Bow Forest, for instance, over 75,000 acres of trees are infected by bark beetles. Forest Service analysis shows the epidemic could grow to 350,000 acres and cover approximately \1/3\ of the forest in the next few years.

We can stem the spread of this infestation and save our forests, with quick action on thousands of acres. That kind of response will take coordinated management among all partners private, State, and Federal. Preventing forest fires, addressing watershed health and conserving wildlife habitat require the same ``big picture'' thinking. We have to address threats like bark beetles by taking on forest health projects on a landscape level.

Resource issues don't stop at fencelines, and neither should our policy.

The Wyoming Forest and Watershed Restoration Act of 2007 would set in place a comprehensive management policy. This act would allow the State of Wyoming to go forward with forest health projects as agreed to by the Forest Service. The agencies can cooperatively pursue projects that address our landscape needs. Private, State, and Federal lands can get the on-the-ground management they desperately need.

I am pleased to introduce this legislation today. It is of great importance to the people of Wyoming. I hope my colleagues will proceed quickly with its passage to enhance our State's response to the growing forest health problems. The people of Wyoming demand on-the-ground results. This legislation can deliver those results. I hope we can pass it expediently.

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

I am proud to introduce the Wyoming Forest and Watershed Restoration Act of 2007. This legislation authorizes cooperative action between the U.S. Forest Service and the State of Wyoming to complete forest health projects on private, State and Federal lands.

Almost half of Wyoming's lands are controlled by Federal agencies. We have over 9 million acres of National Forest lands in Wyoming, including seven National Forests. Our State has a long history of forestry, grazing and multiple use of public lands. Recreation and tourism on our public lands is a pillar of our economy. The people of Wyoming are stewards of our public lands and our State depends on the public lands for our future.

It is my goal to enact common-sense policies that address the needs of Wyoming and sustainable management of our Federal lands. Our forests, like those of all States across the West, are facing management challenges. We have an opportunity to set policies that will encourage forest health.

We face an urgent problem with bark beetle infestation. Forests between Interstate 70 in Colorado and Interstate 80 in Wyoming are being killed by these beetles. We have thousands upon thousands of acres that are dying. On the Medicine-Bow Forest, for instance, over 75,000 acres of trees are infected by bark beetles. Forest Service analysis shows the epidemic could grow to 350,000 acres and cover approximately \1/3\ of the forest in the next few years.

We can stem the spread of this infestation and save our forests, with quick action on thousands of acres. That kind of response will take coordinated management among all partners private, State, and Federal. Preventing forest fires, addressing watershed health and conserving wildlife habitat require the same ``big picture'' thinking. We have to address threats like bark beetles by taking on forest health projects on a landscape level.

Resource issues don't stop at fencelines, and neither should our policy.

The Wyoming Forest and Watershed Restoration Act of 2007 would set in place a comprehensive management policy. This act would allow the State of Wyoming to go forward with forest health projects as agreed to by the Forest Service. The agencies can cooperatively pursue projects that address our landscape needs. Private, State, and Federal lands can get the on-the-ground management they desperately need.

I am pleased to introduce this legislation today. It is of great importance to the people of Wyoming. I hope my colleagues will proceed quickly with its passage to enhance our State's response to the growing forest health problems. The people of Wyoming demand on-the-ground results. This legislation can deliver those results. I hope we can pass it expediently.

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

Mr. President, I will ask for unanimous consent today to call up legislation that I introduced last month and seek debate and a vote on that bill today.

Before I make that request, I wish to make a brief comment about what I have seen during this morning's debate.

Prior to joining the Senate, I served as a member of the Wyoming State senate. I served as the transportation committee chairman. I served on the health committee and the minerals committee.

Legislation in the Wyoming legislature needs to be on a single subject. We are prohibited from considering legislation that includes more than one subject. As a result of the procedural requirements there, amendments to bills are narrowly targeted and need to be on the single issue of that bill. The system works well there and we get our work done.

The Senate, of course, works very differently. Comprehensive legislation often contains multiple topics. They are packaged together and brought to the floor for a single vote. Under the rules of the Senate, Members are allowed, and it is their right, to offer amendments to these large bills, such as the ones on the desk today that contain, clearly, more than one topic.

The process is challenging, but this body has agreed to do it that way. Regrettably, the majority party has tried repeatedly to alter that process and deny Members the right to offer amendments. Whether it is filling the tree, objecting to the consideration of amendments, refusing to bring bills to the floor or filing cloture motions, the majority party has abused its rights and is attempting to muzzle debate.

Fortunately, the Senate doesn't give unfettered power to any one party or any one individual. The Senate has learned over history that attempting to deny the minority their rights is not democratic and will not be supported by Members.

I was sent to be a voice for the people of Wyoming, and I take that responsibility very seriously. I encourage the majority leadership of the Senate to develop a process that allows Members to call up bills, have them debated, amended, and voted on by this body. The Senate would benefit from this and this is exactly what the public expects us to be doing.

I now turn to legislation that discourages States from issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. I introduced the bill November 13, 2007. It is S. 2334. This bill requires States to prove lawful presence before granting a driver's license. It requires States to check the Social Security numbers against the registry before offering a driver's license. States that do not comply with this would lose 10 percent of their Federal transportation funds, and those funds would then not go back to the Federal Government but would be redistributed to the other States that are in compliance with the law.

This is an issue that is vital to our national security. It is also an issue the Senate hasn't yet taken up. I believe issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants is an unacceptable and avoidable threat to our national security. We have a duty and the time is now to start this discussion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2334, a bill to withhold 10 percent of the Federal funding apportioned for highway construction and maintenance from States that issue driver's licenses to individuals without verifying the legal status of such individuals.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed; that

the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am disappointed with the objection.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

Madam President, today I join my colleagues to address an issue that is crippling America's health care system; that is, out- of-control medical malpractice costs.

Wyoming, my home State, has been listed by the AMA as one of 19 medical liability crisis States. A few years ago, one of at the time only two companies selling liability insurance in the State decided to leave, leaving over 300 physicians scrambling for liability coverage. Wyoming is losing obstetricians and gynecologists, emergency room doctors, and even general practitioners, and we are losing them because they cannot afford to pay the high cost of their liability premiums.

You may ask what is special about Wyoming in the sense that they pay exorbitant malpractice premiums and why is it so different from all of the doctors in the neighboring States. It is because all of the States bordering Wyoming have enacted liability insurance reform. Wyoming is the only State that has not. It is the ``hole in the doughnut,'' surrounded by the other States that have reform.

Providers in Wyoming fear being sued, and to compensate they spend millions and millions of dollars on what is called defensive medicine, ordering tests each year, and patients and taxpayers pick up the tab.

This liability crisis is especially unfair to rural women and children, and it is so much unfair to them because they are losing access to local doctors when they need them the most.

Rural and frontier States such as Wyoming are disproportionately impacted when a local physician who delivers babies decides to leave the State. We lost our only obstetrician/gynecologist in Wheatland, WY. He delivered babies in three counties. Wyoming is a very large State. There are only 23 counties. Many of the counties are larger than some of the States on the east coast, and he delivered babies in three counties. He left when his malpractice premiums went over $100,000 a year.

Pregnant women in Newcastle, WY, needed to travel over 80 miles to have babies delivered when practicing physicians in that community were not able to afford the cost of their liability insurance. In my own community in Casper, Dr. Hugh DePalo, who was born and raised in Casper, WY, and loved the community and wanted to live there and give back to all the people in the community, had his premiums increased 300 percent in 1 year.

Some Wyoming hospitals are paying malpractice insurance premiums that exceed the amount they receive for delivering a baby. Wyoming gynecologists/obstetricians and family physicians who deliver babies pay $20,000 to $30,000 more each year for their insurance than their counterparts in surrounding States, and that is because the State to the south, Colorado, has instituted a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages.

This is not just a financial issue, it is a recruitment issue as we try to recruit physicians in the State. We set up the Wyoming Family Practice Program, where we train young physicians to deliver babies. They are very capably trained, and yet they leave the State. The No. 1 reason people decide where they want to practice is based on where they train, but still they leave because the malpractice premiums are so much lower in the surrounding States. Why? Because the surrounding States have passed liability reforms that are so needed and are part of this bill.

This body has a responsibility to act immediately to protect access for women who are having babies in rural communities. We should set reasonable limits on noneconomic damages, we should provide for quicker reviews of liability cases, we should assure that claims are filed within a reasonable time limit, and we should educate people that frivolous lawsuits only add to the overall cost of their health care.

That is why I support Senator Gregg and the position he has taken today. His amendment would adopt a new liability model for obstetricians and gynecologists based on the highly successful stacked- cap approach. One might say: How successful is it? A large, full-page story says:

After Texas caps malpractice awards, doctors rush to

practice there.

Of all the specialities of the physicians rushing to practice in Texas, the No. 1 speciality represented in new applicants was obstetrics and gynecology, those very people who are so needed in rural communities to deliver babies.

I thank Senator Gregg for his efforts. I encourage Members to vote for the amendment. We need to help ease the struggle rural women face, rural women who are seeking access to capable physicians, not just for themselves but also for their babies.

Amendment No. 3695