FIND Act

Madam President, it was a pleasure to yield that time to my friend from Pennsylvania, which he used very well.

I rise to continue a discussion of amendment No. 3456, which has been offered by Senators Collins, Byrd, Feinstein, Voinovich, Ensign, and myself, which would reauthorize the Opportunity Scholarship Program for students, needy and deserving students here in the District of Columbia, sometimes referred to as the DC voucher program.

This amendment would, as I say, reauthorize this program which otherwise would either atrophy over time--there are still 1,300 students in it, but now, for the last 2 years, it has not been reauthorized. President Obama in his budget says this probably will be the last year that Federal funding would be in it. The nonprofit corporation that has administered this program has said--under the circumstances the Congress by our inaction and in some sense interruption have created--they cannot continue to administer the program. No one else has come forward to do that.

This amendment says, effectively, it would be a tragedy, a human tragedy, 1,300 human tragedies--that 1,300 economically disadvantaged students in the District of Columbia who have been given a lifeline out of failing public schools to try to better educate themselves so they can live a life of self-sufficiency and satisfaction--that all that hope would be ended, all that opportunity would be ended.

This amendment would turn all that around and say the Senate believes this program is at least worth continuing as an experiment. But more than that, it has worked, by independent evaluation. Why terminate it? There is no good reason to terminate it. Would the Chancellor of the District of Columbia School System, Michelle Rhee, obviously an advocate for the public schools here--as I am, as the other Senators, Collins, Byrd, Feinstein, Voinovich, and Ensign are--would the Chancellor of a public school system here support this program if it were not a good program? Of course not. Would she support it if she thought it was a threat to the public schools? Of course not. That is her first and major commitment. She supports a 5-year extension of this program that this amendment would authorize because, as she said poignantly to our Government Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction over matters related to the District of Columbia--she said until she can say to a parent of a child at a school that has been designated under Federal law as a failing school, a school that has failed to give those children an equal educational opportunity--until, Chancellor Rhee has told us, she can say to the parent, ``that public school that your child is in here in the District of Columbia, our Nation's Capital, is prepared to give your child an equal and good educational opportunity,'' then she cannot say terminate the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program which gives low-income, economically disadvantaged children a lifeline, a passport, a scholarship they can use at a private or faith-based school of their choice.

This program was started after difficult and intricate negotiations in

2004. It was started with a basic premise that is deeply and wonderfully American, which is: Hey, this is the country whose Declaration of Independence said that the government was being created in the first place, in 1776, to secure the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that everybody has an endowment from our Creator--not by the government; the government is there to secure those rights--the endowment came from God, from our Creator. One of the fundamental ways in which we have attempted over our history to secure those rights is through the public school system, through our school system.

Generations and generations of Americans, new Americans, immigrant Americans, have come here and the school system has given them an opportunity for education and they have gone on to not only make a success of themselves but contribute enormously to our country.

The sad fact is that a lot of our public schools today are failing particularly our economically disadvantaged students. There is a terrible gap based on income and race and ethnicity, an achievement gap, in our public school system. No Child Left Behind and various Federal programs are trying hard to close that, but it has not been closed yet.

That is why a lot of us got together in 2004, the administration and both parties, and tried to negotiate and ultimately did negotiate a compromise which was based not on supporting any particular educational institution but founded on that goal that was in the Declaration of Independence, that is characteristically and fundamentally American, the individual and, in this case, the individual child. How many individual children, in this case in the Nation's Capital, can we give a better education so they can develop their God-given talent to the highest level possible, which they cannot do if they are not getting a good education?

So in this compromise that was enacted in 2004, we basically created new income streams. Some people say: Oh, the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program looks like it is working. It is a good idea to help kids get a scholarship to a private or faith-based school, but I am against it because it takes money from public schools. Wrong. That was the whole premise.

In fact, to even it out, when we adopted this program we gave an equal amount of additional money to the DC Public Schools as went into the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, then a new stream of money into charter schools in the District of Columbia. That was the agreement that was made. It was a good agreement. Those of us who support the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program are not at all unhappy to give an equal amount of extra money to the public schools and to the charter school movement in the District.

I guess the program is controversial because some people do not want to experiment with something other than the public school system on how to educate the individual. OK, I respect that. I understand that.

Teachers unions are at the forefront of the opposition. They are against this bill. I understand that. But I disagree, respectfully. This is not an assault on teachers or the public schools. As Chancellor Rhee has said: This is a temporary lifeline for students who are in schools designated under Federal law as inadequate to educate them, to give them an opportunity to step up and go to a private or a faith- based school where they can do better.

I do not know why anyone would want to terminate this program. It is a small program. As I will make clear in a few moments, it has been positively evaluated. Particularly, I repeat, why would we want to intervene when the leader of the DC Public Schools says this Opportunity Scholarship Program should be continued because it is good for kids in the District of Columbia. She cannot really say to parents: I can give a good, first-class education to all of your children.

Parents like this program a lot. Kids like it. We heard moving testimony from children in the system. Polling in the District of Columbia shows very strong support for it, particularly and not surprisingly in economically disadvantaged areas.

Look, let's talk from the facts. Most of us, I will say ``us,'' including me, have the money to send our kids to either private or faith-based schools because we think they can get a better education there or the kind of education we want them to get, particularly if it is in a faith-based school.

These are parents who do not have that choice because they do not have the money. Imagine the frustration that we would feel if our children were trapped in a public school where we knew they were not getting a good education that would compromise the rest of their life and yet we did not have the money to get them a better education.

That is all this program deems, the Opportunity Scholarship Program. It is a scholarship to give economically disadvantaged kids an opportunity to rise to the limits of their ability. A vote against this amendment, I really believe, is a vote to take away opportunity for 1,300 economically disadvantaged students who are now in the program and hundreds of others who would join if and when this program is extended.

There have been hundreds of students involved. At its peak there were 1,930 students enrolled for the 2007-2008 school year. Because no new students could enroll, because the program was not reauthorized to that extent by Congress, enrollment declined to 1,721 for the 2008-2009 school year. It is now at 1,319.

Here is a terrible thing that happened: Last year, 216 students were offered a scholarship for the year that followed, the school year that followed. Then that offer, because of opposition to this program and a decision not to allow new students into it, was revoked by the Secretary of Education of the United States.

Since its inception, the Opportunity Scholarship Program has served over 3,000 students, and more than 8,400 have applied to participate. Over 85 percent of the students in this program would be attending a school in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring as designated under Federal law. This is a remarkable program that really does deserve to be continued.

I note the presence of my colleague and friend and cosponsor, Senator Ensign. If the Senator would like to speak at this time, I will be glad to yield the floor, and then I will take it back after he has concluded.

Madam President, I thank Senator Ensign for his cosponsorship, for his convincing and informed argument for this amendment. I couldn't agree more. There is such an irony here. Secretary Duncan of Education is a reformer. The President supports school reforms. Michelle Rhee is trying very hard and valiantly and effectively to reform the DC Public Schools. Why would Secretary Duncan and members of the administration and some in this body and our colleagues in the other body oppose this program, an opportunity scholarship program which Chancellor Rhee supports because it is consistent with her attempt and the attempt of Secretary Duncan to reform our public schools? The only answer I can think of is that certain interest groups, including particularly teachers unions, oppose this measure.

For me, that is not an acceptable reason to terminate the hopes of 1,300 children in a program in the Nation's Capital.

I note, with pleasure, the presence of our colleague from Maine, Senator Collins.

I yield the floor.

I thank my colleague, Senator Collins, for coming to the floor, for being a cosponsor of this amendment. And for the passionate and reasoned way in which she spoke.

Two things come to mind in listening to her remarks. One is, we are very often dealing with big national or international matters on the floor of the Senate--health care reform, jobs act, whatever. They all involve people,

of course. But here is one which is local, and we can actually quantify the people. We have 1,319 children who are in private or faith-based schools because of this DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, getting, by their own telling and that of their parents, so much better an education, feeling better about themselves, being on the road of opportunity.

If we don't authorize this, although the administration has said it is committed to at least following these students through high school, there is not enough money there to do that. The President, in the budget, said this is probably the last year he will fund it. There is not enough money to carry these students through high school.

The second point is, with all the uncertainty in the program, the current administrator of it, a nonprofit corporation, has said they don't want to do this anymore. So far, no one else has been found to do it.

So this definitely closes the door to opportunity for hundreds of other students in the District and their parents to give them a better education, while Chancellor Rhee, over the next 5 years, is trying to make every school in the District of Columbia a good school.

But, secondly, it really focuses us on the possibility that these 1,319 children will be forced to go back to the public schools in their neighborhoods, and 86 percent of those schools, as Senator Collins has said, are designated under Federal law as inadequate. None of us would let our kids go there, and we would pay their way out. But these parents who benefit from this program cannot.

So Senator Collins has really spoken of this as a tragedy, a human tragedy--she is right--that you could look into the face of each of these 1,319 kids and say: Sorry, you can't go on in this school you all are so happy to be going to at this point.

The second point is this, and I say this respectfully: It has been very rare, when I have been involved in a debate in the Senate on a matter, that I have not felt there were some respectable, good arguments on the other side. I did not agree with them. On balance, they did not convince me my position was wrong. But I must say that on this one I cannot think of a single good reason to be opposed to this amendment: 5 more years of an experimental program, $20 million to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program out of, by my recollection, $13 billion of Federal taxpayer money that goes to title I schools, and over $25 billion that goes from the Federal Government to public schools around America in the No Child Left Behind Program--a total of $25 billion or $26 billion.

This is $20 million for these DC Opportunity Scholarships, alongside $20 million more to the DC Public Schools that they will not otherwise get, and $20 million more for the charter schools. In fact, if this program is allowed to die and those 1,319 students are forced back into the public schools in their neighborhoods, that adds, by the estimate of one independent authority I have seen, at least $14 million more to the expense of the DC Public School System to take them back.

So I welcome people who oppose this amendment to come to the floor to debate it, but honestly, listening to Senator Collins, I cannot think of a good reason to be against this amendment. I thank the Senator very much for coming over, for her cosponsorship, and for all the work we have been able to do together.

Again, I say, why did this come before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee? Because historically--the Presiding Officer, I am now proud to say, is a new member of the committee--the Governmental Affairs Committee has been given jurisdiction over matters regarding the District of Columbia. It is in that capacity that we have done oversight of this program.

I note the presence of another cosponsor--and I will give her a moment to get ready--Senator Feinstein of California, whom I will yield to whenever she wants to speak.

One of the arguments against this--actually, since no one is on the floor opposing this, I am going to use a memo sent out this afternoon by staff to Senators opposing the amendment from the Democratic leadership office, I believe. I will just pick out a few of these.

The first problem cited: This program was passed in 2003 as a 5-year pilot program. It has now been extended twice through appropriations bills to minimize the disruption to students already in the program, and a plan for winding it down is in place. But that is the point.

So they say: Reauthorization is not needed to keep students in the schools they are in. That, according to the DC authorities on this, is not true. There is not enough money in it to keep them in there. The President said, in his budget this year, this would probably be the last time he would recommend appropriating to this program. The promise was to keep these students in the Opportunity Scholarship Program right through graduation from high school. There is not enough money there.

But more to the point, there is every reason to do it, based on the independent evaluation of the program, based on Michelle Rhee, chancellor of the DC Public Schools, who is supporting the 5-year reauthorization because she feels it is necessary.

Incidentally, this reauthorization is also supported by Mayor Fenty. He supports the tripartite appropriation: public schools, charter schools, and the Opportunity Scholarship Program. And it is supported in a letter from a majority of the members of the city council of the District.

I want to quote--I will come back to it again--Michelle Rhee. This is why it is not adequate to say this ought to be just appropriated every year and keep these students in the program dangling every year, making it harder to find an independent administrator of the program, why reauthorization is needed. But listen to this. This is Michelle Rhee in testimony before the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee on September 16 of last year. She says:

[O]n a regular basis, I have parents from Wards 7 and 8

(which are our highest poverty wards, which are also the home

of our lowest performing schools) come to me and they've done

everything a parent should do and they say, ``I've looked at

all the data, I know my neighborhood school and the schools

surrounding are not performing at the level that I want them

to. So I participated in the out-of-boundary process; I went

through the lottery and I didn't get a slot at one of the

schools I wanted.'' So they look at me and say, ``Now what?

What are you going to do?''

Michelle Rhee answered in her testimony:

And I cannot look at those parents in the eye right now at

this point and offer every single one of them a spot in a

school that I think is a high-performing school.

Here is a gutsy comment from this chancellor who is really devoted to the improvement of the public schools. Chancellor Rhee says:

And until I think we are able to do that, which I think is

on that five-year horizon, then I believe that we do need to

have choice for our families and I think they do have to have

the ability to participate: either to move into a charter

school or to use the opportunity scholarships.

End of quote from the chancellor of the DC Public School System. I have the greatest respect for her. It took a lot of guts to say that. But she said ``5-year horizon,'' and that is what this reauthorization does. It gives these kids--these parents who know their children are not getting a good education in the public school they are in--who have not been able to go to one of the out-of-boundary, out-of-their- neighborhood schools because the schools are packed, have not made it into a charter school because I gather there are thousands waiting who cannot get into the existing charter schools--let's give them an opportunity to get one of these opportunity scholarships and have a chance for a better education and a better life.

Mr. President, I am going to stop now. I am very grateful for the cosponsorship by the distinguished Senator from California, a former mayor, of course, who is intimately knowledgeable on public education, who is committed to public education and yet really concerned about every child. That is what this program is about.

I will yield the floor at this moment.

Mr. President, briefly, I thank my colleague and dear friend from California for a wonderful statement. First, I say officially as an Independent that the Senator from California has begun demonstrating her independence of mind, spirit, and heart.

Secondly, I cannot tell the Senator how important it was that she did what she did with those three students because this is personal. This matters to individual students. It is hard to imagine the talents these three have shown and have developed would have been developed in the same way, unfortunately, at the school they were consigned to by their neighborhood.

Years ago, I learned an expression from some wise person--a hundred years ago--that if you save one life, it is as if you saved the whole world because every individual has all the potential of the world within them. That probably was talking more about physically saving a life. The truth is, in a way, that is real. By giving these kids an equal educational opportunity, we are giving them the ability to save their own lives.

I cannot thank the Senator from California enough for a wonderful statement. I appreciate it very much.

I note the presence of my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, who has been a long-time advocate, going back to his days in Ohio, for better educational opportunity for every child.

I yield the floor and look forward to his statement at this time.

Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Voinovich for his statement. He brings several thoughts to my mind. The first is: Senator Voinovich, I am going to miss you when you retire at the end of this year. You are a straight shooter, you are a straight talker, and you speak from your heart. You have had a lot of practical experience-- as mayor, as Governor, and as a Member of the Senate--and you bring it all to bear in what you said.

Secondly, I look forward to buying that book you are about to write. I hope it is about your career broadly, but I would be real interested in that Ohio opportunity scholarships or voucher program.

Well, let's call it the Lieberman-Voinovich amendment.

Senator Voinovich has spoken from his own experience in the Ohio case. As he said, sometimes people say opportunity scholarships or vouchers are constitutionally suspect or unconstitutional. Not true. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Ohio voucher program was a neutral private choice program that did not violate the establishment clause.

But I will tell you what rings in my ear is the questions that have been raised by my colleagues in support of this amendment. Senator Voinovich said: Why would you vote against this amendment? Why would you vote against this program? As the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, said: What is there to be afraid of in this program? It doesn't take money away from the public schools. The head of the DC Public School System is for the program because she thinks it will benefit the children who need it, whom she knows she can't give a quality eduction to over the 5 years of the authorization program.

This program has been tested by an independent evaluator, Dr. Patrick Wolf, principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Education study, and he concluded that:

The DC voucher program has proven to be the most effective

education innovation policy program evaluated by the Federal

Government's official education research arm so far.

Of the 11 innovation programs investigated, studies showed only 3 have reported any statistically significant achievement gains, and the gains reported in the Opportunity Scholarship Program in the District of Columbia are the highest thus far.

I know Senator Rockefeller wants to return to the FAA authorization bill, so I will begin to wind this up. I thank all my colleagues who came over to speak on behalf of the amendment. I regret that nobody has come to speak against it. I was looking forward to a good debate. So I have to go back to this staff memo sent out to Senators against the amendment. We have actually dealt with all the arguments made:

Public dollars should be spent on public schools that accept all students subject to uniform public standards. This program accepts the students who apply, and when there are too many, they subject them to a lottery. It is a wide-open program.

They cite the Department of Education study. They do not do it fairly. They speak wrongly: DC parents already have choices about where to send their children with the public charter school network. Yet we know those programs are oversubscribed.

The fact is, all the arguments made in this memo against the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program and keeping it alive in the hopes that the lives of a limited number of students in the DC school system-- 1,300; maybe with this reauthorization they will be able to add a couple hundred more in each year for the next 5 years; maybe it will be 1,000 more children--will be better and for whom the doors of opportunity will be opened in a way they are not opened now. Why would anybody oppose this? I can't think of a good reason.

The group that has been most vigorously opposed has been the teachers unions. I understand why, but their interests do not outweigh the interests of these children, economically disadvantaged, with dreams and hopes they can't realize in the schools they are in but who have those hopes elevated and realized--as those three beautiful pictures of students who have been in this program that Senator Feinstein showed us.

Look, along with Chancellor Rhee, I hope for and, in fact, envision a day when the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program is not needed and it will not be needed because the DC Public School System will be providing a good education to every student who lives in the District of Columbia. But that, as Chancellor Rhee has said, is not the reality these children and their families live in today. Many schools in our Nation's Capital, as the chancellor has said, are not providing an adequate education to the students.

I repeat: I will bet there is not a Member of this Senate, if their children were consigned by neighborhood allocation systems, who would not spend the money to get their children out of those schools because their children's lives and hopes and dreams would be compromised, through no fault of their own, simply because the schools were not adequate to educate them. So this is all about helping some

of those students by supporting this amendment to reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program 5 more years.

I hope and pray what Chancellor Rhee said is right; that in 5 years she can look every parent of every student in the DC Public School System in the eye and say: Your child is at a school where he or she can get a good education so we don't need the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program anymore. But for now, Chancellor Rhee says we need it, Mayor Fenty says we need it, former Mayor Williams--who helped to create the program--is strongly for it, and a July 2009 poll conducted in the District of Columbia says, 75 percent of District residents want and need the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.

I don't see a reason why a majority of Members of this Senate, hopefully an overwhelming bipartisan majority, would speak against this; would frustrate the hopes of all these families, all these students, and all these leaders of education in the District of Columbia. So I am going to yield the floor with the hope that we can have a vote on this soon, and I urge my colleagues to think about the 1,319 children whose lives will be compromised, whose dreams will be stifled if this program is not reauthorized.

I thank Senator Rockefeller for his patience while we continued on this amendment, and with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is a bipartisan amendment introduced by Senators Collins, Burr, Voinovich, Feinstein, Ensign, and myself. It would benefit schoolchildren in the District of Columbia, reauthorizing a program we created 7 years ago now that has worked: $20 million to the DC public schools, $20 million to charter schools, and $20 million to the Opportunity Scholarship Program.

The last part is the controversial part. But it should not be. As Senator Feinstein said in her remarks on this amendment, what is there in this amendment to be afraid of? It has helped 1,300 economically disadvantages children to have an opportunity to get out of a public school that the Chancellor of the DC Public Schools says is not working for them.

This measure is supported by Mayor Fenty, Chancellor Michelle Rhee, a majority of the members of the DC Public Schools, and it has been judged by an independent evaluator to be the most effective program of its kind in America.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. President, I have just visited with Senator Rockefeller. Of course, we, along with Senator Hutchison, are trying to pass an FAA reauthorization bill, which is not as easy as it sounds. This is not one of the most controversial or difficult or passionate issues that divide America. We have plenty of those issues around. But this is about modernizing our air traffic control system, about reauthorizing the Airport Improvement Program, improving air safety--a wide range of issues. Still, anything that is brought to the floor of the Senate these days slows down--way, way, way down--and that is the case with this bill as well. I have described it as similar to trying to walk through wet cement to try to get something through the Congress.

We have amendments pending dealing with school vouchers, putting discretionary caps on budgets, earmark reform--things that have very little or in most cases nothing to do with this underlying bill. It is just that this is an authorization bill open for amendment, so we have amendments on a wide range of issues. We also have other amendments that have been offered that are germane and relate to this piece of legislation, and we have been working through trying to put together an en bloc amendment with our staffs and Senator Rockefeller's staff, working through, with other colleagues, some of the suggestions. They make a lot of sense. I think we are making progress there.

I have described before the need for this legislation. Last year, I met with some of the Europeans who are putting together the modernization program in Europe. This issue of modernization of the air traffic control system--I think I heard Senator McCain talk about World War II vintage air traffic control. It is the case that for those who are now taking off this minute from National Airport, when that airplane leaves the runway and is in the national airspace, it is the case that someone in a control tower somewhere is watching that airplane. Why? Because there is a lot of traffic up there.

This is the most complex airspace in the world here in the United States, and I think the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, does a terrific job in operating the most complex system in the world. We have the safest skies in the world, there is no question about that. We have had one particularly fatal accident in the last year. That tragedy occurred in Buffalo, NY, with Colgan Air, in which 50 people tragically lost their lives, including the pilot and copilot and flight attendant. But the fact is, we have safe skies, and I would be the last to come to the floor of the Senate and say the American public should be worried about safety. It is the case, however, that the Colgan crash gave us a roadmap to some changes that I believe are necessary and that I and Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison have put in this bill. The issues we have discovered from that tragedy persuaded us that a number of things needed to be done.

The FAA itself has worked on aviation safety for a long while. The National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates aviation accidents, has made recommendations. In fact, they have a most wanted list. There are some recommendations that will improve air safety that have been on the most wanted list for a long, long time, some for well over a decade and not yet adopted. So the Administrator of the FAA, Randy Babbitt, has worked with us. I know he is working diligently to try to address some of those issues.

Let me mention safety in just a moment, but let me talk for a moment about modernizing the system.

When people say: Well, what is that about, it means we are moving from the tracking of that airplane that just left National Airport--I think we have about one a minute that is authorized at that slot airport, so every minute, an airplane is leaving that airport. When that airplane is at cruising altitude and on its way up to cruising altitude, it has a transponder, and that transponder is sending signals. That signal shows up on a screen. That screen is in front of an air traffic controller. That screen shows that airplane, in most cases by number, and that air traffic controller is directing that airplane with its traffic through other routes flown by other airplanes. It is all about safety, making sure airplanes can fly in a congested, crowded sky.

The dilemma--by the way, it has been relatively safe. It certainly is safer than in the old days when they first started flying at night. During the day, they would fly by sight, years and years ago. Then, at night, they would fly to bonfires. They would fly to a bonfire and then fly 50 miles to another bonfire as they carried the mail at night. Eventually they would fly to lights, and then eventually they would fly to ground-based radar. It has been around a long time.

The problem is, ground-based radar only shows where a jet plane is right at that moment--any airplane, for that matter, but a jet moves very fast, so at that nanosecond when that sweep of the radar shows that airplane in that airspace, that is exactly where it is. But a nanosecond later, it is somewhere else. Especially with a jet, with the next 5 or 7 seconds it takes to sweep the radar, that jet is somewhere other than where the dot showed it on the screen. Now we have the capability to know much more precisely than that where the airplane is, but because we only know about where that airplane is, we have to space airplanes for a margin of safety and we fly less direct routes. The result is, we use more fuel in that plane by flying a less direct route. We have to have much wider spacing of airplanes in a congested airspace. We are polluting the skies with more fuel used. We are costing the airplanes and the passengers the extra fuel. We are also taking extra time for the passengers to get to where they are headed because of less direct routes.

All of that can change with a new system of global positing, GPS. Everybody understands what GPS is. You have GPS in your automobile in many cases. You type in an address and it shows you where your car is and where the address is and it takes you right to the address. If your child has a cell phone, in most cases they have access to GPS in their cell phone. In many cases, your child with a cell phone has

the opportunity, with some of the providers, to link with their best friends--their five best friends, for example--and each of them with their cell phone can have GPS locators, so they can access their five friends and know exactly where each of the five is. We can do that with children and cell phones. We cannot do it today with commercial airplanes. We cannot know exactly where that airliner is with GPS technology. That is because we have not yet modernized.

That is what this is all about--modernization of the air traffic control system. When we do--and we will--we will be able to fly much more direct routes, have a greater margin of safety, save fuel, save the environment. We will do all of these things. Other parts of the world are doing it, and so must we. That is why Senator Rockefeller and I have brought a bill to the floor that moves directly and aggressively toward what is called modernization of the air traffic control systems. It sounds complicated. It is less complicated than one would think. It needs the FAA to build the facilities on the ground, and it needs the airplanes to have the equipage in the jet or the airplane itself. When we do that and have the procedures and the developed process, we will have modernized the air traffic control system. That is what the legislation is about.

The legislation is also about building infrastructure across the country. If you are going to fly, you have to have someplace to land and someplace for passengers to embark and disembark. It means runways and terminals. It means a wide range of things. This also includes the Essential Air Service Program, which provides essential air service through contracts to smaller communities. As I indicated earlier, it addresses the issue of safety.

Let me describe safety for a moment, as I have done a couple of times on the floor because I think it is very important.

One-half of the flights in this country are by regional airlines. The passengers do not necessarily know it is a regional airline. They get on, in most cases, a smaller airplane, and it says United, US Airways, Delta, Continental, but it is not that company at all. That is just the brand on the airplane, and it is a regional company, in most cases, that is flying for the larger carrier. In some cases, the larger carrier owns the regional, but in most cases, it is a regional flying under contract to one of the major carriers.

What we have discovered in several hearings, in the aftermath of the Colgan accident, is some very difficult circumstances in terms of mistakes that were made and things that we think we need to improve and correct. Some of it we do in this bill.

The pilot who was in charge of the Colgan plane that evening--flying at night, in ice, in the winter, into Buffalo, NY, from Newark Airport--that pilot, we discovered later, had failed a number of pilot exams along the way. We have learned that the CEO of this company, Colgan, indicated: Had we known about these multiple failures along the way of this pilot's credentials, we would not have hired the pilot. But they did not know because they did not have access to all of that information. This legislation provides that access shall be made available. So those hiring decisions will be better decisions.

The issue of fatigue is very important and was very evident as part of the cause, I believe, of that Colgan accident in Buffalo. There is almost never a circumstance where there was an airplane accident in this country where the accident report says definitively: This was caused by fatigue. But we know, of course, there are a number of tragedies that were caused by fatigue.

Let me point out something we learned with respect to this particular flight, and my assumption is it is not peculiar to this flight. This chart shows the Colgan Air pilots' commuting prior to a flight. On this particular flight, on that evening, when the passengers boarded that flight, the copilot, who got in the right seat of that cockpit, had flown from Seattle, WA, to Newark Airport in order to reach her duty station. She lived in Seattle and she worked out of Newark. She flew all night long, deadheaded on a FedEx plane to Memphis, changed, and flew to Newark all night long. The pilot commuted from Florida to Newark. So you have two people in the cockpit: one from Florida who commuted to Newark and one from Seattle who commuted to Newark.

What we now have heard from testimony from the National Transportation Safety Board is the pilot of that airplane had not slept in a bed the two previous nights, the copilot had not slept in a bed the previous night. Was this crash caused by fatigue? There will never be something that definitively suggests that, but if you were a passenger on an airplane and in the cockpit sat a pilot and copilot, neither of whom had slept in a bed the previous night or two nights, would you believe fatigue was the cause of perhaps a misjudgment in the cockpit? I would. I would.

The question is not, Can you end all commuting? I do not expect you can probably end all commuting. But the question is, Does some of this commuting invariably cause fatigue? I believe it does. And how do you begin to address that? The FAA Administrator has now sent to the Office of Management and Budget, I believe, his rulemaking on fatigue, so that is a step forward because we have to address that.

As shown on this chart, this quote is from a discussion by a regional pilot in the Wall Street Journal of September 12, 2008. He said:

Take a shower, brush your teeth, pretend you slept.

That is what a regional pilot says about the kind of work on regional carriers, where you have a lot of stops, small routes or short routes: ``Take a shower, brush your teeth, pretend you slept.''

Again, I think it raises the question--and a reasonable question-- about how do you make this circumstance change. How do you promote greater safety in circumstances where there is so much commuting, where you have duty time that often allows for less than is necessary to sleep at night? There is the full 8 hours, to be sure. But by the time you get to a hotel somewhere during duty time, it is quite often the case you have not slept a full night.

In this case of the Colgan flight, we have now learned the copilot on that airplane not only traveled all the way across country to reach her duty station, but she is someone who made in the neighborhood of $20,000 to $23,000 a year. Does anybody believe a copilot on a commercial carrier paid $20,000 to $23,000 a year is going to be able to afford hotel rooms when they get to their duty station prior to taking a flight? I don't think so. That is not an unreasonable thing to expect to have happen.

Let me say, my discussion of this is not to tarnish regional airlines. They play a very important role in our air traffic system in the commercial aviation system--very important. My hope is, though, working with the regional carriers, these safety provisions we have included in this piece of legislation will substantially improve safety and avoid the kind of circumstances that existed on that particular Colgan flight.

I mentioned previously the families of the victims on that Colgan flight have been real champions for aviation safety. They have never missed a hearing. They have shown up at all the events in Washington, DC, whether it is a hearing or other activities, to say: I am here on behalf of my son, my daughter, my brother, my mother who perished in that crash. The fact is, that diligence and that effort has made a difference and shows itself in this legislation.

We also, in this legislation, are addressing the issue of pilot hours as qualifications. I will talk about that some other time.

I think there is a lot here to commend this bill to my colleagues. It is urgent we get this passed through the Senate, get to conference, be able to reach a conference agreement with the House, and get the bill signed. We will, by that, I think improve the infrastructure in this country, substantially increase jobs--we are estimating 150,000 new jobs as a result of it--and dramatically change the air traffic control system from an archaic system to a modern system. All that is good for the country.

There is way too much that is needed to be done in this country to improve things, especially in areas of infrastructure and modernization, that is

left undone. Let's at least get this piece for commercial aviation and for all aviation completed.

I have mentioned almost exclusively the issue of commercial aviation. I do not want to leave the floor again without saying there is another component to aviation in our country; that is, general aviation. Many of us fly on small planes a lot. I learned how to fly a small plane years and years ago. General aviation plays a very important role in the area of aviation in our lives.

In States such as Alaska, the Presiding Officer's State, or perhaps West Virginia or North Dakota, in States such as that, the ability to get on a Cessna 210 or a King Air, if we are lucky, or perhaps even a Mooney or a 172 Cessna and go someplace and get there, sometimes in circumstances where there are not a lot of roads, as would be the case in Alaska, and other circumstances where you have wide distances to travel on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday--general aviation is so important and they do so much good work.

In addition, very few people talk--it is true of general aviation and also commercial aviation--about the mercy flights, flying a heart for a donor on a mercy flight, or flying someone who needs desperate treatment to save a life. It goes on every day all across this country--corporate jets, private planes, and, yes, even with commercial airliners.

We are in the process right now of beginning to fight a flood in Fargo-Moorhead. That river will go up 20 feet in about 10 days. It is going to be 20 feet by Friday from 2 weeks ago. I recall last year when the flood occurred, then Northwest Airlines, now Delta Airlines, flew some very large planes into Fargo for relief purposes. They never asked for anything. They just said they were coming. There is a lot of work that goes on by some of the major carriers, as well as corporate and general aviation, that is very important.

Again, I thank Senator Rockefeller for the work he and Senator Hutchison have done. I, as chairman, and Senator DeMint, as ranking member, of the Subcommittee on Aviation are pleased to be working with them.

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

Madam President, as the Senator from West Virginia said, we are on the FAA reauthorization bill, that is reauthorizing the programs that deal with aviation safety and air traffic control and airport improvement funds and essential air service--all of these issues. For the last hour we have been hearing debate about a school voucher program in the District of Columbia. Why would that be the case? Because this is an authorization bill and anyone can come and offer any amendment to an authorization bill. So Senator Lieberman and the cosponsors of his amendment are well within their rights to do that. It has nothing at all to do with the bill on the floor of the Senate, however.

Because we are going to vote on it, however, let me say a few words about it. I have spoken about the FAA reauthorization bill previously this afternoon and will again later, but let me talk for a moment about the issue of school vouchers. First, this is not the place to do it. This is not the place to offer the amendment. They have the right to offer the amendment but we are trying to get a bill done here.

The rest of the world is moving forward to modernize the aircraft control system and we, with the most congested and complicated air traffic control space in the world, we have extended the FAA authorization 11 straight times because we have not been able to get a bill done.

We will probably have three or four votes today and none of them have anything to do with the FAA. I hope we will clear some amendments. Senator Rockefeller has been working hard to clear some amendments, but the votes we will have today have to do with earmark reform or school vouchers or any number of other subjects, discretionary budget caps, having nothing to do with the underlying bill. But if we must vote on them, let me at least take a couple of moments to respond to what we have heard for the last hour.

I know the people who came here to support the voucher amendment are enormously passionate about their support. The amendment is providing vouchers paid for by the American taxpayer for about 1,200 students in the District of Columbia, to attend private schools. In short, it provides public funding for certain students to attend private schools.

I am a big supporter of education. I believe education is our future. I believe when Thomas Jefferson said that anybody who believes a country can be both ignorant and free believes in something that never was and never can be. I understand that. I think education is the building block and foundation for America's future. In fact, it has been the success of America, that we designed education from the very start differently from many other countries. We said we are going to have a system of public education--public education, that means public schools that allow every child to go into that school and come out of that school with whatever their God-given talents allow them to become. We are not going to move people off, in the sixth grade or eighth grade, based on ability. That is not the way we are going to do it. Every child can enter those classrooms and decide to graduate with whatever their God-given talent allows them to achieve in this education system.

That is public education. I know people say to me America's schools do not work. Oh, really? Really? If you get to the Moon, anybody, would you please tell me whose bootprints are on the Moon? They are not Chinese or Russian, they are bootprints made by an American, made possible by people who were educated in America's public school system, who helped us to understand the science and math that allowed us to learn to build airplanes and learn to fly them and then build rockets and walk on the Moon and plant an American flag on the Moon. Public education has been remarkable for this country.

I walked into the oldest House Member's office the first day I came to the Congress. His name was Claude Pepper and he had two photographs behind his chair, at his desk, that I have never forgotten. Claude was in his mid- or late eighties. One photo was of Orville and Wilbur Wright making the first airplane flight, December 17, 1903, 59 seconds off the ground, the first human-powered flight. The photo was autographed ``To Congressman Claude Pepper with deep admiration, Orville Wright,'' before Orville died.

But just behind it was a second photograph of Neil Armstrong stepping gently with his boot on the surface of the Moon. I thought to myself, what is the distance measured between those two photographs? About four inches. But think of the distance in education, to learn to fly and fly to the Moon. Someone else didn't do that. We did that, with a network of public education that says to every kid: You can become whatever your God-given talents allow you to become.

Universal education in a system of public schools. Is it perfect? Certainly not. Has it worked? You bet. I am so tired of people trashing public schools. I go into a lot of classrooms and I almost never leave the classroom without thinking to myself: What an American hero teaching in that classroom. They didn't choose the profession that pays the most, for sure. But that teacher, that man or woman who is teaching those kids, what a remarkable person that is. I always leave classrooms feeling that way.

Let me talk about this program very quickly. This program, a voucher program to create public funding for a certain number of students here in the District of Columbia to attend private schools, was established as a 5-year pilot program in 2003. That is 7 years ago; a 5-year pilot program. It has now been extended twice through appropriations bills in order to minimize the disruption for students already in the program and a plan to wind it down is now in place. Reauthorization is not needed to keep current students in their schools.

In my judgment, public dollars should be spent on public schools. Yes, there are improvements that are needed in public schools. Why don't we invest in those improvements. Here in the District of Columbia they are $40 million short of what is needed. Yet we are using public dollars to support vouchers for private schools. I know it is not a lot of money but this is a program that, 7 years ago, was authorized for 5 years. It demonstrates how hard it is to shut down any program. At a time when education budgets are being slashed for public schools, we ought to be directing the money we have in the public domain for public schools.

Those who wish to attend private schools, they pay private tuition, I understand that. But our public funding ought to be devoted to strengthen our public schools.

Let me talk for a moment about a study that has been done of this voucher program. It has produced very mixed results. The Department of Education did a study that was mandated. After 3 years, no statistically significant achievement impacts were registered for students coming from the lowest performing schools. The reason that is important is that was the target of this program, low-performance schools, to allow those parents to get those kids out of those schools and give them a voucher to go to a private school. What we have discovered from the Department of Education study is for those very schools, the target schools, the lower performing schools, there is no

statistical achievement impact for students who came from those schools going into this voucher program.

Some of my colleagues said you have to give these people a choice and a chance. How about giving them a choice? The District of Columbia already has choices. There are choices available to parents on where to send their kids. There is a robust public charter school network with 60 charter schools here in the District of Columbia. Unlike voucher schools, public charter schools are open to all students, subject to the same accountability as all other schools, public schools; the same accountability standards. So the parents in DC already have some of that flexibility about which schools their children shall attend.

This program has not gone through the full committee process since 2003. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has yet to mark up this legislation in this Congress. More important, this amendment has nothing at all to do with the bill that is on the floor of the Senate.

I do not support this on its merits. I didn't support it in the Appropriations Committee. I do not support it now. I believe we ought to defeat it at this point, not because I do not support education but it is precisely because I support public education that we ought not be spooning off money here into a voucher program, taking public funds and moving them into private schools with, as I indicated, very mixed results as reported in a study that was done by the U.S. Department of Education.

I want for our children, for all children, to have the best education they can have. Our public school system has served this country well, but we have a lot of challenges. I will, finally, say this: One of the significant challenges of the public school system is not that teachers are poor teachers; it is not that the school is a bad school; it is, a school inherits virtually everything that exists in that town or that neighborhood and has to deal with it. That is just a fact.

So it is a challenge sometimes to, in public schools, do all that we want to do. But if we look at a couple of hundred years of history in the United States of America, it is pretty hard to conclude that we, as opposed to all other countries, we are the ones with universal education. We are the ones who supported public education. It is pretty hard to conclude that we have come up short relative to other countries.

Let me make one other point and perhaps boast just for a moment. If North Dakota were a country and not a State, a country not a State, we would rank second in the world next to Singapore in eighth grade math scores.

Does good news get reported very often? Not very often. It is just bad news that sells. This is an old saying: Bad news travels halfway around the world before good news gets its shoes on.

We ought to spend a day talking about the good news of education and then spend time as well addressing the challenges because there are some difficulties that we need to address. But I did want to say I am not going to vote for this voucher amendment. I do not think it is the right choice. I believe the proper choice is to strengthen public education, address the challenges of public education. We can do that. Our parents did it, our grandparents did it, and we can have the same kind of impact on our future as they did.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in a four-part series titled ``Justice: Delayed, Dismissed, Denied,'' published in December 2009, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on the failure of the Philadelphia criminal justice system to provide fair and speedy justice. ``It is a system that too often fails to punish violent criminals, fails to protect witnesses, fails to catch thousands of fugitives, fails to decide cases on their merits--fails to provide justice.'' i Given that Philadelphia has the highest violent crime rate among the 10 largest cities in the United States, this is an urgent problem which Senator Specter has worked hard to address.

In the past 5 months, Senator Specter has taken a leadership role by holding three Senate field hearings, bringing together the experts and key players in the criminal justice system to work collaboratively to find solutions to these problems. He has sought and obtained funding for the U.S. Marshals Service's Fugitive Task Force to provide assistance in locating and arresting Philadelphia's fugitives. Finally, he has introduced and supported significant legislation to better protect State witnesses, to fund State witness protection programs, and to fund State fugitive recovery efforts and the entry of State warrants into the national warrant database.

Using statistics from the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts and the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Philadelphia, among large urban counties, has the Nation's lowest felony conviction rate. For most big cities the conviction rate is 50 percent but for Philadelphia the conviction rate is only 20 percent, and that rate has been steadily declining over time. While the city's rate of conviction for murder is excellent--82 percent compared to the U.S. average of 71 percent--for other violent felonies it is abysmal: Nearly 2/3 of those charged with violent crime offenses walk free of all charges; Only 1 in 10 people charged with gun assaults is found guilty of that charge; Only 1 in 5 accused armed robbers is convicted of that charge; Only 1 in 4 accused rapists is convicted of rape; One-half arrested for possession of illegal handguns beat the gun charges; and of the 4,500 who reported being robbed at gun point, only 200, or 4 percent of individuals were convicted.

The Philadelphia Inquirer identified a number of systemic failings as contributing factors to this crisis, including increasing incidents of witness intimidation; exploding criminal caseloads incentivizing judges to dismiss cases rather than to try them (of the violent crime cases in 2006 and 2007 disposed without a conviction, 92 percent were dropped or dismissed and only 8 percent of defendants were found not guilty); the number of judges not keeping pace with the substantial increase in criminal case filings (since 1989 the criminal docket has increased by 51 percent but the number of judges has not changed; not surprisingly the number of dismissals has doubled). Additional contributing factors include trial delays caused by defense attorneys' delay tactics, which cause witnesses to stop coming to court and cases to be dismissed; dismissals because inmates and/or police officers routinely fail to timely appear in court; and a broken bail system causing Philadelphia to have 47,000 fugitives and to be tied with Newark, New Jersey as having the highest fugitive rate in the Nation.ii

Senator Specter's significant actions to address this crisis and to restore confidence in the Philadelphia criminal justice system are detailed below.

Witness intimidation and violent crime are problems that Senator Specter has worked on for decades, since he was an assistant district attorney and later district attorney in Philadelphia, and on the Judiciary Committee, where he has served since 1981 when he was first sworn in as a U.S. Senator.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Crime and Drugs Subcommittee, Senator Specter chaired a field hearing in Philadelphia on witness intimidation at the State and local level on January 8, 2010.iii This hearing brought together experts and leaders in the field to help find solutions for this pervasive and serious problem. At the hearing, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, as well as Michael Coard, a respected Philadelphia defense attorney, and Associate Professor Richard Frei, an academic, testified. Two parents, each of whom lost a child to gun violence, also testified. Barbara Clowden testified that her son Eric Hayes, then 17 years old, was killed just 2 days before he was to testify in an arson trial in Philadelphia. Because Eric's life had been threatened, in January 2006 his family entered into the city's witness relocation program. Eventually the money from the program ran out and they had to relocate to northeast Philadelphia, where Eric was murdered. No one, to date, has been convicted of Eric's murder.

Ted Canada, a Philadelphia resident and SEPTA bus driver, also testified. In 2005, his son Lamar Canada was shot 12 times and killed over an alleged gambling debt.iv One witness to the shooting, Johnta Gravitt, then 17 years old, was murdered 10 days after he testified at the preliminary hearing and identified one of the shooters. Another witness initially cooperated but after his statement to the police was publicly posted in his neighborhood identifying him as a ``snitch,'' he recanted.

The most notorious example of witness intimidation in Philadelphia involves Kaboni Savage, a drug kingpin who was federally indicted last April on racketeering and murder charges for retaliating against his former drug associate, Eugene Coleman. Coleman had agreed to testify against Savage in a Federal trial. The Federal charges allege that to retaliate for this, Savage orchestrated the firebombing of Coleman's family home on the 3200 block of North 6th Street in Philadelphia during the early morning hours of October 9, 2004. Killed in the fire were Coleman's mother, Marcella Coleman, age 54; Coleman's infant son, Damir Jenkins, 15 months old; Marcella Coleman's niece, Tameka Nash, age 34, and her daughter, Khadjah Nash, age 10; Marcella Coleman's grandson, Tahj Porchea, age 12; and a family friend, Sean Rodriguez, age 15. In a conversation secretly recorded by court-authorized wiretaps, Savage explained how witness intimidation works, ``Without the witnesses, you don't have no case?. . . . No witness, no crime.''v

The witness intimidation problem is exacerbated by internet sites, such as whosarat.com, which expose the identities of witnesses and government informants. Gang members and criminals are becoming more computer savvy. They use the internet to find out who may be a cooperating witness by accessing public court dockets. They also access other sites to locate these individuals. With this information obtained anonymously through the Internet, gang members and other criminals can easily threaten or harm witnesses, as well as their family members.vi

The ``stop snitching'' culture in Philadelphia has taken hold even among law abiding people. Years ago, popularized in movies and television, the code of silence started with organized crime and applied only to its members who used intimidation and highly visible acts of retaliation against those who broke it to maintain adherence to the code. Today that code of silence has involved into a popular and pervasive stop snitching culture.vii

It has expanded to include threats against people who have no stake in a specific case and it is now directed toward anyone providing information to authorities. It has been strengthened by the strong distrust and alienation many urban youth have toward the police. It was shown at the hearing that the more people perceive the justice system to be biased, ineffective or corrupt, the more likely it is that they will resort to community self-protection and enforcement.

As reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer on December 14, 2009, ``[p]rosecutors, detectives, and even some defense attorneys say witness fear has become an unspoken factor in virtually every court case involving violent crime in Philadelphia. Reluctant or terrified witnesses routinely fail to appear in court, and when they do, they often recant their earlier testimony or statement to police.'' viii One Philadelphia assistant district attorney is quoted in the article as saying that at least one witness in every murder trial recants. At times, the local prosecutors are forced to lock up witnesses on material witness warrants to assure their appearance at trial.ix

In Philadelphia between 2006 and 2008, the District Attorney's Office filed witness intimidation charges against approximately 1,000 individuals. Their conviction rate on these charges, however, is only 28 percent.x

Criminal trials cannot proceed unless there are witnesses, and if witnesses are subject to intimidation or even worse, murdered, criminal cases cannot go forward. And unless witnesses can be assured they will be protected, the problem of witness intimidation cannot be expected to go away. Philadelphia's witness relocation program was cut from a high of $988,000 in 2006-07 to $747,000 in 2008-09. On average last year the program spent $11,000 per witness. Compare that with the Federal witness protection program that spends on average $150,000 for each witness in the Federal program. More money is needed to fund Philadelphia's witness relocation program.

It is imperative that people be protected if they step forward and provide information to law enforcement. As Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey testified at the subcommittee hearing, ``the only way we're going to deal with crime in communities is when the community steps forward, but they have to feel comfortable in doing so and know they have support.'' xi

To better protect State witnesses from intimidation, threats, and violence, and to send loud and clear the

message that serious penalties will be imposed on those who dare to obstruct justice in our country Senator Specter on February 23, 2010, introduced The State Witness Protection Act of 2010,'' S. 3017. The bill ensures that State witnesses will receive the same protections from actions of intimidation and retaliation that Federal witnesses have under Federal law. Making this a Federal offense and bringing in the FBI to investigate, as Commissioner Ramsey testified, ``would make a tremendous difference and make people think twice before they'' engaged in witness intimidation. Commission Ramsey explained it this way:

I just think the whole environment or atmosphere when you

go into a Federal court versus a local court is just somewhat

different, and [defendants] haven't been exposed to it that

often. I just think it has an impact in the feedback I've

gotten from people on both sides, whether it's another law

enforcement agency or from a person who's been in the

criminal justice system. They do not want to go into Federal

court. (Tr. at 16).xii

The bill tracks the language of the Federal witness tampering and intimidation statutes, 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1512 and 1513, and provides the same penalties for crimes against State witnesses as now are provided for crimes against Federal witnesses. For State court proceedings, the bill makes it a Federal offense to kill, physically harm, threaten to physically harm, harass, or intimidate, or offer anything of value to, a State court witness or victim if done with the intent to influence another person's testimony; to induce another to withhold testimony or records, alter or destroy evidence, evade legal process, or be absent from a State proceeding if that person has been summoned by legal process; to hinder or prevent a person from providing information to law enforcement; or to retaliate against anyone for being a witness or for providing testimony or information to law enforcement.

Federal jurisdiction is established by prosecuting only cases where there are communications in furtherance of the offense by mail, interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including computer, interstate or foreign travel in furtherance of the commission of the offense, or the use of weapons which have been shipped or transported across State lines. Any attempt or conspiracy to commit these same offenses is also illegal and subject to the same penalties. The bill also provides for specific sentencing guideline enhancements for all obstruction offenses.

To further address the growing problem of witness intimidation, Senator Specter cosponsored, and voted out of Senate Judiciary Committee on March 22, 2010, the Witness Security and Protection Grant Program Act of 2010, H.R. 1741, a bill which authorizes $150 million in competitive grants over 5 years to State and local governments to establish witness assistance programs. Specifically, the bill requires the Attorney General to make competitive grants to State and local governments to establish and maintain short-term witness protection programs for court proceedings involving homicide, violent felonies, serious drug offenses, gangs, and/or organized crime. It also requires the Attorney General to collect data and develop best practices-- witness safety, short-term and permanent witness relocation, and financial and housing assistance--from the grantees and report this information back to Congress, States and other relevant entities. This legislation passed the House with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 412-11 in June 2009. The bill is also supported by the National Governors Association, the National Conference of Mayors, the National District Attorney Association, and the National Center for Victims of Crime. It is currently pending action on the Senate floor.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Philadelphia bail system is broken.xiii For both the Court of Common Pleas and the Municipal Courts in Philadelphia, there are 48,511 cases in fugitive status and 39,110 individual fugitives. These numbers do not include probation absconders which, if added, would make the total individual fugitive number 46,839.xiv

According to Bureau of Justice Statistics report from 2004, Philadelphia is tied with Newark, NJ, as having the Nation's highest fugitive felony rate of 11 percent. The problem is compounded because there are only 51 officers in the Warrant Unit,xv which is assigned the task of rounding up fugitives. That means each officer has a 900 fugitive case load.xvi The problem is further compounded by the fact that fugitives, after they are caught, are routinely released again on bail and no bail money, once again, is collected. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the city is owed $1 billion in bail monies which cannot be collected because the Clerk of Quarter Sessions kept no computerized records.xvii

To address the failure of law enforcement to track down and capture criminal fugitives, Senator Specter convened another Senate Judiciary Subcommittee field hearing on January 19, 2010, titled, ``Exploring Federal Solutions to the State and Local Fugitive Crisis.'' xviii Seth Williams, the recently elected district attorney for the city of Philadelphia, testified at the hearing. Also testifying at the hearing were John Patrignani, the Acting U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; David Preski, the Chief of the Pre- Trial Service Division and the person in charge of the Warrant Unit; and Roy G. Weise, the Senior Adviser for the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Systems and a senior administrator in charge of the National Criminal Justice Information System, more commonly known as NCIC, the national warrant database. A representative from the Clerk of Quarter Sessions also testified. That hearing revealed that Philadelphia's fugitive problem, though very serious in scope, is not just a local problem but is in fact a significant national problem. Nationwide, there are an estimated 2.8 to 3.2 million active Federal, State, and local outstanding felony warrants. Every day large numbers of fugitives evade capture because State and local law enforcement authorities have insufficient resources to find and arrest them. And even if found, State and local law enforcement authorities often do not have the funds to pay for the extradition of the fugitive to face trial. Shockingly, many fugitives are released without prosecution. Many fugitives go on to commit additional crimes.

The nationwide database operated by the FBI's National Crime Information Center, NCIC, is missing over half of the country's 2.8 to 3.2 million felony warrants, including warrants for hundreds of thousands of violent crimes. Fugitives who have fled to another State will not be caught--even if they are stopped and questioned by the police on a routine traffic stop--because their warrants have not been entered into the NCIC database.

In early 2008, the St. Louis Post Dispatch published a series of articles--affirmed by the Department of Justice--documenting law enforcement's widespread failure to find and arrest fugitives.xix For purposes of the series, ``fugitive'' included un-arrested suspects with pending warrants that law enforcement cannot find, and those who cannot be found after violating the rules of their pre-trial detention, probation, or parole. The articles revealed that the reach of this national problem is extensive and cited federal estimates from 2 years ago that as many as an estimated 800,000 to 1.6 million outstanding State or local warrants are inaccessible to law enforcement outside the State or locality in which they were issued because the information about the warrants had not been entered into the NCIC database.

In Philadelphia, while all warrants, including bench warrants, are entered into a State database, only a few warrants are entered into the NCIC database. The hearing established a little known fact: that the Philadelphia Police Department only entered into the NCIC database a few hundred bench warrants deemed by the District Attorney's Office to concern extraditable offenses and, surprisingly, the Police Departments made these entries manually and not by automatic computer transfers.xx Thus, those who abscond from criminal proceedings in Philadelphia and flee to other States likely will not be captured because information from their warrants was not automatically entered into the NCIC database.

To make our communities safer by increasing the number of State and local fugitives arrested and prosecuted, Senator Specter, along with Senator Durbin, on March 16, 2010, introduced the Fugitive Information Networked Database Act of 2010, known as the FIND Act, S. 3120. Based on legislation

that then-Senator Joe Biden and Senator Durbin introduced in 2008, the FIND Act bolsters the effectiveness of the NCIC database by providing grants for local governments to develop and implement warrant systems that are interoperable with the NCIC database. The bill also provides funding for authorities to extradite fugitives for prosecution.

Specifically, the FIND Act improves the entry and validation of State, local and tribal warrants in the NCIC database by authorizing $10 million for grants each fiscal year 2011 through 2015. It increases for States, local and Indian tribes the resources available for extraditing fugitives between States and tribal regions by authorizing $30 million for grants each fiscal year 2011 through 2015. The bill also encourage States, local and tribes to reduce the cost of extradition by using the U.S. Marshals Service's Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation Service, JPATS, to transport fugitives back to the jurisdiction which issued the warrant and requires grant participants which seek renewal grants to provide detailed reports to ascertain whether State, local and tribal pretrial release programs are operating effectively. To make certain that funds are properly spent, the bill directs GAO to submit a statistical report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on felony warrants issued by State, local, and tribal governments and entered into the NCIC database, and on the apprehension and extradition of persons with active felony warrants.

This important legislation is designed to facilitate State and local data entry into the NCIC database through grants, increase the extradition of fugitives travelling in interstate commerce and to ascertain whether pretrial release programs are operating effectively. The fugitive problem is national in scope, involves individuals travelling in interstate commerce, and requires Federal solutions.

After the January 19, 2010, field hearing, on February 24, 2010, Senator Specter wrote to the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service, USMS, to advise him ``that Philadelphia has the highest violent crime rate in the United States among the ten largest cities and the highest felony fugitive rate in the nation,'' and therefore critically needed additional funding for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's fugitive task force. On April 2, 2010, John F. Clark, the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service, responded to Senator Specter's letter and said that the agency would expand the Philadelphia regional office by at least 10 marshals and staff to ``work aggressively to address the fugitive problem in Philadelphia.''

As part of Senator Specter's continued efforts to address the Philadelphia fugitive crisis, he has made several program funding requests for fiscal year 2011 to support the USMS and its partners, including: $1.207 billion for the U.S. Marshals Service, increased funding for the Edward Byrne memorial justice grants, and $792 million for the COPS program. Additionally, Senator Specter has requested report language that would direct $20 million to be used to support the establishment of a Regional Fugitive Task Force in Philadelphia.

On May 3, 2010, Senator Specter chaired the third and final Judiciary Crime Subcommittee hearing to bring leaders in the criminal justice system together to find innovative and cost effective solutions to improve the quality and efficiency of the criminal justice system in Philadelphia, as well as for similarly overburdened state criminal courts.xxi Lynne M. Abraham, former district attorney for Philadelphia, Justice Seamus McCaffery, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Everett Gillison, deputy mayor for public safety for the city of Philadelphia, Ellen Greenlee, chief defender, Philadelphia, and Professor John Goldkamp, chair of the Criminal Justice Department at Temple University, testified. The hearing emphasized the need for all the key players--the courts, the prosecutors, the defenders and the city--to work in a collaborative fashion to find solutions to these complex and systemic problems. The subcommittee and witnesses explored the following ideas:

Community based prosecutions and zone courts. Sending police officers to many different courtrooms is wasteful and inefficient. A simple solution is reorganizing the criminal courts along geographic lines so that judges are assigned to handle all cases from a particular police division. Zone courts are more efficient and lead to fewer dismissal of cases, fewer trial delays and provide more judicial economy and accountability.

Improving computer systems for both the District Attorney's Office and the Defenders Office. This would expedite discovery and permit faster and more efficient administration of justice. Offices should be able to have networked case files and operate as a paperless office. This would require extensive capital investment.

Institute new diversion programs for nonviolent and low risk offenders.

Establish more specialty treatment courts, such as mental health courts, veterans courts xxii and re-entry courts, to reduce recidivism.

Reform the bail system. Professor Goldkamp, an expert on Philadelphia's bail system, recommended improving the pre-trial release system to one which makes decisions about release and confinement based on the characteristics of the defendants, not by how much cash they can post. Risky defendants should be detained, with due-process protections, but those who do not need confinement to meet their obligations or those who do not pose that much risk, like most addicted defendants, should not be jailed. Drug addicted defendants should go to treatment; mentally ill defendants should be directed to appropriate support services.

Find effective ways to address the anti-snitch culture, including public service announcements and community outreach.

The Philadelphia Inquirer's ``Justice: Delayed, Dismissed, Denied'' series rightly identified and proved a number of the systemic failings in the Philadelphia criminal justice system which have contributed to Philadelphia having an unacceptably low conviction rate for violent crimes and an unacceptably high rate of fugitives. Many of these problems have been around for decades and over the years have only gotten worse. By using statistics from the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts and the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Philadelphia Inquirer convincingly turned a harsh light on what many in the criminal justice system have known, and what many have chosen to ignore.

Professor Goldkamp stated at the May 3, 2010, Senate field hearing, ``I think that opportunity comes in at a time of crisis and concern.'' But if the needed changes are not made, Professor Goldkamp said ``the Philadelphia court system risks being held up nationally as an example of a dysfunctional court system.'' xxiii

Senator Specter noted at the final field hearing that the Philadelphia Inquirer's series was a ``motivating factor'' in his working to obtain Federal assistance to local and overburdened courts. Now is the time for change and Senator Specter--by holding three Senate field hearings, by seeking and obtaining funding for the U.S. Marshal's fugitive task force, and finally, by introducing and supporting key legislation to better protect State witnesses, to fund State witness protection programs, and to fund State fugitive recovery efforts and the entry of State warrants into the national warrant database--is working hard to make those changes.

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

Madam President, the amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina is, simply stated, a misguided attempt which would turn over the power of the purse to the executive branch. It will not save a penny toward the deficit. It will allow unelected bureaucrats who have no accountability to voters to determine how Federal tax dollars are expended instead of the Congress.

Despite the protestations of a few Senators and an active media campaign spurred on by well-financed so-called watchdogs, this amendment is a solution to a problem that does not exist.

For the sake of my colleagues who may still want to support a moratorium on earmarks, let me point out where we are at this moment. Since retaking the majority in 2006, the Democratic-led Congress has reduced funding for earmarks by more than 50 percent.

As the new chairman of the appropriations committee last year I vowed with the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative Obey, that we would continue on the path set by former Chairman Byrd to reduce earmarks until they represented less than 1 percent of discretionary spending.

We achieved that objective in the fiscal year 2010 Appropriations Bills, and we have agreed that we will not exceed 1 percent as long as we are chairmen of our respective committees.

If we look at the numbers in 2006, the completed appropriations Acts included $16.7 billion in what are called ``Non-project Based Earmarks.

Madam President, $8.4 billion of these were in defense and the remainder in non-defense programs. In the fiscal year 2010 bills, we ended the year with a total of $8.2 billion in earmarks, $4.1 billion in defense and $4.1 billion in non-defense, well below 50 percent of the amount in 2006.

As a percentage of discretionary spending, non-project based earmarks are hardly \1/2\ of 1 percent. Not only have we accomplished our objective, we have exceeded our goal.

I am sure others will cite different numbers and try to say that we have many more earmarks than we are counting. The earmark definition that we use for FY 2010 is the one that comes from the Senate rules. Other outside groups may want to consider additional congressional items as earmarks, but we can only go by what the Senate has declared as earmarks.

In summation, let me say this. Since the Democrats have retaken the Congress we have reduced earmarks by more than 50 percent. We are well below 1 percent of total discretionary spending for non-project based earmarks, and we will not be going above 1 percent as long as I am Chairman.

As the Senate considers this amendment, I believe it is time we have an honest debate about the overall subject of earmarks. What they are and what they aren't.

First and foremost, earmarks have nothing to do with the deficit. And let me say that another way to make sure everyone understands.

If we eliminate all earmarks this year or forever, it will not save a nickel in Federal spending. Not a dime. Not this year, next year, or ever.

So to continue on this theme, if we adopt the amendment from the senator from South Carolina, we won't save a penny in fiscal year 2010 or fiscal year 2011. We just change who gets to decide what we spend.

The definition of an earmark is to carve out funding from a budget for a specific purpose. It is not adding to the budget. When we specify that we want an agency to spend a portion of its budget on a specific item we aren't increasing that agency's budget, we are simply reallocating funding within the budget for that purpose.

If that is not completely understood let's look at it this way. The president submits his request to the Congress for funding by agency and budget functions.

Our budget committee reviews the funding requested and tells the appropriations committee how much funding it can spend in the budget resolution.

The budget resolution makes no assumptions about earmarks. It doesn't designate earmark levels in any way, shape or form.

The appropriations committee then divides the total funding provided in the budget resolution among its subcommittees.

The committee doesn't increase an allocation for earmarks, nor does it reduce the allocation if earmarks are not funded.

Instead it provides the subcommittee with a total amount it can spend. For example, the Foreign Operations subcommittee usually chooses not to proide earmarks. That doesn't change the amount of spending the subcommittee provides.

If the Senate adopts this amendment it will dictate that the fiscal year 2011 there will be no earmarks, but the budget committee won't be reducing the allocation to the appropriations committee. The appropriations committee won't reduce the subcommittee allocations. We will just defer to the executive branch to determine how taxpayer funds are spent.

So this debate like all others on the issue of earmarks is who gets to determine how taxpayer funds are allocated, the congress or the Executive Branch?

All my colleagues are aware that the Constitution requires the Congress to determine where our Nation's funds should be spent. There can be no argument on that.

Why then do a handful of members persist in advocating the elimination of the congressional discretion to allocate funds?

Some raise the factor of corruption. We are all too aware the role that earmarks played in the corruption and eventual conviction of one Republican member of the House of Representatives.

While other corruption has swept other Members of the House, little of that had to do with earmarks. It has involved paid vacations or gifts. It has had to do with sweetheart deals in legislation, or possible bribes for legislative favors.

Moreover, the appropriations committee has enacted reforms to minimize any possible chance of corruption by increasing transparency.

As Chairman I now require members to place all of their earmarks on their website 30 days before we act upon their requests.

We then post all earmarks that are to be included in appropriations bills on the committee's website 24 hours before the full committee takes action on the bill.

Furthermore, as directed under Senate Rules, we require each Senator to certify that he or she has no pecuniary interest in any earmark that is requested.

We cannot legislate morality. What we can do and have done, however, is to put safeguards in place to ensure that our actions are above board, transparent, and in the best interest of our constituents.

Clearly if this amendment were to become law it would change who does the earmarking, not whether earmarks are done.

On February 1, the President submitted his appropriations requests to the Congress. The staff of the appropriations committee has begun its detailed examination of that request.

My colleagues should know that our review by the staff and the members of our subcommittees takes months to complete. However, in our preliminary review of the budget we have discovered that the President has requested earmarks totalling $25 billion.

This is a conservative estimate of the executive branch's earmarks and it

uses the same criteria as we would use to identify a congressional spending earmark, specific location or entity, noncompetitive award, and specific dollar amount.

In this first assessment, we find that the administration request exceeds congressional earmarks that were approved last year by more than 100 percent, twice as much.

This amendment would do nothing to stop the practice of earmarking, but rather only eliminate the congressional influence in that process.

But for those who want to persist in championing this amendment as a reform, they should seriously think about the following information.

Last week, the democratic leadership of the House Appropriations Committee announced that they no longer would include earmarks done on behalf of for-profit entities, that means for all practical purposes, private companies.

The reaction from the lobbying community and other interested parties was swift.

According to a March 11 Washington Post article:

Lobbyists said a prohibition against for profit earmarks

will shift their focus from Capitol Hill to the Federal

agencies.

Mr. Alan Chvotkin, a lobbyist for the Professional Services Council, was also quoted saying:

There will be greater attention focused on protecting

programs in the President's Budget.

Lobbyists and oversight organizations both agree--the lobbyists will simply go around the Congress and attempt to get their earmarks in the President's Request.

A story that appeared in the March 11 edition of Roll Call reports that Bill Allison of the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for government transparency, said earmarks should remain in appropriations bills.

``The dangerous earmarkers are those going underground,''

Mr. Allison said. ``The real solution is to make them

transparent.''

Instead of banning earmarks, Mr. Allison said Congress should focus on creating a centralized place for the public to see who is requesting earmarks and an easily navigable process for following an earmark from start to finish.

Let me say for the record we already do that.

And finally, this from Laura Peterson of Taxpayers for Common Sense, an organization that has been outspoken in its criticism of the appropriations committee.

In a March 10 Congressional Quarterly article, she said:

Any ban on spending defined as earmarks could end up

increasing the practice of securing funding without formally

requesting an earmark. I would be concerned that some

earmarks might just migrate to the appropriations bills as

committee adds.

If it weren't so serious it would be almost laughable. Under this amendment, we won't eliminate earmarks, we will only eliminate our role, a role the Constitution has assigned to the Congress.

Moreover, all our efforts at making earmarks more transparent would be rendered moot.

The reforms we have implemented, which ensured full and open disclosure of who sponsors earmarks, as well as who has given money to those sponsoring earmarks, would be irrelevant.

Instead, we will have these decisions made by unelected bureaucrats in back rooms of agencies scattered all over this city. Is this the transparency that earmark opponents desired? I think not.

I don't understand why those who are the most opposed to the policies of the current president are so intent on putting additional power into his hands and those who serve the Executive Branch. Article I of the Constitution states very clearly:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in

consequence of appropriations made by law.

The DeMint amendment tramples on the framework established by our founding fathers. In fact, James Madison believed the power of the purse to be the most important power of congress. He called it ``The most complete and effectual weapon with which any Constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people.''

I want all my colleagues to understand what we are doing today. I want everyone watching this body on the television to understand what we are doing today, so that in the future, no one can say, ``I didn't know.''

This amendment shifts the power to designate the expenditure of and accountability for taxpayers' hard earned dollars away from the representatives they elected, to the Executive Branch, where unelected bureaucrats who are accountable to no taxpayer will make the decisions of where those dollars will be spent.

There were indeed corruptions in the earmark process in the past. No one will dispute that. A Republican member of the House was convicted for corruption related to earmarking.

But we as Democrats addressed that issue when we came into power. We implemented reforms which ensured full and open disclosure of who sponsors earmarks, as well as who has given money to those sponsoring earmarks. It is all outlined for the world to see.

Now with this amendment, not only is transparency in the Congress not continued, but we are shifting the decisionmaking related to billions of dollars--which is another way of saying earmarking--to unelected bureaucrats.

As I said, now with this amendment, not only is transparency in the Congress not continued, but we are shifting the decision-making related to billions of dollars--which is another way of saying earmarking--to unelected bureaucrats that do not have to post anything about their relationships to recipients, who they meet with, when they meet with them, or who bought them dinner. None of those reporting requirements apply to unelected bureaucrats.

I am a strong proponent of earmarks. I am proud to sponsor earmarks that meet the needs of my constituents. Like every other Member of this body, I believe I understand the needs of my State better than the bureaucrats downtown do. I am closer to the people of Hawaii and I owe my allegiance to them.

I will continue to support earmarks for Hawaii as I will support the legitimate earmarks from other members of this institution.

The founders of our great Nation in their wisdom correctly placed the power of the purse in the hands of our elected legislators.

Those who seek to overturn that decision by placing artificial constraints on our ability to carry out that mandate are ultimately undermining our Nation's freedoms. They would create a system where there is no accountability to the voter on how their tax dollars are spent.

This amendment is one of many this institution has faced and will continue to face that seeks to alter the way taxpayer funds are allocated.

Perhaps unwittingly, but if enacted it would turn over spending decisions to the executive branch and weaken our separation of powers. We should not tolerate that.

Finally, to remind my colleagues, this amendment won't save a nickel. It has no impact on the deficit. The amendment serves no purpose other than to take away the Congress's right to determine how funds are allocated. I urge all my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Madam President, I thank you very much and I hope this amendment is defeated.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and that I be allowed to call up four amendments that are at the desk. They are amendment No. 3472, Amendment No. 3475, an amendment that has been at the desk on FAA reauthorization and--they are all at the desk--and the fourth concerns the Federal Aviation Administration finance proposal for development and implementation of technology for the Next Generation Air Transportation System.

Is amendment No. 3528 on the Grand Canyon National Park?

I would like to discuss all four amendments briefly. The first is the prohibition on earmarks in years in which there is a deficit. I have been pleased and somewhat surprised over the past week to hear about the renewed bipartisan interest in banning earmarks. I am thankful for the attention and I welcome the House Democratic leadership to the fight against earmarks.

According to last Thursday's Washington Post:

Facing an election year backlash over runaway spending and

ethics scandals, House Democrats moved Wednesday to ban

earmarks for private companies, sparking a war between the

parties over which would embrace the most dramatic steps to

change the way business is done in Washington.

I was pleased to see that the Speaker of the House and the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee have recognized earmarks for what they are: a corrupting influence that should not be tolerated in these times of fiscal crisis.

I applaud my Republican colleagues in the House and Senate, especially Senators Coburn and DeMint, who have called for a year-long moratorium on all earmarks. I fully support and join them in those efforts, but I think we need to do more.

We need a complete ban on earmarks until our budget is balanced and we have eliminated our massive deficit. This amendment promises to do just that. I encourage my colleagues to join

me in this effort. It is what the American people want. We have an obligation to give it to them.

I am pleased to be joined by my good friend from Indiana, Senator Bayh.

Amendment No. 3472

The next amendment I would like to discuss very quickly is that no funds from the passenger facility fee could be used to construct bike storage facilities at airports.

As many know, the passenger facility fee is assessed on every ticket for any flight. Currently, this fee is $4.50 per flight. During these very difficult economic times for most Americans, the bill from the House raises this fee to $7 and indexes it to inflation. It is frustrating, but it is more frustrating that taxes and fees make up as much as 25 percent of every passenger's airline ticket.

I think most airline passengers would agree with me that they would rather see more improvements to ensure faster travel times and safer departures and arrivals.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported earlier this year, on January 14, 2010, that $1.5 million of passenger facility fees were used for a ``function art project of glass panels laminated with patterns of tree bark.''

It sounds beautiful, but I know most Americans want these excessive fees and charges to be used effectively and for the goal that Congress intended: to improve safety and performance.

Amendment No. 3527

On the issue of the amendment concerning moving Next Generation air traffic control forward, this amendment would require the FAA to report back to Congress in 90 days with proposals for innovative financing mechanisms to further the deployment and implementation of a modernized air traffic control system known as NextGen.

Specifically, the report requires these innovative financing proposals to not increase our Federal deficit and consider public- private partnerships. As the distinguished chairman of the committee knows all so well, modernizing our outdated air traffic control system will positively impact all Americans by decreasing airport delays, improving the flow of commerce, and advancing our Nation's air quality by reducing aircraft carbon emissions.

Every day Americans sit on a runway and miss meetings, children's soccer games, family dinners, and other important events due to air traffic delays that could have been avoided if our Nation had a modernized air traffic control system.

Thousands of goods are delayed for delivery each year due to air traffic delays which results in more than $40 billion in costs each year that are passed on to consumers, according to the Joint Economic Committee.

The Government Accountability Office estimates that one in every four flights in the United States of America is delayed. The airlines have called our air traffic control system ``an outdated World War II radar system.''

The FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System, NextGen, will transform the current ground-based radar air traffic control system to one that uses precision satellites, digital network communications, and an integrated weather system.

Moving from a ground-based to a satellite-based system will enable more flights to occupy the same airspace, meaning the ontime performance improvements would be a reality, and would triple the aircraft capacity according to airlines. However, the administration and Congress have not provided adequate funding toward air traffic control modernization, and instead continue to fund billions of dollars of earmarks. The FAA estimates it will cost up to $42 billion to implement a modern air traffic control system.

Congress appropriated $188 million for air traffic control modernization in 2008, and $638 million in 2009, then another $358 million in the fiscal year 2010 Department of Transportation appropriations bill. However, that same bill dedicated $1.7 billion on transportation earmarks. We have to stop spending billions of dollars and instead cut spending or at least spend taxpayers' dollars on worthy projects.

Again, I would like to thank the chairman of the committee for his efforts over many years on FAA modernization. There is no doubt the airlines are right when they describe our air traffic control system as ``an outdated World War II radar system.''

It is a shame that all of these years we have had attempts that failed and wasted billions of dollars in our efforts to modernize the air traffic control system, and we have failed. But we have to redouble our efforts.

As we expect the economy to recover, there will be more aircraft flying in crowded airspace. There will be a more dangerous situation unless we modernize our air traffic control system.

Amendment No. 3528

The final amendment I have is to provide standards for determining whether the substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the Grand Canyon National Park has been achieved, and to clarify regulatory authority with respect to commercial air tours operating over the park.

I see my colleagues waiting, and I will not take a lot of time on this amendment. But I would like to mention to my colleagues that it was approximately 25 years ago that I proposed legislation to restore natural quiet in the great experience over the Grand Canyon National Park.

All of these years have intervened and there still have not been regulations written to implement that legislation. All of us share the same goal. We have been able to sit down, with the help of the majority leader's office, Senator Ensign's office, Senator Kyl's office, and others to try to make progress on this important issue.

I think we have brought all parties together. I think there is consensus. So I am hoping that we will be able to adopt this amendment without further disagreement. It is important that we restore the natural quiet and experience of the Grand Canyon National Park. At the same time, it is also very important that people from all over the world have the opportunity to enjoy one of the great and magnificent experiences that any person can have; that is, to view the Grand Canyon from the air as well as from the ground.

I think this legislation represents that careful balance. I thank Senator Reid and Senator Ensign and Senator Kyl for their efforts in crafting this legislation. It is time we acted. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce an amendment along with Senators Reid, Ensign and Kyl to clarify the Grand Canyon Overflights Act of 1987 that sought to restore the natural quiet of the canyon from commercial air tour overflights. After 23 years of numerous rulemakings by the National Park Service and the Federal Aviation Administration, and a lawsuit in 2002, it is now time to move forward to ensure that the 5 million visitors to the Grand Canyon can enjoy its majestic beauty by air or by foot without excessive noise from commercial air tour operators.

Specifically, this amendment would set forth in statute the ``substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the Grand Canyon'' is achieved if for at least 75 percent of each day-- between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m--50 percent of the park is free from the sound produced by commercial air tour operations. Additionally, the amendment provides curfews for overflights, particularly during the peak visitor season, so many visitors can enjoy the grand sunset at the Grand Canyon relatively free from overflight noise.

The amendment also sets forth curfews and reduced flight allocations for specific parts of the canyon that are particularly special for many visitors, including the Dragon Corridor on the west rim in the vicinity of Hermits Rest and Dripping Spring, the Zuni Point Corridor that includes the area known as ``Snoopy's Nose,'' and Marble Canyon. I have many fond memories of hiking the canyon with my sons, most recently just last year, and I hope all Americans are able to enjoy the beauty of the canyon without the interference of excessive noise from air tours. I believe this amendment allows without waiting another 23 years for progress.

Over the past few years, there have been strong improvements in quiet technology for aircraft. I am pleased that several of the air tour operators that provide air tours at the Grand Canyon have migrated to quiet technology aircraft. This amendment would mandate the conversion to quiet technology for all air tour operations within 15 years of enactment. Additionally, this amendment provides numerous incentives for operators to convert to quiet technology, including a reduced park entrance fee and increased flight allocations for aircraft that utilize quiet technology.

Lastly, this amendment requires the FAA to review flight allocations for air tour operators serving the Grand Canyon. These allocations have not been reviewed since 2001 and are based on 1990s data. Tourism is essential to Arizona's economic recovery. Over 37 million visitors came to Arizona in 2008 generating over $2.5 billion in tax revenues. There are over 300,000 jobs in Arizona that are tied to tourism in Arizona, and we must ensure that these jobs continue to exist and grow.

Over 5 million tourists, hikers and adventure seekers visited the Grand Canyon in 2008. These visitors have also contributed millions of dollars to the great States of Arizona and Nevada, in addition to the local communities surrounding the Grand Canyon. We must ensure that these visitors have the ability to view the canyon by air if they wish to do so, but in a manner that maintains ``natural quite'' for those visiting the canyon by foot. I think this amendment achieves that goal.

Again, I am proud to have the support of Senators Reid, Ensign, and Kyl who share my commitment to continuing the progress that has been made toward establishing ``natural quiet'' at the Grand Canyon, while continuing to ensure that its majesty is available to be viewed by air for those who wish to do so. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important amendment.