Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think there is a clear difference. My colleague from Illinois has a political idea of a fuel standard and says that will increase efficiency. The difference is that the Bond- Levin approach relies on what is working and that is having sound science, administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, pushing the manufacturers of cars to improve mileage as quickly as it can be improved, using science and technology, rather than forcing them to go to small automobiles which, according to NHTSA, have caused between 1,300 and 2,600 more vehicle deaths a year as a result of the lower weight cars needed to meet arbitrary fuel standards previously imposed. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Durbin amendment but to support the Bond-Levin amendment to ensure that we maintain safe, efficient automobiles, getting better fuel economy, and providing choices for our families. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 minutes from Senator Domenici's allocation.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have had quite a bit of discussion on climate change and whether it is due to manmade carbon dioxide. We ask, who should we believe? Who should we trust? On the one hand, we hear the world is ending, catastrophic climate change is upon us. The glaciers are melting, icebergs are breaking up, sea levels are rising, deserts are expanding, and somehow it is due to manmade carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. On the other hand, when you look at history, we have natural variations: little ice ages and medieval warming periods. We have IPCC scientists on the one side who properly couch the lack of certainty in their knowledge, and we have policymakers coming up with certainty that they know the truth based on misreading of these scientists. As the distinguished chairman of the EPW Committee said, we have hockey sticks. That turned out to be the biggest fraud in the so-called scientific literature. It did not matter what you put into it, the way he set it up, it would cause a hockey stick. Subsequent tests showed it means nothing. We know Viking farmers used to farm in Greenland. Do you think it was warm then? Was that warming due to coalfired utilities and automobiles? I don't think so. I came across an interesting article in Investors Business Daily: ``Trust Seal Pups' Assessment of Climate.'' Apparently, a seal pup's weight rises and falls with the temperature of the sea. When the sea temperatures are warmer, there are fewer fish. Seal pups' mothers must spend more time foraging for food and less time feeding their pups. The seal pups' weights decline. When waters are cooler, there are more fish and heavier seals. A recent University of California-Santa Cruz study shows that seal pup weights are now increasing in the Pacific Ocean and have been for the last several years. That corresponds with reports of sardine, anchovy, and salmon populations across the Pacific rebounding and growing as the waters cool. All of this information simply documents a natural 50-year cycle in the Pacific Ocean. It is called the Pacific decadal oscillation. Be sure and write that down because everyone will ask, what does PDO mean? Twenty-five years of cooling followed by 25 years of warming. We are now starting a cooling period. What does this prove? At a minimum, that we have a lot of fat and happy seal pups. What we do not know and cannot know now is whether the current ocean cooling is natural or manmade by carbon dioxide emissions. Scientists are attempting to explain the current warming and cooling trends through an understanding of the Earth's climate. However, the climate is composed of a myriad of complex variables. Casual observers have picked out visible warming examples, such as melting glaciers and permafrost as signs of manmade global warming. However, overall climate data is conflicting and gap filled. Ground-based temperature monitoring turned out to be skewed because it was located near newly urbanized areas and other heat-producing land-management activities. Satellite readings, in addition to showing the flaws of ground-based temperature readings, also turned up unexplained differences between the different layers of the atmosphere. Other atmospheric conditions beyond our understanding include the role of aerosols or other fine particles and water vapor. Apparently, our surface is brighter than it was a few decades ago. This may be related to airborne particles. This could be as variable as dust storms from China dimming sunlight and causing cooling and changed weather patterns. Also, a potential huge effect on climate are water vapor and clouds. Everyone knows that a clear night is colder than a cloudy night when the surface heat is allowed to dissipate. We do not know whether warmer temperatures will mean more vapor and clouds or less, more moisture or less, even warmer temperatures are not. Climate modeling is susceptible to mistakes and manipulation. We have the IPCC Summary for Policymakers not written by scientists who produced the 1,000-page report. We have the famous hockey stick producing the same results no matter what data is entered into the model. We have economic assumptions necessary to produce even the lowest temperature rise wildly optimistic. Does anyone really believe that Third World economic output, like that in Botswana and Zimbabwe, will reach parity with the United States by 2100? Of course not, but climate models depend on just this type of wild assumption. To be fair, modeling something like changes in the climate is extremely difficult. It is almost impossible. We are working hard to improve our understanding of climate, how it changes, and why it changes. The Bush administration, properly, is leading the world in funding for research on climate change. We are searching for answers, but we do not have a firm understanding of our climate, so we cannot have firm answers. Without this understanding of climate change, without the ability to blame climate change on human carbon dioxide emissions, we are now presented with major measures to find a solution to a problem we do not even know it will fix. The Europeans will say privately that even if we cannot prove that carbon dioxide is causing global warming, we should be ``better safe than sorry.'' Unfortunately, if you believe in human-induced global warming, their solution--carbon mandates--will not make us ``safe.'' Kyoto would have had only a minimal effect on the total amount of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. McCain-Lieberman would only have a minuscule impact on total carbon dioxide emissions. What does that leave us with, if we are not ``safe''? It leaves us ``sorry'' but not in ways that climate change proponents will admit. We will all be sorry if we impose carbon caps because of the massive human and economic toll it would take--the unacceptable number of jobs we would kill, the unallowable number of U.S. manufacturers that would be driven overseas to countries not having these restrictions, the unimaginable amount of domestic energy resources we would give up, the unthinkable burdens we would place on the economically disadvantaged. The sponsor of this amendment was quoted in the past as saying, ``My first priority is greenhouse gases.'' Well, my first priority is protecting our families and workers. McCain-Lieberman will hurt families, hurt our Nation's energy security, and drive jobs overseas. I do not want us to be imposing this pain on American families and workers when there is absolutely no assurance it will make any significant, if any, difference on climate change. Tight family budgets and outsourcing jobs to China--what do they have to do with an environmental amendment? How will fighting so-called climate change with this amendment hurt our seniors and struggling families? The answer is all around us. Every time we turn on a light it will cost us more. Every time we cool our homes to fight the blazing summer heat it will cost us more. Every time we turn up the furnace to fight the bitter winter cold, it will cost us more. Our fruits, vegetables, and grains, grown strong with fertilizer, will cost us more. Buying a product made of plastic will cost us more. All of these necessities depend upon electricity or natural gas as a raw material. McCain-Lieberman will drastically force up the price of both. Experts estimate the price of residential electricity would rise an additional 20 percent by the year 2020. How will this drastic increase happen? The amendment will force those who make electricity by burning coal, like we do in Missouri, to switch to high-priced natural gas, already in short supply, already causing burdens on low-income people in my State, already forcing users of natural gas, petrochemical and plastic industries, to move out of the United States. That is why natural gas is already expensive. Supplies are limited. Think what will happen when we demand even more scarce natural gas to protect electricity? Prices will go up. Farmers who use it for fertilizer for their crops will drastically be affected. The average household would lose at least $600 each year by 2010 and up to $1,000 by 2020. But the hardest hit will be seniors and the poor. Higher power and cooling bills will hit those on fixed incomes the hardest. What will they cut? Food, lighting bills, drugs. What will employers cut when they face higher energy costs, higher prices for natural gas? They will cut jobs or move them overseas. Experts predict up to 40,000 lost jobs in 2010, rising to 200,000 lost jobs in 2020. Is that what we want to do, kill 200,000 jobs a year? So where does that leave us? I believe the solution is in new technologies to make clean energy without steep price increases, technologies that will protect our families and protect our workers, technologies that will make our environmental goals affordable, not job ending or poverty inducing. We need investments in hydrogen and fuel cells. We need investments in clean coal. We need technologies that will let us harness domestic fuel supplies and provide clean energy. And when we have these clean, affordable technologies developed, we need to deploy them on a commercial scale. We have super-critical pulverized coal technologies that in the near future will be so efficient that they will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced by 25 to 30 percent. And we are working on the Future Gen program to produce electric power with only water released into the environment. What we need now is to get serious about helping these technologies get to the market. They are more expensive than current plants, so they need some help. The appropriations process under Senator Domenici's leadership is putting more money into clean coal technology, and I thank him for that. This Energy bill under his leadership has technology deployment provisions that will make clean coal technology affordable. Additionally, Senator Hagel's amendment will authorize direct loans, loan guarantees, standby default coverage and standby interest coverage for technologies that reduce greenhouse gases. So I was happy to support that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be granted 2 more minutes.

Mr. BOND. We could have clean and affordable technologies. This bill is moving us in the right direction. That is the way we should go. We have technologies such as mentioned by the Senator from Ohio, the integrated gasification combined cycle that turns coal into gas, allows for the capture of pollution and carbon, and someday will allow us to sequester carbon. This Energy bill is working to make more technology deployable. Senator Hagel's amendment will authorize direct loans. But we could be moving right now to clean up pollution. This spring in the Environment Committee, the Clear Skies legislation, proposed by the President would cut smog-producing nitrogen oxides by 70 percent, acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxides by 70 percent, and mercury by 70 percent. These cuts would have come solely from electric power plants. Ninety percent of the local areas violating EPA air standards would come into compliance with this measure. However, our opponents have held this hostage saying that they do not want to clean up NOx, SOx, and mercury by 70 percent because they want to chase the ephemeral carbon cause of global warming. Well, it is not proven. Manmade emissions are not proven. But we know we can make progress. I considered attaching the Clear Skies legislation to this bill but, unfortunately, opponents would just use that as another excuse to kill both this bill and Clear Skies. But at the end of the day, if we can reject this unwise, overreaching McCain- Lieberman proposal, we will be able to move forward with a measure that will work to increase our energy supply, reduce our dependence on foreign sources, and provide us cleaner energy. I urge my colleagues to oppose the McCain-Lieberman amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article I mentioned be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Stoody, an EPW fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges during the pendency of this legislation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the United States biotechnology industry is the world leader in innovation. This is due, in large part, to the Federal Government's partnership with the private sector to foster growth and commercialization in the hope that one day we will uncover a cure for unmet medical needs such as cystic fibrosis, heart disease, various cancers, multiple sclerosis, and AIDS. However, the industry was dealt a major setback last year when the Small Business Administration--SBA--determined that venture-backed biotechnology companies can no longer participate in the Small Business Innovation Research--SBIR--program. Prior to the SBA's decision, the SBIR program was an example of a highly successful Federal initiative to encourage economic growth and innovation in the biotechnology industry by funding the critical startup and development stages of a company. Traditionally, to qualify for an SBIR grant a small business applicant had to meet two requirements: one, that the company have less than 500 employees; and two, that the business be 51 percent owned by one or more individuals. Now, according to the SBA, the term ``individuals'' means natural persons only, whereas for the past 20 years the term ``individual'' has included venture-capital companies. As a result, biotech companies backed by venture-capital funding in Missouri and throughout our Nation, who are on the cutting edge of science, can no longer participate in the program. The biotech industry is like no other in the world because it takes such a long span of time and intense capital expenditures to bring a successful product to market. In fact, according to a study completed by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, it takes roughly 10-15 years and $800 million for a company to bring just one product to market. As you can imagine, the industry's entrepreneurs are seeking financial assistance wherever they can find it. For the past 20 years, the SBIR program has been a catalyst for developing our Nation's most successful biotechnology companies. In addition to these important government grants, venture capital funding plays a vital role in the financial support of these same companies. The strength of our biotechnology industry is a direct result of government grants and venture capital working together. However, some have argued that a biotech firm with a majority venture capital backing is a large business. This is simply a bogus conclusion. Venture capital firms solely invest in biotech start-ups for the possibility of a future innovation and financial return and generally do not seek to take control over the management functions or day-to-day operations of the company. Venture capital firms that seek to invest in small biotech businesses do not, simply by their investment, turn a small business into a large business. These are legitimate, small, start-up businesses. Let's not punish them. Instead, we must work together to avoid stifling innovation. Let me be clear. Our impact today will foster cures and medicines tomorrow that were once thought to be inconceivable. However, the industry cannot do it alone. We must nurture biotechnology and help the industry grow for the future of our economy and for our well-being. This bill that I am introducing today will do just that. It will ensure that the biotechnology industry has access to SBIR grants, as it has had for 20 years. It will level the playing field to ensure that SBIR grants are given to small businesses based on fruitful science and nothing else. This is still a young and fragile industry, and we are on the cusp of great scientific advances. However, there will be profound consequences if biotechnology companies continue to be excluded from the SBIR program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be in printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the United States biotechnology industry is the world leader in innovation. This is due, in large part, to the Federal Government's partnership with the private sector to foster growth and commercialization in the hope that one day we will uncover a cure for unmet medical needs such as cystic fibrosis, heart disease, various cancers, multiple sclerosis, and AIDS. However, the industry was dealt a major setback last year when the Small Business Administration--SBA--determined that venture-backed biotechnology companies can no longer participate in the Small Business Innovation Research--SBIR--program. Prior to the SBA's decision, the SBIR program was an example of a highly successful Federal initiative to encourage economic growth and innovation in the biotechnology industry by funding the critical startup and development stages of a company. Traditionally, to qualify for an SBIR grant a small business applicant had to meet two requirements: one, that the company have less than 500 employees; and two, that the business be 51 percent owned by one or more individuals. Now, according to the SBA, the term ``individuals'' means natural persons only, whereas for the past 20 years the term ``individual'' has included venture-capital companies. As a result, biotech companies backed by venture-capital funding in Missouri and throughout our Nation, who are on the cutting edge of science, can no longer participate in the program. The biotech industry is like no other in the world because it takes such a long span of time and intense capital expenditures to bring a successful product to market. In fact, according to a study completed by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, it takes roughly 10-15 years and $800 million for a company to bring just one product to market. As you can imagine, the industry's entrepreneurs are seeking financial assistance wherever they can find it. For the past 20 years, the SBIR program has been a catalyst for developing our Nation's most successful biotechnology companies. In addition to these important government grants, venture capital funding plays a vital role in the financial support of these same companies. The strength of our biotechnology industry is a direct result of government grants and venture capital working together. However, some have argued that a biotech firm with a majority venture capital backing is a large business. This is simply a bogus conclusion. Venture capital firms solely invest in biotech start-ups for the possibility of a future innovation and financial return and generally do not seek to take control over the management functions or day-to-day operations of the company. Venture capital firms that seek to invest in small biotech businesses do not, simply by their investment, turn a small business into a large business. These are legitimate, small, start-up businesses. Let's not punish them. Instead, we must work together to avoid stifling innovation. Let me be clear. Our impact today will foster cures and medicines tomorrow that were once thought to be inconceivable. However, the industry cannot do it alone. We must nurture biotechnology and help the industry grow for the future of our economy and for our well-being. This bill that I am introducing today will do just that. It will ensure that the biotechnology industry has access to SBIR grants, as it has had for 20 years. It will level the playing field to ensure that SBIR grants are given to small businesses based on fruitful science and nothing else. This is still a young and fragile industry, and we are on the cusp of great scientific advances. However, there will be profound consequences if biotechnology companies continue to be excluded from the SBIR program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be in printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to recognize June 15, 2005 as National History Day. The National History Day Program is an annual celebration to recognize the importance of a strong history curriculum in schools in Missouri and across the country. This celebration is also a showcase for students across the Nation to present their knowledge and interest in particular events in history through performances, documentaries, and exhibits. This year, Missouri has 5 exemplary students selected from a group 2,000 finalists to perform and present their projects at the Smithsonian American Art Museum. Kate LaRose, a student at Jefferson Junior High School in Columbia, MO, was recognized for her project ``Martha Graham: The Power of Communication through Dance.'' Robert Adams, Raeed Chowdhury, Rui Du, and Yun-Han Huang, all students at Rolla High School in Rolla, MO, were also recognized for their exhibit titled ``Controversial Art: Thomas Hart Benton's Communication Tool.'' I congratulate Katie, Robert, Raeed, Rui, and Yun-Hun for this honor and commended them for their dedication, commitment, and hard work.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am happy to answer. Obviously, it is well- intentioned, but I agree with the distinguished chairman of the committee who has done an excellent job on this entire bill. I commend him. The chairman and ranking member, our two friends from New Mexico, have done great things in this bill, but I think this kind of amendment would cripple its chance of passage. It does not meet the test of scientific reasonableness, sound science that I think we have to follow if we are to make some major improvements in the energy situation in our country.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington. I thank my kind colleague from Louisiana. I attended a meeting at the White House and just returned so I only had this time to do it. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Cantwell oil savings amendment. Obviously, it sounds good. Anybody who says we are going to save more oil, it is a good thing. But I urge my colleagues to look at it for what it really is. This appears to me to be a back-door attempt, arbitrarily, to increase the corporate average fuel economy or what we call the CAFE standards. Along with my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, we have been through the CAFE debate in both the 107th and 108th Congress. It appears, from all I can tell, that if this amendment really has any teeth, it means we are going to go through it again in this Congress. I am sure there will be other efforts to increase CAFE standards later in the debate. Let me remind my colleagues, we went through extensive debate, and we got signed into law measures saying that we must push the technology to increase fuel economy as fast as we can. We directed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to examine the technology and increase the required CAFE standards as quickly as can be done with the technology available. Now, I believe that after all of our debates on CAFE, the Members of this body understand that corporate average fuel economy is a complex issue that requires a lot of thought and scientific analysis. That is why previous CAFE measures in the last Congress were defeated. Members have come to realize that the massive arbitrary increases in CAFE standards cost lives, jobs, and stifle the ability of consumers to choose the vehicle best for their families. It is wonderful to say we want to make a statement--we are not saying how we want to get there, but we really ought to have a major decrease. Well, Mr. President, the effort by Congress initially to establish CAFE standards, without knowing how you are going to get there, wound up with the auto manufacturers being forced to lower the average weight of their automobiles by about a thousand pounds. As I will be discussing later, we have lost thousands and thousands of lives because of unsafe automobiles. Unless you mandate that only certain cars can be sold or you tell people what they have to buy, people may not buy the cars that are made small to conform to the CAFE standards. While I laud my colleagues' desire to conserve oil, the fact is that under this amendment, as best we can determine, the only place oil savings can come from would be a massive increase in CAFE standards. The amendment requires the use of existing authorities to obtain these savings, but they appear to be inadequate to the task required. Authorities to implement the requirement or mandate are very limited. According to a recent Energy Information Association report, by 2025, oil consumption reductions on the order of 1.3 million barrels per day might be expected using a broad array of incentives and policies, such as new appliance efficiency standards, credits for home efficiency upgrades, additional tax credits for advanced technologies, energy performance standards for customers of selected utilities, and, of course, the promotion and use of renewable fuels. Many of these policies are already outside of the scope of existing authorities and still fall short of the goal of this amendment of 7.64 million barrels per day. Furthermore, assuming the renewable fuels standard included in the bill can be doubled by 2025 to 16 billion gallons per year, which is ambitious and also beyond existing authorities, it would contribute only 1 million barrels a day of petroleum reduction toward the Cantwell goal. As a result, some 4 to 5 billion barrels per day would be required, and there is no readily apparent source to get it from. The Cantwell amendment fails to protect these policies subject to existing authorities from excessive implementation. Existing programs, such as CAFE, may be called upon to provide contributions toward the goal that are far in excess of the normal implementation of these programs if there are inadequate overall authorities or demand reductions to accomplish these goals and other measures. For example, the Energy Information Association analysis referenced above estimates that with a 20-percent increase in CAFE standards by 2012, in conjunction with the other policy options analyzed, only a 1.1-percent decrease in the net import share of oil consumption occurs by 2025. The 40-percent reduction required in the Cantwell amendment is far beyond what can reasonably be expected, using existing authorities. The proposed amendment assumes that huge, new opportunities exist to reduce oil demand, but existing programs will ultimately be held accountable. The development of fuel cells and extensive implementation of other advanced technologies may contribute significantly to the accomplishment of the goal, but the contributions they might make are highly uncertain. If we don't know where they are coming from, the consequences could be something very different than what we bargained for and having the adverse consequences we have seen from other broad mandates where Congress assumed that great, good things could be accomplished. Those are some of the reasons, frankly, we got into this energy problem, because of some of the ``great'' ideas. I will only mention the forcing of electric utilities to burn natural gas, which has caused a great part of the energy problem we have today. In addition, since the measures must be defined and implemented starting within a year, existing programs and authorities would have to be relied upon extensively to develop the plan and to make up any shortfalls. The Cantwell amendment would push the administration to rely on contributions from programs and activities that are high risk, high cost, and the benefits are unknowable at this point. The President is allowed 1 whole year under the amendment to develop and implement measures that will save an amount of oil equivalent to 90 percent of the annual consumption of the current light-duty vehicle fleet. However, the timing and the level of contributions of programs such as fuel cell and hydrogen development can only be guessed at this point, and authorities to fully implement them are still being developed. In light of this, my question would be, How can the President obtain the oil savings required under this amendment? According to the Department of Energy's EIA, the vast majority of petroleum consumption in the United States--68 percent in 2002--is in the transportation sector. Any reduction in petroleum consumption will imply a substantial contribution from this sector. Under the Cantwell amendment, CAFE standards for cars, light trucks, and SUVs will skyrocket. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, in its examination of the EIA's assessments on oil savings, projects that the Cantwell amendment will require CAFE standards for passenger cars nearly to triple from its current level of 27.5 miles per gallon to 78.6 miles per gallon by 2025. Anybody for riding a golf cart? Furthermore, the CAFE standard for light trucks and SUVs would nearly triple from its current level of 21 miles per gallon to 60.8 miles per gallon by 2025. Under the 20-year duration of the proposed amendment, the yearly percentage increase for passenger cars and light trucks would be equal to a 10-percent rate of increase. According to NHTSA, the ``maximum feasible'' standard for cars and light trucks for the years 2005 to 2007 is a 2.8-percent rate of increase. To go above that, to have the 10-percent increase, would not only be technically infeasible, but it would have a devastating effect on employment in the auto industry. If the requirements of the Cantwell amendment are enacted, then we could kiss tens of thousands of good, high-paying, American union jobs goodbye. I don't want to do that to the roughly 36,000 hard-working men and women who work directly for the automotive industry in Missouri, nor am I willing to do that to the over 200,000 men and women who work in auto-dependent jobs in my State or those employed directly and indirectly throughout this Nation. Furthermore, what does the Cantwell amendment mean for the size and safety of our Nation's vehicle fleet? If we force consumers to drive smaller vehicles, which is what will happen under arbitrary CAFE increases, then we can expect a lot more highway fatalities. Yesterday, I received some frightening statistics from NHTSA and the National Center for Statistics and Analysis regarding the small vehicle fatality rates. In 2003, over 3,200 fatalities resulted from crashes involving smaller vehicles. This is anywhere from 2 to 7 times more than the fatality rates for larger, heavier vehicles, depending on their weight class. As we talked about the last time we debated CAFE, when we take a look at it over the years, NHTSA has found that solely as a result of the lighter cars made necessary by CAFE standards, between 1,000 and 2,000 more people were killed on the highways than would have been killed if they had larger vehicles. This isn't just on head-to-head, running into another larger car or a larger vehicle; over 40 percent of those were single-car accidents. The latest figures I have heard is that NHTSA estimates that 1,300 deaths a year occur because of the mandated smaller size cars made necessary by the CAFE standards. Make no mistake, you may call this an oil savings, but this is CAFE all over again. As I have stated time and again, far-reaching increases to fuel efficiency standards that are not based on sound science are too costly and impractical for us to adopt. The lives and safety of drivers and their passengers, along with the livelihood of men and women in the automotive workforce who manufacture these vehicles, is too much of a price to pay for unthought-out, unscientific fuel efficiency standards. And, finally, make no mistake about it, this goes to consumer choice. Consumers are making the decision on what kind of vehicles they want to drive. Right now, more and more of them are opting for light trucks. Are we going to tell them that we are going to tell them what kind of vehicle they can purchase? Are we going to have some Soviet-style czar who says because they have two parents and two children in the family, we will allow them one minicar and one small van? Who is going to decide if we take away from the consumers their right to choose these vehicles? If we have fuel standards of 78 miles per gallon, we are not going to be able to buy any of the cars we want. Consumers are not going to have choices. We are going to see people out of work in the auto industry, major disruptions in the transportation sector, a great inconvenience, and increased highway dangers. I urge my colleagues to continue to work for sound, science-based ways to conserve and produce more energy and to reject a measure that does not have a good, sound scientific foundation. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. We would have golf carts.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think the facts are clear. You have heard this many times. Almost everything has been said, but not everybody has said it. I want to go over some of the facts I think are very important. For 214 years judicial nominations have come to the Senate floor and have been considered without filibuster. It is a courtesy extended by my fellow Senators to the President. By resorting to filibustering judicial nominees who have the support of a majority of Senators, which began in 2003 by colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they are throwing overboard 214 years of Senate courtesy and tradition. The Constitution of the United States does not contain a word about filibusters. The Federalist Papers do not contain the word ``filibuster.'' Rather, the Constitution lays out the standards for confirming judges. It does not require a 60-vote majority for confirmation. It requires a majority vote to confirm members of the Federal judiciary. The Democrats in this Chamber have taken it upon themselves to rewrite the rules for confirming justices. They now demand 60 votes for confirmation to a circuit court or potentially a Supreme Court position. For the first time, judicial nominations with clear majority support are denied an up-or-down 51-vote, Senate majority vote on the Senate floor through the unprecedented use of the filibuster. There is no constitutional authority for their demands, and it is an abandonment of the tradition of this Chamber. We are perfectly within our rights and history is on our side as we prepare to take steps to ensure the confirmation of judges with majority support. In an attempt to cloud these rather clear facts, the Democrats have put forward a parade of dubious arguments to support their filibusters, obfuscation to justify political obstructionism. One of the facts they overlook is their obligation to check the President--and our very system of checks and balances gives them authority and demands action. But the Senate has the ability to check the President, not a minority of the Senate willing to pervert the rules of this body. The majority, therefore the Senate as a body, and representing a separate branch of Government, has spoken on these nominations. These nominees enjoy the support of the majority body's Members. The President has made his nominations and made his case for the nominations. Supporters and opponents of the nominees have made their case before the Senate on these nominations. From the votes we have taken we have seen that a majority of the Senate agrees with the President and supports his nominations. Under the system to check the President, as laid out clearly in the Constitution, the President has carried the issue and won the support of the body that has the authority to register its disapproval. It has not disapproved. The Constitution says nothing on the subject of a filibuster, and it says nothing of the power of a minority to defeat the President's judicial nominations. It is the product of a rule of the Senate passed many years after the ratification of the Constitution. This rule does not derive from the authority of the Constitution. Furthermore, the rule is being used in a manner never used before. It is a perversion of the intent of the Constitution and, if its use in this manner is not abandoned, then we must take steps to wipe it from the books. Let me go back to statements made about this process. Democrats are trying to change the constitutional standard for confirmation from a simple majority to a 60-vote standard. That is why we see the claim of the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia that the nominations were rejected because they did not get 60 votes for cloture in the 108th Congress. Senators from Nevada, New York, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts have said they were rejected. A 60-vote standard is contrary to the Constitution. The Constitution spells out clearly where a supermajority is required: For veto overrides, constitutional amendments, treaty ratification, expelling a Member, convictions for impeachment. Judicial confirmation is not one of them. It is also a double standard based on past treatment of a Democratic President's nominees. For example, Clinton nominees Richard Paez and Susan Molloway and William Fletcher were all confirmed with fewer than 60 votes, as were Carter nominees Abner Mikva and L.T. Senter. It is said that justice delayed is justice denied. These filibusters of judicial nominations have slowed the consideration of cases in the Federal appeals court, especially in the Sixth Circuit, where Democrats have blocked four qualified nominees. As my colleague from Mississippi has pointed out, these good people who have devoted their life to law and the judiciary have been subject to interminable delays, personal vilification, without giving them the right to an up-or-down vote which this body has already demonstrated they would give them. Look at what they have said. Back in 1975 in the Congressional Record of February 20: The filibuster has been the shame of the Senate and the last resort of special interest groups. Too often, it has enabled a small minority of the Senate to prevent a strong majority from working its will and serving the public interest. So spoke the senior Senator from Massachusetts. Then, in 1998, June 18, a statement from the Congressional Record: I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would . . . object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported. That was the senior Senator from Vermont. He also said: I do not want to get [to] having to invoke cloture on judicial nominations. I think it is a bad precedent. Congressional Record, September 16, 1999. Another quote: If we want to vote against somebody, vote against them. I respect that. State your reasons. I respect that. But don't hold up a qualified judicial nominee . . . I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would . . . object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty.'' Same Senator from Vermont, June 18, 1998. Here is another one from the Congressional Record March 19, 1997: But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated ought to have a shot, to have a hearing and have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor . . . It is totally appropriate for Republicans to reject every single nominee if they want to. That is within their right. But it is not, I will respectfully request, Madam President, appropriate not to have hearings on them, not to bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote . . . That was the distinguished senior Senator from Delaware, March 19, 1997. Here is another good quote: The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said: ``The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.'' Which is exactly what I would like. The distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, Congressional Record, March 7, 2000. Mr. President, the minority had the opportunity to win their argument long before it reached the Senate. They had a chance to win at the ballot box. They argued that the American people could send Members of the Senate who agreed with their legislative agenda and their view of the role of the judiciary. The American people did not agree with the minority and sent an increased majority of Members to the Senate who agree with the President on the role of the judiciary, the type of individuals who should occupy these positions, and the need to give them an up-or-down vote. On two occasions, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had the chance to win the argument on judicial nominations and had a chance to win this argument at the ballot box. They did not. They had a chance to convince a majority of the Members of the Senate that the nominees are unsuitable to sit on the Federal bench. They were unable to do so. So they have resorted to turning a Senate rule on its head and insisting on an application never used before to win a debate they could not win by a simple 51-vote majority. Now our Democratic colleagues come to the floor and say the view of the majority of the Senate and the view of a President, who won the most votes ever by any President, is out of the mainstream. A minority is now demanding their view--which is the minority opinion in this body, and apparently from the opinion polls and our contacts, the minority opinion in the country--should carry the day as to what is and what is not in the mainstream. Once again, this line of thought would seem to turn logic on its head. To cloud further the unprecedented nature of their attack on the President's nominations, my Democratic colleagues are blowing their own horn about confirming 208 of the President's nominees versus only defeating 10; a stellar record of cooperation they claim, evidenced by confirming 95 percent of the President's nominees. By confirming the President's district court nominees they are attempting to hide a blatant attack on the President's nominees for higher court, appellate courts, courts of appeal. The circuit courts of appeals are the second most important courts in the land behind only the Supreme Court of the United States. When it comes to confirmation of the President's nominees, their record is not one of cooperation but one of unprecedented assault. Nearly one in three of President Bush's nominees for the Federal court of appeals has been targeted for defeat. This is not by accident. We know two days after the Senator from Vermont switched parties and changed the balance of the Senate in June of 2001, a number of extreme left-leaning groups met to plot the defeat of circuit court nominees. Their analysis showed a Republican President would surely nominate judges with a philosophy consistent with the President, strict construction of the Constitution, rather than the extreme leftwing judicial legislation views of their own. The left-leaning groups saw their balance on the court decreasing, and their plan was to defeat circuit court nominees. Their plan was not to argue for judges in the mainstream or to defeat district court nominees. Their objective was to defeat, by any means, circuit court nominees of President Bush. Yesterday we saw this outline in the Washington Times. These groups, in turn, met with Senate Democrats to target certain nominees. Surprisingly, the nominees the groups decided to target seemed to be neatly in line with those ultimately targeted by Senate Democrats. So, actually, the minority has been outsourcing their decision as to who is and who is not in the mainstream to outside liberal groups such as People for the American Way, which a glance at any of their material reveals they are not exactly in the mainstream. Here are a couple of excerpts from the Washington Times article yesterday: In a November 7, 2001, internal memo to Sen. Richard J. Durbin, who is now the minority whip, an aide described a meeting that the Illinois Democrats had missed between groups opposed to Mr. Bush's nominations and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee. The memo goes on to State: Based on input from these groups, I would place the appellate nominees in the categories below . . . listing 19 nominees as ``good,'' ``bad'' or ``ugly.'' Four of the 10 nominees who Democrats have since filibustered were deemed either ``bad'' or ``ugly.'' None of those deemed ``good'' by the outside groups was filibustered. Among those listed as ``ugly,'' was Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, whose nomination will be brought to the floor today by Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican. In a June 4, 2002, memo to Mr. Kennedy, staffers advised him that Justice Owen would be ``our next big fight.'' ``We agree that she is the right choice--she has had a bad record on labor, personal injury and choice issues, and a broad range of national and local Texas groups are ready to oppose her,'' the aides wrote. I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record after my statement.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I seem to recall that. I thought it was a very statesmanlike and accurate portrayal of the traditions of this body and the requirements of the Constitution, and I once again commend our colleague from Utah, who at that time was in a position where he obviously could have mustered 41 votes to block the nominee. It was the view of those of us who agreed with the Senator from Utah that we should not do that because the people of America elected a President who has--we know and he knows--the power to nominate judges. And it is necessary to maintain a well-staffed judiciary that we give prompt and up-or-down votes to these nominees.

Mr. BOND. As I believe has been stated many times before, Justice Owen has won overwhelming support, more than three-quarters support of the majority of Texas and the endorsement of major leading newspapers, the Bar Association, but the left-leaning groups did not like her. Our colleagues in the minority want congratulations for the fact that nearly all of the President's trial court judges have been confirmed. I respect greatly the men and women on the Federal district court. In the eyes of the Senate Democrats, however, clearly, all judgeships are not created equal. We see the contrast between the way the Democrats are conducting business and the way business has been conducted by tradition. Nearly one of three of the President's nominees to the appellate court, the circuit court are being filibustered. Prior to the Democrats embarking on this path, 2,372 nominees were confirmed without a filibuster; 377 of President Clinton's nominees were confirmed without a filibuster. Judges were confirmed for 214 years without there being a filibuster. So the minority has turned over the determination as to who is and who is out of the mainstream to a number of out-of-the-mainstream groups, and they let these groups lead us down the path of destroying Senate tradition of 200 years. Not a record, in my view, that warrants a hardy pat on the back. In a thoughtful opinion piece in today's Washington Times, majority leader Bob Dole recalls there were a few nominations made by President Clinton that were clearly objectionable to most Republicans. He said: I recall two judicial nominations of President Clinton's particularly troubling to me and my fellow Republicans members when I was the Republican Leader in the Senate. Despite our objections, both received an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. In fact, I voted to end debate on one of these nominees while voting against his confirmation. Republicans chose not to filibuster because it was considered inappropriate for nominations to the federal bench. Senator Dole goes on to say: By creating a new 60-vote threshold for confirming judicial nominees, today's Senate Democrats have abandoned more than 200 years of Senate tradition. For the first time, judicial nominees with clear majority support are denied an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor through an unprecedented use of the filibuster. This is not a misrepresentation of history; it's a fact. I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record after my remarks.

Mr. BOND. We have heard a lot of statements and posturing from the other side about the President trying to pack the courts and how this is a nuclear option. Let me tell you what the nuclear option is. The Democrats say if we go back to the tradition of confirming judges by a 51-vote up-or-down majority in the Senate, they are going to blow up the Senate. They are going to bring everything to a halt. They are going to destroy this body because we insist on what Democrats, prior to 2001, agreed with us; that is, judicial nominations brought to the floor deserve to be confirmed by a 51-vote up-or-down majority. Already, we have seen the Democrats' stall tactics. ``Stall ball'' is being played. For people not in this body, you may not know that any Senator has a right to object to committee hearings being conducted 2 hours after the Senate goes in session. Even though this is regular order, this is standard procedure, we have had the Democratic side object to holding hearings. Yesterday, we were scheduled to have a very important meeting in our Intelligence Committee to go over current threats, the intelligence of the dangers that our troops in the field face and the dangers we in the homeland face. That meeting was canceled because the Democrats objected. The Energy Committee is trying to write a very important bill dealing with energy. We have not had an energy policy in a decade and a half. Gas prices have gone through the roof. We are seeing shortages. We are paying at the pump. We are paying in our home heating bills, paying with jobs going overseas because of the unnatural, artificial restrictions on the development of sources of energy in the United States--natural gas, oil, and even renewable fuel--while demand artificially is being increased for natural gas by the requirement that rules require it be used in electric utilities. And yet by objecting to committee hearings, the Democrats are limiting the Energy Committee to 2 hours a day and a markup. It is not the President who is distorting rules to forward his nominations. It is not the President who has abandoned tradition and courtesy in forwarding his nomination. It is not the President who is attempting to rewrite the Constitutional standard for confirming judges. The other side of the aisle thinks if they can muster 41 votes, they ought to stop anybody that their leftwing, liberal interest groups target for blocking from confirmation. The President is exercising his constitutional role to appoint members of the Federal judiciary, and he is doing so following his decisive victory last fall after winning more votes than any other president in history, promising to appoint good, well-qualified, highly qualified, highly respected judges and attorneys to the courts of appeal. Who is and who is not in the mainstream of American thought? I believe it is clear that the President and the majority in the Senate have a right to give these well-qualified nominees an up-or-down 51-vote majority vote on the floor of the Senate. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Times, May 19, 2005] Memos Reveal Strategy Behind Judge Filibusters (By Charles Hurt) The ``nuclear'' showdown that is expected to begin unfolding in the Senate today has its origins in closed-door discussions more than three years ago between key Senate Democrats and outside interest groups as they huddled to plot strategies for blocking President Bush's judicial nominees. In a Nov. 7, 2001, internal memo to Sen. Richard J. Durbin, who is now the minority whip, an aide described a meeting that the Illinois Democrat had missed between groups opposed to Mr. Bush's nominees and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee. ``Based on input from the groups, I would place the appellate nominees in the categories below,'' the staffer wrote, listing 19 nominees as ``good,'' ``bad'' or ``ugly.'' Four of the 10 nominees who Democrats have since filibustered were deemed either ``bad'' or ``ugly.'' None of those deemed ``good'' by the outside groups was filibustered. Among those listed as ``ugly'' was Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, whose nomination will be brought to the floor today by Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican. The internal Democratic memos, downloaded from Democratic computer servers in the Judiciary Committee by Republican staffers, offer a unique look into the early stages of the filibuster campaign, when Democrats were clearly doubtful that they could succeed in blocking any of the nominees. In the 14 memos obtained in November 2003 by the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times, Democratic staffers outlined the concerns held by outside groups about Justice Owen's ``hostile'' position toward abortion and her ``pro- business'' attitude. In a June 4, 2002, memo to Mr. Kennedy, staffers advised him that Justice Owen would be ``our next big fight.'' ``We agree that she is the right choice--she has a bad record on labor, personal injury and choice issues, and a broad range of national and local Texas groups are ready to oppose her,'' the aides wrote. Another nominee discussed often in the memos is Miguel Estrada, a Washington lawyer who became the first filibustered nominee and who withdrew his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit after waiting two years for a final vote. In the 2001 memo to Mr. Durbin, the staffer explained the concerns that the outside groups had about Mr. Estrada. ``They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous because he had a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment,'' the aide wrote. The memos also reveal the close relationship between Democrats and the outside groups. In a June 21, 2002, memo to Democrats Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York and Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, a staffer urged delaying a hearing for Mr. Estrada to ``give the groups time to complete their research and the committee time to collect additional information.'' One nominee who wasn't filibustered was Judge Timothy Tymkovich, who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. But Democrats opposed moving him until all the groups had given their approval. ``[I]t appears that the groups are willing to let Tymkovich go through (the core of the coalition made that decision last night, but they are checking with the gay rights groups),'' staffers wrote Mr. Kennedy in a June 12, 2002, memo. But even as late as early 2003, Democrats appeared concerned that they would not succeed in mounting a full- scale filibuster against their first target. In a January 2003 meeting between Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and Democratic leaders in the Senate, Democrats agreed to attempt a filibuster against Mr. Estrada. ``All in attendance agreed to attempt to filibuster the nomination of Miguel Estrada, if they have the votes to defeat cloture,'' the judiciary aides wrote. ``They also agreed that, if they do not have the votes to defeat cloture, a contested loss would be worse than no contest.''

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, after working 2\1/2\ years on this bill, we have a bill that brings the environmental considerations into the planning early on so they can be dealt with without wasting money, time, and resources. No State gets as much as they would like, but thanks to the Finance Committee, the donor States get up to 92 cents. All States go up by at least 15 percent. Given the constraints under which we operated, I urge my colleagues to adopt this bill. I commend the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Jim Inhofe, along with Senators Baucus and Jeffords for a job well done. It has been a pleasure working with them. I also think it is appropriate to recognize the staff members that have put in many countless hours of their time to assist in drafting this legislation. I want to especially recognize my staff: Ellen Stein, John Stoody and Heideh Shahmoradi. Staff with Senator Inhofe: Ruth Van Mark, James Q'Keeffe, Andrew Wheeler, Nathan Richmond, Greg Murrill, Alex Herrgott, John Shanahan, Angie Giancarlo, and Rudy Kapichak. Senator Jefford's staff: JC Sandberg, Allison Taylor, Malia Somerville, JoEllen Darcy, and Chris Miller. And Kathy Ruffalo with Senator Baucus. This bill faced great challenges within these past 2\1/2\ years. The committee worked hard through many meetings, hearings, a failed conference, and all to repeat the process again this year in order to get where we are today. Interestingly enough, while on the floor both last year and this year, the Senate was sidetracked by ricin last year which had the Senate office buildings shut down for a couple of days. And just last week, a general aviation aircraft entered our air space causing us all to run out of the Senate Chamber. I can honestly say, I will be relieved when this bill is finally passed. Some of the highlights that I am proud of in this bill include the emphasis on safety. Safety, for the first time in our recent transportation legislation, is given a prominent position and elevated to a core program. This bill mirrors the administration's proposal by continuing our commitment to our motoring public's safety. Nearly 43,000 lives are taken on our roads and highways each year. I am glad that the bill reflects the continued commitment to making not only investments in our infrastructure, but also to the general safety and welfare of our constituents. Another highlight of this bill moves to carefully balance the needs of the donor States while also recognizing the needs of donee States. My home State of Missouri, like many of the donor States mentioned, has some of the worst roads in the Nation. The condition of many of the roads and bridges in Missouri require immediate repair or reconstruction. I am pleased to say that we did make progress in achieving a 92 cent rate of return by the end of the authorization. I am hopeful that donor States will see a dollar for dollar rate of return in the future. Further, I am proud to announce that all States will grow at not less than 15 percent over TEA-21. The bill also addresses several environmental issues that provide the necessary tools to reduce or eliminate unnecessary delays during the environmental review process. Transportation projects can be built more quickly by allowing environmental stakeholders to weigh in at the early stages. Mr. President, we are facing an expiration of May 31. I am confident that if conferees are named shortly, we will only require a short-term extension and can move this bill through conference quickly. Our States need a multi-year bill. We cannot delay contracts anymore. The economy needs this boost and people need the jobs that this bill will provide. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues as we go to conference.

Mr. BOND. I am happy to. And let me say that I agree with the Senator from California that there is a serious problem with grade crossings in this country, and I commend her for her leadership on this issue.

Mr. BOND. Yes, this program would allow California--and all States-- to use 2 percent of its National Highway System funding for three purposes, one of which is to eliminate grade crossings.

Mr. BOND. Yes, up to 50 percent of this funding could be used for grants specifically for grade separations.

Mr. BOND. I will be happy to continue working with the Senator from California.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, currently, more than 3,700 children and youth under the age of 13 are living with HIV or AIDS in the United States and of the more than 40,000 Americans newly infected with HIV each year, half are young people under the age of 25 years old. When we think about this devastating virus we do not often associate it with children, especially infants or newborn babies, but the fact is this disease does not discriminate on the basis of age. It affects children in very specific and very different ways than adults. For instance, the medical experience of children with HIV/AIDS can differ significantly from that of adults. Because children's immune systems are still immature, the disease typically progresses more rapidly in children than in adults and can have different manifestations. For example, the majorities of children with HIV have neurological abnormalities and are more susceptible to certain opportunistic infections than adults. In addition, because children's bodies are growing and developing, HIV/AIDS can have profound effects on children's physical growth and ability to reach developmental milestones such as crawling, walking and learning to walk. Medication for young children living with HIV/AIDS can also be very different than that of an adult living with HIV/AIDS. For example, children of certain ages cannot swallow pills and require liquid formulations of life-saving HIV/AIDS drugs that are not always readily available. In addition, dosing and safety information for these powerful drugs are often strikingly different for children and adults, and for younger children, this information is typically completely missing. This lack of information puts children at risk by requiring health care providers to estimate correct dosing. Too much medication can be toxic, and too little will not effectively suppress the virus. Over time, underdosing can lead to drug resistance. Children are not just small adults and their growing bodies are especially susceptible to the rapid advancement of HIV infection. Early awareness that a child has HIV infection, combined with good care and support, can enhance survival and quality of life, which is why I am introducing, with my colleague Senator Dodd, The Children and Family HIV/AIDS Research and Care Act. This legislation will address those needs of children and adolescents living with HIV/AIDS by reauthorizing Title IV of the Ryan White CARE Act and expanding its focus on reaching and caring for adolescents with HIV/AIDS. Moreover, this legislation will continue to work to reduce mother-to-child transmission of HIV, by promoting routine, voluntary prenatal HIV testing and intensive care management for HIV-positive pregnant women. In addition, because children are at risk of being left behind in the search for an effective HIV vaccine, the bill will require federal agencies funding and regulating HIV vaccine research to develop plans and guidelines for including pediatric populations in clinical trials as quickly as is medically and ethically appropriate. This legislation will also encourage research on key remaining pediatric research questions, including how to provide safer and more effective treatment options for children with HIV/AIDS. For a young person living with HIV or AIDS there is no cure and there is no remission. It is with them at home, on the playground, in the classroom, and at a Friday night sleepover. It will be with them as they enter high school, go to college and get their first job. For a person born with this virus it is a permanent part of their life. This bill will help to ensure that the needs of infants, children, and adolescents living with HIV/AIDS are not overlooked.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, currently, more than 3,700 children and youth under the age of 13 are living with HIV or AIDS in the United States and of the more than 40,000 Americans newly infected with HIV each year, half are young people under the age of 25 years old. When we think about this devastating virus we do not often associate it with children, especially infants or newborn babies, but the fact is this disease does not discriminate on the basis of age. It affects children in very specific and very different ways than adults. For instance, the medical experience of children with HIV/AIDS can differ significantly from that of adults. Because children's immune systems are still immature, the disease typically progresses more rapidly in children than in adults and can have different manifestations. For example, the majorities of children with HIV have neurological abnormalities and are more susceptible to certain opportunistic infections than adults. In addition, because children's bodies are growing and developing, HIV/AIDS can have profound effects on children's physical growth and ability to reach developmental milestones such as crawling, walking and learning to walk. Medication for young children living with HIV/AIDS can also be very different than that of an adult living with HIV/AIDS. For example, children of certain ages cannot swallow pills and require liquid formulations of life-saving HIV/AIDS drugs that are not always readily available. In addition, dosing and safety information for these powerful drugs are often strikingly different for children and adults, and for younger children, this information is typically completely missing. This lack of information puts children at risk by requiring health care providers to estimate correct dosing. Too much medication can be toxic, and too little will not effectively suppress the virus. Over time, underdosing can lead to drug resistance. Children are not just small adults and their growing bodies are especially susceptible to the rapid advancement of HIV infection. Early awareness that a child has HIV infection, combined with good care and support, can enhance survival and quality of life, which is why I am introducing, with my colleague Senator Dodd, The Children and Family HIV/AIDS Research and Care Act. This legislation will address those needs of children and adolescents living with HIV/AIDS by reauthorizing Title IV of the Ryan White CARE Act and expanding its focus on reaching and caring for adolescents with HIV/AIDS. Moreover, this legislation will continue to work to reduce mother-to-child transmission of HIV, by promoting routine, voluntary prenatal HIV testing and intensive care management for HIV-positive pregnant women. In addition, because children are at risk of being left behind in the search for an effective HIV vaccine, the bill will require federal agencies funding and regulating HIV vaccine research to develop plans and guidelines for including pediatric populations in clinical trials as quickly as is medically and ethically appropriate. This legislation will also encourage research on key remaining pediatric research questions, including how to provide safer and more effective treatment options for children with HIV/AIDS. For a young person living with HIV or AIDS there is no cure and there is no remission. It is with them at home, on the playground, in the classroom, and at a Friday night sleepover. It will be with them as they enter high school, go to college and get their first job. For a person born with this virus it is a permanent part of their life. This bill will help to ensure that the needs of infants, children, and adolescents living with HIV/AIDS are not overlooked.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in these few moments before the vote, I commend the chairman of our Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, along with Senators Jeffords and Baucus, for a job well done. We can't forget Senator Reid, whom we consider an emeritus member of the EPW Committee, who has helped a great deal. Tremendous staff work has gone into this. I appreciate the great work of my staff: Allen Stein, John Stoody, Heideh Shahmoradi; Senator Inhofe's staff, Ruth Van Mark, James O'Keeffe, Andrew Wheeler, Nathan Richmond, Greg Murrill, Alex Herrgott, John Shanahan, Angie Giancarlo, and Rudy Kapichak; Senator Jeffords' staff, JC Sandberg, Allison Taylor, Malia Somerville, JoEllen Darcy, and Chris Miller; and Kathy Ruffalo with Senator Baucus. Kathy brings a great deal of expertise to this effort. We urge passage of this bill. It doesn't go as far as most of us would like, but it certainly moves us in the right direction. We appreciate the great work of all who cooperated on it.