Alaska Water Resources Act of 2007

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2007. This legislation is based on a bill I first offered in 2005. It is focused on facilitating implementation of the Nunn-Lugar program and removing some of the self- imposed restrictions that complicate or delay the destruction of weapons of mass destruction.

In 2005, the Senate approved this legislation in the form of an amendment I offered to the National Defense Authorization Act by an overwhelming vote of 78 to 19. Last year, the Senate adopted a similar amendment by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, these provisions were not included in either conference agreement.

While well-intentioned, the congressionally-imposed conditions on Nunn-Lugar have inhibited the amount of work that can be done to eliminate and safeguard weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. Each year, a six month, thirteen step certification and waiver process must be completed before appropriated funds can be obligated to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. This annual process wastes money and valuable time--time lost in the fight against proliferation. In the field, it can prevent the availability of funds already authorized and appropriated by Congress for the Nunn-Lugar Program, thus delaying critical dismantlement work.

To date, the Nunn-Lugar program has deactivated for destroyed: 6, 934 nuclear warheads; 637 ICBMs; 485 ICBM silos; 81 ICBM mobile missile lauchers; 155 bombers; 906 nuclear air-to-surface missiles; 436 submarine missile launchers; 601 submarine launched missiles; 30 nuclear submarines; and 194 nuclear test tunnels.

Perhaps most importantly, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan emerged from the Soviet Union as the 3rd, 4th, and 8th largest nuclear weapons powers in the world. Today, all three are nuclear weapons free as a result of cooperative efforts under the Nunn-Lugar program.

The Nunn-Lugar Program currently has a permanent waiver authority, to be used on an annual basis, for the congressionally-imposed certifications on the Nunn-Lugar program. While the waiver permits the program to continue its important work, the waiver does not solve the underlying problem.

In 1991, concerns surrounding Russian commitments to nonproliferation led the original Nunn-Lugar legislation to require President to certify annually that each recipient is ``committed to'' meeting six conditions: 1. Making a substantial investment in dismantling or destroying such weapons; 2. forgoing any military modernization program that exceeds legitimate defense requirements and forgoing the replacement of destroyed weapons of mass destruction; 3. forgoing any use of fissionable and other components of destroyed nuclear weapons in new nuclear weapons; 4. facilitating United States verification of weapons destruction carried out under the program; 5. complying with all relevant arms control agreements; and 6. observing internationally recognized human rights, including the protection of minorities.

At the time, these conditions were important to defining the U.S. strategic relationship with each Nunn-Lugar recipient. The question we must answer today is, what national security benefit do the certification requirements provide the American people? Do the conditions make it easier or harder to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in Russia or elsewhere? Do the conditions make it more likely or less likely that weapons are eliminated?

Congress imposed an additional six conditions on construction of the chemical weapons destruction program at Shchuchye. These conditions include: 1. Full and accurate Russian declaration on the size of its chemical weapons stockpile; 2. allocation by Russia of at least $25,000,000 to chemical weapons elimination; 3. development by Russia of a practical plan for destroying its stockpile of nerve agents; 4. enactment of a law by Russia that provides for the elimination of all nerve agents at a single site; 5. an agreement by Russia to destroy or convert its chemical weapons production facilities at Volgograd and Novocheboksark; and 6. a demonstrated commitment from the international community to fund and build infrastructure needed to support and operate the facility.

Some will suggest that the certification process is, at most, an annoyance, but not a serious programmatic threat. I disagree. While well intentioned, these conditions delay and complicate efforts to destroy weapons of mass destruction. If the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the number one national security threat facing our country, we cannot permit any delays in our response.

The Bush Administration withheld Russia's certification in 2002 because of concerns in the chemical and biological weapon arenas. President Bush recognized the predicament and requested waiver authority for the Congressionally-imposed conditions. While awaiting temporary waiver to be authorized in law, new Nunn-Lugar projects were stalled and no new contracts were finalized between April 16 to August 9, 2002. This delay caused numerous disarmament projects in Russia to be put on hold, including: 1. Installation of security enhancements at ten nuclear weapons storage sites; 2. initiation of the dismantlement of two strategic missile submarines and thirty submarine-launched ballistic missiles; and 3. initiation of the dismantlement of SS-24 rail-mobile and SS-25 road-mobile ICBMs and launchers. Clearly,

these projects were in the national security interest of the United States, but they were delayed because of self-imposed conditions and bureaucratic red tape. A second period of delay began on October 1, 2002, with the expiration of a temporary waiver. Again, U.S. national security suffered with the postponement of critical dismantlement and security activities for some six weeks until Congress acted.

The events of 2002 are not the exceptions: They are the rule. In some years, Nunn-Lugar funds are not available for expenditure until more than half of the fiscal year has passed, and weapons of mass destruction slated for dismantlement await the U.S. bureaucratic process. This means that the program is denied access to these funds for large portions of the fiscal year in which they were intended to be spent while critical nonproliferation projects are put on hold. The bureaucracy generates reams of paper and yet ultimately produces an outcome that was never in doubt; namely, that it is in the national security interests of the United States to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in Russia and elsewhere.

The certification and waiver processes consume hundreds of man-hours of work by the State Department, the Intelligence Community, the Pentagon, as well as other departments and agencies. This time could be better spent tackling the proliferation threats facing our country. Instead of interdicting WMD shipments, identifying the next AQ Khan, or locating hidden stocks of chemical and biological weapons, our nonproliferation experts spend their time compiling reports and assembling certification or waiver determinations. Even more frustrating is the fact that the majority of these reports are repetitive, in that the Department of State already reports on most of these issues in other formats.

Some will argue that the certification process provides the Administration with leverage on Russian behavior. I disagree. I do not believe any of the certification subjects are a good reason to stop the destruction and safeguarding of weapons of mass destruction. I would argue just the opposite; these are reasons for us to accelerate our efforts and become more vigilant in our approach.

These programmatic delays have given Russia, and others, cover to hide behind, pointing the finger of blame on the United States for slow program implementation and taking the spotlight off their failure to provide access and transparency. While we call on President Putin to speed up dismantlement and open more sites for security upgrades, congressionally-imposed conditions and funding delays are used as arguments against accelerating Nunn-Lugar projects.

I have concluded that despite the best intentions of Congress, the certification requirements on the Nunn-Lugar program have outlasted their utility. While the goals of the conditions are pure, they simply do not belong on nonproliferation programs. I would point out that the equally important nonproliferation programs at the Departments of Energy and State do not have these conditions. They do not suffer from the annual certification and waiver process. Why should the Nunn-Lugar program, focused on the dismantlement of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, be singled out for this treatment or need for leverage.

I am pleased that a number of administration officials and groups have endorsed the elimination of the certification and waiver process. The 9/11 Commission Report weighed in with an important endorsement of the Nunn-Lugar program, saying that ``Preventing the proliferation of [weapons of mass destruction] warrants a maximum effort--by strengthening counter-proliferation efforts, expanding the Proliferation Security Initiative, and supporting the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.'' The Report went on to say that ``Nunn-Lugar . . . is now in need of expansion, improvement and resources.'' More recently, the follow-on 9/11 Public Discourse Project wrote that the elimination of the certification requirements ``is an important step forward in protecting the United States against catastrophic attack.''

Secretary Rice has testified that the Administration strongly supports my efforts pointing out that ``flexibility in being able to administer the program would be most welcome.'' Bob Joseph, the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, also expressed his support saying pointedly to me that ``the fact that there are 13 steps that can take . . . six months or longer to get through certainly . . . underlines the rationale for [this legislation] . . . Whatever we can do, Senator, to improve the efficiency of the process, to reduce the time lines involved, and to provide greater flexibility for action, I would be in favor of.''

Charles Boyd, USAF (Ret.) and Stanley Weiss, the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, respectively, of the Business Executives for National Security, wrote to the Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate expressing support for the elimination of the certification requirements on the Nunn-Lugar program. They wrote in part: ``Even though conditions can be waived, doing so diverts time and effort that could otherwise be used to meet proliferation challenges. Relying on waivers also preserves the risk that funding delays could threaten existing projects and investments.''

In sum, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the number one national security threat facing the United States today. The Nunn-Lugar program is making tremendous contributions to the elimination of potentially vulnerable stockpiles. While the Congress' intentions in imposing annual certification requirements were pure, the process has evolved into a bureaucratic quagmire in to which months of work by numerous departments, agencies and bureaus are sunk. The Administration toils to produce a forgone conclusion; namely, that it is in U.S. interests to eliminate and secure weapons and materials of mass destruction. The funds for these operations are delayed while threats remain unaddressed. This is red-tape that we can do without. The only practical effect is unnecessary delays to our response to the number one national security threat facing the United States.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will allow the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to provide grant funding and technical assistance to remote communities in Alaska for critical water and sewer projects. These remote communities are only accessible by either aircraft or boat.

This important funding was originally authorized as part of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 and was reauthorized in 2000. Every fiscal year, the EPA transfers funding authorized by this program to the State of Alaska's Village Safe Water Program, which is managed by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.

The water and sewer conditions in the villages in Alaska that still need this critical funding rival the conditions in rural communities in third world countries. For example, residents in some villages in Alaska have to go to a central source in the community to get fresh water. Instead of flushing toilets, residents of some villages have to use a device called a ``honeybucket.'' This device is a large bucket with a toilet seat on top. When the honeybucket is full, it is usually dumped in a lagoon or on land. Sometimes, these dump locations are near sources of drinking water.

The Village Safe Water program has been a success over the years. Many homes in Alaska's remote communities now have plumbing due to funds authorized by this program. However, 34 percent of homes in these communities still do not have indoor plumbing. It is unacceptable that these Americans still do not have access to conventional plumbing in their homes in 2007.

Previously, the Office of Management and Budget published a Program Assessment Rating Tool report concerning this program. This report found several deficiencies concerning the administration of this program. In response to that report, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has put in place several changes to correct these deficiencies, including hiring additional accounting staff and initiating a memorandum of understanding with EPA Region 10 regarding program procedures and requirements.

This legislation reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 2010 and increases the authorized funding level from $40 million to $42 million, a modest five percent increase. Also, the legislation requires the State of Alaska to mandate that grant recipients clearly identify the scope and the goal of the project for which funding is sought and how the funds will be used to meet the specific, stated goal of the project; establish long-term goals for the program and carry out regular reviews of grantees to determine if the stated scope and goal of each grant are being met. This bill also requires the State of Alaska to submit an annual report to the EPA that addresses these issues. If a project-specific problem included in the report is not rectified within an amount of time agreed to by the State of Alaska and the EPA or if both entities are not able to agree on a timetable to fix the problem, the EPA will not disburse any additional funding for the project in question.

It is imperative that we reauthorize this critically important program soon. The health and well-being of rural Alaskans is at stake.

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

Mr. President, in 2005 I first introduced a measure of benefit to my home State of Alaska, the Alaska Water Resources Act, for a number of reasons. While the bill easily passed the U.S. Senate in 2005, it did not complete its journey to final passage, which is why I am reintroducing the bill today. The importance of water resource data collection to a State that has a resource-based economy cannot be overstated. Economic development is predicated on access to an adequate water supply, and in my State there is inadequate hydrologic data upon which to secure both economic development and the health and welfare of Alaskan citizens.

Alaska is an amazing State from a hydrological viewpoint. It is home to more than 3 million lakes--only about 100 being larger than 10 square miles--more than 12,000 rivers and uncounted thousands of streams, creeks and ponds. Together these water bodies hold about one- third of all the fresh water found in the United States.

Alaska is home to a number of large rivers. The Yukon, which originates in western Canada, runs 1,400 miles--discharging from 25,000 cubic feet of water per second in early spring to more than 600,000 cubic feet per second in May during the spring thaw. The Yukon drains roughly 330,000 square miles of Alaska and Canada, about one-third of the State. Besides the Yukon, Alaska is home to nine other major rivers and creeks all running more than 300 miles in length: the Porcupine, Koyukuk, Kuskokwim, Tanana, Innoko, Colville, Noatak, Kobuk and Birch Creek.

Alaska residents from early spring to fall face substantial flood threats, from spring flooding caused by breakup and ice damming to fall's heavy rains, but the State has fewer than 100 stream gaging stations operated by the U.S. Geological Survey--Alaska having less than 10 percent of the stream flow information that is taken for granted by all other States in the Nation. Alaska averages one working gage for each 10,000 square miles, while, as an example, Pacific Northwest States average one gage for each 365 square miles. To emphasize the lack of data now available for Alaska, I would point out that to equal the stream gage density of the Pacific Northwest States my State would need to have over 1,600 total gage sites.

Alaska also supports the Nation's least modern and undeveloped potable water distribution system. Water for Alaska towns outside of the more densely populated ``Railbelt'' comes predominately from groundwater sources. Surface water sources often result in supply/ storage problems since these surface sources freeze and are not readily available for up to half of the year. The chances for water-borne contaminants to affect potable water supplies, including fecal matter from Alaska's plentiful wildlife populations, human waste from inquate or nonexistent sewage treatment facilities, and natural mineral deposits, natural arsenic levels in mineralized zone creeks frequently exceeding EPA standards) are present and increasing. In areas that predominately depend on groundwater sources, such as the ``Railbelt'' there is only very limited knowledge of the nature and extent of aquifers that support those critical groundwater supplies. Extensive permafrost further complicates the potential for adverse impacts to Alaska. In portions of Southcentral Alaska where there is a dependence on groundwater as the source for an adequate healthy water supply, the availability of that supply is starting to be in jeopardy. Allocations of water need to be based on scientific data, and the data needed upon which the allocations are made is unavailable. Users of water are only beginning to realize the potential conflicts that may arise, and the limits on future economic development that may result from inadequate knowledge of the water resource, particularly in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, on the Kenai Peninsula, and to a lesser extent in portions of the municipality of Anchorage and in the Fairbanks area, where groundwater provided by wells is a crucial part of the State's water distribution system, and where there is little known about the size, capacity, extent and recharge capability of the aquifers that these wells tap.

Alaska, according to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, still has some 16,000 homes in 71 generally Native villages not being served by piped water or enclosed water haul systems. There are still 55 villages in Alaska where up to 29 percent of the residents are not served by sanitary water systems, with more than 60 percent of residents not being served in 16 villages. Even though, since statehood in 1959, the State and Federal governments have spent $1.3 billion on rural water-sanitation system improvements, the State still has an estimated need for nearly $650 million in additional funding to complete installation of a modern water-sanitation system.

Planning and engineering for those locations cannot be easily completed without better information as to the availability and extent of supply of water and better analysis of new technologies that could be used for water system installations, including possible desalination for some island and coastal communities.

For all these reasons today I have reintroduced legislation authorizing the Department of the Interior's Commissioner of Reclamation and the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a series of water resource studies in Alaska. The studies will include a survey of water treatment needs and technologies, including desalination treatment, which may be applicable to water resources developments in Alaska. The study will review the need for enhancement of the National Streamflow Information Program administered by the U.S. Geological Survey. The Streamflow review will determine whether more stream gaging stations are necessary for flood forecasting, aiding resource extraction, determining the risk to the state's transportation system, and for wildfire management. Groundwater resources will also be further evaluated and documented to determine the availability of water, the quality of that groundwater, and the extent of the aquifers in some urban areas.

This type of study, already conducted for most all other States in the Nation, should help Alaska better plan and design water systems and transportation infrastructure and also better prepare for floods and summer wildfires.

There is literally ``water, water everywhere'' in Alaska, but too often, especially in communities such as Ketchikan that take water from surface sources, or the rapidly growing Mat-Su Valley where there may be less water to drink during unusually dry summers, there is a real and growing problem of maintaining an adequate healthy supply of pure water. This problem is only going to grow more severe with a growing population and economy. This bill is designed to provide more information to help communities plan for future water needs and to help State officials plan for flood and fire safety concerns and further economic development.

Mr. President, today I will introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007.

Ending racial profiling in America has been a priority for me for many years. I worked with the senior Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, back in 1999 on a bill to collect statistics on traffic stops, which is where the problem of racial profiling was first revealed. Many studies from around the country now confirm that racial profiling is indeed a real problem that wastes police resources and diminishes trust between police departments and the communities they protect.

In 2001, in his first State of the Union address, President Bush told the American people that ``racial profiling is wrong and we will end it in America.'' He asked the Attorney General to implement a policy to end racial profiling. The Department of Justice released a Fact Sheet and Policy Guidance addressing racial profiling in 2003, stating that racial profiling is wrong and ineffective and perpetuates negative racial stereotypes in our country. Though these guidelines are helpful, they do not end racial profiling and they do not have the force of law. Unfortunately, more than 6 years after the President's promise to the country, we have not yet ended racial profiling in this country.

The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 will do what the President promised; it will help America achieve the goal of bringing an end to racial profiling. This bill bans racial profiling and requires Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers to take steps to end this practice.

Racial profiling is the practice by which some law enforcement agents treat differently African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Arab Americans and others simply because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, or perceived religion. I have the utmost respect for law enforcement agents, and I believe that most of them do not engage in this practice. Nonetheless, reports in States from New Jersey to Florida, and Maryland to Texas all show that African Americans, Hispanics, and members of other minority groups were stopped by some police far more often than their share of the population and the crime rates for those racial categories.

Passing this bill is even more urgent after 9/11, as we have seen racial profiling used against Arab and Muslim Americans or Americans perceived to be Arab or Muslim. The 9/11 attacks were horrific, and I share the determination of many Americans that finding those responsible and preventing future attacks should be this Nation's top priority. This is a challenge that our country can and must meet. But to do that we need improved intelligence and law enforcement. Making assumptions based on racial, ethnic, or religious stereotypes will not protect our nation from crime or from future terrorist attacks.

A report released in May by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, covering 2005 data, found that while an African American person is now almost equally likely to be stopped as a white person, he or she is more than two and a half times more likely to be searched, more than twice as likely to be arrested, and more than three and a half times more likely to experience the use of force. Yet, according to studies from multiple police jurisdictions, these encounters with law enforcement are less likely to reveal criminal activity on the part of African Americans than whites. The flagrancy of this flawed and irrational practice has led Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree to observe, ``If I'm dressed in a knit cap and hooded jacket, I'm probable cause.''

The disparities outlined above, which also apply to other ethnic groups, have led the International Association of Chiefs of Police to call for an end to racial profiling. In addition, police departments around the country have independently developed programs and policies to prevent racial profiling and comply with the Department of Justice's policy guidance. In my own State of Wisconsin, law enforcement officials have taken steps to train police officers, improve academy training, establish model policies prohibiting racial profiling, and improve relations with our State's diverse communities. I applaud the efforts of Wisconsin law enforcement. This is excellent progress and shows widespread recognition that racial profiling harms our society. But like the DOJ policy guidance, local programs don't have the force of law behind them. The Federal government must step up, as President Bush promised. It must play a vital role in protecting civil rights and acting as a model for State and local law enforcement.

Now, perhaps more than ever before, our Nation cannot afford to waste precious law enforcement resources or alienate Americans by tolerating discriminatory practices. The mass detention of hundreds of Middle Eastern and Arab men on minor violations after 9/11, for example, resulted in not a single terrorism charge. These detentions did, however, shatter the lives of many people with no connection to terrorism whatsoever through lengthy disappearances, detentions, and deportations.

Similarly, when the Federal Government required the registration of individuals from Arab or Muslim countries in 2002, between 500 and 1,000 registrants who voluntarily complied were detained in the Los Angeles/Orange County area alone. Such heavy-handed tactics do not help us in fighting terrorism--they shut off dialogue and make good people unwilling to risk interaction with their Government. Treating sympathetic communities as suspicious ones is counterproductive, and it is wrong.

It is past time for Congress and the President to enact comprehensive Federal legislation that will end racial profiling once and for all. In clear language, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 bans racial profiling. It defines racial profiling in terms that are consistent with the Department of Justice's Policy Guidance. But this bill does more than prohibit and define racial profiling--it gives law enforcement agencies and officers the tools necessary to end the harmful practice. For that reason, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 is a pro-law enforcement bill.

This bill would allow the Justice Department or individuals to enforce the prohibition by filing a suit for injunctive relief. The bill would also require Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to adopt policies prohibiting racial profiling, implement effective complaint procedures or create independent auditor programs, implement disciplinary procedures for officers who engage in the practice, and collect data on routine and spontaneous investigatory activities. In addition, it requires the Attorney General to report to Congress so Congress and the American people can monitor whether the steps outlined in the bill to prevent and end racial profiling have been effective.

This bill also authorizes the Attorney General to provide incentive grants to help law enforcement comply with the ban on racial profiling, including funds to conduct training of police officers or purchase in- car video cameras.

Like the bill I introduced in 2005, this year's bill contains a significant improvement over previous versions. In some early proposals, DOJ grants for State and local law enforcement agencies were tied to the agency having some kind of procedure for handling complaints of racial profiling. At the suggestion of experts in the field, the bill now requires law enforcement agencies to adopt either an administrative complaint procedure or an independent auditor program to be eligible for DOJ grants. The Attorney General must promulgate regulations that set out the types of procedures and audit programs that will be sufficient. We believe that the independent auditor option will be preferable for many local law enforcement agencies, and such programs have proven to be an effective way to discourage racial profiling. Also, the Attorney General is required to conduct a 2-year demonstration project to help law enforcement agencies with data collection.

Let me emphasize that local, State, and Federal law enforcement agents play a vital role in protecting the public from crime and protecting the Nation from terrorism. The vast majority of law enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally and without bias and we are all indebted to them for their courage and dedication. This bill should not be misinterpreted as a criticism of those who

put their lives on the line for the rest of us each and every day. Rather, it is a statement that the use of race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin in deciding which persons should be subject to traffic stops, stops and frisks, questioning, searches, and seizures is wrong and ineffective, except where there is specific information linking persons of a particular race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin to a crime.

The provisions in this bill will help restore the trust and confidence of the communities that our law enforcement have pledged to serve and protect. That confidence is crucial to our success in stopping crime and in stopping terrorism. The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 is good for law enforcement and good for America.

I urge the President to make good on his pledge to end racial profiling, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my colleague Senator Gordon Smith to introduce the Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment Act. Millions across the world recently observed the 20th World AIDS Day on December 1, a day of mourning, solidarity, and hope: mourning for the more than 25 million killed already in the AIDS pandemic; solidarity with the 33.2 million living with HIV today; and hope that this plague will be conquered in our time--with an achievable goal of realizing the birth of an HIV-free generation.

In the U.S., we have reached a point where a child living with HIV/ AIDS no longer faces certain death. Thanks to anti-retroviral, ARV, therapy, many children born infected with HIV/AIDS now have the opportunity to grow up healthy. However, long-term survival is a dream that eludes most of the 2.5 million HIV-infected children around the world.

Of the more than 2.5 million new HIV infections in 2007, more than 420,000 were in children. But while children account for almost 16 percent of all new HIV infections, they make up only 9 percent of those on treatment under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR. Without proper care and treatment, half of these newly-infected children will die before their second birthday and 75 percent will die before their fifth.

Every day, approximately 1,100 children across the globe are infected with HIV, the vast majority through mother-to-child transmission during pregnancy, labor or delivery or soon after through breastfeeding. Approximately 90 percent of these infections occur in Africa. With no medical intervention, HIV-positive mothers have a 25 to 30 percent chance of passing the virus to their babies during pregnancy and childbirth. Yet, a single dose of an ARV drug given once to the mother at the onset of labor and once to the baby during the first three days of life reduces transmission of HIV by approximately 50 percent. Providing the full range of interventions, as is the standard of care in the U.S., can further reduce the rate of mother-to-child transmission of HIV to as little as 2 percent. However, according to UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, less than 10 percent of pregnant women with HIV in resource-poor countries have access to prevention of mother-to-child transmission, PMTCT, services.

Significant barriers to PMTCT and the equal care and treatment of HIV-infected children continue to exist. Among the barriers to PMTCT services is their poor integration into the healthcare system, the lack of infrastructure and poor quality health facilities, low utilization of pre-natal services, and a high percentage of unattended at-home births. Because children are not just small adults, providing care and treatment presents special challenges such as limited access to reliable HIV testing for the youngest children, a shortage of providers trained in delivering pediatric care, weak linkages between services to prevent mother-to-child transmission and care and treatment programs, and the need for additional, low-cost formulations of HIV/AIDS medications.

The unfortunate reality of current HIV/AIDS treatment programs is that they will become unsustainable in the long-term unless the number of new HIV infections is reduced globally. The importance of PMTCT for the prevention of the spread of HIV cannot be overstated. According to UNAIDS, prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission requires a comprehensive package of services that includes preventing primary HIV infection in

women, preventing unintended pregnancies in women with HIV infection, preventing transmission from HIV-infected pregnant women to their infants, and providing care, treatment and support for HIV-infected women and their families. A 2003 study found that by adding family planning through PMTCT services in 14 high prevalence countries, more than 150,000 unintended pregnancies were averted, child infections averted nearly doubled, and child deaths averted nearly quadrupled. Studies also show that current levels of contraceptive use in sub- Saharan Africa are already preventing an estimated 22 percent of HIV- positive births.

For many pregnant mothers, PMTCT services may be the only entry point for health care services for themselves and their families. That is why it is essential that PMTCT services be integrated with prevention, care and treatment services. With adequate integration of those services and strategies to ensure successful follow-up and continuity of care, we can significantly improve the outcomes for HIV-affected women and families.

The legislation I am introducing today, the Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment Act, will help prevent thousands of new pediatric HIV infections in the years to come and improve the treatment of children living with HIV/AIDS throughout the world. The legislation will bring our international HIV/AIDS efforts in line with the infection rate of children, by establishing a target that, within 5 years, 15 percent of those receiving care and treatment under PEPFAR should be children.

The legislation establishes another 5-year target to help prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. In those countries most affected, 80 percent of pregnant women should receive HIV counseling and testing, with all those testing positive receiving anti-retroviral medication for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

Under the legislation, the U.S. comprehensive, 5-year global strategy to combat global HIV/AIDS must also integrate prevention, care and treatment with prevention of mother-to-child transmission programs, as soon as feasible and consistent with the national government policies of the foreign countries of PEPFAR countries in order to improve outcomes for HIV-affected women and families and to promote follow-up and continuity of care.

Lastly, the legislation authorizes the creation of a Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission Expert Panel to provide an objective review of PMTCT activities funded under PEPFAR and to provide recommendations to the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator for scale- up of mother-to-child transmission prevention services under PEPFAR in order to reach the newly-established target for PTMCT. The Panel consists of no more than 15 members, to be appointed by the coordinator, and will terminate once it submits its report containing recommendations, findings and conclusions to the coordinator, Congress, and is made public.

To be clear, this legislation does not establish any earmarks within PEPFAR. It does not dictate how much money should be spent on specific activities. I, for one, oppose the current policy under PEPFAR which dictates that one-third of all prevention funds be reserved for abstinence-until-marriage programs, to the detriment of other more effective programs that are producing better results. Certainly abstinence programs have a role to play in PEPFAR, but they should not draw funding away from other, more effective programs. Therefore, it is my hope that Congress does away with that earmark when it reauthorizes PEPFAR, and instead allows for flexibility within PEPFAR.

Instead, the legislation sets 5-year targets that are focused on those receiving services without specifying how much money any given country should spend on specific services to reach the target. I believe this approach is consistent with the April 2007 Institute of Medicine report on PEPFAR which called on Congress to replace arbitrary budget directives with specific targets accounting for the unique epidemics in specific countries, as well as existing available resources. Removal of budget restrictions and the implementation of program targets, such as those authorized under this legislation, would allow local providers to invest in the services and activities most needed to achieve national goals for prevention, care, and treatment.

The struggle against this disease continues on all fronts. Just recently, a report showed that right here in Washington, D.C., the city is in the grip of a ``modern epidemic,'' with one in 20 residents HIV- infected, a rate ten times the national average. In my own State of Connecticut, the need for care and treatment services is at an all time high, while the funding to meet this increased need has declined.

As we take stock of the HIV/AIDS pandemic and our progress against it, we must bear in mind the special vulnerability of the world's children. With this legislation we can increase the number of children receiving care and treatment under PEPFAR and expand access to PMTCT services in order to prevent thousands of new pediatric HIV infections.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am here today to introduce, along with Senator Kohl, the Defined Contribution Fee Disclosure Act. This legislation is designed to address what may seem at first glance like a small issue, but in fact has a dramatic impact on the retirement security of millions of Americans who have 401(k) plans. Not many people realize this, but the Employee Retirement Income Security act, ERISA, does not require plan sponsors to provide participants with information on the level of fees that participants are charged by the various plans they have to choose between.

The number of people participating in defined contribution plans grows every year, and unfortunately, these plans are a bigger part of their nest egg as employers freeze their defined benefit plans. One of the key challenges as we move away from guaranteed benefits is making sure people have all the relevant information to help them decide which plan will best serve their needs. Recently, AARP conducted a survey in which it asked individuals with 401(k) plans if they even knew what they paid each year in fees. Only 17 percent of people asked said that they know what their fee levels were.

This is far from an academic matter. In fact, this could be disastrous for folks when they reach retirement. One person--who wishes to remain anonymous--recently shared with me a story that highlights what's at stake. She noticed one day that her 401(k) wasn't actually earning anything at all. After some examination, she found that the agent who set up the plan for the company received a fee of 2 percent annually for the first five years, reduced to .25 percent after that, paid by the employees and not the company. The investment firm charged a fee of 1.25 percent which they said was standard for companies with under $1 million in their 401ks. So, last year, she was paying 3.25 percent in fees and earning less than 4 percent from her money market fund. She didn't have a clue about the fees until she inquired after she realized she wasn't making any money on the fund.

So looking back at this AARP survey, of those 17 percent who said they knew what their fees were, 33 percent thought they weren't being charged any fees at all. Some companies will even tell people they are not being charged fees. While it is true that in some cases, employers pay fees, that is hardly the norm. And investment managers don't do their jobs for charity. These fees that people don't know about can have a big effect on what they end up with at retirement.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office recently estimated that a 45 year old with $20,000 in his 401(k) would have $70,555 at age 65 for his retirement, assuming he was getting a 6.5 percent return and only paying 0.5 percent in fees. But that figure decreases dramatically if the fees are increased by just a single percentage point, to 1.5 percent. At that figure the same individual, investing the same amount of money, would have only $58,400 for his retirement, or more than $12,000 less.

AARP took the GAO assumptions and created some additional examples. Consider this case: if a 35 year old invested $20,000 in a 401(k) plan over 30 years, paying 0.5 percent in fees, that individual would have $132,287 for retirement. But increase the fees to 1.5 percent, and the amount available for retirement is only $99,679--that is a 25 percent reduction in the account balance. Even if the fee only increased from 0.5 percent to 1 percent, the value of the retirement account would be reduced by $17,417, or a little over 13 percent over the 30-year period.

If you awoke one day to find that your bank account, or your retirement account, had declined in value by 25 percent, you would understandably be alarmed, and you would act quickly to fix the problem. But with high 401(k) fees, the reduction in benefits isn't immediately obvious. It happens slowly, over time, and often flies under people's radar screens because they are not told the level of fees they are paying, or they don't understand that some 401(k) plans charge far lower fees for providing the same amount of services. It is that problem--that information gap--that the Defined Contribution Fee Disclosure Act is designed to fix.

My bill would provide participants with easily understandable information about the fees that they are paying. This information will be provided to them before they pick which plans they want to invest in, and again, regularly, on their quarterly statements.

In addition, this bill does something even more important: it would require companies to disclose more information to plan sponsors. Right now, if you provide your workers with a 401(k) plan, you are required to act prudently and in their sole interest in your fiduciary duties. However, there are hidden fees that are sometimes not disclosed even to plan sponsors, and sometimes those sponsors also are not told about business arrangements between service providers to steer participants into investment options in which they have a stake, a classic conflict of interest.

To fix this, the bill would require 401(k) plan providers to disclose all fees and relationships between service providers to the people selecting the plan a company will ultimately offer. The bottom line is that we want to create a situation where companies are picking several good options for their employees that all have decent reliable returns and fair fees.

One thing my bill does not do is set a limit on fees that can be charged. As I have noted, high fees can make a real difference in account balances at retirement, but so can high returns, in a more positive direction, obviously. Sometimes, it is well worth paying higher fees if a small increase in fees will have a big effect on returns. In addition, some people want to purchase insurance products so that every month, they are buying a more secure piece of retirement. That is just fine, and my bill doesn't touch that. People who fully understand the real cost of a guaranteed return at retirement are the kind of people who appreciate, and will push for, more defined benefit plans. But they can't do that if they don't know what it costs.

The bottom line is that people need to be investing more, and more confidently, in the 401(k) plans they are being offered. This is especially critical in a world where defined benefit plans are increasingly being slashed and frozen. For a growing number of workers, their only source of retirement income is their 401(k).

Congress needs to focus more squarely on how we get workers to participate in the plans they have available, and what we can do to make sure the savings they grow in them are adequate. When people know they are being given all the facts in an easy-to-understand manner, they are more likely to contribute. And when the fiduciaries who are supposed to be looking out for them make sure all of their

options are good, they end up saving more money at the end of the day.

This bill is a win for companies who want to provide their workers with a secure retirement, it is a win for 401(k) providers who have been providing reasonable fees all along, and it is a win for every American who has one of these plans. My colleagues and I introducing this measure have worked with interested parties on every side of this issue to make sure we're taking into account everyone's views. We also intend to work closely with the Department of Labor on their proposed regulations on this issue. While we believe that Congress has an obligation to address this issue, if we can all work together to develop regulations that address this issue in a way that will truly help participants and beneficiaries get a good deal, I am certainly not opposed to getting this done administratively. I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this measure.