Distracted Driving Prevention Act of 2010

Mr. President, today I am introducing comprehensive, bipartisan legislation to reduce deaths and injuries caused by drivers texting and holding cell phones, I am delighted to have four original cosponsors join me today: Senator Hutchison, the ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee; Senator Lautenberg, the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee's Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security Subcommittee, Senator Schumer, and Mr. Thune, the ranking member of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee.

According to the Department of Transportation, distracted drivers last year killed 5,800 people. Distraction was a factor in 16 percent of all traffic fatalities. In addition, distracted drivers injured 515,000 people, which accounted for 22 percent of all people injured in traffic accidents.

Distracted driving covers a range of activities: eating, reaching for an object, texting, or using a cell phone. An analysis of 5,471 passenger vehicle crashes investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, found that 18 percent of drivers just prior to the crash were engaged in at least one non-driving activity, which included cell phone use.

We all know that the explosion of cell phone use and texting in the past three years has brought distracted driving to a new level of danger. Now we have the new data, provided by the same researchers who record seat belt use levels for NHTSA: at any given daylight hour, 11 percent of vehicles are driven by a person holding a hand-held electronic device. That translates into 812,000 drivers not paying full attention to driving at any given moment of the day, which makes our roads more dangerous for everyone.

The statistics regarding deaths and injuries caused by distracted drivers provide the foundation for us to act. But the tragic, individual stories of deaths and injuries to innocent people compel us to act.

In October 2008, 29-year-old Tiffany DeGroft was exchanging text messages with her boyfriend while driving her Jaguar on Braddock Road in Centreville, Virginia. The text messages indicate that her boyfriend was upset. His last text message read: ``Why aren't you answering me now?'' Tiffany DeGroft did not answer because her car had missed a curve in the road. She was killed on impact. A Fairfax County detective said, ``We found the phone on the floor in the open position. I suspect she was actually reading the text.''

While that story is tragic, it becomes even more so when the person texting doesn't kill himself or herself, but innocent persons instead.

In September 2008, 13-year-old Margay Schee in Marion County, FL, was riding home from school in a school bus. A truck driver, who by his own admission was distracted by a cell phone conversation, slammed into the back of the bus, which had its flashers on while stopped. The bus caught fire, killing Margay in a vehicle that is designed to protect children.

In September 2006, college student Reggie Shaw sent 11 text messages over 30 minutes to his girlfriend as he drove his truck along a two- lane highway in rural Utah. Shaw sent the last text message one minute before he called police about the accident. Investigators concluded that Shaw sent that last text message just as he crossed the yellow line of the rural highway, striking an oncoming car. James Furaro and Keith O'Dell, both rocket scientists, were killed instantly.

Unlike some highway safety issues that are complicated to address, this one is not. Writing and reading text messages while driving a 2,000-pound vehicle is dangerous--not only for the driver, but also for the driver's passengers and everyone else using the roads. Crashes involving commercial vehicles--such as trucks and buses--can result in even more catastrophic accidents than passenger cars. An 80,000-pound truck will crush a small car like a soda can.

Texting takes a driver's eyes off the road for at least four seconds at a time--long enough at high speeds to travel the length of a football field. Under those circumstances, there is no time to react to a stopped car, a stop sign, or another road hazard. In fact, a recent study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Instistitute on behalf of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, found that motor vehicle operators who are texting are 23 times more likely to cause a crash, or near-crash, than a non-distracted driver. Deaths and injuries to innocent people are the inevitable and tragically avoidable result.

In 2006, the National Transportation Safety Board, after investigating several accidents, made a recommendation to the FMCSA to ban cell phone use by commercial driver's license holders who have endorsements to carry passengers or drive school buses. I commend the Transportation Secretary's recent actions to begin addressing these recommendations. But I am concerned that the Department of Transportation should be doing more to eliminate these unsafe driver distractions.

Several States have taken action to ban texting while driving, and to limit cell phone use to hands-free devices.

But not enough states have done so. Since Constitutional considerations prohibit the federal government from directing states to enact traffic laws, we at the federal level can only give states funding incentives to act with regard to passenger vehicle drivers. That is why I am today introducing the Distracted Driving Prevention Act of 2009.

First, this legislation would create a grant program to send money to states that enact laws to prohibit texting and hand-held cell phone use while driving. While we wish the states would enact these common-sense safety measures on their own, the history of highway safety tells us that many states will fail to act unless we give them an incentive to do so.

To qualify for a federal grant, a state must enact an absolute ban on texting while driving. No exceptions. There should be no exception for a driver taking his or her eyes off the road. For states to receive the grant, the prohibition on texting must have significant penalties, including increased fines and other penalties for a driver who causes an accident while texting.

The second requirement for a State to receive a grant is to enact a law that bans holding a cell phone while driving. When people drive, both hands should be on the wheel. The grant program does not ask states to completely ban cell phone use by drivers; our legislation would allow the use of a hands-free device during a phone call. We also allow states to make exceptions for holding a cell phone to call for emergency services.

States qualifying for the grant must completely ban cell phone use by drivers under the age of 18. A driver under 18 years old may not even use a hands-free device. For these inexperienced drivers, the additional distraction of using a cell phone can be deadly. Many parents already encourage their teenage drivers to not use a cell phone while driving. But having the police enforce this law will be even more effective.

With more States enacting a ban on texting and hand-held cell phone use, we need to get the message out so that drivers obey the law. Our legislation would create a new national education campaign based upon the tremendous success of the recent drunk driving and seat belt advertising campaigns. These advertising campaigns are not only an opportunity to remind people of the law, but also a means by which to educate drivers about the dangers of texting and cell phone use. This education can change driver behavior even when law enforcement might not be present.

In addition to nationwide advertising, we also will direct NHTSA to target some local markets with advertising in states and cities that have already passed texting and cell phone use laws.

Unlike passenger vehicle drivers, a truck driver's vehicle is also his or her office space. Devices to receive directions, follow-up on orders, or maintain contact with dispatchers are necessary to perform a truck driver's duties. These devices, too, can become distractions, as they require eyes and attention to be removed from the roadway. Therefore, this legislation would require the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations within one year specifically on the use of electronic and wireless devices by commercial motor vehicle drivers and those who operate certain school buses. The Secretary would be authorized to ban the use of certain devices if the Secretary determines that they interfere with the safe operation of a commercial motor vehicle. The bill also would allow the Secretary to permit exceptions for emergency uses. We need to make sure that commercial motor vehicle drivers are operating their trucks and buses in the safest manner possible.

Furthermore, this legislation will require that states, as part of their federal grant for data collection, begin collecting distracted driving data about each vehicle crash, starting with the police reports of the crash. By requiring law enforcement officers to inquire about the possible role that texting or cell phone use might have played in a crash, and requiring states to collect that data, we can better understand the scope and causes of the distracted driving problem.

To bolster the new data collection at the state level, this legislation would require the Transportation Secretary to establish a dedicated program at the Transportation Department to study all forms of distracted driving across all modes of transportation. Better research is essential to finding the best strategies for reducing deaths and injuries caused by distracted driving.

This legislation also charges the Federal Communications Commission with studying potential initiatives to raise awareness and reduce the problems caused by distracted driving. By bringing aboard the agency with oversight of wireless carriers, we add another stakeholder that can help us develop creative solutions to address this problem.

One last note about this legislation: it is paid for. The grant program that encourages states to enact a primary seat belt law has run a surplus in recent years as the number of states enacting a new primary seat belt law has slowed. Any state that enacts a new primary seat belt law in 2010 and 2011 would still receive their safety belt grant. But the remainder of the funding for that program will be redirected for the nationwide distracted driving advertising campaigns, and sent as grants to states that prohibit texting and hand-held cell phone use.

Creating incentives for states to take action against distracted driving, launching a nationwide campaign to educate drivers about the dangers of texting and cell phone use, and collecting better data about driver behavior will result in fewer deaths and injuries on our nation's roads.

I ask my colleagues to support this comprehensive bill that will save lives and prevent injuries by reducing distracted driving.

Mr. President, today I am introducing comprehensive, bipartisan legislation to reduce deaths and injuries caused by drivers texting and holding cell phones, I am delighted to have four original cosponsors join me today: Senator Hutchison, the ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee; Senator Lautenberg, the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee's Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security Subcommittee, Senator Schumer, and Mr. Thune, the ranking member of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee.

According to the Department of Transportation, distracted drivers last year killed 5,800 people. Distraction was a factor in 16 percent of all traffic fatalities. In addition, distracted drivers injured 515,000 people, which accounted for 22 percent of all people injured in traffic accidents.

Distracted driving covers a range of activities: eating, reaching for an object, texting, or using a cell phone. An analysis of 5,471 passenger vehicle crashes investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, found that 18 percent of drivers just prior to the crash were engaged in at least one non-driving activity, which included cell phone use.

We all know that the explosion of cell phone use and texting in the past three years has brought distracted driving to a new level of danger. Now we have the new data, provided by the same researchers who record seat belt use levels for NHTSA: at any given daylight hour, 11 percent of vehicles are driven by a person holding a hand-held electronic device. That translates into 812,000 drivers not paying full attention to driving at any given moment of the day, which makes our roads more dangerous for everyone.

The statistics regarding deaths and injuries caused by distracted drivers provide the foundation for us to act. But the tragic, individual stories of deaths and injuries to innocent people compel us to act.

In October 2008, 29-year-old Tiffany DeGroft was exchanging text messages with her boyfriend while driving her Jaguar on Braddock Road in Centreville, Virginia. The text messages indicate that her boyfriend was upset. His last text message read: ``Why aren't you answering me now?'' Tiffany DeGroft did not answer because her car had missed a curve in the road. She was killed on impact. A Fairfax County detective said, ``We found the phone on the floor in the open position. I suspect she was actually reading the text.''

While that story is tragic, it becomes even more so when the person texting doesn't kill himself or herself, but innocent persons instead.

In September 2008, 13-year-old Margay Schee in Marion County, FL, was riding home from school in a school bus. A truck driver, who by his own admission was distracted by a cell phone conversation, slammed into the back of the bus, which had its flashers on while stopped. The bus caught fire, killing Margay in a vehicle that is designed to protect children.

In September 2006, college student Reggie Shaw sent 11 text messages over 30 minutes to his girlfriend as he drove his truck along a two- lane highway in rural Utah. Shaw sent the last text message one minute before he called police about the accident. Investigators concluded that Shaw sent that last text message just as he crossed the yellow line of the rural highway, striking an oncoming car. James Furaro and Keith O'Dell, both rocket scientists, were killed instantly.

Unlike some highway safety issues that are complicated to address, this one is not. Writing and reading text messages while driving a 2,000-pound vehicle is dangerous--not only for the driver, but also for the driver's passengers and everyone else using the roads. Crashes involving commercial vehicles--such as trucks and buses--can result in even more catastrophic accidents than passenger cars. An 80,000-pound truck will crush a small car like a soda can.

Texting takes a driver's eyes off the road for at least four seconds at a time--long enough at high speeds to travel the length of a football field. Under those circumstances, there is no time to react to a stopped car, a stop sign, or another road hazard. In fact, a recent study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Instistitute on behalf of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, found that motor vehicle operators who are texting are 23 times more likely to cause a crash, or near-crash, than a non-distracted driver. Deaths and injuries to innocent people are the inevitable and tragically avoidable result.

In 2006, the National Transportation Safety Board, after investigating several accidents, made a recommendation to the FMCSA to ban cell phone use by commercial driver's license holders who have endorsements to carry passengers or drive school buses. I commend the Transportation Secretary's recent actions to begin addressing these recommendations. But I am concerned that the Department of Transportation should be doing more to eliminate these unsafe driver distractions.

Several States have taken action to ban texting while driving, and to limit cell phone use to hands-free devices.

But not enough states have done so. Since Constitutional considerations prohibit the federal government from directing states to enact traffic laws, we at the federal level can only give states funding incentives to act with regard to passenger vehicle drivers. That is why I am today introducing the Distracted Driving Prevention Act of 2009.

First, this legislation would create a grant program to send money to states that enact laws to prohibit texting and hand-held cell phone use while driving. While we wish the states would enact these common-sense safety measures on their own, the history of highway safety tells us that many states will fail to act unless we give them an incentive to do so.

To qualify for a federal grant, a state must enact an absolute ban on texting while driving. No exceptions. There should be no exception for a driver taking his or her eyes off the road. For states to receive the grant, the prohibition on texting must have significant penalties, including increased fines and other penalties for a driver who causes an accident while texting.

The second requirement for a State to receive a grant is to enact a law that bans holding a cell phone while driving. When people drive, both hands should be on the wheel. The grant program does not ask states to completely ban cell phone use by drivers; our legislation would allow the use of a hands-free device during a phone call. We also allow states to make exceptions for holding a cell phone to call for emergency services.

States qualifying for the grant must completely ban cell phone use by drivers under the age of 18. A driver under 18 years old may not even use a hands-free device. For these inexperienced drivers, the additional distraction of using a cell phone can be deadly. Many parents already encourage their teenage drivers to not use a cell phone while driving. But having the police enforce this law will be even more effective.

With more States enacting a ban on texting and hand-held cell phone use, we need to get the message out so that drivers obey the law. Our legislation would create a new national education campaign based upon the tremendous success of the recent drunk driving and seat belt advertising campaigns. These advertising campaigns are not only an opportunity to remind people of the law, but also a means by which to educate drivers about the dangers of texting and cell phone use. This education can change driver behavior even when law enforcement might not be present.

In addition to nationwide advertising, we also will direct NHTSA to target some local markets with advertising in states and cities that have already passed texting and cell phone use laws.

Unlike passenger vehicle drivers, a truck driver's vehicle is also his or her office space. Devices to receive directions, follow-up on orders, or maintain contact with dispatchers are necessary to perform a truck driver's duties. These devices, too, can become distractions, as they require eyes and attention to be removed from the roadway. Therefore, this legislation would require the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations within one year specifically on the use of electronic and wireless devices by commercial motor vehicle drivers and those who operate certain school buses. The Secretary would be authorized to ban the use of certain devices if the Secretary determines that they interfere with the safe operation of a commercial motor vehicle. The bill also would allow the Secretary to permit exceptions for emergency uses. We need to make sure that commercial motor vehicle drivers are operating their trucks and buses in the safest manner possible.

Furthermore, this legislation will require that states, as part of their federal grant for data collection, begin collecting distracted driving data about each vehicle crash, starting with the police reports of the crash. By requiring law enforcement officers to inquire about the possible role that texting or cell phone use might have played in a crash, and requiring states to collect that data, we can better understand the scope and causes of the distracted driving problem.

To bolster the new data collection at the state level, this legislation would require the Transportation Secretary to establish a dedicated program at the Transportation Department to study all forms of distracted driving across all modes of transportation. Better research is essential to finding the best strategies for reducing deaths and injuries caused by distracted driving.

This legislation also charges the Federal Communications Commission with studying potential initiatives to raise awareness and reduce the problems caused by distracted driving. By bringing aboard the agency with oversight of wireless carriers, we add another stakeholder that can help us develop creative solutions to address this problem.

One last note about this legislation: it is paid for. The grant program that encourages states to enact a primary seat belt law has run a surplus in recent years as the number of states enacting a new primary seat belt law has slowed. Any state that enacts a new primary seat belt law in 2010 and 2011 would still receive their safety belt grant. But the remainder of the funding for that program will be redirected for the nationwide distracted driving advertising campaigns, and sent as grants to states that prohibit texting and hand-held cell phone use.

Creating incentives for states to take action against distracted driving, launching a nationwide campaign to educate drivers about the dangers of texting and cell phone use, and collecting better data about driver behavior will result in fewer deaths and injuries on our nation's roads.

I ask my colleagues to support this comprehensive bill that will save lives and prevent injuries by reducing distracted driving.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Natural Resources Climate Adaptation Act. I am pleased that Senators Whitehouse, Baucus, and Tom Udall have joined me as original cosponsors.

The science is clear that climate change is happening and numerous scientific reports as well as the everyday experience of many Americans--demonstrate that the impacts have already begun to affect ecosystems across the country. This bill recognizes that quick action is needed to insure the long-term viability of ecosystems on which our communities as well as our fish and wildlife depend. It will support and enable Federal and State agencies and other interested parties to address the negative impacts of climate change on our natural resources in the most effective possible ways.

We know that healthy, functioning ecosystems are vital to human health, economic viability, and fish and wildlife populations. I believe that we are at a critical juncture in protecting our valuable natural resources. In solving the climate change problem we must ensure the well-being of our natural world if we are to have a thriving economy and a healthy environment. This is the reason I am introducing this bill.

This is not a problem that is hypothetical. Climate change impacts are irrevocably affecting our natural world and the health of our communities today, and these impacts will increase. We must act now.

We often forget that healthy ecosystems are essential to human as well as wildlife needs. They are necessary to provide us, for example, with a clean and abundant drinking water supply, clean air to breathe, and a well-functioning economy in addition to habitat for a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plant species. Not to mention a place to take our children fishing, and to enjoy the personal inspiration of the natural world.

My home State of New Mexico is a dry State and the challenges associated with climate change are already impacting our land and our water supplies. There are already many competing demands for our limited water resources which will only be heightened by the effects of climate change. Existing threats to our public lands such as wildfires and deforestation may become more prevalent. New Mexico's Bandelier National Park has recently been identified as one of the ``25 National Parks in Peril'' due to climate change related impacts and other treasures within our State may also be in jeopardy of degradation if actions are not taken to protect them.

Our landowners, ranchers, water managers, and State officials are working to evaluate and mitigate the current and expected impacts of a warming climate on our State's natural resources and water supply. For instance, in 2005 the New Mexico Climate Change Council and Advisory Group prepared a report summarizing the potential impacts of climate change in New Mexico

and the State Engineer's office prepared an additional report on the impacts of climate change on the water supply and water management strategies. These reports are being used to guide State officials in addressing these issues. In addition, New Mexico has joined other western States to form the Western Regional Climate Initiative to coordinate efforts at reducing greenhouse gases.

The legislation introduced today seeks to complement existing natural resources-related programs in New Mexico and other States across the country. This legislation supports and facilitates the development and dissemination of scientific research on climate change between Federal agencies, States, Indian tribes and interested stakeholders. This ongoing research will in turn play a significant role in guiding these entities in the management of our natural resources.

This bill also establishes several forums to encourage effective coordination and communication in creating a Federal strategy and subsequent Federal and State adaptation plans that will help natural resources adjust to a changing climate. Finally, the Act provides additional funding for existing Federal and State wildlife conservation programs to be used exclusively for adaptation-related activities.

The Natural Resources Climate Adaptation Act follows on the good work of several of my colleagues in both the House and the Senate. Chairman Rahall and Subcommittee Chairman Grijalva have developed legislation in this area, and their own adaptation bill, H.R. 2192, was incorporated into the broader cap-and-trade legislation that passed the House of Representatives earlier this year.

Senators Kerry and Boxer have adopted provisions similar to this bill in their climate legislation at the request of two leaders on the Environment and Public Works Committee: Senators Baucus and Whitehouse. The legislation I am introducing today is complementary to the work that has already been done. My cosponsors and I share the same goal of making sure natural resources adaptation is included in any climate change legislation that comes before the Senate.

Many Americans already recognize the critical need for this legislation. A coalition of over 600 diverse groups has written to Congress describing the current and potential negative impacts of climate change on our natural resources and urging us to include language in any climate bill to address those impacts. By way of example, the groups in this coalition include environmental organizations, local Rod & Gun Clubs, fisheries coalitions, scientific research groups, and religious groups.

If we fail to act to address the impacts of climate change on our American landscape, the negative effects will be felt by all of us. I am committed to working through this legislation and other means to ensure that we do what is necessary to protect our precious natural resources from one of the greatest challenges ever faced.

I would like to thank Senators Baucus, Whitehouse, and Tom Udall for their leadership on this issue and their cosponsorship of this bill. I look forward to working with them and our colleagues to pass legislation to carry out this important purpose.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Michael Bennet in introducing the Post-9/11 Troops to Teachers Enhancement Act. This legislation would allow more veterans and school districts to participate in the Troops to Teachers program. In addition to expanding the program, the proposed bill would create an advisory board that would be charged with improving awareness and participation of the program, ensuring that the program meets the needs of our schools and veterans. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will also support this important piece of legislation.

In 1994, Congress authorized the Department of Defense, DOD, to oversee a new national program, Troops to Teachers, which was designed as a Transition assistance program for retiring or separating members of the military to obtain their teaching credentials and place these teachers in schools throughout the country. The program was reauthorized by Congress in 1999. That reauthorization transferred responsibility for oversight and funding from the DOD to the Department of Education and authorized $10,000 bonuses to participants who agreed to teach in ``high-need'' schools. Troops to Teachers was later incorporated and reauthorized under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Since its inception, over 11,000 teachers have been hired by school districts across the Nation, of which many are nontraditional first-time teachers.

Teaching is among the most honorable professions in our society. I believe we should encourage military veterans to enter the teaching profession and that this bipartisan bill would further enhance the Troops-to-Teachers program. Simply put, the proposed legislation would reduce the years of military service requirements from 6 to 4, extend the eligibility to all schools that receive Title I funds, and create an advisory board that would coordinate and make recommendations to Congress in regards to the program.

Current eligibility guidelines for the Troops to Teachers require that members of the military have 6 years of service and that members of the guard and reserve have 10 years of service with a commitment to serve an additional 3 years. The requirement of 6 years active duty is leaving many single enlistment contract 4 year veterans and/or Guard members out of consideration. Lowering the required years of service would expand eligibility and create a larger pool of potential teachers for this program.

Under the current Troops to Teachers program, participants who agree to teach for 3 years in a ``high need'' schools are eligible to receive a $5000 stipend to offset the cost of teacher certification. The proposed legislation would extend the eligibility for the stipend to any eligible teacher who agrees to teach 3 years in a school that is in a district receiving Title I funds. The proposed bill would retain the optional bonus of $10,000 which is available to individuals who take jobs in low-income schools. This legislation would result in a 49 percent in the number of eligible schools for the program. For my home State of Arizona, over 600 additional schools would become eligible to participate in the program.

A recent GAO Report revealed that although Troops to Teachers is a successful program, it suffers from a lack of coordination and oversight. To remedy this concern, the proposed legislation would create an advisory board that consists of a representative from the Department of Defense, the Department of Education, and representatives from state offices and veteran's service organizations to make recommendations on ways to improve and expand the program.

Our veterans make excellent candidates to impart the virtues of serving to a cause to the next generation and instill the value of learning as a means to self-improvement and much nobler ends. Their unique experiences bring a more diverse teaching environment to our children and grandchildren.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Strengthening the Oversight of Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 2009. This legislation will enhance the ability of Congress to oversee nuclear nonproliferation shortcomings that were identified in the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMD, Proliferation and Terrorism's Commission December 2008 report.

Just last month, President Obama chaired a session of the United Nations Security Council, where the Security Council unanimously cosponsored and adopted Resolution 1887, which seeks to ``create the conditions for a world

without nuclear weapons . . . in a way that promotes international stability.'' Among other actions, the Security Council called on Nations to minimize the use of highly enriched uranium, strengthen export controls on sensitive nuclear technologies, improve nuclear security practices and standards, strengthen efforts to counter the threat of nuclear terrorism, and support the International Atomic Energy Agency's, IAEA, ability to verify the uses of nuclear materials and facilities.

The proliferation of WMD is among the greatest threats facing national and international security. We need to commit ourselves to strengthening our nuclear nonproliferation efforts and to take the actions supported by the United Nations Security Council and the Commission.

The bill I am introducing today would require an annual report by the President's Coordinator for WMD Proliferation and Terrorism to address the Commission's findings regarding United States nuclear nonproliferation efforts. The report will provide an assessment of IAEA capabilities to detect possible military diversions of nuclear materials; will address actions taken to upgrade the physical security of civilian nuclear facilities in the United States; will identify the measures taken to minimize the use of weapons usable highly enriched uranium; will document the steps taken to implement the Energy Development Program under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978; will compare the security standards at civilian nuclear facilities to those at military facilities; and will detail what the U.S. is spending to promote civilian nuclear energy abroad.

The challenges of nuclear proliferation are global in nature and require sustained international collaboration. This bill would further our international efforts by requiring an additional report on the progress of United States Government cooperative efforts with the Director General of IAEA to examine how IAEA could better meet its nuclear safeguard goals; promote the transparency of foreign visitors to safeguarded sites; acquire and implement near-real-time surveillance at sensitive sites; use fees to fund inspections; and require advance notice and analysis of transfers of dual-use nuclear technologies.

I have long been a proponent of improving our nonproliferation efforts. Last month, I introduced the Energy Development Program Implementation Act, S. 1675, to support non-nuclear, alternative energy development in developing countries. In addition to this, I called for the Government Accountability Office to examine proliferation risks in IAEA's Technical Cooperation Program and chaired numerous hearings on improving our Nation's nonproliferation capabilities. We should remember that nuclear technology that can be used for peaceful uses may in some cases be used to support dangerous, clandestine programs.

I believe that promoting greater international cooperation toward nonproliferation is crucial. This bill would make the U.S. an even stronger partner in these efforts and enhance the ability of Congress to help tackle the dangers of nuclear proliferation.

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