Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues, Senator Lieberman and Senator Whitehouse--who are on their way to the Chamber-- to discuss an amendment to strengthen and improve the independent Medicare advisory board included in the underlying bill.

I firmly believe creating an independent authority to help Congress make informed decisions about reimbursing Medicare, getting away from a fee-for-service system, and making it based upon the cost which is incurred--but also the quality which now has to be required: evidence- based outcomes--that is the direction Medicare, all of health care, has to go.

These are not just cost decisions but quality decisions. I think it is critical to sustaining our program and the promise we made to millions of seniors that we would do right by them and still keep Medicare affordable, keep the trust fund solvent. It is meant to go broke in 2017. That does not help hospitals, doctors, Medicare beneficiaries, or anybody else. So we have to keep that in mind as we talk about this issue.

I applaud Leader Reid for his bold leadership in including this advisory board in his underlying bill. It is a very strong step forward.

In their May report this year, the Medicare trustees determined, if we do nothing, the Medicare trust fund will basically go insolvent in 2017. In health care terms, that is like next February.

It is abundantly clear if we fail to put Medicare on a path of fiscal sustainability, this incredible program--and the security it means for seniors in my State of West Virginia and in the Presiding Officer's State of Alaska and people everywhere; and the disabled, who are, unfortunately, often forgotten--it will be in tremendous danger. We cannot allow that to happen.

So what does this amendment do? If we are serious about protecting Medicare's future, we have to be serious how we handle Medicare, how we allocate it, and use it as a reimbursement and quality tool. So this amendment includes a number of changes to do exactly that.

The most important change: This amendment eliminates a significant loophole in the underlying bill; that is, it eliminates the carve-out which was created by some for hospitals and other providers. I repeat, it eliminates the carve-out.

The carve-out now comprises about 60 percent of all Medicare. So it is a sham. It has to go or else Medicare is in deep trouble. I wish to talk about this a little bit.

We protect the board's integrity. In fact, we give the board integrity and we give them authority. Congress, right now, has the sole authority to change Medicare's cost curve. Yet as the ranks of lobbyists grow and prey upon Members of the House and Senate--it is amazing the relationship between how the cost of Medicare grows and their activities.

Let's be quite honest about it. This is not a politic thing to say, but it is the truth. Probably about 12 percent of the Congress understands health care down to the wee depth that is needed to be able to decide on the reimbursement procedures, the quality outcomes procedures, which we use to reimburse Medicare providers. This means we have made a lot of mistakes, the cost of Medicare has gone out of control, and we provide Medicare reimbursement unevenly and unfairly. People complain when they should not; do not complain when they should.

You have to understand, Medicare is such a powerful force it drives prices and it drives policies in health care for years and years to come all across the span of health care. It is the elephant in the room.

Power represents an opportunity. Medicare's force and clout can also be harnessed in a direction to improve our health care system, improve efficiency. That is why I am adamantly opposed to the carve-out for hospitals and other providers because it weaves special-interest treatment into the very fabric of a board created to remove them from the process.

MedPAC was created by a Republican Congress in 1997. It, in theory, decides how Medicare reimbursement is going to be updated on an annual basis. The fact is, it has no power to do any such thing. That has to be changed.

Is this a significant change? Yes, it is. Is it just like people changing their lives in various ways all across America because they are facing situations which they have not faced before? People do not have work; people have anxiety over all kinds of subjects; they have anxiety over health care, and they should have anxiety over health care because, particularly if you are a senior, the Medicare trust fund is running out on us.

So the only way you can do that, in my judgment, is to get away from fee for service; that is, you provide the service, and whatever it is, I will pay you the fee. It is simple. It is what we have used. It is what has gotten us in trouble because we do not insist upon experts making these decisions and on demanding evidence-based outcomes in the way hospitals, doctors, and others are reimbursed under Medicare. Medicare is taxpayers' money. It is not a frivolous matter.

As was the intent of my original policy, it is time to change the equation and put expert evidence and advice at the forefront of health care decisionmaking. It is time to take the special interests out of the process and create an independent, politically insulated entity with its sole job to be to protect Medicare's long-term quality and solvency. I am sure many will come and object to that, saying we should do that in Congress, but I repeat: Is Congress qualified? Does it have the knowledge to the depth that it can make a decision on how much providers should be reimbursed? My answer is some do, most don't and, therefore, the cost of Medicare keeps rising and the system is more endangered.

I have no doubt that a strong independent Medicare advisory board would be a powerful cornerstone for meaningful health reform in all of the right directions, but if we want the board to succeed, it needs the tools for both Medicare reform and genuine private sector cost containment.

Congress cannot do this on its own. We have proven ourselves incapable of making efficient, consistent decisions about Medicare's future, which now amounts to a crisis. We cannot continue standing in the way of progress. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this truly transformative policy.

I simply repeat: If we are going to make it in health care, if we are going to make it in Medicare, if we are going to preserve the trust fund, we have to change the way we do business. People may not like that. People will complain about it. People will complain if we do nothing. People will complain if we do everything. People complain. That is the nature of it. That doesn't matter. What matters is that we do the right thing; that we bend the cost curve by making accurate decisions; that we are tough in our decisionmaking; and that is what this board--and Congress will have a chance to review it but cannot override it except by a very substantial vote--and that is what the Medicare advisory board is all about. It is the answer to Medicare's future, in this Senator's judgment.

The security this policy provides for our seniors is too important. We need to fight for them, always. We need to protect them. We need to protect the solvency of the trust fund, and we need to make sure seniors are getting the best possible care. The day has ended when people can submit a bill and say: I did this and, therefore, pay me that. That is our system now. It is the wrong system. It has gotten us into trouble. It is not good for health care, and it is very bad for the solvency of the trust fund.

I see my distinguished colleague Senator Lieberman has arrived. He and I have been working on this for some time together, I am proud to say.

I thank the Chair. I say to my colleagues the full text of the amendment, No. 3240, is printed in the Record of Tuesday, December 15.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will enable more low-income households to receive broadband and its benefits.

Broadband has fundamentally changed the way Americans live their daily lives. It has changed how we do business, get information, find jobs, learn, communicate, and interact with Federal, State, and local governments. Over the next few years, we can only expect more innovation and more broadband applications that open doors to new opportunities and provide even more benefits to consumers.

While broadband has been more quickly deployed and adopted in predominantly urban areas, availability and adoption in rural areas has lagged behind. Low-income rural households are among the least likely to subscribe to broadband. At the same time, businesses and educational institutions, among others, have migrated many essential services and opportunities to the Internet. The result is that people without broadband, particularly in rural areas, are being left behind.

Today, 77 percent of Fortune 500 companies only accept job applications online. Seventy-eight percent of students regularly use the Internet for classroom work. Similarly, State, and local government agencies, as well as vital healthcare services, are increasingly migrating online, especially as budget cuts reduce the availability and quality of offline services.

All of this means that the children of families without broadband lose access to learning opportunities. Qualified workers lose access to jobs. Low-income Americans waste precious time--sometimes even having to take off from their jobs--in government offices, waiting for services that are otherwise available online.

This income-based digital divide is stark. Americans who earn less than $30,000 per year have a 50 percent lower rate of broadband adoption than those who earn $100,000 annually. What makes it worse is that, in some ways, low-income consumers are the ones who stand to benefit the most from affordable broadband access. Online job information and educational opportunities can provide low-income consumers with critical means to improve their lives and the lives of their children.

Like basic telephone service, broadband is quickly becoming a necessity. Consumers without access are at risk of becoming second class citizens in a growing digital world. The original Lifeline program recognized that telephone service was a critical part of everyday life and that low-income Americans needed to be connected to the world around them. What was true for telephony then is true for broadband now. That is why the Lifeline program at the FCC should be expanded to support broadband access for low-income households.

The legislation we introduce today creates a two-year pilot program to expand the FCC's Lifeline program by supporting broadband service for eligible low-income households. It also asks the FCC to provide Congress with a report on expanding the Link-Up program to assist with the costs of securing equipment, such as computers, needed to use broadband service.

We must make sure that we act now to bridge the divide that threatens to make low-income consumers second-class citizens. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to join me and support this legislation.

Mr. President, I could not be prouder to rise today to congratulate a public servant without any peer at all, that being Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. On this actually very momentous day, November 18, 2009, my dear friend and colleague becomes the longest serving Member of Congress in the history of this Nation. On Friday, he will also celebrate a warm and joyous birthday.

Senator Byrd passes the incredible Carl Hayden of Arizona who served honorably in the House and then the Senate for 56 years, 319 days. We come together today as an institution to recognize that no Senator in history has cast more votes or has been elected by his colleagues to more leadership positions than Robert C. Byrd, no one else--a sign of the enormous warmth and tremendous respect and the unwavering admiration we all share for Senator Robert C. Byrd.

I am lucky every day to call Senator Byrd my friend, as I have been able to work with him in the Senate for the last 25 years and for the preceding 8 years when I was a Governor. But most importantly and most powerfully, Senator Byrd always makes me so very proud to be a West Virginian.

At our State capitol in Charleston, they are honoring Senator Byrd with a special celebration today. The same is happening in small towns, cities and communities all across our State. My fellow West Virginians are giving thanks for Senator Byrd's voice and for his vision. We are grateful for his strength and his rock-solid principle, which over the years has come to define West Virginia as surely as our endless hills and beautiful streams.

The people of my State love and respect Senator Robert C. Byrd, in part because so many share his very powerful story. So many have battled against the odds and continue to fight every day to try to make a better life for themselves and for their community. They are proud of their State, even knowing their State is not known by many, but they take pride in their unity.

Senator Byrd learned early in life what it meant to be loyal, have a strong work ethic, and possess an untiring faith in God. And it was these values these innately West Virginia values that guided his every action, and made him such a strong fighter for our State. Even in the hardest, youngest days of his life, Senator Robert C. Byrd never grew discouraged. It was not his nature. Growing up, he faced enormous challenges, but he had something called an iron will and he had a sense of purpose.

Now years later, we can sum up that purpose with the phrase ``fighting for West Virginia.'' It has always rung true, whether it is his 50th birthday or, in fact, his 92nd birthday. Whether he was a freshman in the House or the Senate's longest serving Member, it

has never changed with Robert C. Byrd. His fight for West Virginia is fundamental to his world, which is West Virginia's world. It is in his blood. It is a sacred cause.

It is not just the building of roads, that which is so often associated with Senator Byrd--and to be sure, those roads have transformed our State and connected us with other parts of the Nation and to each other--but so much more. When you pick up a local newspaper, always some institution, some college, some volunteer fire department, some research institute at a university or college has been helped by Senator Byrd. It is his job, but it is also his very special honor at which he excels because of his love for West Virginia.

Ultimately, it is work: it is simply hard work, and Robert Byrd never shied away from it for the people of West Virginia, for the Constitution and, yes for this institution, the Senate and its special place in our government and our Nation.

This week, I think of the many birthdays past that he has shared with many of us and with his precious wife Erma, his partner in everything, who gave him the great strength and great faith to reach great heights. It was a little sad to me--and I think to all of us who know him--the cost to him of her death. He changed just a little bit in ways that are hard to explain but ways which are very deep within his soul because he loved and depended on her so much. And I know that as we mark this tremendous milestone today, she is with us with great joy in her heart.

Please allow me to take this special moment to thank my beloved friend and congratulate him on this profound day in the whole history of the Senate, which truly sets him apart from all the rest. I am delighted to celebrate such an incredible milestone.

I wish him a wonderful birthday, many years of service, and all the happiness in the world. But most of all, I thank him for what matters the most to me, and that is his profound service to the people of the State of West Virginia.

For more than half a century, West Virginia has had in Robert C. Byrd a great man leading us in our greatest battles. And for that, we are truly blessed.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 354, submitted earlier today.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; further, that any statements with respect to Senator Byrd be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, along with my colleagues, Senators Thune and Webb, I am in strong support of the Frank Buckles World War I Memorial Act. This bill rededicates the site of the District of Columbia War Memorial on the National Mall as a National and DC World War I Memorial in recognition of the upcoming anniversaries of America's entry into World War I, and of the armistice that concluded World War I on November 11, 1918.

The legislation is named in honor of Frank Buckles of West Virginia, the last surviving American World War I veteran. Mr. Buckles, born in 1901 in Harrison County, MO, is a wonderful man and representative of his generation. At the age of 108, he resides in the

eastern panhandle of West Virginia, where he lives on his 330-acre farm with his daughter.

His personal story is similar to many young men of his era. As an eager 16-year-old, Frank Buckles tried to enlist in the Army several times and finally succeeded. He then pestered his officers to be sent to France. Mr. Buckles drove motorcycles, cars, and ambulances in England and France, and during the Occupation, he guarded German prisoners. Following the war, he went to work for the White Star steamship line and was in Manila on business in December 1941 when the Japanese attacked the Philippines. Frank Buckles spent over 3 years as a prisoner at the city's Los Banes prison camp. On February 23, 1945, a unit from the 11th Airborne Division freed him and 2,147 other prisoners in a daring raid on the Los Banes prison camp. Mr. Buckles was affected by and has memories of both World War I and World War II.

After his liberation from Los Banes, Frank Buckles returned to the United States. He married Audrey Mayo, a young lady whom he had known before the war, and in 1954 they settled down on the Gap View Farm in West Virginia. On this same farm, Mr. Buckles has remained mentally sharp and physically active. He worked on his farm with tractors up to the age of 105. Now, he reads from his vast book collection and enjoys the company of his daughter Susannah Flanagan who came to live with him after his wife passed away in 1999.

I had the privilege of listening to Frank Buckles' compelling stories in his home in West Virginia while sitting with his daughter. He generously shares his memories of working to enlist and get to France, as well as meeting French soldiers and guarding German prisoners. Everyone can hear his reflections by visiting the Library of Congress's special Web site for its Veterans History Project. It has personal interviews of Mr. Buckles and thousands of other veterans that have served our Nation both during times of war and peace. Visiting this Web site is an incredible resource for scholars, students and every American, and it reminds us of the compelling personal stories of bravery, commitment, and sacrifice made by our country's veterans and how they shaped our world.

The bill I introduced with Senators Webb and Thune is designed to honor and remember over 4.35 million Americans, like Frank Buckles, who answered the call of duty and served from 1914-1918 in World War I. What became known as the Great War claimed the lives of 126,000 Americans, wounded 234,300, and left 4,526 as prisoners of war or missing in action.

At the end of World War I, numerous cities and States erected local and state memorials to honor their citizens who answered the call and proudly served the United States of America. On Armistice Day in 1931, President Hoover dedicated the DC World War I Memorial to honor the 499 District of Columbia residents who gave their lives in the service of our country. Since then, national monuments to commemorate the sacrifice and heroism of those who served in World War II, the Korean war, and the Vietnam war have all been built on the National Mall.

Yet no national monument has yet been created to honor those who served in World War I. As our Nation prepares to celebrate the centennial of World War I, it is time for that to change by creating the National and DC World War I Memorial.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to cosponsor this legislation to rededicate the site of the District of Columbia War Memorial on the National Mall as a National and District of Columbia World War I Memorial.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

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 introduce the Child Support Protection Act of 2009; with my colleagues Senators Cornyn, Kohl, and Snowe. This bill continues the long-standing, bipartisan support of Congress for the Child Support Enforcement program, which began with the passage of the authorizing legislation in 1974.

Child support enforcement is a strong partnership between the Federal Government and State governments to help parents provide long term support for their children. It includes a network of 60,000 dedicated staff serving 17 million children across this country.

In 2008, paternity was established for 1.8 million children ensuring that the legal rights of both the children and their fathers were protected; 1.2 million orders for support were also established, resulting in $26.6 billion of child support being collected and distributed to families. This is an important investment in the future of our Nation, our children.

So, the Child Support Enforcement program's results are impressive and it is widely recognized as one of the most effective programs operated by the Federal Government. In fact, the program is notable for collecting $4.79 for each dollar of expenditure. It is a true bargain that works well.

Child support collections account for 31 percent of the income of single parent households, but the program does so much more. It works with non-custodial parents who need employment so that they can make regular payments. Child support staff also play a critical role in times of high joblessness, by processing adjustments to support orders so that non-custodial parents do not fall hopelessly behind.

When Congress passed the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, CSPIA, it created an innovative incentive program that rewards efficient, results-oriented child support enforcement efforts. These earned performance incentives must be used for child support activities. One of every $4 from State expenditures to fund the child support program comes from CSPIA incentives and matched Federal funds. The Deficit Reduction Act, DRA, of 2005 repealed the authority to use the earned performance incentives as a match for Federal funds. The bill we have introduced today reverses the funding reduction imposed by the DRA.

States are using the incentives in a variety of ways. In my State of West Virginia, the incentive dollars are being used to invest in technology to upgrade services and enhance customer service. Thirty States or territories are investing in staff and program operations. Sixteen States are investing in

technology, and three others are investing in customer service programs.

The Child Support Protection Act would give States the authority to use earned performance incentives to fund this important work and continue the impressive results that are being achieved. This permanent reversal is critical so that those in State and local government can budget for 2011 and beyond. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to cosponsor this much needed legislation that is not only important to child support enforcement, but our children, their families, and the States.

Mr. President, today, I introduce the Child Support Protection Act of 2009; with my colleagues Senators Cornyn, Kohl, and Snowe. This bill continues the long-standing, bipartisan support of Congress for the Child Support Enforcement program, which began with the passage of the authorizing legislation in 1974.

Child support enforcement is a strong partnership between the Federal Government and State governments to help parents provide long term support for their children. It includes a network of 60,000 dedicated staff serving 17 million children across this country.

In 2008, paternity was established for 1.8 million children ensuring that the legal rights of both the children and their fathers were protected; 1.2 million orders for support were also established, resulting in $26.6 billion of child support being collected and distributed to families. This is an important investment in the future of our Nation, our children.

So, the Child Support Enforcement program's results are impressive and it is widely recognized as one of the most effective programs operated by the Federal Government. In fact, the program is notable for collecting $4.79 for each dollar of expenditure. It is a true bargain that works well.

Child support collections account for 31 percent of the income of single parent households, but the program does so much more. It works with non-custodial parents who need employment so that they can make regular payments. Child support staff also play a critical role in times of high joblessness, by processing adjustments to support orders so that non-custodial parents do not fall hopelessly behind.

When Congress passed the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, CSPIA, it created an innovative incentive program that rewards efficient, results-oriented child support enforcement efforts. These earned performance incentives must be used for child support activities. One of every $4 from State expenditures to fund the child support program comes from CSPIA incentives and matched Federal funds. The Deficit Reduction Act, DRA, of 2005 repealed the authority to use the earned performance incentives as a match for Federal funds. The bill we have introduced today reverses the funding reduction imposed by the DRA.

States are using the incentives in a variety of ways. In my State of West Virginia, the incentive dollars are being used to invest in technology to upgrade services and enhance customer service. Thirty States or territories are investing in staff and program operations. Sixteen States are investing in

technology, and three others are investing in customer service programs.

The Child Support Protection Act would give States the authority to use earned performance incentives to fund this important work and continue the impressive results that are being achieved. This permanent reversal is critical so that those in State and local government can budget for 2011 and beyond. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to cosponsor this much needed legislation that is not only important to child support enforcement, but our children, their families, and the States.

Mr. President, I am a proud member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, and each year I participate in the Angel of Adoption program to recognize a family, caseworker, or judge who works in my State to promote adoptions and permanency for vulnerable children.

Throughout my career in the U.S. Senate, I have worked hard on Federal legislation to promote adoptions and permanency, and to invest in the child welfare system to improve our care and services. I am truly motivated by the families and dedicated professionals I meet thanks to the Angels in Adoption event.

This year, I was proud to accept the nomination of the West Virginia Children's Home Society of the family of Dawn and Dave Heatwole as the 2009 West Virginia Angel in Adoption.

This award is used to recognize those who reach out to vulnerable children and provide them with a safe and loving home. David and Dawn have an amazing story that has touched the lives of so many needy children, and I would like to share their story with you now.

Dawn and David had been married several years when they were told that it was unlikely they would be able to have children. Rather than becoming discouraged, the couple decided that they would like to adopt a young boy from Russia who they had found out about through their church. While waiting for the lengthy international adoption process to go through, Dawn and David decided to become foster parents.

In April 2005 the Heatwoles undertook the challenge of caring for a 7- month-old boy with serious medical problems. Less than a year later the child was placed on a donor list because he required a liver transplant. As his condition continued to worsen, Dawn's sister volunteered to be tested and proved to be an appropriate donor match. The surgery was successful and their adopted son, Adam, is now a healthy 4 year old.

Shortly after bringing Adam into their home, David and Dawn took in another infant foster child, Ethan. Nine months later they welcomed Ethan's brother Asa into their growing family. In January of 2007, the Heatwoles were able to adopt Pasha from Russia, and they did not stop there. In May of 2008, they also accepted Adam's sister as another precious child in their home.

Over the past 5 years, the Heatwoles have provided a safe and loving environment for nine children. They have opened their home to children in need, and have fought to ensure that children are the top priority in the foster care system. Dawn and David have endured the challenges that accompany ailing and drug dependent infants, as well as the challenge of helping a non-English speaking child adapt to a new culture.

Mr. President, I have been delighted to share the Heatwole family's touching story with you. It is my firm belief that the people of West Virginia possess a great compassion to help those in need. The Heatwoles are an inspiration to us all.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help improve public safety communications.

September is a month when we remember. We remember that 8 years ago we witnessed the impossible horror of September 11th. We remember that 4 years ago we watched the watery devastation of Hurricane Katrina. We remember because even with the passage of time, these are wounds that do not heal and losses we will never forget.

These events also demonstrated the tremendous bravery of our public safety officials. Their courage awes and inspires. So when tragedy strikes, we want to make sure that those who wear the shield have the communications systems they need to do the job. We know now that public safety communications can mean the difference between security and harm.

Yet when it comes to public safety communications, we still have a lot of work to do. Four years ago, Congress took an important first step. In the Digital Television and Public Safety Act of 2005, Congress authorized the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security, to implement the Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program. This program provided a one-time, formula-based, matching grant opportunity for public safety agencies to improve interoperable communications systems.

Governors across the country lined up to designate State agencies to apply for and administer these funds. Under the program, funds were originally available for the purchase and deployment of communications equipment and training for system users. Later, in the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Congress expanded the program to include planning and coordination activities.

But now millions of these dollars are at risk. The September 30, 2010, deadline for expending funds that is a holdover from the original legislation could inadvertently jeopardize the effectiveness of public safety communications projects in States across the country. Many grantees spent the first year of the grant period developing required plans and justifications and then awaiting approvals from the Department of Homeland Security and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. As a result, many grantees did not have the full 3-year award period to acquire and deploy interoperable communications equipment. They face the real possibility of reaching the September 30, 2010, deadline with communications projects incomplete. In short, it is no longer sensible to bind the States to this original deadline in 2010.

There is no need to take my word for it. The Inspector General at the Department of Commerce reached exactly the same conclusion. In a report published in March 2009, the Inspector General found that grantees were unlikely to finish their communications projects within the statutory time frames. The Inspector General even recommended that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration work with Congress to extend the deadline for grantees to expend their communications funds from this program. Now the National Governors Association and the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials also have chimed in to support an extension.

I rise today so we can do something about it. By extending the September 30, 2010, deadline by one year and on a case-by-case basis two years, we can make sure that the funds are used exactly as Congress intended. We can make sure that public safety projects are not stranded due to arbitrary deadlines. We can make sure that our first responders have the first class communications systems they desperately need and deserve. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Hutchison and support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help improve public safety communications.

September is a month when we remember. We remember that 8 years ago we witnessed the impossible horror of September 11th. We remember that 4 years ago we watched the watery devastation of Hurricane Katrina. We remember because even with the passage of time, these are wounds that do not heal and losses we will never forget.

These events also demonstrated the tremendous bravery of our public safety officials. Their courage awes and inspires. So when tragedy strikes, we want to make sure that those who wear the shield have the communications systems they need to do the job. We know now that public safety communications can mean the difference between security and harm.

Yet when it comes to public safety communications, we still have a lot of work to do. Four years ago, Congress took an important first step. In the Digital Television and Public Safety Act of 2005, Congress authorized the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security, to implement the Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program. This program provided a one-time, formula-based, matching grant opportunity for public safety agencies to improve interoperable communications systems.

Governors across the country lined up to designate State agencies to apply for and administer these funds. Under the program, funds were originally available for the purchase and deployment of communications equipment and training for system users. Later, in the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Congress expanded the program to include planning and coordination activities.

But now millions of these dollars are at risk. The September 30, 2010, deadline for expending funds that is a holdover from the original legislation could inadvertently jeopardize the effectiveness of public safety communications projects in States across the country. Many grantees spent the first year of the grant period developing required plans and justifications and then awaiting approvals from the Department of Homeland Security and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. As a result, many grantees did not have the full 3-year award period to acquire and deploy interoperable communications equipment. They face the real possibility of reaching the September 30, 2010, deadline with communications projects incomplete. In short, it is no longer sensible to bind the States to this original deadline in 2010.

There is no need to take my word for it. The Inspector General at the Department of Commerce reached exactly the same conclusion. In a report published in March 2009, the Inspector General found that grantees were unlikely to finish their communications projects within the statutory time frames. The Inspector General even recommended that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration work with Congress to extend the deadline for grantees to expend their communications funds from this program. Now the National Governors Association and the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials also have chimed in to support an extension.

I rise today so we can do something about it. By extending the September 30, 2010, deadline by one year and on a case-by-case basis two years, we can make sure that the funds are used exactly as Congress intended. We can make sure that public safety projects are not stranded due to arbitrary deadlines. We can make sure that our first responders have the first class communications systems they desperately need and deserve. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Hutchison and support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the upcoming 75th birthday of a dear friend in Hinton, WV, Betty Giles.

Betty is a lovely person who has a strong sense of family and community. Through her work and volunteer activities she has made a difference.

Betty began her career at the hospital in Montgomery, WV. She then worked at the Hinton Hospital until it closed, and spent the rest of her career at the Greenbrier Valley Hospital in Fairlea. Compassionate and thoughtful, she was beloved by patients and colleagues alike.

Betty has always possessed a love of learning and curiosity that led her to learn more and do more, both in her work and in her life. She faces challenges straight on, and stands up for what she believes in. She has always been involved in community service, running the elementary school carnival when her children were young, singing in the ecumenical choir around the holidays, and spearheading a food pantry at her church that has been extremely important in times of hardship. When friends are ill, she is always there to lend a hand to help or an ear to listen.

She values family and friends, loyally supporting those she loves. Betty is the proud mother of two children, Ted and Terri. I was proud to have her daughter Terri as a member of my staff for many years. I treasure her friendship and wish her the best for her 75th birthday.