Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.

This bill is about equality, and it is about fairness. Although our country has made many important strides toward equality, when it comes to the week-to-week question of paychecks, or the day-to-day issue of financial security, women continue to lag behind.

Women simply are not paid as much as men, even when they do the exact same job.

Last summer, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that women who work full time earn, on average, only 78 cents for every dollar that men earn.

This is not an insignificant difference. It means that when a man is paid $50,000 a year for a certain kind of work, a woman may receive only $39,000. That is $11,000, or 22 percent less.

But when women go to pay their bills, to buy groceries, or to try to find health care, they are not charged 22 percent less. They are charged the same and must stretch their finances as best they can to make ends meet.

Women's financial struggles do not affect them alone. They affect countless families across the country. According to the U.S. Census, as of 2007, approximately 20 percent of American households were headed by women, and other surveys of households have revealed that a majority of women report providing more than half of their household incomes, with over a third totally responsible for paying the bills.

Ensuring equality in pay is absolutely essential right now. While all Americans are concerned about downturns, layoffs, stagnant wages, and pay cuts, it is also true that in an economic downturn, women suffer disproportionately under almost every economic measure. Women lose their jobs more quickly than men, and in December 2008, 9.5 percent of women who were the heads of their households were unemployed. Women's wages fall more rapidly. Women are disproportionately at risk for foreclosure, and as of last year, 32 percent more likely to receive subprime mortgages than men. And women have fewer savings on average.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act takes an important step forward in protecting working American women's financial well-being. The bill reverses the Supreme Court's parsimonious reading of pay discrimination law in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. so that women will not be turned away twice--first by their employers when they seek equal pay for equal work, and second by the courts when they go to file claims of unfair treatment.

The bill is a necessary correction to a Supreme Court decision that was incorrect. The bill ensures that when employers unlawfully pay women less for performing the same job, they can seek recourse in the Federal courts.

I also want to say a word about the amendments offered today. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act does not change the substance of title VII discrimination law. What it does is make sure that women who have meritorious discrimination claims under that law are not unfairly denied the right to go to Federal court and recover compensation.

The bill says that women can file their claims within 180 days of their last discriminatory paycheck and can recover up to 2 years' back pay from that date. Any stricter timing requirement is simply out of touch with the realities of the workplace.

As Justice Ginsburg explained in her dissent in the Ledbetter case:

[I]nsistence on immediate contest overlooks common

characteristics of pay discrimination. . . . Pay disparities

often occur, as they did in Ledbetter's case, in small

increments; cause to suspect that discrimination is at work

develops only over time. . . . [A worker's] initial readiness

to give her employer the benefit of the doubt should not

preclude her from later challenging the then current and

continuing payment of a wage depressed on account of her sex.

When women work the same jobs as men with the same skill, they should be paid the same amount. If they are not paid the same amount because of discrimination, they should be able to seek recourse in Federal courts. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and restore American fair pay law.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton to serve as Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton is a tireless and fearless public servant.

She is a woman of strength and compassion with a powerful voice.

And I look very much forward to confirming her as our next Secretary of State.

I have known Hillary for 16 years--since the time when she was First Lady.

I was delighted to see Hillary Clinton sworn into our small but ever- growing cadre of female Senators in January 2001, and I have greatly admired her work here in the Senate.

Senator Clinton has rolled up her sleeves and worked forcefully to represent the people of New York during the past 8 years.

She worked side-by-side with her Empire State colleagues to shepherd New Yorkers through the challenges of recovering from the tragedies of the attacks of September 11.

She has been an active and diligent member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, doing her homework and asking the tough questions.

In 2004, she was asked by the Department of Defense to join the Transformation Advisory Group to the Joint Forces Command--the only Senator to serve in that capacity.

I know that Senator Hillary Clinton will leave behind a large void when she leaves the Halls of this Chamber.

But her next role--as Secretary of State--presents tremendous challenges and opportunities.

The new Obama administration will usher in a new era of American foreign policy, and help rebuild our image around the world.

Hillary Clinton understands the value, and very great need for, a foreign policy that is guided by smart, robust diplomacy--rather than belligerent threats.

She has already visited more than 80 countries, and has formed important relationships with a number of world leaders.

I am confident that she will ably continue to represent the values and interests of our great country in the capitals of the world as Secretary of State.

There is no doubt that the foreign policy challenges we face as a nation and global community are great: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the great need to transition our forces; a resurgent Iran; the long-simmering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which boiled over in recent weeks with tragic consequences; threats of nuclear proliferation and terrorism; ongoing instability in Southeast Asia; the need to confront climate change; the terrible atrocities in Darfur and the Congo; millions of global citizens who face a grim reality of hunger, thirst, poverty, and sickness; and the need to improve the plight of women around the world.

As Hillary remarked during a press conference when her nomination was formally announced on December 1, 2008:

America cannot solve these crises without the world, and

the world cannot solve them without America.

I am confident that Hillary Clinton will rise to the occasion--and work hand-in-hand with President Obama and his national security team to help address these tremendous challenges.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Cornyn to introduce legislation that will address one of the most serious problems facing our Nation--the long-term health of Social Security and Medicare.

Today we propose a bipartisan, independent and permanent commission to return these essential programs to solid financial footing for generations to come.

Our legislation mandates the periodic, comprehensive review of Social Security and Medicare to ensure their present and future solvency.

By a year from the date of enactment, it requires the Commission to devise and recommend to Congress and the President a benefit and revenue structure that allows Social Security and Medicare to become, once again, stable and effective over the long-term.

The problem we face is astronomical. President-elect Barack Obama is well aware of this, and said so on the front page of today's Washington Post.

He recognizes the growing threat this problem represents to the long- term health of our economy, and to the American people. So I look forward to working with him to find ways to ensure the long-term health of these great American institutions.

He recognizes, as Senator Cornyn and I do, that inaction is dangerous.

The Congressional Budget Office announced last week that the fiscal year 2009 deficit is projected to reach $1.2 trillion, a new record.

The three largest entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare, and

Medicaid, are expected to grow by at least 8 percent this year.

Meanwhile, the Social Security funding shortfall has ballooned to roughly $4.3 trillion--the amount necessary to continue full benefits being paid past 2083.

Medicare is in far worse shape, needing $12.4 trillion over the next 75 years to close the gap and remain in balance.

The numbers tell the story: growing cash flow deficits will exhaust the Medicare trust fund in 2019, and Social Security reserves will be overcome in 2041, according to the most recent Trustees report.

Our legislation takes a new approach and is bipartisan to the core.

Fifteen experts, some of whom are Members of Congress from the committees of jurisdiction, are appointed. They take a full year to conduct town hall meetings nationwide, assess these trillion dollar programs from top to bottom, and rationalize their cost structure through intensive evaluation.

We advocate an open and transparent process, where all American voices can be heard.

Too often during my time in the Senate I have seen approaches that rely strictly on elected officials meeting privately and out of the public view fail. A workable solution to these problems must be transparent.

In the 110th Congress alone, there were no less than six proposals to reform Social Security. The Commission we propose would not be offering one-time solutions that get tossed aside and collect dust.

Far from it: the Commission's detailed analysis, nonpartisan recommendations and findings are provided in writing and take the form of legislation that Congress formally considers.

The Senate and House, in turn, through expedited legislative procedures, will hopefully be poised to amend if need be and then enact the changes into law. To be clear, this legislation will not prevent our colleagues from the opportunity to improve the Commission's proposals.

We do not hold out, today, certain ideas that we believe the members of the commission ought to consider.

We rely on their independent expertise and motivation to derive what is best for the Nation. Then we let the chips fall where they may from there.

President-elect Obama's choice to lead the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, agrees that Social Security is one of America's most successful Government programs.

But failure to act on real reform, in his words, ``merely exacerbates the painful choices that will ultimately be necessary.''

While such reforms will be difficult, he ultimately argues that, ``Social Security can be mended in a safe, realistic way, while protecting the most vulnerable beneficiaries.''

I believe Mr. Orszag is correct. It will be only a matter of time before we must implement real Social Security reform.

That's because 51 million people, or 1 out of every 6 Americans, depend on it.

And by 2034, an astounding 74 million Americans will receive this guaranteed benefit. At that time there will be only 2.1 workers for every one beneficiary.

For more than 20 percent of retirees, Social Security is it: their only source of income.

For half of those 51 million, Social Security keeps them out of poverty. And for almost two-thirds, Social Security makes up more than half of their total income.

Six and one half million widows and widowers rely on Social Security, as do 7.5 million disabled workers and their 1.6 million children.

The long-term challenges are significant. It's not a crisis; we have time to implement gradual reform over time, but we need to get started.

However, the current economic crisis leads me to believe that nothing is for certain.

While the projected shortfall for Social Security amounts to about $4.3 trillion, the fact of the matter is that 100 percent of benefits can be paid until 2041 by some estimates, Social Security Administration, or 2049 by others, CBO. Beyond that time horizon, 78 percent of benefits can be paid.

So the bottom line is that there is the time, the know-how, and the resources to, be able to maintain the current system, with phased adjustments occurring over many years to the Social Security Trust Fund.

The key, of course, is coming to a rational consensus--Democrats and Republicans united--in the effort to to make Social Security solvent from this day forward.

Most budget experts agree that the Social Security problem pales in comparison to the enormous shortfall facing Medicare Trust Fund, Part A--over the next 75 years a total of $12.4 trillion. The various technical estimates are that Medicare is projected to become insolvent far sooner than Social Security.

In fact, the most recent Medicare Trustees report confirms that the trust fund will be exhausted in 2019.

Closing the trust fund gap demands action.

Pressure on Medicare will only grow as the Baby Boom generation ages yet the number of beneficiaries skyrockets upwards--from 44 million now, a number which will double by 2030--as the Baby Boom generation ages.

Compounding the problem, the Congressional Budget Office projects that Medicare spending will rise to 10.8 percent of the gross domestic product by 2082, up from 3.2 percent of GDP today.

Because the program is financed through payroll taxes and general tax revenue, the pressure is building now on working Americans given the huge demographic changes we expect as Baby Boomers retire.

The plain truth is that surging health care costs exceed economy growth. This health care spending must be controlled or Medicare faces a dire situation.

In closing, I should note that Congress is debating a historic stimulus initiative, designed to pull our economy out of this current downturn. While these investments are likely necessary, I strongly believe that they should be coupled with the framework to return to long-term fiscal sanity.

I know the incoming administration recognizes the gravity of this situation.

I look forward to working with the new President, and my colleagues, to advance positive solutions to address the looming entitlement crisis.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with Senators Kyl, Reid, Durbin, McConnell, Bingaman, Ensign, Schumer, Inhofe, McCaskill, Kerry, Bayh, Alexander, Grassley, Nelson of Florida, Johnson, and Cantwell the Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement Act of 2009.

This Act is designed to address problems that the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, has identified in the implementation of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005. I was pleased to join former Senator Talent in drafting, introducing, and securing the passage of the original bill. I am pleased to introduce this legislation today to ensure that it operates as Congress intended.

The bill that I introduce today would clarify that all retailers, including mail order retailers, who sell products that contain chemicals often used to make methamphetamine--like ephedrine, pseudoepedrine and phenylpropanolamine--must self-certify that they have trained their personnel and will comply with the Combat Meth Act's requirements; require distributors to sell these products only to retailers who have certified that they will comply with the law; require the DEA to publish the list of all retailers who have filed self-certifications, on the DEA's website; and clarify that any retailer who negligently fails to file self-certification as required, may be subject to civil fines and penalties.

The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act that we passed in 2006 has been a resounding success. The number of methamphetamine labs in the United States has declined dramatically now that the ingredients used to make methamphetamine are harder to get.

The Combat Meth Act that became effective in September 2006 included important new provisions for retailer self-certification, employee training, requiring products to be placed behind counters, packaging requirements, required sales logbooks, and limits on the amounts that a person can purchase in a given day and over a 30-day period.

Now, because of that law's implementation, the number of methamphetamine labs decreased from about 12,000 labs to about 7,300 labs a 41 percent decrease in just 1 year. Once the bill was enacted into law, the number of meth ``super labs'' in my home State of California declined from 30 in 2005 to only 17 in 2006.

Fewer meth labs means more than just less illegal drug production. According to the Fresno Bee, the DEA has noted that in 2003, 3,663 children were reported exposed to toxic meth labs nationwide but that number had been reduced to 319 in 2006.

So things are moving in the right direction, and that is good news. But with more thousands of methamphetamine labs still operating in the U.S., and children still being exposed to their toxins, it is also clear that there is still work to be done.

After the Combat Meth Act became law, DEA examined how the retailer self-certification process was working. On May 16, 2007, DEA sent letters to the 1,600 distributors who they believed were selling products that contained ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, asking them to turn over lists of the retail stores that they sell to, so that DEA could check to see how many of those retailers had self-certified as that law requires.

Rather than actively assisting the DEA in its efforts, about \3/4\ of the distributors failed or declined to provide any information about the retail stores.

The distributors who did cooperate provided DEA with the names of 12,375 retail customers. When DEA checked those out, it found that about 8,300 of those retail stores had never self-certified as the law requires.

Based on these findings, the DEA estimates that nationwide, as many as 30,000 additional retail sellers of products are not complying with the law.

In short, retailers' non-compliance with the self-certification requirement appears to be widespread, and undercuts the effectiveness of the Combat Meth Act.

Unfortunately, there is no effective way for law enforcement to determine the universe of who is, and who is not, obeying the law. Currently, there is no requirement that retailers notify the DEA before they start selling products with these listed chemicals.

Retailers can likely avoid negative consequences if they are ever confronted with their failure to self-certify. Currently, the law imposes sanctions only for willful and reckless refusals to self- certify. There is no punishment available if a retailer negligently fails to self-certify as required. Not even civil sanctions are available.

In short, without distributors restricting the supply of these products to retailers who have self-certified, retailers may simply take their chances, rather than self-certifying as the law intended, figuring that they'll never get caught, or if they do get caught, that they will never be punished.

It is unacceptable that, over two years after the Combat Meth Act imposed this requirement and became fully effective, tens of thousands of retailers still are not following the law. It is unacceptable that distributors of these products can continue to profit off of their sales to retailers who are not complying, or are even refusing to comply with the law.

So this bill is designed to make the Combat Meth Act more effective, by putting in place a process that will ensure that every retailer who orders these products that can be used to make methamphetamine must comply with the law before they can get and resell the products.

First, it will require that all retail sellers of products with these listed chemicals must file self-certifications, closing a loophole that now exists for mail-order retailers.

Second, the DEA will be required to post all self-certified retailers on its

website, so that advocacy groups and others who are concerned about methamphetamine in their communities can identify retailers who are selling these products without complying with the law, and can notify the authorities.

Third, distributors of these products will only be allowed to sell to retailers who have self-certified, which they will be able to verify by checking the DEA's public website. Once recalcitrant retailers are faced with the real and immediate economic consequence of a possible cut-off of their desire to purchase these products, I am confident that most will file self-certifications as the law requires.

Finally, the bill clarifies that even a negligent failure to self- certify, if proven, can give rise to civil sanctions.

This is a common-sense bill, designed to strengthen the implementation of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. This bill would create incentives to ensure that the self-certification process of the law is made both effective and enforceable.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with Senators Grassley and Bayh, the Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act of 2009.

Over the last 2 years, Federal, State, and local law enforcement have increasingly seen drug dealers flavoring and marketing their illegal drugs to appeal to minors, using techniques like combing drugs with candy and other flavorings to entice younger users. This bill would increase the criminal penalties that apply when criminals do this. This bill will ensure these appalling tactics are criminalized and severely punished.

The problem of flavoring illegal drugs to entice minors is well documented. A 2007 USA Today Article entitled ``Flavored Meth Use on the Rise'' stated that ``reports of candy-flavored methamphetamine are emerging around the nation, stirring concern among police and abuse prevention experts that drug dealers are marketing the drug to younger people.''

The flavoring of meth to appeal to minors is widespread across the Nation. In California, police have made repeated seizures of strawberry-flavored meth and local drug counselors warn that it also comes in cola, cherry, and orange flavors.

Strawberry flavoring packets were found in a meth lab raid in Arkansas in May of 2007. Similar seizures of flavored meth have been made in Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, and Virginia. Two people were arrested for manufacturing cotton candy flavored meth in Colorado in March of 2008.

The candying and flavoring of controlled substances is not limited to methamphetamine. As recently as March of this year, the DEA seized 1\1/ 2\ pounds of strawberry flavored powdered cocaine in Modesto, CA.

DEA agents in California have also purchased cocaine with lemon, coconut, and cinnamon flavoring. It has also documented other controlled substances like marijuana and hash oil infused into candy bars and soda pop.

Drug dealers are even selling boxes of ``Pot Tarts'' that look exactly like commercial available Pop Tarts.

Federal, State and local law enforcement all agree that such flavoring is done to entice more minors to use these illegal drugs.

This bill would help address this growing problem by criminalizing the flavoring, coloring and marketing of such drugs and would impose enhanced penalties for these offenses.

Under current law, there is already an enhanced penalty if someone distributes drugs to a minor. The maximum sentence is doubled, and tripled for a repeat offense, and there is a minimum of at least a year in prison. But this enhancement only applies if there is an actual distribution of the drug to a minor. Even possession with intent to distribute flavored or candied drugs doesn't qualify.

This bill would fix this loophole. If someone manufactures, creates, distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute a schedule I or II controlled substance that is combined with a candy, marketed or packaged to appear similar to a candy product, or modified by flavoring or coloring with the intent to sell to a minor, they would face enhanced penalties.

The bill sends a strong and clear message to drug dealers--if you flavor or candy up your drugs to make them more appealing to our children, there will be a very heavy price to pay. It will make drug dealers think twice before flavoring up their drugs, and punish them appropriately if they don't.

The bill is supported by the National Narcotics Officers Association Coalition, which is comprised of 44 State narcotics officers' associations.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with Senators Kyl, Reid, Durbin, McConnell, Bingaman, Ensign, Schumer, Inhofe, McCaskill, Kerry, Bayh, Alexander, Grassley, Nelson of Florida, Johnson, and Cantwell the Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement Act of 2009.

This Act is designed to address problems that the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, has identified in the implementation of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005. I was pleased to join former Senator Talent in drafting, introducing, and securing the passage of the original bill. I am pleased to introduce this legislation today to ensure that it operates as Congress intended.

The bill that I introduce today would clarify that all retailers, including mail order retailers, who sell products that contain chemicals often used to make methamphetamine--like ephedrine, pseudoepedrine and phenylpropanolamine--must self-certify that they have trained their personnel and will comply with the Combat Meth Act's requirements; require distributors to sell these products only to retailers who have certified that they will comply with the law; require the DEA to publish the list of all retailers who have filed self-certifications, on the DEA's website; and clarify that any retailer who negligently fails to file self-certification as required, may be subject to civil fines and penalties.

The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act that we passed in 2006 has been a resounding success. The number of methamphetamine labs in the United States has declined dramatically now that the ingredients used to make methamphetamine are harder to get.

The Combat Meth Act that became effective in September 2006 included important new provisions for retailer self-certification, employee training, requiring products to be placed behind counters, packaging requirements, required sales logbooks, and limits on the amounts that a person can purchase in a given day and over a 30-day period.

Now, because of that law's implementation, the number of methamphetamine labs decreased from about 12,000 labs to about 7,300 labs a 41 percent decrease in just 1 year. Once the bill was enacted into law, the number of meth ``super labs'' in my home State of California declined from 30 in 2005 to only 17 in 2006.

Fewer meth labs means more than just less illegal drug production. According to the Fresno Bee, the DEA has noted that in 2003, 3,663 children were reported exposed to toxic meth labs nationwide but that number had been reduced to 319 in 2006.

So things are moving in the right direction, and that is good news. But with more thousands of methamphetamine labs still operating in the U.S., and children still being exposed to their toxins, it is also clear that there is still work to be done.

After the Combat Meth Act became law, DEA examined how the retailer self-certification process was working. On May 16, 2007, DEA sent letters to the 1,600 distributors who they believed were selling products that contained ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, asking them to turn over lists of the retail stores that they sell to, so that DEA could check to see how many of those retailers had self-certified as that law requires.

Rather than actively assisting the DEA in its efforts, about \3/4\ of the distributors failed or declined to provide any information about the retail stores.

The distributors who did cooperate provided DEA with the names of 12,375 retail customers. When DEA checked those out, it found that about 8,300 of those retail stores had never self-certified as the law requires.

Based on these findings, the DEA estimates that nationwide, as many as 30,000 additional retail sellers of products are not complying with the law.

In short, retailers' non-compliance with the self-certification requirement appears to be widespread, and undercuts the effectiveness of the Combat Meth Act.

Unfortunately, there is no effective way for law enforcement to determine the universe of who is, and who is not, obeying the law. Currently, there is no requirement that retailers notify the DEA before they start selling products with these listed chemicals.

Retailers can likely avoid negative consequences if they are ever confronted with their failure to self-certify. Currently, the law imposes sanctions only for willful and reckless refusals to self- certify. There is no punishment available if a retailer negligently fails to self-certify as required. Not even civil sanctions are available.

In short, without distributors restricting the supply of these products to retailers who have self-certified, retailers may simply take their chances, rather than self-certifying as the law intended, figuring that they'll never get caught, or if they do get caught, that they will never be punished.

It is unacceptable that, over two years after the Combat Meth Act imposed this requirement and became fully effective, tens of thousands of retailers still are not following the law. It is unacceptable that distributors of these products can continue to profit off of their sales to retailers who are not complying, or are even refusing to comply with the law.

So this bill is designed to make the Combat Meth Act more effective, by putting in place a process that will ensure that every retailer who orders these products that can be used to make methamphetamine must comply with the law before they can get and resell the products.

First, it will require that all retail sellers of products with these listed chemicals must file self-certifications, closing a loophole that now exists for mail-order retailers.

Second, the DEA will be required to post all self-certified retailers on its

website, so that advocacy groups and others who are concerned about methamphetamine in their communities can identify retailers who are selling these products without complying with the law, and can notify the authorities.

Third, distributors of these products will only be allowed to sell to retailers who have self-certified, which they will be able to verify by checking the DEA's public website. Once recalcitrant retailers are faced with the real and immediate economic consequence of a possible cut-off of their desire to purchase these products, I am confident that most will file self-certifications as the law requires.

Finally, the bill clarifies that even a negligent failure to self- certify, if proven, can give rise to civil sanctions.

This is a common-sense bill, designed to strengthen the implementation of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. This bill would create incentives to ensure that the self-certification process of the law is made both effective and enforceable.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with Senators Grassley and Bayh, the Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act of 2009.

Over the last 2 years, Federal, State, and local law enforcement have increasingly seen drug dealers flavoring and marketing their illegal drugs to appeal to minors, using techniques like combing drugs with candy and other flavorings to entice younger users. This bill would increase the criminal penalties that apply when criminals do this. This bill will ensure these appalling tactics are criminalized and severely punished.

The problem of flavoring illegal drugs to entice minors is well documented. A 2007 USA Today Article entitled ``Flavored Meth Use on the Rise'' stated that ``reports of candy-flavored methamphetamine are emerging around the nation, stirring concern among police and abuse prevention experts that drug dealers are marketing the drug to younger people.''

The flavoring of meth to appeal to minors is widespread across the Nation. In California, police have made repeated seizures of strawberry-flavored meth and local drug counselors warn that it also comes in cola, cherry, and orange flavors.

Strawberry flavoring packets were found in a meth lab raid in Arkansas in May of 2007. Similar seizures of flavored meth have been made in Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, and Virginia. Two people were arrested for manufacturing cotton candy flavored meth in Colorado in March of 2008.

The candying and flavoring of controlled substances is not limited to methamphetamine. As recently as March of this year, the DEA seized 1\1/ 2\ pounds of strawberry flavored powdered cocaine in Modesto, CA.

DEA agents in California have also purchased cocaine with lemon, coconut, and cinnamon flavoring. It has also documented other controlled substances like marijuana and hash oil infused into candy bars and soda pop.

Drug dealers are even selling boxes of ``Pot Tarts'' that look exactly like commercial available Pop Tarts.

Federal, State and local law enforcement all agree that such flavoring is done to entice more minors to use these illegal drugs.

This bill would help address this growing problem by criminalizing the flavoring, coloring and marketing of such drugs and would impose enhanced penalties for these offenses.

Under current law, there is already an enhanced penalty if someone distributes drugs to a minor. The maximum sentence is doubled, and tripled for a repeat offense, and there is a minimum of at least a year in prison. But this enhancement only applies if there is an actual distribution of the drug to a minor. Even possession with intent to distribute flavored or candied drugs doesn't qualify.

This bill would fix this loophole. If someone manufactures, creates, distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute a schedule I or II controlled substance that is combined with a candy, marketed or packaged to appear similar to a candy product, or modified by flavoring or coloring with the intent to sell to a minor, they would face enhanced penalties.

The bill sends a strong and clear message to drug dealers--if you flavor or candy up your drugs to make them more appealing to our children, there will be a very heavy price to pay. It will make drug dealers think twice before flavoring up their drugs, and punish them appropriately if they don't.

The bill is supported by the National Narcotics Officers Association Coalition, which is comprised of 44 State narcotics officers' associations.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.

I commend my colleagues who support this comprehensive public lands bill, and I thank Chairman Bingaman for his leadership. He and his staff should be congratulated for their perseverance and patience in shepherding this important bill through the legislative process.

I would like to speak first about one of the bill's provisions, which has major implications for California; and that is, the legislation to implement the historic San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement, which I have sponsored with my colleague from California, Senator Boxer.

This measure would restore California's second longest river, while maintaining a stable water supply for the farmers who have made the San Joaquin Valley the richest agricultural area in the world.

Once enacted, this bill would bring to a close 19 years of litigation between the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Friant Water Users Authority, and the U.S. Department of the Interior. And it does so within a framework that the affected interests can accept--and have all agreed to.

The Settlement has two goals: to restore and maintain fish populations in the San Joaquin River in good condition, including a self-sustaining salmon fishery; and to avoid or reduce adverse water supply impacts to long-term Friant water contractors.

Consistent with the terms of the settlement, I expect that both of these goals will be pursued with equal diligence by the Federal agencies.

This historic agreement would not have been possible without the participation of a remarkably broad group of agencies, stakeholders, and legislators, including: the Department of the Interior; the State of California; the Friant Water Users Authority; the Natural Resources Defense Council on behalf of 13 other environmental organizations; and countless other stakeholders who came together and spent countless hours with legislators in Washington to ensure that we found a solution that the large majority of those affected could support. Without this consensus, the parties would no doubt continue the fight, resulting in a court-imposed judgment--one which would likely be worse for all parties.

I spoke at greater length about the purposes and benefits of this legislation during my statements upon introduction of the omnibus lands bill and when introducing the San Joaquin River Settlement legislation in December 2006 and January 2007 in previous Congresses.

I would like to take a moment to highlight several important changes that were made to this version of the legislation--which improved upon the initial bill, first introduced in December 2006.

First, the legislation reflects an agreement reached in November 2008 to ensure that the implementing legislation is pay-go neutral, which means that the restoration program allocates no more in direct spending than it brings in.

The agreement also protects the rights of third parties. These protections are accomplished while ensuring a timely and robust restoration of the river and without creating any new precedents for implementing the Endangered Species Act.

Similarly, there is no preemption of State law and nothing in the bill changes any existing obligations of the United States to operate the Central Valley Project in conformity with State law.

Second, the bill incorporates amendments made by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in May 2008 to enhance implementation of the settlement's ``Water Management Goal'' to reduce or avoid adverse water supply impacts to Friant Division long-term water contractors.

It also includes provisions approved by the committee that will increase the amount of upfront funding available for the settlement by allowing most Friant Division contractors to accelerate repayment of their construction cost obligation to the Treasury. In exchange for early repayment, Friant water agencies will be able to convert their 25-year water service contracts to permanent repayment contracts.

Now, I would like to speak at greater length about the legislation's substantial protections for other water districts and private landowners in California that were not party to the original settlement negotiations.

I think it is important to note that these protections have been agreed to by all of the settling parties as well as the third-party water agencies in the San Joaquin Valley who requested them, and that they will be accomplished while ensuring a timely and robust restoration of the river.

Section 10004(d) requires that the Secretary of the Interior identify; first, the impacts associated with the proposed action or actions; and sSecond, the measures that will be implemented to mitigate those impacts.

Sections 10004(f), 10004(g) and 10004(j) protect third party water users by clarifying that implementation of the settlement will cause no involuntary reductions in contract water allocations to long-term CVP contractors--other than Friant contractors--by making it clear that the bill does not, except as actually provided in the settlement and this bill, modify the rights and obligations of parties to existing water service, repayment, purchase, or exchange contracts, and by specifying that the rights and obligations under what is known as the Exchange Contract--with downstream districts--are not modified.

Further, section 10006(b) makes it clear that the bill does not preempt State law or modify any existing obligation of the United States under Federal reclamation law to operate the Central Valley Project in conformity with State law.

Some third parties had expressed concerns about potential conflicts between the provision of flows under the restoration program, and the rights of the exchange contractors to water from the San Joaquin River.

The Bureau of Reclamation has provided a letter that complements the language in the legislation and explains that such a conflict is extremely unlikely, but should such a conflict

arise the Bureau will continue to make water available to the San Joaquin River exchange contractors consistent with its contractual requirements.

I will ask to have the letter, dated November 6, 2008, from Mr. Donald Glaser, regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation for the Mid-Pacific Region of California, to Mr. Steve Chedester, executive director of the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority, be printed in the Record.

Concerns about potential damage to downstream farmers and landowners from water seepage resulting from interim restoration flows under the settlement are addressed by section 10004(h).

That section directs the Secretary, before releasing interim flows, to prepare an analysis of channel conveyance capacities and the potential for seepage, describe an associated seepage monitoring program, and evaluate possible seepage impacts and mitigation measures for impacts that are significant.

The section also directs that interim flows may only be released to the extent they will not impede completion of the channel restoration work or exceed downstream channel capacities.

And finally the section directs the Secretary to reduce interim flows if necessary to address material adverse impacts from groundwater seepage that the Secretary identifies through the Secretary's monitoring program.

Some of the third-party agencies have expressed concerns about the effectiveness of a fish barrier in the San Joaquin River near the confluence of the Merced River in preventing the upstream migration of anadromous fish prior to reintroduction of salmon and implementation of the restoration flow program.

This concern has been addressed in part with the addition of section 10004(i)(4), which calls for an evaluation of the temporary fish barrier, and the funding of fish screens and facilities under certain circumstances.

To further address the concerns regarding the effectiveness of the fish barrier, the Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of Fish and Game have exchanged letters confirming their willingness to cooperate in the operation and evaluation of the Hills Ferry Fish Barrier during the interim flows period.

More specifically, these letters discuss future efforts by these agencies to achieve a barrier program that effectively prevents unintended upstream passage of salmonids during the interim flow period.

I applaud these efforts and look forward to their successful implementation.

I will ask to have the agencies' letters, dated December 22, 2008, from Mr. Jason Phillips, Program Manager, Bureau of Reclamation; and January 5, 2009, from Jeffery Single, Ph.D., Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Game, printed in the Record.

Third parties had also requested that actions to increase the channel capacity in Reach 2B of the river be prioritized. The legislation directs the Secretary to implement the channel improvements that are listed in paragraph 11 of the settlement necessary to achieve the restoration goal.

Among the highest priority restoration improvements identified in the settlement are modifications to increase the channel capacity of Reach 2B of the river. I am pleased that work in that reach will be a priority for the restoration program and as a result will also address the third party concerns.

Finally, Section 10011 of the bill provides that the Central Valley Spring Run Chinook Salmon reintroduced into the San Joaquin River will be classified as an ``experimental population'' under the Endangered Species Act.

This section also makes clear that it establishes no precedent with respect to any other application of the Endangered Species Act, ESA.

It also provides that the Secretary of Commerce shall issue a rule under section 4(d) of the ESA which shall provide that the reintroduction of the spring run salmon under this section shall not impose more than de minimis water supply reductions, additional storage releases or bypass flows on unwilling third parties.

In closing, in addition to the protections listed above, I wish to highlight one further provision of the settlement that reflects some of the significant themes of this historic agreement.

In paragraph 13(h) of the settlement agreement, the settling parties agreed that the Secretary of the Interior should apply to the State of California to protect the restoration flows from Friant Dam to the Delta, subject to existing downstream diversion rights.

In my view, this underscores that this settlement is intended to conform to State law and that the Interior Department will seek appropriate actions by the State Water Resources Control Board to ensure that the water released for the settlement is controlled and managed from Friant Dam to the Delta to accomplish the restoration goal and water management goal purposes.

The Bureau of Reclamation has made significant progress on environmental and engineering studies necessary to implement the settlement.

Passage of the legislation will allow the agency to undertake specific programs and projects to implement the settlement's restoration and water management goals.

For example, with approval of the legislation, interim flows can begin this fall as scheduled, once a required environmental study is completed.

These limited water releases will provide essential information on channel capacity, fishery needs and water recovery opportunities as well as potential third-party impacts, such as seepage, and measures that may be needed to mitigate them.

The information will be used to shape other important aspects of the restoration goal program, such as the release of full restoration flows, scheduled to begin in 2014.

Passage of the legislation also will allow the Bureau to take immediate steps toward achieving the water management goal, including undertaking a project to restore the water-carry capacity of the Friant-Kern and Madera Canals and the installation of pump-back systems on the canals to help recapture water losses resulting from the settlement.

In addition, the agency is charged with implementing a cost-sharing program for local groundwater recharge and recovery projects that will help mitigate water losses.

Before I conclude, I would like to also briefly discuss the other 19 California bills in the omnibus legislation approved today.

First, wilderness provisions: The three wilderness bills in this package would together protect a wilderness about 735,000 acres of land in Mono, Riverside, Inyo, and Los Angeles Counties, and within Sequoia- Kings Canyon National Park.

The bills include three additions to National Wilderness Preservation System: Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wilderness, Riverside County Wilderness, and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Wilderness.

This package of wilderness bills would help expand lasting Federal protection for some of California's important natural resources.

Second: water project authorizations.

In the West, drought, population growth, increasing climate variability, and ecosystem needs make managing water supplies especially challenging.

The nine California water recycling projects included in the omnibus bill offer a proven means to develop cost effective alternative water supply projects.

The water projects in the bill would fall under the auspices of the Bureau of Reclamation, and include San Diego Intertie feasibility study, Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project authorization, Rancho California Water District project authorization Santa Margarita River project authorization, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District project authorization, North Bay Water Reuse Authority project authorization, Prado Basin Natural Treatment System Project authorization, Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin project authorization GREAT Project authorization, Yucaipa Valley Water District project authorization, Goleta Water District Water Distribution System title transfer, San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund, and Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program.

Together they will help our State reduce its dependence on imported water from both the Lower Colorado River and Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta.

Third: other public lands bills to help preserve California's historic legacy.

These include: Bureau of Land Management: Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria land exchange; Forest Service: Mammoth Community Water District land conveyance; National Park Service: Tule Lake Segregation Center Resource Study

There is an old saying when it comes to water: Whiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting over.'' There is no area where this has been more the case than the future of the San Joaquin River.

The passage of this omnibus legislation means we are one step closer toward resolving the longstanding conflict over the future of the San Joaquin River.

This is a bill whose time is long overdue, and I strongly urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to promptly join us in approving this critical piece of legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Ensign to introduce legislation to ensure that Federal Title I education funds are targeted to help our Nation's neediest students learn.

Title I provides assistance to virtually every school district in the country, serving over 12.5 million children in low-income schools, including about 3 million California school children.

Although it has always been the intent of Congress for Title I funds to be used for academic instruction and instructional services, the Federal Government has never provided clear guidelines for how these important dollars should be used.

This lack of Federal guidance has become especially clear now, as States are struggling to comply with the Title I accountability standards established under ``No Child Left Behind''.

While State administrators of Title I are directed by law to meet these specific requirements, they have been given little guidance as to how to ensure that they are in compliance with the law.

I believe that the Federal Government is responsible for making this process as clear as possible to States and school districts.

This legislation would define Title I direct and indirect instructional services.

It would set a standard for the amount of Title I funds that can be used to achieve the academic and administrative objectives of this program.

It would ensure that the majority, 90 percent, of Title I funds are used to improve academic achievement by stipulating that a school district may not use more than 10 percent of these funds for administrative or indirect instructional services.

By setting a standard for the amount of funds that school districts can spend on administrative or indirect services, we ensure that the majority of Title I dollars are used by districts to help improve student academic achievement.

Furthermore, by defining direct and indirect services, all States can apply

the same standards for how Title I funds are used nationwide.

Examples of permissible Direct Services are: employing teachers and other instructional personnel, including employee benefits; intervening and taking corrective actions to improve student achievement; purchasing instructional resources such as books, materials, computers, and other instructional equipment; developing and administering curriculum, educational materials and assessments.

Examples of Indirect Services limited to no more than 10 percent of Title I expenditures are: business services relating to administering the program; purchasing or providing facilities maintenance or janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services or the payment of utility costs; buying food and paying for travel to and attendance at conferences or meetings, except if necessary for professional development.

Current law on Title I is much too vague.

It says, ``a State or local educational agency shall use funds received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.''

Basically, it says that Title I funds are to be used for the ``education of pupils.'' This is too ambiguous.

The U.S. Department of Education has given States a guidance document that explains how Title I funds can be used.

Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically prohibited: construction or acquisition of real property; and payment to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to reimburse a parent for a salary lost due to attendance at a ``parental involvement'' meeting.

We should give the Department, States, and school districts clearer guidance in law.

During consideration of ``No Child Left Behind,'' I worked hard to get my bill defining appropriate Title I uses included in the Senate version of the bill.

Unfortunately, during conference consideration, that language was stripped out and in its place language was inserted directing the General Accounting Office to report on how States use their Title I funds.

In April 2003, GAO released the report that Congress directed them to submit on Title I Administrative Expenditures.

What GAO found is that while districts spent no more than 13 percent of Title I funds on administrative services, these findings were based on their own definition ``because there is no common definition on what constitutes administrative expenditures.''

Therefore, the accounting office could not precisely measure how much of schools' Title I funds were used for administration.

Because uses of Title I funds are not defined consistently throughout the States, the accounting office created its own definition by compiling aspects of State priorities to complete the report.

The very reason I worked to define how Title I funds should be used-- to create consistency and distribution priority nationwide--became the definitive aspect preventing GAO from effectively drawing conclusions to their report.

The report highlights two concerns that I have with the lack of universal definitions in the Title I program: the lack of Federal guidance on effective uses of Title I funds; and the government's inability to accurately measure whether the academic needs of low- income students are being met.

This bill takes some strong steps by balancing the needs for States to retain Title I flexibility and providing them with the guidance needed to administer the program uniformly throughout the country.

My reasons for introducing this bill are two-fold: First, I believe that States must use their limited Federal Title I dollars for the fundamental purpose of providing academic instruction to help students learn.

Second, I believe that it is nearly impossible to achieve this fundamental purpose without providing a clear definition of what is considered an instructional service.

Federal funding is only about 8 percent of the total funding for elementary and secondary education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of total support for public schools.

That is why it is imperative to better focus Title I funds on academic instruction, teaching the fundamentals and helping disadvantaged children achieve.

It is critical that Federal guidance be provided to ensure that Title I funds go where they are needed most--improving the academic performance of low-income children.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Act.'' This legislation is cosponsored by Senators Susan Collins and Charles Schumer. A companion bill is also being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Mr. Israel and Mr. Inslee.

Let me first acknowledge the important role of one of my colleagues, Senator Salazar, who initiated much of the thought and drafting for this legislation at the end of the last Congress. I thank him for his leadership, and I thank him for letting us take up the work needed to move this bill forward as he begins to transition into his new role with the incoming Obama administration.

Last Congress, we successfully enacted legislation--which I authored

with Senator Snowe and others--to improve the fuel efficiency of America's fleet of new cars, trucks and SUVs by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years, or from 25 miles per gallon to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

But the fact is that we face real challenges with trying to encourage drivers to trade in their older, less fuel efficient vehicles for a cleaner and more fuel efficient vehicle--particularly in this tough economic climate.

This bill is designed to address that problem.

First, let me explain this legislation.

This bill would establish an incentive program at the Department of Energy to provide a voucher, or coupon, of between $2,500 to $4,500 to a consumer who trades in an inefficient, used vehicle for a much more efficient car, truck, or SUV.

The traded-in vehicles--which must be then dismantled or scrapped-- must meet the following requirements; have a fuel economy of no more than 18 miles per gallons, be in drivable condition, and have been registered for at least the past 120 days.

To receive the benefit of the coupon, purchased vehicles must exceed Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, Standards for that class of vehicle by at least 25 percent and have a suggested retail price below $45,000.

The size of the coupon varies based upon the expected oil savings created by trading in the vehicle.

The voucher program will be set up to provide larger credits to new, more recent vehicles that would otherwise be on the road for many more years, while older ``clunker'' models would be eligible for smaller credits.

The bill specifies that during the first year of the program, vouchers will be issued for the following amounts: For model year 2002 and later: new vehicle: $4,500, used vehicle: $3,000, transit fare credit: $3,000. For model year 1999-2001: new vehicle: $3,000, used vehicle: $2,000, transit fare credit: $2,000. For model year 1998 and earlier: new vehicle: $2,500, used vehicle: $1,500, transit fare credit: $1,500. In each subsequent year, 2010, 2011, and 2012, the model years would be advanced by 1 year.

Vouchers would be eligible for redemption for up to 2 years after the date of issuance, and no individual would be eligible to obtain more than one voucher in any 3-year period.

Dealers, dismantlers and scrap recycling facilities would also be eligible for a payment of $50 per vehicle, or an alternative amount to be specified by the Secretary of Energy.

Simply put, this legislation offers a unique opportunity to both stimulate automobile industry sales and reduce vehicular oil use, creating a win-win policy for all involved.

As we know, our Nation's automobile industry is in serious trouble.

Chrysler, General Motors, and Ford have all asserted in their recent viability plans that their dire financial situation is a direct result of the collapse in automobile sales.

The new car sales rate has dropped to less than 11 million vehicles sold annually, compared to the 16.2 million vehicles sold in the United States in 2007.

The major Detroit and Japanese carmakers all reported double digit sales drops for December. General Motors reported sales dropped 31 percent; Ford Motor Co. reported a drop of 32 percent; Chrysler LLC reported sales plummeted 53 percent; Honda Motor Co. said its sales fell 34 percent; Nissan North America said its sales fell 30 percent and Toyota Motor Co. said its U.S. sales fell 37 percent.

Bottom line: The automobile companies are all in trouble because far fewer people are buying automobiles.

According to J.D. Power and Associates, this has produced dealer lots full of vehicles that can't be sold. Over the past year the number of days that a vehicle sits on a lot has almost doubled.

The problem is most severe for Chrysler, GM and Ford. Their vehicles all sat on dealer lots for in excess of 100 days last year.

By encouraging automobile sales, this legislation would go a long way to addressing the significant troubles that America's once mighty car industry now faces.

While emergency bridge loans help auto companies make payroll, only stimulating automobile sales will cure the disease that confronts the automobile sector.

By creating a voucher system for the purchase of a vehicle with certain attributes, this legislation would stimulate sales at precisely the right moment.

Perhaps that is why General Motors went out of its way to endorse this kind of program in its recent Viability Plan, recommended ``tax credits for scrapping older, higher-carbon emitting vehicles.''

This legislation would also assist owners of the least efficient vehicles who are least likely to trade their cars in for something more efficient.

The trade-in value of inefficient vehicles has plummeted, making a trade-in financially difficult.

In a November 2008 analysis, Kelley Blue Book concluded: ``[T]his year's vehicles with the lowest retained value include vehicles that are not fuel friendly with large V-8 engines. . . . These gas misers . . . will only maintain 20 percent of their original value after five years of ownership.''

Bottom line: The legislation is stimulus of the most important kind. It would provide incentives for new vehicle sales, incentivize the trade-in of inefficient vehicles, and reward consumers who want to reduce their oil use and carbon footprint.

This proposal also provides important benefits for the environment-- and addressing the challenges of climate change.

I have been a long time champion of increasing fuel economy standards, and I was extremely proud to have authored the new fuel economy law with Senator Snowe, which was enacted by Congress and signed into law in December 2007.

But new CAFE standards will not take effect until model year 2011. They cannot make up for our failure to increase standards for the past 3 decades.

The bill we are introducing today would target the very vehicles that CAFE standards are unable to reach: older fuel-inefficient cars, trucks and SUVs

It will provide incentives to consumers who wish to buy the most efficient vehicles available during the 2 years before the new CAFE standards will require improvement.

It will provide incentives to remove the most inefficient vehicles that would have never been part of the fleet had Congress acted to increase CAFE standards 5 years ago.

The result is considerable oil savings and significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

According to analysis by the non-partisan American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, ACEEE, by 2013 this legislation would prompt the trade in of between 500,000 and 1 million of the dirtiest, least efficient vehicles on the road today.

As a result, by 2013 between 40,000 and 80,000 fewer barrels of oil per day will be burned; between 6.6 million metric tons and 13.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year will not be emitted.

This is the equivalent of removing between 1.1 million and 2.2 million cars from the road.

In our current economic and environmental circumstance, there are few opportunities to both help the automobile industry evolve and improve the fuel economy of the fleet.

This idea--providing consumers with an incentive to trade in their inefficient vehicle for something far better--will stimulate the economy and save oil, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

I strongly encourage the Obama administration and the Appropriations Committee to authorize and fund this proposal in the stimulus.

I am committed to advancing the goals of stimulus and fuel savings, and have put what I believe to be the best proposal to meet these goals.

I understand that within the details of this idea, there may be different views. I am open to suggestions that improve the structure of the program proposed by this legislation, and ask my colleagues to communicate their thoughts soon.

Finally, I hope non-related matters--such as trade policy--will not prevent my colleagues from supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Ensign to introduce legislation to ensure that Federal Title I education funds are targeted to help our Nation's neediest students learn.

Title I provides assistance to virtually every school district in the country, serving over 12.5 million children in low-income schools, including about 3 million California school children.

Although it has always been the intent of Congress for Title I funds to be used for academic instruction and instructional services, the Federal Government has never provided clear guidelines for how these important dollars should be used.

This lack of Federal guidance has become especially clear now, as States are struggling to comply with the Title I accountability standards established under ``No Child Left Behind''.

While State administrators of Title I are directed by law to meet these specific requirements, they have been given little guidance as to how to ensure that they are in compliance with the law.

I believe that the Federal Government is responsible for making this process as clear as possible to States and school districts.

This legislation would define Title I direct and indirect instructional services.

It would set a standard for the amount of Title I funds that can be used to achieve the academic and administrative objectives of this program.

It would ensure that the majority, 90 percent, of Title I funds are used to improve academic achievement by stipulating that a school district may not use more than 10 percent of these funds for administrative or indirect instructional services.

By setting a standard for the amount of funds that school districts can spend on administrative or indirect services, we ensure that the majority of Title I dollars are used by districts to help improve student academic achievement.

Furthermore, by defining direct and indirect services, all States can apply

the same standards for how Title I funds are used nationwide.

Examples of permissible Direct Services are: employing teachers and other instructional personnel, including employee benefits; intervening and taking corrective actions to improve student achievement; purchasing instructional resources such as books, materials, computers, and other instructional equipment; developing and administering curriculum, educational materials and assessments.

Examples of Indirect Services limited to no more than 10 percent of Title I expenditures are: business services relating to administering the program; purchasing or providing facilities maintenance or janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services or the payment of utility costs; buying food and paying for travel to and attendance at conferences or meetings, except if necessary for professional development.

Current law on Title I is much too vague.

It says, ``a State or local educational agency shall use funds received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.''

Basically, it says that Title I funds are to be used for the ``education of pupils.'' This is too ambiguous.

The U.S. Department of Education has given States a guidance document that explains how Title I funds can be used.

Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically prohibited: construction or acquisition of real property; and payment to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to reimburse a parent for a salary lost due to attendance at a ``parental involvement'' meeting.

We should give the Department, States, and school districts clearer guidance in law.

During consideration of ``No Child Left Behind,'' I worked hard to get my bill defining appropriate Title I uses included in the Senate version of the bill.

Unfortunately, during conference consideration, that language was stripped out and in its place language was inserted directing the General Accounting Office to report on how States use their Title I funds.

In April 2003, GAO released the report that Congress directed them to submit on Title I Administrative Expenditures.

What GAO found is that while districts spent no more than 13 percent of Title I funds on administrative services, these findings were based on their own definition ``because there is no common definition on what constitutes administrative expenditures.''

Therefore, the accounting office could not precisely measure how much of schools' Title I funds were used for administration.

Because uses of Title I funds are not defined consistently throughout the States, the accounting office created its own definition by compiling aspects of State priorities to complete the report.

The very reason I worked to define how Title I funds should be used-- to create consistency and distribution priority nationwide--became the definitive aspect preventing GAO from effectively drawing conclusions to their report.

The report highlights two concerns that I have with the lack of universal definitions in the Title I program: the lack of Federal guidance on effective uses of Title I funds; and the government's inability to accurately measure whether the academic needs of low- income students are being met.

This bill takes some strong steps by balancing the needs for States to retain Title I flexibility and providing them with the guidance needed to administer the program uniformly throughout the country.

My reasons for introducing this bill are two-fold: First, I believe that States must use their limited Federal Title I dollars for the fundamental purpose of providing academic instruction to help students learn.

Second, I believe that it is nearly impossible to achieve this fundamental purpose without providing a clear definition of what is considered an instructional service.

Federal funding is only about 8 percent of the total funding for elementary and secondary education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of total support for public schools.

That is why it is imperative to better focus Title I funds on academic instruction, teaching the fundamentals and helping disadvantaged children achieve.

It is critical that Federal guidance be provided to ensure that Title I funds go where they are needed most--improving the academic performance of low-income children.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Act.'' This legislation is cosponsored by Senators Susan Collins and Charles Schumer. A companion bill is also being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Mr. Israel and Mr. Inslee.

Let me first acknowledge the important role of one of my colleagues, Senator Salazar, who initiated much of the thought and drafting for this legislation at the end of the last Congress. I thank him for his leadership, and I thank him for letting us take up the work needed to move this bill forward as he begins to transition into his new role with the incoming Obama administration.

Last Congress, we successfully enacted legislation--which I authored

with Senator Snowe and others--to improve the fuel efficiency of America's fleet of new cars, trucks and SUVs by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years, or from 25 miles per gallon to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

But the fact is that we face real challenges with trying to encourage drivers to trade in their older, less fuel efficient vehicles for a cleaner and more fuel efficient vehicle--particularly in this tough economic climate.

This bill is designed to address that problem.

First, let me explain this legislation.

This bill would establish an incentive program at the Department of Energy to provide a voucher, or coupon, of between $2,500 to $4,500 to a consumer who trades in an inefficient, used vehicle for a much more efficient car, truck, or SUV.

The traded-in vehicles--which must be then dismantled or scrapped-- must meet the following requirements; have a fuel economy of no more than 18 miles per gallons, be in drivable condition, and have been registered for at least the past 120 days.

To receive the benefit of the coupon, purchased vehicles must exceed Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, Standards for that class of vehicle by at least 25 percent and have a suggested retail price below $45,000.

The size of the coupon varies based upon the expected oil savings created by trading in the vehicle.

The voucher program will be set up to provide larger credits to new, more recent vehicles that would otherwise be on the road for many more years, while older ``clunker'' models would be eligible for smaller credits.

The bill specifies that during the first year of the program, vouchers will be issued for the following amounts: For model year 2002 and later: new vehicle: $4,500, used vehicle: $3,000, transit fare credit: $3,000. For model year 1999-2001: new vehicle: $3,000, used vehicle: $2,000, transit fare credit: $2,000. For model year 1998 and earlier: new vehicle: $2,500, used vehicle: $1,500, transit fare credit: $1,500. In each subsequent year, 2010, 2011, and 2012, the model years would be advanced by 1 year.

Vouchers would be eligible for redemption for up to 2 years after the date of issuance, and no individual would be eligible to obtain more than one voucher in any 3-year period.

Dealers, dismantlers and scrap recycling facilities would also be eligible for a payment of $50 per vehicle, or an alternative amount to be specified by the Secretary of Energy.

Simply put, this legislation offers a unique opportunity to both stimulate automobile industry sales and reduce vehicular oil use, creating a win-win policy for all involved.

As we know, our Nation's automobile industry is in serious trouble.

Chrysler, General Motors, and Ford have all asserted in their recent viability plans that their dire financial situation is a direct result of the collapse in automobile sales.

The new car sales rate has dropped to less than 11 million vehicles sold annually, compared to the 16.2 million vehicles sold in the United States in 2007.

The major Detroit and Japanese carmakers all reported double digit sales drops for December. General Motors reported sales dropped 31 percent; Ford Motor Co. reported a drop of 32 percent; Chrysler LLC reported sales plummeted 53 percent; Honda Motor Co. said its sales fell 34 percent; Nissan North America said its sales fell 30 percent and Toyota Motor Co. said its U.S. sales fell 37 percent.

Bottom line: The automobile companies are all in trouble because far fewer people are buying automobiles.

According to J.D. Power and Associates, this has produced dealer lots full of vehicles that can't be sold. Over the past year the number of days that a vehicle sits on a lot has almost doubled.

The problem is most severe for Chrysler, GM and Ford. Their vehicles all sat on dealer lots for in excess of 100 days last year.

By encouraging automobile sales, this legislation would go a long way to addressing the significant troubles that America's once mighty car industry now faces.

While emergency bridge loans help auto companies make payroll, only stimulating automobile sales will cure the disease that confronts the automobile sector.

By creating a voucher system for the purchase of a vehicle with certain attributes, this legislation would stimulate sales at precisely the right moment.

Perhaps that is why General Motors went out of its way to endorse this kind of program in its recent Viability Plan, recommended ``tax credits for scrapping older, higher-carbon emitting vehicles.''

This legislation would also assist owners of the least efficient vehicles who are least likely to trade their cars in for something more efficient.

The trade-in value of inefficient vehicles has plummeted, making a trade-in financially difficult.

In a November 2008 analysis, Kelley Blue Book concluded: ``[T]his year's vehicles with the lowest retained value include vehicles that are not fuel friendly with large V-8 engines. . . . These gas misers . . . will only maintain 20 percent of their original value after five years of ownership.''

Bottom line: The legislation is stimulus of the most important kind. It would provide incentives for new vehicle sales, incentivize the trade-in of inefficient vehicles, and reward consumers who want to reduce their oil use and carbon footprint.

This proposal also provides important benefits for the environment-- and addressing the challenges of climate change.

I have been a long time champion of increasing fuel economy standards, and I was extremely proud to have authored the new fuel economy law with Senator Snowe, which was enacted by Congress and signed into law in December 2007.

But new CAFE standards will not take effect until model year 2011. They cannot make up for our failure to increase standards for the past 3 decades.

The bill we are introducing today would target the very vehicles that CAFE standards are unable to reach: older fuel-inefficient cars, trucks and SUVs

It will provide incentives to consumers who wish to buy the most efficient vehicles available during the 2 years before the new CAFE standards will require improvement.

It will provide incentives to remove the most inefficient vehicles that would have never been part of the fleet had Congress acted to increase CAFE standards 5 years ago.

The result is considerable oil savings and significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

According to analysis by the non-partisan American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, ACEEE, by 2013 this legislation would prompt the trade in of between 500,000 and 1 million of the dirtiest, least efficient vehicles on the road today.

As a result, by 2013 between 40,000 and 80,000 fewer barrels of oil per day will be burned; between 6.6 million metric tons and 13.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year will not be emitted.

This is the equivalent of removing between 1.1 million and 2.2 million cars from the road.

In our current economic and environmental circumstance, there are few opportunities to both help the automobile industry evolve and improve the fuel economy of the fleet.

This idea--providing consumers with an incentive to trade in their inefficient vehicle for something far better--will stimulate the economy and save oil, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

I strongly encourage the Obama administration and the Appropriations Committee to authorize and fund this proposal in the stimulus.

I am committed to advancing the goals of stimulus and fuel savings, and have put what I believe to be the best proposal to meet these goals.

I understand that within the details of this idea, there may be different views. I am open to suggestions that improve the structure of the program proposed by this legislation, and ask my colleagues to communicate their thoughts soon.

Finally, I hope non-related matters--such as trade policy--will not prevent my colleagues from supporting this 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 a bill on behalf of myself and Senator Kyl to mitigate the immigration and security risks associated with the Visa Waiver Program and its expansion.

The Visa Waiver Program leaves open both a major gap in our domestic security and a way to exploit our immigration laws. The Strengthening the Visa Waiver Program to Secure America Act would give the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, new tools to secure the Visa Waiver Program, consistent with the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission.

The bill would set a maximum low visa overstay rate for all visa waiver program countries; require a reevaluation of visa waiver program countries within 1 year; mandate that the administration will lose its authority to continue to expand the program if it does not track 97 percent of those exiting and departing at our airports--based on arrival data, not just departure data; require an audit of the electronic travel authorization system, ESTA; and require current visa waiver countries to report on lost or stolen visas in order to remain in the visa waiver program.

Senator Kyl and I have held multiple hearings over the years and time and time again we have expressed concern and requested improvements, but no changes have been forthcoming in how the Department of Homeland Security intends to implement this program.

The hearings and the recent Government Accountability Office report found that the administration is not doing what it should to secure the program. Instead, the Visa Waiver Program has continued to expand without meeting the security needs of our country.

In fact, just today the administration has announced that it has met the deadline for the electronic travel authorization system, ESTA, to be fully operational. However, the GAO report found that ESTA--the one security check for visa waiver travelers prior to arrival at our Nation's airports--has not been implemented effectively by the administration to make it a workable system for the airlines and embassies.

The GAO report also found that the administration is still unable to track who comes in and out of this country. This is especially significant given that the program was recently expanded to countries with high visa overstay rates, bringing the number of participating countries to 35.

This means that for the citizens of 35 countries--including Australia, Singapore, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom--entering the United States is as simple as purchasing an airline ticket and arriving at the airport with a valid passport in hand.

The result is that these travelers not only bypass the interview and individualized security screening process, but they are also lost once they arrive in the U.S. because DHS is only checking when individuals depart at our airports, not if they overstay their visit.

It is estimated that 40 percent of the current undocumented population are people who have overstayed their visas. That means that if there are 12 million

undocumented people now in the U.S., 4.8 million people overstayed their visa. The Visa Waiver Program is the achilles heel of our immigration system.

The security risks associated with the Visa Waiver Program are even greater--Our Nation's security experts have stated repeatedly that the program provides an attractive option to terrorists looking to do Americans harm.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on September 27, 2007, DNI Director Mike McConnell testified that Al Qaeda is purposefully recruiting Europeans because they do not require a visa to come into this country.

As Director McConnell said, this tactic gives Al Qaeda ``an extra edge in getting an operative or two or three into the country with the ability to carry out an attack that might be reminiscent of 9-11.''

Secretary Chertoff reiterated these concerns when he stated that ``terrorists are increasingly looking to Europe as both a target and a platform for terrorist attacks'' against the United States.

In an interview with BBC's ``World News America,'' Secretary Chertoff acknowledged, ``the first time we encounter [visa waiver travelers] is when they arrive in the United States and that creates a very small window of opportunity to check them out.''

These security risks are particularly apparent when we look at the statistics on the number of fraudulent and stolen passports and other international documents.

Between January 2002 and June 2004, 28 foreign governments, including visa waiver countries, reported 56,943 stolen blank foreign passports to the State Department. And just this summer, a security van in London was hijacked, resulting in the loss of 3,000 blank British passports and visas that were destined for overseas embassies.

DHS's own Inspector General, Clark Ervin has testified that: ``The lost and stolen passport problem is the greatest security problem associated with the Visa Waiver Program. Our country is vulnerable because gaps in our treatment of lost and stolen passports remain.''

The Strengthening the Visa Waiver Program to Secure America Act would put necessary security checks firmly in place and provide greater program oversight.

We must act now to secure the Visa Waiver Program. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill on behalf of myself and Senator Kyl to mitigate the immigration and security risks associated with the Visa Waiver Program and its expansion.

The Visa Waiver Program leaves open both a major gap in our domestic security and a way to exploit our immigration laws. The Strengthening the Visa Waiver Program to Secure America Act would give the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, new tools to secure the Visa Waiver Program, consistent with the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission.

The bill would set a maximum low visa overstay rate for all visa waiver program countries; require a reevaluation of visa waiver program countries within 1 year; mandate that the administration will lose its authority to continue to expand the program if it does not track 97 percent of those exiting and departing at our airports--based on arrival data, not just departure data; require an audit of the electronic travel authorization system, ESTA; and require current visa waiver countries to report on lost or stolen visas in order to remain in the visa waiver program.

Senator Kyl and I have held multiple hearings over the years and time and time again we have expressed concern and requested improvements, but no changes have been forthcoming in how the Department of Homeland Security intends to implement this program.

The hearings and the recent Government Accountability Office report found that the administration is not doing what it should to secure the program. Instead, the Visa Waiver Program has continued to expand without meeting the security needs of our country.

In fact, just today the administration has announced that it has met the deadline for the electronic travel authorization system, ESTA, to be fully operational. However, the GAO report found that ESTA--the one security check for visa waiver travelers prior to arrival at our Nation's airports--has not been implemented effectively by the administration to make it a workable system for the airlines and embassies.

The GAO report also found that the administration is still unable to track who comes in and out of this country. This is especially significant given that the program was recently expanded to countries with high visa overstay rates, bringing the number of participating countries to 35.

This means that for the citizens of 35 countries--including Australia, Singapore, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom--entering the United States is as simple as purchasing an airline ticket and arriving at the airport with a valid passport in hand.

The result is that these travelers not only bypass the interview and individualized security screening process, but they are also lost once they arrive in the U.S. because DHS is only checking when individuals depart at our airports, not if they overstay their visit.

It is estimated that 40 percent of the current undocumented population are people who have overstayed their visas. That means that if there are 12 million

undocumented people now in the U.S., 4.8 million people overstayed their visa. The Visa Waiver Program is the achilles heel of our immigration system.

The security risks associated with the Visa Waiver Program are even greater--Our Nation's security experts have stated repeatedly that the program provides an attractive option to terrorists looking to do Americans harm.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on September 27, 2007, DNI Director Mike McConnell testified that Al Qaeda is purposefully recruiting Europeans because they do not require a visa to come into this country.

As Director McConnell said, this tactic gives Al Qaeda ``an extra edge in getting an operative or two or three into the country with the ability to carry out an attack that might be reminiscent of 9-11.''

Secretary Chertoff reiterated these concerns when he stated that ``terrorists are increasingly looking to Europe as both a target and a platform for terrorist attacks'' against the United States.

In an interview with BBC's ``World News America,'' Secretary Chertoff acknowledged, ``the first time we encounter [visa waiver travelers] is when they arrive in the United States and that creates a very small window of opportunity to check them out.''

These security risks are particularly apparent when we look at the statistics on the number of fraudulent and stolen passports and other international documents.

Between January 2002 and June 2004, 28 foreign governments, including visa waiver countries, reported 56,943 stolen blank foreign passports to the State Department. And just this summer, a security van in London was hijacked, resulting in the loss of 3,000 blank British passports and visas that were destined for overseas embassies.

DHS's own Inspector General, Clark Ervin has testified that: ``The lost and stolen passport problem is the greatest security problem associated with the Visa Waiver Program. Our country is vulnerable because gaps in our treatment of lost and stolen passports remain.''

The Strengthening the Visa Waiver Program to Secure America Act would put necessary security checks firmly in place and provide greater program oversight.

We must act now to secure the Visa Waiver Program. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to provide urgently needed relief to federal district courts in California, Hawaii, Kansas, Nebraska, and Ohio.

This bill is supported by both Senators from all five of the States affected Senators Boxer and myself, Senators Brownback and Roberts, Senators Akaka and Inouye, Senators Nelson and Johanns, and Senators Brown and Voinovich.

The bill is identical to a bill passed by the Senate by unanimous consent last year. I hope that my colleagues will move expeditiously to consent to this bill once again.

The bill creates one new temporary judgeship in the Eastern District of California and one in the District of Nebraska, and it extends temporary judgeships in the District of Hawaii, the District of Kansas, and the Northern District of Ohio.

The bill has broad, bipartisan support because the relief it provides is sorely needed. All of these courts face overwhelming caseloads that are leading to judicial burnout and long delays in the administration of justice. The bill, put simply, provides assistance to districts that do not have enough judges to handle the work assigned to them.

I have been concerned about this problem in the Eastern District of California for many years now.

According to statistics provided by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Eastern District's caseload burden is higher, on a sustained basis, than any other district in the country.

In 2008, the judges in the Eastern District handled 968 cases each. That is twice the number of cases that the Judicial Conference recommends. In fact, the Judicial Conference has recommended that Congress create a new judgeship in a district whenever a threshold of 430 cases per judge is reached.

A caseload burden of this magnitude is not only a problem for judges. The people who live in the district and other litigants who appear before the court are also affected.

Victims of crime are forced to endure long waiting periods to see justice done. Citizens find that they are unable to resolve their civil disputes promptly. And plaintiffs face extensive delays in getting damages or restitution for harms that they have suffered.

Currently, people who have cases in the Eastern District court are facing delays of approximately 42 months from filing to verdict. That is three and a half years--twice the national average for federal court delays. This kind of delay is simply unacceptable.

The delays are by no means the fault of the district judges either. By every measure, the judges in the Eastern District are among the most productive in the nation.

In 2008, each of the district's active judges completed 903 cases. In addition to this extraordinary effort, two of the five senior judges carry a full load.

One senior judge has explained that he has not reduced his workload for two reasons: ``[F]irst the district is so short of needed judges that it appears to me unjust to leave those who require a court either to resolve criminal cases or resolve their civil cases; second, I have felt great compassion for my colleagues who would be left with a still more unmanageable case load if I left or even cut down on my load.''

In California, the overwhelming burden on the Eastern District court is no secret. This past summer, the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit called on all judges in the Circuit--district and circuit judges alike--to volunteer to hear 15 cases in the Eastern District each. Although 84 federal judges generously stepped forward to relieve the District of more than 1,000 cases, thousands of cases remain pending.

The Eastern District of California should not be forced to rely on temporary assistance from judges from other districts. Each court needs enough judges to handle its caseload in a reasonably timely manner.

Although not sufficient, one temporary district judgeship would provide much needed relief to the hardworking judges of the Eastern District and the litigants who come before them. Based on last year's filings, one new judgeship would reduce the filings per judge from 968 to 572.

Congress has not authorized a new permanent judgeship for the district since 1978. In 1992, a temporary judgeship was authorized, but that judgeship expired in 2004. Last year, a bill that I co-sponsored-- the Federal Judgeship Act of 2008--would have provided four new permanent judgeships, but that bill stalled before the full Senate after being favorably reported out of the Judiciary Committee.

This bill was introduced by Senator Leahy last year, and I want to thank him for all of his work on its behalf. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent. This year, the need is only greater, as caseloads have only increased.

I urge my colleagues to consent to this bill once again, and to do so in an expeditious manner.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to provide urgently needed relief to federal district courts in California, Hawaii, Kansas, Nebraska, and Ohio.

This bill is supported by both Senators from all five of the States affected Senators Boxer and myself, Senators Brownback and Roberts, Senators Akaka and Inouye, Senators Nelson and Johanns, and Senators Brown and Voinovich.

The bill is identical to a bill passed by the Senate by unanimous consent last year. I hope that my colleagues will move expeditiously to consent to this bill once again.

The bill creates one new temporary judgeship in the Eastern District of California and one in the District of Nebraska, and it extends temporary judgeships in the District of Hawaii, the District of Kansas, and the Northern District of Ohio.

The bill has broad, bipartisan support because the relief it provides is sorely needed. All of these courts face overwhelming caseloads that are leading to judicial burnout and long delays in the administration of justice. The bill, put simply, provides assistance to districts that do not have enough judges to handle the work assigned to them.

I have been concerned about this problem in the Eastern District of California for many years now.

According to statistics provided by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Eastern District's caseload burden is higher, on a sustained basis, than any other district in the country.

In 2008, the judges in the Eastern District handled 968 cases each. That is twice the number of cases that the Judicial Conference recommends. In fact, the Judicial Conference has recommended that Congress create a new judgeship in a district whenever a threshold of 430 cases per judge is reached.

A caseload burden of this magnitude is not only a problem for judges. The people who live in the district and other litigants who appear before the court are also affected.

Victims of crime are forced to endure long waiting periods to see justice done. Citizens find that they are unable to resolve their civil disputes promptly. And plaintiffs face extensive delays in getting damages or restitution for harms that they have suffered.

Currently, people who have cases in the Eastern District court are facing delays of approximately 42 months from filing to verdict. That is three and a half years--twice the national average for federal court delays. This kind of delay is simply unacceptable.

The delays are by no means the fault of the district judges either. By every measure, the judges in the Eastern District are among the most productive in the nation.

In 2008, each of the district's active judges completed 903 cases. In addition to this extraordinary effort, two of the five senior judges carry a full load.

One senior judge has explained that he has not reduced his workload for two reasons: ``[F]irst the district is so short of needed judges that it appears to me unjust to leave those who require a court either to resolve criminal cases or resolve their civil cases; second, I have felt great compassion for my colleagues who would be left with a still more unmanageable case load if I left or even cut down on my load.''

In California, the overwhelming burden on the Eastern District court is no secret. This past summer, the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit called on all judges in the Circuit--district and circuit judges alike--to volunteer to hear 15 cases in the Eastern District each. Although 84 federal judges generously stepped forward to relieve the District of more than 1,000 cases, thousands of cases remain pending.

The Eastern District of California should not be forced to rely on temporary assistance from judges from other districts. Each court needs enough judges to handle its caseload in a reasonably timely manner.

Although not sufficient, one temporary district judgeship would provide much needed relief to the hardworking judges of the Eastern District and the litigants who come before them. Based on last year's filings, one new judgeship would reduce the filings per judge from 968 to 572.

Congress has not authorized a new permanent judgeship for the district since 1978. In 1992, a temporary judgeship was authorized, but that judgeship expired in 2004. Last year, a bill that I co-sponsored-- the Federal Judgeship Act of 2008--would have provided four new permanent judgeships, but that bill stalled before the full Senate after being favorably reported out of the Judiciary Committee.

This bill was introduced by Senator Leahy last year, and I want to thank him for all of his work on its behalf. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent. This year, the need is only greater, as caseloads have only increased.

I urge my colleagues to consent to this bill once again, and to do so in an expeditious manner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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