Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Leahy, Reid, Whitehouse and others to introduce the COPS Improvement Act of 2011. This legislation would reauthorize and make improvements to one of the Department of Justice's most successful efforts to fight crime, the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, program.

The success story of the COPS program has been told many times, but it is worth repeating. The goal in 1994 was to put an additional 100,000 cops on the beat. Over the next 5 years, from 1995 to 1999, the COPS Universal Hiring Program distributed nearly $1 billion per year in grants to state and local law enforcement agencies in all 50 states to hire additional law enforcement officers, allowing us to achieve our goal of 100,000 new officers.

Common sense told the American people that having more police walking the beat would lead to less crime, and our experience with the COPS program proved that to be true. This unprecedented effort to put more police officers in our communities coincided with significant reductions in crime during the 1990s. As the number of police rose, we saw 8 consecutive years of reductions in crime. Few programs can claim such a clear record of success.

Unfortunately, the success of the COPS program led some to declare victory. Beginning in 2001, funding for the COPS program came under attack. President Bush proposed cuts to state and local law enforcement programs that totaled well over $1 billion during his tenure. Despite bipartisan efforts in Congress to prevent those cuts, state and local law enforcement funding consistently declined. Ultimately, the administration succeeded in eliminating the COPS Hiring Program in 2005.

These cuts have been felt by the people who work tirelessly every day to keep our communities safe, and the consequences have been real. Cities across the country have seen the size of their police forces reduced. Many cities have hundreds of vacancies on their forces that they cannot afford to fill. They have been forced to choose between keeping officers employed and buying vital equipment. The men and women who have sworn to protect us from ever-evolving threats cannot go without either.

Over the past several years, there has been a bipartisan effort in Congress to renew our commitment to local law enforcement by restoring COPS funding. In 2009, we dedicated $1 billion to the COPS program through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. These funds helped state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies create and preserve thousands of law enforcement positions. This boost has gone a long way to help many departments weather the economic downturn, but need is great--the COPS Office received nearly 7,300 applications requesting 39,000 officers and $8.3 billion in funds in response to this grant funding.

We can all agree that local law enforcement needs our unwavering support. One way we can do this is to reauthorize the COPS program through the COPS Improvement Act of 2011. This legislation will re- authorize hiring programs for three specific purposes-- general community policing, local counter-terrorism officers, and school resource officers. The bill steps up our commitment to community policing and community cooperation by reauthorizing community prosecutor grants. Technology grants that cut down on investigation time and paperwork are included so that officers can spend more time on the beat and less time behind a desk. The bill also creates an independent COPS Office within the Department of Justice, a step that is important to the program's continued success and oversight. Finally, the legislation revitalizes a Troops-to-Cops program to encourage local police agencies to hire former military personnel who are honorably discharged from military service or who are displaced by base closings.

The bill makes additional improvements to the COPS program by including safeguards to ensure that our money is being spent wisely. For example, it will allow the COPS Office to do more than simply revoke or suspend a grant if a recipient fails to comply with its terms. The COPS Office, at the direction of the Attorney General, would be able to take any enforcement action available to the Department of Justice, such as civil penalties or recoupment of funds.

In addition to strengthening law enforcement's ability to prevent and fight crime, the COPS Improvement Act directly creates jobs and helps local governments cope with the economic downturn without jeopardizing community safety. Furthermore, by hiring more officers we will be better able to combat the crime that harms our economy by driving business opportunities out of distressed neighborhoods, taking with them economic opportunity.

The COPS Improvement Act of 2011 would authorize $900 million per year over six years for the COPS program. It would allocate $500 million per year for the hiring officers, $150 million for community prosecutors, and $250 million per year for technology grants.

To be sure, some will argue that $900 million is too large a price tag. But it is hard to put a price tag on the security of our communities. Investing money in such a successful program with such an important goal is certainly worth the cost. We must also remember that preventing crime from occurring saves taxpayers from the costs associated with victim assistance and incarceration. For that reason, a recent report by the Brookings Institution found ``COPS . . . to be one of the most cost-effective options available for fighting crime.''

It is difficult to overstate the importance of passing the COPS Improvement Act. Because of the success of the program and the need for a renewed commitment to it, the bill has long had the support of every major law enforcement group in the Nation, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs Association, the International Brotherhood of Police Organizations, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Officials, the International Union of Police Associations, and the Fraternal Order of Police. These law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to make our communities a safe place to live, and they deserve our full support.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act--SOAR--which seeks to reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program or OSP. And I am proud to be joined by a bipartisan group of Senators in introducing this bill--Senator Collins, Senator Feinstein, Senator Alexander and Senator Ensign.

The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program offers scholarships to low- income students, especially those from failing schools, to attend private schools where they can get a better education. This program offers District of Columbia students and their families a choice that improves the quality of their education and significantly increases their likelihood of graduating from high school and attending college.

Here in Washington, there are many families who can exercise school choice. They can afford to live in neighborhoods with good schools, they can provide engaging supplemental and afterschool opportunities for their children, or they can choose to send their children to private schools. However, there are many low-income families whose children are trapped in failing schools and do not have those options.

School reformers in Washington, through their hard work and, at times, controversial policies, have begun to make a difference for students in the District of Columbia. I applaud the work of Michelle Rhee and her team in their tireless efforts to make the District's schools better. I am pleased that Mayor Gray has indicated he will continue school reform because there is much more work to do on behalf of Washington's schoolchildren. District of Columbia test scores are on the rise but even so, according to recent National Assessment of Educational Progress data, the District of Columbia, while having one of the highest per pupil expenditures in the country, settles at the bottom of all states in reading and math for both 4th and 8th grade students. District of Columbia schools also have among the lowest graduation rates in the country.

We all know that meaningful and effective change is slow and we still have a long way to go before we can be confident that each student in the District is getting the public education they deserve. Ronald Holassie, a high school student in the OSP, expressed the implications of this well when he said ``public schools in the District did not go bad over night and they won't get better over night.'' Students cannot wait for reforms to take effect in the worst of the District's public schools--they need a good education right now if they are going to be able to fulfill their potential. The Opportunity Scholarships respond to that immediate need.

One of the goals of the OSP is holistic support of the reforms that are helping to improve education in all sectors of education here in the District. Since 2003, Congress has supported a tri-sector approach by appropriating new funds for District public schools, District public charter schools and the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Critics of the OSP argue that it takes away funds from public schools. That is simply not true. The scholarship program was intentionally designed to ensure that any funding for Opportunity Scholarships would not reduce funding for public schools. This legislation will provide additional new money for the District of Columbia's Public Schools, for District of Columbia Public Charter Schools, and for the continuation of the Opportunity Scholarship Program. We have not changed the three part funding design of the initiative.

The SOAR Act also strengthens the existing requirements for all schools participating in the OSP by requiring a valid certificate of occupancy and ensuring that teachers in core subjects have an appropriate college degree. The bill continues to target students from lower income families who are attending those schools most in need of improvement and it increases the tuition amounts slightly to levels consistent with the tuition charged at typical participating schools. The new amounts are still well below the per pupil cost of educating a child in the District of Columbia public schools. While we have kept the income ceiling for entry into the program unchanged, we have increased slightly the income ceiling for those already participating in the program to ensure that parents are not forced to choose between a modest raise in their income and the scholarship.

The most recent study conducted by the Department of Education's Institute of Education Science shows that the offer of an OSP scholarship raised a student's probability of completing high school by twelve percentage points overall. The offer of a scholarship improved the graduation prospects by thirteen percentage points for the high- priority group of students from schools designated ``Schools in Need of Improvement'' and for those students actually using an OSP scholarship the improved graduation rate went up to twenty percentage points. In the District of Columbia, where the graduation rates are among the lowest in the country, this is important data that cannot be overlooked. Overall, parents of OSP students were more satisfied and felt school was safer if their child was offered or used an OSP scholarship.

In a landmark education speech at the outset of his presidency, President Obama promised that Education Secretary Arne Duncan ``will use only one test when deciding what ideas to support . . . : It's not whether an idea is liberal or conservative, but whether it works.'' By that standard, this program should be continued. It is not a Democratic, Republican, or Independent program--it is not a liberal or conservative program--it is a program that puts children first. The Opportunity Scholarship Program works as evidenced by increased graduation rates, higher reading proficiency, and the overwhelming support of District families. I urge Republicans and Democrats to rally behind the OSP program. Last year we had a vote on the bill that received the support of 42 Senators. In this Congress, I will be fighting for another vote and am confident there will be more than 50 votes to reauthorize the program. With these votes and the strong support of Speaker Boehner I am hopeful we can give students here in the District the opportunities they deserve.

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

Mr. President, I wish to introduce legislation to name the United States courthouse in Yuma, AZ, the John M. Roll United States Courthouse. Is that legislation at the desk?

Madam President, I am pleased to introduce legislation, along with Senator Kyl, that would designate the soon-to-be-constructed Federal courthouse in Yuma, AZ, to be named in honor of Chief Judge John Roll, who died tragically during the senseless act of violence against Congresswoman Giffords and other Arizonans in Tucson earlier this month. I had the distinct privilege of knowing and working with Chief Judge Roll for many years. In fact, it was my honor to recommend him to President George Herbert Walker Bush for nomination to the Federal bench in 1991. He served with distinction. Most recently, Judge Roll became known by so many in the State of Arizona, the Judicial Conference, and many in Congress as a tireless advocate for the plaintiffs, defendants, and judges in Arizona by working to secure additional funding and resources to assist the court in its heavy caseload.

The morning of the shooting, Judge Roll was in line to speak to Congresswoman Giffords, who was also a friend, about his efforts to have the Ninth Circuit declared a judicial emergency in the District of Arizona. He died doing what he did each and every day: working to guarantee the Federal courts in our State were capable of handling the growing caseload, while ensuring swift justice for all.

Judge Roll exemplified the qualities all Presidents should seek in candidates for the Federal bench: intelligence, humility, integrity, and fidelity to the law. He embodied all these qualities and many more. Additionally, he was known as a kind neighbor, a dedicated father and husband, and a loyal friend. He will now be known also as a hero.

The Arizona Daily Star reported on January 20, 2011:

Surveillance footage of the January 8 shooting campaign in

Tucson showed that Judge Roll used his body as a shield to

cover the wounded Ron Barber. Roll then took a bullet to the

back and lost his life in the process.

``The judge is a hero,'' Pima County sheriff's Bureau Chief

Rick Kastigar said.

The article states that the suspected gunman:

. . . shot Barber, Giffords' district director. Almost

simultaneously, Roll moved Barber toward the ground and both

crawled beneath

a table, Kastigar said. Roll then got on top of Barber.

``Judge Roll is responsible for directing Mr. Barber out of

the line of fire and helped save his life,'' Kastigar said.

Barber told the Arizona Daily Star:

That just gives me more admiration for the judge than I

ever had. . . . John Roll was a dear, dear man.

Barber and Judge Roll had been friends for many years, dating back to their days as college students at the University of Arizona. Most recently, they worked together with the Arizona congressional delegation to secure funding for a new Federal courthouse in Yuma, AZ, to alleviate the congestion at the Tucson Federal courthouse. In fact, Judge Roll had just reviewed the architectural drawings of the new courthouse weeks before his death and told my office he was very pleased with the design.

It is the hope of myself and Senator Kyl and every Member of the Arizona delegation that the architectural designs will soon include the name of Chief Judge John Roll prominently on the building. This esteemed jurist, friend, and hero deserves this honor and much more. Our State has lost a good man, a true and able advocate for justice for all, and a great Arizonan. For this reason, I ask my fellow Senators to join me in passing this legislation to allow the new Yuma Federal courthouse to be proudly known as the John M. Roll United States Courthouse.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Kyl, in introducing a bill that would clarify the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation over program activities associated with the C.C. Cragin Project in northern Arizona. A companion measure is being introduced today in the House by Congressman Paul Gosar from Arizona.

Pursuant to the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004, AWSA, Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior to accept from the Salt River Project, SRP, title of the C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir for the express use of the Salt River Federal Reclamation Project. While it is clear that Congress intended to transfer jurisdiction of the Cragin Project to the Department of the Interior, and in particular, the Bureau of Reclamation, the lands underlying the Project are technically located within the Coconino National Forest and the Tonto National Forest. This has resulted in a disagreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Forest Service concerning jurisdiction over the operation and management activities of the Cragin Project.

For more than 5 years, SRP and Reclamation have attempted to reach an agreement with the Forest Service that recognizes Reclamation's paramount jurisdiction over the Cragin Project. Unfortunately, the Forest Service maintains that this technical ambiguity under the AWSA implies they have a regulatory role in approving Cragin Project operations and maintenance. This bill represents a negotiated compromise between the agencies and our offices that appropriately clarifies each agency's role with respect to the Dam and the Federal lands surrounding it. A similar bill was introduced during the 111th Congress and was reported with an amendment by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The version we are introducing today is identical to the Committee reported bill.

Speedy resolution of this jurisdictional issue is urgently needed in order to address repairs and other operational needs of the Cragin Project, including planning for the future water needs of the City of Payson and other northern Arizona communities. This clarification would simply provide Reclamation with the oversight responsibility that Congress originally intended. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, Congress now faces a deadline to take action on the expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. The bill I introduce today, the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011, will preserve law enforcement techniques that are set to expire on February 28, 2011, and extend them to December 2013. This bill will also promote transparency and expand privacy and civil liberties safeguards in current law. It increases judicial oversight of government surveillance powers that capture information on Americans. This is a package of reforms that all Americans should support. In fact, a bipartisan group of Senators on the Judiciary Committee voted in favor of it in the last Congress.

In the 111th Congress, the Judiciary Committee reported virtually identical legislation, S. 1692, with bipartisan support, including the votes of Senators Kyl and Cornyn. Subsequent negotiations produced a package that was endorsed by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. Because Congress did not act on that negotiated package of reforms, but instead passed an extension of the expiring authorities until February 28, 2011, I took steps to see that key portions of the package were implemented administratively by the Department of Justice.

Even with this progress, enacting the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011 remains imperative for several reasons. First, surveillance authorities are set to expire in a matter of weeks. We should not play politics with national security by delaying debate over these issues until the 11th hour. I am prepared to extend the sunsets on the three expiring provisions to December 2013, the same sunset date I included in S.1692RS, the bill I introduced in the 111th Congress. Earlier this month, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives to extend the expiring provisions only until February 2012, an expiration date chosen deliberately to try to force a debate over national security in an election year. My bill sets a longer sunset period, which law enforcement strongly favors.

Second, the Senate should pass the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011 to codify the steps forward that the Attorney General has taken by implementing parts of the bill administratively. The reforms adopted by this Attorney General could be undone by a future Attorney General with the stroke of a pen. We must ensure that the progress in accountability and transparency that we achieved last year is not lost simply because it was never written into the statute.

Third, we must enact the parts of the bill that the Attorney General did not or could not adopt because they require a change in the statute. Chief among these is adding a new sunset on National Security Letters. Second is repealing the presumption in favor of the government that a judge must honor when he or she reviews an application for a section 215 order for business records. The government does not need this presumption. In fact, the Attorney General endorsed the repeal of the presumption when he expressed his support for the bill in the prior Congress.

When this bill was considered by the Judiciary Committee in the 111th Congress, it received a bipartisan vote. Members of the committee agreed to continue discussions over a handful of provisions to ensure that the final language promoted transparency, protected civil liberties, and aided law enforcement. I appreciate the votes of Senators Kyl and Cornyn in favor of the reported bill. In the weeks following the 2009 markup, this bipartisan group of Senators worked closely with me and Senator Feinstein to reach an agreement on language that each Senator supported, and that the Department of Justice endorsed. In a letter dated November 9, 2009, the Attorney General strongly endorsed the bill and stated unequivocally that the bill did not pose any operational concerns. That support was reaffirmed in a letter from the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to Senate and House leadership on February 19, 2010.

The bill I introduce today is virtually identical to the product of those negotiations. It includes only two noncontroversial updates. First, the new bill updates the deadlines by which the Department of Justice must issue public reports. This modification simply reflects the fact that more than 1 year has passed since the original dates were written into the bill. Second, the section of the bill that previously required the Department of Justice to establish minimization procedures for National Security Letters is redrafted to reflect that fact that the Department adopted such procedures in October 2010. Otherwise, this bill is the same in substance as that which was supported by a bipartisan majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2009.

We must move quickly, in advance of the looming deadline, to pass this bipartisan package. We can preserve the authorities currently in place, which give law enforcement the tools it needs to protect national security. And we can ensure that inspectors general, the

Congress, and the public maintain vigilant oversight of the government, making sure these authorities are used properly and within Constitutional bounds. I urge all Senators to support the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining Senator Lieberman in introducing the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act of 2011, also known as the SOAR Act. This important piece of legislation will reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which has successfully provided additional educational options for some of our nation's most at-risk children.

Sadly, DC's public schools continue to underperform despite a per- pupil expenditure rate that is one of the highest in the nation. Experts have carefully studied the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program and concluded that the educational success of the program's participants in reading has outpaced those in DC public schools.

Approximately 6 years ago, leaders in the District of Columbia became frustrated with institutionalized failure within the public school system, and designed a unique ``three-sector'' strategy that provided new funding for public schools, public charter schools and new educational options for needy children. Working with the District, Congress and the Bush administration then implemented the DC School Choice Incentive Act in 2004, giving birth to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.

The program is the first to provide federally funded scholarships to students, and has enabled low-income students from the District of Columbia public school system to attend the independent-private or parochial school of their choice. For many of these students, this was their first opportunity to access a high-quality education.

In March 2009, the Department of Education released its evaluation of the program's impact after three years, which showed that overall, students offered scholarships had higher reading achievement than those not offered scholarships--the equivalent of an additional three months of learning.

Studies have also shown that parents were overwhelmingly satisfied with their children's experience in the program. Common reasons for this higher level of satisfaction included, appreciation for the ability to choose their child's school, the success their children are having in new school environments, and the support provided by the DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation, which runs the program.

In May 2009, Chairman Lieberman and I held a compelling hearing in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee where we heard the personal success stories of current and former participants in the program. Their testimony helped to highlight the real-world implications of discontinuing the program.

Ronald Holassie, then a junior at Archbishop Carroll, gave compelling testimony about the impact this program has had on his life. His mother was so concerned about the education he had been receiving that she was considering sending him to school in her home country of Trinidad, until she found out about the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Ronald said something very near the end of our hearing in response to a question from a member of the Committee that I also found enlightening. He said, ``DC schools didn't get bad over night, and they aren't going to get better overnight either.'' The program is critical to that improvement.

Based on what we have learned over the past few years, Chairman Lieberman and I drafted a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. This effort is also being replicated in the House with a bill introduced by Speaker Boehner.

One of the reasons that I so strongly believe in the three-sector approach to funding for education in the District is that it reaffirms Congress' commitment to improving educational outcomes and opportunities, not just for the students attending private schools, but also for all students in the District--including those attending DC public and charter schools.

I know that each of us shares the common goal of ensuring that all students in the District are receiving the highest quality education, which is why it is incumbent upon us to act and to act now to fully reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.