Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, with 26 years in the Senate and as a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I do not have the right to see these documents?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oregon. I thank him for his eloquent statement and for his admonition as well about the importance of these documents and how relevant they are to the discussion--and the inability of most of us here to have any idea what is in them. I admire the Senator from Oregon for insisting on his right to see them and therefore sharing with us at least in general terms the substance of those documents and their relevance to the request for seeking retroactive immunity, going back 5 years. I think his comments should carry great weight with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. As he has pointed out so many times, these issues should never be associated with partisan debate. The idea of striking that balance between security and protecting the rights of individuals was exactly the motivation for the original FISA legislation almost 30 years ago. As the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, pointed out, there have been 30 modifications to that legislation over 30 years in order to make it relevant. As the world changed and technology improved, it was important to modify that legislation so we would have the capacity to minimize the threats against our Nation. Earlier today, Mr. President, I began some comments and interrupted them when I allowed the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, to make her remarks. I want to pick up where I left off. Mr. President, both versions of the bill--that is, the version prepared by my friend from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Bond, and the version prepared by the Senate Judiciary Committee--authorize the President of the United States to conduct overseas surveillance without individual warrants. I think that needs to be repeated. You can conduct overseas surveillance without individual warrants. That is not the subject of the debate here at all. Both of these bills allow the President to submit his procedures for this new kind of surveillance for the review of the FISA Court--after those procedures are already in place. But only one version of the bill balances these significant new procedural powers with real oversight from the Congress and the courts, and that is the Judiciary Committee version. I say respectfully that the version by the Intelligence Committee, I am afraid, is a bill of token oversight and weak protections for innocent Americans, and the Senate ought to vote it down. Specifically, the bill fails on five counts. First, its safeguards against the targeting of Americans--its minimization procedures--are insufficient. It significantly expands the President's surveillance power, while leaving checks on that power unchanged. This version of the bill provides practically no deterrent against excessive domestic spying--no consequences if the court finds the President's minimization procedures, in fact, lacking. If his targeting procedures are found lacking, the President hardly has to worry; he can keep and share all the information he obtained, and he can continue his actions all the way through the judicial review process, which could take, of course, months. It should be clear to all of us that real oversight includes the power to enforce. The Intelligence Committee's version of this bill offers us the semblance of judicial oversight but not the real thing. Imagine a judge convicting a bank robber and then letting him keep the loot as long as he promises to never, ever, ever do it again. That might as well be the bill before us. In fact, the bill before us would allow the President to immediately target anybody on a whim. Wiretapping could start even before the court has approved it. In this bill, oversight is exactly where the President would like it--after the fact. Don't get me wrong: when a President needs immediate emergency authority to begin wiretapping, he should have it. If you need it immediately, you ought to get it immediately. I think all of us find that obvious. The question is what to do in those cases that aren't emergencies. In those cases, I believe there is no reason the court shouldn't give advice and approval beforehand. President Bush disagrees. He believes in a permanent emergency. Second, the Intelligence Committee bill fails to protect American citizens from reverse targeting--the practice of targeting a foreign person on false pretenses, without a warrant, in order to collect the information of the American on the other end of the conversation. Admiral McConnell said: Reverse targeting is not legal. It would be a breach of the Fourth Amendment. He is absolutely correct, of course, which is why it is so vital that this bill contain strong, enforceable protection against it. This bill doesn't have one. Thirdly, this bill, while purporting to end warrantless wiretapping of Americans, might actually allow it to continue unabated. That is because it lacks strong exclusivity language--language stating that FISA is the only controlling law for foreign intelligence surveillance. With that provision in place, surveillance has a place inside the rule of law. Without it, there is no such guarantee. Who knows what specious rationale of this or any other future administration might cook up for lawless spying? The last time, as we have seen, Alberto Gonzales laughably tried to find grounds for warrantless wiretapping on the authorization of force against Afghanistan. Those are the legal lengths to which the administration has proved it is willing and able to go. What next? Without strong exclusivity language, that question will remain hanging over all our heads. Fourth, unlike the Judiciary version of the bill, the Intelligence version lacks strong protections against bulk collection--the warrantless collection of all overseas communications, a massive dragnet with the potential to sweep up thousands or millions of Americans without cause. Today, bulk collection is infeasible, but Admiral McConnell said: It would be authorized, if it were physically possible to do so. Before any administration has that chance, we should clearly and expressly prohibit such an unprecedented violation of privacy. This bill fails to do that. Fifth and finally, this bill stays in effect until 2013, through the next Presidential term and into the next one. Compare that to the 4- year sunset in the Judiciary version. I believe that, when making such dramatic changes to the Nation's terrorist surveillance regime, we should err on the side of caution. Once the new regime has been tested, once its effectiveness against terrorism and its compromises of privacy have been weighed, we deserve to have this debate again. It will, I predict, be a much less speculative and more informed debate. The Judiciary bill is wise not to put it off any longer than necessary. I oppose this legislation on these five counts for the same reason I oppose retroactive immunity--because when the President's power is strongest, the rule of law should be the strongest, as well. The Intelligence Committee's bill means more power and less law. It reduces court oversight nearly to the point of symbolism. It would allow the targeting of Americans on false pretenses. It opens us to new, twisted rationale for wireless wiretapping, the very thing it seeks to prevent. It could allow bulk collection as soon as the administration has the wherewithal to build such an enormous dragnet. And it sets all of these deeply flawed provisions in stone for the next 6 years. In sum, this is entirely too trusting a piece of legislation. With its immunity, with its wiretapping provisions, it answers George Bush's, ``Trust me,'' with an all too eager ``Yes!'' I leave my colleagues with a simple question: Has that trust been earned? I don't know how many of my colleagues have ever seen the wonderful movie ``A Man For All Seasons,'' the story of St. Thomas More. There is a wonderful scene in that movie in which More is asked whether he'd be willing to cut down every law in England to get his hands on the devil. And More replies, absolutely not. ``When the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where you hide, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast-- Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down . . . do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?'' Maybe we could find excuses for every one of this president's abuses of power: ``It was just a little overreach.'' ``You just have to give a little.'' But if you do that day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, all of a sudden you look up to find that all of the laws have been cut down, that there is nothing to protect us from the winds. Before that day comes, Mr. President, we must draw a line. I am here today to draw it. So I will do everything I can to see to it that this bill does not go forward. Unless retroactive immunity is struck, I will resist this bill with all the tools available to me as one Member of this body. We can do better than this. This goes beyond ideology--or at least it should. We all care about the security of our country; the FISA law protects that security, and it protects our privacy at the same time, from those who would overreach. We have struggled to strike that balance throughout our history. Today, it is more important than ever that we stand firm in our determination not to give up or erode these very rights that are critical for our security. The idea that we can become more secure by giving up rights is fundamentally flawed. It needs to be addressed on every possible occasion. It is a dangerous notion. It is a totally false dichotomy. It needs to be defeated as an idea. When we insist upon our rights, we only grow stronger. We know it can be done. For 30 years now, this law has worked well. It needs to be modernized, clearly, to protect us against those who also have access to modern techniques to do us great harm and injury. But this is not a battle between those who want to keep us secure and those who want to keep our rights. It is a battle about whether we understand that we are more secure precisely when we protect these rights. A year ago, when the Military Commissions Act came up for a vote, I felt very strongly about it. I spoke against it. I voted against it. The idea of walking away from habeas corpus, the idea of allowing torture, the idea of walking away from the Geneva Conventions--I regretted deeply then that I didn't do what I am prepared to do today, and that is to vigorously fight against that legislation. I think most of us today recognize what a great mistake that was, to give away those rights. I think most of us recognize how it hurt our country. I am determined not to let that happen again. As long as it takes, I will stand here and insist that we need to strip immunity out of this bill. I am prepared to listen to ideas about putting caps on liability, to prevent the telecom companies from paying outrageous fees. But if we grant this immunity, we will never know whether their actions were right or wrong. Then why not your medical records the next time? Why not your financial records? What is the difference? If I can reach in and listen to your phone conversation, why not grant immunity to someone who would like to know your medical records or financial records? Why not grant immunity to companies that would turn over those documents? Where do you stop? Where do you put your foot down and say, ``That is not right''? Today it is the phone records. Today it is the phone conversations. It is e-mail traffic--without a warrant. So why not the next step? If we don't put our foot down and stand up, we will be faced with the argument that we have already granted it. We established the precedent; 75 Senators, Democrats and Republicans, agreed we ought to provide that immunity. That argument will be heard, as it has been heard on the Military Commissions Act. I respect immensely the work of the people who spent a lot of time on these issues. But this is a critical moment. They don't happen every day; but this is an important one. This goes right to the heart of who we are. This is not about selling our souls. It is about giving them away, if we don't stand up for these rights. So I look forward to continuing debate and discussion on this vital issue. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague from Florida, I appreciate immensely his leadership on so many issues, but especially on the committee itself. I was stunned by the number of requests made of the FISA Court over the years for court orders to various entities. There have been over 18,000 granted court order requests and 5 rejections in 25 years. Some have argued a fear that we might not get an approval by the FISA Court, but in 99.9 percent of the times that Presidents of both parties over the years or administrations have sought the approval of the FISA Court for a court order to seek information, in only 5 cases over more than 25 years have those requests been rejected. I thank the Senator from Florida for raising the point. This is not about denying our agencies the opportunity, the ability, the means by which they gather information to keep us secure; it is merely saying so that in the process of doing so, there is a way of doing this, which grants them the opportunity to do that while simultaneously protecting our basic liberties. So I thank the Senator from Florida.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Before he leaves the floor, I wish to thank the Democratic leader. He has a very difficult job under any circumstances. To people who ask: What is it like to be the leader in the Senate, I often describe it as trying to keep frogs in a wheelbarrow. It always gets a pretty good reaction when I mention that. He has a lot of frogs to deal with around here. Trying to keep us all moving in the same direction is not easy.

Mr. DODD. As Mo Udall once said: I walked into a barber shop in New Hampshire and said: I am Mo Udall, and I am running for President. And the barber said: We were just laughing about that. But I wished to thank the leader. This is an awkward time, obviously, and I wanted to get the bill done. I think Senators Rockefeller and Bond did a good part of this bill, and it is worthy of our support. The leader knows my longstanding concerns over this retroactive immunity. There is significant debate about this, and I feel strongly about it. I will look forward to coming back in January, and hopefully between now and coming back, maybe there would be some suggestions on how we might ease some of the concerns people have and satisfy them, without necessarily granting retroactive immunity. I know there are various ideas kicking around, some sort of a compromise idea that may be worked out. Certainly, there will be some time to think about this so we can avoid this when it comes back again. I appreciate the fact we are not going to proceed with it now. That gives us a chance to work on this some more. We have at least some time, I think the end of January or early February before the law will expire, so we have some time to come back and deal with this again. I appreciate the fact we are not going to have to go forward. I would have been put in a position to contest this in every possible way, utilizing all the tools available to us, and I am very grateful to the leader for moving on. I promise I certainly will be willing to listen to various ideas how we can resolve this, so when we come back here, this will be a matter we can deal with more expeditiously, but I am very grateful to him for giving me an opportunity to make my case.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I see the majority whip as well. I just want to take a couple of minutes and conclude my thoughts on this matter, since we will be moving on. Americans have rightfully been concerned since before World War II about the dangers of hostile foreign agents likely to commit acts of espionage. Similarly, the violent acts of political terrorists can seriously endanger the rights of Americans. Carefully focused intelligence investigations can help prevent such acts. But too often intelligence has lost this focus and domestic intelligence activities have invaded individual privacy and violated the rights of lawful assembly and political expression. Unless new and tighter controls are established by legislation, domestic intelligence activities threaten to undermine our democratic society and fundamentally alter its nature.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that Ben Weingrod and Ryan Kehmma of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on the FISA legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House with respect to H.R. 797, the Veterans Vision Impairment. The Presiding Officer (Mr. Sanders) laid before the Senate the following message:

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported amendment be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 660, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that a Leahy substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 541, S. Res. 388.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3690, just received from the House and at the desk.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if there is no further business today, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the provisions of S. Res. 407, as a further mark of respect on the passing of Julia Carson, late Representative from Indiana.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 407, submitted earlier today.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. Tuesday, December 18; that on Tuesday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day, and that there be a period of morning business for 90 minutes, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that Senators be permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; that on Tuesday, the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. in order to accommodate the respective party conference meetings; that the motion to proceed to S. 2248 be adopted once this consent is granted and that all time postcloture be considered yielded back.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to announce on behalf of the leader it is his intent to consider the House message on H.R. 2764, the State, Foreign Operations Appropriations Act.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the 2007 U.S. farm bill, a tremendously important piece of legislation that will set the course of our Nation's agricultural policy for the next 5 years. My colleagues and their staffs have spent months preparing it, hammering out its details, and weighing its implications for America's farmers. It is an immense piece of legislation; and obviously, in any bill of this size, any Senator will find provisions with which he or she will disagree. I am no different. Certainly there are pieces I would like to see crafted differently. But on the whole, I think it is a strong bill and a good compromise between countless different interests, and I am deeply grateful to my many colleagues who have worked so hard on it. I am pleased that it has gained such strong bipartisan approval because I believe it successfully meets the needs both of our farmers and of our country as a whole. First, it maintains a strong safety net for all American farmers. With the safety net extended through the 2012 crop-year, and target prices and insurance rates adjusted accordingly, this farm bill protects struggling farmers whose livelihoods can be threatened by abrupt shifts in the agricultural market. These farmers provide, in many ways, the backbone of our economy; and this bill gives them the security they deserve. This legislation also encourages those farmers by expanding programs that will help get them off the ground; and it opens up opportunity with aid to historically disadvantaged farmers. The bill provides a strengthened safety net for dairy farmers, and for the first time ever, specialty crop producers are included within its protections. While I applaud my colleagues, Senators Lugar and Lautenberg, for their efforts to reform title I and boost funding for critically important nutrition and conservation programs, I do not believe that eliminating all direct payments is the best way to advance this goal. This would represent a drastic turn away from decades of farm policy that has given our Nation an abundant and stable domestic food supply. With so many of our Nation's farmers operating on razor-thin margins, I worry that eliminating direct payments could seriously undermine the farm safety net. I do, however, fully support the amendment offered yesterday by Senators Dorgan and Grassley to place a cap on subsidy payments. This would have helped to ensure that payments are targeted at those farmers who truly need them, and I am disappointed that the amendment failed to gain the 60 votes required for its adoption. I am, however, very pleased that this bill provides more than $1 billion in new money for important conservation programs that help farmers act as responsible stewards of the land they work. It enrolls millions of new acres in the Conservation Stewardship Program; supports programs that protect wildlife, game, and wetlands; and creates incentives for farmers to preserve their soil and conserve their water. Provisions like these reflect a growing awareness of the vital importance of environmental stewardship and give farmers the resources to live out this laudable mission. Lastly, the bill supports consumers along with producers, especially those American families struggling on the verge of hunger or food insecurity. When all is said and done, this bill will direct nearly $5 billion in new money to nutrition programs such as food stamps. Mr. President, half of America's food stamp recipients are children--and I am gratified that the Senate has done a good deal to provide for them in this legislation by increasing both eligibility and benefits. Finally, the bill allocates $1 billion to extend to all 50 States a program that provides fresh fruits and vegetables to underprivileged schools. I have seen the success of the Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Program firsthand, in its Connecticut pilot test. I know how vital fresh produce is to the health of all Americans; in the case of underprivileged schoolchildren, those who need it the most have often gotten it the least--and I am glad this bill goes a long way toward correcting that disparity. In sum, Mr. President, I am satisfied that the farm bill embodies a great deal of social responsibility. It takes steps to protect our struggling farmers, our threatened environment, and our undernourished families and children. With those worthy goals in mind, I am deeply gratified the Senate has passed this important bill. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. 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. DODD

Mr. DODD. 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.