Arctic Research and Policy Amendments Act of 2005

Mr. President, today Senators Hatch, Kennedy, Specter, Harkin and I are introducing legislation to ban human reproductive cloning, while ensuring that important medical research goes forward under strict oversight by the federal government.

Simply put, this legislation will enable research to be conducted that provides hope to millions of Americans suffering from paralysis and debilitating diseases including Juvenile Diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer and heart disease.

Every member of this body knows someone--whether it's a parent or grandparent, a child or a friend--who suffers from one of these diseases. That is why this legislation is so critical. We must act now to protect promising research that will bring hope to those who suffer.

I now that every member of this body would agree that human reproductive cloning is immoral and unethical. It should be outlawed by Congress and the President. That is exactly what this bill does.

It prohibits any person from conducting or attempting to clone a human being. It also prohibits shipping materials for the purpose of human cloning in interstate or foreign commerce and prohibits the export of an unfertilized blastocyst to a foreign country if such country does not prohibit human cloning.

Any person that violates this prohibition is subject to harsh criminal and civil penalties. They include: imprisonment of up to 10 years in federal prison.

Fines of up to $1 million or three times the gross profits resulting from the violation, whichever is greater.

This legislation draws a bright line between human reproductive cloning and promising medical research using somatic cell nuclear transplantation for the sole purpose of deriving embryonic stem cells.

Somatic cell nuclear transplantation is the process by which scientists derive embryonic stem cells that are an exact genetic match as the patient. Those embryonic stem cells will one day be used to correct defective cells such as non-insulin producing or cancerous cells. Then those patients will not be forced to take immuno- suppressive drugs and risk the chances of rejection since the new cells will contain their own DNA.

It is truly astonishing that somatic cell nuclear transplantation research may one day be used to regrow tissue or organs that could lead to treatments and cures for diseases that afflict up to 100 million Americans. What we are talking about here is research that does not even involve sperm and an egg.

I believe it is essential that this research be conducted with Federal Government oversight and under strict ethical requirements.

That is why the legislation: Mandates that eggs used in this research be unfertilized.

Prohibits the purchase or sale of unfertilized eggs--to prevent ``embryo farms'' or the possible exploitation of women.

Imposes strong ethics rules on scientists, mandating informed consent by egg donors, and include safety and privacy protections.

Prohibit any research on an unfertilized blastocyst after 14 days-- After 14 days, an unfertilized blastocyst begins differentiating into a specific type of cell such as a heart or brain cell and is no longer useful for the purposes of embryonic stem cell research.

Requires that all egg donations be voluntary, and that there is no financial or other incentive for egg donations.

Requires that nuclear transportation occur in labs completely separate from labs that engage in in vitro fertilization.

And for those who violate or attempt to violate the ethical requirements of the legislation, they will be subject to civil penalties of up to $250,000 per violation.

Embryonic stem cell research that is currently being done using private funds, in animal models, and by scientists overseas continues to show great promise and potential. This progress will not be sustained in the U.S. without additional stem cell lines for federally- funded research and without strict federal oversight of this research.

Senator Hatch and I have argued this point for years. What has happened since the President limited federally-funded research to only those embryonic stem cell lines derived prior to August 9, 2001?

Researchers have made a number of advancements confirming the promise of embryonic stem cells using animal models and private research dollars. In the absence of federal policy on embryonic stem cell research and human reproductive cloning, States have taken action creating a patchwork of state laws under varying ethical frameworks. Fewer researchers are choosing to go into this field given the void created by Federal inaction.

Last January, a study published by researchers from the University of California San Diego and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies confirmed that all 22 existing federally-approved stem cell lines are tainted by mouse feeders cells and cannot be used in humans.

Researchers at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, MA, used embryonic stem cells created by somatic cell nuclear transplantation to cure a genetic defect in mice.

Researchers at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York found that embryonic stem cells produce proteins

that can help ailing organs repair themselves.

Stanford scientists were able to relieve diabetes symptoms in mice by using special chemicals to transform undifferentiated embryonic stem cells of mice into cell masses that resemble islets found in the mouse pancreas.

In the absence of federal legislation, we have seen a patchwork of State laws under varying ethical frameworks and this is extremely worrisome. In total, 30 States have passed laws pertaining to stem cell research and there is tremendous variety in those laws.

California launched a $3 billion initiative to fund embryonic stem cell research including somatic cell nuclear transplantation research which bans human reproductive cloning.

At least 6 academic centers in California including UC San Francisco, Stanford, UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC Irvine and UC Davis have already begun developing facilities where this embryonic stem cell research will be conducted and are all actively recruiting stem cell biologists from across the country.

New Jersey has proposed a $380 million initiative to fund embryonic stem cell research.

Wisconsin has proposed investing $750 million to support embryonic stem cell research.

By contrast, Arkansas, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota and Michigan have specifically prohibited nuclear transfer used to create stem cells. And 22 other States have enacted laws on the matter.

What this means is researchers and research money are now moving to States with pro-research laws and pro-research Governors.

There is clearly a void that needs to be filled--and it can only be filled by the Federal Government.

To be clear, this is research that involves an unfertilized blastocyst. No sperm are involved. It is conducted in a petri dish and cannot occur beyond 14 days. It is also prohibited from ever being implanted into a woman to create a child.

For those who believe that the clump of cells in a petri dish that we are talking about is a human life, that is a moral decision each person must make for himself, but to impose that view on the more than 100 million of our parents, children and friends who suffer from Parkinson's, diabetes, Alzheimer's and cancer is immoral.

As former Senator and Episcopal minister John C. Danforth said recently in an op-ed in the New York Times, ``Criminalizing the work of scientists doing such research would give strong support to one religious doctrine, and it would punish people who believe it is their religious duty to use science to heal the sick.

This is exactly why the legislation I am introducing with my colleagues Senators Hatch, Kennedy, Specter and Harkin is needed. I urge the Senate to take up and pass this bill and help turn the hopes of millions of Americans into reality.

I ask unanimous consent that the attached letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill with my colleagues Senators Snowe, Corzine, Leahy, Cantwell, Collins, Durbin, Schumer and Jeffords to close the SUV loophole.

This bill would increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for SUVs and other light duty trucks. It would close the ``SUV Loophole'' and require that SUVs meet the same fuel efficiency standards as passenger cars by 2011.

Crude oil prices remain above $50/barrel. On April 1, 2005, crude oil prices hit a record high of $57.70/barrel. Prices at the gas pump continue to soar as well. Today, the average price for regular gasoline was $2.24 per gallon. In California, the average price is almost $2.60.

This is not a problem we can drill our way out of. Global oil demand is rising. China imports more than 40 percent of its record 6.4 million-barrel-per-day oil demand and its consumption is growing by 7.5 percent per year, seven times faster than the U.S.

India imports approximately 70 percent of its oil, which is projected to rise to more than 90 percent by 2020. Their rapidly growing economies are fueling their growing dependence on oil--which makes continued higher prices inevitable.

The most effective step we can take to reduce gas prices is to reduce demand. We must use our finite fuel supplies more wisely.

This legislation is an important first step to limit our nation's dependence on oil and better protect our environment.

If implemented, closing the SUV Loophole would: save the U.S. 1 million barrels of oil a day and reduce our dependence on oil imports by 10 percent.

Prevent about 240 million tons of carbon dioxide--the top greenhouse gas and biggest single cause of global warming from entering the atmosphere each year.

Save SUV and light duty truck owners hundreds of dollars each year in gasoline costs.

CAFE Standards were first established in 1975. At that time, light trucks made up only a small percentage of the vehicles on the road, they were used mostly for agriculture and commerce, not as passenger cars.

Today, our roads look much different, SUVs and light duty trucks comprise more than half of the new car sales in the United States. As a result, the overall fuel economy of our Nation's fleet is the lowest it has been in two decades, because fuel economy standards for these vehicles are so much lower than they are for other passenger vehicles.

The bill we are introducing today would change that. SUVs and other light duty trucks would have to meet the same fuel economy requirements by 2011 that passenger cars meet today.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, has proposed phasing in an increase in fuel economy standards for SUVs and light trucks under the following schedule: by 2005, SUVs and light trucks would have to average 21.0 miles per gallon; by 2006, SUVs and light trucks would have to average 21.6 miles per gallon; and by 2007, SUVs and light trucks would have to average 22.2 miles per gallon.

In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, released a report stating that adequate lead time can bring about substantive increases in fuel economy standards. Automakers can meet higher CAFE standards if existing technologies are utilized and included in new models of SUVs and light trucks.

In 2003, the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said he favored an increase in vehicle fuel economy standards beyond the 1.5-mile-per-gallon hike slated to go into effect by 2007. ``We can do better,'' said Jeffrey Runge in an interview with Congressional Green Sheets. ``The overriding goal here is better fuel economy to decrease our reliance on foreign oil without compromising safety or American jobs,'' he said.

With this in mind, we have developed the following phase-in schedule which would follow up on what NHTSA has proposed for the short term and remain consistent with what the NAS report said is technologically feasible over the next decade or so: by model year 2008, SUVs and light duty vehicles would have to average 23.5 miles per gallon; by model year 2009, SUVs and light duty vehicles would have to average 24.8 miles per gallon; by model year 2010, SUVs and light duty vehicles would have to average 26.1 miles per gallon, by model year 2011, SUVs and light duty vehicles would have to average 27.5 miles per gallon.

This legislation would do two other things: it would mandate that by 2008 the average fuel economy of the new vehicles comprising the Federal fleet must be 3 miles per gallon higher than the baseline average fuel economy for that class. And by 2011, the average fuel economy of the new federal vehicles must be 6 miles per gallon higher than the baseline average fuel economy for that class.

The bill also increases the weight limit within which vehicles are bound by CAFE standards to make it harder for automotive manufacturers to build SUVs large enough to become exempted from CAFE standards. Because SUVs are becoming larger and larger, some may become so large that they will no longer qualify as even SUVs anymore.

We are introducing this legislation because we believe that the United States needs to take a leadership role in the fight against global warming.

We have already seen the potential destruction that global warming can cause in the United States.

Snowpacks in the Sierra Nevada are shrinking and will almost entirely disappear by the end of the century, devastating the source of California's water.

Eskimos are being forced inland in Alaska as their native homes on the coastline are melting into the sea.

Glaciers are disappearing in Glacier National Park in Montana. In 100 years, the park has gone from having 150 glaciers to fewer than 30. And the 30 that remain are two-thirds smaller than they once were.

Beyond our borders, scientists are predicting how the impact of global warming will be felt around the globe.

It has been estimated that two-thirds of the glaciers in western China will melt by 2050, seriously diminishing the water supply for the region's 300 million inhabitants. Additionally, the disappearance of glaciers in the Andes in Peru is projected to leave the population without an adequate water supply during the summer.

The United States is the largest energy consumer in the world, with 4 percent of the world's population using 25 percent of the planet's energy.

And much of this energy is used in cars and light trucks: 43 percent of the oil we use goes into our vehicles and one-third of all carbon dioxide emissions come from our transportation sector.

The U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world in the development of more fuel efficient automobiles. Quarterly auto sales reflect that consumers are buying smaller more fuel efficient cars and sales of the big, luxury vehicles that are the preferred vehicle of the American automakers have dropped significantly.

Even SUV sales have slowed. First quarter 2005 deliveries of these vehicles are down compared to the same period last year--for example, sales of the Ford Excursion is down by 29.5 percent, the Cadillac Escalade by 19.9 percent, and the Toyota Sequoia by 12.6 percent.

On the other hand, the Toyota Prius hybrid had record sales in March with a 160.9 percent increase over the previous year.

The struggling U.S. auto market cannot afford to fall behind in the development of fuel efficient vehicles. Our bill sets out a reasonable time frame for car manufacturers to design vehicles that are more fuel efficient and that will meet the growing demand for more fuel efficient vehicles.

We can do this, and we can do this today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am offering a measure which could serve as a first step towards eliminating the inequities borne by the dairy farmers of Wisconsin and the upper Midwest under the Federal Milk Marketing Order system.

The Federal Milk Marketing Order system, created nearly 60 years ago, establishes minimum prices for milk paid to producers throughout various marketing areas in the U.S. For sixty years, this system has discriminated against producers in the Upper Midwest by awarding a higher price to dairy farmers in proportion to the distance of their farms from areas of high milk production, which historically have been the region around Eau Claire, WI.

My legislation is very simple. It identifies the single most harmful and unjust feature of the current system, and corrects it. Under the current archaic law, the price farmers receive for fluid milk is higher the further they are from the Eau Claire region of the Upper Midwest. This provision originally was intended to guarantee the supply of fresh milk from the high production areas to distant markets in an age of difficult transportation and limited refrigeration. But the situation has long since changed and the provision persists at the detriment of the Wisconsin farmers even though most local milk markets do not receive any milk from Wisconsin.

The bill I introduce today would prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from using distance or transportation costs from any location as the basis for pricing milk, unless significant quantities of milk are actually transported from that location into the recipient market. The Secretary will have to comply with the statutory requirement that supply and demand factors be considered as specified in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act when setting milk prices in marketing orders. The fact remains that single-basing-point pricing simply cannot be justified based on supply and demand for milk both in local and national markets and the changing pattern of U.S. milk production.

This bill also requires the Secretary to report to Congress on specifically which criteria are used to set milk prices. Finally, the Secretary will have to certify to Congress that the criteria used by the Department do not in any way attempt to circumvent the prohibition on using distance or transportation cost as basis for pricing milk.

This one change is vitally important to Upper Midwest producers, because the current system has penalized them for many years. The current system is a double whammy to Upper Midwest dairy farmers--it both provides disparate profits for producers in other parts of the country and creates artificial economic incentives for milk production. As a result, Wisconsin producers have seen national surpluses rise, and milk prices fall. Rather than providing adequate supplies of fluid milk, the prices often lead to excess production.

The prices have provided production incentives beyond those needed to ensure a local supply of fluid milk in some regions, leading to an increase in manufactured products in those marketing orders. Those manufactured products directly compete with Wisconsin's processed products, eroding our markets and driving national prices down.

The perverse nature of this system is further illustrated by the fact that since 1995, some regions of the U.S., notably the central states and the Southwest, are producing so much milk that they are actually shipping fluid milk north to the Upper Midwest. The high fluid milk prices have generated so much excess production, that these markets distant from Eau Claire are now encroaching upon not only our manufactured markets, but also our markets for fluid milk, further eroding prices in Wisconsin.

The market-distorting effects of the fluid price differentials in federal orders are shown by a previous Congressional Budget Office analysis that estimated that the elimination of orders would save $669 million over five years. Government outlays would fall, CBO concluded, because production would fall in response to lower milk prices and there would be fewer government purchases of surplus milk. The regions that would gain and lose in this scenario illustrate the discrimination inherent to the current system. Economic analyses showed that farm revenues in a market undisturbed by Federal orders would actually increase in the Upper Midwest and fall in most other milk-producing regions.

While this system has been around since 1937, the practice of basing fluid milk price differentials on the distance from Eau Claire was formalized in the 1960s, when the Upper Midwest arguably was the primary reserve for additional supplies of milk. The idea was to encourage local supplies of fluid milk in areas of the country that did not traditionally produce enough fluid milk to meet their own needs.

That is no longer the case. The Upper Midwest is no longer the primary source of reserve supplies of milk. Unfortunately, the prices didn't adjust with changing economic conditions, most notably the shift of the dairy industry away from the Upper Midwest and towards the Southwest, and specifically California, which now leads the nation in milk production.

The result of this antiquated system has been a decline in the Upper Midwest dairy industry, not because it can't produce a product that can compete in the marketplace, but because the system discriminates against it. Over the past few years Wisconsin has lost dairy farmers at a rate of more than 5 per day. The Upper Midwest, with the lowest fluid milk prices, is shrinking as a dairy region despite the dairy-friendly climate of the region. Some other regions with higher fluid milk prices are growing rapidly.

In a free market with a level playing field, these shifts in production might be fair. But in a market where the government is setting the prices and providing that artificial advantage to regions outside the Upper Midwest, the current system is unconscionable.

I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and bring reform to this outdated system and work to eliminate the inequities in the current milk marketing order pricing system.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original co-sponsor of legislation to designate more than one million acres of Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands in Utah as wilderness.

I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah. I viewed firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery County government.

I support this legislation for a number of reasons, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the BLM lands of Southern Utah.

Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the broadest and boldest mark for the lands that should be protected in Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. Unfortunately, the Senate has not always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in Southern Utah. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing that Congress's Omnibus Parks legislation. It contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home state of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964.

The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents have described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of Madison, Wisconsin's Capital Times wrote:

Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first

daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all

Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado

Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include

some of the last of our country's wilderness, which is not

fully protected.

We must ask our elected officials to redress this

circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect

those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This

wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we

can be forever proud to bestow to our children.

I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description in words. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hikers and sightseers to hunters.

Phil Haslanger of the Capital Times, answered an important question I am often asked when people want to know why a Senator from Wisconsin would co-sponsor legislation to protect lands in Utah. He wrote on September 13, 1995 simply that:

``These are not scenes that you could see in Wisconsin.

That's part of what makes them special.''

He continues, and adds what I think is an even more important reason to act to protect these lands than the landscape's uniqueness:

``the fight over wilderness lands in Utah is a test case of

sorts. The anti-environmental factions in Congress are trying

hard to remove restrictions on development in some of the

nation's most splendid areas.''

Ten years later, Wisconsinites are still watching this test case. I believe that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the Nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. What Haslanger's comments make clear is that while some in Congress may express concern about creating new wilderness in Utah, wilderness, as Wisconsinites know, is not created by legislation. Legislation to protect existing wilderness simply ensures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise.

Finally, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the Federal Government for the people of the United States. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin, as it is for other Americans.

I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Santorum, Schumer, and DeMint in introducing the ASPIRE Act of 2005, which would expand opportunities for young adults, encourage savings, and promote financial literacy, by establishing investment accounts, known as KIDS Accounts, for every child in America.

ASPIRE is based largely on a similar initiative in the United Kingdom developed by Prime Minister Tony Blair. Yet despite its British roots, the proposal is based on the most basic of American values. By giving every young person resources with which to get a start in life, ASPIRE will help realize the American ideal of equal opportunity. And by making every young person an investor, the proposal would encourage self reliance, promote savings, and give every family a personal stake in America's economy.

Under ASPIRE, an investment account would be established for every American child upon receiving a Social Security number. Each account would be funded initially with $500. Those with incomes less than the national median would receive an additional contribution of up to $500, and would receive a one-for-one government match for their first $500 of private contributions each year. Up to $1000 of after-tax private contributions would be allowed annually from any source.

Funds would accumulate tax-free and could not be withdrawn for purposes other than higher education until the child reaches the age of 18. At that point, funds could be withdrawn, according to Roth IRA guidelines, either for higher education or for the purchase of a home. Funds left unspent would be saved for retirement under rules similar to those that apply to Roth IRAs or rolled over to a 529 plan for educational expenses. Once the account holder reaches the age of 30, the initial $500 government contribution would have to be repaid, though exceptions could be made to avoid undue hardship.

Accounts initially would be held by a government entity that would be based on the successful Thrift Savings Plan, or TSP, which now manages retirement accounts for Federal employees with relatively low administrative costs. As with the TSP, investors would have a range of investment options, such as a Government securities fund, a fixed income investment fund, and a common stock fund. However, once an account holder reaches the age of 18, funds could be rolled over to a KIDS Account held at a private institution.

It is difficult to understate the potential impact of giving every American child a funded investment account of their own. For the first time, every child will have a meaningful incentive to learn the basics of investing, because they will have real resources to invest. For the first time, even families with modest incomes will have a significant incentive to save, to earn the government match. And, perhaps most fundamentally, for the first time, every American child will grow up knowing that when they reach adulthood, they will have the ability to invest in themselves and in their own education. In short, every child will have hope for a real future.

Considering its potentially significant social and individual benefits, the ASPIRE Act requires an investment that is relatively modest. It has been

estimated that, when it becomes effective, the bill's cost would represent only about one tenth of one percent of the Federal budget. Yet the proposal differs from other proposals for new spending or tax cuts because, for the first 18 years, it would not reduce overall national savings at all. In that period, virtually every dollar of outlays would be saved, and would be available to expand long-term economic growth. In fact, the proposal would lead to an increase in national savings because of its incentives for families to save more. This would help create the economic growth we need to handle the added burdens associated with the impending retirement of the baby boomers.

Senator Santorum and I are excited to be joined this year by Senators Schumer and DeMint as sponsors of ASPIRE, along with sponsors of identical legislation in the House, Congressmen Harold Ford, Patrick Kennedy, Thomas Petri and Phil English. In that process, we have been assisted by a broad range of experts and other interested parties, for which I am very grateful. However, I want to especially thank Ray Boshara and Reid Cramer of the New America Foundation, who have been extraordinarily helpful in the development of the legislation, and who have taken the lead in efforts to promote this and other asset building initiatives.

Mr. President, the ASPIRE Act is a big new idea based on simple, old time American values. It already enjoys strong bipartisan support from conservatives and progressives, alike, in both houses of Congress. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to secure its prompt enactment.

Mr. President, today, along with Senator Lautenberg, I am introducing legislation, the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti- Drilling Act, or COAST Anti-Drilling Act, to ban oil and gas drilling off the Mid-Atlantic and Northern Atlantic coast.

The people of New Jersey, and other residents of States along the Atlantic Coast, do not want oil or gas rigs anywhere near their treasured beaches and fishing grounds. Such drilling poses serious threats not only to our environment, but to our economy, which depends heavily on tourism along our shore. Coastal tourism is New Jersey's second-largest industry, and the New Jersey Shore is one of the fastest growing regions in the country. According to the New Jersey Department of Commerce, tourism in the Garden State generates more than $31 billion in spending, directly and indirectly supports more than 836,000 jobs, more than 20 percent of total State employment, generates more than $16.6 billion in wages, and brings in more than $5.5 billion in tax revenues to the State.

Until the Bush administration came into office, there was no reason to suspect that drilling was even a remote possibility. Since 1982, a statutory moratorium on leasing activities in most Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, areas has been included annually in Interior appropriations acts. In addition, President George H.W. Bush declared a leasing moratorium on many OCS areas on June 26, 1990, under section 12 of the OCS Lands Act. On June 12, 1998, President Clinton used the same authority to issue a memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior that extended the moratorium through 2012 and included additional OCS areas.

Given the longstanding consensus against drilling in these areas, I was deeply disturbed to discover that on May 31, 2001, the Minerals Management Service released a request for proposals, RFP, to conduct a study of the environmental impacts of drilling in the Mid- and North- Atlantic. The RFP noted that ``there are areas with some reservoir potential, for example off the coast of New Jersey.'' In addition, the RFP explained that the study would be conducted ``in anticipation of managing the exploitation of potential and proven reserves.'' I believed that the RFP was inappropriate and misguided, and I was pleased when at my urging and the urging of other coastal Senators, the administration rescinded it.

After our strong bipartisan coalition fought off the Department of the Interior RFP, our coastal coalition came together again to fight off the Outer Continental Shelf inventory provisions of last year's energy bill. The bill directed the Department of the Interior to inventory all potential oil and natural gas resources in the entire Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off of the New Jersey coast. The bill would have allowed the use of seismic surveys, dart core sampling, and other exploration technologies, all of which would leave these areas vulnerable to oil spills, drilling discharges and damage to coastal wetlands.

These provisions run directly counter to language that Congress has included annually in appropriations bills to prevent leasing, preleasing, and related activities in most areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off the New Jersey coast. Fortunately, this provision was dropped last year, but it is likely that it will resurface during debate on the Energy bill this year, and it is clear that we need to once and for all ban drilling off the coast of New Jersey and the rest of the Mid- and North-Atlantic.

So considering the minimal benefit and significant downside of drilling off the coast of New Jersey, it is not worth threatening over 800,000 New Jersey jobs to recover what the MMS estimated in 2000 to be 196 million barrels

of oil, only enough to last the country barely 10 days.

I certainly don't think it is worth the risk, and it is time for Congress to act to resolve this question once and for all. That is why I am introducing the COAST Anti-Drilling Act. The Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti-Drilling Act would permanently ban drilling for oil, gas and other minerals in the Mid- and North-Atlantic.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation. Doing so would ensure the people of New Jersey and neighboring States that they need not fear the specter of oil rigs off their beaches.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee and eleven other Senators, I rise to introduce the ``Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act,'' a bill to convert the annual budget and appropriations process to a two-year cycle and to enhance oversight of federal programs.

Our most recent experience with the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act shows the need for a biennial appropriations and budget process. That one bill clearly demonstrated Congress is incapable of completing the budget, authorizing, and appropriations process on an annual basis. That 1,000 plus paged bill contained nine of the regular appropriations bills.

Congress should now act to streamline the system by moving to a two-

year, or biennial, budget process. This is the most important reform we can enact to streamline the budget process, to make the Senate a more deliberative and effective institution, and to make us more accountable to the American people.

Moving to a biennial budget and appropriations process enjoys very broad support. President Bush has supported a biennial budgeting process. Presidents Clinton, Reagan and Bush also proposed a biennial appropriations and budget cycle. Leon Panetta, who served as White House Chief of Staff, OMB Director, and House Budget Committee Chairman, has advocated a biennial budget since the late 1970s. Former OMB and CBO Director Alice Rivlin has called for a biennial budget the past two decades. The Majority Leader is a co-sponsor of this legislation.

Vice President Gore's National Performance Review and the 1993 Joint Committee on the Reorganization of Congress both recommended a biennial appropriations and budget cycle.

A biennial budget will dramatically improve the current budget process. The current annual budget process is redundant, inefficient, and destined for failure each year. Look at what we struggle to complete each year under the current annual process. The annual budget process consumes three years: one year for the Administration to prepare the President's budget, another year for the Congress to put the budget into law, and the final year to actually execute the budget.

Today, I want to focus just on the Congressional budget process, the process of annually passing a budget resolution, authorization legislation, and multiple appropriation bills. The record clearly shows that last year's experience was nothing new. Under the annual process, we consistently fail to complete action on multiple appropriations bills, to authorize programs, and to meet our deadlines.

While we have made a number of improvements in the budget process, the current annual process is redundant and inefficient. The Senate has the same debate, amendments and votes on the same issue three or four times a year--once on the budget resolution, again on the authorization bill, and finally on the appropriations bill.

A few years ago, I asked the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to update and expand upon an analysis of the amount of time we spend on the budget. CRS looked at all votes on appropriations, revenue, reconciliation, and debt limit measures as well as budget resolutions. CRS then examined any other vote dealing with budgetary levels, Budget Act waivers, or votes pertaining to the budget process. Beginning with 1980, budget related votes started dominating the work of the Senate. In 1996, 73 percent of the votes the Senate took were related to the budget.

If we cannot adequately focus on our duties because we are constantly debating the budget throughout the authorizing, budgeting, and appropriations process, just imagine how confused the American public is about what we are doing. The result is that the public does not understand what we are doing and it breeds cynicism about our government.

Under the legislation I am introducing today, the President would submit a 2-year budget and Congress would consider a 2-year budget resolution and 2-year appropriation bills during the first session of a Congress. The second session of the Congress would be devoted to consideration of authorization bills and for oversight of government agencies.

Most of the arguments against a biennial budget process will come from those who claim we cannot predict or plan on a two year basis. For most of the budget, we do not actually budget on an annual basis. Our entitlement and revenue laws are under permanent law and Congress does not change these laws on an annual basis. The only component of the budget that is set in law annually are the appropriated, or discretionary, accounts.

The most predictable category of the budget are these appropriated, or discretionary, accounts of the federal government. Much of this spending is associated with international activities or emergencies. Because most of this funding cannot be predicted on an annual basis, a biennial budget is no less deficient than the current annual process. My bill does not preclude supplemental appropriations necessary to meet these emergency or unanticipated requirements.

In 1993 I had the honor to serve as co-Chairman on a Joint Committee that studied the operations of the Congress. Senator Byrd testified before that Committee that the increasing demands put on us as Senators has led to our ``fractured attention.'' We simply are too busy to adequately focus on the people's business. This legislation is designed to free up time and focus our attention, particularly with respect to the oversight of Federal programs and activities.

Frankly, the limited oversight we are now doing is not as good as it should be. Our authorizing committees are increasingly crowded out of the legislative process. Under a biennial budget, the second year of the biennium will be exclusively devoted to examining federal programs and developing authorization legislation. The calendar will be free of the budget and appropriations process, giving these committees the time and opportunity to provide oversight, review and legislate changes to federal programs. Oversight and the authorization should be an ongoing process, but a biennial appropriations process will provide greater opportunity for legislators to concentrate on programs and policies in the second year.

Mr. President, a biennial budget cannot make the difficult decisions that must be made in budgeting, but it can provide the tools necessary to make much better decisions. Under the current annual budget process we are constantly spending the taxpayers' money instead of focusing on how best and most efficiently we should spend the taxpayers' money. By moving to a biennial budget cycle, we can plan, budget, and appropriate more effectively, strengthen oversight and watchdog functions, and improve the efficiency of government agencies.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce America's Red Rock Wilderness Act of 2005. This legislation continues our Nation's commitment to preserve our natural heritage. Preservation of our Nation's vital natural resources will be one of our most important legacies.

Unfortunately, remaining wilderness areas are increasingly threatened and degraded by oil and gas development, mining, claims of rights of way, logging and off-road vehicles. America's Red Rock Wilderness Act will designate 9.5 million acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, in Utah as wilderness under the Wilderness Act. Wilderness designation will preserve the land's wilderness character, along with the values associated with that wilderness; scenic beauty, solitude, wildlife, geological features, archaeological sites, and other features of scientific, educational and historical value.

America's Red Rock Wilderness Act will provide wilderness protection for red rock cliffs offering spectacular vistas of rare rock formations, canyons and desert lands, important archaeological sites, and habitat for rare plant and animal species.

Volunteers have taken inventories of thousands of square miles of BLM land in Utah to help determine which lands should be protected. These volunteers provided extensive documentation to ensure that these areas meet Federal wilderness criteria. The BLM also completed a reinventory of approximately 6 million acres of Federal land in the same area. The results provide a convincing confirmation that the areas designated for protection under this bill meet Federal wilderness criteria.

For more than 20 years Utah conservationists have been working to add the last great blocks of undeveloped BLM-administered land in Utah to the National Wilderness Preservation System. The lands proposed for protection

surround and connect eight of Utah's nine national park, monument and recreation areas. These proposed BLM wilderness areas easily equal their neighboring national parklands in scenic beauty, opportunities for recreation, and ecological importance. Yet, unlike the parks, most of these scenic treasures lack any form of long-term protection.

While my legislation would unambiguously protect Utah's red rock wilderness, the question of preserving these lands for future generations now also looms before the BLM. Not since the BLM conducted its inventories of Utah public lands in the early 1980s has the agency had such a promising opportunity to recognize and care for Utah's wilderness. Whether the BLM realizes this opportunity has yet to be seen.

Today, nearly 6 million acres of wildlands that my legislation would protect are involved in the BLM's land use planning process. As I understand, the BLM will be making lasting decisions about what places should be preserved or developed, roaded or left unroaded, or designated for off-road vehicle travel. These policies will stand for as much as 15 to 20 years, a timespan long enough to leave a lasting mark on this landscape.

We must be clear about the impact of these plans. Fundamentally, the administration is choosing how it will act as stewards for our wild and scenic places. These plans in Utah will profoundly influence many fragile desert lands that would be protected under America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. Places like the San Rafael Swell, the Book Cliffs, the Canyonlands Basin, and Moab/La Sal Region now hang in the balance.

I believe Americans understand the need for wise and balanced stewardship of these wild landscapes. Unfortunately, the administration has proposed little or no serious protections for Utah's most majestic places. Instead, the BLM appears to lack a solid conservation ethic and routinely favors development and consumptive uses of our wild public land.

The administration has a decidedly different approach on the fate of some of our remaining wilderness. Under the Price plan, the BLM leaves 98 percent of the region's lands in America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, outside of already protected areas, open to oil and gas drilling. Sadly, the Green River, which cuts deep into the rugged Book Cliffs forming the sandstone cliffs of Desolation Canyon, and other natural wonders are being jeopardized by the BLM for a negligible amount of oil.

The BLM has made important headway in protecting America's Red Rock Wilderness from off-road vehicle abuse, but more can still be done to safely and effectively plan for off-road vehicle recreation. Just 5 years ago, 94 percent of BLM public land in Utah lacked protection from motorized vehicle abuse. As open BLM areas, many fragile lands in America's Red Rock Wilderness Act and elsewhere were vulnerable to off- road vehicle abuse. Since this free-for-all era, BLM trail designations have helped to educate motorized users and direct use to appropriate areas. Stewardship over the long-term is still needed to ensure that our wilderness legacy remains intact.

America's Red Rock Wilderness Act is a lasting gift to the American public. By protecting this serene yet wild land we are giving future generations the opportunity to enjoy the same untrammeled landscape that so many now cherish.

I'd like to thank all of my colleagues who are original cosponsors of this measure this year, many of whom have supported the bill since it was first introduced. The original cosponsors of the measure are Senators Stabenow, Wyden, Feingold, Lautenberg, Bayh, Leahy, Lieberman, Boxer, Kennedy, Reed, Clinton, Corzine and Kerry. Additionally, I would like to thank The Utah Wilderness Coalition, which includes The Wilderness Society and Sierra Club; The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance; and all of the other national, regional and local, hard- working groups who, for years, have championed this legislation.

Theodore Roosevelt once stated:

The Nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources

as assets which it must turn over to the next generation

increased and not impaired in value.

Enactment of this legislation will help us realize Roosevelt's vision. In order to protect these precious resources in Utah for future generations, I urge my colleagues to support America's Red Rock Wilderness Act.