SCAAP Reimbursement Protection Act of 2009

Mr. President, today I introduce a straight-forward bill that is a first step toward helping American workers and businesses. This bill is part of my E-4 Initiative, which focuses on issues affecting the economy, energy, education and employment. The Skills Standards Certification Evaluation Act will require the Secretaries of Labor, Education and Commerce to evaluate skills standards certification programs that have been developed with federal funding.

Skills Standards Certifications have emerged over the past two decades in response to job growth in high-technology and varied industries. The training or classes usually take weeks or months, rather than years. Often, they are developed in response to the needs of one industry or even one company, though the skills are often applicable more widely.

As the President-elect and Congress work to save and create jobs through additional funding for infrastructure, green jobs, and similar programs, among other things, it is even more critical that employers be able to find qualified workers for a variety of positions. Workers who can easily demonstrate their skills quickly and easily will be able to benefit from such investments early on.

Over the past two decades, the Federal Government has taken conflicting approaches to skills standards certifications. That is why, as part of the Skills Standards Certification Evaluation Act, I require a recommendation from the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce on how Congress ought to move forward with funding for these certification programs. Both the national, top-down, and a local, bottom-up approach have been tried, and a thorough evaluation will make clear how we can move forward to get the most out of the funding the Federal Government provides.

These certifications have a tremendous benefit for workers. First, because the training is often condensed into a few weeks with a flexible schedule, it allows people to complete certifications without leaving a current job and without the financial cost of attending a full-time program that lasts a year or more. In addition, these programs allow workers to clearly demonstrate a certain set of skills, and may open more doors for higher-paying employment. Because these programs can be completed without leaving work, they also allow workers to advance within a career or company to more skilled positions and better wages and benefits.

For employers, Skills Standards Certifications can simplify the search for employees. I have heard from numerous Wisconsin employers, especially small businesses with limited resources, that it is hard to find employees with the skills they need, or who will be dedicated and loyal. Skills Standards Certifications clearly show the qualification of an individual, of course, but also tell the employer that he or she is dedicated enough to invest in the course to earn the certificate. Very few people will spend the time and money to enroll in such a program if they don't intend to use the certificate.

Lastly, these programs can help state and local governments quantify their skilled workforce, which can be invaluable when marketing the area to businesses and investment.

This bill is a small first step in what I hope can be a continuing effort to help hard-working Americans obtain and use high-demand work skills.

Mr. President, today I reintroduce a piece of my E4 initiative, so named because it is a collection of proposals that address issues important to the economy, education, employment and energy. This piece of the E4 legislation focuses on the important supporting role that transportation can play in economic development by creating an environment where employers and those seeking employment or better employment are connected together. Having such a system to overcome transportation hurdles can benefit both employers and employees, as well as the local economy and is all the more important in these difficult economic times.

In more general terms, investing in our infrastructure like roads, bridges and transit systems can have direct job creation impacts. This is one reason I have fought hard with the rest of the delegation for a fair rate of return for Wisconsin from the highway bill. It is also why in a letter I sent to President-elect Obama and Senate leaders I included highway and transit projects as part of a variety of ready-to- go infrastructure projects that should be included in the forthcoming economic recovery program.

In addition to supporting transportation-related jobs, linking workers and businesses that need them can also be an important part of a more comprehensive job creation strategy. This can mean supporting a robust public transportation system or more specific programs designed to link low-income individuals with jobs. I have consistently done the former by supporting

public transportation during consideration of the highway bill and Amtrak reauthorizations. But my specific proposal today focuses on the latter and improving the Job Access and Reverse Commute, JARC, program that links low-income workers with employers.

I have heard good things about the JARC program and was glad that it was shifted away from earmarks and was made available as a combination formula and competitively awarded program in the last highway bill. The primary program goal is to locally assess the transportation needs of low-income workers and then plan and fund programs to help alleviate transportation-related barriers to employment or better employment. While initially this may have been viewed as a way to support reverse commute projects whereby transit routes were established to allow city center residents to access jobs in the suburbs, the program actually does much more than just this and provides reliable transportation to low-income urban, rural and suburban workers.

In Wisconsin, the Federal JARC program is jointly administered by the State departments of transportation and workforce development as the Wisconsin Employment Transportation Assistance Program, WETAP. According to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, transportation barriers can include a lack of a dependable vehicle or bus service in the area, an absence of local jobs, or childcare transportation problems. The State agencies in Wisconsin have found several different types of projects to be effective depending on the local circumstances. These projects have included the traditional public transit projects such as extending bus lines or supporting van-pooling, along with other programs such as providing cars or car repairs to low-income individuals. Wisconsin has even found that assisting with indirect barriers such as transportation of children to and from childcare facilities is critical in allowing some individuals to improve their job prospects.

A recent University of Illinois Chicago, UIC, study found that the societal benefits from this program are $1.65 per dollar spent and estimates lifetime benefits to low income participants of $15 per dollar spent due to their ability to find and retain better paying jobs. While the goals of the Job Access and Reverse Commute program are important and the program has been found to be fairly effective, there are some details that have prevented the program from reaching its full potential. Working closely with transportation officials in Wisconsin and partially based on recommendations from the UIC study, I've come up with some specific ideas to improve the program.

With a proven effective program and continuing unmet needs by employers and low-income individuals seeking employment, JARC could use a boost in funding. So that is why my proposal ramps up funding by $100 million over 5 years from the current funding of $165 million to $265 million in fiscal year 2014.

My proposal would also allow the Federal share of projects to increase to 80 percent from the current 50 percent level for operating expenses. The 50 percent local and State match wasn't feasible for far too many local governments in Wisconsin and as a result Wisconsin has not been able to spend all its Federal funds. The higher Federal cost share will better balance the need to leverage Federal funds, while ensuring that these critical funds are fully utilized--millions of dollars in an account does nothing to link people to jobs.

Besides the challenge in coming up with a 50 percent local cost share, the other main issue that has kept JARC from being as effective as it could be is the paperwork and reporting burden required by the program, especially for the small nonprofit groups that often have never dealt with Federal grant requirements before. My proposal directs the Federal Transit Agency, FTA, to examine the current reporting requirements to see if there are ways to streamline the amount of paperwork required while still ensuring that the program goals are met.

My bill also includes a pilot program funded at $10 million a year for 5 years in order to test a few areas that seem very promising, but should be evaluated more fully before broader implementation. The first portion of the pilot program builds off the regulatory streamlining evaluation and allows the FTA to test streamlined reporting requirements to help get the balance between oversight and administrative burden right.

The second part of the pilot program focuses on improving education- and employment-related transportation for teens and young adults. Enabling students and young people to reliably get between their high schools or neighborhoods and technical colleges, job training centers or apprenticeships can have a lifelong positive impact.

The third section of the pilot program would allow experimentation with combining different transit programs and integrating JARC projects across local political boundaries to provide a more comprehensive local transportation system. Instead of having one transit program to assist the disabled, one targeted toward the elderly and another focused on jobs, this pilot program would encourage funding combined applications to meet these needs together with one comprehensive project. There is even the potential for the Department of Transportation to further coordinate with other departments such as Health and Human Services for healthcare-related transportation. Similarly, the needs of employers for employees do not recognize local political boundaries, so encouraging greater collaboration between local entities to make a more robust interconnected system should ultimately provide more efficient and effective service.

While the FTA already provides some technical assistance for the JARC program, my proposal provides a small boost in funding and some additional areas of emphasis. For example, after hearing about the struggles that some small nonprofits have with the reporting requirements, in addition to looking for ways to streamline the requirements, my proposal would direct the FTA to also provide some technical assistance especially targeted to this need.

The final element of my proposal is the offset. The new spending authorized in the proposal is fully offset by rescinding highway and bridge earmarks that have not had funds spent from them despite being authorized over a decade ago as part of the TEA-21 highway bill. Helping connect workers and employers is a much better use of these funds than letting them sit unused in some obscure DOT account.

Providing reliable transportation to low-income individuals only goes so far--it is the companies and innovators creating the jobs and the individuals seeking to better their lot through education or more challenging employment, that are doing the heavy lifting. That being said, transportation can clearly be a challenge for companies and workers and in the case of the JARC program can play an important supporting role.

Mr. President, we are all aware of the serious challenges our economy faces in the short term and the urgency of our need to promote job creation and economic development. I am committed to engaging in this broad effort with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. But it is essential that our efforts not just be short term fixes--they must not only aim to create jobs and investment opportunities in the short term, they must be part of strategic efforts to strengthen our Nation's innovation capabilities and sustain long term economic development in a changing and competitive global environment. There is no better way to do this than by stimulating and supporting small business innovation, especially in areas of national priority. As part of this effort, today I am introducing the Strengthening Our Economy Through Small Business Innovation Act of 2009.

Job growth, innovation and economic development are driven by our small

businesses. Small businesses also tend to be based in our cities and communities and so they are major contributors to our local economies. Half of our county's payroll jobs and most of our new job opportunities are provided by small businesses. Small businesses are proven innovators and drive commercialization of cutting edge technologies. Not only are small businesses our major source of employment, they employ about one third of our country's scientists and engineers and generate more patents on a per capita basis than large businesses and universities. They also are effective partners with universities to enhance product creation, develop university income and attract university graduates and faculty through increased innovative job opportunities.

Over the last 25 years, through the Small Business Innovation and Research program, SBIR, and, more recently, the Small Business Technology Transfer program, STTR, up to 2.5 percent and 0.3 percent, respectively, of Federal R&D funds from 11 Federal agencies have been specifically allocated to our Nation's small businesses to fund innovation. These small business allocations are not sufficient. We must diversify and strengthen innovation capabilities and our economic base, and to accomplish this we must extend and increase R&D allocations to our Nation's innovative small businesses.

My bill does 3 things. First, it extends the SBIR and STTR programs for a further 14 years so that small businesses, as well as universities and non-profit research organizations that collaborate with small businesses, can continue to leverage Federal research and development funding.

Second, it significantly increases the allocation of funds and the awards from large Federal research and development budgets to small businesses through the SBIR and STTR programs. It would increase the SBIR allocation from its current 2.5 percent to 10 percent and the STTR allocation from 0.3 percent to 1.0 percent over a 3-year period. It would increase SBIR phase I awards from $100,000 to $300,000 and phase II awards from $750,000 to $2.2 million. Third, it identifies specific funding priorities for energy innovation; safe and secure water; domestic security; and transportation.

The SBIR program is tested, successful and worthy of extension. In its comprehensive study of the SBIR program, the National Research Council found that the program ``is sound in concept and effective in practice''; was ``stimulating technological innovation''; ``linking universities to the public and private markets''; ``increasing private sector commercialization of innovations'' at an ``impressive'' rate; and ``providing widely distributed support for innovation activity.'' The study concluded that:

[T]he program is proving effective in meeting Congressional

objectives. It is increasing innovation, encouraging

participation by small companies in R&D, providing support

for small firms owned by minorities and women, and resolving

research questions for mission agencies in a cost effective

manner. Should the Congress wish to provide additional funds

for the program in support of these objectives, those funds

could be employed effectively by the nation's SBIR.

The NRC's study also found that universities and other non-profit research institutions would benefit significantly from the increase in both the SBIR and the STTR programs. In particular, the STTR allocation increase will directly benefit universities and efforts to bring university-based research into the commercial marketplace, as a partnership with a non-profit research institution, such as a university, is a requirement of all STTR award recipients. Many of the small businesses that receive SBIR funding are rooted in the university infrastructure so investigators and graduates from universities will have opportunities to be part of commercial developments. More than two-thirds of SBIR companies report that at least one founder was previously an academic. About one-third of SBIR company founders were most recently employed as academics before founding the company. Over a third of SBIR projects cite direct university involvement with 27 percent of projects having university faculty as contractors on the project, 17 percent using universities themselves as subcontractors, and 15 percent employing graduate students.

In its report accompanying reauthorization legislation, the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee recently concluded that:

increases in the SBIR allocation will invest money in

research, contracting, internships, and other collaborative

activities done with universities, with the contracting and

patenting activities with SBIR companies being a sizable

source of revenue for universities as well. The university-

industry partnerships that SBIR creates are crucial in that

they provide an applied research and commercialization focus

that otherwise likely would not be present in university

research. More specifically, the partnerships are important

in exposing faculty and the next generation of scientists and

engineers to commercial research and development. SBIR

businesses provide graduate and undergraduate students with

hands-on experience and job opportunities that universities

would be unable to provide alone.

Our country not only faces immediate economic and employment challenges, it faces major challenges in transportation, energy, domestic security and water quality and safety. Targeted research and development will be critical. Congress, with non-partisan expert guidance, has a role to play in guiding our national research and development priorities and, in this case, stimulating small business innovation and job creation in specific areas of critical national need. The National Academies of Science and other independent government research organizations provide us with carefully researched and considered recommendations on how we can address these priorities, so my bill draws on their recommendations to develop innovative energy technologies; enhance water quality and security; strengthen domestic security; and address transportation priorities. This is not only a good investment in short term job creation; it is an imperative investment in our Nation's long term innovation prospects and economic development.

The costs of my bill would be fully offset by cancellation of the airborne laser program. CBO estimates that cancelling that program will produce savings of over $2.6 billion.

Mr. President, as the 111th Congress begins, I am reintroducing a number of different bills designed to fuel job creation and spur economic development. My initiative, dubbed E4 because of its focus on economy, employment, education, and energy, seeks to respond to economic and job development needs both in my State of Wisconsin and around the country. These challenging economic times call for a comprehensive set of solutions including providing new job training opportunities for workers, fostering innovation among small businesses, protecting the existing family-supporting jobs in our nation, and boosting educational opportunities for young Americans. Today I am introducing the Connecting Education and Emerging Professions Act of 2009, which provides competitive grants to States and local school districts to promote better collaboration between high schools and local businesses and workforce development groups. This E4 education initiative is designed to help prepare America's students for future success in the workforce and post-secondary education as well as enhance America's competitiveness in the global economy as we prepare to enter the second decade of the twenty-first century.

Helping to ensure that all American students have access to a high- quality education is critical to boosting America's competitiveness and helping to ensure that our country is better equipped to respond to the economic challenges currently before us. Investment in our young people now will pay off in the future when these individuals are better prepared to compete for the highly skilled jobs of tomorrow. If the United States is to remain competitive on an international stage and continue to lead the world in innovation and development, we need to make certain that our young people are well prepared to meet current and future economic challenges.

Improving educational opportunities in the United States is going to require

a comprehensive set of policy strategies and I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress this year as we get to work on a variety of education issues including expanding access to education from pre-K through college. We also face the monumental task of reauthorizing and reforming the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, better known as No Child Left Behind, NCLB. As we consider the ESEA reauthorization, we should make substantial changes to the testing mandates that were imposed through NCLB and provide support to states that develop smarter accountability systems with enhanced assessments that measure higher-order thinking skills among students. We also need to look at ways to strengthen and reform our Nation's public secondary schools as part of the ESEA reauthorization. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to help support innovative changes that are taking place in some of our Nation's high schools and help even more States and local communities make improvements to their local high schools.

My CEEP bill seeks to address a couple of interrelated issues related to secondary education. The first issue is the alarmingly high dropout rate in our nation's high schools. While numbers vary slightly, a growing body of research indicates that the United States has a graduation rate of approximately 70 percent and that about one-third of our country's high school students will not graduate on time. Graduation rates for minority and low-income students are even lower, in many cases, alarmingly lower. In addition, many of our nation's urban school districts report very high dropout rates, including the Milwaukee Public School District. According to the Cities in Crisis report released in 2008 by the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, the Milwaukee Public Schools has a graduation rate of 46.1 percent. Unfortunately, there are at least a dozen large urban districts that have even lower graduation rates than Milwaukee.

One of our top education priorities as a Nation must be to address the low graduation rates nationwide in urban, suburban, and rural school districts. We must also work to close the huge opportunity gap that is created by the large disparity in graduation rates between our minority and non-minority students as well as between low-income and more affluent students. Solving this problem will require a broad, comprehensive solution involving the federal, state and local governments. It is my hope that when Congress finally reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we pay particular attention to the needs of our nation's high schools and our students.

While many factors contribute to high dropout rates, disengagement from classroom instruction can contribute to a student's decision to drop out. Some students feel that high school is not relevant to their lives and do not see how completing high school will translate into future career and academic success. In this increasingly competitive twenty-first century where postsecondary education is now required for many entry-level jobs, it is up to us to show our nation's students why it is so important that they graduate from high school.

Another issue that this bill seeks to address is the growing sense among employers and postsecondary institutions that our nation's high school students who do graduate are unprepared for success either in the workforce or in college. Employers in various economic sectors, including technology, manufacturing, health care, construction, and others, report difficulty in identifying qualified candidates for skilled positions. Recent surveys also indicate that many employers are dissatisfied with the overall preparation of secondary school graduates. In order for companies in the United States to be competitive in a global economy, we must have a highly skilled workforce. Adequate preparation at the high school level can help prepare students for entry into our rapidly changing global economy where new emerging industries are cropping up in Wisconsin and around the country.

To address these two interrelated issues, my bill would provide 5- year competitive education grants to states and school districts to foster collaboration and discussions between schools, businesses, and others about the emerging industry workforce needs and how to prepare our high school students to meet those needs, both academically and practically. States and local school districts must use this money to form partnerships with local or regional businesses, postsecondary institutions, workforce development boards, labor organizations, nonprofit organizations and others.

These partnerships will have the responsibility of surveying local, regional, and statewide emerging industries and deciding what are the academic and work-based skills that our high school students need in order to be successful in these emerging industries. The partnerships will then work together to develop new and engaging curriculums and programs designed to teach the academic and work-based skills that are necessary to succeed in these new emerging industries. Once the partnership has designed a curriculum or program and received approval from the Federal Department of Education, the partnership will work to implement the program in qualifying schools.

During the implementation phase, the partnership will come together to implement hands-on learning and work opportunities for students including internships, apprenticeships, job shadowing, and other career and technical education programs. These hands-on learning and work opportunities will be based on the emerging industry pathways curriculum or program that the eligible partnership has designed and will offer students practical academic experiences and skill-building lessons that they can use in the workplace or in postsecondary education.

This legislation seeks to help schools, businesses, colleges, and the students who would be served by this legislation talk with each other to build new programs that would help boost student engagement in learning and student attendance and graduation rates while also preparing students for success in the workforce or in college after they graduate. There are a number of successful local and state programs around Wisconsin that this legislation would help support and that served as valuable examples as I developed this legislation.

Wisconsin's Department of Public Instruction, Department of Workforce Development, and various local school districts have all been working to boost Wisconsin's career and technical education offerings and gear these offerings towards emerging industries. My bill seeks to help Wisconsin and other states build on these efforts and engage in additional conversations with interested stakeholders to design new curriculums and programs to prepare students for emerging industries.

I look forward to moving this legislation forward this year as the new Congress begins to debate how best to boost educational opportunities for all of our Nation's children. We have a significant achievement gap and graduation gap in urban, rural, and suburban schools throughout the country and it is imperative that we work together to promote innovative ideas that will close these gaps. Some of our Nation's schools are experiencing high dropout rates in part because students aren't connecting with what they are being taught. At the same time, we're seeing an emergence of new industries, like those aiming to capitalize on alternative energies and energy efficiency, that need employers with skills and training in their field. If we help schools connect their students with businesses, workforce development boards, and colleges that offer career and academic opportunities in these new and exciting fields, we can help to lower the alarming dropout rates while helping these emerging industries thrive.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing four bills, S. 187, S. 188, S. 189, S. 190, that will preserve and protect majestic public landscapes in Colorado and help provide needed water supplies to communities and farmers on Colorado's productive Eastern Plains. These bills were introduced in the last session of Congress, where they each had hearings and one passed the U.S. House of Representatives. I hope that we can work together to move these bills in this Congress and see them signed into law.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of all four bills be included in the Record and be printed alongside these remarks.

The first bill is the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act of 2009. This bill will help protect the water supply for the Arkansas River Valley's communities and its productive agricultural lands by advancing the construction of the long-planned Arkansas Valley Conduit. The bill will restructure the cost-share provisions of the project and is similar to legislation introduced in the last Congress by Senators Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar and introduced yesterday in the U.S. House of Representatives by Reps. John Salazar and Betsy Markey.

The Arkansas Valley Conduit, a proposed 130-mile water delivery system from the Pueblo Dam to communities throughout the Arkansas River Valley, was originally authorized in 1962 as part of the Fryingpan- Arkansas, Fry-Ark, project. Unfortunately, the authorization did not include a Federal-local cost-share provision necessary to cover the estimated $300 million in construction costs, and local communities-- especially those in southern Colorado--do not have the resources to shoulder all of the costs. The project has thus remained unfinished for over 4 years.

The bill will provide for a 65-35 Federal-local cost-share for completion of the project, with revenues from so-called ``excess- capacity'' contracts for water storage in other Fry-Ark project facilities being used to fund the majority of the local contribution. This approach is the result of close collaboration between community stakeholders and the Colorado congressional delegation and will ensure communities in the Arkansas River Valley can finance their portion of the project without incurring unbearable financial burdens.

Moreover, the bill will allow the Bureau of Reclamation to move forward with the construction of the Conduit. The depressed economic status of southeastern Colorado made it a difficult financial undertaking for the region, a challenge that continues today. This bill will help see this facility become a reality and thereby help the farming and ranching communities in the valley continue to produce needed food and fiber for the state and Nation.

The second bill I am introducing today is the Colorado Northern Front Range Mountain Backdrop Protection Study Act. I introduced similar bills in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 107th, 108th, 109th and 110th Congresses. In previous Congresses, the bill passed the House and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee but did not receive final action.

The bill is intended to help local communities identify ways to protect the Front Range Mountain Backdrop in the northern Denver-metro area and the region just west of Rocky Flats. The Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest includes much of the land in this backdrop area, but there are other lands involved as well.

Rising dramatically from the Great Plains, the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains provides a scenic mountain backdrop to many communities in the Denver metropolitan area and elsewhere in Colorado. The portion of the range within and adjacent to the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest also includes a diverse array of wildlife habitats and provides many opportunities for outdoor recreation. The open-space character of this mountain backdrop is an important aesthetic and economic asset for adjoining communities, making them attractive locations for homes and businesses. But rapid population growth in the northern Front Range area of Colorado is increasing recreational use of the Arapaho- Roosevelt National Forest and is also increasing pressure for development of other lands within and adjacent to that national forest.

We can see the effects of rapid population growth throughout Colorado and especially along the Front Range. Homes and shopping centers are sprawling through valleys and along highways that feed into the Front Range. This development then spreads out along the ridges and mountaintops that make up the backdrop. We are in danger of losing to development many of the qualities that have helped attract new residents to Colorado. So, it is important to better understand what steps might be taken to avoid or lessen that risk--and this bill is designed to help us do just that.

Already, local governments and other entities have provided important protection for portions of this mountain backdrop, especially in the northern Denver-metro area. However, some portions of the backdrop in this part of Colorado remain unprotected and are at risk of losing their open-space qualities. This bill acknowledges the good work of the local communities in preserving open space along the backdrop and aims to assist further efforts along the same lines.

The bill directs the U.S. Forest Service to study the ownership patterns of the lands comprising the Front Range mountain backdrop, identify areas that are at risk, and recommend to Congress how these lands might be protected and how the Federal Government could help local communities and residents to achieve that goal. Importantly, I note that the bill does not interfere with the power of local authorities regarding land use planning or infringe on private property rights. Instead, it will bring the land protection experience of the Forest Service

to the table to assist local efforts to protect areas that comprise the backdrop. The bill envisions that to the extent the Forest Service should be involved with Federal lands, it will work in collaboration with local communities, the state and private parties.

I strongly believe it is in the national interest for the Federal Government to assist local communities to identify ways to protect the mounatin backdrop in this part of Colorado. The backdrop beckoned settlers westward and presented an imposing impediment to their forward progress that suggested similar challenges ahead. This first exposure to the harshness and humbling majesty of the Rocky Mountain West helped define a region. The pioneers' independent spirit and respect for nature still lives with us to this day. We need to work to preserve it by protecting the mountain backdrop as a cultural and natural heritage for ourselves and generations to come.

The third bill I am introducing today--the National Trails System Willing Seller Act--will allow people who want to sell land for inclusion in certain units of the National Trails System to do so. Current law prohibits people who own land associated with several units of the trail system from selling those lands to the Federal Government for inclusion in those units. This bill will allow such sales to happen.

This legislation is identical to bills introduced in previous Congresses by my former Republican colleagues from Colorado, Representatives Beauprez and McInnis. The Trail System units covered by the bill are the Oregon National Historic Trail, the Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, the Iditarod National Historic Trail, the North County National Scenic Trail, the Ice Age National Scenic Trail, the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail, and the Nez Perce National Historic Trail.

Our national trails are a national treasure, and we should allow people who own land along these trails to sell that land to the Federal Government to be part of our public lands legacy. But it is important to make clear that these land sales are from willing sellers, which is what this bill will do. This bill makes a small but important adjustment to current law, and I think it deserves the support of all Members of the Senate.

The final bill I am introducing today is the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act, which will designate nearly 250,000 acres of Rocky Mountain National Park as wilderness. I introduced this bill in the 110th Congress as a member of the House of Representatives. It was cosponsored in the Senate by my colleague Senator Ken Salazar, and eventually by the Colorado Congressional delegation. Over a period of months, we worked together to develop this bipartisan legislation that will provide important protection and management direction for some truly remarkable country. This is a public lands policy goal that goes back to the 1960s, and is long overdue.

This bill is consistent with the Colorado Congressional delegation's efforts in the last Congress to strike a balance in protecting the park and the water users who rely on the Grand River Ditch. This carefully negotiated language met the needs of those users, but questions have been raised about the particular way that liability and water use issues were addressed in the delegation bill. Specifically, there have been questions about how these provisions work in the context of the Park Resources Protection Act. While I am confident that my bill addresses these liability concerns, I appreciate the recent efforts by Senator Salazar to offer a slightly different approach that provides a path to a widely-shared goal that has broad support in Colorado.

The wilderness designation in this bill for the park will cover some 94 percent of the park, including Longs Peaks and other major mountains along the Great Continental Divide, glacial cirques and snow fields, broad expanses of alpine tundra and wet meadows, old-growth forests, and hundreds of lakes and streams, all untrammeled by human structures or passage. Indeed, examples of all the natural ecosystems that make up the splendor of the park are included in the wilderness that will be designated by this bill. At the same time, the wilderness boundaries have been drawn so as to allow continued access for use of existing roadways, buildings and developed areas, privately owned land, and areas where additional facilities and roadwork will improve park management and visitor services. In addition, specific provisions are included to ensure that there will be no adverse effects on continued use of existing water facilities.

The lands designated as wilderness will become part of the National Wilderness Preservation System that was established by the Wilderness Act and will be managed in accordance with that Act and the provisions of the bill. The bill's provisions amplify this by specifying that--no new reclamation projects will be allowed in the wilderness area; nothing in the bill will create a ``buffer zone'' around the wilderness and non-wilderness activities visible or audible from within the wilderness will not be prohibited; the National Park Service can act to control fire, insects, and diseases, including use of mechanical tools within the wilderness; and nothing in the bill will reduce or restrict the current authority of the National Park Service to manage the Park's lands and resources.

The bill is similar to measures previously introduced by my predecessor in the House of Representatives, Representative David Skaggs, as well as other bills introduced before that, and legislation I introduced in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses. However, it does include a number of adjustments and refinements that reflect discussion within the Colorado delegation in Congress and with interested parties in Colorado.

Like H.R. 2334 of the 110th Congress, the new bill includes wilderness designation of more than 700 acres in the Twin Sisters area south of Estes Park. These lands were acquired by the United States and made part of the park after submission to Congress of the original wilderness recommendation for the park in the 1970s, and so were not included in that recommendation. They are lands of a wilderness character, and their designation will not conflict with any current uses. On the west side, the town of Grand Lake and Grand County requested that about 650 acres inward from the park boundary around the town be omitted from the wilderness designation in order to allow the park to respond to potential forest fire threats. As was the case previously, this bill accommodates that request.

Also like that previous measure, the bill responds to the request of the Town of Grand Lake, Grand County and the Headwaters Trails Alliance, a group composed of local communities in Grand County that seeks to establish opportunities for mountain biking, and the International Mountain Bicycling Association to omit from wilderness designation an area along the western park boundary, running south along Lake Granby from the town to the park's southern boundary. This will allow the National Park Service to retain the option of authorizing construction of a possible future mountain bike route within this part of the park. Similarly, the bill expands the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area by 1,000 acres in the area south of the park and north of Lake Granby. The lands involved are currently managed as part of the Arapaho National Recreation Area, which is accordingly reduced by about 1,000 acres.

As did the previous bill, this bill includes a section that authorizes the National Park Service to lease an 11-acre property, the Leiffer tract, that was donated to the National Park Service in 1977. Located outside the park's boundaries, it has two buildings, including a house that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Park Service would like to have the option of leasing it, but current law allows leasing only for ``property administered . . . as part of the National Park System,'' and this property does not qualify. The bill allows the Park Service to lease the property as if it were located inside or contiguous to the park.

Also like previous measures, the bill addresses the question of possible impacts on water rights--something that can be a primary point of contention in Congressional debates over designating wilderness areas. It reflects the legal

reality that it has long been recognized under the laws of the United States and Colorado, including a decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, that Rocky Mountain National Park already has extensive Federal reserved water rights arising from the creation of the national park itself. And it reflects the geographic reality that the park sits astride the continental divide, meaning there is no higher land around from which streams flow into the park, and thus there is no possibility of any diversion of water occurring upstream from the park. In recognition of these legal and practical realities, the bill includes a finding that because the park already has these extensive reserved rights to water, there is no need for any additional reservation or appropriation of such right, and an explicit disclaimer that the bill effects any such reservation.

As I mentioned, there are also provisions in this bill that deal with the Grand River Ditch, created before Rocky Mountain National Park was established and partly located within the park. The owners of the ditch are currently working to conclude an agreement with the National Park Service with respect to operation and maintenance of the portion of the ditch within the park, and the bill provides that after conclusion of this agreement the strict liability standard of the Park Resources Protection Act which now applies to any damage to park resources will not apply so long as the ditch is operated and maintained in accordance with the agreement. The owners of the ditch remain liable for damage to park resources caused by negligence or intentional acts, and the bill specifies that it will not limit or otherwise affect the liability of any individual or entity for damages to, loss of, or injury to any park resource resulting from any cause of event occurring before the bill's enactment. In addition, the bill specifies that its enactment will not restrict or otherwise affect any activity relating to the monitoring, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or use of the ditch that was authorized or approved by the National Park Service as of the date of the bill's enactment. The bill also provides that use of water transported by the ditch for a main purpose or main purposes other than irrigation will not terminate or adversely affect the ditch's right-of- way.

The matters dealt with in this bill have a long history. The wilderness designations are based on National Park Service recommendations presented to Congress by President Richard Nixon. That they have not been acted on before this reflects the difficult history of wilderness legislation. One Colorado statewide wilderness bill was enacted in 1980, but it took more than a decade before the Colorado delegation and the Congress were finally able, in 1993, to pass a second statewide national forest wilderness bill. Since then, action has been completed on bills designating wilderness in the Spanish Peaks area of the San Isabel National Forest as well as in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, the Gunnison Gorge, the Black Ridge portion of the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area, and the James Peak area of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests.

We now need to continue making progress by providing wilderness designations for other deserving lands in Colorado, including lands that are managed by the Bureau of Land Management. And the time is ripe for finally resolving the status of the lands within Rocky Mountain National Park that are dealt with in this bill.

Lands covered by the bill are currently being managed to protect their wilderness character. Formal wilderness designation will no longer leave this question to the discretion of the Park Service, but will make it clear that within the designated areas, there will never be roads, visitor facilities, or other manmade features that interfere with the spectacular natural beauty and wildness of the mountains. This is especially important for a park like Rocky Mountain, which is relatively small by western standards. As nearby land development and alteration has accelerated in recent years, the pristine nature of the park's backcountry becomes an increasingly rare feature of Colorado's landscape. Further, the park's popularity demands definitive and permanent protection for wild areas against possible pressures for development within the park. While only about one tenth the size of Yellowstone National Park, Rocky Mountain National Park sees nearly the same number of visitors each year. At the same time, designating these carefully selected portions of Rocky Mountain as wilderness will make other areas, now restricted under interim wilderness protection management, available for overdue improvements to park roads and visitor facilities.

In summary, the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act will protect some of our Nation's finest wild lands. It will protect existing rights. It will not limit any existing opportunity for new water development. It is bipartisan and will affirm the commitment of all Coloradans to preserving the features that make our State such a remarkable place to live. So, I think it deserves prompt enactment.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 and the NOAA Undersea Research Program Act of 2009. These bills will greatly enhance our nation's existing ocean

observation and research capabilities and drastically improve our understanding of the marine environment.

Oceans cover nearly three quarters of the Earth's surface, and have great influence over our lives. They shape our weather and climate systems, provide highways for international and domestic commerce, sustain rich living and non-living resources on which many of our livelihoods are based, and provide our nation over 95,000 miles of shoreline which is the backbone of tourist and recreational activities in many of our coastal states. Despite the constant, intricate interaction between our lives on land and the natural systems of the ocean, we know woefully little about the physical properties of the overwhelming majority of our planet. What lies over the horizon remains, by most accounts, a mystery.

Yet, the effects of those mysterious systems can be devastating. In recent years, hurricanes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters have devastated regions of our nation, and other parts of the world. Today, we have the technology to monitor a wide range of ocean-based threats, from destructive storms to quieter dangers such as harmful algal blooms and man-made pollution. The purpose of the Coastal Ocean Observing System Act is to put that technology to work predicting these threats more accurately and, when possible, mitigating their impacts.

This bipartisan, science-based bill would authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to coordinate an interagency network of ocean observing and communication systems around our nation's coastlines. This system would collect instantaneous data and information on ocean conditions--such as temperature, wave height, wind speed, currents, dissolved oxygen, salinity, contaminants, and other variables-- that are essential to marine science and resource management and can be used to improve maritime transportation, safety, and commerce. Such data would improve both short-term forecasting that can mitigate impacts of major disasters, and prediction and scientific analysis of long-term ocean and climate trends.

My home State of Maine currently participates in an innovative partnership known as the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System, or GoMOOS. Launched in 2001, GoMOOS takes ocean and surface condition measurements on a hourly basis through a network of linked buoys. These data are subsequently made available via the GoMOOS website to scientists, students, vessel captains, fishermen, and anyone else with an interest in our oceans. The vast geographic range and frequency of measurements has led to unprecedented developments in scientific analysis of ocean conditions in the Gulf of Maine. It has also contributed invaluable information to our region's assessments of fisheries, weather conditions, and predictions of other ocean phenomena.

Unfortunately, due to recent budget cuts within NOAA, in 2008 GoMOOS was forced to remove several buoys from the water, compromising the integrity of the system and reducing the quality of data available to system users. The funding levels authorized in this bill will ensure that this system, which has been shown to return $6 to the regional economy for every dollar invested, will continue to grow and provide its vital services to our maritime community.

Of course, the need to access this type of information is not limited to the Gulf of Maine. In June 2006, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, made up of members from the Pew Ocean Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, presented to Congress a list of the ``top ten'' actions Congress should take to strengthen our ocean policy regime. One of those priorities was ``enact legislation to authorize and fund the Integrated Ocean Observing System.'' Ocean and coastal observations are a cornerstone of sound marine science, management, and commerce. This bill will save lives by allowing seafarers to better monitor ocean conditions and providing timelier and more accurate predictions of potentially catastrophic weather and seismic phenomena. It will save taxpayers' dollars by reducing the emergency spending that comes in the wake of unanticipated storms, and it will enhance the appreciation and understanding of our oceans and coastal regions to benefit all Americans.

I am very proud to introduce this bill, and I would like to thank my cosponsors, Senators Cantwell, Inouye, Rockefeller, Landrieu, Kerry, Boxer, Reed, Collins, and Bill Nelson for contributing to this legislation and supporting this national initiative. Of course, our current and expanding ocean observation and communication system would not be possible without the work of dedicated professionals in the ocean and coastal science, management, and research communities--they have taken the initiative to develop the grassroots regional observation systems as well as contribute to this legislation. Thanks to their ongoing efforts, ocean observations will continue to provide a tremendous service to the American public.

While my ocean observing legislation will greatly enhance our ability to analyze and disseminate oceanographic and meteorological data, we also face a shortfall in our Nation's ability to explore vast regions of our undersea territory. Nearly 3 years ago the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released its long-awaited report, which noted that approximately 95 percent of the ocean's floor remains uncharted territory. If past experience is any indication, fascinating discoveries await us in these vast unexplored areas. These regions are sure to include species of marine life that are currently unknown to science, archaeological and historical artifacts that can shed new light on our past, and marine resources that may support our ongoing quest for a sustainable future.

In 2004 the U.S. Ocean Policy Commissioners called for enhanced, comprehensive national programs in ocean exploration, undersea research, and ocean and coastal mapping. The vision of the Commissioners, one that I share, is for well-funded and interdisciplinary programs. Such programs are being led by NOAA, with significant input from partners in other agencies, academia, and industry, but currently they lack formal Congressional authorization. This legislation would establish those programs, and provide a strong foundation upon which we can continue to expand the quest for knowledge to areas of the planet that have literally never been seen by human eyes. I look forward to seeing these efforts enhanced under this legislation.

I am proud to introduce this legislation today as well, and I thank my cosponsors on this bill, Senators Inouye, and Rockefeller for their support. I would also like to acknowledge my support for three other oceans bills being introduced by my colleagues simultaneously with these two bills: the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act, the Coastal and Estuarine Lands Protection Act, and the Ocean and Coastal Mapping and Integration Act. All will be integral to enhancing our nation's coasts and oceans and I am pleased to support my colleagues' efforts by offering my cosponsorship of these three pieces of legislation.

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

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

Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator Stabenow of Michigan, to introduce the Health Information Technology Act of 2009 to improve the quality of health care through the implementation of information technology, IT, in hospitals, health centers and physician practices throughout the country. Our legislation will help us address two critical issues.

The first is the serious patient safety problem facing our Nation. Indeed, if most Americans were told today that 98,000 lives were lost needlessly last year--and a cure was available--they would undoubtedly call for action. Yet the Institute of Medicine, IOM, has reported that medical errors inflict that terrible toll every year, even though the technology is at our disposal to dramatically reduce those deaths.

A second major problem is the escalating cost of health care. Health spending now comprises over 16 percent of GNP--$2.2 trillion last year--and the price of a health plan has grown so high that 70 million Americans today are either underinsured or lack any coverage whatsoever. That group expands as unemployment rates increase and individuals and families lose health insurance tied to employment. A recent Urban Institute study found that for each 1 percentage point increase in unemployment 1 million Americans are added to the rolls of the uninsured. However, simply expanding government subsidies or entitlements alone is not the answer, because on our current trajectory, escalating costs will erode our ability to maintain such supports. It is clear that some fundamental changes must be made in health care to combat rising health care costs.

Bold changes and innovations are necessary to address both medical errors and escalating costs. One of those changes must be the application of modern data technology. Most of us have been told at one time or another, ``we're waiting to get the test results mailed'' or ``we're still waiting for your chart.'' Consider the savings we realize when a physician can locate information efficiently so that tests don't have to be repeated and data isn't delayed. A patient obtains faster, higher quality care when multiple practitioners can review diagnostic test results right at their desktops. The fact is the health care industry is one of the last sectors where information flows so slowly. Indeed, it is often easier to track the service history on one's automobile than to see your own health history. In an age where millions of Americans share family pictures over the Internet in seconds, isn't it long past time that a physician should be able to retrieve an x-ray just as easily?

Today, the technological tools are at hand to dramatically reduce medical errors and save lives. Many of us have heard about how drug interactions can be avoided by software systems which check a patient's prescriptions for hazards, and there are so many other applications which can also improve health. For example, by reviewing and analyzing information, a health provider can help a patient better manage chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease to reduce avoidable adverse outcomes. The unfortunate reality is that the cost of new systems and a lack of standards have prevented us from reaping the benefits of new technologies.

While the current economic crisis has surely put a focus on addressing the inefficiencies and high costs of health care, I have long shared a determination to modernize health information with my colleagues. In 2003, I joined with Senator Bob Graham to introduce the ``Medication Errors Reduction Act of 2003'' to make grants of up to $750,000 available to hospitals and nursing facilities to aid in implementation of health IT infrastructure. In 2005, Senator Stabenow and I offered our bill to create a $4 billion competitive grant program and tax incentives to enable hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, community health centers and physicians to invest in health IT.

The President-elect shares our recognition of the critical role which information technology must play in transforming health care. In his campaign, he acknowledged the critical need to make technology implementation a priority.

A lack of standards to ensure interoperability has been a factor in slowing IT adoption by many health care providers. One must know that a system purchased will be compatible with others, and that--no matter what may happen in the future to a vendor--the investment one makes in building an electronic medical record won't be wasted. In other words, your system must be able to communicate with other systems, and your investment in building electronic medical records must be preserved. When a patient moves, their electronic ``chart'' should be able to move right along with them to prevent disruption in the continuity of their care--in other words ``we must have interoperability.''

Yet standards alone are not sufficient, as there are fiscal hurdles to implementing health IT. Today, many providers are struggling to adopt new technology, and for those who serve beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP, it can be exceedingly difficult. Our physicians, for example, have seen recent Medicare payment updates which have not even kept pace with inflation--even as we expect them to make a major investment in health IT.

We must also recognize there is a misalignment of fiscal incentives for health IT. The benefits to patients are evident--in fewer delays, in better outcomes, in lives saved. Modern information technology reduces costs as well, but primarily to those who pay for services--not for the healthcare providers who must bear the burden of implementation. Indeed, it has been estimated that 89 percent of cost savings accrue to those who pay for services. It should be obvious then that the federal government would invest in health IT to both improve health outcomes and to reduce its expenditures on Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP.

That is precisely the type of investment the Health Information Technology Act of 2009 would achieve. Because as we look to the many studies and reports on health IT, it is clear that annual cost savings can actually exceed the price of implementation. With that kind of return, it is indisputable that the federal government must employ health IT to see not only the savings in lives, but also better management of our health care spending.

Our legislation spurs adoption by providing grants to physicians, hospitals, long term care facilities and both federally-qualified health centers and community mental health centers. These grants are targeted to help provide the health IT resources providers need to serve our federal beneficiaries. In fact, the size of an allowable grant for each provider is keyed to the proportion of the patient care which they deliver to federal beneficiaries. This will help providers deliver better care to those on Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP while we also see costs reduced in those programs. That is simple common sense.

The legislation supports reasonable expenditures for a variety of costs required to implement health care information technology. These include such components as computer hardware and software in combination with installation and training. In addition for a system to be suitable for support under this legislation, we require that it must meet the HHS Secretary's interoperability standards.

Our new legislation even provides an alternative to those for-profit providers who do not wish to apply for a grant. Under this bill, such providers will be able to expense the cost of a qualified system. We will thus assure that every type of provider has a meaningful opportunity to invest in moving their health care practice into the new millennium. With the development of a 21st century health technology system, we will ensure that providers have the appropriate tools to effectively provide the best quality health care at reasonable cost.

As the current Congress struggles with matters related to the ailing economy, many Americans are finding it exceedingly difficult to access health care which they find to be both expensive and inefficient. While it is clear

that health IT alone will not reduce all excessive costs or address every inefficiency, one must understand that the only way to achieve either goal is to have access to the type of coordinated information that a fully integrated health care system would provide. In fact, the information we will obtain through health IT is essential to achieve such goals as improving quality and reforming provider payment. This is the foundation for our work on health reform.

When the Medicare and Medicaid programs began, we could have only dreamed about computerized clinical information systems. Today, we have this technology at our disposal, and I strongly believe that we cannot afford to delay implementation. In fact, as we face challenges in the financing of these vital federal programs, this is exactly the sort of initiative which will enable us to achieve the fundamental improvements to make our health entitlements more fiscally secure.

I hope my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation so we may soon achieve the goals of improving patient safety and reducing our escalating health care costs.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Kohl, Leahy, and others in introducing the COPS Improvement Act of 2009. I am honored to join them in introducing this important bill on an issue that has been so forcefully championed by Senator Biden for so many years.

It is my sincere hope that we are entering the dawn of a new age in our approach to State and local law enforcement funding. For the last 8 years, the Bush administration has steadily and drastically reduced the amount of funding and programming that the Federal Government provides to State and local law enforcement. This has been a huge mistake, with a corresponding spike in the rise of violent crime in our country.

The need for additional funding for state and local law enforcement through the COPS program is clear. Over the last 5 years, our country has experienced an alarming increase in violent crime. In 2007, the Police Executive Research Forum reported that from 2004 to 2006, homicides increased overall by 10 percent, aggravated assaults with guns rose 10 percent, and robberies rose 12 percent.

This survey mirrors the FBI's own statistics, which showed that violent crime rose by 1.8 percent between 2003 to 2007. And this surge in the violent crime rate isn't just limited to big cities. In February 2008, in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Mukasey acknowledged that violent crime was increasing across all of our communities.

Let me put these numbers in human terms. The International Association of Chiefs of Police equates the rise of 2.5 percent to 31,479 more victims of violent crimes in 2005. The 3.7 increase for all of 2006 means about 47,000 more Americans were victims of murder, robbery, assault, rape, or other violent crimes.

Unfortunately, despite these disturbing numbers and the Justice Department's own acknowledgement that violent crime is increasing, over the last 8 years the Bush administration continually proposed drastic cuts in the Federal assistance traditionally available to state and local law enforcement.

President Bush's proposed fiscal year 2009 budget slashed funding for State and local law enforcement at unprecedented rates. After repeatedly proposing to eliminate COPS hiring grants, President Bush finally zeroed out the entire COPS program for fiscal year 2009, replacing it with a mere $4 million for a new community policing grant. This is simply not acceptable and our communities are suffering because of it.

During the 1990s and earlier years in this decade, the federal government vigorously funded grant programs for state and local law enforcement, including the COPS Program. We saw real results--violent crime went down year after year. It is no surprise that with the recent cuts, violent crime rates have ticked back up.

This trend has to stop, and it is my hope that Congress and the incoming Obama administration will move to correct the huge damage that has been inflicted on state and local law enforcement in the last eight years. The bill Senator Kohl and I introduce today will go a long way to do that.

We know what works and we can see the results of ignoring and underfunding proven programs. We also know that crime often rises in times of economic trouble. Now is not the time to continue the rollbacks in state and law enforcement funding initiated by the Bush administration.

This bill will serve a dual purpose--creating thousands of jobs in the current economic downturn and providing state and local law enforcement with the resources they need to successfully fight crime.

Specifically, the bill would authorize $1.15 billion per year for the next 6 years to fund the following:

Police Hiring Grants: The bill authorizes $600 million per year to hire up to 50,000 officers to work in community policing efforts, and school resource officers to fight school violence. These funds will create jobs in a worsening economy, and can be used to retain officers, pay overtime costs, and reimburse officers for training costs.

Law Enforcement Technology Grants: The bill authorizes $350 million per year for police departments to obtain new technology and equipment to analyze real-time crime data and incident reports to anticipate crime trends, map crime ``hot-spots'', examine DNA evidence, and purchasing badly needed technology upgrades for police on the street.

Community Prosecutor Grants: The bill authorizes $200 million per year to help local district attorneys hire and train more prosecutors.

Troops-to-Cops Program: The bill authorizes a troops-to-cops program to encourage local police agencies to hire former military personnel who are honorably discharged from military service or who are displaced by base closings to allow them to continue working and engaging in public service.

The COPS Program is a time-tested program that has proven its effectiveness for years. It is one of the cornerstones in the State and local law enforcement efforts that have removed thousands of pounds of drugs and millions of dollars worth of drug proceeds from communities across the country.

Money from the COPS Program provides law enforcement with the officers, prosecutors and technology that they need to keep our communities safe. All we have to do is look at the rising rates of violent crime that correspond to the staggering funding cuts to understand how important these programs are for our country.

We must provide the necessary tools and funds to State and local law enforcement and act decisively to combat the nation's growing gang problem and violent crime. Enacting the COPS Improvement Act of 2009 will be a step in the right direction. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Kohl and I in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, today the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing entitled ``Helping State and Local Law Enforcement During an Economic Downturn.'' Today Senator Kyl and I are introducing a bill that will do just that. The SCAAP Reimbursement Protection Act of 2009 will help to alleviate the costs of illegal immigration to State and local governments by broadening the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, to ensure that States and localities are eligible for reimbursement of the costs associated with incarcerating criminal aliens.

We are joined today by Senators Boxer, Hutchinson, Schumer, Cornyn, Durbin, Crapo, Bingaman, Specter, Cantwell, and McCain.

The burden of incarcerating criminal aliens weighs heavily on States, especially during this time of economic uncertainty. California is home to approximately 32 percent of the Nation's illegal immigrants and spent over $950 million in 2008 alone to house these criminal aliens.

Understanding the expenses that States and localities bear, Congress enacted SCAAP in 1994 to help reimburse States and localities for the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens. Prior to 2003, the Department of Justice interpreted the SCAAP statute to include reimbursement to States and localities that are incurring costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens who have been accused or convicted of State and local offenses and have been incarcerated for a minimum of 72 hours. After 2003, DOJ limited reimbursement to the amount States and localities spend incarcerating convicted criminal aliens for at least 4 consecutive days.

Reimbursing States and localities only for the costs when a criminal alien is convicted and incarcerated for 4 consecutive days significantly undermines the goal of SCAAP that States and localities should not bear the burden of a broken Federal immigration system. The actual costs of this failed Federal system begin when these aliens are charged with a crime, transported, and incarcerated for any length of time.

This narrow interpretation is even more devastating because SCAAP is consistently under-funded. The President has zeroed out SCAAP funding in his budget proposals for the past 7 years. Through bipartisan support, Congress was only able to partially fund the program.

As a result, SCAAP only reimburses States for a fraction of the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens. In 2008, the California State government will receive approximately $118 million in SCAAP funding. However, it is estimated to cost the State approximately $960 million each year for the incarceration of criminal aliens in California--$842 million above the reimbursement amount. The State of California is therefore only being reimbursed for approximately 12 percent of its actual costs to incarcerate illegal criminal aliens.

This cut has had a domino effect on public safety funding. For every dollar less that SCAAP reimburses States, a dollar less is available for critical public safety services. For example, after the SCAAP funding cuts in 2003, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department implemented an ``early release'' policy for prisoners convicted of misdemeanors.

I believe it is the Federal Government's responsibility to control illegal immigration. The funding cuts imposed by the Bush administration have let our local public safety services down, and have made our communities less safe.

The SCAAP Reimbursement Protection Act of 2009 is good federal policy to fix a failed Federal one--so that States are reimbursed for the full costs of incarcerating aliens who are either charged with or convicted of a felony or two misdemeanors.

This policy has the support of the National Sheriffs' Association, California State Association of Counties, the U.S./Mexico Border Counties Coalition, the Virginia Sheriffs' Association, the Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, and the Sheriffs' Association of Texas, who have all endorsed the bill I am reintroducing today.

Our colleagues in the House unanimously passed this companion bill last Congress and I urge my colleagues in this chamber to join me in supporting this much needed amendment to the SCAAP statute.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Mikulski, Kennedy, Snowe and others in introducing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2009. This legislation is long overdue and I am pleased that the majority leader will try again to move this legislation in the opening days of this new Congress. The Supreme Court's divided decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire struck a severe blow to the rights of working families across our country. More than 40 years ago, Congress acted to protect women and others against discrimination in the workplace. In the 21st century, equal pay for equal work should be a given in this country. Unfortunately, the reality is still far from this basic principle. American women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a male counterpart. That decreases to 62 cents on the dollar for African-American women and just 53 cents on the dollar for Hispanic-American women.

For nearly 20 years, Ms. Ledbetter was a manager at a Goodyear factory in Gadsden, Alabama. After decades of service, she learned through an anonymous note that her employer had been discriminating against her for years. She was the only woman among 16 employees at her management level, yet Ms. Ledbetter was paid between 15 and 40 percent less than all of her male colleagues, including several who had significantly less seniority. After filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a Federal jury found that Ms. Ledbetter was owed almost $225,000 in back pay. However, 5 members of the Supreme Court overturned her jury verdict because she had filed her lawsuit more than 180 days after her employer's original discriminatory act.

I was honored to invite Ms. Ledbetter to testify at a Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired in September to examine how the Supreme Court's recent decisions have affected the lives of ordinary Americans. Ms. Ledbetter's case is but one example of how the Supreme Court has dramatically misinterpreted the intent of Congress and offered a liability shield to corporate wrong-doers.

This decision is yet another example of the Supreme Court's increasing willingness to overturn juries who hear the factual evidence and decide cases. A recent study revealed that in employment discrimination cases, Federal courts of appeal are 5 times more likely to overturn an employee's favorable trial verdict against an employer than they are to overturn a verdict in favor of the corporation. That is a startling disparity for those of us who expect employees and employers to be treated fairly by the judges sitting on our appellate courts.

In the 110th Congress, the House passed the bipartisan Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act by a vote of 225-199. In the Senate, despite the support of 57 Senators who urged its consideration, the majority of Republican Senators objected to even proceeding to consideration of this bipartisan measure. One

Republican Senator who supported the filibuster introduced an alternative bill, claiming to offer a solution for victims of pay discrimination. In reality, that partisan alternative proposal would fail to correct the injustice created by the Ledbetter decision. At the Judiciary Committee hearing in September, Ms. Ledbetter confirmed that the alternative bill would not have remedied her case, but instead would have imposed additional burdens and increased the costs of her litigation.

Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to protect employees against discrimination with respect to compensation because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin-- however the Supreme Court's cramped interpretation of this important law contradicts Congress's intent to ensure equal pay for equal work.

This Supreme Court decision goes against both the spirit and clear intent of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and sends the message to employers that wage discrimination cannot be punished as long as it is kept under wraps. At a time when one-third of private sector employers have rules prohibiting employees from discussing their pay with each other, the Court's decision ignores a reality of the workplace--pay discrimination is often intentionally concealed by employers.

Equal pay is not just a women's issue, it is a family issue. With a record 70.2 million women in the workforce, wage discrimination continues to hurt the majority of American families. As a working mother, the discrimination inflicted on Ms. Ledbetter affected her entire family and continues to affect her retirement benefits. As the economy continues to worsen, many Americans are struggling to put food on the table and money in their retirement funds. It is regrettable that recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court and Federal appellate courts have contributed to the financial struggles of so many women and their families. In the next weeks, I hope we can act to overturn the wrongly-decided Ledbetter decision to prevent the devastating consequences of pay discrimination.