Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation Settlement Act

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill which is sponsored by myself and 20 other Members of the Senate.

The purpose of this bill is to put some control over spending--or at least put procedures in--to allow us as a Congress to begin to control spending.

I think we all recognize that in the short run we are headed toward a budget that looks like it may actually move toward balance. We have seen some very significant, positive gains. A deficit that was supposed to be about $425 billion this year is down to about $300 billion, and it may well go below that. That does not solve our problem even though we have gotten things moving the right way because in the outyears we face a fiscal crisis. That is reflected in this chart.

The fact is, there is facing this country a situation where we have a generation known as the baby boom generation which is such a large generation that it has basically overwhelmed the systems of America at each point in its evolution. It started out in the early 1950s and late 1940s. It overwhelmed the school systems it was so big. As it moved forward in the 1960s, it created the civil rights movement, and in the 1980s and 1990s it created the greatest prosperity in the history of our country as a result of its size and productivity.

But now that generation is beginning to retire. It will start to retire in the year 2008. It will be fully retired by the year 2020. It will be the largest retired generation in the history of our Nation by a factor of two. There will essentially be 70 million people retiring during that period.

What are the implications? The implications are rather severe for our Nation's fiscal policy, and especially for our children. All of our retirement systems in this Nation--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--all our major safety nets were built around the concept created by FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that there would always be many more people working than retiring.

In fact, in the early 1950s there were about 12 people working and paying into the Social Security system for every one person taking it out of Social Security. Today there are about three and a half people working for every one person who is retired. By the years 2020 to 2025, there will only be two people working for every one person taking out of the system. That means this pyramid concept goes to a rectangle, and our children and our grandchildren who will then be the working people in America will not be able to support the benefit structure which is in place for the retired.

This chart reflects the dramatic effect of this situation rather starkly. The blue line represents what percent of gross national product the Federal Government usually spends. Historically, since World War II, the Federal Government has spent about 20 percent of the gross national product. The red line represents three programs in the Federal process: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The red line grows dramatically beginning in about the year 2008 and proceeds at an exponential rate of growth, so that by the years 2025 to 2028 those three programs alone will actually cost more than 20 percent of the gross national product of America.

What does that mean? It means if we were to spend the historic amount we have spent on the Federal Government, those three programs would use up all that money and there would be no money available for education, for national defense, for laying out roads, for health care for everyone else, other than those who are retired, or for anything else the Federal Government is supposed to do. Everything would have to be spent on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It does not stop there. It continues up at a rather dramatic movement.

The point, of course, is that our children will have to pay the cost. They will find themselves confronted with a dramatic increase in tax burden unless we address the cost of those programs from the spending side.

The point, also, is we really cannot tax our way out of this problem. We cannot possibly raise taxes high enough to keep up with the cost of these programs and still have a viable country. If we did that, we would eliminate the ability of our children to buy a new home, to send their kids to college, to even buy cars. The lifestyle of an American, our children and our grandchildren, would be dramatically reduced-- their quality of life--were we to raise taxes to try to keep up with this rate of growth of spending.

Again, it is not a revenue problem; it is a spending problem. That is important to stress. In fact, if you look at the revenues over the last few years, this reinforces this point. Revenues dropped precipitously at the beginning of this President's term for two reasons. One, we had the largest bubble in the history of the world, the Internet bubble, back in the late 1990s, where we were essentially producing false income, paper returns through the issuance of stock which wasn't backed up by productive companies. This bubble burst, and it was the biggest bubble in history, bigger than the tulip or south seas bubble. And the effect of it was to cause our economy to retrench.

Then we had the attack of September 11, which dramatically impacted our psyche as a nation. Obviously, it had a horrific effect in the area of loss of lives, but it had a dramatic effect on our economy. Those two back-to-back events basically forced a significant drop in revenues.

So President Bush came in and said: Let's try to get out of this recession--and it was a shallow recession but would have headed a lot deeper--by cutting taxes and giving people an incentive to be more productive. We have heard a lot from the other side about how it is terrible we cut taxes at the beginning of this administration. But what those tax cuts did was create an atmosphere where people who wanted to be entrepreneurial, who wanted to go out and take risks, who were willing to put their own personal efforts and their dollars behind an effort to be productive, and, thus, create jobs, did exactly that.

Then the economy started to recover. We had 39 straight months of recovery. We had one of the largest expansions of the post-World-War II period. The practical effect of that is that we have created more economic activity, created

more jobs, and created more revenue to the Federal Government. So in the last 2 years, the revenue to the Federal Government has actually jumped greater in a 2-year period than at any time in the post-World- War II period. Each of the last 2 years has had historic increases of revenues for the Federal Government.

We are at a point where revenues are essentially at the same place they would be over history as a percent of gross national product. We are essentially generating about the same amount of revenue we have always generated to the Federal Government.

The other side of the aisle says: Let's raise taxes some more. That is not going to help because we are already generating as much revenue as we usually generate. We are doing it the right way, with a fair tax system, telling entrepreneurs to make jobs and create risks. We have created jobs and given revenues to the Federal Government.

The real issue is, you have to be willing to address spending, which is what the chart shows. A group on our side of the aisle said: How do you do this? Probably the way to do it is to put in place a series of processes in the Senate and in the House, which basically forced the Congress to address the public policy issues of reducing the rate of growth and spending for the Federal Government. This is very difficult for an elected body. We know it is a natural tendency of an elected body to spend more money because people come to you and say: We need this for that. Usually the stories are compelling and the purposes are good.

The simple fact is, we cannot afford to spend all the money that people want to spend, and we need to have some mechanisms around here which energize an atmosphere of producing fiscal responsibility, delivering government that is efficient, delivering government that is effective, delivering government that people get what they expect, and, also, get their dollars used efficiently and effectively to produce a government that works.

So we are suggesting a program that basically renews, redesigns; it reforms, it rebuilds the Federal system relative to how we are going to spend money and makes sure we spend it effectively so we give people an affordable government, something that delivers the type of services they need but does it in a way that can be afforded. That is our goal. Our goal, essentially, is to contain spending so that we are able to deliver quality government and still pass on to our children a government that is affordable, a tax burden they can afford that won't overwhelm them and will give them the opportunity to have as good a life as we have had.

The proposal we have come up with has a variety of different elements to accomplish this. First, we follow the ideas put forward by the President, which has eight basic elements. It is a very extensive reform package, renewal package, redesign package, rebuilding package.

The first element is what I call fast-track rescission. I suppose that is too technical. The President calls it the line-item veto. But it says the President has the opportunity to look at bills we have passed in the Senate and say: Listen, we do not need to spend money on that item. That is really an item of earmark, or maybe you might call it pork, or it is just simply not what we need. It is not what the American people have to have their dollars spent on. He gets to put together a package of items, and he sends them to us. He says: These are the items I don't think we need. We think the American people don't need them. We don't think the Government can afford them, and you, the Congress, can take another look at them and vote them up or down. Fast- track rescission. We have to take the vote. It is an opportunity for the executive branch to have a say and for the legislative branch to take a second look. We have done it in a way so neither branch is prejudiced as to our constitutional role which is very important.

The second thing we have done is we have reinstated statutory caps. What is that? It means that we say every year how much the Federal Government is going to spend and we lock it down so that if we spend over that amount we have to go back and cut somewhere else to bring us down to that number.

What has happened around here, we have said we are going to spend X dollars. That is called a cap. But we have not had any enforcement mechanism behind the cap. Those lapsed in 2002. So when we exceed the cap, you get 60 votes and people say: Fine, we will spend the money anyway, even though we said we were not going to spend that much money, and it is ignored. This puts in place a system where we have to be responsible to the number we set out as to what the Federal Government should spend. It is basically truth in budgeting and forces budgeting to be effective and responsive.

The third item we put in, we reduce the deficit so it will move to zero by 2012. This is done by saying essentially this: The deficit today is X percent of gross national product. We are going to say that the deficit should be dropped as a percent of gross national product every year until we get to about 2012 where we expect it to be basically no deficit. If we exceed those numbers--in other words, if the deficit exceeds that percent of gross national product which we set out in the bill--and these numbers are historical numbers and they are obtainable numbers.

In fact, in the first 2 years, the numbers we have set out are basically above where the actual deficit looks like it will hit, and it is about the third and fourth year we may have some issues to keep the deficit moving down--but if the deficit is not moving down, we put in place a process called reconciliation, directed at entitlement spending.

The problem we have as a Federal Government isn't the discretionary side of the ledger. That is spending that occurs every year. Every year you have to spend X dollars on defense, X dollars on education, and you can make a choice regarding how much you will spend here, how much you spend there. Nondefense spending in those accounts has been flat for the last few years, essentially flat if you factor in inflation. The real growth of the Federal Government has been in these accounts that are entitlement accounts, mandatory accounts which I had on the first chart, three of the major ones. They represent, along with the Federal debt, about 60 percent of Federal spending.

What this bill says is that essentially you have to go back and take a look at those accounts if we are not meeting our deficit targets and bring them into line so we will meet those deficit targets.

Now, in order to help accomplish this, this proposal also includes an entitlement commission. There have been a lot of commissions around here and everyone is a little tired of commissions. This commission is different. This commission says take a look at the entitlement accounts of the Federal Government, report back to the Congress, and Congress must act on your proposal. We actually put in place a policy procedure to try to correct the entitlement issue. Then we put in place a budgeting procedure which allows us to legislate changes if the entitlement improvements are not accomplishing our goals.

The purpose is to make these entitlement programs affordable for our children while they still maintain a quality lifestyle for those who are retired. That can be and should be able to be accomplished. But it takes a Congress being willing to step up to the plate and doing it. So far, we have not been willing to do that. We have been burying our head in the sand on that issue.

Another element in this proposal is a BRAC commission, a proposal from Senator Brownback, which essentially looks at the whole Government, independent of the Defense Department, which was looked at under its own BRAC commission. And if you recall, it looked at the entire Defense Department and decided what the Defense Department needed and didn't need and set up a package and we voted on it as a package.

This is a ``BRAC Commission'' for the Government with very strong, thoughtful people being appointed to the Commission, the same way the BRAC Commission was set up relative to the Defense Department. We will be able to take a look at functions of the Government which maybe should be eliminated or reduced or significantly changed.

It is a good proposal. It is also a proposal that includes biennial budgeting--an idea that is strongly supported by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, who is managing the bill on the floor right now, and the Senator

from New Mexico--so we can have a budget process where we are not always looking at the budget every year and everybody spinning their wheels around the budget but, rather, having a year where we develop a budget and a year where we do a lot more oversight. That is the theory behind that, so we can become more efficient.

Finally, it has reforms to what is known as the reconciliation process. The reconciliation process is the teeth under which we accomplish savings in the budget process. But it can also, unfortunately, be used for expanding spending if it is not handled properly. So these reforms make it clear that reconciliation is primarily for the purposes of controlling spending, not of expanding spending.

So the goal is simple. The goal is to put in place a package which will allow us as a Congress to step up and address the issue of overspending. That is why we call it SOS, ``stop overspending.'' The purpose of that goal is to be able to pass on to our children a government that is affordable, that continues to deliver the services people expect, continues to give high-quality services but does it in an affordable way so our children's quality of life is not overwhelmed by the burden of a government that is trying to support a retired generation that is huge.

Again, I must stress, that you cannot do this on the tax side. You cannot solve the issues of the deficit, you cannot solve the issues of entitlement concerns on the tax side. There is simply too much programmatic commitment in the pipeline to accomplish that.

Let me give you a couple numbers to highlight that fact. The General Accounting Office--the comptroller of the Government--has told us there is presently pending relative to entitlement responsibility for retired people an obligation which we don't know how we are going to pay for-- that is called an unfunded liability--of $46 trillion; and that is ``trillion'' with a ``T.'' So that is $46 trillion of responsibility that we have put on the books in costs that we don't really know how we are going to pay for.

I don't know what $1 trillion is. It is very hard to comprehend $1 trillion. But just to put it in some sort of context, since the beginning of this country, since our Revolution, we have paid something like $43 trillion in taxes. So all the taxes paid since this country started would not pay for the bills we have on the books for our upcoming retired generation. Or to put it in another context, if you took all the assets owned in America today--all the cars, all the homes, all the stock, all the small businesses, all the big businesses--and totaled them up, their total is about $47 trillion in net value. So we have on the books a liability that is essentially the same as the net worth of our Nation. That is a serious problem, and you cannot deal with that problem by simply raising taxes.

The other side of the aisle has not put forward any substantive ideas in this area relative to spending. They have suggested a proposal called pay-go, which is a stalking-horse for tax increases. Fine. That is their position: We should raise taxes to address all problems. But we know from the numbers that are now coming in at the Treasury that we are already taxing Americans at a level which is at our historic level, our traditional level, and that revenues to the Federal Government are jumping significantly because of the good tax policies we have in place, the fair tax policies we have in place.

So we know you cannot solve this problem by continuing to raise taxes on the American people. The total tax burden to the American people today, including State, local, and Federal, is almost at a historic high. How much higher can you put that tax burden on the American people? No, you cannot do it on that side of the ledger. In fact, what we have proven is you generate more revenues by giving people an incentive to be productive and to go out and create jobs by having a fair and reasonable tax rate rather than jumping tax rates to the point where people have a disincentive to be productive and thus start to reduce revenues to the Federal Government.

That was proven by John Kennedy, confirmed by Ronald Reagan, and now confirmed again by George W. Bush. It should be accepted policy around here, but it is rejected by the other side of the aisle, which still subscribes to this 1930s philosophy of governance, which is that you can always raise taxes to meet any problem. No. The problem is that we need to be willing to step up and address spending.

This package, if it were to pass in its entirety--I hope the other side will not obstruct it coming to the floor. We hope to mark it up in Budget next week and report it out, and hope the other side will let us take it up. Let's have a free-flowing debate out here on the floor about how you address this issue.

The outyear threat to our children--which is a function of the fact there is a baby boom generation floating around here that is huge--is not going to go away and is going to demand significant services which will cost a dramatic amount of money.

Our proposal is comprehensive and extensive. It is a rebuilding, retooling approach toward how we manage this Congress and especially our budgets. It is a constructive approach, one that is committed toward delivering an affordable and effective government and a government that does not overburden our children and our grandchildren with taxes. So it will lead to a balanced budget, and it will lead to a government that is affordable.

I thank all my colleagues who have joined me in this effort, and I do hope we can move it forward.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Alabama.

Absolutely not. In fact, under most scenarios, the current rate of spending on almost all of these major programs--such as Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid--would rise significantly; they just would not rise as fast. Medicare, for example, would probably, over this 5-year period, rise by about 40 percent, instead of 43 percent--something like that. Those are numbers off the top of my head, but those are the types of numbers we are talking about. You are talking about increased spending but at a slower rate and affordable.

Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama is absolutely right. We do not have to cut anywhere. All we have to do is slow the rate of growth so it is an affordable rate of growth because the compounding effect of slowing these rates of growth is huge.

Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama is correct. The rate

of growth of revenues to the Federal Government last year was about 14 percent. This year, through the first 6 months, it was about 11 percent and continues to grow dramatically. That is a function of the fact that we now have a tax policy which encourages people to go out and take risks and create jobs, which creates revenue.

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, I am pleased today to introduce the Heroes

at Home Act of 2006. This legislation would take several important steps toward assisting our brave men and women in uniform in transitioning back home to their families, workplaces, and communities after deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hundreds of thousands of troops have rotated through Iraq and Afghanistan as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, OIF, and Operation Enduring Freedom, OEF, including thousands of courageous men and women from New York. More military service members than ever are surviving these conflicts because of better body armor and helmets and improved battlefield medicine.

But surviving these wars and transitioning home can be an uphill battle. Many OIF and OEF service members, including the unprecedented number of National Guard and Reserve members, face readjustment challenges after war, such as medical, mental health, relationship, and work problems. Family members also are affected by the transition as they struggle to reconnect with their war heroes, some who may be deployed two, three, if not more times.

As I meet with returning service members and their families around the State of New York and the country, I hear about the real hardships they battle after deployment--just how difficult it can be to adjust back to life at home.

Several articles and reports have highlighted these struggles. According to a March 2006 study, 19 percent of Iraq veterans and 11 percent of Afghanistan veterans reported mental health problems. Among the OIF and OEF veterans seeking care at Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, hospitals, nearly a third have been diagnosed with mental disorders, with over 40 percent of those posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD. Another report found that 10 to 30 percent of National Guard members come home from Iraq searching for work. Others return to civilian jobs dissatisfied with old tasks that pale in comparison to wartime responsibilities.

In addition to these challenges, a large number of service members are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan with life-threatening brain injuries from roadside blasts that can cause brain damage. It is estimated that traumatic brain injuries, TBI, affect more than 25 percent of bomb blast survivors--a percentage thought to be higher than in any other past U.S. conflict, making TBI the ``signature'' injury of Iraq. The diffuse but debilitating symptoms of TBI can leave service members with cognitive and emotional problems, including the inability to adapt to civilian life. However, TBI frequently goes undiagnosed because returning troops may show no visible wounds or may not realize they suffered a concussion.

Lessons from past wars have taught us that identifying and dealing with problems like PTSD and TBI right away is vital for overcoming them. Yet just last month, a GAO report found that only 22 percent of OIF and OEF service members who may have been at risk for developing PTSD based on post deployment screenings were referred on for further mental health evaluations. In another report from May 2005, the GAO identified that, despite DOD efforts, the needs of demobilizing Reserve and National Guard members for transition assistance were still unmet.

We must do more today to reach out and help our newest generation of war heroes as they transition home after serving bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we must do more to shore up their families, who have courageously maintained family life on the home front during their deployment. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. The Heroes at Home Act would help address returning service members' readjustment to work, PTSD, TBI, and other problems, as well as provide support to their family members.

This bill would involve partnerships with employers and community organizations because--despite more services and resources offered at DOD facilities, VA hospitals, and Vet Centers--returning service members are often reluctant to go to traditional mental health clinics due to stigma and concerns about confidentiality and their military careers. Only 29 percent of the approximately 500,000 separated OIF and OEF veterans have sought VA health care services, including mental health services.

This legislation would identify ways to better assist National Guard and Reserve members in returning to civilian jobs, who are often hurled from civilian life into combat with less preparation and are then expected to reenter the civilian workforce. It would develop an assistance center for employers, employee assistance programs, and other organizations to provide them with best practices and education for ensuring the success of Guard and Reserve members in resuming civilian work after deployment, a win for our businesses, our employers, and our troops.

Under this legislation, demonstration grants would be awarded to organizations in community setting for providing mental health education and assistance to National Guard and Reserve members and their families. Since many of these troops return to local communities scattered across the country far away from military bases and VA hospitals, these pilot projects would help reach them and their loved ones in more convenient places like community colleges, public schools, community mental health clinics, and family support organizations.

With more and more troops injured by improvised explosive devices, IEDs, and bombs in Iraq, we must do more to understand the effects of these blasts on those impacted by them. That is why this legislation also calls for a study on the long-term physical and mental health consequences and rehabilitation needs of traumatic brain injured service members of OIF and OEF. This study would examine ways to help prevent future generations of service members from sustaining such injuries while assessing what types of programs and services are available to treat those who have already been injured in the years ahead.

To further assist the mushrooming number of traumatic brain injured service members and their families, this legislation would establish a TBI family caregiver training curricula. Health professionals at DOD and VA hospitals would use this training to teach family members how to care for traumatic brain injured service members after they leave the hospital. It is crucial that we give family members the tools they need to effectively assist their loved ones at home in their communities.

Those who have proudly served our Nation in OIF and OEF have made extraordinary sacrifices in the battlefield in defense of democracy and freedom. Back home, these heroes deserve our best resources and support to make sure they once again are vibrant and welcomed members in our neighborhoods, our towns, and our cities, at our work sites, and in our families. None of our returning service members should suffer alone in silence. Nor should their families. We all must do our part. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to ensure passage of this bill that champions the successful transition of our newly returning heroes to their families, workplaces and communities.

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