Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2005

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues-- Senators Kohl, Leahy, Grassley, Feingold, Snowe, Schumer, Durbin, Levin, Boxer, Wyden, Corzine, and Dayton--to introduce the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2005 (NOPEC). This legislation would give the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission legal authority to bring an antitrust case against the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

Every consumer in America knows that gasoline prices have reached record highs recently. Likewise, the price of home heating oil has dramatically increased. These price increases have been acutely painful to people in my home State of Ohio.

Moreover, the rise in jet fuel prices is crippling our already weak airline industry. One of the main reasons that many U.S. airlines have not been able to make a profit has been due to skyrocketing jet fuel costs. For example, in the fourth quarter of 2004, Continental Airlines' jet fuel costs were $453 million, which was a 48 percent increase compared to last year, and Delta's jet fuel costs were $385 million, which was 76 percent increase compared to last year. No wonder so many U.S. airlines are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy or are already in bankruptcy.

What is the cause of these high gas and fuel prices? There are a number of factors at play, but there is clear agreement among industry experts about the primary cause of high gas and fuel prices--and that is the increase in imported crude oil prices. Who sets crude oil prices? OPEC does. The unacceptably high price of imported crude oil is a direct result of price fixing by the OPEC nations to keep the price of oil unnaturally high.

OPEC's hunger for ill-gotten gains is astounding. It seems its appetite can never be satisfied. For example, despite the fact that oil prices recently hit the historic high of $55 a barrel, OPEC members met in December 2004 and decided to cut the output of oil by another 1 million barrels. When demand is high and supplies are cut, that means prices will increase. Nonetheless, OPEC cut production. This is an outrage.

OPEC is probably the most notorious example of an illegal cartel in the world today. It is an affront to the principle that markets should be free. Nation after nation has adopted antitrust laws that make it illegal to fix prices. In 1998, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, then composed of 29 member nations, issued a formal recommendation denouncing price fixing. OPEC's continued actions, in ongoing defiance of American and international antitrust norms, should not be tolerated.

Until now, however, OPEC has effectively received a ``free pass'' from prosecution under U.S. antitrust laws. For over two decades, enforcement has been constrained by two related court opinions. In 1979, a Federal district court found that OPEC's price-setting decisions were ``governmental'' acts. As a result, they were given sovereign status and protected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Subsequently, in 1981, a Federal court of appeals declined to consider the appeal of that antitrust case based on the so-called ``act of state'' doctrine, which holds that a court will not consider a case regarding the legality of the acts of a foreign nation.

Our bill would effectively reverse these decisions. It makes it clear that OPEC's activities are not protected by sovereign immunity and that the Federal courts should not decline to hear a case against OPEC based on the ``act of state'' doctrine. As a result, under NOPEC, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission could bring an antitrust enforcement action against OPEC's member nations. This bill would force OPEC to begin pricing in a competitive, free-market manner or face the possibility of civil or criminal antitrust prosecution.

Senator Kohl and I have introduced this bill three times before--in 2000, 2001, and 2004. We intend to keep fighting for American consumers and businesses so that they will not be fleeced by OPEC in the future.

NOPEC says to OPEC: When you want to do business with America, you must abide by our antitrust laws and the rules of the free market. And when OPEC, one day, abides by the rules of the free market, we will all see lower oil and gas prices.

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

Mr. President, the number one killer of those between the ages of 4 and 34 in this country today is auto fatalities. If you look at those between the ages of 16 and 25, the figures are even more exaggerated. We all know that in this country over 42,000 Americans lose their lives every year in auto accidents. That figure stays fairly constant. The last year we have figures for is 2003, and in that year, 42,643 of our fellow citizens lost their lives.

In fact, in the next 12 minutes, to be precise, at least one person will be killed in an automobile accident in this country, while nearly six people will be injured in just the next 60 seconds.

This is a tragedy that we as a society are much too willing to tolerate. If a foreign enemy were doing this to us, we would not tolerate it. We would be up in arms. Someone said it is the equivalent of a 747 airplane going down every two days in this country. If that were happening, of course, it would be on CNN; we would be demanding an explanation. Yet, these auto fatalities that occur, hour-by-hour, day- by-day, just go on, and for some reason, we have become immune to it, hardened to it. They just continue.

I come to the Floor today to discuss five bills--five bills that my staff and I have been working on for a few years now--five bills that I will be introducing, but hope will be incorporated in the transportation bill we will be considering in the next several weeks. These bills are commonsense, practical ways to save lives. Each bill is built on solid evidence of what will, in fact, make a difference. These are bills that will, in fact, save lives.

Last year, the Senate passed each of these bills as a part of the SAFE-TEA transportation bill. I want to thank Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, Bond, Reid, and McCain for their assistance in making that happen. Our former colleague Senator Hollings was also instrumental in clearing these bills. So, what I'm talking about today is a set of bills that has already enjoyed the support of the Senate, and I believe we ought to pass each and every one of them again this year as a part of the transportation reauthorization. In particular, I look forward to working with Senators Stevens, Lott, and Inouye on the Commerce Committee portion of my transportation safety package.

I am thankful for the support and assistance of Senator Rockefeller as the lead co-sponsor on the first several bills--the vehicle safety bills--as well as Senator Lautenberg's leadership as my chief co- sponsor on the drunk driving prevention campaign bill. Both Senators are great leaders on highway safety, and I'm pleased to be working with them this year in an effort to get these bills signed into law.

The first bill we call ``Stars on Cars.'' While its name is cute, its focus is quite serious. When you go to buy a new car, there is a large label in the window detailing the price, features, gas mileage, and other information about the vehicle. This label is referred to in the auto industry as the ``Monroney Label'' after a former member of this body, Senator Monroney from Oklahoma. We all know what the sticker looks like.

But, what we may not know is that most of the content on that sticker is mandated by the Federal Government. The mileage per gallon has been on there for a number of years. The Federal government says that your city mileage has to be on there and your highway mileage has to be on there. It has to tell you whether the vehicle has air-conditioning. It has to tell you whether it has a stereo. It has to tell you a whole bunch of other stuff.

One piece of information is not on there--and that is the vehicle's safety rating.

The funny thing is that in the vast majority of cases, you have already paid to have the Federal Government--specifically the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)--spend millions of dollars to test that very car and others like it. In fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has put that information up on the Internet. Nonetheless, the basic fact is that when you go in to buy that car, that information is not available to you. It is not available to the American consumer in the one place where it would make a difference--where you buy the car, at the dealership.

Doing this right wouldn't cost the taxpayers another dime. The car companies are already printing the labels. Under this legislation, we would add a new section to the label titled ``Government Safety Information.'' The new section would clearly lay out information from each of the government crash tests--frontal crash impact, side impact, and rollover resistance. For vehicles that haven't been tested yet, the label will say so. We would show the ratings pure and simple, as graphical star ratings on the label, just like many automakers do in their commercials.

The bill requires that this be done in a manner that can be clearly understood by your average car buyer, with short explanations as to what each rating means.

What impact would this have? I happen to believe the consumer is better off with more information than less information on whatever we are talking about. The consumer ought to know what the Government does. The consumer ought to know that type of information. The consumer would make better choices. Consumers care about safety. They will make better choices, and in all likelihood, they are going to choose safer vehicles and more lives will, in fact, be saved.

It just makes good common sense to do this. We have worked hard to fashion a bill that gets this life-saving information to consumers in a way that is sensitive to the concerns of automakers, as well as the NHTSA. We've reached out to a broad coalition to craft our bill for 2005, and I look forward to working with interested parties to continue to improve and shape the language contained in it. In the end, this bill is my number one safety priority for passage into law this year.

The second bill we call ``Safe Kids and Cars.'' Cars, unfortunately, are involved in child deaths at unbelievable rates. According to NHTSA data, automobile accidents happen to be the leading cause of death in the United States for children age 4 and up, and are right among the top causes for those ages 0 to 3.

More than cancer, more than homicide, more than fire, more than drowning, more than anything else, auto accidents are the source of child fatalities. We have a problem. And, while I congratulate auto manufacturers, safety groups, and NHTSA for working hard on this issue, there's more work to be done. Anything we can do to make a car safer for our kids, we should be doing it. Complacency is not an option.

The focus of this bill is to improve data collection and vehicle testing with regard to some specific dangers that small children face. NHTSA has done an excellent job in terms of working from solid data, and this is one area where unfortunately we just don't have enough data to move forward. Likewise, we need the tools to perform effective vehicle tests once we have those numbers, and my bill contains measures to see to it that we develop these tools.

In terms of testing, child-size dummies are an area where NHTSA needs to review its testing and look for areas where increased use of these dummies would lead to increased safety, or a better understanding of how crash forces impact small children. My bill directs NHTSA to conduct a full review of test procedures and incorporate

these child dummies when and where suitable. We also ask the agency to give a status update on the extremely important Hybrid-III 10-year-old child test dummy.

The rest of the bill focuses on an emerging danger for small children often referred to as ``non-traffic, non-crash'' accident situations. These are incidents in which interaction between an automobile and a child leads to injury or death when the vehicle is not on the road, or where no actual crash has occurred. Instead, these are incidents that happen in parked cars, driveways, parking lots, and other very common situations. Unfortunately, these common situations can be deadly under the wrong circumstances.

A prime example of ``non-traffic, non-crash'' dangers to small children has to do with dangerous power window switches. In many cases, children are left alone in a vehicle and manage to inadvertently activate a power window switch--a situation which can lead to the window moving up and crushing a limb or other part of the child's body. Some children are killed almost instantaneously by the force of the rising window. These incidents are not terribly frequent, but they are preventable at almost no cost to consumers and manufacturers.

Power windows are an area where NHTSA has taken action since I last introduced the child safety bill, and I want to pause to thank Dr. Jeffrey Runge, NHTSA Administrator; Janette Fennel, President of the safety advocacy group Kids and Cars; and several other groups for their work to make the new power window safety rule possible. The new rule, which I helped announce in Columbus late last year, will lead to the elimination of unsafe power window switches--switches that can be accidentally tripped by children with ease--in every car and light truck sold in the United States. It is clearly a step in the right direction, and it will save lives.

Unsafe power window switches show one kind of ``non-traffic, non- crash'' danger children face today. Were it not for a one-time study of death certificates by NHTSA, we would have no government data whatsoever on how widespread this problem happens to be. We would not know much about other types of ``non-traffic, non-crash'' dangers, such as backover incidents and heat exhaustion in closed vehicles. These are areas where there is a clear need for better data collection and testing. My bill tackles each head-on.

The ``Safe Kids and Cars'' bill directs NHTSA to continue pushing forward on ``non-traffic, non-crash'' incidents by instituting, for the first time, regular collection of data on these kinds of accidents. With time and some solid data, we may be able to tackle other kinds of ``non-traffic, non-crash'' problems in the future. Understanding the problem is the first step.

A third bill has to do with dangerous road intersections. Every State has them. Most States, fortunately, rank these roads. They keep a list of the bad ones. But, amazingly, there are many States that keep this information secret and don't tell the public.

Again, citizens have a right to know this information. What would you do with the information? As a parent, I might tell my 16-year-old not to go that way to the movie. At least I have the right to have that information and would be able to say go another way. It might take another 10 minutes, but go that way. Don't go by that intersection. Don't go on that curvy road. State Departments of Transportation already have that information.

Each State should provide that information to the public. They already know it, and they should provide it. Policymakers need to know that to make decisions about how to spend money in that state and what roads to fix.

I would like to briefly talk about a woman by the name of Sandy Johnson and her mother Jacqueline. On October 5, 2002, Sandy and Jacqueline were killed in a car crash at a dangerous intersection near Columbus.

What they did not know as they drove into that intersection--and what countless other area residents who used the roads that cross through it did not know at the time--was that this particular intersection was known at that time by the Ohio Department of Transportation to be a very dangerous area. In fact, ODOT had indeed known that information for quite some time. Perhaps if Sandy Johnson had known that she would have taken a different route that day. We will never know.

Following the tragic death of his wife and his mother-in-law, Dean Johnson initiated a campaign to tackle the issue of dangerous roads and dangerous intersections, not just in Ohio, but across the country. He has tried with varying results from state to state to get information on dangerous roads and intersection locations out to the public so tragedies like the one involving his wife could be prevented.

As I have in the past, I would like to thank Dean Johnson for his dedication to this very important public safety issue and for the progress he has made in my home State of Ohio and elsewhere in terms of getting critical lifesaving information out to citizens through the Sandy Johnson Foundation. His assistance has been an asset in crafting this legislation, and I look forward to working with him in the future.

My bill requires that safety information be disclosed to the public as an eligibility requirement for a new Federal safety funding program--the Highway Safety Improvement Program. States seeking additional Federal dollars for safety construction projects will have to take the quick and easy step of identifying their danger spots, ranking them according to severity, and then disclosing them to the public. I believe this is the least we can ask from States in exchange for large chunks of federal aid.

In some cases, States would like to release the data but fear the legal ramifications of doing so. My bill contains a fix for this that provides the same kind of protection States already enjoy for other types of highway safety data. In other words, no legal harm could come to a State for releasing lists of dangerous locations under this bill.

Further, States need to find ways to get safety experts, law enforcement, engineers, transportation officials, and the general public working together to identify and correct dangerous locations. I've borrowed language in my bill from last year's Senate-passed SAFE- TEA bill--excellent language drafted and passed by Senator Inhofe and the Environment and Public Works Committee that creates incentives for States to foster this kind of collaboration. Collaboration between these entities is essential to finding quick, effective solutions to fatalities arising from dangerous intersections, as well as long stretches of roadway that account for high crash rates. I am including the Committee's language on Highway Safety Improvement Programs in my bill because I strongly believe that it is a step in the right direction.

The fourth bill I am introducing has to do with driver education. Teen driving is an area where fatality rates are extremely high and unfortunately where programs across the country are not getting the job done.

Above average crash and fatality rates may be inevitable for teenage drivers, but they can certainly be reduced substantially from present- day levels. The Federal Government cannot run driver education. It is clearly a State responsibility. But it can play a small, productive role.

For decades, our attempt to address this problem--standard classroom- based driver education--has been ineffective or worse, inspiring false confidence in students and parents alike that graduates are ready to drive safely. Fortunately, we've started to move in a new direction as a nation, with 41 States adding innovative graduated driver licensing (GDL) laws to their ongoing driver education efforts. These new laws have been proven to be effective in reducing accident and fatality rates. While my bill contains language to raise the bar on GDL laws and make them more effective, its real emphasis is on finding a better way with respect to driver education.

Revitalized driver education needs to be data-driven and cognizant of the limitations associated with classroom-based instruction. It must utilize new ways of inculcating young drivers with the knowledge and skills they need to avoid unnecessary high-risk situations, particularly in the first six months behind the wheel. Integration of driver education with the graduated driver licensing process to maximize the safety value of both programs also must be addressed.

Past failures in our Nation's history with regard to driver education are not a reason to abandon these programs. They are a reason to go back to the drawing board to re-invent more effective means of promoting safe driving.

A recent study by the National Institutes for Health sheds some light on the problem. The study suggests that due to their unique brain development, risk tolerance, and other tendencies--teen drivers are naturally inclined toward increased danger on the roads. Clearly, some methods used in driver education today aren't getting the message through, and in some areas, the message may never get through independent of who does the teaching.

NHTSA and its research partners must find ways to tailor the content and delivery of driver education so that it recognizes these realities and focuses on areas where novice drivers can learn the skills necessary to be safer drivers. A NHTSA pilot program is currently under way with several states to test out updated ``best practices'' driver education models--not mandates, not national standards, but just best practices.

My bill responds to the call for national leadership in driver education and licensing made at a recent National Transportation Safety Board forum by creating a Driver Education and Licensing Improvement Program within NHTSA. The new Improvement Program will provide NHTSA with the resources and time it needs to run the pilot program and then evaluate the results to see what works and what doesn't.

Once this pilot program has run its course, my bill provides a modest amount of grant funding to supply states with the resources and technical expertise necessary to implement the ``best practices'' model in a way that fits their specific needs and circumstances. The grants will be competitively awarded, and also will be available for fulfillment of several other state needs with regard to novice driver education and licensing. This grant program is 100 percent voluntary, and my bill has been crafted carefully to ensure that the prerogatives of States are protected in every manner.

The areas ripe for improvement are numerous: instructor certification, curriculum improvement, outreach to increase parental involvement, enforcement of graduated driver licensing laws, and follow-up testing to ensure program effectiveness. These are just a few examples. By creating a National Driver Education and Licensing Improvement Program within NHTSA, and tasking that program to come up with best practices, we can help States interested in improving their programs do so without having to expend the time and resources necessary to ``re-invent the wheel'' on their own.

I have worked for over a year with NHTSA, the American Driver Training and Safety Education Association, the Governors' Highway Safety Association, the American Motor Vehicle Administrators' Association, AAA, the Driving School Association of America, Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety, and several other groups to come up with the bill that will be introduced today. Its contents are a compromise that reflects significant input from each of these fine organizations, and I believe we are now at a point where the road ahead toward safer, more effective driver education and licensing programs is clear. The goals set by this bill are clear, and the means to achieve them are provided for in full. The time has come to take serious action on driver education and licensing in this country.

Lastly, I'd like to introduce the Safe Intersections Act of 2005. This bill would criminalize the unauthorized sale or use of mobile infrared transmitters, also known as ``MIRTs.''

A MIRT is a remote control for changing traffic signals. These devices have been used for years by ambulances, police cars, and fire trucks, and maintenance crews, allowing them to reach emergencies faster. As an ambulance approaches an intersection where the light is red, the driver engages the transmitter. That transmitter then sends a signal to a receiver on the traffic light, which changes to green within a few seconds. This is a very useful tool when properly used in emergency situations.

In a 2002 survey, the U.S. Department of Transportation found that in the top 78 metropolitan areas, there are 24,683 traffic lights equipped with the sensors. In Ohio, there is a joint pilot project underway by the Washington Township Fire Department and the Dublin Police Department to install these devices. Other areas in Ohio where they are in use include Mentor, Twinsburg, Willoughby, and Westerville. Here in the District of Columbia, emergency services across the country, law enforcement officers, fire departments, and paramedics utilize this technology to make communities safer.

However, recently it has come to light that this technology may be sold to unauthorized individuals--individuals who want to use this technology to bypass red lights during their commute or during their everyday driving. MIRT was never intended for this use. MIRT technology--in the hands of unauthorized users--could result in traffic problems, like gridlock, or even worse, accidents in which people are injured or killed.

Let me quote from an ad that was posted on the Internet auction site, eBay:

``Tired of sitting at endless red lights? Frustrated by lights that turn from green to red too quickly, trapping you in traffic? The MIRT light changer used by police and other emergency vehicles Change the Traffic Signal Red to Green [for] only $499.00. Traffic Signal Changing Devices--it's every motorist's fantasy to be able to make a red traffic light turn green without so much as easing off the accelerator. The very technology that has for years allowed fire trucks, ambulances, and police cars to get to emergencies faster--a remote control that changes traffic signals--is now much cheaper and potentially accessible.''

This ad demonstrates the extent to which the potential widespread sale and possession of MIRT technology by drivers would be a hazard to public safety and must be stopped before it starts. The Congressional Fire Service Institute, Ohio Fire Alliance, and several other organizations have come out in support of this measure. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that it becomes law.

The sixth bill I am introducing today is a bi-partisan bill aimed at reducing the number of drinking and driving deaths and injuries on our roads. Tragically, our Nation has experienced increases in alcohol- related traffic fatalities three of the past four years. In 2003--the last year for which full statistics are available--17,013 Americans died in alcohol-related incidents. This total represents 40 percent of the 42,643 people killed in traffic incidents.

The bill I am introducing today along with Senator Lautenberg--the Traffic Safety Law Enforcement Campaign Act--would require states to conduct a combined media/law enforcement campaign aimed at reducing drunk driving fatalities. Specifically, the law enforcement portion consists of sobriety checkpoints in the District of Columbia and in the 39 States that allow them and saturation patrols in those states that do not. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that the sobriety checkpoints proposed in the underlying bill may reduce alcohol related crashes by as much as 20 percent. Law enforcement officials from across the United States underscored this point in a recent conference sponsored by MADD, making high visibility enforcement campaigns a top priority. More than 75 percent of the public has indicated in NHTSA polls their support for sobriety checkpoints. In fact, NHTSA has concluded that 62 percent of Americans want sobriety checkpoints to be used more often.

These six bills will go a long way. They are common sense. They will make a difference. This is something I have been interested in for many years, going back to my time in the Ohio Legislature 20 years ago when I introduced the drunk driving bill, and we were able to pass a tough drunk driving bill in the Ohio Legislature. I worked for .08. It was very controversial in the Senate, but we were able to pass .08. Senator Lautenburg and I worked on that.

Anytime you lose 42,643 Americans every year, highway safety is something we all have to be concerned about.

I know the SAFE-TEA highway bill is not on the Floor yet, but I have seen it, and of course was pleased to support

it on the Floor last year. As passed by the Senate in 2004, the bill goes farther than any highway bill regard to safety. This year's bill from the Environment and Public Works Committee will enable the same great progress on highway safety. I congratulate the authors.

In the weeks ahead, I look forward to working with the respective committees and outside organizations on the bills I have described above as amendments to the 2005 SAFE-TEA bill. But, I want to make it very clear that these bills and amendments are not in any way critical of the underlying bill. In fact, I hope they will be complementary and simply add to a good product that is already a good product and will help to improve it.

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

Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak about an important resolution that passed the Senate last week. I introduced S. Res. 561, which designates September as Rural America Month.

I first thank the majority leader and my colleague, Senator Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas, for their help in passing this resolution. For me, home means Nevada. Growing up as the son of a hard rock miner in a rural community called Searchlight, far from the bright lights of Las Vegas, has shaped my love for rural America. So when I became leader, I decided I wanted to do something to show how serious Democrats are about standing up for rural America. I couldn't think of a better person to lead this effort than Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas.

I appointed her the chairman of my Rural Outreach Program, and she has done a wonderful job. She is so articulate, has that wonderful smile, and she has done things we never realized would be so effective. I publicly extend my appreciation to her for her leadership in this area. The people of Arkansas are so fortunate to have this good woman serving in the Senate.

It is our love for rural America that brings us to the Chamber today. Senator Lincoln has been here. I appreciate her remarks very much. But it is what motivates us to support 55 million people who, like us, call rural America home. These small towns and rural communities are rich in heritage and tradition, and we need to do everything we can to protect and sustain the rural way of life.

Today, as we honor rural America, I would like to talk about some steps I believe the Senate should take to enrich rural economies, bring new and better services to small towns, enhance these pieces of fabric of America we call rural America.

During the last century, our rural communities have undergone an amazing transformation. With more than 2,000 rural counties accounting for almost 85 percent of the American landscape, the definition of what is rural often depends upon arbitrary lines of distinction. As rural economies become increasingly diversified, communities strive to adapt to the demands of a constantly evolving global community and economy. Take, for example, Elko, NV. Once, Elko was a small Basque enclave. It has grown dramatically during the past decade, and for so many years it has been growing in a way we never envisioned.

Today, Elko and the immediate vicinity produces 63 percent of the world's gold. It has recognized the challenge of relying upon the highly volatile industry, but it still carries on and does so well. The people of Elko worked together to identify local resources to foster not only growth but smart growth. As it turns out, one of Elko's most valuable assets is an unused railroad spur. Today, this is being developed and will become one of the busiest transportation hubs in the West because of the mining industry and ranching industry.

That is not all. Elko is also doing something else to capitalize on the uniqueness of their setting in the American West.

One of the reasons I am so proud of this legislation is because it honors America's farmers, ranchers, and, yes,

cowboys. Farming and ranching are the foundation of rural culture in America and continue to drive the rural economy. Today, with 95 million head of cattle, beef production in the United States is an $80 billion- a-year industry. This year, Americans will consume 25 billion pounds of beef. With the livestock they raise and the responsible stewardship of public lands, American farmers and ranchers help feed families across the country and around the world. Although less than 10 percent of the world's cattle are raised in America, we produce nearly 25 percent of the world's beef supply.

For 23 years, the Western Folklife Center has hosted the National Cowboy Poetry Festival in Elko. Each year, poets, storytellers, musicians, filmmakers, dancers, and other performers descend upon the town to celebrate these American icons. The theme for this year's gathering is ``The Ranch.''

If you talk to ranchers and farmers this year, one of the first topics you hear is the rising cost of energy. The high cost of gasoline and diesel affects all Americans, but it hits rural America very hard. These are men and women who make a living driving tractors and other large pieces of equipment, hauling their grain and moving their livestock from place to place. This is one area in particular where we can help rural America, and I believe we should.

Instead of making farmers pay for dependence on foreign oil, it is time they were paid to make America energy independent. It is within our grasp. We are at a real turning point for alternative energy. Alternative energy technologies are finally becoming cost competitive with conventional energy sources such as oil and gas. In 2005, the three largest technology IPOs were, believe it or not, solar companies. By 2009, it is likely alternative energy technology will capture 10 percent of all capital venture investments. All of this is possible if we work together to take us in a new direction.

Another hardship faced by rural Americans is the loss of jobs. In the wake of outsourcing, rural communities have been left with the daunting task of retraining workers whose only training had been for jobs that no longer exist. For example, the manufacturing industry, which is so vital to so many small towns, has been hit the hardest, with as much as 30 percent of that sent abroad. It is not unusual for someone to work their ranch or farm but also have another job, and that has been very hurtful, with these jobs being shipped overseas. It has been particularly devastating for low-skill workers who make up more than 40 percent of all rural workers.

The problem is made worse when young unskilled workers leave the workforce in search of opportunities only available beyond the county line. While it is clear rural communities need to be more aggressive in attracting new industries, the task is easier said than done.

Prospective employers need to be assured they have a pool of talented workers. With the exodus of skilled workers and an untrained workforce, few companies are willing to roll the dice. That is too bad.

Living in rural America is something that you do not see on a balance sheet. It is only a live experience. More people should experience the joy of living in rural America.

Just as good jobs are hard to find, so is good health care and good emergency response. In many parts of the country, such as Ely, NV, when there is an emergency--whether it is a small brush fire or national catastrophe--we look to our neighbors to keep our families safe. We rely on volunteer firefighters and police officers. This fact was made painfully clear after Hurricane Katrina.

That is why I feel so strongly that the Senate must do everything it can to make sure our first responders have the tools they need to get the job done right. Volunteer fire departments depend on programs such as Fire and Citizen Corps grants. Every day, rural law enforcement officials rely on the funding that the Byrne and COPS Programs provide.

Often, when we talk about veterans issues, we are talking about rural issues. Rural America is home to many U.S. veterans. In fact, according to the Census Bureau, rural and nonmetropolitan counties account for the largest concentration of veterans.

This is true for my home State of Nevada. With more than 250,000 veterans, Nevada has the third largest population of veterans, and it continues to grow. During the last decade, Nevada saw its veterans population increase by more than 30 percent--the highest increase in the country.

That is why for so many years now, I have been pushing Congress to revisit the injustice in compensation for our nation's veterans--the ban on concurrent receipt.

As too many are well aware, disabled veterans face the obstacle of forfeiting retirement pay dollar-for-dollar if they receive disability compensation. This policy is unacceptable, and I am committed to securing fair policy to provide our veterans with the entirety of their earned compensation.

I have been fighting for five years to allow for full concurrent receipt, and despite veto threats from the administration, we have made many great strides towards fair compensation for our veterans. In 2003, Congress passed my legislation allowing disabled retired veterans with at least a fifty percent disability rating to become eligible for full concurrent receipt over a ten-year period. This measure passed despite veto threats from the Bush administration.

Most recently, I have introduced legislation--S. 558--which would provide concurrent receipt to military retirees, with 20 or more years of service, who are rated less than 50 percent. It would also eliminate the 10-year phase-in period for veterans who draw their disability and retirement pay; it will also change my 2003 bill to give full concurrent receipt to all veterans with service connected disabilities. There are currently 29 cosponsors to this legislation.

Additionally, the CARES commission on veterans' health care recognized the need for a Community Based Outpatient Clinic--CBOC--in Fallon and an expansion of services at the Reno VA Medical Center. I am committed to providing Nevada's veterans with more access to quality health care options, including a new CBOC in Elko.

And finally, no discussion of helping rural America would be complete without a discussion of Broadband.

For rural America, competition and active participation in the local and global marketplaces not only means having a computer, but also access to high-speed internet services.

Rural areas are consistently left behind urban areas when it comes to federal investment in the infrastructure systems that are essential for any economy to thrive--including telecommunications systems.

Although the Internet has touched the lives of billions of people around the globe, most of rural America has been left behind even the least developed countries.

Less than a decade ago, the Internet meant email and chat rooms. Today, access to broadband Internet is so much more. With high speed internet, incredible amounts of information can change fingers at the speed of light.

However, even in rural areas where broadband access has been introduced, problems such as affordability and adoption rates remain huge obstacles to progress/leaving dial-up the only realistic option. Affordability and adoption rates are the biggest obstacles we have.

Broadband Internet has proven itself to be a potent catalyst in job creation, economic development, and a critical component of education and public safety. In fact, the deployment of broadband service to our rural areas may be as important to economic development as rural electrification was during the Great Depression.

And so, my colleagues and I are committed to investing in innovative broadband technologies so that rural communities can begin to form new kinds of partnerships, and reach new levels of connectivity.

For example, Senator Clinton has worked to link local businesses in St. Lawrence County to global markets using eBay. Many parts of St. Lawrence County are remote, and businesses have a hard time finding customers. But not on eBay. eBay also offered training to small business owners and their employees.

Senator Clinton has also previously secured Senate passage of tax incentives for telecommunications companies to deploy broadband to rural

areas. This technology will allow small businesses around New York to compete for customers around the globe.

We have seen how one small business has worked with several communities to bring free wireless internet service to nine cities in Eastern Oregon. The service is now being used to track cargo shipments on the Columbia River, monitor a munitions depot, and has improved the efficiency of the police department.

I have spent the last few moments talking about the joys and challenges felt by rural America.

As I've cited in examples today from Elko and Ely, Nevada, rural communities are coming together to create new opportunity themselves. But we here in Washington need to do everything we can to help them succeed.

We need solutions that make sense for the whole country--not just for Washington, D.C., but for places like Winnemucca, and Aurora, NE.

We can do it. And we'll be a better, stronger nation as a result.

Mr. President, I rise to comment on International Women's Day and to join Senator Biden in introducing the Protection of Vulnerable Populations During Humanitarian Emergencies Act of 2005.

Today is International Women's Day, a day on which we celebrate the progress of women and rededicate ourselves to overcoming the inequities facing women around the globe. In many places in the world, discrimination continues to deny women and girls full political and economic equality. The lives and health of women and girls continue to be endangered by violence that is directed at them simply because they are female. In recognition of these issues, I co-sponsored a Resolution with Senators Biden and Clinton commemorating International Women's Day and reaffirming the Senate's commitment to improving the status of women worldwide.

In addition, I am co-sponsoring with Senator Biden the Protection of Vulnerable Populations During Humanitarian Emergencies Act of 2005, which the Committee on Foreign Relations supported as an amendment to our Foreign Affairs Authorization Act for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. During humanitarian emergencies, women and children become more vulnerable to a range of abuses including sexual exploitation, trafficking and gender-based violence. Our bill seeks to ensure that U.S. foreign assistance programs are a force for protecting women, children, and other vulnerable populations in the wake of military conflict and natural disasters.

The recent tsunami tragedy in the Indian Ocean region has highlighted this important issue. Tens of thousands of children have lost family members and friends and are coping with unspeakable trauma. Nearly 35,000 children have been orphaned, and many more have been separated from their families. These children face the imminent threats of hunger, disease, and diarrhea. Beyond these dangers, children are vulnerable to being trafficked for sexual exploitation, forced labor, or conscription. Without their families, the children orphaned by the tsunami lack protection from predators who would profit from their tragedy.

During many of the humanitarian crises that we have witnessed over the last decade, including Rwanda, Bosnia, and Sudan, we have learned that women and children are uniquely vulnerable to sexual violence and exploitation. Over the course of the past year, the world has heard accounts of rape at the camps in Darfur in Western Sudan. Our bill aims to improve the ability of the United States to protect women and children, like those in the tsunami-affected region and in Darfur, from the additional dangers they face during a humanitarian emergency. Our bill calls for a coordinator for protection issues and a strategy to improve our ability to protect and respond to the needs of women and children in such crises. Our bill authorizes funding for the specific health care needs of women during an emergency, the establishment of registries and clearinghouses to trace relatives and help children find their families, and legal services for survivors of sexual exploitation and abuse. In addition, the bill requires that any organization receiving U.S. funds to assist in a humanitarian emergency have in place a code of conduct forbidding its employees from sexually abusing the victims of the crisis. Finally, our bill urges the United Nations to strengthen its policies concerning sexual abuse and exploitation by UN personnel involved in UN peacekeeping operations. I am hopeful that Senators will join me in backing this legislation.

Mr. President. Today I rise to introduce the Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2005. I am pleased to join with my good friend and colleague, Representative Mark Souder, in introducing this measure. This legislation is based on a bill that was introduced in the last legislative session.

I believe that this legislation is very important to encouraging health promotion in our country. The United States has invested a tremendous number of resources in providing our children with the ability to promote fitness through sports. In every town in America, you will find boys and girls playing America's most popular sports: baseball, soccer, football, and, of course, basketball. A recent study by the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association showed that in 2000 at least 36 million American children played on at least one team sport. Of those 36 million, 26 million children between the ages of 6 and 17, played on an organized team in an organized league. A study by Statistical Research, Inc. for the Amateur Athletic Foundation and ESPN found that 94 percent American children play some sport during the year.

The ability for children to participate in sporting events provides our society many benefits that government cannot provide. Studies have shown that these benefits include betterment to a child's health, academic performance, social development and safety. The most obvious benefit of organized sports is physical fitness. The National Institute of Health Care Maintenance has identified physical activity such as sports as a key factor in the maintenance of a healthy body. Lack of physical activity, along with unhealthy eating habits, has been identified as the leading cause of obesity in children. The center notes: ``Physical activity provides numerous mental and physical benefits to health, including reduction in the risk of premature mortality, cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, diabetes, depression, and cancers.'' A Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research study indicated, ``Low fitness outranks fatness as a risk factor for mortality.'' By encouraging our children to participate in organized sports, we increase physical fitness and fight obesity.

A second benefit in the participation of organized sports is an increase in academic performance. The National Institute of Health Care Maintenance has highlighted ``a recent large-scale analysis reported by the California Department of Education [has shown] that the level of physical fitness attained by students was directly related to their performance on standardized achievement measures.'' When we encourage our children to participate in organized sports, we increase the ability for them to achieve academically.

A third benefit for young people who participate in organized sports is that they learn positive social development. Organized sports teach values of teamwork, fair play, and friendly competition. Success in organized sports is also a vital self-esteem builder in many children.

These three benefits have been widely discussed on the floor of the Senate and we have acted to implement several programs designed to reduce obesity and increase fitness, educational standards and the social well-being of our children.

The fourth benefit to participation in organized youth sports, providing a safe place to play, is a topic that has not received as much attention as the first three. Nonetheless, it is no less important. Fewer kids are simply going outside to play, due to the attraction of TV, video games, and the Internet, combined with parents' safety concerns about letting children run around outside unsupervised. As a result, organized sports teams are an increasingly important source of safe physical activity in children. The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated, ``In contrast to unstructured or free play, participation in organized sports provides a greater opportunity to develop rules specifically designed for health and safety.''

One primary reason why organized sports provide such an opportunity for safe play is that non-profit, volunteer organizations establish rules to provide a safe place to play. These organizations are made up of professional people who are in the business of providing children a fun and safe avenue for athletic exercise. Organizations like the Boys and Girls Club, the National Council of Youth Sports, the National Federation of State High School Associations and others exist largely to establish rules in order to minimize the risk of injury our children face while participating in sports. No matter how well these organizations perform their work, however, boys and girls will be injured.

Over the last several years, more and more of these rule making bodies have become targets for lawsuits seeking to prove that the rule maker was negligent in making the rules of play. These lawsuits claim that had a different rule been in place, the injury would not have happened. Indeed, these suits place rule makers into a Catch-22. A child can be injured in almost any situation no matter how a rule is written. The result has been to have more and more lawsuits.

As a consequence, the insurance premiums of these organizations have risen dramatically over the past several years. In his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last year, Robert Kanaby the Executive Director of the National Federation of State High School Associations testified that:

``Over the last three years, the annual liability insurance premiums for the National High School Federation have increased three-fold to about $1,000,000. We have been advised by experts that given our claims experience and the reluctance of insurers to offer such coverage to an organization `serving 7,000,000 potential claimants,' the premiums will likely increase significantly in years to come. Since we operate on a total budget of about $9,000,000, such an increase would be, to put it mildly, problematical.''

The costs have increased to the point where it is possible that these organizations will cease from providing age appropriate rules and the safety of youth sports will decline.

Because of this problem, I join, once again, with Representative Mark Souder in introducing the Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2005. This legislation will eliminate lawsuits based on claims that a non-profit rulemaking body is liable for the physical injury when the rules was made by a properly licensed rulemaking body that has acted within the scope of its authority. Lawsuits may be maintained if the rule maker was grossly negligent or engaged in criminal or reckless misconduct. This reasonable legislation will help sports rule makers to do their job. If we do not pass this legislation, it is likely that rule makers will eventually close their doors since they will be unable to afford the insurance needed to provide a safe sporting environment.

No one who has participated in the debate surrounding this problem has disagreed that the current lawsuit culture needs reform. Instead, concerns have arisen that the remedy was overly broad preventing lawsuits against rule makers on other issue.

To remedy these concerns, the legislation introduced today contains a provision that explicitly says that lawsuits involving ``antitrust, labor, environmental, defamation, tortuous interference of contract law or civil rights law, or any other federal, state, or local law providing protection from discrimination'' are not barred by this bill. This provision was worked out between the civil rights groups, including the National Women's Law Center and the National Federation of State High School Associations, in an effort to alleviate this concern.

As many of my colleagues know, I am a runner. I enjoy the activity and the positive effect that running and athletics have played in my life. I would hope that my nine grandchildren will be able to have an opportunity to participate in organized sports and that lawsuits against rule makers for allegedly faulty rules will not prevent these organizations from functioning properly. I look forward to the consideration and passage of the Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2005 during the 109th Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with Senator DeWine and 11 co-sponsors, of the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2005 (``NOPEC''). It is time for the U.S. government to fight back on the price of oil and hold OPEC accountable when it acts illegally. This bill will hold OPEC member nations to account under U.S. antitrust law when they agree to limit supply or fix price in violation of the most basic principles of free competition.

Our bill will authorize the Attorney General and Federal Trade Commission to file suit against nations or other entities that participate in a conspiracy to limit the supply, or fix the price, of oil. In addition, it will expressly specify that the doctrines of sovereign immunity and act of state do not exempt nations that participate in oil cartels from basic antitrust law. Senator DeWine and I have introduced this bill in each of the last three Congresses. This legislation was the subject of an extensive hearing at the Antitrust Subcommittee last year, and subsequently passed the Judiciary Committee without dissent. It is now time, in this new Congress, to finally pass this legislation into law and give our nation a long needed tool to counteract this pernicious and anti-consumer conspiracy.

Throughout the last year, consumers all across the Nation have watched gas prices rise to previously unimagined levels. As crude oil prices exceeded $40, then $50 and then $55 per barrel, retail prices of gasoline over $2.00 per gallon became commonplace. While prices temporarily receded for short periods, the general trend was significantly upwards, and rising even today. We now hear predictions that the price of crude oil may soon break the $60 barrier, and oil industry analysts even say $80 per barrel is not unthinkable. And one fact has remained consistent--any move downwards in price would end as soon as OPEC decided to cut production. The price of crude oil danced to the tune set by OPEC members. Such blatantly anti-competitive conduct by the oil cartel violates the most basic principles of fair competition and free markets and should not be tolerated.

Real people suffer real consequences every day in our nation because of OPEC's actions. Rising gas prices are a silent tax that takes hard- earned money away from Americans every time they visit the gas pump. Higher oil prices drive up the cost of transportation, harming thousands of companies throughout the economy from trucking to aviation. And those costs are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for manufactured goods. Higher oil prices mean higher heating oil and electricity costs. Anyone who has gone through a Midwest winter can tell you about the tremendous personal costs associated with higher home heating bills.

We have all heard many explanations offered for rising energy prices. Some say that the oil companies are gouging consumers. Some blame disruptions in supply. Others point to the EPA requirement mandating use of a new and more expensive type of ``reformulated'' gas in the Midwest or other ``boutique'' fuels around the country. Some even claim that refiners and distributors have illegally fixed prices. On this issue, Senator DeWine and I have repeatedly asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate these allegations. As a result of our requests, the FTC has put a task force in place to find out if those allegations were true. While we continue to urge the FTC to be vigilant, the FTC has to date found no evidence of illegal domestic price fixing as a cause of higher gas prices. And we conducted our own inquiry in the Antitrust Subcommittee last year which found no basis to challenge the FTC's conclusions.

But one cause of these escalating prices is indisputable: the price fixing conspiracy of the OPEC nations. For years, this conspiracy has unfairly driven up the cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of the oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but, sadly, no one in government has yet tried to take any action. Our bill will, for the first time, establish clearly and plainly that when a group of competing oil producers like the OPEC nations act together to restrict supply or set prices, they are violating U.S. law. The bill will not authorize private lawsuits, but it will authorize the Attorney General or FTC to file suit under the antitrust laws for redress. Our bill will also make plain that the nations of OPEC cannot hide behind the doctrines of ``Sovereign Immunity'' or ``Act of State'' to escape the reach of American justice. In so doing, our bill will overrule one twenty-year old lower court decision which incorrectly failed to recognize that the actions of OPEC member nations was commercial activity exempt from the protections of sovereign immunity.

The most fundamental principle of a free market is that competitors cannot be permitted to conspire to limit supply or fix price. There can be no free market without this foundation. And we should not permit any nation to flout this fundamental principle.

Some critics of this legislation have argued that suing OPEC will not work or that threatening suit will hurt more than help. I disagree. Our NOPEC legislation will, for the first time, enable our antitrust authorities to take legal action to combat the illegitimate price- fixing conspiracy of the oil cartel. It will, at a minimum, have a real deterrent effect on nations that seek to join forces to fix oil prices to the detriment of consumers. This legislation will be the first real weapon the U.S. government has ever had to deter OPEC from its seemingly endless cycle of price increases. There is nothing remarkable about applying U.S. antitrust law overseas. Our government has not hesitated to do so when faced with clear evidence of anti-competitive conduct that harms American consumers. A few years ago, for example, the Justice Department secured record fines totaling $725 million against German and Swiss companies engaged in a price fixing conspiracy to raise and fix the price of vitamins sold in the United States and elsewhere. Their behavior harmed consumers by raising the prices consumers paid for vitamins every day and plainly needed to be addressed. As this and other cases show, the mere fact that the conspirators are foreign nations is no basis to shield them from violating these most basic standards of fair economic behavior.

Even under current law, there is no doubt that the actions of the international oil cartel would be in gross violation of antitrust law if engaged in by private companies. If OPEC were a group of international private companies rather than foreign governments, their actions would be nothing more than an illegal price fixing scheme. But OPEC members have used the shield of ``sovereign immunity'' to escape accountability for their price-fixing. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, though, already recognizes that the ``commercial'' activity of nations is not protected by sovereign immunity. And it is hard to imagine an activity that is more obviously commercial than selling oil for profit, as the OPEC nations do. Our legislation will establish that the sovereign immunity doctrine will not divest a U.S. court from jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit alleging that members of the oil cartel are violating antitrust law.

The suffering of consumers across the Nation in the last year has made me more certain than ever that this legislation is necessary. Between OPEC's repeated decisions to cut oil production and the FTC's conclusion for the last several years that there is no illegal conduct by domestic companies responsible for rising gas prices, I am convinced that we need to take action, and take action now, before the damage spreads too far.

I urge my colleagues to support our legislation so that our Nation will finally have an effective means to combat this price-fixing conspiracy of oil-rich nations.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Microbicides Development Act of 2005. I am very pleased to be introducing this bipartisan bill along with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Obama, Bingaman, Cantwell, Clinton, Dodd, Durbin, Feinstein, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Leahy, Mikulski, Murray, Schumer, and Smith. I thank my colleagues for their support of this important legislation, which we believe is vital to the pursuit of combating the global HIV/ AIDS crisis.

Today we are celebrating International Women's Day. Not only should we celebrate the achievements of women nationally and globally today, but we should also promise to redouble our efforts to improve the lives of women around the globe. I can't think of an issue more deserving of our attention in the United States Senate than that of the toll that HIV/AIDS is having on women and their children around the world.

Today, nearly half of the 37 million adults now living with HIV worldwide are women. The U.N.'s new Epidemic Update released in late 2004 shows that women and girls are increasingly affected by the disease in each region of the world and the epidemic continues to worsen. Women are the new face of AIDS. Approximately 7,000 women are infected with HIV everyday. The biggest rise in HIV/AIDS among women is occurring in East Asia, which has seen a 56 percent infection rate increase, followed by the region of Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

Notably, these are areas of the world that are not currently included in the President's AIDS initiative (PEPFAR). I would like to note that later this week I will be introducing legislation to make India eligible for PEPFAR assistance. It is estimated that by 2010, India could have 20 million HIV infected individuals up from five million currently and women are at the center of the rapid growth of the disease.

I would like to quote from a recent news article in USA Today, which discusses the HIV/AIDS vulnerabilities that women confront.

``In this male-dominated society, ironclad traditions

surrounding marriage leave women little say over their sexual

or reproductive lives. So many married men bring HIV home to

their wives that married women are one of India's highest-

risk groups. Nearly half of all new HIV infections occur in

women, and studies indicate that 90 percent of women with HIV

were virgins when they married and remained faithful to their

husbands.''

This statement describes the plight of women in so many societies and countries where women simply do not have the economic or political power to insist that their husbands use condoms or abstain from having sex outside of marriage. The typical woman who gets infected with HIV has only one partner--her husband. This trend devastates families and puts children at risk.

This astounding reality bears restating: The single greatest risk factor for a woman in the developing world of

contracting the HIV virus is being married.

Women need HIV-prevention tools that they can control to safeguard their health and that of their families and communities. Unfortunately, there exists absolutely no HIV or STD prevention method that is within a woman's personal control. Condom use must be negotiated with a partner. We are all aware that for too many women, particularly low- income women in the developing world and many in our own country who rely upon a male partner for economic support, there is no power of negotiation. We know these women are at risk--yet, we expect them to protect themselves without any tools.

Today we have the opportunity to invest in groundbreaking research that can produce these tools, and ultimately, empower women. Microbicides are self-administered products that women could use to prevent transmission of STDs, including HIV/AIDS. I say ``could'', because due to insufficient research investments, no microbicides have been brought to market. This legislation would expand Federal investments for microbicide research at the National Institutes for Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

In addition to encouraging new investments in microbicide research, the Microbicides Development Act will expedite the implementation of the NIH's five-year strategic plan for microbicide research, as well as expand coordination among federal agencies already involved in this research, including NIH, CDC, and the United States Agency on International Development (USAID).

Perhaps most importantly, the legislation calls for the establishment of a Microbicide Research and Development Branch within the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The National Institutes of Health, principally through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), spends the majority of Federal dollars in this area. However, microbicide research at NIH is currently conducted with no single line of administrative accountability or specific funding coordination. In addition, other Federal agencies such as CDC and USAID undertake microbicides research and development activities. Because there is no Federal coordination, however, there is the risk that inefficiencies and duplication of effort could result. Through a variety of committees Congress has requested that NIH and its Office of AIDS Research provide Congress with a ``Federal coordination plan'' for research and development in this area, but formal submission of this plan has been repeatedly delayed.

A unit dedicated to microbicide research and development at the NIH is essential to providing the appropriate staff and funding for the coordination of these activities at the NIH and across agencies.

Microbicides may not be a magic bullet, but they are essential to addressing the HIV/AIDS crisis. With leading scientists concluding that a vaccine is likely to be at least 10 years away, we need to make a strong commitment to developing complementary prevention tools such as microbicides.

Microbicides are a public health good for which the social benefits are high but economic incentives to private investment are low. Despite the potential market size, neither pharmaceutical nor major biotech companies have made large investments in the field because development is costly and the likelihood of finding an effective product is unknown. Like other public health goods, such as vaccines, public funding must fill the gap left by market failure.

The cost of developing the existing pipeline of microbicide candidate products has been estimated at $775 million over five years. This investment should generate a number of safe, effective microbicides by 2010. Currently, however, U.S. Federal funding for microbicides is only about $88.8 million annually and is spread across all areas of microbicide research, not just product development.

As for any pharmaceutical or health care product, the key to developing safe, effective, affordable and accessible microbicides is sufficient investment. If we are to realize the promise of microbicides and the lifesaving properties they may provide, then additional public funding must be made available for research and development. The Microbicide Development Act of 2005 will help us achieve this goal.

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